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)

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

2335 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

School Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 20). Hon. Mr. Smith.

Introduction and first reading –– 2335

An Act Establishing the Right to Public Information and the Protection of Individual Privacy

(Bill M209). Mrs. Dailly.

Introduction and first reading –– 2335

Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 25). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 2335

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 24). Hon. Mr. Hewitt.

Introduction and first reading –– 2336

Oral Questions.

Electronic scanners and price labelling. Mr. Levi –– 2336

Workers' compensation. Ms. Sanford –– 2337

Location of offices of Lands, Parks and Housing ministry. Mr. Nicolson 2337

Committee on Crown Corporations. Mr. Howard –– 2337

Maplewood Poultry Processors. Mrs. Wallace –– 2338

Ministerial Statements

Cyanide spill in Vancouver.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2341

Drowning at Willingdon Youth Detention Centre.

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2341

Routine Proceedings

Motion 10.

Mr. Skelly –– 2342

Hon. Mr. Chabot –– 2344

Mr. Barber –– 2345

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2346

Mr. Macdonald –– 2347

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2348

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Agriculture estimates.

On vote 10.

Mrs. Wallace –– 2350

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2352

Mr. Levi –– 2353

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2354

Mr. Mitchell –– 2354

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2355

Mrs. Wallace –– 2355

Mr. King –– 2357

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2357

Hon. Mr. Fraser –– 2358

Mr. King –– 2358

Mrs. Wallace –– 2358

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 2359

THURSDAY, MAY 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, the carnation on each member's desk today commemorates the

annual Lions Carnation Day, which starts tomorrow throughout British

Columbia. The event assists the funding of $40 million worth of senior

citizens' facilities operated by those 2,000 dedicated members of Lions

clubs throughout British Columbia. I know that each member in this

House supports the work that is done by the Lions clubs of this

province and will wear the carnations with pride.

MRS. DAILLY:

Sitting in the Legislature today are 75 new Canadian students from

Burnaby School Board community education program. I would ask the House

to join me in welcoming these 75 students, accompanied by their seven

teachers.

HON. MR. CURTIS: Two guests who are

visiting the Legislature today that I would like the House to welcome

are among the many Social Credit volunteers from the constituency of

Saanich and the Islands: Theresa Lovell and Sharon Dallas.

MR. BARNES:

I would like to thank the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). He

yielded to me yesterday, and I returned the favour today. No political

speeches.

I would like to ask the House to join me in

welcoming a constituent, Mr. Ray Dusang, who is visiting in Victoria

for the next few days. Would everyone please join me in welcoming Mr.

Dusang, wherever he is.

As well, Mr. Speaker, there are a

number of students with their teacher, Mr. Fitzpatrick, from Britannia

Secondary School. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

I am sure the hon. Leader of the Opposition would be pleased to

associate himself with those remarks, Mr. Speaker, that having been his

alma mater.

This is a very special occasion for me. Mr.

Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a number of

students from Portland, Oregon, who are here with their instructor, Mr.

Syd Steinbock. These students are coming for a three-day tour of the

greater Vancouver area and are presently in Victoria. They are from the

West Sylvan Elementary School, which reminds me of the time I was

attending the old Sabin Elementary School some 31 years ago in

Portland, Oregon. So I am quite pleased to have these young people

visiting the Legislature today, and I hope that they will find their

visit everything they had hoped it would be. I would like the House to

join me in wishing them an enjoyable experience.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, for the third time this week I have the pleasure

to ask this House to welcome a third party of students from Carson Graham Secondary

School in North Vancouver, under the guidance of their teachers, Linda Forrest

and Vem Porter. There is another group of approximately 40 arriving today. This

school has an excellent academic record and also an excellent record in participation

in sports in the lower mainland. In addition, there have been four students

from this school who have been selected for participation in the " Reach

for the Top " television program. I would ask this House to welcome them.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like the House to join me in welcoming

a friend who is visiting in the gallery today. He is an executive

director of Local 180 of the IWA and also the president of our Cowichan

Valley Consumers Co-op, Mr. Ken McKewan. He is accompanied by his

friend, Mr. Hans Post. Would the House join me in welcoming them.

MR. BARBER:

On behalf of my colleague for Surrey, I had the privilege this morning

to welcome to the legislative precincts — as I'd like to do again now

for those who are in the gallery — students from Halls Prairie

Elementary School in Cloverdale, grades K through 7. On Mr. Hall's

behalf and, I expect, on behalf of the first member for Surrey as well

(Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), I invite them here to the Legislature and make

them welcome this afternoon.

Introduction of Bills

SCHOOL AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

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

intituled School Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill

20 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.

AN ACT ESTABLISHING THE RIGHT

TO PUBLIC INFORMATION AND THE

PROTECTION OF INDIVIDUAL PRIVACY

On a motion by Mrs. Dailly,

Bill M209,

An Act Establishing the Right to Public Information and the

Protection of Individual Privacy, 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.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask indulgence of the House to grant me leave to make a statement.

Leave not granted.

FIRE SERVICES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Williams, Bill

25, Fire Services Amendment Act, 1980, 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.

MR. HOWARD: I want to apologize to the Attorney-General; I didn't appreciate that he had a bill that he wanted to introduce.

I want to revive the request of the House to grant me leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

[ Page 2336 ]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, the statement I would like to make....

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, at the time the question was called, "Shall there be any

objections?" the Chair heard nothing. If there was an objection, I must

know now that unanimous leave was not given.

HON. MR. CHABOT: No.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: There was a no, hon. member; leave cannot be granted.

MR. HOWARD:

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I abide by your decision in this regard, but

I would point out that that "no" was given after I started to make my

statement, and after the Chair accepted the fact that unanimous consent

was given.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: For the information of

members, it has been customary in the past that when a member realizes

that his voice was not heard by the Speaker, he immediately rises in

his place and so informs the Speaker, as has been the case now. I

regret, hon. member, that under the circumstances I cannot permit the

member to proceed.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I just had to leave the assembly for a moment. I understand we are still on bills.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: We are, hon. member. No further business has been called.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980.

Leave not granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the bill is on the order paper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members.

AN HON. MEMBER: At least look at standing orders and find out what you're supposed to do.

HON. MR. HEWITT: A vicious attack, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I guess you people just don't want to review a

bill so you can debate it properly. Is that the way you work? Hold up the people's

business — that's all you want to do in this House. You've got nothing

constructive to debate.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, when leave is required under these circumstances, it is

different, as indicated in both May and Beauchesne, than under the

ordinary circumstances. Leave at this point is actually a motion. A

division can be exercised at this time if it is the wish of the House,

but the motion does not deny leave to the minister to make his

introduction.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, Mr.

Speaker, the remedy and practice of this House when leave is not

granted is to ask that the House go into committee, and then in

committee you move that the committee rise, recommending introduction

of the bill. There is a procedure, and that has been the practice any

time I have been in the House and leave has not been granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The tradition the member is referring to is

that of a message bill. Possibly the minister would like to ask for

leave once more, to help proceedings.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you will recall, when I stood in my place I

asked if we were still under bills to be introduced. You advised me

that we were. This bill has been on the order paper, and I was

introducing the bill. Here it is, one more time for the opposition.

INSURANCE (MOTOR VEHICLE)

AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Hewitt, Bill 24,

Insurance (Motor Vehicle) Amendment Act, 1980, 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.

MR. HOWARD:

The Minister of Agriculture was so successful in his second run at it,

I wonder if I might not revive the request I made earlier and ask leave

to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted? There are several noes this time.

MR. HOWARD: Several noes. That's okay; you can have double standards if you like.

Oral Questions

ELECTRONIC SCANNERS

AND PRICE LABELLING

MR. LEVI: To the Minister of

Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister inform

the House, after his meeting with the Consumers Association of Canada

last Friday, if he has decided to order that prices be shown on all

goods in stores even where electronic scanners are in use?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No, I can't, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEVI:

Can the minister tell the House whether he's had an opportunity to

study the survey done by the B.C. branch of Consumers Association of

Canada on this matter?

[ Page

2337 ]

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, I can.

MR. LEVI:

I take that to mean that you did. One of us is very obtuse, and it's

not me. Can the minister inform the House if he's received any reports

or studies from the corporate sector regarding consumer reactions to

the use of electronic scanners to assist his department in arriving at

an analysis that he announced he was doing last March 24, 1980?

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

If I understand the member correctly, we have received a great deal of

information on this subject. When you say "from the corporate sector,"

I presume you mean the corporate sector of the business community, not

the ministry. Yes, we have received a great deal of information from

all sectors.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, the minister is

the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, so the "corporate"

relates to the other side of his ministry, which is the corporations.

Last week the minister met with the Consumers Association of Canada. He

has had a number of reports from the corporate sector. He has also had

reports from the association. Has he decided to order that prices be

put on all products in stores, even where there are scanners? He didn't

answer that question last time.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: No.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. On two separate

occasions the Workers' Compensation Board has accepted from the United

Injured and Disabled Workers' Association a list of 18 cases for a

second look. Since then the Workers' Compensation Board has refused to

accept further names from the association. I am wondering if the

minister would assure the House that he will urge the board to continue

to accept names from that association and continue that review that

took place on two separate occasions.

HON. MR. HEINRICH:

Mr. Speaker, I will make contact with the board as the member requests.

I might mention to the member that I also have been in contact with the

board and, as a matter of fact, I did send an assistant deputy minister

to a vice-chairman at that time to entertain the concerns of the

particular group. I might also add that I have met with that group in

my office. There were a number of requests made. I could not assist

some of them; I have encouraged them to review others.

LOCATION OF OFFICES OF LANDS,

PARKS AND HOUSING MINISTRY

MR. NICOLSON: I have a

question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. At present the

regional office of Lands, Parks and Housing comprises about 4 persons

in Cranbrook and 11 persons from the old regional Ministry of Lands in

Nelson. It has been reported that there has been a decision to move the

11 staff people over to Cranbrook. Could the minister tell me if a

decision has been made to move the regional Lands people from Nelson to

Cranbrook?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

COMMITTEE ON CROWN CORPORATIONS

MR. HOWARD:

I'd like to direct a question to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) in

his capacity as Chairman of the Legislature's Committee on Crown

Corporations.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

MR. HOWARD:

I quote the Premier's statement on August 25, 1977, when the committee

in question was established: "Anyone accepting the job of either

directing or working within the Crown corporations should be prepared

to give such access to this committee and make all information

available through this committee to the people of the province." Can

the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee tell the House why he

so readily accepted the statement of the chairman of the B.C. Ferry

Corporation, the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr.

Fraser), who had been invited to attend at a meeting of the committee

on either May 8 or May 15, that such dates were not acceptable to the

minister?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well,

can I ask another question of the member for Omineca, then, in his

capacity as Chairman? Can he tell the House why he took it upon himself

to cancel the meeting of the committee scheduled for May 8 without

first consulting the management subcommittee of that committee?

think the record should show that the shake of the head of the Chairman

of the Crown corporations committee indicates "no." Either he's not

going to answer the question or he's not able to.

We'll try

another one, then. In view of the statement of the Premier about the

need to make Crown corporations more accountable to the Legislature and

the people, has the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee

decided to place the need for such accountability at a level of

priority higher than the edict of the minister in his letter of April

30, wherein the Minister of Transportation and Highways would try to

find suitable dates which he would propose to the committee?

I ask another question of the chairman, then.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, I am at this point advising all hon.

members, including the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), that when

the Chair is standing any member who continues to speak will be

immediately asked to leave this chamber. I hope that makes the Chair's

position abundantly clear. The member for Skeena has the floor.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat]

MR. HOWARD: Very well put, Mr. Speaker.

Has the Chairman of the Crown corporations committee

[ Page 2338 ]

decided

to call a meeting of the management subcommittee of that committee in

order to get the moral support which seems to be necessary for the

Chairman to issue a warrant or a subpoena to compel the attendance of

the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation at a meeting of that

committee?

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No answer to that one either, Mr. Speaker. Let me try one other question.

view of the fact that the decision of the committee to call the

chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation — namely the Minister of

Transportation and Highways — as a witness was unanimous, has the

Chairman decided to call the full committee into session to deal with

the refusal of the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation to make

himself available on the originally scheduled dates and thus set

himself above the committee by stating, as he did in his letter of

April 30, that he — that is, the chairman of the B.C. Ferry Corporation

— would try to find suitable dates?

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: That's six questions and six absolute refusals even to rise and recognize that they exist.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

We are in question period, hon. member, and we are not engaged in

debate at this time. The member may put a question forward, but if

there is no answer, the Chair cannot insist on an answer. The member

must therefore go to a new question, to another individual, to retain

the floor.

MR. HOWARD: The preliminary remarks that I

made were a prelude to obtaining the floor now on a question of

privilege. My question of privilege is the absolute blind and stubborn

refusal of that Chairman to even acknowledge questions.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, clearly the member is out of order in question period at

this time. Certainly a question of privilege can immediately follow

question period. Otherwise, it deprives other members of this chamber

of an opportunity to ask questions, notwithstanding the fact that there

are no other members standing.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MAPLEWOOD POULTRY PROCESSORS

MRS. WALLACE:

My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and relates to the

Maplewood situation. The minister previously advised the House that he

was awaiting the receipt of a report which he had commissioned — a

study as to whether or not he would be going ahead with any aid to that

plant. Can the minister tell the House whether or not he has received

that report?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I had meetings —

as a matter of fact, I had a number of meetings — over the past two

weeks, trying to resolve this very serious problem. I received a report

last night and had discussion, and we are still considering possible

alternatives.

MRS. WALLACE: I take it, then, that the

minister has not yet decided whether or not any funds are going to be

available. I wonder whether or not the minister is aware that the

turkeys and the chickens are backing up with no place to go.

[Laughter.] There is no facility to process those birds.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: When I'm speaking about the turkeys, Mr. Speaker, I'm talking about the feathered kind, not the kind over there.

There

is a real problem developing in this industry. I know the minister is

aware of that. My question is: inasmuch as he has promised the turkey

breeders that he will be taking some action, or at least letting them

know — he has promised to let the workers in that plant know the first

of this week, and it's now a Thursday — why is he dragging his heels so

on this? Why haven't we got some decision after the two weeks that he

indicates have elapsed?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I first of

all would like to apologize to the member for Cowichan-Malahat for the

reaction she got to her questions — from both sides of the House. It is

a very serious matter, and I can only assure the member that this

minister is not dragging his feet. The problem is very complex. The

plant was owned by an individual, and the plant has closed because the

individual could not sell it to a foreign-owned corporation. It was his

decision. This minister and his staff have worked many long hours along

with the growers to try to come to a solution to this problem. We have

a lot of poultry producers in this province — turkey producers, broiler

producers, egg producers — all of whom are affected by this. But I can

tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot accept the approach that possibly

the opposition member would like me to accept, and that is where

government steps in and takes over from an enterprise that is closed.

If we adopt that approach, then we have to look at every sector of our

economy. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if there is any solution

that is realistic and possible to make sure that there is a viable

turkey industry and a processing plant out there, we will find it, and

we are working many long hours to achieve that goal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Skeena rises on a question of privilege.

MR. HOWARD:

The question of privilege is that for which I attempted to rise during

the question period. I did it during the question period because of the

rule which says it should be raised at the first opportunity, and I

thought that was it.

The question of privilege I want to

raise is this, Mr. Speaker. This Legislature passed

an act giving to

the Committee on Crown Corporations certain responsibilities to work in

the public interest and to examine Crown corporations. This is the

third, perhaps fourth, time that the Chairman of that committee has

summarily cancelled meetings and, I think, offended against the

privileges of this House.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member.

[ Page

2339 ]

While the member may very well feel aggrieved at

the circumstances, the Chair must reluctantly inform the member that

under our standing orders the matter raised at this point is not

falling within the bounds of a question of privilege. I so advise the

member.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. HOWARD:

Could I rise, then, and ask leave of the House to move the following

motion, seconded by the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King): that

the name of Mr. Kempf be removed from the list of members comprising

the Committee on Crown Corporations?

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, we didn't even get to the point where we asked leave. The

member was proceeding before we called the leave question.

MR. HOWARD: I'm asking leave to move that particular motion — namely, that the name of Mr. Kempf be removed from the list of members.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. Before you read the motion, we must see if

leave can even be obtained. I ask the member to retain his seat for

just one moment while I confer on this.

MR. HOWARD: I thought the House should know what it was they were being asked to grant leave for.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, the Chair at this point is hard pressed to find a method

by which the member can rightfully gain the floor to propose the

motion. We only go by our standing orders, and there is no provision at

this time for a member to rise and make a motion to ask leave. Our

order of business is set, and I must so advise the member.

MR. HOWARD: With great respect for your office, I rose and obtained the floor first on a question of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's right, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

I was not even finished the question of privilege, when the Chair rose

in mid-sentence of mine, and indicated that I did not have a question

of privilege.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That's correct, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD:

Having thus been, with respect, frustrated by the Chair, in not being

able to complete the question of privilege — which was a short one — I

had no recourse but to try to obtain the floor in an orderly way to ask

leave to move a particular motion to remove a member of that committee

who was subverting the activities of that committee.

Interjections.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. It is apparent to the Chair

that there is a growing tendency among certain members of this House to disregard

the rules of this House and to disregard the other members who are going through

the same process of trying to gain the floor of the House by the methods set

down in our standing orders. If we are going to disregard those standing orders,

and if we are going to allow members to rise on points of order at any time,

or rise to put motions at any time, then, truly, hon. members, we shall lose

the method by which this House governs itself. At this point, I must say that

the member who is rising does not have a method by which he can legitimately

seek the floor of the House.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. KING:

My point of order is with respect to achieving the floor and being

recognized. I submit, with all due respect, sir, that it is permissible

for a member to rise with leave, despite the standing orders of the

House, because the House does make its own rules, and with unanimous

leave a statement can be undertaken. That's what my colleague sought to

do, Mr. Speaker. That question, as to whether or not leave would be

granted, was submerged in a variety of calls from the other side and

was never put to the House — with due respect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, my

colleague rose to obtain the floor under standing order 26 — the matter

of privilege, the business of the day: "Whenever a matter of privilege

arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately. " My

colleague was not through making the case for a matter of privilege,

when unfortunately there was an interruption. Whether or not the matter

is indeed a question of privilege, is, of course, the Speaker's

prerogative to rule on. My colleague did not have the opportunity to

complete his case, under standing orders, as to whether or not there

was a matter of privilege, which, of course, only the Chair can

determine. I'm suggesting, Mr. Speaker, my colleague had the floor

completely within order and was not able, under Standing Orders, to

finish his statement. I suggest that the case of the matter of

privilege should be put under our standing orders. If, indeed, it is

not a matter of privilege, or it is one, then the Chair can deal with

it. I ask for the protection of standing order 26 — page 7 of our Standing Orders — so the member can complete

his appeal to the Chair.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Again, the Chair has in this case, just as

when points of orders are raised that are patently not points of order,

determined that the point of privilege being brought to the floor of

the House and the attention of the Chair by the member was patently not

a point of privilege. That is the decision of the Chair, hon. members.

MR. LAUK:

On a point of order, the Leader of the Opposition pointed out to the

Speaker that under standing orders a motion of privilege or a question

of privilege should be considered by the Speaker immediately. Mr.

Speaker has not given reasons for finding that it was not a question of

privilege. Indeed, when a chairman of a legislative committee

impedes....

Interjection.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

[ Page 2340 ]

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Be seated, please, hon. member.

Hon.

members, we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. For

the member to engage in the discussion that the point of order was

covering when it has been ruled out of order is just not acceptable.

The member is engaging in debate on an issue that has already been

ruled not a matter of privilege. If the member wishes to stand and make

a point of order, a reference, without engaging in debate, then that is

in order. But when the member engages in debate on a point that has

already been ruled out of order, then the Chair has no alternative but

to ask the member to take his seat. In this case, that is exactly what

took place.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. LAUK:

Mr. Speaker, what I was trying to do is.... I won't refer to the

instant case. I want to refer to the question of privilege. One

question of privilege is when hon. members of the House are impeded in

their responsibilities and duties to the House. That is what I

understood was the question of privilege that was about to be raised by

the hon. member for Skeena but was not completed. I would ask Mr.

Speaker to carefully consider whether or not the actions, as described

by the member for Skeena, would not amount to an impeding of the duty

of hon. members of the House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank

you, hon. member. The point just raised by the member is entirely in

order and acceptable to the Chair. If members will allow, I will

undertake to get back to the House at the earliest possible moment and

render a more detailed decision, if that is the wish of the members.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, in a matter of privilege it is required that when the

member takes the floor on a point of privilege, he then states the

matter. It is then the task of the Chair to decide if, on that

statement, a prima facie case exists. The member is also to have in his

possession and be prepared to move a motion if the prima facie case is

established.

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I have been reading

quite extensively about privilege, and I am on a committee that is

engaged in such a thing. I know that it deals with obstruction and

other matters. I would submit that it would be proper if the member

were allowed to complete his statement of the matter, not arguing the

matter but a statement of fact, and that you carefully consider the

full evidence that he has to offer. Then, as is normal, the Speaker

does reserve decision upon completion of the statement to determine if

prima facie evidence exists.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank

you, hon. member. The Chair has undertaken to review the proceedings

that have taken place to this time and will endeavour to come back to

the House at the earliest possible time to render further information

on the matter. That is my undertaking to the members.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Following on with the point of order, in your research, Mr. Speaker, I would commend to you the decision of

Speaker Murray, reported in the Journals of the House, March 14, 1968, page 134. He refers to Dawson's text, Procedure in the

Canadian House of Commons .

The quotation is: "At best the privilege in the Canadian House is

little understood and little used. At worst it is looked on as being a

convenient excuse to make any remark in the House which cannot be made

in the normal course of business." That is what appears to be happening

today.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important that

if members have information that might help the Speaker in rendering

that decision, they should come forward. I would suggest to the Speaker

and the House that it is important that the Chair do interrupt when a

member is making a point of privilege if it becomes extremely clear

that that matter is not one of privilege during the course of the

statement that is being made, and especially if that member is in the

habit of doing that on a regular basis in this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Thank you, hon. member. Again, the Chair has undertaken to come back to

the House, and I will do so at the earliest opportunity. For some time

now the second member for Vancouver Centre has been trying to obtain

the floor. I now recognize the second member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment on the actions taken by the Premier yesterday.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I think what I have to say is perfectly in order, if you will listen.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member. you simply cannot rise and commence speaking without at

least prefacing the remark with some kind of a point of order. Hon.

members, again, how can we possibly undertake to do the business of the

House if we do not at least adhere to the very basics of parliamentary

decorum? Again, hon. members, I urge you please to consider your

actions before attempting to gain the floor. The second member for

Vancouver Centre rises on a....

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, if you will please, yesterday the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, you must inform the Chair for what purpose you are rising.

MR. BARNES:

Mr. Speaker, if I say "a point of order," that is not the way the

Premier got the floor yesterday. I would like to explain that he stood

in his place and he made a statement. Also the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Wolfe) did the same thing.

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. member, it is simply not possible for the member to stand and

commence an address of any sort without at least prefacing that with a

point of order

[ Page

2341 ]

to gain the attention of the Chair. Would you be

seated, hon. member. Possibly you might like to reconsider your

position, and before regaining the floor, you might wish to discuss the

matter with some of your colleagues to possibly help the process. That

would be in order, hon. member.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

CYANIDE SPILL IN VANCOUVER

HON. MR. ROGERS:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I rose and made a ministerial statement

regarding a cyanide spill in the city of Vancouver and undertook to

bring the matter back to the House at the earliest opportunity. I had

hoped to bring this matter back immediately after question period, and

I presume this is the earliest opportunity. It's about one page, Mr.

Speaker. It won't take me long to read it:

"On

the morning of May 7, 1980, curbing surrounding an acid storage area

was broken by a demolition crew working at a building at 1734 Powell

Street in the city of Vancouver, which formerly housed a silver-plating

operation. An estimated 10 to 20 gallons of acid were spilled on the

floor, containing a residue of sodium cyanide-copper cyanide powder.

The acid reacted with the cyanide, producing hydrogen cyanide fumes.

"City

police and fire department were called, and the police cordoned off the

area and evacuated nearby buildings. Provincial Emergency Program

personnel of the Ministry of Environment were advised of the spill at

10:55 a.m., and representatives were dispatched to the scene.

"The

fire department diluted the material and constructed a barricade to

contain the effluent. Lime was added to raise the pH of the material to

prevent further release of hydrogen cyanide gas. The spilled material

contained behind the fire department barricades was pumped into two

tank trucks from McRae's Septic Tank Service.

"There

is no apparent loss of effluent to the sewer. A total of approximately

5,000 gallons of diluted spill material are being held in two tank

trucks. The waste management branch is currently investigating disposal

treatment options for the material. Shipping to a waste chemical

recovery plant in Washington is the prime consideration.

"The

building in which the spill occurred housed the Aardvark Industries

plating operation until recently, when it was sold to Budget

Rent-a-Car. Demolition of the building was apparently commenced before

Aardvark Industries had finished cleaning out their building, resulting

in the spills."

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll send a copy to the first member for Vancouver South.

MR. BARNES: I'd like leave to make a statement, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Shall leave...?

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, I'll tell you what it's about, if you like. [Laughter.] I'm sure they're going to cooperate.

Leave not granted.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, leave has not been granted to make a statement, and I must ask you to retain your seat.

MR. BARNES: What have you got against the B.C.-Yukon Cancer Society?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. BARNES:

The Human Resources minister (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) stood up and said

something about the Lions fund; you stood up here yesterday about

multiple sclerosis; I'm saying something about the B.C.-Yukon Cancer

Society. I can't make a statement. What's going on? Is this a one-sided

House?

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. Members should have very little to be pleased with

themselves about in the operation of today's proceedings so far.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a brief statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shall leave be granted?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Not for a ministerial statement. Proceed, please, hon. minister.

DROWNING AT WILLINGDON

YOUTH DETENTION CENTRE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr.

Speaker, it is with sadness and regret that I inform the House of the

tragic death by drowning last evening of a 14-year-old boy at the

Willingdon Youth Detention Centre. The boy was brought to the centre

yesterday prior to his transfer to Porteau Cove today. He was swimming

in the swimming-pool with a group of 15 youngsters supervised by two

members of the staff. In the dressing room, following the recreational

swim, it was discovered that one boy was missing. He was found in the

pool, and efforts to revive him were unsuccessful.

The RCMP

and members of the inspection of standards division of the corrections

branch of the Ministry of the Attorney-General are conducting an

investigation today. The matter has been referred to Dr. McArthur, the

chief coroner. An inquest will be held at the earliest possible moment,

and I'd be pleased to advise the House further when I receive reports.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yesterday the hon. member for Alberni adjourned the debate on Motion 10. With leave of the House I would proceed to Motion 10.

Leave granted.

[ Page 2342 ]

On Motion 10.

MR. SKELLY:

After the preceding performance it's with some reluctance that I get up

in the House to talk on a resolution about national unity, but I do

wish to see this country united, and I do wish to join with other

members of the House in reaffirming the House's commitment to Canada

and its desire to continue to pursue those reforms which are necessary

to provide opportunity for the people of all regions of our land to

reach their full potential within a united country.

[Mr. Hyndman in the chair.]

would also like to take this opportunity to speak and to reaffirm my

personal commitment to that objective. I'm not convinced, however, that

the present way Canadian governments and provincial governments are

going about pursuing those reforms which should result in a united

Canada are the appropriate forms or methods.

I would like to

discuss — as perhaps the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) and you as

member for Vancouver South did yesterday — some of the historical

problems that have led us to this predicament in Canadian history,

where it seems that one of the provinces has taken it upon itself to

seek to secede from Canada. I think Quebec is an important case to

consider. I do not feel that a nation can compel a group of people who

see themselves as an emerging nation, having separate language,

cultural and political traditions, to remain as a dependent entity

within another nation. If we are to do so, and if we are to attempt to

persuade them to remain in Canada or that it is wise and useful for

them to remain in Canada, then our approach to the whole situation must

be radically different from the approach we have taken thus far. There

are too many lessons in history that we have at hand to refer to which

show that a conquered state cannot be deprived of its nationhood and

cannot be deprived over centuries of its feeling of nationhood,

independence and cultural separation. I'd like to refer to some of

those examples that we have at hand.

In my reading of

history I find that Titus and Vespasian, Roman emperors, conquered

Palestine in approximately 79 A.D. and dispersed the Jews throughout

the Roman world. The Jewish people remained dispersed for something

like 18 centuries. During the whole of those 18 centuries they retained

the idea of a Jewish culture and homeland in Palestine. In 1948 they

realized that vision by re-reestablishing the state of Israel in

Palestine.

The same is true of Ireland. Ireland was

conquered over ten centuries by Tudors, Stuarts, Cromwell and finally

William of Orange, who brought with him the nation of the United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In spite of those years of

conquest and oppression under British kings and queens, in 1922 Ireland

fought for, and gained, its independence, or at least partial

independence from the United Kingdom. Soon the second part of it will

be independent.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to

visit the chief ombudsman of Papua New Guinea, Mr. Ignatius Kilage, and

also his assistant, Andrew Miyno, who is a lawyer from Papua. That

state was an Australian trust dependency for years and years and came

within the sphere of influence of Australia for decades. An attempt was

made during that period to impose British laws and British traditions

on people who traditionally did not have a respect for that law and

that tradition. It was interesting to me to see, after decades — in

fact, after generations — the people of Papua New Guinea, having thrown

off the British yoke, going back to the old systems, the old traditions

of law and culture which they enjoyed prior to the imposition of

British institutions. In other words, what I am trying to say, Mr.

Speaker, is that while those people may have been conquered, and while

they may have been legally administered by Britain and Australia and

supported by the United Nations, the minute those people had the

opportunity and felt the strength to set out on their own as an

independent nation, they went back to their culture and traditions as

if decades of British rule in Papua New Guinea hadn't existed at all.

There

are also strong independence movements today in Scotland and in Wales,

which will probably be successful in the coming years in loosening the

ties which those nations have in the United Kingdom of Great Britain

and Ireland.

In looking at these lessons of history, we must keep in mind the cultural and political separateness of Quebec.

know how difficult it is for a nation, as it is for an individual, to

part with something or someone it has appeared to possess over a long

period of time. Many parents are that way. They resent it when their

children reach an age when they become independent and wish to leave

home, to set up life on their own and to act as independent individuals

in their own right. We know many marriages are the same way. They reach

a point where one partner develops a little more or in a different way

than the other, the marriage breaks up and it leaves hard feelings,

even before this happens, on the part of one partner or another.

During

the last day, as we have proceeded through this unity debate, I have

listened to the description of constitutional history as viewed by the

member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) and of course you, Mr. Speaker, the

second member for Vancouver South. As you and the member for Kamloops

describe it, the Quebec Act appeared to give to French Canadians the

rights to their own language, religion and culture, and the respect of

the Crown for those separate identities: language, religion and common

law. But this was not done as a positive act of generosity to the

French in British North America by the British government. Nor was it

done as a recognition by King George III of what we call the "French

fact. " It was done in order to prevent the French in North America

from being drawn into the sphere of influence of the Thirteen Colonies

by further alienating them from the British Crown, who they saw as

willing to deprive them of their right to language, culture and common

law.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, after the Quebec Act almost every

change in the constitution of British North America has been designed

to submerge the power of the French minority in British North America.

The first one I'd like to refer to is the Constitutional Act of 1791.

This was the act that separated what was then the colony of Quebec into

the separate colonies of Upper and Lower Canada, and which imposed

parliamentary institutions on those separate colonies, designed after

what Lord Simcoe called the "image and transcript of those institutions

in Great Britain." He imposed those on loyalist Upper Canada, while

retaining some of the powers and rights of the French minority in Lower

Canada which were granted under the Quebec Act.

The result was two separate nations created in Canada; one with institutions

which were the image and transcript of those in Great Britain, and one which

enjoyed relative French independence, including the enjoyment of French civil

law.

[ Page 2343 ]

a result, rebellion broke out. There was tension and strife. Britain

sent a commission to Canada in 1837 under Lord Durham, a reformer.

Durham recognized the problem as that of "two nations warring in the

bosom of a single state." The one thing he did recognize was the fact

that there were two nations in Canada with separate histories, cultural

identities and needs. But unfortunately that's as far as Lord Durham

went. He then took a bit of a leap and said that "what those French

people need in Lower Canada is an example of British institutions. We

have to combine them with those fast-improving Britons in Upper Canada

to give them a lesson in how to assimilate."

So, as a result

of the Durham report, we got the second constitution of Canada, the Act

of Union of 1840 recommended by Lord Durham, which combined the

colonies of Upper and Lower Canada into a unified colony of Canada, in

French Canada. But Lord Durham, or the Act of Union, did another thing

representation in the legislature of the united colony of Canada as

they did to the French majority in Canada east. In other words, to

Canadians of the time of adequate or equal representation in the

legislature of the day.

However, over the years between 1840

and 1864, the balance of population changed. With increasing migrations

from Britain, the French then became a minority in the united House of

Canada and the British were chafing over the fact that, although the

majority, they still had the same representation in the legislature

minority to submerge the French. As a result Canada, in 1864, reached

an absolute deadlock in parliament where nothing could be done because

representatives, because of the equality of their votes in the

legislature, were able to defeat it. It was very much like this House

this morning, Mr. Speaker.

In every initiative made by the

French-speaking members of the House in the united Canada, the British

the majority and shouldn't be dictated to by a French minority. This

drove the non-French-speaking majority to seek some way of bypassing

the deadlock. They looked at a couple of ways. One was representation

by population — obviously something Mr. Eckardt didn't consider. That

was rejected entirely. The other way was that by adding other

deadlock, reduce the French representation to a smaller minority, and

confederated Canada. Between 1864, the Charlottetown conference, the

London conference and the passage of the British North America Act on

submerge and subvert the French Canadians and to keep them as a

secondary group.

It was successful for almost a century, and

the reasons for its success were numerous. As long as Quebec remained a

rural, quiescent, church-dominated, agricultural society, not involved

as long as the French-speaking Canadians weren't concerned about the

great movement to the west and taking over the Northwest Territories

and acquiring British Columbia, then Quebec could remain placated

through a system of patronage that had been set up by the two major

political parties. Each of those parties had their French lieutenant

who handled the party's affairs in Quebec. For example, John A.

Macdonald had a gentleman who I believe was mentioned yesterday — Sir

George-Étienne Cartier — who handled his affairs in Quebec and made

sure that money was dispensed in the proper ways and the proper people

were kept placated so that the vote would come home to the

Conservatives each time an election was called.

With the

coming of Laurier, of course, this was no longer necessary. Laurier

himself handled that duty in French-Canada, in Quebec. And with the

change to William Lyon Mackenzie King, they had to find another French

lieutenant in Quebec. That was Ernest Lapointe, who handled the Liberal

patronage system which exists to this very day. With all the

intermarriage that goes along with the Martins and the Bourassas and

the Simards, that patronage system has been built and defined over the

years between the Liberals in Ottawa and the Liberals in certain key

families in Quebec.

But with the coming of the Quiet

Revolution in the late fifties and the sixties, Mr. Speaker, those old

relationships began to break down, and those types of solutions to keep

Quebec in line were no longer possible. Quebec had thrown off its

dependence on the church and on that patronage system. They threw off

the rural economy and, as elsewhere in Canada, people began moving into

the cities and improving their educational stature. Quebec became a

strong, culturally innovative, nationalistic society, demanding an end

to some of these traditions and some of the ties with Canada which they

saw as limiting their growth and limiting their development as a

society and a culture. They began to see that they should be masters in

their own house. In my opinion, Quebec's demands are the legitimate

demands of an emerging state.

In contrast to what is

cohesive entity. We don't have that kind of nationalistic strength that

we see in Quebec. We come from vastly different backgrounds because of

the waves of immigration that have come to non-French Canada. First we

had that wave of loyalists and traders who came into Canada between

also — and this is the key point — refugees from a democratic republican revolution.

Then

we have a second wave, of which my relatives were a part. They came to

Quebec, in fact, in 1819. This was the wave of Gaelic immigrants,

driven from the highlands of Scotland and from Ireland by the Highland

Clearances and by the enclosure movement and, to top it all, by famine

and disease, which, in the case of Ireland, killed half a million

people and dispersed another million overseas as paupers. They speak

could be called British customs because their customs were outlawed at

their churches, by custom, were outlawed at home. At that time, it made

the holocaust of World War II look humane by comparison. That period

between 1820 and 1850 — in fact, as far as the Highland Clearances go,

to the 1880s — still lives in the minds of many of the descendants of

Canada; and yet, their traditions and the reasons they came here in the

first place would not lead them to believe that they are any part of

[ Page 2344 ]

The

third wave of immigration that has taken place up to the present time

is the immigration from Europe and Asia, which began in the last two

decades of the nineteenth century with a flood of immigrants to western

Canada and which continues to this day. These people do not have the

cultural and linguistic ties to bind them together as a nation in the

old sense.

We are not a strong nation. As a result, we tic ourselves more and more to

a stronger national identity to the south. The consequence of this is that in

every major power granted to the federal entity under the British North America

Act, we have seen that power conceded to another state. In the regulation of

trade and commerce we are really ruled by the United States and by its branch

plants here in Canada. When you look at the ownership of industry and natural

resources in this country, Mr. Speaker — and I'd like to give you some of

the figures — it's appalling from the point of view of a nation that considers

itself independent: 57 percent of the petroleum and natural gas industry is

foreign-owned, 75 percent is foreign-controlled; 57 percent of mining and smelting

is foreign-owned, 58 percent is foreign-controlled; 52 percent of all manufacturing

is foreign-owned, 57 percent is foreign-controlled. In the manufacturing industries

in which the percentage of foreign ownership is about average, let me enumerate

them: agricultural machinery, 64 percent; aluminum, 58 percent; automobiles

and parts, 88 percent; chemicals, 71 percent; electrical apparatus, 63 percent;

pulp and paper, 57 percent; rubber, 71 percent. In the borrowing of money —

a power assigned to the federal government — public credit, banking, incorporation

of banks and interest, in all of these areas, whenever the United States moves,

Canada is bound to follow almost as a client state.

This

is the tradition of non-French Canada. This is the situation Canada has

fallen into as a result of not being a strong, independent and cohesive

nation. I can understand the sentiments expressed by Jacques Parizeau,

the Quebec Minister of Finance, when he was asked: should Quebec break

away from the nation of Canada, wouldn't that immediately bring Quebec

within the sphere of influence of the United States, and wouldn't such

a small and helpless nation be immediately sucked into the ambit of the

United States? Mr. Parizeau's response to that question should be a

warning to us all: "I'd rather be a slave to a master than a slave to a

slave." I think these words warrant some examination, Mr. Speaker,

because in the event that the resolution passes in Quebec and in the

event that we're forced to deal with the separation of that state,

those words should be foremost in our mind.

Mr. Speaker, I'm

strongly in favour of maintaining unity within the Canadian nation, as

this nation has been home to me and my family, both in Quebec and in

British Columbia, for over 160 years. I do not feel, however, that the

old solutions to keep this country together are feasible.

Constitutional changes, band-aid attempts which continue to deny or

attempt to submerge the national aspirations of some of our people, are

not effective. I do not know whether Quebec will vote yes or no to the

negotiation for sovereignty-association. However, regardless of the

outcome of the referendum, I do hope that the balance of Canadians will

see the need for a new definition of the Canadian nation which

recognizes the aspiration for greatness and a form of independence

within Canada on the part of some of its people, including

French-speaking people and native minorities.

I believe that

negotiations between provincial and federal governments over

constitutional changes — that is, pursuing reforms as we mentioned in

the resolution — are unlikely to produce such a new definition of the

Canadian nation, because in almost every case, Mr. Speaker, those

governments represent a minority of electors, and many important groups

are not represented in those governments at all. What is needed is a

full constitutional conference in which all socio-economic and cultural

minorities are represented. This process would take years, possibly

generations, but out of this forum would come a new, revitalized and

independent Canadian nation which would include Quebec and which would

give greater scope to the aspirations of our native minorities.

What

is also needed is a strong stance on the part of the Canadian federal

government to re-establish our national identify and our national

independence by taking control of our financial and economic

institutions, our defence establishment, and the ownership of resources

from that nation to the south, rather than remaining a client state of

the United States. Mr. Speaker, if we, outside Quebec, can re-establish

our own independence and sovereignty in the international community,

then we should have no problems in retaining a unified nation. But if

the federal government continues to abdicate its powers and its

responsibilities under the constitution to foreign countries, then we

will always be facing the problem of secession, and no change in the

constitution will ever remove that problem from us.

Mr.

Speaker, again I wish to reaffirm in this debate my commitment to a

united Canada, but with the warning that if we are to remain a united

Canada, we must seek some fundamental changes in the way this nation is

structured and in the way this nation operates as an independent

country in the world community; otherwise we're going to lose the

respect of those parts of our nation which see themselves as strong,

emerging nation states.

HON. MR. CHABOT: M. le

Président, je suis fier d'être accordé l'opportunité de soutenir cette

motion. J'ai peut-être plus de raison d'exprimer mes émotions sur ce

sujet que les autres membres dans cette assemblée, parce que mes

racines sont profondes dans la province de Québec. Mes ancêtres sont

venus de la France pour s'établir au Québec en 1650, il y a trois cent

trente ans passés. Un de mes ancêtres s'est battu contre les anglais avec distinction comme un capitaine sous Montcalm sur les plaines d'Abraham.

Moi,

je suis né dans la province de Québec il y a cinquante-trois ans

aujourd'hui; c'est la fête de ma naissance aujourd'hui. J'ai demeuré au

Québec pour vingt-et-un ans. Ma famille immédiate demeure toute au

Québec maintenant; ma mère, mes frères et ma sœur demeurent là. Chez

n'étais pas capable de parler anglais avant de commencer 1'école.

Mr.

Speaker, what I've been saying is that I rise in support of this

motion, and that I probably have more reason to be emotional on this

issue than anyone else in this chamber. My roots are very deep in the

province of Quebec. My ancestors came from France in 1650, 300 years

ago, to settle in the province of Quebec, and most of their descendants

still live in the province of Quebec. One of my ancestors was a captain

under Montcalm and fought with distinction on the Plains of Abraham

years ago today.

[ Page 2345 ]

lived in the province of Quebec for 21 years before coming to British

Columbia. My mother, my brothers and sister still reside in the

province of Quebec. The language at home was always French; we always

spoke French in the house. That was my first language, and I learned to

information, Mr. Speaker, to show that I have close ties with Quebec

and the people in Quebec.

The friction that has prevailed

some considerable time — has come to a head with the election of the

Parti Québécois. The struggle in Quebec is essentially for the

preservation of their language and culture. Certainly they had been led

to believe, essentially by politicians, that economically they'd be

better off as an independent country or with sovereignty-association.

Sovereignty-association, to me, merely means that the province of

Quebec or its politicians want the best of both worlds. They want

independence, but they want to maintain the same kind of economic ties

that presently exist with the rest of Canada. I believe that they have

been given responses as to the attitude of other provinces of this

country on the question of sovereignty-association.

Separation

would be an unfortunate move, as far as I am concerned, on the part of

Quebec. It would reduce their standard of living; needless to say, it

would increase taxes; and it would essentially be an economic disaster

for that province. How long Quebec could survive as a nation

independently is questionable. Even though the French are a majority in

Quebec, they still view themselves as a minority in Canada. Separation

would not enhance or improve the situation, as North America is an

their culture and language and aspirations is through participation in

the Confederation, Canada, and by participating with Canada and the

other provinces to change our constitution to reflect the needs and the

aspirations of all the provinces. Very few nations in the world are

culturally homogeneous. Quebec cannot ignore the 20 percent of their

the 30 percent minority which is culturally French.

The

grievances that exist today in Quebec have a long history. There is no

doubt in my mind that there has been discrimination against French

Canadians in the past. Those who wanted to establish secondary

manufacturing, be they from England or the United States, have looked

on French Canada as a source of cheap labour. That's essentially the

reason for the attraction of many of the investments and many of the

secondary manufacturing plants that presently exist in Quebec. I think

one of the things that created the greatest amount of friction in

these investments in secondary manufacturing generally made them in

exclusively French-speaking communities and forced the French-speaking

made by those who superimposed their plants for the purpose of seeking

cheap labour to accommodate the French-speaking people of that

community.

In almost every instance it was necessary for the

were the workers. But I have to believe that this kind of exploitation

which has taken place in Quebec and, I am sure, has taken place in

other nations in the world is a kind of exploitation and discrimination

which has gone. I believe that it has gone in Quebec and that Quebec is

moving into a new day.

In the last 20 years, Quebecers have been afforded more

opportunities than in the previous 200 years. I believe it all started

with the maîtres chez nous government — masters at home — and

with the election of Jean Lesage. The Jean Lesage Liberals of 1960 were

the beginning of the change in Quebec and of Quebec having an

opportunity of taking its rightful place in Confederation. It was the

beginning of extending equal opportunities for management positions for

French Canadians, and I believe that French Canadians have made great

strides in achieving equal job opportunities in the last 20 years.

When René Lévesque was elected as the government in 1976, I am sure

we are all aware he downplayed his separatist ambitions; but he was not

elected on a separatist platform. What he did, in fact, was defeat the

Bourassa government, which was viewed by Quebecers as an indecisive,

incompetent government. Sovereignty-association is — no doubt in my

mind — step one towards an attempt at establishing a separate French

nation, and it is the most emotional question put to an electorate in

Canada. Never has a question created such animosity. It has divided

every community in that province; it has pitted neighbour against

neighbour and caused internal family quarrels. It will take a long time

to repair the damage this question has caused. I just received a letter

from my mother, who is 83 years old, about two or three days ago, and

she makes a reference to the referendum debate. She says: "And in this

province they are driving us crazy. All you hear is about the

referendum and separation. Things are not too good all over the world.

I hope things change soon."

Canada has come a long way in

its 113-year history. Canada is a strong nation, strong in resources,

strong in its diversity. Canada needs Quebec, and Quebec needs Canada.

Without unity this country could not take its rightful place in the

world of nations. Quebec has had a major influence on the rest of

Canada and can continue to make a major contribution. No other issue

has posed such a threat to the well-being of this country, and there is

no doubt in my mind that Quebec's future belongs in Canada.

I previously stated, we have the mechanism to bring change, which we

all desire. Quebec and the other provinces should address themselves to

this needed change. Other countries have found a way to achieve change.

Canada too can find a way.

MR. BARBER: Merci, M. le Président. J'ai un accent du canard,

aussi la grammaire — which is a way to say that I have an accent like a

duck, and, I'm afraid, also the command of grammar of one. But I am

delighted to be able to follow my colleague from Columbia River. I was

not born in Quebec. I was born in Victoria, and my language clearly

betrays that deficiency. Nonetheless, I too agree that this particular

debate today is directed more surely to and for and towards the people

of Quebec than it is necessarily to the people of British Columbia.

I was taught, at least in my own household, that one of the best

ways you could possibly find of making your best case is to learn the

language of the other guy, which sometimes literally means learn the

language of the other guy. It certainly means developing some

sensitivity, some respect, some honourable human connection with the

way other people

[ Page 2346 ]

look at things — a way that could be profoundly different and sometimes profoundly more interesting than our own.

Je suis canadien. Ainsi, et idéalement et politiquement, je suis canadien, et nouvelle-écossien, et ontarien, et québécois. Idéalement, nous nous appelons canadiens. Qu'est-ce-que la différence parmi ces provinces? Idéalement et spirituellement et politiquement, rien. Pour le pays et pour moi, c'est la même chose. L'idée canadienne est plus généreuse. Profondement, je crois seulement que cette maison, Canada, est à nous — à nous tous, anglophones et francophones.

M. le Président, je crois sincèrement que cette assemblée est obligée

a montrer aux québécois ceci: l'amitié, le respect et les égards.

Vraiment, c'est nécessaire a montrer maintenant l'amitié humaine,

l'amitié politicale, l'amitié de la famille, avant le vingt mai.

Pourquoi est-ce nécessaire? Rester silencieux ces jours-ci serait fou. Que deviendra le Canada sans le Québec? Sans l'histoire sociale, l'histoire religeuse, l'histoire intellectuelle du Québec? Que deviendra le Canada sans le Québec — sans la culture, les arts, la musique, 1'érudition et la vitalité remarquable des québécois?

Enfin, nous perdrons. Le Canada deviendra une nation pauvre sans les traditions, les idées, l'animation, l'esprit, le cœur et le courage du Québec.

Enfin, nous perdrons absolument. Le Canada a un besoin énorme du Québec. J'espère que les québécois nous écoutent.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the great achievements of Canada's past,

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

country united from sea to sea. That is the reason for this debate on

this resolution. That is why it has been requested that this House

reaffirm its commitment to Canada and our desire to continue to pursue

those reforms which are necessary to provide the opportunities for the

people of all regions of our land to reach their full potential within

a united country.

In this Legislative Assembly in the

province of British Columbia we're saying that we wish all Canadians to

join us 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.

In my opening remarks, I wish to

refer specifically to this resolution, because it so embodies the

hearts and minds of so many of us here and in the speeches we have been

hearing today and yesterday and over the past weeks — passionate,

reasoned, logical dissertations why all of us feel so strongly that

Canada is our country and shall continue to be our country.

Even

the fact that this motion is before us produces some sense of sorrow,

because our forefathers fought the wilderness, struggled and sweated

and in many cases laid down their lives to entrust to us this country,

which is indeed now one of the leading nations in the world. They

endowed us with an enormous land mass, great people from every

background and from every culture, and resources which for all

practical purposes have barely been tapped. Altogether, it's an

endowment that is more than enough to kindle all the dreams and all the

accomplishments of which great countries are made. Most importantly,

the energy and the sacrifices of those before us have provided us with

freedoms and a quality of life that is the admiration of people

throughout the world.

But now it is our generation that is

entrusted with this priceless inheritance. It must be our commitment to

cherish and nourish that bequest and convey it to the coming

generation, our young people of today. One must ask: what are their

perceptions? Uncluttered by two world wars and a worldwide depression,

what are these children's perceptions of the transportation and

communications explosions? How do they perceive what's happening in

this country today? How do they see the rest of Canada? What do they

expect of the Canada of tomorrow? Surely that which is expected must be

a place of freedom and grandeur, a place of marvellous opportunity, a

country to be part of and proud of, rather than a series of divided

provinces squabbling over the remains of a once-great nation.

What

are these youngsters hearing? The vacuities of sovereignty-association,

the complexities of constitutional reform — I don't think our youth are

much into these kinds of dialectics. But the youth of today are very

aware of the uncertainties, and are very aware of the unrest. They can

see the ugly clouds of separation forming on the horizon, and they have

concerns. But in their minds I would suggest there is indeed a lack of

clarity as to why any of this is happening; I think that in itself is

significant and surely indicative.

There's a story abroad

which I have to say, in my mind, is very unclear. If it's not baldly

misrepresented, it's been badly told. That is sovereignty-association,

the palatable label utilized by certain political elements who are

advocating breakaway. But they are offering something which they cannot

deliver, because with one the other cannot follow, as was expressed by

my colleague the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot)

most eloquently a few moments ago. There'd be far too much to be lost

and far too little to be gained even to attempt this kind of a folly,

be it from the perspective of the province of Quebec, of the other

provinces or of Canada.

Then there are those who consider

that constitutional impediment is the root and sole cause of Canadian

problems, and perhaps imply that constitutional revision can be a

complete panacea. We indeed favour constitutional reform — I'd say from

every side of this House and from every member of this House. Certainly

that is necessary, and we intend to press hard for it. But apart from

whatever ends up in the constitution, we have all got to remember that

it can never parameter human existence either for today or for the

future, and it will always take more than just a constitution to make

this country hold together.

It will always remain for those

of good will to negotiate, bargain, ameliorate, to attempt to agree to

arrive at genuine understandings among all of our people, provinces and

governments. That's tough, but it can be done, and it must be done.

That's the job for all of us. Never let us permit our country to fail

or fall by our default — or by design. As a nation, it could be said

that we carry introspection almost to a fault, and that we, as a nation

and as a people, fail to truly comprehend all of that which we now have

and how truly remarkable and marvellous that is, let alone envision our

almost unlimited prospects for the future, which are exciting to the

point of almost being beyond imagination. Canada is on the threshold of

amazing greatness, with all of the excitement, prosperity and quality

of life that can flow from that.

If it's reform, better

consultation and increased participation in the decision-making

processes of our Canadian federation — which we need to better bind the

Canadian mosaic — then I say: let's get on with it. The fact that it is

evident that reforms are needed in our country to better reflect local

interests, local concerns and local customs is not a matter that

[ Page 2347 ]

should

be looked upon as anathema, because through history mankind has always

peaked and troughed through the cycles of centralism and decentralism

and survived — and so, indeed, can Canada.

So I say: turn not our backs on Canada, but come to it; set aside

cynicism; grasp it with every affection. Harken to some of the words

found in that great book, The Unknown Country , which was

written many years ago by Mr. Bruce Hutchinson: "The sounds of Canada

are there to be heard, and the texture and living stuff of Canada is

there to be felt, as is the full pulse of its heart, the full flex of

its muscle and the full pattern of its mind." It is there to be seen,

heard and felt, and it is there providing us with the richest

fulfilment of any place on earth. It's not argumentative dialetic or

constitutional axiom, but it's the freedom, spirit, emotion and love of

nature, the desire to walk hand in hand with the destiny of our land

and to be a part of it. All of that is that which has brought us

together in one great nation.

This call is to those kinds of sentiments — sentiments of the heart,

spirit and will that can reaffirm the confidence and the love that we

have for our country and for the resolve of our future. Canada is a

priceless inheritance passed to our generation from all of the

generations before us. It's our responsibility to convey Canada to

those who follow, and that has to be our commitment. Our country is the

thrill and excitement of difference harmonized by the adhesion of

common aspiration, rights and responsibilities, and all of the warmth

and fellowship that can flow from those ties.

Mr. Speaker,

we are facing an hour of decision. I say, let us all respond throughout

our true north that we are strong, we are free, and we shall maintain

our unity. O Canada, you have never forsaken us; let us not forsake you.

MR. MACDONALD:

It's a pleasure to take

part in a debate on a joint resolution moved by

the Premier of the province of British Columbia and the Leader of the

Opposition, expressing, as I hope it will, the unanimous opinion of the

members of this Legislature. And it's a privilege to be able to say a

few words — not written out, I'm afraid — reflectively, about the kind

of problems that Canada faces.

I can recall, in 1973,

talking with the Leader of the Opposition, although he didn't take me

in his suitcase on that occasion, and we were both of the opinion that

René Lévesque had so many fine qualities — oh, social democratic

qualities too. He was the father of Quebec Hydro under the Lesage

government, under public ownership. We were proud of him, and we

thought he was taking a bad turn and going down what ultimately has to

be a blind alley. At the same time the Leader of the Opposition said,

"He's going to be the Premier of Quebec one of these days," because the

Bourassa government was faltering and becoming a little arrogant in its

breeches. So the Leader of the Opposition went down and met him, I

think, in a hotel in Montreal, and they had a very fruitful discussion

as two Canadians. They disagreed at the end of it on the question of

separatism. René had gone a little too far down that road for turning

back, although I think that the time is still there for him to be a

great Canadian in the coast-to-coast sense.

That was an

unfortunate refusal to take the suggestions and hear the pleas of the

Leader of the Opposition. I hope the Premier will have better luck in

terms of speaking with Quebecers, as he's going to in the next week.

The problem of Canada is so much outweighed by the fortunate kind of

country we live in that the pride in being Canadian should be the thing

we think most about rather than these problems. When we think of the

peoples that really make up this country, it's not the country of 1867

anymore. Although later in the eighteenth century there were Macdonalds

in Quebec who spoke — and I'm proud of this — only French; they

couldn't speak a word of Scots or the tongue; they couldn't speak a

Plains of Abraham, and they had married near Rivière-du-Loup into

French families, and they were francophones only. That's part of what

our country is about, you know.

But since

then, we've got to think about the other ingredients in the Canadian

mosaic. People in this House come from ancestries all over the world:

Lebanon, Holland, the Far East — not represented at the moment in this

House — the native Indian population. Do you know that in 10 or 15

years, Mr. Speaker, in the province of Saskatchewan, more than half of

the young school children are going to be of native Indian or Métis

origin? They're winning the battle of the cradle on the wide prairies

because their birth rate at the moment is ahead of the older settlers.

Well, I shouldn't have said older settlers — they are the oldest of the

settlers. You say Quebec has its peculiar differences in which we

rejoice — Saskatchewan is going to have them.

Yet that's

the kind of thing that still makes me proud to be part of that kind of

country. You could have a country that was homogeneous in the sense of

racial origin, or religious origin, or cultural origin, but I think it

would be a dull place in which to live. I love Canada because I love

the differences of its people and cultures, and I can't appreciate that

the newcomers who now fall off the boats from the Far East, and from

Europe still, and from all parts of the world, should in any sense be

considered second-class citizens because they came later.

We know the native Indians are our first citizens, and what I'm

saying is that the old feud — of which, unfortunately, the embers still

glow — from the colonial wars of 500,400 and 300 years ago.... That's

part of the problem in eastern Canada. But Canada is much bigger than

that, and I hope it can turn its back upon the injustices which

undoubtedly were there, as le Ministre des Terres (Hon. Mr. Chabot) a dit .

There were injustices in Quebec, unquestionably. There were, too, in

western Canada. The Ukrainians that came out and broke the soil in

western Canada and lived through those hard winters by digging a hole

in the earth and putting a mud roof over them had injustices, too, with

the CPR and the tariff structure under which they had to buy from

central Canada. There were injustices scattered throughout the whole

country. But Quebec had its full share of them; no question aboutt that.

We hear echoes of those old colonial wars. Even in the United States

they have echoes of them. They're going to be very serious in the

United States in the next few years because they have a 2,000-mile

border and, beyond that, they have within the United States now about

20 million Hispanics — using a very general term — and the border that

cannot prevent immigration. They can't do it over 2,000 miles, and

people are coming to places like San Diego or San Antonio, with the old

Spanish names. They're going to have not just the problem they had with

the black community, which has been solved, in terms of increasing

opportunity, to a significant extent; they're going to have their

problems, too, as a nation.

They're going to have their Quebec problem. Russia's

[ Page 2348 ]

having

its Quebec problem. The lower third of Russia is now populated by

central Asian people, and starting with Turkestan down in the west and

moving east, one-third of Russia and, again, winning the battle of the

cradle. And you know they went into Afghanistan unquestionably as an

aggressor, but they also went in a little afraid of an unfriendly

government on their borders of a country that was basically Muslim. So

when we think of Canada's problems, let's put them in the world

perspective. This problem of nationalism is something that's occurring

all over the world. Nationalism is a good thing in terms of people

reaching back to their cultures, finding their roots and preserving

their languages wherever it is possible to do so. That is good and

liberating of the human spirit. But it can become a dangerous,

regressive tendency in mankind if it goes too far.

There are

two forces in the world — preserving the differences of our cultures

and languages, which is a great thing, but also the need for nations to

solve in a national way problems that can't be solved in any other way,

and to unify, in the sense of bringing to the international table at

the United Nations or some other agency, problems which the human

family cannot otherwise solve. The unity required to solve common

problems can coexist with the differences in which we rejoice through

the diversity of the cultures within the human family. Albert Einstein

once said that nationalism was an infantile disorder — the measles of

mankind. But I don't think that expresses the whole truth because there

is much in nationalism that is good and liberating of the human spirit.

wish I could say with the minister for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), who

seems to emphasize the constitutional solution, that the constitutional

solution in the BNA Act will save things. You know, you have a new

senate, or you have a differently structured form of government, or the

lawyers get together constitutionally and draft a new clause as to

sharing rights over natural resources between central government and

provinces. I don't think that we will solve.... We have to be open and

flexible about constitutional reform in Canada, but don't think for a

moment that the lawyers can save the Canadian nation. A nation is more

than a territory; it is basically a feeling. Many of the constitutional

problems that we face are often solved without changes in the

constitution, through accommodations between governments and agreement

and a sense of tolerance, and a recognition, in the particular case

that we're discussing, that Quebec is indeed a different community that

should be encouraged to be different because that is part of what makes

up the richnesses of Canada.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

I thought the member for

Alberni (Mr. Skelly) gave a very thoughtful speech, and I know other

members have in this debate. But he pointed out that we haven't come to

nationhood in Canada because we don't own the dammed country. And he

gave some of the figures. You know, we are having a big debate in

British Columbia at the present time about coal, and here we go to our

Kootenay area and we have an American multinational come in to take

B.C. coal to Japan. We can do better than that, and we can be prouder

of ourselves as Canadians when we begin to do things for ourselves and

not be tenants in our own country. And the Québécois would agree with

us as much on that point as some of us, particularly on this side of

the House, agree with that point.

So I conclude, Mr. Speaker — having left out a number of the points

I was going to make because I have scattered notes — that there are

countries that are suffering worse problems than Canada. I think about

Belgium, and I'm going to come back to the constitutional thing. Two

nations struggle within the bosom of a single state there. It's a very

prosperous nation and a very energetic people, but they have their

Flemish side and they have their francophone side. They've made

constitutional arrangements. There are the French-speaking areas,

Flemish-speaking areas and Brussels in between, and the lawyers have

done their work. Yet there is bitter fighting in the streets over the

question of language. Part of the message we have to learn in Canada is

to talk these things out, understand and be proud of the kind of

country A e are, try to preserve our good humour and, most of all, a

tolerance and an appreciation for the richness and the diversities of

the peoples and the cultures that make up Canada. So I conclude, Mr.

Speaker, by simply saying this: I don't think that Canada is

negotiable, but everything else should be. I say, vive le Quebec différent, mais aussi vive le Canada .

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to just expand on some of the

members' remarks in what has been a very interesting and unusually

rewarding opportunity in this House, where there's common ground for

all members from various sides to come together and present their

various viewpoints.

First, of course, we all believe in our

country; we believe in Canada. Our

interpretation perhaps of the way

our country or our province should be governed is different. We've come

to a commitment to our country, or a re-commitment. I was pleased to

move this motion, and have it seconded by the hon. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Barrett). I listened attentively while the Leader of

the Opposition spoke, making his feelings felt in regard to the

continuation of this country, and extending to the people of Quebec

with his remarks his desire that they stay and work with us in building

an even stronger country. I have made note of his remarks and, Mr.

Speaker, intend to attribute some quotations from his speech within the

content of the speech I will give on behalf of the government, but

hopefully on behalf of all of us, to the board of trade and chamber of

commerce in Montreal next Monday.

I was interested to listen

to the remarks of the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), who

perhaps more eloquently and with more feeling can describe to us the

feelings of the people of Quebec making a choice such as they will be

making on the twentieth of this month, and why their intense feelings

have come to such a point in time that they are questioning their

position in our country and in fact are dealing with a motion that

means separation. For let us not fool ourselves that

sovereignty-association in its name is a halfway step.

Sovereignty-association is separation.

I've had the

opportunity, as has the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett),

to speak with Premier Lévesque. I find him a charming man, and I've

enjoyed working with him as a Premier within Canada. I look forward to

working with him in the future as a Premier within Canada as well. I do

know, and I've had the opportunity with my colleagues — the other

Premiers of the other nine provinces — to define

sovereignty-association for us, to help us understand what the question

is that is being put before the people of Quebec.

I'm satisfied, and so are my colleagues, that sovereignty-

[ Page 2349 ]

association

is nothing more than a clever way to say separation. Separation cannot

be negotiated by our government, by any other provincial government, or

its thought. It's unacceptable in the ultimate. But that is a free

choice the people of Quebec will have to make.

This is a

country that's built on democracy, and should they choose at this time

to make that choice and take that course, then I would be the first to

wish them well. But I'd wish them well with sadness, because their

leaving would take a part of me, a part of our country and a good part

of our future. The sadness would also be, Mr. Speaker, a sadness of

what their future would be alone. It would not be a comfortable future

now, considering the uneasy and uncertain international climate in

which hostility and terrorism are expanded. It's not easy for old

countries, it may be impossible for new countries, in that climate. It

wouldn't be easy for them, and it would be tough for us. It's not in

dollars and cents; it's not a balance sheet. But emotionally and

spiritually our country would face a great loss. For indeed we are

unique. I guess there's no logic to Canada. There's no logic to the

physical boundaries; there's no logic to a country so large with such a

small population at this time, but there's something right about

Canada, and something that can be an example to other countries.

set an example, Mr. Speaker, because when people came to our country

from the various parts of the world, we haven't asked them to give up

their national identities, their cultures or their customs. We have not

taken, as did our great neighbour to the south, the United States, the

attitude of the melting-pot philosophy, where everyone would become the

same and merge into a single culture. We have asked all people and made

them welcome to Canada. We've allowed them, asked them and encouraged

them to continue to strengthen our culture with their culture and to

celebrate their customs within a wide-ranging, multicultural Canadian

philosophy. We have festivals, and that makes their cultures visible to

each other. But the contribution their cultures make is on a daily

basis, not just once a year at Folkfest. It's not just now and then

when it's part of the community program, they dress up in their

national costumes and bring that culture and share it with us in a very

visible way.

The real contribution is the daily contribution

that they make in many ways in sharing those things they brought with

them to this country. Many of the people that came to this country,

founded this country and still come to it bring nothing more than their

culture, good will, ambition, hopes and their optimism. Many of them

leave countries because they are poor and desperate. They have been

denied the opportunities in those countries that they are able to find

in Canada. That is the strength of our country, the strength of the

people that came and brought their hope, and with that we renewed our

hope. That is why I hope that on May 20 the people of Quebec choose to

renew their hope and that we can work out the ground rules in this

country.

Don't get fooled by constitutions and lawyers;

constitutions can be written by people. Some of the noblest

constitutions in the world are simple and straightforward, but they

clearly define the ways in which the countries can and must be run. In

our country, a federal country where we have complicated jurisdictions

between federal and provincial governments, we must make sure the rules

are clear so that we can achieve the type of destiny that can be

Canada's. They must be clear, because we do not need the hostility of

government fighting government at a time when good will is needed more

than ever before. We need a constitution that guarantees to the people

of this country that they can survive a bad government from time to

time, because that is what a constitution does. It provides for

government, but it provides the type of basic foundation that allows a

strong country to survive poor or bad governments. You cannot always

count on having an outstanding government in the country.

While

it has been said that while this debate is being held we're talking to

the people of Quebec about our hopes and aspirations for the country in

which we hope they will share and the decision we hope they will make

on May 20, we cannot ignore the rest of Canada. I have seen a growing

willingness over the last four years. I've had the opportunity to meet

with my colleagues across the country, premiers of various political

philosophies. I have seen us all take many steps forward to an

accommodation that could not be reached a few years ago. It's just a

little over a year ago that some people were saying that if there were

a list of 100 things needed in this country, constitutional reform

would be 101. I don't believe that. I believe that if we had been able

to achieve some of the accommodations to one another that would have

resolved the concerns of the people of Quebec, perhaps on language and

culture to the west who feel alienated in some of the ways in which we

may be inhibited in building our economies, we wouldn't have some of

the terms and some of the concerns. We certainly wouldn't be faced with

a referendum in one part of our country today or movements springing up

in the west talking about joining the United States. It wouldn't have

happened. So it is important. It may seem dull and stodgy to many, but

it is an answer.

Constitutional reform is merely a

modernization of the structures which give our governments a better

opportunity to work in this country. There's nothing wrong or

mysterious about that. Along with that economic reforms are needed that

are part and parcel with the opportunities and standards of equity that

will be provided to the people of this country. They too go hand in

hand. They too can be part of the discussion.

As I've said,

I've seen my colleagues take giant steps forward in an attempt to reach

accommodation. This government, the people of British Columbia and this

Legislature have come a long way in the last few years in wanting to

make Canada work and showing our willingness to look for new and

realistic ways in which to modernize the structure of our country.

I've

said many times that our country isn't logical and our regions are

unequal. The resources of the regions are not the same. That's what

makes each region so unique in its geography, demography, the values it

has and its physical position in the country or to the world. But we

have a common resource to all of Canada, and that is the human

resource. That is where the federal government has a major role to play

and can play a stronger role than it does today in guaranteeing some

basic equity to the people across this country.

This debate

has been good for all of us, Mr. Speaker. It has been good for all of

us to try to put into words what we feel and to share, for once, our

thoughts with each other in a positive way about how we feel in our

hearts about this province and this country. The two are entwined. I

can't think of Canada without British Columbia, and I can't think of

British Columbia without Canada.

We have built a reputation in over 100 years in this country of being a country that is sympathetic and

[ Page 2350 ]

compassionate

on the international scene. That reputation guarantees Canadians a

friendly access to other countries of the world. Such a reputation was

hard to win. I think someone said in debate that they thought Canadians

were sometimes ashamed to be Canadians or a little backwards. That's

not what I found when I have travelled internationally. I see people

proud to be Canadians. They wear their maple leaf, because they know

their maple leaf makes them welcome in almost every country of the

world. It is an enthusiastic welcome that isn't shared with all of the

people from other countries in the world. Our maple leaf means

something; it means something to me; it means something in our country;

it means something to other countries. It means something because

100-plus years of history have meant that there are other countries

that know they can count on Canada to receive people when they are

starving or poor. Canada is a country that has been willing to fight in

world wars to protect the rights of those in other countries and their

own. I've had an opportunity to visit at Adegem in Belgium to visit the

graves of Canadian soldiers from the First World War. The people and

the governments there still tend those graves. They still speak highly

of Canadians. They love our country, because they know that we sent our

youngest and our finest to protect them in their time of need.

Would

we give up a history like that for some easy access for territorial

gain, monetary gain or some short-term objective now, when our country

has done such a job of building an international reputation of

compassion and concern, that guarantees to our citizens the same type

of reception that we would give to those of other countries when we

enter theirs? Would anyone throw that away? Would anyone refuse to

build on the opportunities we have for the future for some quick and

easy solution called separation? Whether it be Quebec, the west or

British Columbia, would anyone throw that away, make themselves

vulnerable and lose what we have? I think not. I think not here in

British Columbia. I think not in the prairie provinces. I think not in

Ontario. I think not in Quebec or in the Atlantic provinces of this

country.

I think that we have been too shy and too slow to

declare our true feelings and share our feelings in this country. I

think we've been too quick to criticize, too blind sometimes to see.

We've shown a lack of understanding that is the only way in which we're

going to achieve the type of conclusions or agreements that are

necessary to keep all parts of the Canadian family happy and to

guarantee to the young people of our country the opportunity to travel

and work in any part of this country. It's necessary to guarantee, as

we've tried to do since we've been government and moved a long way,

that those from French Canada who come here with their families will

have the opportunity of having their families taught in French,

instructed in the language of their birth, or to have the right to

learn to speak French, for those of our citizens who wish to do so.

the Education minister said in debate, it has been enthusiastically

subscribed to by the students of this province. The demand is there. It

means the dream is there and the concern is there. Our young people are

sending us a message. They care about Quebec. They care about those who

have another language and another culture with which we share a

country. They care enough to learn. They want to be a part of it.

They're not doing it by force; they're doing it voluntarily.

guess that's the spirit of our country: the quiet, unstated but

positive actions Canadians take individually. From time to time and

quite often they move far ahead of government. I think governments have

been behind the wishes of the people. It's time for governments to

lead. Mr. Speaker, those are the types of sentiments I will take, on

behalf of the people of British Columbia, when I speak to Quebec next

Monday.

The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) says: "Vive le Canada!" I say long live Canada! Je suis canadien.

Motion approved unanimously on a division.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE

(continued)

On vote 10: minister's office, $129,448.

MRS. WALLACE:

We are all going to have to make a bit of a transition after the debate

we've been having to get back into the discussion of estimates, and I

think that....

HON. MR. MAIR: Stay nice, Barbara.

MRS. WALLACE:

Well, I think that I will stay nice, Mr. Member. I thought that perhaps

it would be a good time this afternoon to deal with — I don't like to

call them minor items; they are important items — some of the smaller

and more unrelated items that I want to discuss with the Minister of

Agriculture during his estimates. Perhaps one of the better ones to

start out with would be the Women's Institute — which he is responsible

for — because I think that's an organization that we both agree is a

very worthwhile addition to the agricultural community in British

Columbia and one which has been assisted by the Ministry of Agriculture

over innumerable years.

I would like to commend the minister

for two years ago having made some slight increase in the grant that is

received by the Women's Institute. I think it's $16,000 that you make

available to the Women's Institute. Is that correct, Mr. Minister? That

is a very commendable thing. But I would point out that they do a very

commendable job too. A lot of the work they do is not specifically

related to agriculture, but it is all related to the well-being of our

province. It is interesting to note that during this past year that

particular group donated $22,000 to the Children's Hospital. Now that

is higher than the average donation because they had a special drive on

in this particular year, but they make regular contributions of several

thousand dollars to both the Children's Hospital and the Queen

Alexandra solarium.

The Women's Institute is a participating

organization in the minister's other program — aid to developing

countries — and they have sponsored some very valuable programs under

aid to developing countries and, in fact, have contributed some $9,000

during the last year in the matching program that the minister was

talking about when we discussed aid to developing countries previously.

That is another way in which that organization is assisting the

agricultural community and contributing to the well-being of not only

British Columbia but the international community. Another

[ Page 2351 ]

one

of the Women's Institute's responsibilities, one that they take on very

regularly, is the sponsoring of 4-H Clubs. That is a multi-purpose job

that they take on within the ministry — sponsoring those 4-H clubs

which the minister also sponsors — and they do a good job. I know my

own institute for many years has sponsored a handicraft group, and the

young women who participate in that club have gone on to become leaders

in the 4-H movement. It is an excellent organization, which is doing a

great job among the rural young people.

I do have one

concern with the 4-H movement while I am speaking of that, and that is

my concern that many of the routine tests, exams and programs put

before those 4-H young people originate in the United States. Very

often, for example, when there's a questionnaire that a young person

has to answer — a test in order to qualify for some advancement within

the 4-H organization — those questions relate to who is the President

of the United States, rather than who is the Premier of Canada. I think

that the minister would be well advised to look at those particular

things that go before those kids and ensure that they do have a

Canadian and a British Columbia flavour. I know 4-H is an international

organization, but I would like to see us having some provincial input

and Canadian input into those tests and questions that are put to the

young people in the movement. It's a very valuable movement, it does a

great job for young farm people, and we should try to ensure that it

retains a Canadian and a British Columbia flavour.

Going

back to the Women's Institute, of course, another thing that they

undertake — it's a new thing they are doing — is the PNE booth, which

was very well received. They've had their demonstrations there for

many, many years, but they're updating and changing their format. I

find that the B.C. Women's Institute has made a giant step away from

the sort of tea-and-cookies organization which it had become in some

areas, into an area that is much more interested in extending itself

into the community and participating fully in the decision-making

process relative to local and provincial community interests. Along

with that, they are still doing all their other things, the CNIB, the

cancer drive, a lot of money and effort put into the northern Canada

program. That money is raised basically through little sales of work,

donations and the various programs where women throughout the province

get together and raise funds.

I'm really suggesting to the

minister that I would like him to look again favourably at upping the

money allocated to that group. They have a very active board, which has

a very large responsibility throughout the province. They have to come

in for meetings, and they're really handicapped in the amount of money

that they are able to spend in order to carry on the work of their

organization.

Of course the minister is aware of the

international organization with which women's institutes are

affiliated, the ACWW, which is meeting this year in Hamburg, Germany.

They have triennial conventions, and their next convention will be held

in 1983 in Vancouver. The minister, the Minister of Tourism and I had

some communications relative to some extra funding. Some assistance was

granted to the elected people. But my concern was, and still is, the

funding for the one paid officer of that organization, who is going to

be responsible for all the logistics and arrangements for the 1983

conference in Vancouver. It was very important that that particular

individual have the opportunity to attend the Hamburg convention. To

the best of my knowledge that has not happened, because the funding was

not forthcoming. If I'm wrong in that — I haven't had an opportunity to

check just recently — I would be very glad to admit that I'm wrong and

very happy to learn that funding was made available so the secretary

could attend that conference.

I hope that the Women's

Institute can continue to grow and develop and be the kind of companion

organization to the Farmers' Institute that it has been during the past

few years.

I was very interested to note that in District H,

the area where the Minister of Transportation and Highways is from, the

farmers' and women's institutes combine their district meetings and

have an exchange of speakers. I think that's a very excellent idea, and

it's one that I think would be well promoted among the institutes in

other areas, because it does allow for that interchange of ideas. One

of the nice things about it was that the Farmers' Institute was able to

have lunch with the Women's Institute, and their lunches are always

very delicious.

Leaving that subject, perhaps we could just

look a bit at some of the problems that have come to my attention that

relate particularly to specific services and staffing within the

ministry. One of the more recent letters I have, dated May 5, relates

to the Vancouver Island area. The letter is from Errington, and it

indicates that as of August that area will be without the services of a

horticulturist — that is, a resident horticulturist. Mr. George Earman

is being transferred from that area to Prince George, and Mr. Alan

Littler is apparently retiring. These people are very disappointed that

they will not have a horticulturist there. They understand that they

will have to obtain the services of a horticulturist located in.... I

think it is Cloverdale — on the mainland anyway. I'm wondering whether

or not the minister is considering appointing another horticulturist to

serve in that particular area. It certainly seems very unfortunate if

we don't have a horticulturist available on Vancouver Island.

Here

is another concern, and I hope it has been rectified now. Apparently

there was a problem with the lab at Abbotsford, which had to shut down

because of some problems with its incinerator. The case that I had in

point is that of a specimen — it was a lamb, I think — which was

forwarded last August, and the report on that particular specimen was

not available until November 20. That's a terrifically long time. I

know it was a bit complicated; the deputy minister has advised me that

it was a case that was to be checked for copper; I think it was

eventually sent to some other area to be tested. But that sort of delay

can be very difficult for the farmer that's out there waiting for the

results, to find out what he's going to do about the rest of his herd

or flock — if there are more falling prey to this. That kind of delay,

from August to November — as I know the minister will agree — can be a

real disaster. I know there were extenuating circumstances in that

particular case, but we certainly have to ensure that those things

don't happen any more than is absolutely necessary. In fact, even once

is too much if, as a result of that, a whole flock of sheep fell to

some kind of a problem that could have been corrected had that result

come back.

Another letter that I've received comes from

Grasmere. They tell me that there there are no personnel available to

do crop soil tests. They had other problems as well, but the soil

testing seemed to be the problem where there had been tremendous delays

in getting results back from soil samples. I don't know just what the

procedure is in that particular area, in Grasmere — whether or not the

individual in question had perhaps gone an incorrect route. But in this

particular instance they had a long delay, and their complaint was that

there

[ Page 2352 ]

was

nobody available to do the test. I'm not sure just why that should be,

but perhaps the minister can clarify that just a bit at a later date.

I'm just going to carry on with these rather unrelated items and get them all off my desk on to your desk over there.

Crop

insurance. Is there any move to include hail under crop insurance? I

think it was at one time under crop insurance and has now been removed.

I think part of the problem was that the premiums were very high. I

would like the minister to just fill the House in a little bit on his

approach to the whole crop insurance program and what he's proposing on

that particular program — if he is intending to enlarge it; if there

are, in fact, problems with the premium. Is that the reason that hail

was removed, or was it lack of participation? What has happened with

the crop insurance program? It's something that we don't involve

ourselves with too much down here on the Island, but this was raised by

people from Fort St. John who felt that the program wasn't providing

the kind of service that they would like to see.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

They

were also very concerned in Fort St. John about the amount of staffing

there. They said that they had only two field workers in Fort St. John,

who not only were attempting to do the whole job in that area, but they

were having to do their own paperwork. There was no one in the office.

Farmers would come in to get various pieces of information or pick up

forms for various things and would find that the office was locked

because the workers had to be out in the field, as they should be,

doing the job that they were appointed to carry out. So there was some

concern about that. At least, perhaps, someone could be put in the

office there so when.... You know, there are long distances involved;

there are long trips. If, in fact, that office could be manned....

Now

I realize I may just be giving the minister a great platform here,

because I know he is reorganizing his whole department. Perhaps he's

going to get up and tell us about all the changes he's going to make

that are going to correct all these things. But I would certainly hope

that we could have someone in the office in those.... You know, Fort

St. John is one place, but there are many places, many of those

centres, that are miles and miles away. It's a long trip for a farmer

to come into town, and it's difficult when he comes in and finds that

office closed. I would hope that in the reorganization the minister is

carrying out there will be a provision to ensure that those offices are

manned during normal business hours.

I think that's all the sort of unrelated tidbits I have here. Perhaps the minister would like to comment on those items.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I'd just like to respond to the member and compliment her on her

homework. She touched on a tremendous number of items, and I hope I've

got them all down. If not, I'm sure she'll raise them again.

With

regard to the Women's Institutes, we have the grant of $16,000. We do

assist them with the tri-annual convention that they hold. They have

been in my office and met with me and are on an organization program.

Within the last two or three weeks I have signed papers for the

organization of the Bridesville Women's Institute, which is in my

riding; and the Douglas District Women's Institute is one that I have

just signed as recently as today. So they are very active.

don't have the Minister of Tourism (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) with me, but we

were discussing, when the Women's Institute executive visited in my

office, the trip to Hamburg. I believe I'm correct in saying that there

were two tickets made available through the Ministry of Tourism for

that visit to Hamburg to attend the world conference of Women's

Institutes — I'm not sure of the exact title of that conference.

recognize that they are going after the convention for Vancouver in

1983, and I can assure the member that I will give every consideration

to possible assistance for them in holding that convention over and

above our normal assistance that we would give.

With regard

to Mr. Alan Littler, who is retiring at the end of this year, he would

be replaced. Mr. Enman, I believe it is, is going to Prince George. We

would be servicing that out of our Victoria office. We feel that having

the horticulturists in Prince George is a better use of staff, and we

feel that the staff in Victoria can handle the problems on the Island.

believe you were talking about Grasmere and soil analyses taking time

to get back from Kelowna, which is where they go at the present time....

MRS. WALLACE: There's nobody to take samples, nobody to take tests.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Yes. I've been in that area, Madam Member, to places like Grasmere and

Baynes Lake. I had the opportunity to visit that area with the member

for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty). As you are aware, I am sure, we have staff

representatives in Cranbrook, and two staff representatives in Creston.

Again, employees' requirements are based on need and what the demands

for their services are in that area. As you know from the estimates, we

moved the number of staff members from 545 up to 551. I guess if we had

the available funds we could place staff members and open up offices in

numerous other places in the province; however, we have to be realistic

about what the cost benefit is of doing such a thing. So we attempt to

respond to the needs, and where there is a demand, we certainly do our

best to have the people on site.

Crop insurance. The

premiums are, as you know, paid 50 percent by the federal government

and 50 percent by the farmer, and the province administers it. At the

present time we have 1,654 growers participating in the crop insurance

plan. I'm sorry, Madam Member, I don't have the detail with me

regarding how that breakdown goes, but we're into a good number of

commodities. I could get you that information, if you wish, because I

just had a report provided to me by staff a few days ago to respond to

a question that was raised to me by a constituent. That program, as I

say, has 1,654 participants, with a total coverage of $36 million, the

highest it has ever been. So there is good participation in the program.

MRS. WALLACE: Does it include hail insurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Hail and crop insurance. Yes, hail is included.

MRS. WALLACE: And that is in the north — the Peace River?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The northern Peace River.

Again, I can get staff to check it out, but they can't give

[ Page 2353 ]

the response right here. It may be partial field damage. It seems to me

I recall something about there being limitations — spot loss. I'll talk

to staff and maybe get a little more detail.

The Fort St.

John office is staffed constantly on a day-to-day basis. If there is

sickness of a staff member, the district agriculturalist is there, and

they would just have to go next door and talk to them. But we do have

that office staffed on a regular basis. I believe those were all the

questions that you had raised.

MR. REE: May I ask leave to introduce a school group that is visiting us this afternoon?

Leave granted.

MR. REE:

Mr. Chairman, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce a group

of students from St. Thomas Aquinas School in North Vancouver. There

are 61 students in total, of which 23 are guests from Sudbury, Ontario,

a place where I always had a great deal of enjoyment when I have

visited. They are students here under the guidance of their teacher,

Mr. Ian Stuart, and I'd ask the House to welcome them, if they would.

Mr.

Chairman, might I make one comment? I've got a short note from the

students. It was passed in here. They were here at the time of the

debate, and I'd like to read this note: "Tell Quebec to stick around.

We may need them and vice versa." It is signed by a number of students.

MR. LEVI:

I'd like to ask the minister a consumer question. I'd like to deal with

that part of the brief that the National Farmers Union gave you around

April 1, which deals with farm machinery legislation. What I'd like the

minister to do, after I've read some of the notes, is to indicate,

working his way around the rules and not saying I'm asking about future

policy, whether he would give us some impressions of what he thinks

about the need for legislation in terms of farm machinery.

Just to enlighten the minister, I'll quote from the brief by the National Farmers Union, in which they say:

"Our

organization has on numerous previous occasions stressed the need for

the implementation of farm machinery legislation. Your government is

apparently not convinced that such consumer protection legislation is

essential for B.C. farmers, although it's generally accepted as

necessary in other western provinces.

"The

investment of individual producers in farm machinery needed for food

production is growing rapidly. The size and cost of such machines

represent major investments for many; still they remain unprotected in

the event of performance failure. "

Might I just add here,

Mr. Chairman, that according to the agricultural statistics fact sheet,

that the ministry put out in April 1979 — I haven't seen a later one —

they indicate that the value of machinery and equipment was then in the

order of $346 million. We're probably looking, I would imagine, at

something like a half-billion-dollar industry in terms of equipment and

that kind of thing.

Going back to the brief:

"We submit farmers in this province should not find it

necessary to be exposed to unnecessary risk. We recommend that farm

machinery legislation including the following features be implemented:

"

(1) The

licensing of all farm machinery dealers and companies who do business

and require a proper repair distribution system to be set up.

"

(2) Warranties on new machinery as follows: tractors, combines, other

self-propelled equipment; one-year warranty on all other equipment.

"

(3) The rejection of new machines for non-performance.

"

(4) If parts are not available at dealer's place of business within 72

hours of ordering emergency repair parts, dealer and the company must

supply equipment to the farmer at half the rental rates established by

the provincial machinery board. A farmer who feels aggrieved may apply

to the provincial machinery board for compensation due to loss of time

or crops.

"

(5) All warranties, repossession