1980 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 32nd 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, MAY 7, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2311 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act (Bill 22). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2311

An agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada and Her

Majesty the Queen in the right of the province of British Columbia, dated January 1, 1977.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2311

Ministerial Statement

Cyanide spill in Vancouver.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2312

Mr. Lauk –– 2312

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Mr. Barber –– 2312

Bus passes for elderly and handicapped. Ms. Brown –– 2313

Correspondence from government employees. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 2314

Salary of Minister of Tourism. Hon. Mrs. Jordan replies –– 2314

Motion 10.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2316

Mr. Barrett –– 2317

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2318

Mr. Hall –– 2322

Mr. Kempf –– 2323

Mr. Gabelmann ?324

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2326

Mr. Hanson –– 2328

Mr. Davis –– 2329

Mr. Cocke –– 2331

Mr. Hyndman –– 2332

Mr. Skelly –– 2334

Annual return for the calendar year 1979, submitted in accordance with

section 53

of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2334

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Salary of Minister of Tourism.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 2334

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, let me just extend a welcome to the Reverend Father

Donald, who gave prayers to this assembly today, and also welcome back

an old friend who is known to all members of this Legislature.

The

special occasion today is not just the fact that Father Walter Donald

is back to start us off in the right manner in our deliberations. It is

Father Donald's twentieth wedding anniversary, and in the gallery today

is his wife Rosemary. I hope the House will extend to them our best

wishes in achieving this historic milestone in their marriage. Audrey

and I were pleased to achieve our twenty-fifth just a few weeks ago.

have a second welcome to the Legislature and an explanation of the red

carnation I'm wearing today for those who might mistake it for being a

memento of associations I've had over the past few days. The carnation

is a start off to the drive for funds for the Multiple Sclerosis

Society of Vancouver Island. Today I was pleased to participate with

those members, who are raising funds and giving up their time, to help

them in the publicity and, hopefully, also in a successful venture.

Last year in this area, I believe, they raised about $25,000. I hope

that all members of the assembly and the public of British Columbia

will help them in their worthy cause to raise the funds to fight this

terrible disease.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker,

this morning my colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), and

I had the pleasure of welcoming a very large group of students from

Johnston Heights Secondary School in Surrey. Accompanying them were

their teachers and 35 exchange students from the province of Quebec. I

think the group was far too large to be in attendance here today, but I

would ask the House to bid a special welcome to the exchange students

from Quebec and their new-found friends from Surrey.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I've been informed by our Sergeant-at-Arms that Mr. G.I.

Cameron, who is the Sergeant-at-Arms at the Yukon Legislative Assembly,

is in our members' gallery accompanied by Mrs. McLaren. I think all

members would like to bid them a very cordial welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are some guests I wish the

House to welcome. They are Chief George Behn and Counsellor Harry

Dickie of the Fort Nelson Indian Band; Mr. Andrew Schuck, who is the

lawyer for the bank, accompanied by his charming wife; Mr. Fred

Walchli, regional director general for the Department of Indian

Affairs; David Sparks, local government officer of the Department of

Indian Affairs; Mr. Bob Moss, who recently retired as petroleum

commissioner for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources;

and a member of my office, Mr. Robert Excell, who is the coordinator of

Native Indian programs. Chief Behn, Counsellor Dickie and the others

are here today on a matter of moment to them.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome, from the Sir Frederick

Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam, Mr. Wickerson and his

class of students, who are visiting us today.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to mention to the House that

in the gallery today is a young man who's had a very distinguished

career in the media, has made a great contribution to the Vernon and

Kelowna communities and has been a great help to me, I must say, in my

election, for which I could express even more appreciation. He's down

here representing the city of Vernon on an emergency services training

program sponsored by the government, and I would ask the House in all

good humour to welcome Alderman Jim Yount.

MR. RITCHIE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the distinct honour of welcoming to the

House 46 constituents of mine, members of the Clearbrook Golden Age

Society. That was the first part of a tour. The second

part is here

today, and again I'm very, very pleased and honoured to welcome, I

believe, 46 members of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society. Would you

please extend a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a tireless worker for

senior citizens, and a man who's been active in helping crippled

children in our province through Lionism. He is a past member of this

House — the Social Credit member for Vancouver East, elected in 1956,

Mr. Fred Sharpe.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I am also

pleased to ask the House to welcome another part of a delegation. The

day before last we had 46 students from Carson Graham Secondary School

in North Vancouver visiting us, we have the second part arriving later

this afternoon, and tomorrow I'll ask the House to welcome the third

party. These are grade 11 students, who have just completed a course on

the federal and provincial legislatures. They're over to see us operate

and the wisdom with which we attend our deliberations. The students are

under the guidance of their teacher, Andy Krawzyk. I would ask the

House to welcome them this afternoon.

Introduction of Bills

FORT NELSON INDIAN RESERVE

MINERALS REVENUE SHARING ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a

bill intituled the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act.

Bill

22 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.

Hon.

Mr. Williams tabled an executed copy of an agreement between Her

Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in

the right of the province of British Columbia, dated January 1, 1977.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

In introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, and tabling this copy of the

agreement, may I say that companion legislation and another copy of

that same

[ Page 2312 ]

agreement were today presented to the House of Commons in Ottawa.

CYANIDE SPILL IN VANCOUVER

HON. MR. ROGERS:

I rise to make a ministerial statement. At 11:35 a.m. today members of

the Provincial Emergency Program were notified by officials of the city

of Vancouver that a substantial quantity of cyanide had spilled in the

1700-block Powell Street. The city of Vancouver fire department,

Provincial Emergency Program, and members of the waste management

branch and the Vancouver police department have been at the site since

early this morning. It was originally anticipated that vandalism had

caused this cyanide to be spilled, but subsequent reports have

indicated that it was done by a demolition crew. The Vancouver city

fire department and police department had suggested evacuation of a

rather substantial area of downtown Vancouver. They have now revised

that downwards to a one-block area surrounding the spill. At the

present time officials are in place neutralizing with lime the spill

that took place.

I have no further details at this time;

this last report was passed to me just two minutes before coming into

the House. I will bring updates to the House as it continues. The

matter may resolve itself or it may turn out to be much more

substantial than we originally thought.

MR. LAUK: I

thank the hon. minister for reporting to the House on this emergency at

the earliest opportunity. But it does bring to mind the necessary

response of the provincial government to requests made by other

citizens' groups to have a clear statement, either through legislation

or government regulation, about the handling of these dangerous

substances and the transporting of dangerous cargoes. It's a clear

warning, and a sobering one, to all of us in the Legislature, and

particularly to the government, that legislation should be brought down

forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I beg to rise on

a question of privilege. I regret that I did not have the opportunity

to advise Your Honour earlier about that, but it has just this moment

come to my attention.

The question of privilege relates to Votes and Proceedings

number 49 of yesterday's sitting, wherein on the following appears on

page 2: "Mr. Howard challenged the right of the Minister of Tourism to

vote on the question 'that the ruling of the Chair be sustained.' " The

Blues, which I went to get, substantiate what it was that I did

yesterday. I want to point out that I did not challenge the right of

the Minister of Tourism to vote. A perusal of the Blues of exactly what

I said will show that, and I would ask that the record be altered

accordingly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Oral Questions

REVISED STATUTES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. BARBER:

I have a question for the Attorney-General. Could the Attorney-General

inform the House if he has decided the date of proclamation of the Revised Statues of British Columbia ?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, it's not my decision, but perhaps I should inform you, and

the hon. member, that a proclamation was issued a week ago which fixed

May 17 as being the effective date for the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979 .

I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, because it is my understanding that all

members of this House have received a special notice of this. If the

member has not, then I will certainly have it rectified immediately. It

is an oversight. We made the decision a week ago Monday and special

notices have been sent out to all subscribers of the Revised Statutes.

It has been posted in all government offices, courthouses and

libraries, and we trusted everyone would know. But if you don't know

inside this building, then we will certainly rectify that.

MR. BARBER:

I appreciate the courtesy of the minister's reply. I was not aware of

that nor, I believe, has my office received such a note. However, that

is my problem. I did, however, inquire yesterday at the ministry, and I

was told that no date had yet been set. Nonetheless I am certainly

happy to accept the minister's information.

Could the minister inform the House whether or not, as of May 17 when Revised Statutes is proclaimed into law, there will be any amendments to any of the statutes contained therein?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On that date?

MR. BARBER: Yes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Well, Mr. Speaker, we have already on the orders of this House a number

of statutes and they have been drawn in such a way as to.... Those

statutes, to the extent that they amend pre-existing statutes, will

amend the statutes in the revised form, so that it won't be necessary

to pass two bills to accomplish the same matter. All the bills that are

in your bill book, Mr. Member, are drawn in such a way that they will

be effective with respect to the Revised Statutes.

MR. BARBER: I have a question about what appears to be a significant error in Revised Statutes ,

which I now am informed will not be amended in its current form prior

to May 17. I draw the attention of the minister and the House to the

Insurance (Marine) Act, Revised Statutes ,

chapter 203. I have no doubt that the cause of this error may prove to

be quite trivial. It could be an editorial error, it could be a

printing error, or a combination of both.

Nonetheless, now

that we are advised this will become law in its current form, I have a

couple of questions for the minister, because I think there is a

serious problem here. I wonder if the minister is familiar with the

omission altogether of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Insurance (Marine)

Act, and, in particular, if he is aware that the apparent omission

altogether of something that is to become law on May 17, as I read it

in the old law, will have the effect of making it impossible for

persons who own jointly any marine vessel to obtain insurance.

is a serious matter; three sections are omitted. If it becomes law in

its present form on May 17.... Is the minister aware, as we are

informed, that these sections in the former law established proprietary

interests that would not otherwise be recognized in common law and

exist only by virtue of these sections? Is the minister aware of this

apparent

[ Page 2313 ]

omission?

Mr. Speaker, is he aware of the import of this apparent omission? Can

he inform the House what steps will be taken prior to May 17 to correct

this significant failure in law?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

It is not an apparent omission; it is an omission. It was drawn to my

attention shortly following the printing of the Revised Statutes of

British Columbia. Examination discloses that the omission occurred in

the course of printing, and the statute will be amended so as to

replace those three sections. I am attempting to do so as soon as

possible following May 17.

With respect to the consequences,

I am advised by the revisions commissioner that the legislation

providing for the revision can overcome any difficulties there may be

because of that error.

Nonetheless, to ensure that the

omission does not result in the concerns that the member has raised,

legislation to correct the error will be forthcoming, and it will be

retroactive so that no rights which may have been lost by reason of the

error will affect any citizen.

MR. BARBER: I thank

the minister for his answer. I'm not sure I heard correctly. The

legislation to amend the error will be retroactive, did the minister

say?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To May 17.

BUS PASSES FOR

ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: My question is to

the Minister of Human Resources, and has to do with bus passes. In

approximately three weeks the bus passes for elderly and handicapped

people will expire. There have been reports that the negotiations

between the Ministry of Human Resources and the GVRD are breaking down

because Human Resources is unwilling to pay the $72 per ticket which

the GVRD is requesting so that the bus passes can be used at all times

through the day, not just at off-hours. Can the minister assure the

House that negotiations with the GVRD will be completed to ensure that

28,000 greater Vancouver residents will not be restricted in the use of

their bus passes after that date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, I believe this question should be more properly addressed

to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who,

really, is the minister responsible for negotiating with GVRD and the

Greater Victoria Regional District regarding bus transportation and the

turnover and installation of a new UTA to cover bus transportation.

But

may I just say, in referring to the question asked and the Ministry of

Human Resources' reference to bus passes for senior citizens, it was

the Social Credit government in the 1960s who first introduced the bus

pass service for handicapped and senior citizens in the province of

British Columbia. At that time the $5 bus pass was an unlimited-hour

bus pass and in turning over this responsibility to the new

transportation authority, it has been this government's request of that

authority and of the Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver Regional

Districts that the bus passes would be unlimited, from the point of

view of their hours and restrictions and so on. We asked both regional

districts to honour what we have honoured in this government as a

policy of the Social Credit administration since the 1960s, when a

colleague of ours in this House some years ago first introduced the

senior citizens' passes in the province — and that was the Hon. Isabel

Dawson.

I would like to assure the member that certainly

that's the Minister of Human Resources' attitude, philosophy and

direction, and I know that our Minister of Municipal Affairs has been

trying to work out the very best agreement that he can. I do think

though that in terms of further negotiations the question should be

asked of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental to the same minister, is the Ministry of

Human Resources purchasing bus passes from the GVRD which they've

offered to pay the GVRD $50 per pass for? Is the Ministry of Human

Resources still in the business of purchasing those passes from the

GVRD?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think that

that whole matter is still under negotiation between the Minister of

Municipal Affairs and the organizations involved.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Human Resources: is the Ministry of Human Resources purchasing bus passes from the GVRD?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question that this government

would continue the commitment that we originated in this province under

the Social Credit administration, and that, when the transfer of the

responsibility to the UTA was completed, the Ministry of Human

Resources would purchase the handicapped and senior citizens' bus

passes from the various organizations involved.

MS. BROWN:

Okay. Now my question to the minister is: will the minister be willing

to pay the GVRD the $72 per pass, which they are asking for, to ensure

that the senior citizens and the handicapped people can use the bus

passes any time of the day rather than in just the off-hours?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's a matter of future policy, hon. member; but the minister may wish to comment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, this ministry has always taken the attitude that there is

a responsibility on all of those who are responsible, both at the civic

level and the provincial level. to retain the same service as we have

had. Secondly, may I just say that I don't believe that this is the

place to negotiate a price with the various organizations involved.

MS. BROWN:

I have a final question — to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the

event that the Ministry of Human Resources refuses to pay the $72

price-tag which the GVRD....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, hypothetical questions are out of order in question period.

MS. BROWN:

Has the Minister of Municipal Affairs decided to allow the senior

citizens and handicapped to use their bus passes in an unlimited way,

even if the Minister of

[ Page 2314 ]

Human Resources refuses to meet the $72-per-person pricetag?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, hon. member, you are referring to future policy; but the minister may wish to comment.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

On a point of order, I resent the inference that was just made by the

member, with regard to the Ministry of Human Resources refusing

anything. That is a hypothetical assumption that she is making, and as

a member of this House, I would ask her to withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. An hon. member has found a remark made by

another member to be one that she asks for a withdrawal on. If there

was one, would the member withdraw any improper imputation?

MS. BROWN: Certainly. I said the ministry, not the minister.

May I put my question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs again, because he was interrupted and unable to respond.

Interjections.

MS. BROWN: I would like to yield to the Minister of Municipal Affairs so that he may respond to that question which I have put.

CORRESPONDENCE FROM

GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker,

yesterday in question period the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt) posed a question to me and I responded, but incompletely. With

respect to the letter which was sent by a member of the staff of the

Ministry of the Attorney-General to the Attorney-General's office last

May or June, may I advise the member that the letter was signed with a

pseudonym, and therefore was considered to be, unknowingly, a letter

from a citizen with a complaint. The letter was therefore passed

forward to the ministry in order that the complaint might be

investigated. During the course of the investigation, it was found that

the writer of the letter was in fact an employee, and that's why the

member may have come into possession of information that a letter from

an employee was in fact turned over to his supervisor.

The

procedure in the ministry, Mr. Member, is not to make such moves from

the minister's office. There is, however, a procedure within the

ministry whereby officials who have matters to raise can make those

complaints through the system.

SALARY OF

MINISTER OF TOURISM

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yesterday the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) suggested that there is a question with respect to amounts paid to me....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The purpose for which the member is rising, hon. member?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I rise, Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, to answer a question that was raised yesterday.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Yesterday the first member for Victoria suggested that there is a

question with respect to amounts paid to me as Minister of Tourism, and

that he is not aware of the authority for the payment of these

expenses. To assist that member, and any other member who may not

understand the process by which this Legislative Assembly authorizes

these expenditures, I should like to answer the question.

the estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year 1979-80, there

appeared vote 205, and I shall read the pertinent part of the text of

that vote. It is headed "Minister's Office." The description of the

vote is: "Provides for the office of the Minister of Tourism and Small

Business Development, including his salary and expenses and those of

his immediate staff." Below that, the vote is classified by standard

objects of expenditure. There are amounts for salary, travel expenses,

office expenses, office furniture and equipment, and materials and

supplies. Those estimates, Mr. Speaker, were considered and passed by

this House in Supply Act, No. 3, 1979, assented to on July 27, 1979,

which gave authority for the expenditure of the amounts that I have

mentioned in the estimates.

Section 2 of that act reads:

"From

and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied

as set forth in

schedule B a sum not exceeding $4,628,090,738 towards

defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the

province, not otherwise provided for, for the fiscal year ending March

31, 1980, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under

section 1

of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1979, and

section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2,

1979."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the expenses of the office of

the Minister of Tourism were given authority by that Supply Act in

1979, for the fiscal year 1979-80.

Dealing still with

expenses, the authority for the payment of expenses in the current

fiscal year — 1980-81 — derives from Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, which

members will recollect was passed on April 3 of this year. That act

authorizes the payment from consolidated revenue of moneys to defray

the charges and expenses of the public service for this fiscal year to

a stated amount.

Section 2 (

l) of that act says, in part:

"No sum out of the supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose or

activity other than those provided in the main estimates or in excess

of the estimate of expenditures in them. "

The main

estimates for this current fiscal year contained vote 189, which refers

to the office of the Minister of Tourism. The description of that vote

is: "This vote provides for the office of the Minister of Tourism,

including her salary and expenses and those of her immediate staff."

Again the vote is classified by standard objects of expenditure, and

they include travel expenses, office expenses, office furniture and

equipment, and materials and supplies.

To make the

explanation complete with regard to expenses, for the benefit of those

members I should like to point out that on January 11, 1980, the

Ministry of Tourism was

[ Page 2315 ]

established

by order No. 49 of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. On that same

day, by order No. 52, the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council passed the

Ministerial Functions Order, 1980. That order reads as follows:

(1) The Minister of Tourism is charged with the administration of that

part of the executive government formerly administered by the Minister

of Industry, Tourism and Small Business Development that relates to

tourism.

"

(2) The duties and functions of the

Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Small Business Development that

relate to tourism are transferred to the Ministry of Tourism. All money

authorized by the Legislature to be paid and applied for the purpose of

those powers, duties and functions, and remaining unexpended and

comprising (

a) vote 205, 206 and 207, and (

b) votes 209 and 210, except

the parts of them that relate to small business development costs,

shall be expended by and through the Ministry of Tourism."

The

statutory authority for those orders was shown as being the

Constitution Act. I would remind the member of the public information

that on that same day, by order No. 51, this member — myself — was

designated as the Minister of Tourism. In that capacity, and by reason

of the authorities that I have cited, I have received expenses as

Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now come

to the question of salary. The first member for Victoria quite

correctly referred to

section 9(

l) of the Constitution Act as it is now

in force. That

section provides that the executive council may consist

of not more than 23 ministers. It also provides, in its present form,

that not more than 19 of these ministers shall receive a salary. The

present executive council consists of 20 ministers, not more than 19 of

whom receive a salary. As Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker, I have not

received and do not receive, a salary.

In order to complete

this answer to the series of questions that were asked, I would say

that I do receive a salary as a member of this Legislative Assembly,

under the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and

Superannuation Act.

Mr. Speaker, the comments that I have

made are documented, and if the member had taken the time to review the

orders-in-council that I have referred to, he would have seen the

difference in the provisions of the two ministries as I've described,

and the payment of salary.

Perhaps now, recognizing that all

this information has been public knowledge — it's a fact of which the

government has been aware — members of the opposition will try to say

something constructive in this House. Perhaps they will try to stop

wasting the time of this House with inferences of the kind made

yesterday, which were designed to offend the Minister of Tourism and to

falsely discredit the government of this province. I suggest it is

rather to the discredit of those members that they should make such

inferences. Either the questions that were raised were brought before

you, sir, out of ignorance, which is inexcusable in any member of this

assembly; or, as I say, the observations were merely intended to offend

and delay the procedures of this House.

The documents to

which I have referred have been public information for months. Mr.

Speaker, you are aware that they are available to anyone, and if the

member who raised these matters had been sincere instead of intent upon

his frivolity, he could quite easily have informed himself of the

situation.

I might add that in the tourist industry of

British Columbia this ministry and this industry are working together

as a team with many new business and innovative approaches to the

management and development of this beneficial and exciting industry for

British Columbia. We — both the industry and this government — would

welcome the constructive criticism of the opposition members and a

constructive contribution, in order that tourism in British Columbia

will indeed be a good show for both the citizens and the guests of the

province of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER: I rise to reply, if I may, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, there is no reply in this case.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Speaker, I rise to reply, if I may, to the statement of the minister.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. member, before we go too far in prolonging what

could be a debate on a reply to an oral question, it is not a procedure

that we have, to respond to a reply in question period. However, the

member does ask for leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister asked leave

to make a statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: She asked leave to answer a question.

MR. BARRETT:

Answer a question, all right. The House was then under the impression

that a question was going to be answered, not an attack on a member

made. I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that when a

debate is entered into under the guise of asking leave to answer a

question and then is expanded to include a debate attacking a

particular member, it has always been the traditional courtesy of this

House to extend to that member the right to respond by similar leave.

The member has asked for leave; it is now recorded that leave has been

denied. If, of course, you wish to put the request for leave again and

we hear the noes again, then there are other matters to deal with in

this statement that I will come to next.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, order, please. The Leader of the Opposition may feel he

has some legitimate cause to raise. but the Chair is powerless to act

otherwise, and the matter has been disposed of. Leave was required and

was not granted. With all due respect. hon. member. there the matter

must end.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I ask the

member to withdraw the remarks casting aspersions on the motives of the

member for Victoria, asking questions other than seeking information

and casting aspersions on the character of the member during a response

to a question. I ask the minister to withdraw those statements.

[ Page 2316 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

It is rather unusual in this House for another member to stand up to

ask for a withdrawal of so-called aspersions on some other member. It

is my understanding that we generally stand and ask that the member

withdraws if something offends us, and generally the member withdraws.

That Leader of the Opposition stands, without permission to begin with,

in some effort of attempting to be statesmanlike, with a record of

bullying the House for years and years during the time when he was the

Premier of this province. He consistently refused to allow leave even

to debate simple questions in this House. Some of us remember that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The practice in this House is that when

another member is in the House and that member has felt that his name

has been brought into any kind of discussion of that sort, it is up to

the member himself, so affected, to make that point. It is, therefore,

not valid for another member to raise that point of order. The point of

order brought forward was not a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON:

I would submit that it has often been uttered by the Chair that an

attack on an hon. member is an attack on all hon. members in this

House. For that reason, regardless of the feelings of the first member

for Victoria, I would like to see a withdrawal of that because it is an

attack on all members of this House on both sides.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. members. To resolve the matter, hopefully to the

satisfaction of all, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Tourism if she

would withdraw any remarks that might have been construed as imputing

motives to any hon. member. If the member would simply advise the Chair

that she so withdraws, the matter can be concluded.

HON. MRS. JORDAN:

Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of having used any words or made any

derogatory statements which would prove offensive to the hon. member. I

felt I had dealt with the truth but if, by any chance, he does feel

offended about my pointing out the fact that he was fully aware of all

this information before he asked the question, by all means I would

withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, it

greatly assists not only the Chair but indeed the smooth running of the

chamber if, when members are asked for a withdrawal in the

parliamentary tradition, they simply rise in their place and make a

withdrawal other than any statement that could be construed as a

semi-withdrawal. That would greatly be appreciated by the Chair,

certainly, in the operation of the House.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, as earlier stated, I am going to request leave to proceed to Motion 10.

Leave granted.

On Motion 10.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I would like to move, seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition,

the following motion. Conscious of the great achievements of Canada's

past, confident in the promise of its future and desirous of

maintaining a country united from sea to sea, this House reaffirms its

commitment to Canada and its desire to continue to pursue those reforms

which are necessary to provide the opportunity for the people of all

the regions of our land to reach their full potential within a united

country. This House joins all Canadians in expressing to the people of

Quebec our love of country, our desire for continued unity and that

they continue to be, with us, a part of our great nation.

Now,

in speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take long,

for I feel that the fact that this motion is here for us to discuss

speaks perhaps more forcefully than what may be said. I also wish to

say that I in no way wish to reintroduce British Columbia's proposals

for a restructured constitution nor the economic suggestions we have

made at first ministers' conferences which have been put forward as our

answer to resolving many of the problems. I also wish to state I wish

to use the period to wind up this debate to deal in greater detail with

some aspects of this motion. I shall be brief.

In moving and

supporting this motion, expressing our desire for a strong, united

Canada, I'm not committing myself or this government to the status quo.

There are too many frustrations, too many inequities expressed from the

people and the governments of all the provinces and the regions of our

country for anyone to be fully content. It is not just what Canada is;

it is what Canada can be. The visions and dreams of those who brought

together the territories and regions of this vast land to form a

country from sea to sea have not been wholly met. If they had, such

terms as "western alienation, " "economic disparity" "separation,"

"independence" and "sovereignty-association" would not be part of the

Canadian vocabulary. Therefore let it be repeated that the status quo

is not acceptable. That statement is made not only by myself, but has

been made by every Premier of every province across this country. The

renewed federation of Canada needs major constitutional restructuring

to reflect the realities of today. The regions of this country are

variable in their resources, their geography and demography and need

the flexibility and power to develop to their fullest. Their strength,

Mr. Speaker, will be Canada's strength.

The federal

government, which is the creation of the provinces — not, as some would

have you believe, the creator — must be given the role of dealing with

the one resource common to all parts of the country, and that is the

human resource. Common justice, basic standards of equity and the free

movement of people in and to all parts of the country must be

guaranteed. A major ingredient to the accomplishment of this task of

political and economic restructuring is not necessarily in the

proposals being put forward for adoption by the various governments or

those who have expressed an interest, but in reality the basic

ingredient will be the sincerity, trust, honesty and dedication of

those who propose them. Without those ingredients the best proposals

for the future of this country are doomed to failure. Great nations

have great problems, Mr. Speaker; great nations resolve those problems.

The time for resolution is upon us. I say to all parts of this country:

come to the table; join with us in developing the structures that can

help us achieve our common destiny.

[ Page 2317 ]

Those

who would destroy our federation will initiate a series of events that

could impact on all parts of the country; we will be forced to think

the unthinkable. I offer a quotation from Montaigne for those who would

embark on this course. It goes as such: "Those who give the first shock

to a state are the first overwhelmed in its ruin." I've said before

that British Columbia will never leave Canada, and I hope to god that

the Canada we know and the Canada we love will never leave British

Columbia.

The commitment for change within the Canadian

family is now, Mr. Speaker. Let us harness that commitment for a better

Canada, a stronger Canada, reflecting the needs, the desires and the

aspirations of all of our people. I extend from British Columbia the

hand to those of sincerity, honesty and good will in other parts of our

country to go to the table together. It is time for men and women of

resolve and resolution to deal with the problem. As I've said, Mr.

Speaker, the time is now. What can be a time of uncertainty can be

turned to a time of great opportunity.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, in accepting the very thoughtful and positive role and the

opportunity of seconding this motion, may I say that this is a welcome,

but all too rare, experience in this House, which, although in the past

it has been and in the future will be criticized as being extremely

partisan of nature, is in fact, by that partisanship, an example of the

very structure that we hold in common and wish to preserve. That is the

British parliamentary system, which demands that we participate this

way on a daily basis with today being an anomaly in defence of the

system itself, because the system has no favourites and no enemies. The

system must be permanent, the system must go beyond all of us, and the

system must be what we are committed to in terms of this country of

Canada and our own parliamentary roles, within the British traditions,

here in British Columbia.

I particularly welcome the

Premier's statements. We are dealing essentially with emotions more

than with facts at this point of the debate. Unfortunately the emotions

which we express, I'm afraid, in terms of my own personal opinion,

through no fault of anybody in the province of British Columbia, are

late in the day for the intense pressures which the people of Quebec

are undergoing in the debate of the referendum. I would hope that

whatever is said in this chamber will be received by the people of

Quebec with the understanding that it is a heart-felt statement, either

endorsed or stated by all members of this House, as signified by the

joint signatures on the motion.

I welcome, too, the

Premier's statement that the details of the bargaining, which will be

tough and onerous and difficult in the days ahead, are not the matter

of debate at this point. Those debates and the points around this

debates for all of us, in terms of our own particular roles at any time

and our own responsibilities, will be dealt with in the traditional way

of the adversary system that we hold so close to our own philosophies.

I'm pleased that the Premier spoke today about a feeling about Canada.

That's really all that we can say at this point. I think that is the

one message which I hope is received in Quebec. It is difficult for us,

as Canadians, to even embark on this kind of discussion; we find it, as

a national heritage, somewhat an embarrassment to talk about country,

nation or patriotism. We're too busy being Canadians to become or to

have been flag wavers. We have generally been known throughout the

world as generous, open people who have no territorial desires and who

have, as a basic goal as citizens, lived our own lives with a maximum

amount of freedom and the protection of a nation known as Canada.

that role, Mr. Speaker, I want to make an appeal from my own frame of

reference about some other areas of Confederation which perhaps — and I

do not wish to make a judgment in this regard — may be overlooked by

all of us citizens, including the people of Quebec. That is briefly a

review of the role of this country beyond the regional problems which

have plagued us, the regional differences which we have had difficulty

with, and the religious, racial and cultural problems that rise and

abate from time to time, and have risen and abated from time to time in

every single region of this country, not just Quebec.

loathe to talk about this country on the world scene. Sometimes I think

we Canadians are self-deprecating to the point of not understanding

what a great role we have played on the world scene. In this beautiful

corner in this tranquil province, none of us go by a day without

understanding that we are very fortunate people indeed to be alive and

living here in this peaceful part of a very peaceful country. As

evidence of that, those people who come to this country as immigrants

and make a conscious decision to come and build this country in a way

are more aware of the preciousness of our lifestyle in this country

than those of us who were born here. In that sense, those immigrants

strengthen this country every single time they commit themselves to

become Canadians.

It is immigrants who understand what

freedom means, because in many instances they've suffered the loss of

it. It is immigrants who understand what tranquillity and law and order

mean, because in many instances they've suffered the loss of it. We do

not have violence as a way of life. We do not have terror as a way of

life.

Despite the occasional conflicts that appear to border

on terrorism in this House, Mr. Speaker, even that doesn't qualify for

any comparison to what goes on elsewhere in the world. As I look

through this chamber, I have colleagues and friends who have come from

various countries which reflect the kind of conflict that I'm referring

to. I am sure that the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) can tell us of

the tragic and unfortunate and unsolvable problems in Ireland. I'm sure

that my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) can

tell us of the experiences he had as member of the British armed forces

in the Second World War and in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. None of us

who were born in Canada have those experiences to reflect on, in terms

of being aware, day to day, how lucky we are to live in this country.

Aside

from that, we have built a tradition in this country, ever since

Canada's participation in the first discussions in San Francisco and

Dumbarton Oaks about the establishment of the United Nations. I think

the United Nations flag is proudly flying today right on the causeway;

it has flown there frequently. There is a sense of pride in Canada's

role on the world scene, regardless of our problems, in being able to

say that we will participate in a peace offensive. We have always

proudly served — from coast to coast, with members of the armed

services from the Maritimes, from central Canada, from Quebec, from

western Canada in those armed forces — under the flag of the United

Nations as police people, and been seen as persons from a country that

does not have the desire to become acquisitive of land and other

peoples on the world stage.

[ Page 2318 ]

would regret, Mr. Speaker, if we lost in this nation the opportunity to

be a part of the peace-keeping of the rest of the world. It would be a

tragic loss. We have a responsibility as Canadians to think beyond what

we need as Canadians in this country. We must understand, as all

citizens of this country must understand, that we have obligations to

other peoples in the world, simply by the fact that we are here. We

cannot squander those obligations, both moral and ethical, based on

some, perhaps unnecessary, tension that allows us to dissipate this

wonderful opportunity of keeping this nation together.

There

is more than the armed services that this nation allows, and there is

more than government, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the members to share

with the citizens of the rest of Canada our own feelings about the

extension of private organizations in this country. There are two that

I wish to mention in particular. The Canadian Council of Churches, in

its role in the World Council of Churches, has a spokesperson's

opportunity in the free world of nations, based on conviction, on an

ecumenical basis. The freedom of such private organizations allows

Canada to not only extend commitments from its own government, but to

be a moral force separate from any big-country, big-nation or

superpower identification, in terms of mediating problems throughout

the world on a moral basis — particularly the province of Quebec; I

must make the reference. The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, who

have been an important factor as a spokesgroup from Canada, have laid

out a position of sympathy and understanding for struggles for freedom

in Third World nations, especially in Latin America. We are not viewed

— as the Soviet Union is, or as the United States is, by other persons

on the world stage — as having any other motive than that of seeking

freedom and equality for other peoples. We are sincerely viewed

throughout the world as a nation that has the simplicity of purpose of

trying to help other people solve their own problems, without imposing

our will or our desire upon them in the solution of those problems.

When

we talk about this country in terms of the benefits we receive from it

in the region, we must also talk about this country and the moral

obligations we have as Canadians to extend those benefits and those

responsibilities beyond the borders of this country. The world will be

a sorrier place if we lose Canada, its voice of independence and its

role among the Third World nations. The world will lose a believable

voice interceding in the struggles that go on in every part of this

globe to extend, on the basis of human dignity, the freedoms and rights

we enjoy in this country. We cannot lightly dissipate the opportunity

this country has to lead in the Third World area, nor do we have the

moral right to contribute in any way to lessening the responsibility we

have of playing our role as a country on behalf of those Third World

countries who do need friends, and friends who ask nothing in return

for that friendship.

So the point that I am trying to stress

today, Mr. Speaker, is that beyond the debate that must go on, in terms

of colloquially saying, "defending our own turf," "protecting our own

region," or "trying to carve out the best deal for the jurisdictions we

are responsible for," there is a responsibility of citizenship that

must be appealed to as well, and that responsibility of citizenship is

to look beyond our borders and look to other countries that expect our

advice and our leadership.

We're going to vote for this

motion. I know that every member wants the opportunity of speaking on

it, and I only regret that we can't have everybody speak on it. But no

one has lost in the debate by not speaking on it. I'm pleased that the

two House Leaders have worked out a cooperative

schedule on the debate,

and a sharing of that cooperation at a mature level that speaks well of

the House and every single one of its members.

Let me

conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the message we must take to

Quebec is a message that we all share as citizens. Not only do we take

something out of this country, but we have a responsibility to give

something back outside of the borders of this country.

can be the model for other nations that are going through the same

pressures and struggles based on inequality, as perceived or real, in

language, cultural or religious issues. We can show the rest of the

world that we do share these human problems. No one is without them.

But we are willing to take the responsibility of sublimating immediate

demands that we might see as temporary solutions to these problems, to

cooperate and look for some more mature giving as well as taking, to

build a nation. I know that when the negotiations do come, every

citizen should be given the right to participate and there should be

the fullest broadcast of the views that such negotiations should take

place to every corner of this nation.

But in conclusion, Mr.

Speaker, I want to share my feelings about this debate. We have a great

deal to offer as politicians, in terms of ideas for problem-solving. We

have biased points of view as to who can solve the problem best, and I

confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am comfortable with my bias. I think I

know best for everyone else, if they'd only vote for me. Unfortunately,

I have not been able to convince 100 percent of the population.

Fortunately, we've convinced 46 percent; the government, unfortunately,

has convinced 49 percent. That battle will, and must, continue.

But

one thing we share is the desire to debate the ideas, the desire to

take something from the ideas, but above all, a commitment to give

something in building this nation. It can't be all take; there must be

some give. The message taken by our Premier to the tables of

discussions and to the people of Quebec will, and shall, I know,

include not only the desire to take, but to give, and to give in an

open-handed manner the best that we can, in terms of help, advice and

sharing, to build not only a better Canada for our citizens, but to

meet some of the responsibility we have to the rest of the world, which

is looking to us as a third option.

HON. MR. MAIR:

First of all, I would, of course, like to congratulate the Premier —

the mover of the motion — and the Leader of the Opposition for their

speeches in support of this motion. I hope the Leader of the Opposition

will not mind if the member for Kamloops of Scottish extraction leaves

the solution of the Irish question to my friend from the Kootenay.

MR. BARRETT: Or Revelstoke.

HON. MR. MAIR: Or Revelstoke. Together, hopefully.

rise today, of course, as I'm sure all hon. members of this House do,

in order to support this resolution. Because this is a matter of some

emotion for all of us, I'm sure, and because, as may be apparent to

some members of this House over the years, I have a little emotion in

my soul, I'm going to stay a little closer to my prepared notes than I

might otherwise do.

[ Page 2319 ]

would like to speak today, Mr. Speaker, if I may, rather frankly about

the things which divide our nation. I hope that by speaking frankly,

and identifying our difficulties with openness and candour, the result

will be that we will all be able to seek the solutions which will

overcome these difficulties and which will enable us to rededicate

ourselves as Canadians.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in

speaking frankly and candidly, no one in this House will take my words

as in derogation of those already spoken by my colleague the Premier

and my friend the Leader of the Opposition. I hope by the end of my

remarks you will see that they are not intended in that way at all.

must say initially that it will come as no surprise to anyone in this

House that I am not an expert on constitutional affairs, but I have had

the privilege of working for three years with a man who is not only an

acknowledged expert but may even be the definitive expert on such

matters. I refer to the deputy minister, Mr. Mel Smith. I hope that you

will agree, Mr. Speaker, that even a slow learner like me was bound to

learn something about these matters after so long and close an

association with such a dedicated public servant.

My first

involvement in constitutional matters came about by my having been

appointed by the Western Premiers' Conference in 1976 in Medicine Hat

to chair a Committee of that conference which became known as the

western Premiers' task force on constitutional trends. I had the

distinct honour to chair that task force for the years 1977-79, and as

such I had the opportunity of working with the provincial cabinet

minister involved in each of the western provinces, as well as the

Premier of each province involved and, of course, the federal ministers

and their staff involved in constitutional affairs.

I had

the great honour and distinction to work with such men as Lou Hyndman,

Dick Johnston and Jim Foster of Alberta, the Attorney-General from

Saskatchewan, the Hon. Roy Romanow QC, Ian Turnbull — during the NDP

government in Manitoba — and later Gerald Mercier, their

Attorney-General at present. In April 1977 I became chairman of the

Confederation Committee of cabinet, and in addition to my contacts

already made and maintained on the western Premiers' task force, I

became very much involved in all constitutional matters in which our

province was represented. I extended the contacts I mentioned to

Premiers and appropriate cabinet ministers in each and every province

as well as the appropriate federal ministers including, of course, the

first minister.

Mr. Speaker, from the time that I became

chairman of the cabinet Committee on Confederation I had the honour of

assisting our Premier on all interprovincial and federal-provincial

conferences, including the ones on economic matters. My colleague the

Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), as he now

is, was one of the continuing committee of ministers on Confederation

which acted as a working group in preparation for federal-provincial

first ministers' conferences.

My travels took me to the

capital of every province in Canada with the exception of Prince Edward

Island, which I missed by reason of two snowstorms. I think I can say

that I learned during this exercise an appreciation of the

constitutional viewpoints of every region of the country. I spoke on

behalf of our government at a number of important conferences including

Options Canada in Toronto in October 1977.

Interestingly

enough, Mr. Claude Ryan was a speaker at that conference. I spoke to

the Harvard Canadian Club in Boston in December 1979 and appeared with

our Premier on one occasion and separately on three or four other

occasions before the Pépin-Robarts task force on national unity.

Mr.

Speaker, I had the honour to make British Columbia's presentation

before the Senate-Commons Committee, as well as the Senate Committee

especially struck to deal with what was then Bill C-60, the federal

proposal for constitutional amendment. British Columbia was, I believe,

the only province in Canada to appear before those committees.

reason for this background is that I think I can say to the members of

this House that, while I am not a constitutional expert, I did have

some experience in the matters about which we are now talking. The

whole effort became a labour of love, an all-consuming passion, and I

hope that my words will have some meaning by reason of that experience..

One

of the things that the government of British Columbia has done — it

received little notice at the time and receives very little notice to

this date — was to establish an academic advisory Committee under the

chairmanship of Prof. Ronald Burns, who is, I am sure all will

recognize, a distinguished Canadian academic. This Committee also

included well-known constitutional experts such as Dr. Neil Swainson,

Prof. Ron Cheffins of the University of Victoria, Prof. Ron Shearer,

Prof. Alan Cairns, Prof. C.B. Bourne — who had the difficult task of

teaching me in days gone by — and in the early stages Dean Kenneth

Lysyk. All of these men are well-known specialists in their field.

Now,

Mr. Speaker, as a result of the efforts of Deputy Minister Mel Smith,

the cabinet Committee on Confederation, the academic Committee, the

staff of the Attorney-General’s ministry and a great many others,

British Columbia was able to put forward our constitutional proposals

to the federal-provincial first ministers' conference in October 1978.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're putting the lights on.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're making the sun come out.

AN HON. MEMBER: There are photographers in the gallery.

MR. BARRETT: This is too much.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I don't want any special deference from now on, but this is a gesture

long overdue, better late than never, and much appreciated.

MR. BARRETT: Don't get in the habit.

HON. MR. MAIR:

To continue, I had just been mentioning that we put forward our

constitutional proposals to the federal-provincial first ministers'

conference in October 1978 and I would like to point out the similarity

of later proposals, including the Pépin-Robarts report and Claude

Ryan's paper. It has been widely noted that there is a similarity

between those papers and our own.

British Columbia was first

in the field with serious, well-thought-out proposals for reform. We

were, and are, in the vanguard of responsible movement for change. I

would like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the effort that went into

these proposals was enormous, and I'm sure that both sides

[ Page 2320 ]

this House recognize that effort and those that made it. I'm sure that

no responsible critic — certainly no one in this House — would belittle

the efforts made by Mr. Mel Smith and others who advised the government

in putting together these proposals. One might well, of course,

criticize the proposals themselves — that's fair — but surely not the

labour and sincerity that went into their creation. Part of this labour

— a small part but an important cog in the process — consisted of a

trip which Mel Smith and I took to West Germany and Switzerland.

Regrettably, one so-called expert has suggested that this was a

whirlwind trip which was the sole basis of our proposals for Upper

House reform. One would usually, on an occasion such as this, allow

such ill-considered pique to pass without comment, but these are, of

course, serious times. This sort of offhand criticism often takes on

proportions much more significant than normally would be appropriate. I

would therefore like to lay this myth to rest once and for all.

When

our Committee had come to the conclusion that one of the major

structural weaknesses in our system was the failure to extend the

original theory of the Fathers of Confederation concerning regional

representation in parliament, it became only logical to look at other

countries that had problems similar to ours. We knew that our founders

had created the Senate with the idea of offsetting the inequities of

simple representation by population, and it was quite clear that their

solution had not stood the test of time.

Mr. Smith and I

spent more time than I care to remember examining the constitutions of

other countries and being briefed by the academic Committee and others

on theories of political science with reference to federal systems.

While it is obvious that no country has exactly the same situation we

do, there are countries which have addressed themselves to similar

problems — among them West Germany and Switzerland. Therefore our

government decided, having studied the West German and Swiss systems

from an academic point of view, that we ought to visit these countries

to find out from those who work within those systems just how in fact

they do work.

As a result Mr. Mel Smith and I spent two

weeks in West Germany and Switzerland, during which time we conferred

at great length with top public servants as well as a number of leading

politicians, including two Premiers of West German Lander. I perhaps

ought to have mentioned that we had already met with Premier Vogel of

the Rhineland palatinate when he visited Victoria in December 1977, and

he was gracious enough to host us again in Mainz. I have no doubt that

the best way to find out how a system works is to speak with the people

who must work within it. There is no question that this visit greatly

assisted us in the formulation of our policy paper on Upper House

reform. The firsthand knowledge we gained and the contacts we made were

of enormous value. This policy paper was, of course, just one part of

the far-reaching proposals that we tabled at the first ministers'

conference to which I have already referred.

As I said

earlier, all members of this House will know that these are serious

times indeed in the history of our nation. This is neither the time for

politics nor indeed the time for the type of high-blown rhetoric one

used to hear on July 1. However, perhaps it's a pity that we don't have

the old-style July I picnics anymore where ringing speeches about our

country were the order of the day, and perhaps one of the symptoms of

our present malady is the lack of this sort of patriotic enthusiasm to

which the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred. It may very well

be argued that had we patterned ourselves after our American

neighbours, learned the art of symbology and made a great deal more of

our history, perhaps even following their lead in rewriting history

from time to time in order to encourage a patriotic view of events, we

would be facing our present problems from a more solid base, if we had

to face them at all. We didn't do that, however. We didn't even have a

national flag until 1963 and it was even more recently that we decided

what our national anthem was. Most of us in this part of the country

didn't learn how to speak French, even though we took it for many years

in school. And curiously enough, at least in my time, British

Columbia's history was virtually untaught in our school curriculum. Mr.

Speaker, I think it entirely appropriate that we examine for a moment

our history, because our country rests upon some unusual foundations,

which we honour by reason of the fact that they have carried us this

far, but which we are also testing and perhaps finding in need of

repair or replacement for our future requirements.

I think

the first fact that we must remember is the conquest of 1759 and the

Peace of Paris in 1763, which attached Quebec to British North America.

The second historic fact to which we must address ourselves is the

passage of the Quebec Acts of 1774 which, amongst other things,

contained a quid pro quo with Quebec of enormous importance in the

years to come and of enormous importance today. Members will recall,

Mr. Speaker, that it was upon these acts that Great Britain guaranteed

the French fact in Quebec; Britain hoped, of course, for Quebec's

quiescence during the pending troubles between Britain and the Thirteen

Colonies. This was, in essence, Quebec's Bill of Rights, which saved

her from the fate which befell the Acadians of Louisiana — namely,

assimilation.

The next item of historical significance was

the report of Lord Durham and the subsequent bringing of responsible

government to the united colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. By the

time we had reached the point of pre-Confederation talks in the

mid-1860s, a number of other events had occurred, not the least of

which was the Civil War in the United States, which solved once and for

all their federal-state struggle for power and allowed the Manifest

Destiny movement to once more rear its head and flex its muscles. It's

important to realize that it was as much, if not more, a threat from

without as desire for union which brought the eastern provinces

together in the first place. By this time, by the mid-1860s, Great

Britain was in the midst of her Pax Britannica, and no doubt the

Macdonalds, Tuppers and Cartiers questioned Britain's ability, and

indeed her enthusiasm, to defend her North American colonies against

any real effort by the United States.

The next event of

significance was, of course, the act of confederation itself — the

passing of the British North America Act, proclaimed July 1, 1867, by

the Imperial Parliament. One of the fundamental provisions of this act,

and upon which considerable time was spent in debate at Charlottetown,

was the provision for regional representation in an upper house. This

was indeed a fundamental provision, because our founding fathers

recognized that there were at that time three distinct regions of

Canada — the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and Quebec — and that pure

representation by population would be inequitable. Furthermore, Lower

Canada could never have been persuaded to enter into such a union,

because it always would have been outvoted in the unicameral

legislature by Upper Canada. Accordingly, at

[ Page 2321 ]

that

time it was recognized that representation by population alone would

not be equitable, and an upper house was created with equal

representation granted to each region.

The next event of

significance was the inclusion of Manitoba in 1870, followed by the

inclusion of British Columbia in 1871, and then in 1905 by the creation

of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and, of course, in 1949

the addition of Newfoundland. Again, it was recognized in the earlier

days that representation by population would work a great hardship on

distinct and somewhat remote regions, and the principle of upper house

representation on an equal basis by region was extended to western

Canada. In 1915, in an amendment to the BNA Act, a four-region Canada

was recognized, with equal representation in the Senate from each of

the four. British Columbia, of course, has, parenthetically, maintained

for some time that a fifth region now exists on the west coast.

The

last important event to which I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, is the

National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald of 1878. It was this policy,

and extensions of it, which determined that industry and manufacturing

would remain in central Canada, to be supplied by resources from

western Canada.

Then the nation of Canada, as we now know it — with the exception of Newfoundland

— came into being shortly alter the turn of the century, it had at least four

very distinguishing characteristics. First of all, it was a country clearly

composed of regions, these regions being geographical, cultural, linguistic,

demographic, historic and economic in character. Secondly, one of these regions

contained within it a distinct and ancient culture with its own language, laws,

customs and religious beliefs, all of which were guaranteed by the Quebec Acts

of 1774. Thirdly, the country had a government structure, which, however imperfectly,

took into account these regions, with an upper house allowing regional representation

at the centre to offset any inequities of straight representation by population.

Lastly, it had evolved an economic policy, backed up by federal statutes and

contractual arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which in the result

committed the western part of the country to be the hewers of wood, drawers

of water and suppliers of basic foodstuffs for an industrialized and thus more

populated central region.

Mr.

Speaker, looking at this situation from the perspective of 1980, it's

not difficult to see that trouble would fie ahead. A federal system had

been created wherein each parliament was supreme within the powers

granted to it. One part of the country would rely upon its natural

resources — many of them non-renewable — for its prosperity, while

another would build up an industrial base and yet another would,

unfortunately, be required to look for federal assistance as a

principal source of provincial revenue. One region had a unique culture

and language to be preserved as a fundamental tenet. One, British

Columbia, had a unique history, untapped resources and an unlimited

future coupled with geographical and political remoteness. Any

constitution at that time, to work as a unifying force, would, of

course, have required great flexibility indeed.

A wise man

today, with the benefit of a time machine, could no doubt go back to

the political leaders of that day and give very wise advice which

could, if followed, have obviated most of today's difficulties; advice

that the uniqueness of the nation required a unique constitution

ensuring fair play for all regions and protection of all cultures.

is those same solutions that the wise man would take in his time

machine to the politicians of 1905 that we must bring to bear on the

problems which beset Canada today, because the problems are essentially

the same, albeit aggravated. Our uniqueness, which ought to be our

great strength, has unfortunately become our great problem.

What

is the threat to national unity today? Is it Premier Levesque or the

Parti Quebecois or Claude Morin? Is it the question of a referendum in

a few weeks' time? I suppose the answer to these questions, on a

one-dimensional basis, is probably yes. But surely, Mr. Speaker, only a

fool would see our problems as being only, or even in the main, the

matters to which I have referred, for the truth is that many of the

underlying causes of Quebec's disaffection are the same as those which

underlie serious concerns in Atlantic Canada, the prairie provinces

and, of course, British Columbia.

Unquestionably there are

issues of language and culture involved in the Quebec situation which,

if they exist elsewhere, do so to a much lesser degree. I don't want to

be misunderstood on this very important point. There are those in the

province of Quebec who see their identity threatened and see separation

as a way to preserve that identity; and I understand that. What I am

saying, however, is that however important and valid that may be — and

it is important and valid — there are maladies in the rest of Canada

which, while somewhat different from those in Quebec, may well be cured

by the same medicine.

I think the situation is as simple as

this: Canada's survival as a nation depends upon more than mere

resolution of the Quebec situation. While it is clear that Canada must

have Quebec to survive — and I would argue strongly that Quebec must

have Canada to survive — we must, if we wish to stay together as a

nation, address all of the problems concurrently and with equal vigour.

Our

good friend Gordon Gibson and I have certainly agreed on one thing for

some years now: that is that we are in the midst of a very serious

constitutional crisis in Canada. I remember saying that a few weeks ago

in the House and seeing a few eyebrows raised. But surely there can be

no doubt about that, or we wouldn't be here debating this important

issue today. We must have the will to find the means by which this

constitutional crisis can be solved and our future secured.

Speaking

candidly and frankly, what are our options? Do we have the option of

keeping a country together without Quebec? The Prime Minister has

rejected the use of force in matters of this sort; and I associate

myself completely with that position. If, therefore, secession takes

place, can a fragmented country survive without the counterbalance of

Quebec in our political system? I would not personally give such a

union a dog's chance.

What then of western separation, or

British Columbia separation? Once again I'm speaking frankly and

candidly. I will deal with that shortly and unemotionally. Of course, I

could give any number of emotional reasons why I want to stay Canadian

and why I reject separatist notions, and I could go through my entire

life history as a native-born Canadian. But just let me talk about the

practical reasons. How do you think British Columbia could survive the

north-south tug-o-war in which it would find itself? How long would our

children or our grandchildren be able to resist the dream of a

north-south axis from Alaska to the Gulf of California? If that were to

happen, let me tell you that we would be swallowed up in the great

American giant, and the self-government and

[ Page 2322 ]

local

matters that we now enjoy as a province would be relegated to the

virtual servant status of the individual states of the union. That

choice would be, in my view, an undiminished calamity. That choice may

be for some, but not for me.

What then is the message that

we in this House ought to send to both the government and the people of

Quebec when this resolution passes, as pass it surely will? Should it

be simply: "We want you to stay, we cherish the French culture as part

of our nation's mosaic, and we want to preserve a country that has been

tested in the crucible of two world wars and a worldwide depression"?

Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is "yes." We must say those things to

La Belle Province. But we must say much, much more. We must say that we

in British Columbia are willing to sit down at any time, at any place

and for however long it takes to resolve the difficulties which beset

our nation.

We must tell the people of Quebec that we, too,

are impatient with unresolved problems, but that we have confidence

that they can and will be resolved if men and women of good will sit

down with a mind to resolve them. We must tell the people of Quebec

that if they leave, if we fail to find reasonable solutions to our

problems as reasonable men and women should, then no one will be the

winner. The people of Quebec must know that no one will tolerate

political separation with lingering economic benefits. It must be made

clear that we reject sovereignty-association. And they must also

understand that while we utterly reject the notion of

sovereignty-association, we also reject the status quo.

All

Canadians must be made to realize that the separation, the break-up of

our country into however many pieces — and the separation of Quebec

from the rest of Canada is the break-up of our country into pieces —

will mean enormous losses: losses for all of us, and not just in

economic terms, which are the least of our losses, but in cultural,

social and emotional terms as well.

In conclusion, the

message that we must send to the province of Quebec with this

resolution must be a message that also goes to all Canadians

everywhere. It must be a message of good will, of a desire for

fairness, a willingness to negotiate change, and an optimism for the

future within a rededicated and reunited nation.

MR. HALL:

I was anxious to participate in this debate. In contradistinction to

the Minister of Health, whom I listened to very, very carefully, I

chose not to deal with some of the details of the constitutional

proposals and reforms that we've been discussing over a while,

important though they are — and indeed I know how hard the associate

deputy, the deputy and others have worked on those proposals — but to

look at this resolution from another point of view, and in the debate

perhaps to reflect, as I speak, upon the fact that, in a very personal

way — because this is a very personal moment, I think, for many of us,

and a very personal resolution, if we read it very carefully — at this

time in my life I've now spent almost as many years in Canada, a

country of my choice to live and spend my life in, as I spent in the

country of my birth, one of Canada's two founding nations.

my maiden speech in this House, after I was first elected in 1966, just

nine short years after arriving in this country, I paid tribute to the

kind of country where that was possible; where, indeed, that perhaps

rather unique but certainly rare possibility, opportunity, exists;

where in such a short space of time newcomers to a country can take

their full place in all walks of life, in all pursuits in public as

well as in private life; where the doors of opportunity were wide open;

where democracy was flourishing. I said that one would have to look far

and wide to find a country so hospitable, so democratic, so full of

promise and so rich in the rewards it could return to its citizens.

I spoke in the House in my maiden speech all those years ago, I became

quite emotional, for obvious reasons, and I have thought since this

motion was proposed by the Premier of the province and seconded by the

Leader of the Opposition that nothing has happened since my arrival in

the country, or indeed since that maiden speech, that would persuade me

to change one word in that speech or, indeed, to change any of the

decisions I made all those years ago that led to my coming to this

country and making it my home — a place to settle down, to get married,

as I did, and to raise a family, as we have done. Mr. Speaker, may I

tell you that there are now 17 of us who sit down on feast days,

birthdays and holidays around the table: my sisters and I, my mother,

and our children. They are citizens of Canada, five of them born here,

all related to me, to my sisters or to my wife, and every day and in

every way, I think, all of them live out the promise and the fulfilment

of the thoughts that I've expressed in these few words, and certainly

they live the words of the first part of the resolution proposed by the

Premier of the province.

As an immigrant, Mr. Speaker, and

long a citizen, I hope that I can add my voice in support of this

resolution, and in particular express and underline the confidence,

personally and physically expressed, as I've done, in the promise of

the future. Those words occur in the resolution. The words are:

"confident in the promise of its future and desirous of maintaining a

country united from sea to sea." The resolution deals with confidence.

As I look around and see not only people who have chosen to come here

but people who proudly record where their parents came from and where

their parents' parents came from, what better expression of confidence

can one show than the confidence made by that personal kind of

decision, that personal kind of action?

The resolution goes

on to deal with our desire to continue to pursue reforms necessary to

provide opportunity for all people to reach full potential within a

united country. That single sentence of pursuing reforms necessary to

provide opportunity for all people to reach full potential in a united

country is a basic principle that has motivated me and I'm sure has

motivated many people in this chamber into public life. It's probably a

motivational factor in our private life, but certainly a motivational

factor in our public life all the time. Indeed it would be a strange

political party that did not have as one of its basic principles that

basic point that our people have the opportunity to achieve full

potential in a united country. To do otherwise is to really say that

we're going to put up with waste and suffering in human as well as

economic terms. Perhaps that has been one of the criticisms over the

past hundred years in certain regions of Canada. That can be addressed

politically and has been attempted to be addressed politically across

this country. That ideal, which is embodied in the resolution and which

should always be the cornerstone of political philosophy, we can and

must support wholeheartedly.

Our message to Quebec and its

people, currently debating their referendum, is one that should

emphasize the positive effects of unity in a continued federal system.

I listened very carefully to the previous speakers and agreed with much

[ Page 2323 ]

what they've said. Unity surely isn't fixed, the constitution isn't

fixed, the speeches we've heard aren't based on some fixed, immutable,

graven-in-stone constitutional tyranny. I think that's really what we

have to address ourselves, in time, to.

Reforms are needed

for the west, for the Maritimes and, of course, for Quebec. Without a

federal system we would have had little chance — witness what's

happened in other northern American jurisdictions — of achieving

universal hospital insurance, the portability between promises

guaranteed, and so on. We've had to work on the changing of the rules

of the original confederation. The previous speaker was most eloquent

in dealing with that question.

What we have to do

unceasingly, it seems to me, is to deal with the future. At this point

in time, dealing with this resolution, we must take as our most

important task to show to the people of Quebec that they can be part of

the process of articulating a vision of what Canada should be in the

next century, a vision of the enthusiasm of all of us —

nationalities that make up the Canada which we know today. That

unceasing, unflagging work must go on. I maintain that the emphasis

today, because of this resolution, is to address ourselves to the

obvious urgency that is reflected in the final part of the resolution,

and to simply say that we want the people of Quebec to be part of the

process of articulating the Canada of tomorrow. We want to meet any

place, any time, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) said. We

want them to be part of the articulation of the promise that is Canada.

Mr.

Speaker, we've shown that we want and welcome the people of Quebec to

be part of that process — the process of worrying out solutions,

stressing alternatives and reshaping Canada together. I don't think

we've done enough of that, even from a narrow western point of view.

Perhaps now, because we've seen the trouble and we're now conscious of

the alternatives that could happen — which the Minister of Health

mentioned — we can take a lesson unto ourselves that we had better do

some of that worrying about many of these problems and many of the

required articulations — together — not only from the point of view of

Canada as a whole, but of the regions as well. We're going to have to

do a lot more of that.

I want to thank the House for the

opportunity of speaking in this organized debate as one who perhaps

represents a particular kind of Canadian, and to say to you, Mr.

Speaker, that I am going to vote yes on this resolution, and I trust

that the people of Quebec vote no on the referendum.

MR. KEMPF:

Mr. Speaker, in standing in this debate, I would like, first, to

congratulate the Premier, the mover of this motion, and the Leader of

the Opposition, the seconder of this motion. Although my words today

will be very brief, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in

favour of this motion.

Few citizens of Canada are further

away from Quebec than those I represent in my riding of Omineca, but

the great distance between the province of Quebec and my riding does

not stop me from rising to speak in this debate. In fact, the 3,000-odd

miles between the centre of my riding and Quebec City encourage me to

speak out for national unity. The reason for this is simple. Since I

represent a constituency far away from the provincial capital, I am in

a good position to know that distance alone cannot prevent people from

feeling a part of their province or their country. Distance does not

prevent me from speaking about Quebec.

Canada is a country

which has long refused to let distance dictate to it. We have conquered

many of the problems of vast distances by building an immense stretch

of railroad, pioneering in air flight and developing advanced

telecommunications. We built a country 250 times the size of

Switzerland, with only three and a half times the population. Canada is

something like a flimsy parcel held together with good, stout twine.

The twine is a shared history, struggles, and, yes, even successes.

The

first thing that Canadians outside of Quebec will want to ask

themselves is perhaps a bit self-interested. That is: if Quebec decides

to leave Canada, what will be left of the cord binding the remainder of

the country? Although many answers have been offered, no one really

knows the true answer. There can be little doubt that Canada will be

far better off if the ties that bind its ten provinces and two

territories remain uncut.

Leaving those fears aside for a

moment, I hope to be able to speak directly to the people of Quebec.

This may seem strange, for you might ask what the member for Omineca

has to say to the people of Quebec. Well, to begin with, the people of

Quebec. particularly those unhappy with the present state of

Confederation, should realize that British Columbia is no stranger to

those sorts of frustrations and hopes which have brought Quebecers to

the present crisis in their relations with the rest of Canada; more

accurately, in their relations with Ottawa.

I need not

bother to quote a former member of this Legislature, Mr. Gerry McGeer,

on the subject of distance between Vancouver and Ottawa. His remark is

famous, and there was much truth in it. The discontent with B.C.'s

position in the Dominion began long before Mr. McGeer's humorous

remark. Right from the start our marriage with Canada has been called a

matter of convenience. Curiously enough, the idea that Quebec's entry

into Confederation was also a marriage of convenience is found in

various separatist accounts of history.

In the 1870s,

British Columbia had a series of disagreements with the federal

government, which I will not outline here: it's enough to say, however,

that our first decade in Confederation was enough to make anyone a

separatist. In 1906 Premier McBride walked out of a federal-provincial

conference. When he returned he received great ovations as his railway

car stopped at various places in British Columbia.

Cooperation

with Ottawa. rather than confrontation, is a very new thing in British

Columbia. Naturally we welcome this development. But our history

nonetheless makes us very aware of the price of Confederation, and the

sometimes infuriating attitude of the federal government. So we in

British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, have something of an understanding about

the feelings of Quebec, and we ask Quebec to take heart from our

experience, and to seek to replace confrontation with cooperation and

frustration with a measure of understanding.

I support this

motion in the hopes that this House may have some message to

communicate to our fellow citizens in Quebec, to tell them that we know

Confederation to be hard; also to tell them that we know it is a source

of pride — the pride of overcoming distance by hard work and compromise.

British

Columbians are also proud of living along one of the oceans referred to

in our national motto, and we hope to remain citizens of a country

which truly stretches from sea to

[ Page 2324 ]

sea;

for a country that spans the distance between two oceans is something

to be proud of. I am proud to be a Canadian, proud to have been born in

a country of such richness and diversity.

Patriotism is a

word that Canadians seldom use, unlike our neighbours to the south, but

I think we all value it. If nothing else, the crisis in Quebec has

brought to the surface the feelings of patriotism that were deep in our

hearts — deep in the hearts of many Canadians. The present situation

gives us the chance to stand up and be counted, to stand and express

that kind of patriotism, those feelings. Hopefully Canada will emerge

from this a much stronger and more close-knit country.

MR. GABELMANN:

In thinking about this topic in the days preceding today and in talking

to other people about this debate, I've frequently run across the idea

that we may say a lot of things here in British Columbia, but who in

Quebec will know about it, who in the rest of Canada will care? I just

want to cite a personal example about how communications do sometimes

work in this country.

In 1978 I was in Quesnel, as part of

my task in those days was doing some organizing for the federal NDP in

British Columbia, and in a very small meeting in a schoolroom in

Quesnel, with no reporters present, I made the comment that I didn't

think the NDP would win any seats in the upcoming federal election in

Quebec. I knew that it wouldn't be much of an item because there

weren't any reporters in that little schoolroom in Quesnel. Two days

later it was on the front page of every French-language newspaper in

Quebec that an NDP organizer in British Columbia said the NDP wouldn't

win any seats in Quebec. So it depends on what we say. Other members in

this House have talked about cornflakes and that ends up on the front

page of papers in Quebec.

So I'm not one of those who

believes — not that anyone has suggested that so far in the debate, but

it's been suggested over the course of the last while with people that

I've talked to around the province — that perhaps what we say here is

irrelevant. I suspect it is not at all. I suspect, in fact, that what

we do say — particularly if it's stupid like some of our comments have

been over the years — will be reported. Hopefully, some of us will also

be able to say some things that are intelligent and worthwhile and

will, in fact, be picked up by the media in other parts of the country

and in particular, in these few weeks, in the province of Quebec.

Like

everyone else in the Legislature, I'm in favour of the motion. I want

to just say something — not in criticism, but I want to react a little

bit to something the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said. He was "proud

to be born a Canadian," and the member for Surrey was "proud to have

chosen this country." I'm in a unique position because I emigrated to

this country when I was three years old. I neither had, as the member

for Omineca had, the opportunity to be born here, nor as the member for

Surrey, the opportunity to choose this country. I came when I was

three. I'm very happy — and have been ever since I've been old enough

to be aware of it — that my mother made the choice that she and I

should emigrate to this country following the war in Great Britain in

1947. That was a choice she made and I'm very, very pleased that she

did. I love this country; I think everyone in this chamber does. It's a

unique part of the world; I think it's like no other part of the world.

I would want to live nowhere else.

I think it's important when we consider questions about the nature of our

country, about the constitutional arrangements that have to be determined over

the months and years to come, that we do look back a little bit to our history.

I appreciate the Minister of Health doing just that in a very detailed way,

although when we only have a few minutes as we do in a debate like this, it's

very easy for us to simplify the history and therefore to appear to be misreading

or misjudging our history. It would take many, many hours of talk and discussion

to, in fact, get an accurate reading of what has happened to us.

But

if I, with that caveat, can say that I see a certain part of our

history in relation to this particular debate as being very important,

that's the fact that Canada in many, many ways is a dual country. We

have a duality in this country. We were explored and settled, and our

first people — aside from the native people, and I'll get back to that

later — the first of the Caucasians, the first of the Europeans, were

French, later to become French Canadians. They gave this part of North

America a uniqueness, and when that was combined with the exodus from

the United States of the United Empire Loyalists that added another

component to the uniqueness and duality of this country. It's one of

the reasons — because of the French and because of the United Empire

Loyalists — that we have resisted many blandishments from the south to

join the United States.

I think it would be very possible,

if we lost either of those components, if we lost that duality, that we

could not resist eventual absorption by the United States. So I believe

it's very important that this country retain, maintain and understand

the nature of its uniqueness, the nature of its basic duality, which

has been added to, and which is beyond that, of course, when we talk

about the native people.

Other people have said — and I

don't need to say very much about it — that Canada is a very difficult

country to govern, and not just because of its size, not just because

of its disparate people, not just because of its different economic

regions and different economic interests and different languages — all

the differences of size and the problems that go with a country like

this one. It's very difficult to govern. I think we've done very well

in this country. We've got problems. We'll continue to have problems.

We will always have problems in trying to govern a land mass and a

people as broad and as unique as we have here. It requires an immense

amount of tolerance.

I hope that one of the things we learn

in the debates that have gone on and are going on is that in our little

corner of this country we must measure carefully what it is we say when

we talk about other parts of the country. I referred earlier to the

cornflakes-box question. I won't say more than that now. I think those

days are probably behind us, and I don't expect that many British

Columbians will any longer make the kinds of comments that can be

interpreted in the province of Quebec as very anti–French Canadian.

don't accept sovereignty-association, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe

anyone in. this House does, nor do I believe anybody in this country

accepts sovereignty-association, apart from a very small number of

people in Quebec. I've heard some suggestion from some political

leaders in this country that they will not negotiate

sovereignty-association. I wish those political leaders would choose

their words a little more carefully. I will never accept

sovereignty-association, nor should we as a province; but I will not

say to any other bargaining party coming to the table what they can or

cannot bring to the table. I don't believe we can say to one Premier:

"You may not bring the following issues to the bargaining

[ Page 2325 ]

table."

We must say clearly that, yes, we will negotiate; we sure as heck won't

agree to sovereignty-association but, yes, we will negotiate. That is a

subtle point. A lot of people think that if you say we will negotiate

sovereignty-association, that means that you're going to accept

sovereignty- association. It doesn't. To negotiate something doesn't

mean to accept it. You go into negotiations, and your position on some

issues will be rigid and unbending; and on that issue we will be rigid

and unbending, because sovereignty-association is nothing. It's

contradictory and meaningless and cannot be accepted by any of us, and

will not be accepted by any of us. But we cannot say, and we cannot

leave an impression in Quebec, that we will not negotiate items that

Quebec brings to the bargaining table. That, I think, is an important

over the days and weeks to come.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Many

people in the province of Quebec will be voting yes on the 20th and

will not be voting for sovereignty-association; I think that's clear.

I've thought through what I would do if I were a resident of the

province of Quebec; I honestly don't know and I don't think that I

could honestly judge, not living there at the present time. But I think

that if the question was simply yes or no to sovereignty-association, I

would vote no. If the question was whether or not the people of Quebec

give their government a mandate in negotiations with the rest of

Canada, then I would vote yes. And that is part of the pitch for the

yes vote in Quebec, and we shouldn't forget it. I have personal friends

— French-Canadians — who are confirmed federalists and who are voting

yes. They are voting yes because they believe the government of Quebec

needs a clear signal from its people when it goes to the bargaining

table. That's a reality. You may not like it, but it's a reality. It's

also a reality that the yes vote may win.

I think if that

did happen on the 20th, it's very important that we in this corner of

the country don't over-react to a yes verdict, because for many

Quebecers that yes will be simply a mandate for negotiation; for

others, agreed it's a mandate for separation — let's never forget that.

But when you look at the Canada West polling figures, the number of

people who support outright separation in Quebec is about the same as

the number of people who support outright separation in western Canada.

The figures are marginally different; in Quebec it's about 19 percent.

So let's not over-react if on the 20th a yes vote is rendered.

There's

talk in this country about regional alienation, Quebec alienation,

alienation of rich and poor — there's less talk about that,

unfortunately — but there's talk about a variety of kinds of

alienation. We in western Canada have in our way rejected Ottawa by not

voting Liberal. That's how we reject Ottawa. In Quebec, their way of

rejecting the centre is to be centralist or to be pro-Quebec — to be

anti-federalist, to be in favour of a stronger provincial government.

In general that's fair, even from both sides, whether it is Ryan or

Levesque or any of their followers; they believe in a stronger Quebec.

The reaction of many of them is to oppose federalism; our reaction is

to oppose Liberals. Unfortunately in this country the idea of

federalism has got caught up in the web of Liberalism, because the

Liberals have governed for so long, and underneath both of them has

been caught up the effect that the country is governed by people who

are not representative of any of the people in this country.

wonder there is alienation, no wonder there is rejection, when we in

western Canada are economically deprived because of the fact that

eastern big-business interests are governing the country in effect

through their cohorts in the Liberal Party in Ottawa for the benefit of

those big corporations in Ontario. But it's not even the Ontario

working people who benefit. They don't, because they are just as

alienated from the economic system as we are, and we must remember

that, from my point of view at least. The problem that this country has

had is that its people have not had any say in the economic

decision-making in this country. That’s what the alienation has at its

root. I’d like to make a two-hour speech on that subject alone, but I

won't.

One of the things developing in the yes-no campaign

in the province of Quebec is clear class divisions. In that province

it's very clear when you look at the groups — there are always

exceptions, but in general — who support yes and those who support no.

establishment generally. Those people in favour are the trade unions —

the working people through their labour organizations, overwhelmingly

the French-speaking population of Quebec, and, in general, the

powerless in that province — not the people from Westmount, but the

people from the eastern part of Montreal. Clear class divisions are

arising. For that reason as well, we must not let ourselves get caught

up in supporting clearly one side or the other, because to reject

working people in Quebec by rejecting their option could be fatal in

the long term. Even if they're not a majority now. they could be some

day, and to reject them by rejecting their vote is to put into jeopardy

some parts of future negotiations in this country. I feel that very

strongly. I'm not asking others in the House to share that view.

Obviously it's a view that comes from being a socialist, which I am,

Mr. Minister of Health, and I state it for what it's worth.

One

of the terms used a lot in the sixties when discussions were going on

about the future of Quebec in Canada was "special status." It was a

terrible term, and got a lot of us into political hot water because it

didn't mean enough; people didn't understand what it did mean. In the

coming negotiations, it seems clear to me that we cannot make the same

arrangement precisely for the province of Prince Edward Island or the

province of Alberta that we make for the province of Quebec: there are

some things that are different, and there are some things that have to

be negotiated specially for the province of Quebec. I don't know

whether anybody in this House agrees with me about that; I don't

particularly care whether anybody agrees with me or not. I believe that

there have to be some special arrangements. We already have special

arrangements, let me remind members of this House: Quebec has its own

pension plan, it has a much broader say in immigration than any of the

other provinces, it has a special place in the Supreme Court of Canada,

and there are a variety of other things that Quebec has that we or

Prince Edward Island don't have as a province. I think there might have

to be a few more. as the negotiations proceed. As one Canadian, I

certainly am prepared to be generous about those kinds of negotiations.

think when the negotiations go on we should remind ourselves and should

remember that we're a unique country. We're not just a country with the

duality that I talked about earlier: we're a country with its regional

differences — its five regions, if you will: we're a country with its

ten provinces; and we're a country with its native Indians, who have

[ Page 2326 ]

not

yet been dealt with in any of these constitutional talks in a fair and

proper way. So when the discussions go on, they are not simply a

between the ten provinces, or with those groups and the native people.

They are a continuing discussion at all those levels. Some of the

discussion will be concurrent and some will be consecutive, but the

discussion must go on and everyone must understand, in my judgment,

that there are different levels at which the discussion takes place.

Negotiations have to happen. They have to happen in good faith, and

they have to happen with the generosity of spirit that we have seen too

little of in this country to date.

I believe the country is

now willing to take the kind of steps that are required. I believe the

country is now prepared, for the first time in our history, to

seriously sit down and work out an arrangement so that all parts of

this country can share the wealth and share the prosperity of this

country so that some parts of the country aren't so filthy rich and

some so poverty-stricken as now is the case. We could share that

wealth, share our culture and build on the uniqueness of this country

so we can prevent any eventual gobbling up by that country to the south

of us.

HON. MR. SMITH: Because it's not my habit to

make very many speeches in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, I would like to

offer my congratulations to you, not only on your elevation to the

chair, but on the way you carried out your duties in difficult times

during the past five weeks, I think, to the satisfaction of both sides

of this House.

This is an important debate and a rather rare

opportunity, because I think that all members whom I have heard speak

on this debate today have given a sincere and positive account of

themselves and have not tried to use the occasion for some tub-thumping

or for some political purpose. We have had good speeches from the

Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the other members.

noticed in the midst of the speech of the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr.

Mair) that the firmament in this place got brighter and all the lights

came on. I think that that really gave us an indication of the fire in

his belly for Canada and it's a good sign for the future of the

referendum on May 20. May 20 is indeed a rendezvous with destiny, not

just the destiny of the province of Quebec but the destiny of the whole

country. We should remember that independence movements in this country

are not new. They have been going on for as long as the country. We had

an independence movement in British Columbia in the 1880s that got the

root of a resolution of succession which was taken by the Premier of

the day to London. There was another resolution of succession in the

Maritimes, endless resolutions from Nova Scotia and again the Maritimes

in the 1920s. But this is the first time in the history of the country

that an entire province is going to vote on a referendum on the

question of independence.

What can we do as British

Columbians to try to hold Canada together? I think it is well to

remember that we have mutual bonds and mutual debts. I would remind the

members that one of the reasons that we entered Confederation was more

as a result of the efforts of a French Canadian by the name of George

Etienne Cartier. Without his efforts we would probably not have entered

Confederation. It was only 110 years ago when a small delegation of

British Columbians set out to negotiate the terms of union in Ottawa in

May 1870. Those three delegates were not certain — at least one of them

and maybe two of them — of the future of joining with Canada. One of

them, the most powerful of the group, Dr. Helmcken, was somewhat

negative and skeptical about the bonds of union. But they travelled to

San Francisco, took the first continuous rail trip ever across America

during that year, spent about a week travelling through rugged

mountains on the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, and saw that

you could build a nation in North America with our geography and you

could weld that nation together with rail.

When they arrived

in Canada that May it was a difficult time. There were Fenian raids

that greeted them when they stopped in Chicago; there were Fenian

uprisings along the Canadian border. The Prime Minister of Canada, Sir

John A. Macdonald, was deathly ill and the negotiations of the

Canadian–British Columbian terms fell to that elegant French Canadian

spokesman from lower Canada, George Etienne Cartier.

For

weeks he talked to his colleagues, and toward the end of the

deliberations, magically, without ever having been asked for by the

British Columbians, the promise and the offer of a railway came from

the Canadians. That was the work of a French Canadian. The great Joseph

Trutch, one of the fathers of Confederation from this province and our

first Lieutenant-Governor, called Cartier the "Lightning Striker," and

said of him in a famous letter: "Had it not been for the pluck and

determination of the lightning-striker, all our efforts would have been

in vain." So I remind you that a French-Canadian statesman helped bring

about confederation of this province and helped turn us from the

tremendous attachments and seductions south of the line, and from an

annexation manifesto which hundreds of merchants in this city signed

gladly in 1869.

We have had other ties with that province

over the years. You may recall that in the early sixties this province

loaned $100 million to the province of Quebec on a lower rate of

interest than the market rate at that time, and that was all paid

faithfully by the province of Quebec within a five-year period. That

was a special gesture made by the Premier of the day, Mr. Bennett, to

the Premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, whom he greatly

admired.

I think that it would be a mistake — and the member

for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has pointed it out — to be overly

simplistic about the problems which face the people in Quebec as they

go to their referendum in several weeks' time. We have to remember that

they come to this momentous and calamitous event — and I consider it a

calamity that one part of this nation is voting on the future of this

nation — after 20 years or more of what has been called the "Quiet

Revolution," during which period that province really emerged from a

protected rural parish to become a modern urban community with

sophisticated political and social institutions. That was a process

that began with Paul Sauvé in 1958 and was carried on through the

regimes of Lesage and Daniel Johnson. Ultimately, in 1976, we woke up

one morning and found that the people of Quebec had elected a

government that was dedicated to the dismemberment of Canada.

How

did that come about? How did we arrive at such a failure in our federal

system that one province proposed to voluntarily liquidate our country?

Much of this fault has to lie with the inability of successive national

governments to solve the stresses and strains of Confederation: the

failure in this country to come to grips with problems that face

regions such as British Columbia, the west, the Maritimes and Quebec.

[ Page 2327 ]

During

this 20-year period we've had all kinds of constitutional conferences

and ministerial discussions. A major cottage industry of constitutional

meetings has been spawned, but very little has been achieved. Go back

and catalogue them all: the Fulton-Favreau formula, which would have

allowed amending the Canadian constitution in Canada; John Robarts'

Confederation of Tomorrow conference, in the centennial year; the 1968

federal-provincial meetings; and, finally, that famous Victoria Charter

meeting in this city, under the leadership of the Premier of the day,

W.A.C. Bennett, which came within a whisker of solving the problems

that had dogged Canadian governments for the previous 30 years and

almost brought about a formula to amend the constitution, reform the

composition of the supreme court, and ensure language rights and the

repatriation of the constitution.

Because that charter did

not come to grips with the problem of separation of powers to the

satisfaction of the province of Quebec, it was rejected by that

province. The handwriting was then on the wall. No matter that the

federal parliament with its joint parliamentary Committee chaired by

the now Secretary of State for External Affairs brought forward

positive recommendations to reform the constitution; no matter that the

Pépin-Robarts report also contained positive resolutions; no matter

that we had a series of constitutional meetings during the late 1970s,

many of which the member from Kamloops and the Premier attended and

made good contributions towards. All of those ended in dust.

There

was no parliamentary constitutional reform, save and except for the

ill-fated Bill C-60, which was introduced into the federal parliament

in 1978, and which tried to sort of tinker with the mechanics of the

constitution without addressing the real problems, tried to set up some

weird and wonderful way whereby the appointment of supreme court judges

would defy the drafters of the grievance procedure in a collective

agreement. Many of the proposals that died in Bill C-60 will no doubt

be revived, but during all this process there has been a considerable

amount of disillusionment across the country as to the ability of the

federal administration to come to grips with the problems of

regionalism.

It is true British Columbia has made major

contributions to the dominion-provincial debate. We have supported the

division of powers in the constitution. We have urged that, as a major

region of Canada, we should play a much stronger role in national

decision-making. We argued for British Columbia appointments to key

national decision-making bodies – not just the Supreme Court of Canada,

but also key institutions such as the Bank of Canada, the Canadian

Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, and so on. We've

also argued strenuously that major Senate reform would provide more

decentralization for decision-making and allow for better

accommodations of provincial viewpoints. As my friend the member for

Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) has said, the Upper House was always

considered in the Confederation terms of this nation to represent the

views of strong regional interests. It was to be a safeguard against

the Lower House; it was to have a real position in the constitution. It

was not to be a retirement home for party bagmen; it was to be a real

functioning part of the constitution of the country. This province has

consistently argued for better representation in the Senate.

We have also argued for moderate and responsible reform of the constitution.

In the province of Quebec the viewpoint, however, has now diverged between the

moderate position of Mr. Ryan, who wants to make the existing system work, but

to make major changes in the workings, and Mr. Levesque, who wants to scrap

the system and drift into a separate arrangement — a sovereignty arrangement.

I say, Mr. Speaker, to you. that British Columbians will sympathize with the

legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec to have a more decentralized

approach to the nation's affairs, to have more power over their own local

destiny, and we will support those initiatives. But we will not support, and

we will never support, the attempt of the leaders in that province to unilaterally

dismember the country.

have a strong tradition in this province of fighting for better terms —

battles with Ottawa, and missions and meetings. The member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) alluded to McBride's famous walkout at the second

interprovincial conference in our history, in 1906. He followed that by

a triumphant trip to London in 1907, where he persuaded a rather nervy

under-secretary by the name of Winston Churchill to alter a draft of

the British North America bill that was going through the Lower House,

which Churchill did. We had also, in addition to McBride, Premier Duff

Pattullo, who walked out of a dominion-provincial conference in the

late 1930s — at the outset of the war. We have always had fighters in

this province. and fighters for the viewpoints of British Columbia. But

that has always been characterized by a strong sense of national

importance and national participation. The member for Kamloops so

eloquently alluded to the contributions made by British Columbia to

both world wars.

I want to give a couple of arguments why

the people of Quebec might take notice as to what is being done, in a

positive way, in this province, to wake them up to the fact that they

have friends here and that British Columbia cares about them staying in

Canada.

As Education minister, I have to administer French

language programs, and a very, new language program which was

introduced during the past year. It's called the core program for the

children of francophone British Columbians. It allows French-speaking

students in this province to be educated in their own language in a

school district where ten or more students have applied. It is a very

small program in numbers — it will never be a massive program — but

there are 215 children of francophone parents in British Columbia who

have enrolled in that program, and ten different school districts have

participated. But much greater evidence of the interest in the French

language in this province can be seen in the tremendous response to the

French-language immersion programs.

It is important to

emphasize that those programs aren't prescribed, laid down or forced

upon the people of British Columbia by the provincial government; they

are not part of some sinister plan to bilingualize British Columbians;

they are a program offered by school districts who select them of their

own free will, and they are attended by students whose parents wish

them to speak the second language and who are motivated to do so. They

do so at two levels. They do so at the kindergarten–grade 1 level, and

at the later immersion level of grades 5 and 6. I can tell you that

within the past year the numbers of school districts who have entered

French language immersion programs has grown from 13 to 17, and that

there are now about 3,200 students participating in these programs in

British Columbia, every one of them of their own volition, and that

many of these programs have line-ups and in many cities there are

requests for additional programs.

That should be a message, I should think, that would be a

[ Page 2328 ]

demonstration

to people in the province of Quebec that there are British Columbians

who want not to have the second language forced on them, but want to

learn it and choose to learn it. That is so much more important than

some mindless, centralistic, bureaucratic policy emanating from Ottawa

with bilingual labelling or road signs. This is the sort of policy that

stems from the hearts of people and the desire of children to learn. We

tend to hear, of course, only the negatives on the subject of

bilingualism and not the positives from western Canada, but there are a

lot of positives, I can assure you. Similar programs are beginning in

the province of Alberta.

Next Monday our Premier goes to

Montreal to address the Board of Trade on the eve of the Quebec

referendum. I know that all British Columbians, regardless of party,

wish him well in that speech and know that he will carry the message of

this entire Legislature. I think it's very important that the Premiers

of western Canada have spoken on this subject and have gone to Quebec

and have spoken up positively for this country. I believe that there is

a value in the people of Quebec hearing directly from western Canadian

Premiers and hearing the message that I hear in British Columbia: that

we want them to vote no on that referendum.

The member for

North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) spoke of friends of his in the province of

Quebec who are federalists who are going to vote yes on this

referendum. I had exactly the same experience when I was in Quebec city

in January of this year for a meeting of the council of first ministers

in education. But curiously enough, talking within the past couple of

weeks to these same people, I find that they are not still going to

vote yes. They do not believe that they can enjoy that luxury, and a

number of them have changed their minds, are voting no and are ringing

doorbells.

One of the great ironies of the problem in the

province of Quebec now is that the leaders of the government of Quebec

are in every way the flower of that society. They are well-educated,

articulate men, many of them bilingua