Hedy Fry

[Health Care, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is presuming many things. My mind has always been clearly fixed on the Canada Health Act and the five principles of medicare. Nothing since, before or during my life as a physician has ever changed that.

[Health Care, December 8th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how often we have to say this in the House, but there is a Canada Health Act. It works on the five principles of medicare, guiding principles for the country.

Eighty-nine per cent of Canadians, especially British Columbians, support that.

When any province sets up any sort of clinic or anything which contravenes the Canada Health Act the government will act to take whatever steps are necessary to stop it.

[Food And Drugs Act, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this problem. I am also pleased that all three parties of the House agree on this issue.

For the last 15 years it has been an issue with which I have been involved as a physician, as an advocate for my patients and as a member of the British Columbia Medical Association lobbying to change public policy.

Canadians from all walks of life in every region have been concerned over the years about alcohol consumption and especially about the abuse of alcohol, not only its effects on society but its effects on the health of individuals. Canadians have always looked to governments to reduce the risks associated with this drug.

These concerns have taken various forms at different times. In the 1980s the major concern was drinking and driving. Governments have acted at the provincial level and at the federal level to take into consideration this issue. The companies that make and market alcohol have been fairly responsible with respect to drinking and driving. Together we have managed to see in this decade that the issue of drinking and driving has begun to take root in the minds of the public and in the minds of the young people who are the most affected.

More recently the major alcohol related concern has shifted to foetal alcohol syndrome and foetal alcohol effect. A parliamentary committee reviewed this topic in great detail and came down with a large number of recommendations, not the least of which was labelling. This was a stakeholder conference. There were three conferences in a row. At the conference were makers and marketers of alcohol who basically had a sense of responsibility toward the issue, although they did not seem interested in going as far as the labelling issue.

FAS is foetal alcohol syndrome, a medical diagnosis that refers to a set of alcohol related disabilities associated with the use of alcohol during pregnancy. It is used to describe a set of physical, mental and behavioural changes in young children who have been born with this syndrome.

Exposure of the foetus to alcohol has a great deal of effect specifically on the foetal brain and brain tissue. It is because of this that we see foetal alcohol syndrome. Different levels of drinking can produce foetal alcohol syndrome. Lower levels of drinking can produce foetal alcohol effect, which is not as full blown a syndrome in that there are not usually physical disabilities associated with it, but the behavioural components are clear.

There are some surveys and information now that are leading us to believe that a lot of people who exhibit anti-social behaviour, who have behavioural problems in school and who fill many of the jails in this country have foetal alcohol effect. We can curb this problem and stop it. It is preventable. One or three in every one thousand children in industrialized countries has foetal alcohol syndrome or foetal alcohol effect. This is a terrible issue that we must deal with.

This is not the only thing I want to talk about because I do not want people to believe that here we are again hitting on any particular social enjoyment we all have. Alcohol is not, unlike tobacco, a dangerous drug if taken according to instructions. We now know there is a level of hazardous drinking that results in the acute effects we see in terms of drinking and driving or using machinery or acts of violence when one is acutely drunk. There is also a certain level of hazardous drinking if done over a period of time. It can lead to hypertension, cirrhosis of the liver and some alcohol induced psychosis in the long term.

We are talking about a drug that has an effect on humans and on the health status of humans. It is time we did something about it, specifically because alcohol is such a socially acceptable drug and specifically because it is a substance we can use appropriately and enjoy in a way that is not dangerous, except of course with the one exception, when one is pregnant. A pregnant woman should not have any alcohol whatsoever.

What we are talking about is a substance we could make safe. How do we make anything safe? When we buy antihistamines across the counter there is a warning not to drink alcohol while taking them; do not operate machinery. On a bottle of Draino there is a warning not to ingest it internally. We know certain things are hazardous when used inappropriately.

Alcohol lends itself specifically to labelling because it is a way we can send a clear message that tells everyone they can use this substance in a safe way or in an unsafe way, and these are the unsafe ways. Warnings on products lead to their safe use. That is what we are talking about.

Health Canada spends a great deal of money on programs for native people and the Inuit people especially, community based programs, to support parents and children who have FAS and FAE.

We also have lots of programs that deal, as any healthy public policy should, with education and awareness because public awareness is the key. We cannot say someone is doing something wrong when they do not have any knowledge it is wrong. Therefore public awareness is the key and this is where labelling comes in.

Labelling clearly says do and do not. It gives a clear, defined parameter within which to work in a safe way to use a substance as in the case of alcohol. While we see that there are a lot of remedial services and support programs, and while we are at the moment increasing awareness and doing education programs in the schools and in communities, working at all levels, federal governments, provincial governments and community based groups are all working hard to stop the abuse of alcohol and the inappropriate use of alcohol.

We have not used one tool sitting in our little box of tools. Many people have said this will be expensive. I do not understand why this will be any more expensive because the alcohol industry, in order to export alcohol to the United States, must put a label that warns of the dangers of alcohol because labelling is mandatory in the United States. Yet we have on one side of a room a whole lot of bottles sitting there with no labels. People are are busy sticking labels on them just to send them across the border.

Are the children in the United States any less important than our children? I say no. This is not a major burden we will be putting on the alcohol industry. It is an industry that has shown to be very supportive and very accountable in terms of how it deals with alcohol.

I am pleased the member brought this to the fore because it is an opportunity for us to talk about this issue. Doubters say look at what happened with the tobacco industry. The Supreme Court ruled we should not ban advertising and sponsorship because we have not proven it will make a difference to youth. Whenever members talk to manufacturers and to advertising agencies they always say package labelling confers a great deal of information about the product, and that manufacturers use labels to send us many messages about the image of their product.

If one wants to buy detergent it has to be the kind of detergent that speaks of grandma using it; a nice clean wash with sea breezes blowing through it, one that smells good with lemon and lime and all these things. We always use images to sell our product. Soup labels convey the down home quality. It is always something hearty and the sort of thing we were used to in the old days.

We talk about cigarette manufacturers. They have brought this to a fine art. They are the most expert at turning a product. They talk about youth and vigour. They show how many friends one can make if one smokes. They show how socially acceptable one will be, how great at sport, how wonderful a lifestyle one will gain from smoking.

What is crucial here is the recognition that in many areas no distinction can be drawn between the product as conceived by the maker and the packaging. The product and the packaging are almost the same. That is why manufacturers are often so very resistant to labelling or to putting anything on their product that says the product is not as good as it should be.

I hope everyone here will support the bill. We support it very strongly at Health Canada. We believe if we are ever to prevent the preventable diseases that create a great deal of tragedy in our lives, this is one sure step. We are already half way there. We do it for the United States. Let us do it for Canada.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member stated there should be direct cash compensation instead of negotiated settlements with aboriginal peoples. Cash does form part of the settlements negotiated with aboriginal peoples. However, cash alone will not provide the kind of certainty and long lasting, enduring settlement necessary in this type of negotiation. This type of negotiation will benefit all of British Columbia in the end because we will be able to put these negotiated settlements to rest once and for all.

Negotiated agreements have been based on a range of benefits. There is a necessity to provide that range to continue to have an enduring and lasting distribution of rights for the native peoples, which have to cover harvesting rights, participation in wildlife and environmental management.

The hon. member said he did not know where there was a legal basis for settlement comprehensive land claims. In 1973 the supreme court ruling in the Calder case acknowledged the existence of aboriginal title in Canadian law. More recently, in the Sparrow case the supreme court recognized a constitutionally protected aboriginal right to fish for food. The courts have emphasized in these cases that the proper way to resolve outstanding claims to aboriginal rights and title to land and resources must be through negotiated agreements.

The hon. member said we should fee simple or its equivalent. That is exactly what we are doing. Perhaps the hon. member might acquaint himself better with what the treaty negotiation process is all about.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to answer the two points. The first is that is appropriate to create a lame duck government in the last year of any government's term. This is so inappropriate.

This is a process that has spanned two governments. It is a process that began in the last year of a Social Credit government. It was picked up by an NDP government and continues to be carried on. It occurred because it was good public policy. Obviously, good public policy will be seen to be such and it must be a process that can be carried on.

If a provincial government should stop in a tripartite process with another level of government and with a group of people duly set up by their own people to negotiate in good faith, then when the provincial government does that in the last year of its mandate and the federal government does that in the last year of its mandate, once in every three years will we have any negotiation at any signatory. It makes every single level of government ineffective.

It also makes the aboriginal people, who are the third party negotiating with them, wonder whether this is a worthwhile process at all. It makes a mockery of any type of negotiated process.

Second, the hon. member referred to what Mr. Weisgerber said and to the changes in the process of the Nisga'a treaty sinceMr. Weisgerber had set it up. He is right.

What Mr. Weisgerber did say, and I listened carefully to the quote, is not that we stop the process but that we continue to refine it as we find flaws in it. That is extremely appropriate.

What this member is asking is that we stop the process that has been on the table. Negotiations are going on. People may come to a conclusion any moment now and we must ignore all of the year's work that has been done to get to that point. This does not make any sense to me. It is an ineffective way for any government, any negotiations to take place.

[Supply, December 7th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in my place today to respond specifically to the motion of the hon. member for North Island-Powell River that the House:

-not enter into any binding trilateral aboriginal treaty or land claim agreements in B.C. in the last year of the provincial government mandate-

Inherent in the motion is the issue my hon. friend referred to recently, which is the lame duck issue that seeks to nullify the powers of any government in the last year of its mandate. This is the most cynical statement I have ever heard from any party of any legislature or House.

Does this then suggest that any process-and one in this case that is so clearly in the best interest of the people of British Columbia and of the aboriginal people-must be put on the back burner for political consideration?

Surely Canadians deserve to know that their governments can make policy decisions that are sustainable and not politically biased but people biased in the best interest of Canadians.

Government serves the people. Whatever the stripe of government, good public policy and the integrity of government as a whole must be kept sacrosanct.

Reformers are suggesting then, or are they, that they do not want to be bound by the decisions legally and morally agreed upon in a trilateral, provincial government, aboriginal people and federal government negotiated contract.

Since the 1800s, that is over a century ago, aboriginal people have been trying to negotiate validity of land claims with the British Columbia government. It has constantly rejected this validity based on the fact that it was a federal responsibility, or this is what it said.

The process has taken so long that finally in 1990 the B.C. government, a Social Credit government, took a major step and began a process to right this wrong. The three parties, that is the First Nations, the federal government and the provincial government, have since agreed to the process, and this is what is happening now.

I hope we will not accept this motion which in effect seeks to further delay the process. The people of B.C., the aboriginal people and the people of Canada have been waiting for far too long.

During the second reading stage of the bill that sets up the commission, members of the third party stood repeatedly and complained about how long the process was taking. Now they are seeking to set up another barrier to the process.

In 1989 we witnessed the end of the cold war and the Berlin Wall coming down. One year later it seemed that another longstanding barrier had been removed, a barrier that had stood between aboriginal peoples in British Columbia and the economic and social development to which they aspired.

Good governments must bring down barriers, not raise them as I see the third party in effect attempting to do with this kind of doublespeak. Future generations may well regard 1990 as a singular turning point in the history of British Columbia's aboriginal peoples, the year in which they were offered a glimmer of hope.

Settling land claims is the single most important thing that can be done in British Columbia to help aboriginal communities. Uncertainty over land claims has been a barrier to economic development for all British Columbians for quite a while. Uncertainty has hindered aboriginal participation in land and resource management. All British Columbians know that when we solve these problems it will mean greater self-sufficiency. It will mean jobs. It will mean employment for the people who have long been disempowered to take their rightful equal place in Canadian society.

In addition to the ownership of settlement lands in the area covered by the treaty, the final agreements may include specific measures to stimulate economic development. This may include resource revenue sharing. This may include sharing of royalties derived from resource extraction throughout the area.

It is not only economic good that we seek in these treaty negotiations. We have seen in the aboriginal sacred summit that began across the river in Hull last week, a summit of aboriginal elders organized by the hon. member for Churchill, that the attachment to nature and to the Creator by aboriginal peoples is a central element of their spirituality. Land claims are more than just economic; they are spiritual to the people of British Columbia's aboriginal communities.

I think the House would agree the decision by the provincial government to come to the negotiating table was of paramount importance. Prior to 1990 aboriginal Canadians in British Columbia were offered no hope and no equality of benefits. I remind the House of some of the developments that led to that turning point because in those developments there is a profound irony.

One key player in convincing the British Columbia government to reverse its historical opposition to negotiating treaties was the minister of native affairs for the province at that time, Mr. Jack Weisgerber. Mr. Weisgerber was a Social Credit cabinet minister when British Columbia decided to negotiate. Today he is the leader of the Reform Party in British Columbia. What irony that the decision was taken by a man who had vision unlike what is being proposed across from the House.

In 1989 provincial governments appointed the premiers advisory committee on native affairs. The council travelled through the province and met with bands and tribal councils to suggest a solution to address the social and economic issues facing aboriginal people. They were not seeking to continue to erect barriers. And so the province began the process of coming to the negotiating table.

The advisory council made its recommendations to cabinet in 1990 and shortly thereafter Mr. Weisgerber signed the Nisga'a framework agreement. For the first time in the history of British Columbia a province was negotiating a land claim. Soon the B.C. government was deeply involved in the process of bringing the First Nations to the table.

B.C. participated in the First Nations summit and the province met with the federal government in B.C. By the time Bill 22 that created the legislative authority for the B.C. treaty commission came into the legislature, Mr. Weisgerber was no longer a cabinet minister but sat on the opposition benches.

However the new NDP government continued the process begun by the Social Credit government although it was of a different political stripe. By doing so it reaffirmed people's faith in the certainty of public policy free from the vagaries of petty subjective politics.

I quote what Mr. Weisgerber said at the time of the debate in the legislature. He pointed out that the strategy for government in British Columbia for 125 to 130 years had been to deny that a problem with treaties existed, a philosophy it seems the third party still continues to espouse. He said:

It became increasingly clear to us, as we travelled and met with groups around the province, that if we were going to address the root of the social and economic problems, we had to deal with the land claim question.

This was a bold and visionary conclusion to make. It took great political courage. It overturned the accepted political wisdom of the day. It acknowledged a simple reality. It was a a daring act of great statesmanship by a politician who put the public good before political ideology. I urge members of the third party to take a leaf from that book.

In 1991 a new provincial government, the NDP government, accepted the recommendations of the last government. Also in 1991 a federal government accepted the recommendations of a provincial government that was not of the same political stripe.

Mr. Weisgerber went on to predict to the B.C. legislature that the First Nations would be very able negotiators. He urged the provincial government to negotiate every bit as effectively for the interest of all British Columbians. He said that negotiations had to be tough but fair.

These are the views of a British Columbian who is not only one of the founders of the current treaty process. I have quoted him at length because of the motion by the hon. member for North Island-Powell River. He asked that the federal government not enter into agreements in order to respect the views of British Columbians on the land claims issue as expressed by both major provincial parties. The leader of one of those provincial opposition parties, the Reform Party of British Columbia, is Mr. Jack Weisgerber, the man who in 1990 put justice before politics.

It is clear British Columbians want to get on with the task of resolving land claims and to become a stable environment for economic growth once again. The process is a good one. The aboriginal peoples approve and both levels of government agree. We cannot put the process on hold each time a government nears the end of its mandate. It is unjust, unfair and cruel.

Where would we be today if we had followed the logic of the hon. member's motion? We would actually be a federal Liberal government and an NDP provincial government not taking up a policy that was carried on in good faith because it was in the best interest of the people.

Back in May 1993 the previous federal government had been in power for nearly five years, since the 1988 election. The former Prime Minister had announced his intention to step down and the Progressive Conservative Party was in the middle of a leadership convention. Did the provincial government and the aboriginal summit say at that time: "Wait a minute. Maybe we shouldn't pass this legislation. After all, the federal government is nearing the end

of its mandate. Let's wait until the next federal election?" Did they say that? Of course they did not.

Canadians elect their representatives to serve for a full mandate. The people hope that vicarious politics will not stop good public policy. This would leave to massive destabilization in Canada every four years and to a meaningless international trade and provincial controls. We have seen how this type of political grandstanding brought the United States government to a halt recently.

Let us allow the British Columbia government to get on with its business in a way that it deems appropriate. Let us get back to our own responsibilities for taking measures that will improve the economic and social prospects of aboriginal people in Canada.

[Violence Against Women, December 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today is a day of national mourning and remembrance for the 14 young women whose lives were cut off in mid-stride six years ago for one reason only: they were women.

As we mourn we should be mindful that over 50 per cent of women in Canada, one in three in B.C., are the object of physical, mental and emotional violence. Battered body and soul, living with chronic helplessness and pain, it is a legacy of bitterness that they pass on to their children, Canada's children.

As parliamentarians, women or men, Liberal, Reform or Bloc, we have a duty to stop this endless nightmare that so many women endure as an excuse for living. The Minister of Justice, the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for the Status of Women have shown clear leadership on this issue but it is not enough.

We must mobilize our communities, the media and businesses. We must make this issue a cause nationale. Violent crimes cost this country over $4 billion a year in money but the real cost in terms of human life and hope is immeasurable.

[World Aids Day, December 1st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the number one cause of death in men aged 19 to 44 in the major metropolitan areas of Canada is AIDS.

Today is World AIDS Day. The World Health Organization's theme this year is shared rights and responsibilities. This theme highlights the need for equality and solidarity in global responses to AIDS. Its message is clear. Everyone has the right to information, preventive skills and tools, to avoid infection. Everyone has the right to access to appropriate care free from the burden of discrimination.

The World Health Organization message balances these rights with the responsibility of the individual to protect self and others from infection, the responsibilities of families and communities to educate the public about HIV prevention and to care for those infected with AIDS.

Themes are usually rhetoric unless followed by action. Let us in the House commit ourselves to actively ensure those rights and responsibilities become reality. AIDS creates too much tragic waste of human life and potential to do otherwise.

[Seniors' Safety Week, November 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, this week is Seniors' Safety Week. While growing old is as inevitable as taxes we know that seniors should remain active and stay in their own homes for as long as possible. It is integral to their good health.

Ironically the home is one of the least safe places for seniors. In Canada accidental death or injury leading to hospitalization that is often permanent is three times higher for seniors than for any other age group. These injuries exact high psychological and social costs on seniors. They lead to loss of independence and mobility, and fear and anxiety lead to isolation.

Therefore making home and consumer products safe is the best health promotion for seniors. Health Canada promotes increased safety awareness among seniors and their care givers. Access to devices and home improvements that ensure safe living environments for seniors are a priority for the government, which is why we support the Canada Safety Council's national safety week campaign.

I urge all members of the House to work toward safer communities for seniors. We will all be living in them eventually.

[Department Of Human Resources Development Act, November 23rd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I too should like to speak to Bill C-96.

The bill is simply a housekeeping bill that brings together a number of departments under one roof. Yet it has inflamed the emotions of both opposition parties. Their criticisms are so completely unjustified that I must wonder if in making the accusations both parties are really speaking to their not so hidden agenda.

Some members opposite see Bill C-96, particularly clause 6, as a power grab. I have no idea how they came to this conclusion because clause 6 simply states:

The powers, duties and functions of the Minister extend to and include all matters over which Parliament has jurisdiction and relating to the development of the human resources of Canada not by law assigned to any other Minister, department, board or agency of the Government of Canada, and are to be exercised with the objective of enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security.

Any reasonable objective analyst not fixated on a separatist agenda or decentralist ideology would see that clause as a statement of purpose. It lists clear and legitimate limits for the minister, whose mandate is and always has been to devise policies that enhance employment, encourage equality and promote social security.

Bill C-96 does not change federal or provincial powers at all. It does not tip the balance one way or the other. It neither increases nor reduces the minister's range of authority. The statutory powers of the department in place now are unchanged. I am sure members of both opposition parties who have basic reading comprehension skills must know that.

The bill does not establish new initiatives or alter existing ones in any way. Only those members opposite who have chosen to play the victim role to the hilt and who apparently see a potential humiliation in every act of the federal government would see a power grab in the bill.

The three objectives set out in clause 6 of the bill, enhancing employment, encouraging equality and promoting social security, have always been key objectives of the federal government, especially of Liberal federal governments.

If a national government is not in the business of creating jobs, promoting equality of opportunity and establishing a social safety net, what is its business? Any federal government on the globe that is not totally anaemic, corrupt or viciously insensitive must have these fundamental objectives, especially the government of a country that has been named for the third year running the best country in the world in which to live. If the Canadian government were to drop these objectives, the official opposition would be the first to scream unjust and declare yet another humiliation of Quebec.

The Canadian government is constitutionally responsible for unemployment insurance and for creating and operating programs that help unemployed Canadians find employment no matter where they live in the country. In my riding in British Columbia COAST and FOCUS YWCA have provided and continue to provide invaluable services, especially for single moms on welfare. Currently many of these programs do not receive funding from the B.C. government when they are actually saving tens of thousands of dollars in welfare payments.

The federal Government of Canada has an international obligation under a convention of the International Labour Organization to provide national labour market information and exchange for all Canadians. The federal government is responsible for national economic growth and development. Therefore it is common sense that it must be involved in training.

If we have learned one thing over the past decade it is that a well trained workforce is absolutely essential if we want to remain competitive in the global marketplace and to maintain our standard of living as number one in the world. The strongest most innovative economies in the world today, Japan and Germany, have become what they are largely because of their national policies that emphasize training.

The federal government must be able to assist those affected by special situations that go beyond the jurisdictions of any one province, such as workers in the fishing industry, older workers displaced by restructuring of the economy or the dispossessed youth of Canada. In my riding Youth Service Canada projects have benefited youths very directly.

The federal government has absolutely no interest in having powers just because it wants them. The Minister of Human Resources Development said it very well when he said that we must combine resources across the country so that when one area is facing high unemployment another area helps to support it.

That is the Canadian way. That is why we have a federal country and a federal government. One part of the country supports another when it is undergoing trouble. It is a family in which we all help each other in times of need, because we know one day we may in

turn be in times of need. That is the fundamental concept of sharing. The more we fragment the country as the third party opposition would have us do, the more we divide it, separate it, decentralize it and balkanize it into a series of fiefdoms, the less capable we are of helping individuals that no longer have the benefit of that sharing. That is why the federal government must continue to play an important role in this area.

We have always been open to discussions with provincial, territorial and municipal governments about who is the best suited to deliver certain programs. We have negotiated that because we know we do not always deliver the best programs and that things must be done at the community level.

Because clause 6 of Bill C-96 sets out the department's mandate in terms of general objectives, we must have the flexibility to serve Canadians better. I do not want to sidetrack the debate by raising non-issues and reading into clause 6 things that are there. It is really a disservice to the thousands of Canadians in all provinces who benefit from job creation and training.

The other clause in Bill C-96 about which concerns have been raised is clause 20. It reads:

For the purpose of facilitating the formulation, co-ordination and implementation-

Words like co-ordination mean that we work together to make something work. It is so simple and fundamental to a clear understanding of how teamwork is accomplished, of how we pull together, that I cannot understand the problem. Anyway the clause continues:

-the Minister may enter into agreements with a province or group of provinces, agencies of provinces, financial institutions and such other persons or bodies as the Minister considers appropriate.

Any reasonable objective observer would see in this clause no hidden agenda to intrude. It merely provides a way to formulate co-operation with all groups with which we must form partnerships if we are to make the changes.

Without the authority that clause 20 gives the minister the department would have difficulties conducting its simple mandate and its simple business. However the Bloc is bent on getting more power for the political elite in Quebec, while the Reform Party is bent solely on getting more power for the provinces and fragmenting and balkanizing the country.

In 1994-95 the department of human resources signed more than 50,000 labour market related contracts in Quebec which were worth $700 million. Among those 50,000 contracts were 9,600 contracts with non-profit organizations, 9,300 contracts with private sector enterprises and 25,000 contracts under the fee payer trainee program, all in Quebec. It is the authority granted to the minister under clause 20.

It allows us to enter into agreements with financial institutions for student loans. How are we to create a country of young people who can take over from us and carry on if those who cannot afford to go to school are not allowed student loans?

It enables the federal government to sign agreements with provinces to help displaced older workers. When 45 or 50 year old people lose their jobs, especially in the emerging communication technology era, they need training.

This kind of section empowered Ottawa to enter into a partnership with Quebec to help entrepreneurs and to help workers affected by the closing of the Hyundai plant in Bromont last March. The whole bill helps the department of human resources to create a national vision for Canada. It is not for British Columbia alone. It is how we work together as a country to achieve the kinds of things that make us the envy of the world.

We are a unique country. I continue to hear people talk about how another country does it and why we are not doing it the same way. Wherever we go we hear people saying that Canada is a unique country. We have learned how to work together in peace. We have learned to do what we are supposed to do, that is to create peace, order and good government.