1992 Legislative Session: 1st Session, 35th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17, 1992

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 4, Number 19

[ Page 2701 ]

The House met at 2:06 p.m.

Prayers.

F. Jackson: Three constituents of mine visiting the buildings today are Paul Bailey, Debbie Funk and Brian Carruthers. Paul and Debbie are house-hunting so that Paul can go to law school at UVic in the fall, and Brian's taking a vacation from his work in beautiful Wells Gray Park. Would the House please join me and make them welcome.

Hon. J. Cashore: In the precincts today are 35 grade 6 students from Mundy Road Elementary School in Coquitlam, along with their chaperones and their teacher Mrs. L. Leonard. Will the House join me in making them welcome.

Hon. L. Boone: On behalf of my colleague the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, I am pleased to introduce to the House today Mr. Ted Hallock. Mr. Hallock is an Oregon member of the Pacific Northwest Electric Power and Conservation Planning Council. Prior to his appointment, Mr. Hallock served for 20 years as a Democrat in Oregon state. Mr. Hallock's numerous volunteer affiliations included the Jacques Cousteau Society and the Oregon Environment Council. Would the House please make him welcome.

B. Copping: I'm very pleased to introduce to the House today a constituent who worked very hard in my campaign, Al Tokarchuk, who is recovering from recent heart bypass surgery. Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I also have the pleasure of introducing some constituents of mine today: 35 grade 6 and 7 students from Grosvenor Road Elementary School, with their teacher Mr. McCallum, as well as several other adults accompanying them today.

Hon. T. Perry: I just had the pleasure of escorting up in the elevator Mrs. Ford, a life-long CCFer presently from Kamloops, and her companion, and also two unidentified Americans from Florida who were so fascinated by the debate yesterday they've come back for more. So I'd like to ask the House to make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME

FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. J. Smallwood presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. J. Smallwood: I am pleased to introduce Bill 68, which proposes several amendments to the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act, as well as consequential amendments to the Family Maintenance Enforcement Act.

The amendments to the Guaranteed Available Income for Need Act have three purposes. One is to redefine certain social services as income assistance, so as to make the act consistent with options put forward in several judicial reviews in recent years. This will also allow clients who are requesting or receiving these types of services to make appeals to a tribunal, rather than being limited to the present administrative review.

The second purpose is to establish an income assistance advisory council. This council will involve the wider community in government decision-making around the design and delivery of income assistance programs in the future.

The third purpose is to improve the family maintenance program. This program provides services to single parents on income assistance by helping them to obtain child and spousal support orders and to vary the amount of the orders if they are inadequate. The amendment removes the requirement to participate in the program as a condition of receiving social assistance and gives single parents the choice of whether or not to pursue maintenance orders through the program.

Further, this amendment will enable the continuation of program services that start while a single parent is on income assistance but are not completed when the client ceases receiving the assistance. Finally, these amendments repeal the unproclaimed sections 19.6 and 19.7.

Bill 68 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MOTOR VEHICLE AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: Hon. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce Bill 70, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 1992. This bill contains amendments needed to implement the vehicle emission testing program in September of this year. This program addresses the growing air quality problem in the lower mainland by requiring that all vehicles operating in the region meet exhaust emission standards. The amendments contained in this bill provide the specific authority for program procedures.

To improve the level of service provided to the public, the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia is moving to introduce insurance policies that expire on days other than month end. The purpose of this change is to reduce month-end lineups and allow better service to be provided to the public.

Driver licensing services provided to the public will also be improved with amendments, which will allow administrative flexibility in licensing provisions.

Finally, the current four distinct procedures for the appointment of motor vehicle branch enforcement

[ Page 2702 ]

officers will be replaced by a common process that will establish a single enforcement officer designation.

Bill 70 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

MEMBERS' CONFLICT OF INTEREST

AMENDMENT ACT, 1992

Hon. C. Gabelmann presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I'm pleased to introduce Bill 64, Members' Conflict of Interest Amendment Act, 1992. This bill contains a number of significant amendments that significantly strengthen the Members' Conflict of Interest Act and reflects the government's commitment to rigorous and fair conflict of interest rules. Such rules are of critical importance in helping to ensure the high standard of conduct on the part of members of the Legislative Assembly which British Columbians rightfully expect.

The bill significantly broadens the definition of conflict of interest to apply not only to the making of a decision but also to the exercise of official powers and performance of official duties and functions.

Another amendment of fundamental importance is the addition of the definition of apparent conflict of interest, which is defined in terms of a reasonable perception which a reasonably well-informed person could properly have that a member's ability to carry out his or her duties must have been affected by his or her private interest.

[2:15]

Other amendments in this bill augment and strengthen existing provisions respecting the activities of former members of the executive council and parliamentary secretaries and the provisions respecting offices or directorships which they may hold.

Other amendments strengthen the procedures dealing with conflict and provide for continuous disclosure within 30 days of material changes in assets, liabilities and financial interests, and provide that members of the public who have reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the act has been contravened may request an opinion of the commissioner of conflict of interest.

In addition to these amendments to the Members' Conflict of Interest Act, the government also intends to provide a process by which conflict-of-interest issues can be considered generally, including such questions as whether such laws should apply to public office holders other than Members of the Legislative Assembly. I will elaborate in greater detail on some of the more significant amendments at second reading of this bill.

I commend the bill for the consideration of the House and urge its passage.

Bill 64 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

IMMIGRATION POLICY CHANGES

G. Wilson: My question is to the Deputy Premier, the minister responsible for immigration. Yesterday the federal Minister of Employment and Immigration announced new immigration policies with some fairly sweeping and effective measures that are going to put additional burdens on the budgets and taxpayers of British Columbia, among which is the refusal for refugee claimants to work and the dependency that these claimants will have on the welfare rolls. Would the minister tell us what input the British Columbia government had in the making of this policy, and to what extent the minister has calculated the cost to the B.C. taxpayer of such a policy?

Hon. A. Hagen: The amendments to which the Leader of the Opposition speaks were announced yesterday by the federal government. As he notes, they are indeed extensive. To the specific question about one change, namely the right of people coming into the country as refugees to work or not to work -- the change that they will not be able to work until their status is confirmed -- that's another example of federal downloading onto the provincial government.

I would think that all members of the House would join in ensuring that our concern about that is expressed to the federal government, and I invite the Leader of the Opposition to express his concerns to his counterparts in the Liberal Party in Ottawa.

G. Wilson: It's interesting to note, however, that in the agreements at the latest round of constitutional discussion on immigration, this is precisely the kind of downloading that's being requested by this government. I wonder if the minister can comment on whether or not she agrees that refugee claimants should not be permitted to work, and also whether or not she agrees that immigrants into the country of Canada should be required by law to have residency requirements in one province for up to two years as a result of their permission to enter the country.

Hon. A. Hagen: The leader of the opposition has asked about four questions in one, which makes it a little difficult to provide him with a clear and coherent answer. He has raised some questions about constitutional matters, and, as we know, those constitutional matters are around agreements between federal and provincial governments on matters with respect to immigration. That is a matter that we intend to pursue most vigorously within the current and potential constitutional framework.

On the issue of the specifics of the federal government proposals, they have just been tabled with us. We will indeed be making representations to the federal government in the interests of British Columbia's economy and social fabric, as far as those proposals are concerned.

[ Page 2703 ]

G. Wilson: The reason we put four questions out is on the off chance we might get an answer to at least one of the four. Unfortunately, that wasn't forthcoming.

Going back to the question, I wonder if the minister can tell us whether or not she agrees that we should define a Canadian as an immigrant with seniority. Should we in fact have a law that prohibits a refugee claimant from working and puts them on the welfare roll? Does the minister agree that there should be provision for a law, and would she, with her government in negotiation with the federal government, agree to implement regulations on immigration that would have a residency requirement of an immigrant for up to two years with respect to their provision for entering the country? Does she agree with these recommendations?

Hon. A. Hagen: As usual, the member is far out of the domain of where we make law. We are indeed talking about federal amendments to the immigration law of the land. I believe that all Canadians have an interest in those amendments, which are in fact a part of federal law. I would again invite the Leader of the Opposition to express his concerns to his counterpart, the leader of the Liberal opposition in Ottawa. Perhaps you can get your act together on immigration policy.

Let me assure you that this government will be addressing the immigration policy that is proposed by the federal government in amendments that are proposed before the Parliament of Canada as it affects our immigration needs and our responsibilities. We will be doing that in the context of Canada-B.C. immigration agreements that are the subject of negotiations between our two governments.

REVIEW OF GAMING REGULATIONS

J. Weisgerber: A question to the Attorney General. Last year the former government appointed former Deputy Minister Stephen Stackhouse to conduct a review of gaming regulations and to draft new ones. I am led to believe that Mr. Stackhouse has completed his work and that the legislation has been drafted. Could the minister advise us of the status of Mr. Stackhouse's work?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: I can't comment on the accuracy of the statements contained in the question, but I can inform members of the House that the Minister of Government Services and myself have been working jointly to review gambling issues in British Columbia. Mr. Steven Stackhouse has, in fact, been a participant in that review on my behalf.

J. Weisgerber: A supplementary question then. As the Attorney knows, a former casino manager has raised some serious questions today about increased scope and hours of gambling in British Columbia. I'm wondering whether the Attorney can advise this House if he or his ministry have done any investigations or studies to determine the impact of increased gambling in British Columbia, particularly the impact on those people who could least afford it.

Hon. C. Gabelmann: From the beginning of our time in office, I have expressed concern in various quarters about gambling issues and the potential proliferation of gambling in an uncontrolled way if we aren't careful in this province. Together with other concerns that have been raised, including many by the Ministry of Government Services, that led us to make a decision some months ago to proceed with a full review of all the issues.

Earlier the Gaming Commission, which is an independent body, responded to issues -- which I believe developed mostly in the lower mainland -- with respect to long lineups at a small number of casinos, and indicated that it would look at the question of whether to expand (

a) the hours and (

b) the tables. That independent review is being conducted now by the Gaming Commission, and was a decision made prior to our full review of this issue.

I simply want to say in conclusion that I share the concern of all members of this House about gambling. The government is moving as quickly as it can to do a full and thorough review.

J. Weisgerber: Supplementary to the Attorney General. Would the Attorney General, in view of the study, agree to discontinue the authority that has been given to casinos to expand their hours and their table limits, until a review has been completed and until legislation has been brought to this chamber for debate by all members of the House?

Hon. C. Gabelmann: That's a good question, which I'll take on notice.

FOOD BANKS

V. Anderson: Hon. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. As an elected representative of the east side of Vancouver, the Premier must be very aware that many of his constituents are trying to survive by getting their daily food in the food bank lineups. On this Food Bank Day.... Having chaired the organization of the food bank in the 1981 crisis, I know that 2,000 people were served each week then. That grew in 1991 to 4,000 each week in Vancouver alone, and at the present time it's over 8,000 persons per week. Will the Premier advise the House what specifically is being done now to meet this urgent and critical need to replace the food banks, so that people might be adequately fed?

Hon. M. Harcourt: It is indeed a very alarming and sad fact that the increase has taken place, as the hon. member has outlined. I think the hon. member will agree that it has been made worse by the terrible offloading that has happened in welfare costs to the province, with a 40 percent increase in caseloads. That's an extra $420 million that the federal government has loaded onto the taxpayers of British Columbia. That has made it very difficult for us to ensure that the people who should be on a pension can lead a dignified life with it.

There is great difficulty in doing that because of the huge increase in costs. The Minister of Social Services has made some moves in the right direction in

[ Page 2704 ]

terms of raising the exemptions that people can earn to the cost of living -- a very modest increase -- and other measures to try and relieve the situation. But you're right, hon. member. It is very desperate for large numbers of British Columbians who are having to use the food banks.

V. Anderson: I appreciate the Premier's concerns. My supplemental is again to the Premier. Recognizing that about 40 percent of those who need to use the food banks each week are children, and recognizing that the school lunch program does not meet the basic needs of these children to overcome hunger, for they have that need for three meals a day, seven days a week and recognizing that it does not at all meet the needs of their preschool sisters and brothers, will the Premier advise us what plans this government has now -- not next fall or next year -- to make sure that our children are not hungry?

Hon. M. Harcourt: This government introduced a school meals program so that children could be fed. The response of the schools and the school boards to the government's initiative has been to oversubscribe to the program. More funding is going to be provided to those schools so that we can do exactly what the member has requested.

DUMPING OF AMERICAN PRODUCE

R. Chisholm: Yesterday my colleague for Langley asked a question on the dumping of cheap American produce into British Columbia. While the minister made light of the situation and the Minister of Agriculture binged on bok choy in Hong Kong, farmers in the Fraser Valley were forced to plow under their crops. Why is the Premier allowing this dumping to continue?

[2:30]

The Speaker: Hon. member, is this question being addressed to the Premier?

R. Chisholm: Yes, that's right.

The Speaker: Does the member have a new question?

BUY B.C. PROGRAM

R. Chisholm: My question is to the hon. Premier. And I say it again: my question is to the hon. Premier. The Premier made a commitment to an immediate $2.8 million Buy B.C. program last fall. When will the Premier bring it forward? Now or after the end of the season, when it is far too late and no longer a Buy B.C. program?

The Speaker: Hon. member, I hesitate to interrupt, but could you ensure that your question does not anticipate future government policy.

R. Chisholm: It is past policy, hon. Speaker.

The Speaker: Please frame your question directly, hon. member.

R. Chisholm: Will it be when it is far too late and no longer a Buy B.C. program but a bye-bye B.C. program? Our farmers need help now.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: I wish to inform the House that I did not make light of the question yesterday, and resent any suggestion that I did.

I would also like to assure this House that today I'm ahead of the question. The question with respect to the Buy B.C. portion is that we discovered, upon becoming government, that we had a serious financial situation, and that looking at....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Spend, spend, spend seems to be the only answer. We are saying we will not spend money when it's not seen to be effective. The concept of Buy B.C....

Interjections.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: The members opposite don't seem to want to hear the answer to the question -- what we are doing about the Buy B.C. program.

The Speaker: Order, please, hon. members.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: Hon. Speaker, the members opposite are chattering so loudly that I can't even think.

An Hon. Member: Whine, whine, whine.

Hon. D. Zirnhelt: This minister doesn't whine, I wish to assure the members opposite. It's that corner that does the whining.

Buy B.C. is something that we consider a very serious and useful kind of program. The problem with these buy-local programs is that as simply PR efforts they don't work, so you have to design them carefully in order to spend the money wisely. We are doing just that: designing the program carefully. We're doing it in conjunction with three or four other provinces. I'm happy to assure you that although our Minister of Agriculture is over there looking for new markets in a tough, competitive world, he's also taking the leadership with the other Ministers of Agriculture in the provinces.

Ministerial Statement

EARTH SUMMIT

Hon. J. Cashore: Hon. Speaker, I'd like to make a statement with regard to the Earth Summit, which I was privileged to attend as a representative of British Columbia and as a member of the Canadian delegation during the past several days.

This was the largest gathering of nations ever held in the history of the planet. It was attended by

representa-

[ Page 2705 ]

tives from 178 governments, including 117 heads of state. It could actually be said that this was the first step in the first earth parliament.

It must be emphasized that this was a conference on environment and development, and both words must be taken in the widest possible connotations. The treaties and proposed agreements on the table in Rio addressed the entire spectrum of environmental concerns, pre-eminently climate change and the maintenance of biological diversity. But of necessity, the conference also focused world attention on questions of economic and social justice between the north and the south, and between this generation and succeeding generations.

The issue of world poverty was often in the forefront. In the hotel where I stayed, one had only to look out the window for a view of Rio's largest favela, which is what many would call a slum. This very small area of land houses about 250,000 people -- about the same population as greater Victoria -- living in desperately poor circumstances. It brought home the reality that the world currently has ten times as many people as it can support at the material standard prevailing today in rich countries like ours.

Together with the representatives from other provincial jurisdictions, we went to Rio to learn what we could from both the formal and informal dialogue of the conference. We also wanted to provide our own perspective on the issues and make it clear that British Columbia is prepared to make its own contribution towards solutions. In that regard, the follow-up to the conference will be immeasurably more important than the protocols of the summit itself.

Despite some setbacks and disappointments, which were not unexpected, the conference helped build momentum for working together internationally, raised expectations and provided the world with a clear demonstration of the existing constraints on governments and societies when they try to work toward long-term goals.

The Hon. Jean Charest, Minister of the Environment for Canada and the leader of the Canadian delegation, should be congratulated for successfully involving such a diversity of people and points of view in his delegation's work. The Canadian delegation was recognized as one of the strongest in Rio, as evidenced by the number of delegates from other countries who sought our advice.

In addition to the official state delegations, non-governmental organizations were also widely represented in Rio. The Global Forum, held as an alternative non-governmental event, was in many ways equally important because of the information-sharing that took place. Several British Columbia non-governmental organizations participated in the forum. The Nisga'a Tribal Council, supported by the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs, had an outstanding booth depicting Nisga'a heritage and values. Staff from the B.C. Ministry of Forests were also present at the Canadian booth.

This booth was kept very busy handling inquiries throughout the week, and I believe it had an extremely positive impact on perceptions of our province.

I came away from this conference with renewed optimism and confidence that British Columbia has an opportunity to play a major role in helping to turn around the present destructive environmental trends. Many of us in British Columbia may be disappointed that the initiatives discussed in Rio had to be watered down due to the difficulties of negotiating treaties among 178 countries. In B.C. we must use the agreements from this conference as a minimum baseline, but we have to go much further in many areas. Clearly we have to start in our own back yard.

For example, we have made a firm commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions which goes beyond Canada's national commitment and the conventions signed in Rio. We are taking measures, starting with the AirCare program in the lower mainland, to back that commitment up.

Beyond that, it is clear from the inquiries we received during the summit that B.C. is well positioned to provide much-needed expertise and support to others in the world community to help develop innovative approaches for achieving sustainability. We have abundant opportunities for this in our government agencies, our academic and research facilities, in business and in industry.

Additionally, our province can and will take initiatives with the other provinces on the follow-up process to Rio, to see what cooperative efforts can be undertaken and to demonstrate models of sustainable development cooperation with the federal state. I already had the opportunity at the final meeting of our Canadian delegation to present to the rest of that delegation a proposed strategy for beginning the process through the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, in cooperation with ministers holding related portfolios, such as Forests, Wildlife and Parks and Energy.

It is also encouraging to note that the secretary general of the conference, Maurice Strong, has chosen our province as his home base for maintaining the momentum of the Earth Summit. I want you to know that I met with him for an hour, and he is very excited about the possibilities of working with us in British Columbia. He will be moving to Vancouver in the near future to take up a faculty position at the University of B.C. We will be seeking his advice on environment and development concerns.

Much of the attention devoted to the Earth Summit in recent months has centred on political considerations and other considerations which were expected to prevent wider consensus or more decisive action. Those are realities. Despite them, many gains were made. The long-term realities -- the ones that will matter to our children and grandchildren and the world's ecosystems -- have been given greater prominence than ever before. That is a challenge for all of us. I hope we, both in this House and outside it, will look at our future actions on the environment in that light.

J. Tyabji: I'd like to take this opportunity to congratulate the minister on his participation and to recognize that Canada was at the forefront and that British Columbia played a vital role in this first, what you could call, world parliament on the environment. All of us were watching at this end. We were wishing

[ Page 2706 ]

you well and hoping that you would represent us in the best capacity that you could.

It was very interesting to see that a country the size of Canada could play such an enormous role at such a critical conference in terms of the future of the world. I know that all of us in this House support the biodiversity measures that were being put forward at the summit. I was proud to be on this side of the border during that summit. I felt very sorry for those people on the other side of the border, who had very poor representation. Many of them would be, I think, ashamed of their leadership on such important issues.

With regard to biodiversity, I would like to take the opportunity, in keeping with the theme of the summit, to urge that this minister continue to put representative ecosystem preservation at the top of his agenda when dealing with a land use strategy for British Columbia; that when the resources and environment commissioner comes forward, this minister would then review those recommendations with regard to representative ecosystems with the spirit of biodiversity from this summit; and that we look at the sustainability and viability issues that came forward from the summit and put those to use with the policy direction of the ministry.

As this minister talked about the follow-up to the summit and what happens after the summit, I would like to encourage his efforts with regard to air quality, and that we in B.C. continue to work to follow up on the very important recommendations of the summit.

Finally, I'd like to encourage this minister, when he does participate in these international forums and when he follows up from the summit, to look at things like the NAFTA agreements that are going on. When they start talking about competitiveness and whether or not Canada can compete, I hope this minister will go forward and say: "When you talk about competitiveness, let's not talk about economic competitiveness.

Let's talk about environmental and ethical competitiveness as well when we're dealing with international agreements." When we go forward to places like Rio and when we follow up on them, I hope we don't look at competitiveness and look at the bottom line.

When we look to places like Mexico and other countries that we refer to in the north-south dialogue as being in the south, I hope we don't say that we have to compete with them, but that we have to bring them up to a standard that we consider acceptable so that in dealing with the north-south difficulties we don't end up bringing ourselves all down to a level where we can't deal with representative ecosystems and the preservation of those ecosystems and, ultimately, with biodiversity.

I'd like to conclude by saying congratulations to the minister. I think Canada did a fine job there. I hope that we have more of these conferences....

Interjection.

J. Tyabji: This minister is always doing his best.

I hope that we have more of these conferences in the future where we work toward biodiversity and ecosystem preservation.

C. Serwa: I also welcome the Minister of Environment back to his home province of British Columbia. It's always nice to see you here. We have the most travelled group of ministers that I think have ever been in the province of British Columbia. They're all over the world. This, in fact, was a very important trip, and I'm pleased that the Minister of Environment represented British Columbia individually and as part of the Canadian delegation at the conference in Rio. The minister has stated it's the first step to the first earth parliament on the environment. I think it was a very important first step.

[2:45]

I hear a great deal, unfortunately, of the so-called failures, but I don't think that any aspect of it was a failure. I think it was a remarkable success. When you bring that large a group of people from all over the world to discuss environmental issues, it has to be a success. It certainly raised the profile, in British Columbia and in Canada and in many jurisdictions all over the world, that the clock is ticking and time is running out and we have to take the appropriate steps.

Certainly the conversation with respect to climate change, to freeing carbon that is locked in, either in fossil fuels or in the forest -- freeing it up into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide -- is a substantial interest and of concern. Obviously a change of a few degrees in temperature will change the agricultural production of many countries throughout the world. Global warming probably will change the climate to the point of rainfall. We're seeing more and more evidence of this.

I think that the real challenge, though -- I don't know if the minister addressed it in Rio -- and fundamentally the greatest threat to the environment is the growing world population. That is one aspect of it. It's the wants, needs and expectations of that growing world population that are creating the pressure on the environment. In British Columbia we can see the pressure that we put on the environment.

A lot of us perhaps live in densely populated urban areas, and we don't relate our wage demands or increases in wants to negatively impacting the environment; but in fact we're all related economically, and those increases, whether they are in the public sector or in the private sector, impact the environment. The environment has become the shock absorber to satisfy our wants.

Now when we talk about world peace and the world economy, because that is part of the environmental issue, you don't see a situation where you have a healthy environment without a healthy economy. I think the minister spoke briefly on Rio; we could go to many Third World countries and understand that equally well. We must have a healthy environment and a healthy economy.

Perhaps we have to look at ourselves, because we place ourselves as examples to the world. Yet the reality is simply this: Canadians produce more garbage per person than any other jurisdiction anywhere in the world. We consume more energy per capita than any jurisdiction in the world. That is what we do in Canada. The answer is not to say that we'll have a healthier world if we bring everyone up to our level and we talk about the economics. We're going to have to look at our

[ Page 2707 ]

own lifestyles, and we're going to have to start making conscious decisions -- all of us, all of us in this chamber, all people in the province, all Canadians -- to improve the quality of life and perhaps reduce the quantity of life. I think that society and a civilization, in providing leadership, by that factor will provide better leadership to all the people in the world.

If we only pay lip-service -- and that's the problem with Rio -- to restraining our needs, wants and expectations, our leadership in consumption and demands will lead the world on a path where it may not survive, because of the environmental concerns.

I thank the minister for speaking up on behalf of British Columbia. It's a major challenge. I'm very pleased that the first earth parliament has been as successful as it has been. I look forward to future opportunities for the minister and the Canadian government to be represented, so that we all strive to do what we're responsible for: to act as stewards and make British Columbia and the world we live in better, more beautiful and greater than ever before.

The Speaker: Hon. members, before we proceed to orders of the day, the Chair has had a chance to review a point of order that was raised yesterday.

As you will recall, after question period the Minister of Health rose to reply to a question she advised she had taken on notice, whereupon the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca rose on a point of order to say that the minister had in fact answered the question and had not taken it on notice.

The Chair has had a chance to review the Hansard , and technically the hon. member for Prince George-Omineca is correct. The Chair had interpreted the answer as an answer and allowed a supplemental. However, the Minister of Health, in rising, obviously indicated she had more detailed information. I'm sure she will make that available to the hon. member on a private basis.

Orders of the Day

The House in Committee of Supply B; E. Barnes in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF LABOUR

AND CONSUMER SERVICES

On vote 51: minister's office, $303,875 (continued).

G. Wilson: I think that we pretty much exhausted much of the discussion with respect to matters relating to Labour yesterday. I note that there are questions, certainly from the Liberal opposition, that the minister, I'm sure, would want to discuss with respect to workers' compensation and the two Crown corporations under his administration. However, I wonder if we could move at this point to one other area of the minister's jurisdiction, and that is with respect to matters on the constitution. We note that this is under the minister's jurisdiction and authority, and I wonder if we could move to questions specifically in relation to the constitution.

We note that this Minister of Labour and Consumer Services and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs has also spent a great deal of time and energy recently outside of the province attempting to try and find a sensible and workable solution to constitutional reform, which is before Canadians. It should be noted that the members in the Liberal opposition would like to express our appreciation for the hours that he has spent away from family and his duties as a member of this Legislative Assembly in order to try and come up with an accommodation for Canada.

We're very sensitive to the sacrifice that this minister has made, especially with respect to the time away from family. It's a very difficult time, I'm sure.

It's with respect to the proposition that is put forward on the constitution that I'd like to direct some specific questions to the minister now. We note that within the constitutional document that is coming forward there are a number of areas where there has been some agreement and a number of areas where there is no agreement at all.

Perhaps we could start this round by my expressing to the minister the view of the Liberal opposition, which I'd like this minister to comment on. What is really at issue in this constitutional round is the notion that there must be equality among all Canadians. The constitution, first and foremost, must reflect the fact that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian, regardless of their race, colour, creed, language, religion, gender or province within which they reside.

If we recognize that first fundamental principle, presumably whatever constitutional amendments are put in place, we are not going to sacrifice that fundamental principle in order to have a political accommodation of interests that might suggest that provinces may wish special status and special powers or that certain groups, on the basis of ethnicity or race, may want special powers and special privileges.

Having asked that question, I wonder if the minister might want to comment on the extent to which that fundamental principle that every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian is still adhered to in this line of negotiation. It's one that I'm sure he would agree is paramount in Canada. Where are we within the draft text of the agreement, which this minister has been kind enough to supply to the Leader of the Opposition?

Hon. M. Sihota: First of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for his kind comments about my burdens, particularly the burdens on my family. That is really deeply appreciated, believe you me. In this business of politics, it is the families who often pay the deepest of all prices. I really appreciate the comments he made. I can assure him that my family, when they read this, will as well, particularly my five-year-old daughter, who has great difficulty with her father being away as frequently as he is.

Secondly, I also thank the hon. member and the leader of the third party for their availability for consultations. I've appreciated hearing from them, and I can assure them that I take their views into account while I'm at the negotiating table. I honestly and deeply appreciate the extent to which they have made time and

[ Page 2708 ]

provision in their schedules so as to allow for us to engage in dialogue around these matters of the nation.

Equality of Canadians is an important principle -- I agree with the hon. member. I'm pleased to report that that principle has been captured in the Canada clause, as has the provision of the equality of the provinces. The reason why I think it's particularly important that the latter point, the equality of provinces, be captured in the Canada clause is because it takes away the argument that many have made before -- and, I think, appropriately -- that distinct society conferred some type of special power or status to the province of Quebec.

Given the fact that clause is now contained not in an isolated way but in the context of the Canada clause, combined with the equality of male and female persons and the equality of the provinces, it seems to me that we have done a good job of construing the effect of the distinct-society clause.

G. Wilson: I would agree that the Canada clause as drafted does speak to the question of equality, although it does point out also that there are distinctive characteristics within Canada -- which, I think, is fact and a product of the history of this country. One can't and should not try to deny that, or try to diminish the importance of the distinctive characteristics among peoples.

If we start to look at matters with respect to the second fundamental equality -- and I'd like the minister to comment on this -- with respect to the provision of provincial equality, that every province must have equal status and equal rights with every other province, then we get into what remains to be a somewhat disputed area that would argue that if you're going to give distinction to a province on the basis of language and culture, recognizing that there is a historical context to that, there has to be a measure by which you can explain to Canadians that that additional distinction does not provide powers or authority that will give it a different status or different class with every other province.

By virtue of that, recognizing matters which I think are also historically easy to document -- that is, the evolution of the power base of the two provinces, formerly Upper and Lower Canada, which have emerged today into the provinces of Ontario and Quebec -- there is a desire among Canadians who live outside of the Canadian heartland to have some measure of equity in a reformed Upper House that recognizes that the Lower House is determined by population, and therefore as long as the population remains distributed as it does in Canada, the power will always reside within those two provinces; that we wish to have a balance, a counterbalance, to that proposition of a Commons that is determined by population.

[3:00]

Could the minister address two questions: one, with respect to the distinct-society clause generally, in terms of the agreements that are now before us, which provide for no special authority, special status or new or additional powers for one province over the others; and the proposition in relation to an Upper House that would act as a balance to the Lower House, which is determined by population.

Hon. M. Sihota: I will take some time and care in addressing the two very important questions that the hon. member has been kind enough to raise. I'll take them in reverse order, if I may, and talk about the Senate first, the distinct society second, and I will talk about the notion of equality of the provinces as it relates to both.

The hon. member is quite correct in saying that British Columbians, as well as Canadians on the Prairies and in Atlantic Canada, have for a long time felt that they were not getting their fair share of federal resources and that their voice is not adequately represented or heard in the national institution of Parliament. From time to time, that concern has led to the cry for a reformed Senate. Senate reform, as one of the great Canadians, Henri Bourassa, once said -- if I can quote him correctly -- "comes periodically like other forms of epidemics and current fevers." Certainly in 1992 we are at the height of the current fever with respect to Senate reform.

Let me therefore give the hon. member an indication of the government's thinking around the Senate, particularly as to how it relates to the notion of equality of the provinces, our current thinking in terms of triple-E and, very quickly, other proposals which I think would help expedite the debate.

Because of this current fever, as Mr. Bourassa once described it, there has been a lot of discussion about reforming the Senate. Clearly the Senate to date has been wholly ineffective, and clearly the way in which the Senate has functioned in Canada is obscene. Some of those who are seeking to reform the Senate have proposed a triple-E model, which is equal on a provincial basis, effective and elected. I think that is a useful model on which discussion ought to occur, and of course discussion is raging in this country around that model. I think that their efforts to put forward such a model are indeed both genuine and sincere, from what I've been able to ascertain at the table.

There are, however, some problems with the triple-E Senate. The first of those problems is that British Columbia is a "have" province, and as an outer province -- if I can put it that way -- in Canadian confederation, finds itself at these meetings and other meetings in a situation where all too frequently the six economically weakest provinces in Canada combine their resources and votes to frustrate the desire of provinces such as British Columbia, and to the same degree, I would suggest, Ontario and Alberta.

Time and time again, from a practical point of view, we have found ourselves at this table facing six provinces and sometimes seven opposing our positions, much to the detriment of what is in the natural interests of British Columbia.

I ask British Columbians whether it makes sense to have a Senate where the six economically weakest provinces in the federation can combine their votes to frustrate the desire for a greater voice and a better share of resources on the part of provinces like British Columbia.

The second problem that comes up again and again with respect to the triple-E is that you have a situation under that model where -- not in theory, but on the balance of probabilities, and certainly most regularly, given experience -- you could have seven provinces representing 16 percent of the population frustrating the will of the House of Commons, which is elected by rep by pop, and by overriding the will of that body. When we are talking about Senate reform, one has to be mindful of the principle that one does not wish to paralyze the operations of the House of Commons.

I think that's universally agreed to as a very important principle. We do not want to see what has happened in the United States, where there is legislative paralysis; the ongoing clashes between the Senate and the other House have resulted in legislation not flowing at any pace.

[ Page 2709 ]

Let's not forget that in Canada, despite the fact that we have had an ineffective Senate over the years, we've been able to build a truly marvellous country, one unique among all in the world in terms of the social progress we've been able to secure for our people, the protections that they enjoy and the economic advances. I don't think that's lost on any of us. The United Nations most recently accorded Canada number one status on all the important indices that they look at in deciding how to rank countries. So we've done very well, thank you very much, with a very ineffective Senate. Our system works very well.

We obviously have disputes. We saw those disputes today in this House in terms of immigration policy, and I've got some concerns, obviously, about what the feds are proposing there as well. The GST and free trade are other examples. But we also recognize representation by population.

So there are some problems in the triple-E, and I don't think they should be camouflaged. In fact, they should be up front and centre so that they are understood by people and we can have a calm and rational debate around Senate reform in this province of ours, particularly because we have a referendum.

There are others who have advocated a truly equitable Senate -- a Senate where Quebec, for example, would have 24 seats, Ontario 24, and then, based on ratios of population, different numbers of seats for other provinces. For example, B.C. would have eight and the Prairies would have four each and so on. I think that notion is fundamentally flawed. It's flawed because it places another House of Commons on top of a House of Commons, and I'm not sure if that's exactly what we're trying to achieve when we're talking about the principle of equality of the provinces.

I'm pleased to report that in all of the discussions that have occurred with respect to an equitable Senate there has been a recognition among those provinces that have opposed a triple-E Senate that the numbers must be rearranged so as to achieve closer equality within the provinces. We have taken the leadership in that regard by proposing a regionally equal Senate. Remember, that approach has some advantages in the sense that it moves us away from the seven and 16 conundrum that I talked about a few minutes ago.

You'd have to have three of the five regions of the country voting to block an initiative of the House of Commons, and so you would have 60 percent of the regions then agreeing to support or veto a particular piece of legislation. There are some benefits to that approach, and those benefits have been long recognized in British Columbia. A former Premier of British Columbia, W.A.C. Bennett, was the first to propose this idea some years ago. It's a good idea; I think it ought to be the preferred position of the government of this province, and it has been in terms of discussions that we've taken.

I appreciate the support that came from the two opposition parties in putting forward that idea during the discussions that led up to the conclusion of our legislative committee report.

Those three models have been there. However, none of them has been able to secure support from seven provinces representing 50 percent of the population. Some of those have been the second position, some of them in the first position, but none of them have been, on the seven and 50 basis, the first position for the various provinces.

As a consequence, the province of Saskatchewan sought to put forward a proposal last week at the conclusion of the hearings which tried to break the logjam, so to speak, on the issue. They proposed a Senate which recognized the principle the hon. member refers to -- equality of the principles -- on some issues and rejected it with respect to other issues.

The Saskatchewan proposal, for example, would allow for an absolute veto for the Senate on an equal voting basis for areas related to new taxation -- regarding natural resources that contain provisions resulting in fundamental policy changes to the tax system -- and ratification of certain federal appointments. It would also call for equal voting in areas that concur in jurisdiction, declared areas of provincial jurisdiction and general legislation regarding natural resources. In the latter three areas, a House majority of 60 percent of the reformed Senate will be required to reject the legislation.

To resolve the impasse, there would be a joint sitting of the two chambers: the Senate and the House of Commons.

All other matters would be dealt with on the basis of an equitable Senate with a weighted vote system. It has the optical effect of creating an equal Senate in some circumstances and having an equitable Senate in other situations, and it's seen as a compromise. This government is always interested in compromises. We will not reject Saskatchewan's proposal out of hand. I would be lying if I said that we were more than lukewarm to the Saskatchewan proposal. It helped break a log-jam and psychologically triggered a dynamic of thinking that's going on right now in terms of discussions with the provinces. It would clearly not be our first position.

On the other side of the coin, we would not purposely seek to oppose the Saskatchewan model if it was evident that the vast majority of the provinces were in support of that proposal. Quite frankly, I have discomfort with the proposal. I've shared my concerns in that regard with the hon. member, and I'd be happy to elaborate on them. It's a classic of what you would expect to come out of a committee. I call it a camel; a committee tries to design a horse and comes up with a camel. I think that's a lot of what has happened here. It's a two-headed monster in the sense that it makes a lot of sense around the negotiation committee room that

[ Page 2710 ]

we're involved in. When you stick your head outside -- and if editorials around the country are any indication -- it's not exactly a proposal that's excited the nation. Most editorials in the country have rejected it.

There are other models, and I want to speak about them. The more I begin to think about this problem with the Senate, those other models become more and more attractive. I think that the Senate should be abolished. I've said that before, and I say that again here today. It's not a change in the position I have personally taken; it's certainly not a change in the position that my party has traditionally taken.

If the Senate were to be abolished, there is still a need, as the hon. member correctly knows, for some type of voice on some notion of equality of the provinces -- more accurately put, on the principle of equality of the provinces. There needs to be such a voice in Ottawa. I would like to suggest to hon. members today that perhaps British Columbians should think of a different form of voice in Ottawa. Let me suggest what that may be. I would be most interested in hearing what the hon. member has to say about that.

Canadians, as I said, are tired of the debate. I think it's important that there be a rational debate, and that we cut through some of the emotion around the various Senate models and just ask ourselves what we are trying to achieve here. We're trying to achieve some semblance of equality to the provinces. It's a very important principle, as the hon. member notes. We're trying to increase the voice of the provinces and particularly the provincial governments in Ottawa.

We're trying to have a better check and balance in our system to check the activities of the House of Commons when the federal government is out of sync with the wishes of the province. We see that all the time. We saw that here in British Columbia and our frustration when they cancelled the Polar 8, when they want to vacate the E&N railway and when they waver on their commitment to KAON. We see it in other provinces with respect to proposals like the national energy program.

Perhaps it's time to go back to 1978 and take a look at some of the proposals that were being put forward by the Social Credit administration -- the officials and the ministers of that day. The House of the Provinces idea, the more I think about it, begins to have an increasing appeal. I think the time has come to inject that option back into the debate. The House of the Provinces is a furtherance of the first ministers' notion of where provincial governments would have people representing them in Ottawa to express the views of the government.

These individuals would be elected members of the Legislature and part of the delegation of the province of British Columbia, for example, based on the ratio of representation here in the House. They would go and vote as a delegation on behalf of this province.

They would be elected; they would be effective; in fact, they would have a lot of clout because they would have the mandate of this Legislature, the mandate that flows from the people of the province, and the knowledge and the background sufficient to make the case on behalf of the province of British Columbia based on the material that the government and its civil service provided.

[3:15]

The Chair: I hesitate to advise the minister that his 15 minutes are up.

B. Jones: I am absolutely fascinated by the proposals the minister is making at this point. It would be an extreme inconvenience to the House not to allow him to continue.

Hon. M. Sihota: I would like to thank the hon. member for those kind comments.

It would be effective and would have the ability to deal with the powers that we've suggested here, the new taxation relating to natural resources, ratification of appointments. There is significant power in terms of being able to ratify appointments to the CRTC, for example, or other national institutions. It would have effective power; it would have the mandate of the government; and it would be equal, because all the provinces would be represented there on a equal basis much as they are represented in the first ministers' meetings.

It would be -- as in a federal proposal of September 1991 -- a little bit like the Council of the Federation idea. It would have the opportunity to review the plethora of agreements that are executed between the federal and provincial governments.

Quite frankly, there may be times when the head of the delegation or the composition of the delegation should change based on the expertise of the members. For example, if we're dealing with immigration -- because it's contemporary -- it may be that the delegation may be led by the minister responsible for immigration, and the critic from your party and the third party who are responsible for immigration matters, so that they could influence policy development.

If a subsequent issue were to arise with respect to labour market training, it may be that the minister occupying my portfolio or your critic or the third party critic in that regard would form the delegation. You would have the relevant base of knowledge going to Ottawa to make the case on behalf of the provincial government.

It would have other advantages over and above the traditional triple-E model. Those are advantages that I think should not be overlooked. First of all, it would be inexpensive. One of the problems of the current Senate is that it costs $44.5 million to run it. Some have estimated that the administrative costs of a reformed Senate would go up to $225 million. Add on top of that the $100 million required for elections, because the current proposal calls for stand-alone elections. You see that significant federal, provincial and taxpayers' dollars, at the end of the day, are being allocated to the Senate.

All those costs would vanish. They would be members of this assembly, so they're paid for by this assembly. It saves that expense. There would, of course, be a secretariat, but we already have a permanent secretary working with the first ministers. You've got that option there. It would not always have to be full time. They could come back and resume work here, because I don't think the responsibilities are entirely full time. As issues change, in any event, the delegation would change.

It would eliminate another layer of politicians. I think there is some popular appeal in that. I'm not too

[ Page 2711 ]

sure another layer of politicians in Ottawa is going to solve all of our problems, despite the best intentions of those who have supported the reform of the Senate. Rather than having just another layer of politicians, it would give more effect and more voice to the politicians who are elected to this chamber. That is not as important as the point I'm about to make now.

If you have these eight senators elected, as proposed in the various models, the question arises: who speaks for British Columbia? Is it the members of the House of Commons? Does the member from Saanich speak for British Columbia? Or is the senator going to say: "Look, I'm popularly elected along with the other eight. We don't care what you -- the province of British Columbia as a government -- say. We don't care what the Premier of the province says."

Why should the Premier of British Columbia have to lobby through a layer of senators and a layer of members of the House of Commons in order to impress upon them the views of the province of British Columbia? Why not have the Premier of British Columbia represented there straight up front at the table, pounding away for the interests of British Columbia? So if the federal government makes a decision to get rid of the E&N railway, to cancel the Polar 8 contract or to vacate responsibility for KAON, they're up and centre taking on the federal government in an arena that's developed for that purpose.

From some of the discussions I have had with the other governments around Canada, I know that they like this idea. The traditional view has been that it's 14 years too late. I don't think it's ever too late to inject a good idea back into the debate, and I think this idea should find its way back into the debate. I want hon. members to know that I, in the days ahead, will be talking to my counterparts and encouraging them to take a look at this idea.

I give the former Social Credit administration.... Bill Bennett, despite all the political differences I've had with him over the years, I think made a good point back in 1978 when he suggested -- someone took it as a facetious suggestion -- that the province should appoint its senators to Ottawa on the current formula of appointments. The point he was making was a good point; it gave the province and the government of British Columbia direct representation in Ottawa in a hitherto unseen fashion. That was a good point in those days.

It's not every day that I grab onto an idea put forward by the previous administration, but I commend those -- at that time it was Mel Smith; I hate to say this, but I think Mr. Mair was there at the time too -- who came up with the idea. I don't think it ought to be rejected out of hand at this time.

Finally, I don't want any members to be under an illusion with respect to the potential for success of this idea. I don't know how far we've gone in the negotiations. We've gone past the point of no return. I don't know whether it's going to be the Saskatchewan proposal at the end of the day. But I think it would be an error if I were not to raise the issue at this time, because it's important to have the debate and for people to see that there are options and to have an honest and fruitful discussion of all the options -- none of which are immune to warts.

They've all got problems, but some I think would serve the interests of this province better than others. I think it's our obligation to try to draft or craft a Senate that serves both the interests of this province and of this country on the principles that the hon. member opposite raised.

Mr. Chairman, it is my intention to pause at this point. I know that the hon. member asked me to comment on distinct society. I've spent some time taking on the Senate, and I think he would far prefer that we deal with this issue and that we can come to the other later. So I'll take my place in debate.

L. Reid: Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

L. Reid: Mr. Chair, I welcome Mr. James W. Mann to the gallery this afternoon. Mr. Mann is a long-time associate. He was instrumental in the B.C. Youth Parliament, followed by the national Youth Parliament in 1980. I ask the House to please make him welcome.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the remarks from the minister, particularly with respect to the proposition of a House of the Provinces that has been advanced. With respect to the proposals on the Senate, I would argue that the minister has taken an assumption that is fundamentally incorrect, and that is that we have an ineffective Senate. I would argue that we don't have an ineffective Senate; we have a Senate that is very effective. The problem is that it isn't elected.

When it is effective and uses its effective powers, people in the Lower House -- the elected members of parliament -- and I think a lot of Canadians argue that the Upper House is very effective and has the ability to disrupt legislation from the Lower House. But the Upper House does not have elected representation or accountability to the people of Canada. That is the root cause of the difficulty.

The problem is that when we get into a proposition of how to reform the Senate.... In simply moving toward an elected Senate -- notwithstanding how many people we have from each province -- that has those effective powers, we then run into the difficulty where people will argue that now that we've taken care of the accountability side of that problem, we still have a Senate that has very effective powers that can, in fact, bring to a halt the bills that are being proposed by the Lower House.

It would seem to me that in the proposition of the triple-E.... I don't want to ascribe any motive to the minister when he stands and says he is in favour of abolishing the Senate, but I would hope that that didn't deter him from arguing as strongly as I have urged him to over the last several months for a triple-E -- equal, effective and elected. I realize that that may have required a certain level of schizophrenia, but when going back through the Hansard , it certainly isn't the first time that schizophrenia has been used in relation to that minister.

[ Page 2712 ]

But not wishing to detract, the difficulty we have with respect to the proposition of the effective powers of the Senate lie far more with the problems that central Canada has with respect to the acknowledgement that population is not necessarily the criterion by which we should be judging or measuring the way we reform the Upper House, because population is the measure by which the Lower House is determined.

So when we argue about the question of going to regional representation based on the three models of Senate that the minister has put forward, to suggest that we're going to get into some kind of population ratio in the Upper House loses sight of what we're trying to do, which is to create a counterbalance in the Upper House to a Lower House that is determined by population.

Notwithstanding the fact that you might have 16 percent of the population affecting policy with respect to the powers of the Senate, we have to look at the GDP of the provinces that we're talking about; we have to look at the debt ratio between the population of the province to the demand on the central treasury.

If we do some comparative work on the impact on the economy of British Columbia overall and its potential in terms of growth and development as a contributing partner in confederation, then we would have to argue that indeed we are a have province, and we have a great deal to contribute to the country of Canada. Notwithstanding the fact that we only have three million people, the impact of those three million people, if one looks at the ratio of their contribution to the economy, is very substantial.

As a result, we have to recognize that there has to be some equity in terms of the relationship that is generated by the Upper and Lower Houses with respect to that.

I would also argue that with regard to the proposition on triple-E, there has to be some recognition given that it is the only way in which we can, in my judgment, reform the Upper House and still accommodate the first fundamental principle: every Canadian is equal to every other Canadian. Once we get into ratios on the basis of populations, once we start to get into formulas -- I would comment with respect to the Saskatchewan model -- that becomes.... I'm trying to find a term that is fitting of the proposal.

Essentially, I think it is an affront to Canadians to suggest that their elected member in an Upper House will have a certain weighted vote on some subjects but less of a weighted vote on other subjects, depending on the matter for which the votes are going to be cast.

I can imagine that what we're likely to see in this Saskatchewan model, if it should come through, is that decisions by the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans -- unless, of course, we've divested fisheries to the provinces in other sectors of this agreement.... The minister is shaking his head. Some might say that's too bad. But let's leave that for the moment.

If we have a debate in the Upper House that deals with Pacific salmon, then Senators from British Columbia will be given three votes, but Senators from Atlantic Canada will only be given one; unless, of course, we're talking about Atlantic salmon, in which case Senators from British Columbia will be given one vote and Senators from the Atlantic provinces will be given three. If we're talking about arctic char, then we'll give one vote to both.

I mean, it simply becomes absurd if we get down to the level where we start to argue and determine the weighting and percentage of the vote according to the subject that comes before the Senate. Anybody who gives serious proposition to that really is doing a disservice to a discussion in the debate on the constitutional level, and I think that was fairly close to some conclusions, if the communication that the minister and I have had recently is so.

[3:30]

I would argue that tied to this concept of reforming the Senate is the question of whether or not we're going to do it all in this round. Or are we going to do some of it in this round and then have a proposition to further reform, refine and amend in another round? That comes to the question of the Quebec veto -- or the veto of any province for that matter -- over the further reform of the institutions of government.

With respect to the comments the minister made -- and I'd like to give some response to those if I may -- on the proposition of the House of the Provinces, the difficulty I have with that is not economical. Because I think you're right: that would be an economical way to deliver some measure of sober second thought -- if I can use the old term -- to policies coming out of the Commons. The difficulty I have is that yes, you will find that we will have people there speaking clearly for British Columbia; but my question is: who speaks for Canada?

When will we have an Upper House that has a vision of Canada as a nation, that is not determined by the interests determined by legislative priority and legislative desire from the provinces, which are going to be essentially taking a provincial view on the matter of federal statutes rather than looking at the concept of nation-building? Who, in this new House of the Provinces, is going to be sitting as a Senator reviewing the legislation from a federal House with respect to the proposition of the nation itself? Where can we have the proposition of the nation itself looked at?

I would argue that that's what we are trying to do when we elect Senators. We're trying to elect people who have a national vision for Canada, which is something that's sorely lacking right now.

I think that one of the reasons we have slipped into such a terrible malaise on these negotiations is that we no longer are trying to build a constitution based on principle; we're now building a constitution on political accommodations, accommodations of special interest groups and of provinces with a desire for a more parochial attitude that says: let's do for our province first, and if we are able to do that satisfactorily, then we'll look after the issues and conditions of provinces other than own; and possibly we'll even get down to some questions on nation-building.

On that proposition, I have to ask the minister how he responds to the question of who speaks for Canada, and how do we get the proposition of the vision of Canada articulated in a House of the Provinces? That would be my biggest concern.

Hon. M. Sihota: How do you get around that on triple-E?

[ Page 2713 ]

G. Wilson: The minister asks how do you get around that on triple-E, and I'm delighted that I can respond to that. The way that you get around that in triple-E is having a vision of, as I see the triple-E, an Upper House in which, I would argue and have argued consistently, we would have six senators per province, and those six senators per province, with two per territory until the territories receive full provincial status, at which time they would also have six....

What we do is elect people, at a time intermediate or between federal elections, who have a vision of Canada and who would be in place in an Upper House and who would be charged with the obligation of passing judgment on bills and acts and laws that come up from the Lower House. Not with a proposition to have exclusive authority or power, but in some instances to have only suspensive power, where they can in fact refer back, but on other matters their powers essentially would provide them veto provision.

I would argue that if we look at some of the federal questions that came before Canada, where the vast majority of Canadians stood solidly in opposition.... Let's take as an example the GST. There the Senate was effective. It was effective in its full measure, because it saw that there was a strong opposition on the question of GST, not only because Canadians didn't want an additional tax, but because it was going to have a serious impact on the regions -- and it is having a serious impact on the regions -- and because it was going to have a serious impact on the ability of merchants and citizens in various provinces to be able to effectively compete within Canada. And it has.

Another question is with respect to free trade within Canada. We need to have a generation of politicians in this country who in an elected Senate are going to have a vision of a Canada where there are no trade barriers, where we are by individual right accorded the ability to freely trade between provinces. And that may be against the provincial interests at times. We have heard certainly in this province....

One of the questions I put to the minister in the estimates of Government Services is whether or not there is a belief that we need to have this free trade between provinces as an individual right, or will it be by government agreement. Clearly there are times when by government agreement it serves the interests of the government of the day to put in protective measures to look after special interest groups and groups within the provinces which would not be there if in fact we had an agreement that ran with the individual as an individual right.

So I suggest that there are times when members elected out of the province of British Columbia may in the interests of Canada look at a broader vision, at a wider view, and not simply take always the more parochial and more provincial attitude with respect to the proposition on the Senate. Even today I have not heard an effective argument that would suggest to me that an equal, effective and an elected Senate is not a proposition that would better serve Canada than the models that have been put forward.

I wonder if the minister might want to comment specifically on the matter of the veto provision now, because I think that is the key, certainly in terms of the federal proposition that was active last week, which was saying: "All right, we're going to go to a form of triple-E, but we'll recognize there will be a seven out of ten, 50 percent amending formula to further amend it, with a recognition of another round."

That is something where we might say: "Well, all right, we've made steps toward the final resolution of what we see to be the pure and perfect solution," but I have to tell the minister opposite that I could not, nor would I, support the proposition that has been put forward by Saskatchewan. I think it is unworkable. I don't think that it is a sensible solution, and I certainly don't think it's one that is going to further the cause of resolution to the question. I wonder if the minister might want to talk somewhat on the question of the veto.

I see that the leader of the third party wishes to engage in debate. I would certainly yield on the question of the Senate at this time.

J. Weisgerber: I also welcome the opportunity to hear some of the proposals that are being tabled and to thank the minister for his efforts to keep in contact with me and the Leader of the Opposition. It's been an extremely busy time for him, and it's gracious of him. It recognizes the genuine approach that the minister has taken to representing British Columbia's interests at those talks. I think we should all recognize the job that he's doing in that regard.

I've listened with interest to the minister's explanation of some of the proposals that are on the table. I've been a long-time supporter of the triple-E notion. Long before it became popular in British Columbia, I thought that it was a reform that was long overdue. I still am of that mind. If there were to be a reform of the Senate today that I had an opportunity to influence, my first approach would be toward a triple-E Senate.

I did think that the work that was done by our committee in British Columbia and the compromise that was developed -- the five regions for Senate representation on an equal basis -- was a good approach for us to take. In retrospect, I think that we might have waited a while longer before we put that option on the table, but that's easy enough to look at in hindsight. My fear -- and I think it's been demonstrated -- is that the counterproposal from central Canada will be that there are only four regions in the country: Ontario, Quebec, the Maritimes and the west. I don't think British Columbia is particularly well served in that model.

As we move away from the notion of a triple-E Senate, we get closer and closer to the notion of Senate representation by population. The minister has indicated -- and I agree -- that if you're simply going to have a Senate that reflects the makeup of the House of Commons, then you're better off not to have a Senate at all.

I too would have a great deal of difficulty with the Saskatchewan model. It's window-dressing, but one that wouldn't serve anyone's interests particularly well.

When we think about the notion of a veto for the provinces -- it's often talked about in terms of a veto for Quebec, and the correction is quite rightly made that it would be a veto for all provinces -- it's understood by

[ Page 2714 ]

most Canadians that Quebec would be the most likely body to use that veto, probably followed by Ontario, who would again try and use it to protect the interests that they've established with their majority in the House of Commons and the Senate. If we were going to consider a veto.... I don't think we should. I would like to see the seven and 50 rule apply across the board.

I don't expect any province or party, the minister included, to be able to go to these talks and come away with everything they want. That's unrealistic and shouldn't be expected of anyone. If, as part of the compromises that are made, a veto is going to be thrown into the package, it should only be done when the Senate issue is resolved. The sort of partial solution to the Senate with a veto thrown on top of it is the ultimate formula for failure as far as the regions of Canada outside of central Canada are concerned. I would really encourage the minister not to involve himself in any agreements of that nature.

The House of the Provinces has, of course, been around for a while. As the minister suggests, it looks like it may well be one of the things that may come to the surface again in our approach to reform. My concern is that the House of the Provinces would be, as I understand it, quite a bit more limited in its effectiveness. At least I've never had the anticipation that legislation, for example, would come to the House of the Provinces for comment or approval; so you start to deal with a much narrower range, in my understanding of that issue. That would probably be one of my greatest concerns.

Other than that, the House of the Provinces in many ways answers the proponents of triple-E and those people who, as the minister has noted, are concerned about the added costs of a Senate in our society.

There are clearly a number of other issues that we would like to discuss. I'm not sure to what depth we can do that. I think it's a useful exercise for us to talk about the things we think are important. I'm going to try to refrain from trying to convince the minister that my arguments are the soundest ones. I will simply put forward some of the things I believe.

I would like sometime today for us to spend a considerable amount of time, if it's appropriate, talking about the referendum for British Columbia. It seems to me, as I observe these talks -- as all Canadians do -- that the referendum for British Columbia has been an important factor in the discussions. British Columbia's clout in these discussions has been, to some degree at least, enhanced by the notion that British Columbia has to be satisfied with the solution and that it has worked, I hope, in the interests of all British Columbians.

What I would like to talk about -- perhaps not now -- is the makeup of the questions, who develops them and how they're going to be structured. Perhaps before we get onto that, the minister might want to respond to some of the comments of myself and the Leader of the Opposition.

[3:45]

W. Hurd: I seek leave of the House to make an introduction at this time.

Leave granted.

W. Hurd: I wanted to take this opportunity to introduce a couple of visitors from Great Britain, Edward Irvine and Winifred Doyle of Coventry, who are here in the precincts today along with their relatives, David and Shirley Irvine of White Rock in my riding. Would the House make them welcome.

Hon. M. Sihota: I'd also like to extend greetings to those visitors from England. I'm sure they have noted that in this part of the Commonwealth the debate in our House is calm, controlled, rational and without any rancour or furore. I'm sure that when they go back to Britain, they'll....

The Chair: I must bring the hon. minister to order. [Laughter.]

Hon. M. Sihota: Sorry. I was getting carried away there for a moment.

I want to respond quickly, because I know there are some time constraints here, to the issues raised by both hon. members. I appreciate the comments both of them have made in furtherance of what I think has been a good debate. I certainly appreciate, again, the comments they've made about my efforts around the constitutional discussions.

The question was raised in comments made by the Leader of the Opposition: who would speak for Canada in this concept of House of the Provinces? As I said while he was speaking, the same question arises with respect to the triple-E Senate. The whole purpose, of course, of the triple-E Senate is that there will be provincial representation on the notion of equality of the provinces at the federal level. Both proposals that I put forward, on the House of the Provinces and the triple-E, invite that question.

I would reject the notion that only an elected Senator can hold a national vision, have a national view or be able to speak for Canada. A few minutes ago the Leader of the Opposition laid out a vision for Canada. He has demonstrated -- as I think all of us in this House have demonstrated -- that we're able to rise above the partisan or parochial fray around these types of issues and look at them from the perspective of national interest and also from the perspective of provincial interest.

If I may say this, I think it's exactly the approach that this province has been taking at those negotiation tables in the last few months. I'm pleased to say that we've been able to take that kind of view. There's a dynamic to it. When you all gather from different provinces, you share your regional and provincial concerns, but you're also very mindful then of the tensions that are found in this country. You try to accommodate one another. In that process of accommodation, in the great tradition of compromise that we find in this country, out comes a national vision.

Sometimes some of the best ideas come from provinces. Medicare was an idea that came from the province of Saskatchewan, but it caught fire across the country. It was a sensible and prudent concept and was ultimately embraced by the federal government, so

[ Page 2715 ]

much so that now we worry about opting-off formulas around health care.

I think that this constitutional round has demonstrated, when we deal with issues such as regional economic disparity and division of power, that they were very sensitive not only to the situations found in other provinces, but to the needs of the country as a whole. I would reject the notion that only an elected Senator can articulate such a vision. We've seen evidence of that here today.

I would also add, only in the briefest way, that just the fact that one is elected to a triple-E Senate in between federal elections somehow means that one is in a better position to speak for Canada. Let's not forget that under our proposal that I put forward today, elections to the provincial legislatures generally occur in between federal elections. I appreciate the comments that both members make. I don't hear any one of them rejecting this out of hand as an idea, and I appreciate that.

The reason this issue is being brought to the floor at this point is because, quite frankly, the triple-E proposal does not have the measure of support from other provinces that is necessary to make it a reality. Those are the blunt facts. Assume for a moment that this province was to come up foursquare in favour of triple-E and join the five provinces that are there. You would have six provinces; you wouldn't have seven. Even if you had a seventh, you wouldn't have 50 percent of the population represented there, because Ontario and Quebec have stated their views.

As the hon. member knows, we've all come to accept the seven-50 rule as on the one hand recognizing some sense of equality between the provinces, and on the other hand balancing that against rep by pop notions. We accept the reality of that rule in our constitutional fabric.

Let's face facts. It's not in the cards, because you're not going to get seven provinces -- assuming that B.C. was on board -- representing 50 percent of the population. That's not to say that we have demonstrated great skill at being schizophrenic at the table; I can assure the hon. member that we have. But I can tell him this: it's just not there. Ontario and Quebec will not support it. We will not get 50 percent. That's why I say abolish and move to a more sensible model. When we look at all the models that are second choices, this House of the Provinces emerges as good idea.

There are other ideas. I want to tie it in with the veto. The federal government has proposed an idea that would allow for an equitable Senate. I prefer to look at the numbers to move them more towards equal, with some substantial powers. I should say in passing to the hon. leader of the third party that it is quite possible to have the House of the Provinces have a say in legislation. It would be my view that it should. I wanted to address that point quickly.

The federal government has put forward a proposal, and if I heard members correctly, they're not averse to it. The federal government says: "We'll reform the Senate as much as we can in this round, to the extent that we can get agreement on a seven-50 basis, and we will also agree to defer the matter of the veto until such time as the Senate is conclusively resolved. Maybe we'll put off the veto for five years." The feds have put forward that proposal, suggesting that unanimity would occur five years from now.

The problem that we, as a government, have had with respect to that proposal is that there is no hammer, and at the end of the five years you may end up having unanimity in the current Senate. There has to be some provision for a hammer. Unfortunately, the discussions prorogued at a certain juncture in the negotiations, so that issue never really found its way to the table. Should they resume, we will obviously be making that point.

Regarding the veto, I think this has be stated, because it's not stated often enough to make the point clear: the veto already exists. We seem to forget that. You can't get rid of the monarchy or make substantial changes to the House of Commons, for example. The veto is not new to the Canadian constitutional fabric. The second point is that there is no way, politically speaking, that Quebec will have a general and generous veto over all aspects of changes to the constitution. It's not in the cards, if I may put it bluntly.

Thirdly, the point has to be made that, assuming Senate reform, there is a compelling argument that goes along these lines: the three institutions -- the Supreme Court of Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate -- are of such vital importance that with respect to that narrow band of issues, if you're going to change those institutions, perhaps in that narrow band you would require unanimity;

whereas in the other areas, it would all be seven-50. I put that out because that's what the proposal is all about. I think it often gets misrepresented.

Earlier on the hon. Leader of the Opposition asked me to comment on distinct society, and I'll turn to that if that's okay. I believe the question related to how the concept of distinct society is being dealt with so as not to allow for special powers or privileges for one province and how it respects the principle of the equality of the provinces. On that point, let's not forget that unlike previous arrangements, the distinct-society clause is not an isolated little clause that sits out there.

In light of the public comment around distinct society, in this round the distinct-society clause is now founded in what is known as the Canada clause. It is an interpretative clause and an introductory clause. It's a clause that talks about the attributes of Canada, attributes that we all agree with: the democratic nature of our parliamentary institutions; the equality of all people; the role of our aboriginal peoples -- I guess that at some point we will have a debate about that as well; and the distinctive nature of Quebec as part of the Canadian federation.

These are some of the principles found in that opening Canada clause.

We find comfort, and certainly would subscribe to the view, that the distinct-society clause, as it's worded, will not result in conferring special powers or privileges on Quebec. That is our goal: we do not want that to occur. We find comfort in the way in which the Canada clause is structured. First of all, distinct society has to be considered in light of the attributes of Canada as a nation as we have come to know it, and that limits it. Secondly, it is further limited by the fact that the equality of the provinces is found in the same clause. It

[ Page 2716 ]

constrains: when you're looking at distinct society, you also have to look at equality of the provinces. That notion is right there, smack in the same clause, so a court must recognize that all provinces are equal. It is a fundamentally important provision, one which I'm pleased to say we argued for, along with the provinces of Alberta and Newfoundland, and were able to secure. Those steps are, I think, important, and from a legal point of view clearly diminish the prospect of a distinct society clause being interpreted to confer special power.

On top of that, the Charter of Rights definition of a distinct society is proposed. It defines distinct society as limited to matters of culture, language and civil law traditions in the province of Quebec. I've not yet heard of a government that has taken issue with this definition, including the Premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Wells.

When you tie all that together, I think there's a high degree of comfort, at least from a legal point of view. From a political point of view, well, you can have fun with it. You can make whatever political arguments you want.

That deals with both distinct society and the veto. The hon. leader of the third party referred to the referendum. In response to questions that he posed to me during question period a month ago, I said that the matter had not been discussed by cabinet, and it still has not been discussed by cabinet. The referendum in B.C. is very important, because it will obviously touch on issues such as the veto, and British Columbians will get an opportunity to express their opinions.

I promise both of the leaders that I will be in touch with them as we develop and conclude the package. We'll sit down and talk it through in terms of how we're going to deal with the referendum. I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss that issue with our cabinet or with caucus. We have just started -- and I mean literally within the last week or ten days -- to engage personnel to begin looking at the structure of a referendum. You should also know that I have had some discussions with the federal government

vis-�-vis costs. The cost of the provincial referendum is $11 million to $13 million, and there may be some opportunity for cost-sharing. I want them to understand that the framing of the question, the structure and timing of the referendum, are issues that are not lost upon me. Much as I have discussed these matters of the constitution in a substantive sense with them in the past, in the same spirit will I discuss these issues with them in the days ahead.

There are days when my mood swings. Sometimes I think we've got a deal; other days I don't think we do. Today I feel pretty optimistic. Last week I came home pretty glum. Let's just see how it works out and what deals are arrived at. But I think it's fair to say that we've had some good discussions, and I assure you that I'll canvass these issues with those gentlemen in the same spirit.

[4:00]

G. Wilson: I too am cognizant of time and, in trying to move through this debate, don't want to back up too much and get into a sort of one-on-one debate on matters. I recognize the comments from the leader of the third party in terms of the difficulty in trying to persuade the minister opposite that we have the right path to follow.

I want to comment briefly with respect to the proposition of the House of the Provinces. I think it's important that it be clearly on the record that the House of the Provinces as proposed by this minister would be more acceptable to this Liberal opposition than the proposition being put forward by Saskatchewan. That's an important message that needs to get out there, because it does address the question of equality and the concept that there has to be some provisional measure for the protection of provinces within the Upper House.

That is not our preference, and that is not the way we would proceed. We would prefer to have a triple-E, because the dynamic in the election of Members of the Legislative Assembly and the issues that are current in the heat of an election campaign when we select the members of a provincial legislative assembly may be quite different from the dynamics, discussions and issues before the electorate when we are selecting six members to go to a Senate.

Similarly, the jurisdictions that the Senators would represent in terms of constituencies may be crafted in a manner that's quite different from the provincial constituencies and the way they're distributed. I think those are two points that need to be made.

Quite frankly, I'm very pleased to hear the minister outline the question on the distinct-society clause because I think there has been movement there. This minister is to be congratulated that, in working with Alberta and Newfoundland, there has been clarification in the concept of the distinct-society clause. I think it's also important that British Columbians know that the proposition the courts may interpret in a very narrowly defined position that may be advanced by the province of Quebec is unlikely under the language currently before us.

I think it's important to know that there is a recognition of the distinct society in terms of language, culture and common law, but not in the provision for special legislative powers or provisions that would bring about the lack of provincial equality. I think that's important.

Similarly, I think it is important to acknowledge the fact -- and I want to restate this from the Liberal opposition point of view -- that the proposition with respect to the provisions on a veto are well understood in this caucus. There already exists a veto. What we are saying is unacceptable is that the veto would be expanded for the province of Quebec with respect to the provision of Senate reform, which currently does not exist. Outside of the number of seats in a Senate, I think that does not exist. That's what we're saying we do not wish to see.

I concur entirely with the leader of the third party that, if we're going to talk about a proposition of Senate reform prior to that being acknowledged and worked out, it is a recipe for disaster. Notwithstanding what any of us may agree on in this House, I don't think it would pass in a provincial referendum. I think that's an important consideration.

In welcoming the comment on the referendum, I would like to take the minister at his word -- and I will -- that there is going to be consultation on both the

[ Page 2717 ]

formation of the question and the manner in which we're going to handle the matter. I think that's what I heard the minister say.

Interjection.

G. Wilson: I'm hearing the minister say: "Not quite." I would like to have some clarification on that. I think it is important that whatever question is put before British Columbians is both understandable in terms of the language and context and timely with respect to referendums that are being held provincially in other jurisdictions or with respect to whatever national referendum may or may not be decided.

I'm very cognizant of the fact that October is a trigger month in the province of Quebec. Whatever decision Quebec takes with respect to their provincial referendum, we in British Columbia have to be armed to coincide with it rather than to go before or after. The prospect of whatever revolution or whatever resolution -- hopefully no revolution.... You never know, there may be a revolution. That might be what we need in this country; I don't know. Nevertheless, clearly we don't want to be put in the position that Manitoba and Newfoundland were in in the final ratification votes on Meech Lake.

I'm very cognizant of the fact that British Columbia may be the fourth province in a seven out of ten. We may, in fact, cast the deciding vote, which would be a unique and historic day in British Columbia, in that the votes cast here would be the subject of television all over Canada, so that the viewers would see how we did rather than just reading about us as an also-ran in a federal election.

Let me come to a final point, again recognizing that there are some time constraints here. It's one that I move into with a great deal of care, because I do not want my comments to be misconstrued. The Liberal opposition supports the proposition that there has to be a successful and fair resolution to aboriginal land claims. The Liberal opposition recognizes that indigenous government existed in this country long before the colonial regime that is now Canada took shape.

We recognize that indigenous governments, through devolution of their own power and through the federal Indian Act, have had those powers removed, and we recognize that there has been a great deal of abuse. Civil rights and freedoms of aboriginal people in this country need to be restored and addressed.

However, the minister should be aware -- I say this carefully and with very considered judgment -- that the Liberal opposition has a great deal of difficulty with the proposition of a third order of government as it is being proposed in the federal package that I have had an opportunity to read.

We have difficulty with it because there is not sufficient clarification with respect to the provisions in this document that would allow us to have some comfort that what we are doing here is something other than the creation of a special jurisdiction, with powers, authority and rights accorded that jurisdiction that may or may not run with the land, and with rights, privileges and powers defined simply and solely on the basis of racial origin. I can tell you that fundamentally, philosophically, I have enormous difficulty with that, because it runs counter to everything I believe deep inside myself.

We must be equal regardless of race, colour, creed, language or religion. No question -- we have abridged those principles for 125 years in Canada with respect to the aboriginal people, and as Canadians we have to take strong action to correct that. But I do not believe that you correct it by writing into the constitution authorities and powers that basically entrench it on the flip side, and that's my concern. Not that that's what's intended, because what is intended is not clear; not that that is what will eventually result, because there is no language here to tell us what will eventually result.

But what the proposition suggests is that we are going to constitutionalize distinctions in Canada that are basically determined by race, and I think that is wrong.

I say this with a great deal of care, because I realize that I run the political risk of being misinterpreted, of being misquoted and of not being politically correct in 1992 on this question.

But if we do not move forward with the proposition that the acknowledgment of indigenous government provides for the rights, authority and self-determination of the aboriginal people in a manner that provides equal authority, equal status, equal rights to every other Canadian, notwithstanding that there will be divisions of the land that recognize that there will be jurisdiction determined by an inherent right to govern that land which is deemed to be theirs.... I recognize that to be a desirable fact, and a fact that has to be resolved quickly.

If we're not careful on that question, I think we will have taken an enormous step backwards in Canada. I suspect that in the long term we are going to work ourselves into a proposition where constitutionally, legally, we are going to set ourselves up for litigation after litigation, which is going to be extremely difficult to manage in Canada.

On the third order of government, I am also cognizant of the question that there already exists a third order of government: municipal government. And there is a fourth order of government: regional government.

If the proposition -- it's hard to determine and define specifically from this language what that is -- proposes that the third order is to be given provincial status or status that is equivalent to the federal and provincial authorities, with full rights to the notwithstanding clause, opting out and the kinds of provisions that are there in order to protect culture -- and I understand the desirability to try and do that -- then British Columbia is in for a very difficult time over the next number of years, trying to sort out how we're going to work these jurisdictional questions out without any clear road map to guide us to that resolution.

By way of a constitutional solution, we should recognize that indigenous government existed prior to the colonial regime. Notwithstanding what transpired from 1867 to the current day, the rights and the abilities of aboriginal people in that indigenous level of government have not been -- or should not have been -- extinguished. If we recognize that to be so, it will allow the flexibility that is desirable among aboriginal people to determine their own system of administration and government. I believe that that is possible in Canada if

[ Page 2718 ]

it is given maximum flexibility in the proposition of the laws of the provinces and of the country.

By structuring it as a third order of government, recognizing the enormous complexities and divisions that exist among aboriginal people on a basis of tribal affiliations, I think that Canada is walking into a very difficult decade ahead. I strongly caution the minister on this question. The minister and I have had long discussions on this, as I have with the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs. Before we agree on this proposition and move forward with it, Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, must be very clear on what we're talking about.

Otherwise I believe we are building expectations among aboriginal people that may not be realized. Without realizing the expectations that we have created in the language that is before us now, I think we're asking for a great deal of trouble.

I say again that I hope the spirit of my comments are not misinterpreted. I hope I'm not misquoted or that somehow there is a proposition here that says we should not take swift action to correct the injustices that have been done to aboriginal people, because I believe that we must do that. It is also important for politicians to stand up and speak out about the proposition of every Canadian being equal to every other Canadian and not entrenching inequality and racial distinction as a quality for power and justice in this province or in this country that resides outside of that which runs with the individual.

I'd like the minister to comment on that, if he would.

J. Weisgerber: I'm interested in the comments by the Leader of the Opposition on the question of aboriginal government. I'll touch on that in a few minutes.

With regard to the referenda, I believe that the questions that are asked and the timing of those questions is critical. I appreciate the offer by the minister to consult with us. I would like to suggest to him that he look seriously at referring those issues either to the select standing committee that we have on intergovernmental relations or, perhaps even preferable to that, reactivating the committee that travelled around British Columbia on the minister's behalf and the committee that developed the position that the minister now is arguing on Senate reform and other constitutional issues. It seems to me that that committee was successful in finding some compromises.

[4:15]

Let me say this on the referenda. I believe that we have to ask the question: do you support the agreement, yes or no? But I think we should go further than that. We should also give British Columbians an opportunity to express their opinion to the government on the various sections of the agreement. In other words, I think there should be a part A that could be a plebiscite, if you like, which would say: "We like the resolution you've come to on Senate reform and on veto, but we don't like what you've done with aboriginal government." Those are the topics we've touched on today.

Those could be in the form of a plebiscite, and there could be a question at the end that would be binding on the government that is: do you approve or disapprove of the agreement that has been proposed? So I'd like to have the minister perhaps examine that down the road.

The issue of aboriginal self-government, as the Leader of the Opposition correctly points out, is a sensitive one, and one that we've talked about at great length. I too, as the former Minister of Native Affairs, am interested in the resolution of land claims in British Columbia, and I was pleased to be in that portfolio at a time when some progress was made. Self-government is obviously an important issue for aboriginal people in this province.

The difficulty that I have -- and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition -- is with the notion that Canadians should be equal to the greatest degree possible. Unfortunately, we're never all equal. We're always a little unequal in one way or another. But equality is certainly a goal we should attempt to achieve. I believe the primary difficulty with this question of aboriginal self-government is that it is, so far, undefined. I know that there has been a lot of talk about it. My specific difficulty is that I haven't even seen some sample models.

Clearly, there has to be a form of government, probably not a municipal-style government. It would probably be something that is compatible with the federal and provincial systems of government that we have in this country. Federal politicians seem quick to say that any form of aboriginal government would have to recognize the supremacy of federal law as it exists. We very seldom hear any comment made on the relationship between provincial jurisdiction and aboriginal jurisdiction from the federal folks.

As I've said before, I think that the difficulty with this is the timing. I remember how quickly three years went when I was Minister of Native Affairs; it was the blink of an eye in the time of the issues that have arisen. To establish in our new constitution a process that would allow aboriginal leaders to go to the courts to seek a resolution in only three years, I think, pushes the issue too quickly. I know that we started with a notion of ten years, and then it shrunk down to five years, and now it is down to three years. I know also that there is an impatience among Indian people. They feel they've waited and worked generations, and ten years seems too long.

So I'm not certain how we find that accommodation along with recognizing the realities and the difficulties of establishing a new form of government that recognizes aboriginal peoples' interests and also recognizes the complexity of implementing that, particularly in a province where land claims are unresolved, where treaties don't exist and where there are 1,600 existing reserves. To try to find a level or style of government that accommodates all of those conflicting interests is a very real issue. British Columbia is the one clearly faced with the most complex issues.

With that in mind, I urge the minister to recognize the impact and to call on other governments and aboriginal people to recognize that if the issues can be resolved to suit the circumstances in British Columbia, I suggest they would be suitable in most other parts of the country where there are much less complex issues, much larger reserves, fewer reserves, treaties established and all of those things.

[ Page 2719 ]

I will repeat that I think we are on the path of recognizing the inherent right of self-government; we've probably gone that far. I hope that the notion of there being three years before those are challengeable in the courts is still open to debate, because I believe it's too soon. It won't serve the interests of anyone to see some leader pressured by his or her own political forces within the aboriginal community to take an issue to the courts in three years and to find resolution there rather than in negotiation and debate. With that, I'll take my place and look forward to the minister's response.

Hon. M. Sihota: I want to deal with the galaxy of issues that have been raised by the members opposite. I agree with the previous speaker in the sense that no province in Canada is more exposed, if I can put it that way, than we are around these issues, given that most of this province is not covered by treaties. You're correct in saying that great care must be taken by this province to assess the package and to make sure that it accommodates the interests of aboriginal people, of third parties and of ordinary British Columbians.

During the course of your comments you were talking about starting off at ten years, down to five and down to three. I've got to tell you something: it was down to zero. The position that had been agreed to at one time was that it would be immediately justiciable. We've argued that there should be delayed judiciability. We made that absolutely essential in terms of our support for the package as it was developing. We've been able to secure delayed judiciability.

I want the hon. member to understand that the agreement now is for three years. That's not to say that we put forward the proposition that it be three years. We put forward the proposition that it be longer -- five years. I can tell you that caused a lot of discomfort around the table, but we took that position. As you said earlier, you don't always get what you want in negotiations. We were outvoted on the matter.

The other point I should make in relation to that issue is that we have also taken the view that there should be a renewal period upon expiry of the three years -- that the parties mutually agree to extend the period for another three years or whatever. We're making progress on that front. I thought we had it at the last round of meetings in Ottawa. Mr. Mercredi indicated publicly in any event that he didn't think we had, so we have some work to do there. I think I should let you know that we're doing that work and trying to do the best we can on that front.

I should also let you know that in some of my private discussions with some of the other governments, they are revisiting this issue. I think that is important to lay out. The reason I say this is that we think negotiation as opposed to litigation is the way to go. We're not interested in extensive litigation. We've made a commitment as a government to establish a treaty commission to begin to deal with these issues through the negotiation process, and that's the way we're going.

That is the way we prefer to go, and I know that with the native chiefs in British Columbia -- as in all national organizations, including the political party that I represent -- there are all sorts of tensions. The caucus from British Columbia, with respect to those groups, is of the view that they prefer to negotiate through the Treaty Commission process. I think that also augurs well for British Columbia. Quite frankly, I think the risks are greater for the aboriginal peoples, should the matter be litigated, than they are for the province of British Columbia.

You indicated that there were agreements you were not familiar with. I think the Yukon agreement is one that you may want to look at. It's certainly a model that the Premier of the Yukon has indicated he'd be quite happy to speak to us on. They've negotiated self-government agreements in that regard.

The Leader of the Opposition talked about recognizing that indigenous rights have not been extinguished, and that from that may flow administrative responsibilities. Certainly that's the view we're taking to many of these discussions -- that extinguishment hasn't occurred, that there was a form of government there and that, commensurate with the culture and tradition of the aboriginal people, they ought to be allowed to exercise some form of government.

He is correct when he says that the form of that government is not clear. It is not clear, because we'll have words in the constitution. We don't have living agreements, nor is it possible, nor would anybody expect us to be able to conclude agreements at that table. It's not the place for it, nor is there the time for it. But what the constitution does is create a box. Through the process of negotiation, the box would be filled and defined, and given its colour, its texture and its meaning. That is the best way that I can describe what is at the table.

There is a distinction between municipal and regional governments and a third order of government, in the sense that municipal and regional governments are creatures of a statute of the province. Aboriginal self-government is not a creature of a statute of a province or of the federal government, but of the constitution. Hence the notion of a third order.

I know that the third order of government as a concept gives some difficulty. We have proposed alternative wording, perhaps along the lines the hon. member suggested -- indigenous order. I've got to tell you, to be honest, that some of the native organizations in Canada are quite prepared to live with that wording and others are not. So there is sort of an internal matter there that needs to be resolved. Some have suggested a distinct order of government, but the word distinct has its own constitutional pitfalls. I want both hon. members to understand that the points they make are taken in by the sponge you're looking at and considered when we're involved in discussions at the table.

I can't at this point tell you what the final package will look like, except to say this: there is constant reflection going on by various governments. You see, at times the impression one is left with is that there are not seven governments in favour of the package or the principle. I must confess that when that occurs I have some difficulty, because philosophically and very fundamentally I believe that the treatment accorded aboriginal people in this country over the last 125 years has been anything but just. The condition of poverty,

[ Page 2720 ]

the kind of lifestyle that young people from the native communities find themselves in, for example, is not anything that would make any tolerant Canadian proud.

[4:30]

There is a deep conviction on the part of this administration, and a conviction, I'm sure, on the part of all members in this chamber, to address those issues in a fair, honourable and compassionate way. It's not our view as a government that the package should be allowed to fall should this government become the swing vote on the issue, if I can put it that way. It is the intention of this government to negotiate as aggressively as we can so as to ensure that there are no unintended consequences of constitutional change governing native people.

It's hard to say, when you're dealing with the constitution, how the courts would ultimately interpret it. I guess that's what gives constitution professionals their occupations and past politicians all sorts of employment in terms of advice to groups.

[D. Streifel in the chair.]

I can't tell you what it will look like. I can't tell you what shape it will take. I can just tell you that we're committed to dealing with that injustice, but we're also mindful of practical limitations, practical realities and practical attitudes. That's the balancing act that we find ourselves in. I don't think I can be any more candid than that.

[M. Lord in the chair.]

Speaking of candour, I want to make sure that you clearly understood what I have said with respect to the referendum. I do not yet have authority from cabinet to be able to say to you: yes, we will agree to the very interesting suggestion that the leader of the third party makes. I'm not in a position today to say to you that we will agree to a select standing committee, or to recreating the very successful constitutional committee we had in this province. I want this understood: I'm not saying to you that you will be sitting there with us in some capacity writing the question.

I am saying that I understand what you're saying. I understand the concern that you have. I'm prepared to take those concerns, and I'm prepared to consult with you as we work through those issues, in the same spirit that I have consulted with you throughout. That is as far as the parameters of my authority allow me to make a commitment at this time. First, let's see if we have an agreement in terms of the constitution. If we can get over that hump, we can probably solve any problem. I look forward to consulting and working with you in that context.

If this is the end of the debate on the constitution.... I don't know if it is. It isn't. Fine. I'll take my place.

G. Wilson: I appreciate the candour with which the minister has replied with respect to that. It's alw