1980 Legislative Session: 3rd 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, DECEMBER 11, 1980

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

4351 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Kaiser resources takeover. Mr. Stupich –– 4352

Mr. Lauk –– 4352

Ku Klux Klan activities in B.C. Mr. Leggatt –– 4352

Tabling of government aircraft flight logs. Mr. Passarell –– 4353

Feeding of elk in East Kootenays. Mr. Nicolson –– 4353

Annacis Island bridge. Mr. Lockstead –– 4354

Ministerial Statement

High interest rates.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 4355

Mr. Stupich –– 4355

Routine Proceedings

Motion 1

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4355

Mr. Cocke –– 4360

Mr. Hyndman –– 4360

Mr. Davis –– 4362

Ms. Brown –– 4364

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4365

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4367

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4370

Mr. Leggatt –– 4372

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4374

Division –– 4376

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. LEVI:

I'd like a moment to introduce some people, Mr. Speaker. Sitting in the

members' gallery is Mr. Glen Jacobson, the president of the Coquitlam

Optimist club, accompanied by his colleague Mr. Hall Griffin. They have

escorted four students, Abigail Frances, John Graham, Ian Cummings and

Michael Leedham, to Victoria. These four people have won an award for

outstanding contribution to the community in that they operate the Como

Lake Sailing Club and instruct young people from the ages of 8 to 14. I

would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON:

Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce 15 members of the Nelson

high school swim team and their coaches, Fred Young and Wayne Prentice.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy today to have in the members' gallery three

members of my family: my second daughter, Patty Davidson; my wife,

Donnie; and my eldest daughter, Terry Brenna, who is here visiting us

from Toronto. Terry has just finished playing a feature role in a film

which was shot in Nova Scotia. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. REE:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing to the

Legislature some 55 grade 11 students from Carson Graham Secondary

School in North Vancouver. They're continuing to try to keep up with

the record of last year. This afternoon at approximately 4 o'clock we

will have an additional 60 grade 11 students from Carson Graham

Secondary School visiting us. They'll be under the guidance of their

teacher, Mr. Dairon. I'd like the House to take notice of them at that

time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two

gentlemen from Vancouver, Mr. John Chutter and Mr. Mike Slahis. I would

ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. LAUK: On a

point of order, as we're approaching question period, Mr. Speaker, I

want to point out two standing orders for Mr. Speaker's consideration.

Standing order 2 says: "The time for the ordinary meeting of the House

shall be 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and

Thursday and 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, and if, at the times

mentioned in this order, there be not a quorum, Mr. Speaker may take

the chair and adjourn." Also, I should point out to Mr. Speaker that

all members are required to attend the service of the House. This, of

course, comes into question particularly when there's lack of a quorum.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the point of order, hon. members.

MR. LAUK:

I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that at the critical period of time during

question period when there's a significant absence of a number of

cabinet ministers, Mr. Speaker should consider expanding the

interpretation of that rule to require the attendance of cabinet

ministers. I think that is the intent of the rules of the House. I ask

Mr. Speaker to so rule.

MR. SPEAKER: I would think,

hon. members, that if such a rule were the desire of the House, it

should be presented to the House by substantive motion, and that it be

debated and made part of the standing orders in the regular sense and

the normal fashion. I would recommend that procedure to the hon. member.

MR. LAUK:

I appreciate that suggestion, except that in this case it's a question

of

interpretation, not a new rule. Attending the service of the House

includes the report of the committee on question period, which has been

adopted, and that the cabinet ministers attend and answer to the

questions of all members of the House in accordance with that report.

The House has already spoken in that regard, Mr. Speaker, and I ask Mr.

Speaker to rule that the attendance of cabinet ministers be required.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair does not have the proper authority to move in that fashion.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, with reference to the point mentioned by the first member

for Vancouver Centre, I think it's only fair to point out that there

are, I believe, three ministers not in attendance while there are ten

members of the opposition not in attendance. Perhaps that's the problem.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please. Hon. members, it has been accepted in this House that

attendance is related not so much to whether a member is in his chair

as to whether or not he is in attendance in the precincts. This has

been held to be the case in practice in this House ever since I have

arrived here, and if the members wish to change that I would be

delighted to have such a change brought to me in some formal fashion.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, on that point, because it's my view that that's already the rule, I appeal your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: This is not a ruling, hon. member; this is an opinion.

MR. LAUK: If Mr. Speaker rules it's not a ruling, I appeal that ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member appeals the ruling that an opinion is not subject to challenge. Is that the intent of the hon. member?

Let me ask the question. Shall the ruling be sustained?

Mr. Speaker's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

Rogers

Smith

Heinrich

Hewitt

Jordan

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Brummet

Ree

Davidson

Wolfe

McCarthy

Williams

Gardom

Bennett

[ Page 4352 ]

Curtis

Phillips

McGeer

Fraser

Mair

Kempf

Davis

Strachan

Segarty

Mussallem

Hyndman

NAYS — 23

Macdonald

Barrett

Howard

King

Lea

Lauk

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Nicolson

Hall

Lorimer

Leggatt

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

Lockstead

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Oral Questions

KAISER RESOURCES TAKEOVER

MR. STUPICH:

I had hoped to ask this question of the Minister of Energy, but I'll

direct it to the Premier. Can the Premier advise whether or not BCRIC

has received an agreement from the government not to raise coal

royalties on the BCRIC-Kaiser mines because of the 3.5 percent off the

top which Edgar Kaiser is to receive as part of the takeover agreement?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I can't.

MR. STUPICH: Will the Premier advise the House when he is able to advise us whether or not such an agreement has been given?

the same cabinet minister, has the Premier required a BCRIC management

inquiry into why Edgar Kaiser was offered a 3.5 percent commission on

every tonne of coal sold by Kaiser Resources, in view of the fact that

one of the prime justifications used by BCRIC for its Kaiser takeover

is the fact that Kaiser's coal is committed by contract to the

Japanese? In other words, if the stuff is already sold, why do we have

to pay a commission?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. STUPICH:

Does the Premier, as leader of the government, realize that the

government has, in effect, a controlling interest of BCRIC since it has

roughly 5 percent of the shares? It's more than enough to have a

controlling interest, and yet apparently it is not asking any questions

of BCRIC management, every one of which was appointed by the same

Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is incorrect in

saying that all the directors were appointed by the Premier. Some have

been appointed since the company came out of government ownership and

into the hands of the people.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, not only since then.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Let's hear the answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Speaker, it is not the intent of the government to intrude into

management decisions in the private sector. Any government that's big

enough to do anything in that regard can do a lot more to hurt the

people of this province. It's our belief that the shareholders of

public companies in the private sector have accountability of their

management continually, but particularly at annual meetings.

MR. LAUK:

I have a supplementary question to the Premier. When the concept of

BCRIC was first announced, the hon. Premier indicated that all British

Columbians should consider investing in this marvellous public company.

Having regard for the public record, Mr. Speaker, no such statement was

made by the Premier in relation to any other public company. How does

the Premier reconcile his statements today with the statements at the

first inception of BCRIC, particularly having regard for today being a

landmark black day for shareholders of BCRIC — the price of the share

being now less than $6?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's quite

simple, Mr. Speaker. If the member would remember, at the time that the

government was distributing the shares of BCRIC and a company was

making a public offering, it was still owned by the government until

such time as the applications had been received. Once they were

distributed, the shares were then in the hands of the shareholders who

then owned and presumably controlled their own company.

would presume the member opposite will probably, from time to time,

bring stock market reports to the Legislature, and I am waiting so that

when prices are up on certain stocks he will share that news with the

Legislature as well.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if the Premier is of the view that his last answer will be believed by the public.

KU KLUX KLAN

ACTIVITIES IN B.C.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my

question is directed to the Attorney-General. On Tuesday of this week,

in answer to a question from the second member for Vancouver Centre

(Mr. Barnes), the Attorney-General indicated that he had denied consent

under

section 281(2) of the Criminal Code for a prosecution against the

Ku Klux Klan. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if that

decision was based upon his own perusal of the material that was

submitted, or was it simply based upon a recommendation of his regional

Crown counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the

decision with respect to whether a consent is to be given in this

particular case was taken on the advice of three counsel.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Speaker,

section 281(2) provides that "any persons communicating

statements in any public place inciting hatred against any identifiable

group are guilty of an indictable offence." My question is this: could

the Attorney-General advise why it was that the material that was

submitted failed to comply — in his judgment or in the judgment of his

advisers — with that hate propaganda

section of the Criminal Code? Why

did the material fail?

[ Page 4353 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Is the member asking for a legal opinion?

MR. LEGGATT: No.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

Mr. Speaker, he is seeking a legal opinion, and, as he is aware, it is

not available. I also point out to him that he is misreading the

section. Subsection (1) deals with the inciting of hatred and no

consent is required for a prosecution under that section.

MR. LEGGATT:

My supplementary question is this: would the Attorney-General table the

material that was filed so that the public will be aware of the

material alleged and also the public will be aware as to whether a

decision was accurately taken in this particular case? Would the

Attorney-General be forthcoming and open with the House? Let's have a

look at the material so that we can all decide whether this was a

reasonable decision.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, I'll take the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

TABLING OF GOVERNMENT

AIRCRAFT FLIGHT LOGS

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question

for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister

explain why the government flight log for May 1979 until April 1980 was

not tabled in the House last session?

HON. MR. FRASER: Are you asking about the logs of the aircraft?

MR. PASSARELL: Yes.

HON. MR. FRASER: There's no requirement to table them.

MR. PASSARELL:

In view of the taxpayers' right to know how much they subsidize the

Social Credit election campaign by providing flights for government

members seeking re-election, has the minister decided to make this

information available to the House?

HON. MR. FRASER: I certainly will table the flight plans.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a supplementary. When has the minister decided to table it? It's been 18 months since the last one.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is not in order.

FEEDING OF ELK IN EAST KOOTENAYS

MR. NICOLSON:

I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On Tuesday the

minister indicated that the thousands of elk stranded by snow in the

East Kootenays should not be fed and nature should take its course.

This morning the minister seemed to suggest that the problem would melt

away. Does the minister condone the action of the East Kootenay

Wildlife Association not to allow nature to take its course, but to

unilaterally take steps to gradually introduce the elk to an alfalfa

diet?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the

member for the question. It's obviously been raised several times by

members on both sides of the House. You're raising it in question

period. The answer is simply this: elk in the Kootenay area right now

are not hungry.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS:

They are not. If the animals are in difficulty, the difficulty is in

moving around because of the depth of the snow. At this time of the

year, any ungulates that have been browsing and feeding all summer, as

you well know — your colleagues laugh, but I know that you, as the

member, know perfectly well — have quite a substantial amount of stored

body fat. They can't get to their feed at the present time, and if the

thickness of the snow continues for such a time that they are not able

to browse over the wintertime, then we will have a serious problem. But

I am advised by the biologists from the region, and by the people from

Cranbrook and the people from Nelson who are from the regional office,

that the animals aren't in danger at the present time. They are having

difficulty getting around. One of the reasons that they got on the

railway rights-of-way and on the highways is that it's so much easier

for them to move. Because they have sufficient stored body fat, they

haven't got to starvation yet — it may come within the next two to

three weeks, depending on what happens in the weather.

Now I

have asked the staff to assist where possible, on a technical basis,

anyone in the East Kootenay area who wants to try and save the elk by

feeding them alfalfa pellets or otherwise. However, those people know

very well that now is not the time to even start that program because

of the fact that, if you're going to do that, you're going to convert

those animals to the business of virtually running on domestic feed in

the wintertime.

I have talked to ranchers in the area, I

have talked to wildlife biologists in the area and I have talked to

hunting and fishing groups from the area this morning, and that's the

position we're in. We don't know what's going to happen with the

weather. We haven't the funds in the budget to buy food and supply it

to the animals in the area. The last time we had this program, the

effectiveness of it was that we were able to get to only 15 percent of

the animals, and the bulk of the animals that were left unattended had

the same survival rate as the animals that we were able to get to with

food.

It's not just the elk. All over the province there are

animals every winter that die of starvation and die because of

predators. It's not cruel; that is the way nature intended it to be.

Where man has interfered, man must try and rectify the situation; but

man has spent an enormous amount of money in that part of the province

in efforts to rectify the situation in terms of coordinated range

management.

If we are going to follow your argument to a

conclusion — that is, we feed the elk — then what of the other animals

that we're not going to feed? We have raptors that are in trouble

because of the snow cover; we have a whole host of animals — the entire

broad spectrum — and the ministry's responsibility is for predators,

ungulates, birds, all of them. If we're going to pick out one that

happens to be one that we

[ Page 4354 ]

all

feel a little more emotional about than the others, then we're really

violating the spirit and the intent of what we should do in terms of

getting along with nature.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a

supplementary question. The minister has indicated that there is not

sufficient money to feed these animals. The minister knows that his

ministry over the past six or seven years has spent $2.8 million on the

coordinated land-use plan. Is the minister telling this House that,

having spent $2.8 million on a coordinated land-use plan, largely to

provide winter habitat for these very elk, they cannot afford $20,000

or $40,000?

HON. MR. ROGERS: That's not what I said to the member.

MR. NICOLSON: You said there wasn't enough money.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I said there is no money in the budget at the present time for purchasing food.

ANNACIS ISLAND BRIDGE

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In

view of the negative effect of the Annacis Island bridge on both sides

of the river, can you advise this House whether any environmental

impact assessments were undertaken? If so, will you table that study in

this House?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm sure there were, and I'll be glad to table them.

MR. LOCKSTEAD:

I have a supplementary question to the minister. I have been advised by

the project engineer that no studies have been done, but I would like

to ask the minister, in view of the fact that he told the Delta

citizens he would accept submissions up to December 31 of this year,

will he confirm that no final decision is made on the alignment of the

bridge, and that he will meet with the Delta council and theSunbury Group Ratepayers' Association in the near future?

MR. SPEAKER: The first part of the question is in order.

HON. MR. FRASER:

I'm not clear what he's asking, but I've met with a lot of Delta

people, and the decision of where the bridge is going to be located has

been made.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if I could have leave to make an introduction, Mr. Speaker?

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK:

A very fine British Columbian has entered the public galleries, a

person who has devoted much of his life to public service. Formerly the

mayor of the city of Vancouver and now a great advocate, a tribune, for

the older people of our province, Mr. Tom Alsbury.

MR. STUPICH:

I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment

of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent

public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you briefly state the matter?

MR. STUPICH:

The matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker, is the damage upon

our economy, upon people with fixed incomes, upon people seeking

mortgages on homes, upon small business persons and, indeed, upon all

of Canada and British Columbia, which will result from the usurious

interest rate policy of the federal government and the Bank of Canada,

which policy saw the bank rate jump today to...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ottawa-basher.

MR. STUPICH: When it's advisable.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Order, please.

MR. STUPICH:

...16.14 percent from 14.76 percent just one week ago or, in other

words, a shocking and destructive 1.38 percentage point increase.

Mr.

Speaker, before you remind me that the House is currently considering

the speech from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, may I remind you

that the next step in the process will be for the chartered banks to

increase their rates, and if we're going to have any influence on the

federal government and the Bank of Canada policy then we have to

prevail upon the federal government immediately to make sure that the

chartered banks do not take that next step. That's why it has to be

done today.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure in the mind of the

member the matter is urgent, and the responsibility of the Chair is to

determine whether or not the business which has been ascribed on the

order paper for today shall be set aside. I must remind the member that

it is the very business of today that provides the opportunity to

debate the issue, so it is my opinion that it does not qualify.

MR. HOWARD:

I rise, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 49. Having given the

government a copy of a particular motion, I seek unanimous consent of

the House to move that motion, which relates to this House declaring

its objection to the usurious interest rate policy of the federal

government.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave will be required for a

motion. I would like to remind all hon. members that standing order 49

makes this provision: "A motion may be made by unanimous consent of the

House without previous notice having been given under standing order

48."

I would also like to remind the House that they wish to

be a little careful in the employment of standing order 49, because an

abuse under this rule is very possible, and I would like to warn

against an abuse of this House. However, I am going to allow this

request and will ask for leave because certainly up until this date an

abuse has not taken place.

Shall leave be granted?

Interjection.

[ Page 4355 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Leave was required, Mr. Premier, and so I must.... Shall leave be granted? I hear some noes.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Before the vote was called, I wished to speak to the presentation of the motion and say the government has great........

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. When leave is required, it is simply the

duty of the Chair to ask for leave. There is no debate on whether or

not leave shall be required. I was simply cautioning the House on

standing order 49. I heard a no, and leave is not granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The point of order I was going to make, Mr. Speaker, would be that in

relation to this topic the government could very much support the

concern about the interest rates in this country. It is to this very

point that the Finance minister is about to make a statement to the

House regarding action he is taking that will carry the same message as

quickly taking action...

MR. SPEAKER: Quickly to your point of order, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...and as such the motion is not needed at this time, because the Finance minister has it in hand.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. The Chair does not determine whether or

not a motion is required. The Chair simply responds to a request for

leave and asks for leave. Leave was denied. Next order of business,

please.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to

make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier rose spuriously on a point of

order in order to enter upon a debate of the very motion that I sought

to move, and it was the Premier's own crowd that gave objection to

proceeding unanimously. He is trying to have it both ways.

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. members. On numerous occasions the Chair has

decried the practice of gaining the floor on the pretence of having a

point of order. I would like to suggest to both sides that when a

member stands and suggests that he has a point of order that, indeed,

he does have a point of order. The Chair has no way of knowing, unless

he hears at least one or two sentences, whether a point of order is in

the offing. Short of that the Chair will then have to require, before

he hears anything, under what standing order a member seeks to gain the

floor. I hope that does not happen in this House. Next order of

business, please.

HIGH INTEREST RATES

HON. MR. CURTIS:

Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Long before the

members opposite thought of raising this in the House, the action had

already been taken with respect to high interest rates. The provincial

ministers meet next week with the federal Minister of Finance in

Ottawa. My attendance there is dependent upon the business of the

House, but certainly British Columbia will be represented. There is an

important point, which I think the members opposite know, Mr. Speaker,

and that is that suggestions have come already from more than one

quarter in Canada to the effect that the governor of the Bank of Canada

should be in attendance for a portion of that meeting of federal and

provincial ministers of Finance. Whether or not that will be permitted

is a matter which has yet to be responded to by the authorities in

Ottawa. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no doubt that the issue which

concerns members on both sides of this House, at this time and earlier,

will be discussed in Ottawa next week.

MR. STUPICH:

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Minister of Finance and I

noticed previously that he had asked for such a meeting. My concern in

raising it today was the very large jump in interest rates today that

will probably be reflected tomorrow in a substantial increase that will

be reflected immediately on the costs of the people in the province and

in Canada. It will be my position that the minister's position at that

conference would be strengthened had the House agreed with unanimous

consent that was required. I certainly regret that the House did not

see fit to give unanimous consent so that the minister would be so

strengthened, but certainly in going there he knows whether or not he

has the support of the people on that side of the House. He certainly

has everyone on this side of the House supporting him in his

representations at that particular meeting.

Orders of the Day

On Motion 1.

HON. MR. MAIR:

I note that this debate is going to command as much respect and

attention from the opposition this afternoon as it did this morning. I

must say that in a matter of such crucial importance and of such

interest to all the people of Canada, it was with not only sadness but

I think a degree of shame that we witnessed the performance this

morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his colleague

the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I happened to be

in my office during part of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition,

and I heard him loudly cry "nay, nay, nay," and I thought it was

probably only a matter of time before the conversion was complete to

"hee-haw, hee-haw, hee-haw."

One would have thought that the

Leader of the Opposition, even when he did retreat from his flights of

fancy into the issues of the motion, would have been accurate at least

insofar as he commented upon those matters. Of course he made some

specious remarks about the question of Upper House reform as we in the

government have proposed it. He totally misunderstood the proposals we

have made, and he of course betrayed his total ignorance of everything

that has been said and done by this government for the last five years.

You know, Mr. Speaker, that might be understandable if all he were

called upon to do were to read the transcripts and the various

propositions that have been put forth by this government and other

governments. I suppose it is a little hard for a person who shows so

little interest in the constitution to read about those matters.

[ Page 4356 ]

The

Leader of the Opposition was taken to Ottawa for the last

federal-provincial conference — the one in September — at government

expense, I presume. That conference lasted six days, and he wasn't seen

again after Monday afternoon. He was there for half a day, and for five

and a half days was somewhere else. I heard that he went to the

baseball game in Montreal. I wouldn't know whether that was true or

not; I'm sure he would be able to tell us. I also heard that he felt

that there were reasons why he should not be seen on television, and so

that's why he didn't stay for the conference. I gather that there was

less risk of being caught by the television camera at the ball park

than in the convention hall.

In any event, the one

opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition had to come to grips at

that late hour with the constitutional problems besetting the country

he threw away for a baseball game or a trip to the National Gallery or

some other thing that had nothing whatever to do with the reasons for

which he was being paid to be there. So I'm not surprised to have heard

in this House today the disgraceful inattention to this constitutional

crisis by the opposition.

I want to say a word or two about

a couple of things I have heard said by the opposition over the last

few years. Particularly I would like to pick up the theme that my

colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) talked about this

morning: that's this question of so-called Ottawa-bashing or

Canada-bashing. I want to make it very clear once and for all that not

only are people on this side of the House getting tired of that sort of

nonsense, but the people of British Columbia are getting tired of

having their patriotism called into question every time they disagree

with Mr. Trudeau. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm as good

a Canadian as anybody in this chamber, and I'm as good a Canadian as

Mr. Trudeau, and I'm as good a Canadian as anyone else in this country.

As a good Canadian, I happen to take a radically different view of this

country than does Mr. Trudeau. That does not make me unpatriotic. It

does not make me a Canada-basher. It does not make me an Ottawa-basher.

want you to know that the cornerstone of my disagreement with Mr.

Trudeau can be contained in his summing-up at that conference last

September we talked about so much. He asked the question: "Who speaks

for Canada as a whole?" He gave the impression that it certainly

couldn't be the provincial governments, because their allegiance was

only individually to their own provinces. He made the case therefore

that he, as the leader of the government party in Ottawa, spoke for the

nation as a whole; he was the one who spoke for all of us. I want to

say quite clearly, here and now, that that is not the view held by me,

it is not the view held by this government, and it is not, I might say,

even the view held by Mr. Blakeney, the Premier of Saskatchewan.

think it would be very helpful if, at this time, I gave the House the

same advantage that we all had of hearing Mr. Blakeney's words, because

I think they sum up very neatly the dichotomy that exists between those

who would support Mr. Trudeau's view of Canada and those who would

support a contrary view. Mr. Blakeney intervened at the end of Mr.

Trudeau's remarks, where Mr. Trudeau laid out what he considered to be

the two views of Canada — his and those which he perceived were the

views of the Premiers. Mr. Blakeney said this:

"Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to add one comment. I

wouldn't want you or the public to think that the provinces, or at least

the province of Saskatchewan — I'll confine myself to speaking for our government

— takes the position that there's not a national interest to be protected.

We are strongly of the view that there is a national interest to be protected.

We are strongly of the view that our efforts ought to be in the best interests

of the nation as a whole, and I think our difference may very well be with respect

to how the national interest is defined and how the national consensus should

be arrived at.

do not believe that the national interest is represented by consensus

of all provincial governments. The federal government has a role to

play. It is not a creature of the provinces. This is not a

confederation. Nor, however, do I believe that the national interest is

to be ascertained by the majority will of Canadians. This is something

more than a collection of citizens, and accordingly the national

interest cannot be stated by the majority view of the House of Commons.

That is the view of a unitary state, and under those circumstances one

does not really need a constitution. One can deal with the national

interest and identify it from time to time.

"The

essence of Canada is that it is a federation. The essence of Canada is,

therefore, that on major matters we need a double majority. We need the

majority of citizens as expressed by the popular will in the House of

Commons, and we need the majority, however defined, of the regional

wills. That is the essence of a federal state. "

MR. MACDONALD: Good statement.

HON. MR. MAIR:

It is a good statement. And do you know, Mr. Member, if you would stop

playing the Mortimer Snerd to your Edgar Bergen, and would actually

listen to your own national leaders, you might learn something about

the constitution of this country.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not

Mr. Trudeau, and it is not the government that happens to command the

majority in Ottawa at any particular time — whether it be, as it is

now, by reason of cheap gas and a ninety-year-old hanging — that speaks

for the entire country. The national interest is expressed by all of us

— by the national government, by the provincial governments, by the

people as a whole. This, I think, is essentially where Mr. Trudeau and

those that he leads go astray from the thinking of those of us on this

side of this House.

I was asked this morning by the two

people who have thus far spoken for the opposition what we have against

entrenchment of a bill of rights. "What is the matter with all of these

rights?" is, I think, the question that the second member for Vancouver

East asked. I would be the first one to agree — and I hope I'm not

transgressing the thoughts of some of my colleagues here — that we in

British Columbia ought to pass a bill of rights in this chamber, and I

hope we do some day. I think it's a good thing that the federal

government has, in its chamber, passed a Bill of Rights.

But

there is one thing only that sets our type of government apart from all

the others in the world, and that is supremacy of parliament — not just

supreme in some things, not just supreme in the convenient things, but

supreme in all things. Our position is simply that any erosion of the

supremacy of parliament erodes the ability of the people to govern

themselves. It's just as simple as that. I'm not afraid of any of the

rights that are proposed. We have those rights, and if those rights

were in a B.C. statute, or indeed, if they were in the federal

government's Bill of Rights, it would be

[ Page 4357 ]

great political peril that any legislature — this or the federal

legislature — would legislate in such a way as to abridge the rights in

that Bill of Rights. I'm not afraid of them at all. But the question I

have to ask myself is: do I want the social conscience of this

Legislature, regardless of who happens to be in government, tested by a

court of entrenched judges, or do I want it tested by the will of the

majority expressed at election time? I prefer the latter, because

that's the British way, that's the Canadian way and that's our way.

We've heard a lot of rubbish over the last little while about an

entrenched Bill of Rights and what it would do. All kinds of great

things would happen and all sorts of bad things wouldn't happen, if you

believe those who propose an entrenched Bill of Rights if indeed we

have such an animal. Well, I want to read just a few of the excerpts

from an entrenched Bill of Rights:

"Citizens enjoy in full social, economic,

political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by

the constitution; citizens have the right to work; citizens have the

right to rest in leisure; citizens have the right to health protection;

citizens have the right to maintenance in old age and sickness;

citizens have the right to take

part in the management and

administration of state and public affairs and in the discussion and

adoption of laws; in accordance with the interests of the people,

citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly,

meetings, street processions and demonstrations; citizens are

guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is the right to profess or not

to profess any religion; and to conduct religious worship or atheistic

propaganda; the family enjoys the protection of the state; citizens are

guaranteed inviolability of the person...."

And it goes on and on. It's the constitution and the

entrenched Bill of Rights of the Soviet Union, where none of those

rights are granted, although they're all enshrined in an entrenched

bill.

I've heard Mr. Trudeau many times; I've had the

privilege of listening to him talking on this subject. I've heard him

go through the litany of complaints about how the rights of Canadians

have been taken away by legislators from time to time over the years —

and in many cases he's quite right. Legislatures and the Parliament of

Canada have done some shocking things over the years. He somehow

doesn't talk about the War Measures Act of 1970. That is conveniently

left out of all of his lists.

MR. COCKE: Did you support it?

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I did not, and I resigned from the Liberal Party as a result, Mr. Member.

What

I do want to remind the members of this chamber is of the classic

example that Mr. Trudeau uses when he talks about rights that were

taken away, which rights would not, apparently, have been taken away

had we had an entrenched bill of rights. It was the shocking case of

the Japanese in 1941 in British Columbia. There is nobody who lived in

British Columbia at that time or since who doesn't feel a sense of

revulsion and shock and shame at what happened to our Japanese citizens

at that time. But we forget, Mr. Speaker, that the very same thing

happened to the Japanese in California where they were under the

protection of an entrenched bill of rights. The only difference is, Mr.

Speaker, that the rights don't mean a thing; it's the will of the

people to respect rights that means everything. That's why the

entrenchment of a Bill of Rights has its downside, the erosion of

parliamentary supremacy, and it has no upside. It means that instead of

us being able to rely upon our right to throw the rascals out and make

sure that our rights are protected, we're going to place those rights

in the hands of people who are not elected but appointed, and appointed

with tenure.

Let me just tell you a couple of other things,

Mr. Speaker, that have happened in the United States of America since

the Bill of Rights was entrenched as the first amendment to their

constitution. I'm sure that a black man named Dred Scott would be very

surprised to learn that his rights were protected by the Bill of Rights

when his condition of slavery was made lawful by the Supreme Court of

the United States on the grounds that to do otherwise would be to

interfere with private property. I'm sure that the mine workers in the

United States in the early 1900s were very grateful to the Supreme

Court of the United States, who struck down child-labour legislation,

working-condition legislation and other things for which they fought so

hard. I'm sure that Clarence Darrow who, incidentally, was a

self-proclaimed socialist, a civil libertarian, would be very surprised

to learn that the Supreme Court of the United States, through its

interpretation of the Bill of Rights, has been somehow a bastion of

American liberties. I'm sure that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were he

alive today, would have some things to say about the exercise of social

policy through the courts instead of through the elected

representatives.

Mr. Speaker, we all must admit, however

much we respect the bench, that the judges, like the rest of us, are

humans with frailties and prejudices. The big difference is that,

unlike us, they're entrenched along with the Bill of Rights. I would be

the last to deny that they should be charged at all times with

enforcing the law of the land, but so far as I'm concerned they should

not be charged with the responsibility of determining the social policy

of our parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at what Mr.

Trudeau is doing with his unilateral action, with his entrenching of a

Bill of Rights against the wishes of most Canadians, just what is he up

to and what are the next steps going to be? We're living in a fool's

paradise, if we stand here and say: "It will all be okay, because he

says it will be okay." I can remember him saying it was all going to be

okay in 1970; that there were all sorts of terrible people going to go

to jail, after he put them in there without habeas corpus and without

right to counsel — and nothing happened. What is going to happen? What

is the slippery slope down which we're going if we agree and go along,

as the opposition would have us do, with Mr. Trudeau's manoeuvres? Are

we going to be a unitary state? Is that the reason we see the powers of

the provinces eroded? Is it just convenience, as some of his apologists

would have us believe, or is it because he really does think he knows

best and believes it is better to have the provinces as municipalities

than as full partners in Confederation? Are we going to be a republic?

Is that the next move? Because I can tell you that once you erode the

supremacy of Parliament, you have permanently taken something away from

the parliamentary democracies we know. Is that going to be the next

step? Are we going to have, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier,

a very carefully worded referendum in a couple of years followed by

more radical surgery as a result? There's one thing for sure, Mr.

Speaker: if we have a Parliament that is subject to the same review as

the laws of Congress are, we

[ Page 4358 ]

won't have parliamentary supremacy, and we won't have Canadian government as we have known it.

Mr. Speaker, I think that one thing came out very clearly in this morning's

debate, and I'm glad that there is time left for the opposition to

correct these deficiencies. The one thing neither we nor anybody else

have been able to find out is what their policy is. It's not just this

side of the House that's asking that question. Marjorie Nichols — I

don't often quote her with approbation, but I'm going to in this case —

on May 27, 1980, she said the following:

"The primary role of an opposition is, simply, to oppose. The proposing part of the mandate is secondary.

"Still,

Dave Barrett and company are having difficulty coming to grips with

even a general outline of policy on a number of rather important

issues. To be precise, there is the matter of the constitution.

"It

seems to me Mr. Barrett and colleagues ought to be sitting down and

committing to print an outline of the constitutional changes they would

like to see. On this matter it is not good enough for the opposition to

oppose any initiatives that may be laid on the federal-provincial

bargaining table as early as July."

Michael Valpy, a nationally

syndicated columnist, had this to say on April 26, 1980:

"There is some difficulty in taking seriously that kind of statement

from a political party that has no position" — he's referring to the

NDP position — "on constitutional reform, has gone out of its way

to avoid talking about constitutional reform and does not intend to

have a party position on constitutional reform until its next policy

convention in the summer of 1981, one year and some months after the

Quebec referendum. That is a sense of urgency?"

Mr. Speaker,

I have to put the opposition on a little tighter timetable than that.

We're debating this motion today because it's urgent, and it's urgent

because this country — the country we all love — is in a constitutional

crisis.

I would like to know a number of things. What is the

position of the opposition on an amending formula? I'm not ashamed to

say that I reject the Victoria Charter. As a matter of fact, probably

one my first public utterances was on that, in a letter I wrote and had

published at the time in almost all newspapers in British Columbia,

saying that I rejected it.

The times have changed since

1971. It's a different situation. Also, I think perhaps we've had time

to reflect upon the wisdom of having first-class and second-class

provinces in any sense, but certainly in the sense of constitutional

reform. I happen to support the Vancouver formula, not because it's

good, but perhaps because — as Mr. Churchill said about democracy —

it's better than all the others. It may simply be that it's the only

way we can work it out, and if that's the case, then I'm prepared to go

along with that rather than have something that is going to permanently

create second-class provinces in our country.

In any event,

it's not enough for the opposition to taunt that a former Social Credit

government agreed to the Victoria Charter. That's not the end of their

obligation. Their obligation is to come up with their own positive

answers, and we haven't heard them.

I'm just going to take a

few questions at random, Mr. Speaker. What about the Supreme Court of

Canada? That's something that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition

talk about. He has said, in essence: "It doesn't really matter who you

pick as long as they're good lawyers. Just go out and get the best

lawyers you can. " I don't really believe that a man with the political

smarts that the Leader of the Opposition has could possibly mean that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name two.

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I can only name one. Come to think of it, I can't even name that.

The

constitution of the Supreme Court of Canada, how it is is picked and

its powers, is without any question at all one of the most crucial

issues facing us today. As long as the Supreme Court of Canada is going

to be the arbiter of differences between the provinces and the federal

government, then its selection process is crucial. Not only must the

members be top-notch lawyers, they must also come from all regions of

the country, so that fair play is reflected not just in their actions

but in the appearances. Not only must there be a regional balance, but

quite obviously we cannot have one party to the dispute continually

appointing the judge.

I'm not here to say that hardship has

been placed upon the provinces over the years by reason of the fact

that the Supreme Court of Canada judges are federally appointed, but I

am saying this: you cannot have the appearance of fair play when one

side gets to pick the umpire. It doesn't matter that the umpire is my

brother, you're not going to believe anything that he calls that isn't

in your favour. It doesn't matter how good he is; it doesn't matter a

bit. It doesn't matter whether he's the fairest umpire in the world. If

he's related to me, you're never going to accept it.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, we'll get to that in a minute, Mr. Member. I thought you'd had enough, but we'll get to that in a minute.

There's

another thing the opposition has spoken about, and I'm surprised they

haven't at least spoken on this in the debate. What about number 12,

the powers over the economy? Surely this is something the opposition

would have a great deal to say on. If I've ever heard any group bleat

about multinationals, it's that group. The only time in recent memory

that this province has gone against the powers over the economy that

Mr. Trudeau wants was when the Premier of this province, with great

courage, kept CPI from taking over MacMillan Bloedel. Now is that going

to be denied us or not? Is it good that the province has some powers of

its own over its economy, or are we prepared to give that all to the

federal government? What is their opinion?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR:

Oh, a multinational would have been okay. There's a great difference,

is there? The issue was not what you say, Mr. Member, although you love

to get into that rhetoric. That hyperbole went out with the coming of

the trade union movement, for goodness' sake. You know better than

that. That's absolute rubbish!

I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, I have tried very hard to find out what the NDP position is.

AN HON. MEMBER: The manifesto.

[ Page 4359 ]

HON. MR. MAIR:

No, I don't want to say that, because Marjorie Nichols will write

another nasty column about me, and I've had more than my share this

month — although it is curious to know that there was a certain

flirtation with separatism in 1969 by a good many of the members

opposite when they signed the Waffle Manifesto. But, you know, they

only did that so the convention could talk about it. Sure, like I go

and put resolutions before our convention that call for all sort of

terrible things just so we can talk about them. But in any event, we

won't go into that.

In my research I have come across what I

think are the cornerstones and perhaps even the entire edifice of the

NDP constitutional package. First of all, separatism is bad, unless of

course it is practised by the president of the Quebec NDP — in that

case it's okay. The second one — and this one is the gem; this is the

one that has to be etched in everyone's mind — is that the whole is

greater than the sum of all of its parts. That's the package there.

You've got to remember that and use it in every speech. Abolish the

Senate is another one. Don't do anything about the inequities of

representation by population in its pure form; just simply abolish the

Senate. Number four is that separatists are kooks. Number five: those

who do not support the NDP are at worst separatists and at best

Canada-bashers. Number six — and this came into play only today; this

latest

article of faith is hot off the press — it's probably all Judge

Eckardt's fault.

If I may, I would like to put to this House

the opinion of one of the local columnists. Some people say he's a

rightwing columnist — I don't know. I don't often agree with him very

much. I certainly don't agree with him on hockey teams. In any event,

I'm speaking of Gorde Hunter. He has a column today which certainly

sums up very well indeed the position I'm taking with respect to the

opposition. I'm going to, if I may — I'm sure I have time left — read

that column into the record, because I think it's something that all

hon. members will want to hear. He says:

"Politicians,

like women and columnists, are allowed the privilege of changing their

minds. They are not rooted to one idea, one plan of attack. What sounds

inviting this year may well be anathema two years hence. With this in

mind and with no malice aforethought, I will show you how David

Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition in this province of British

Columbia, has changed his spots since the glory days when he was number

one."

You notice I said "change his spots, not "change his stripes."

"At

the moment, David is calling those western Canadians with separatist

bent 'kooks.' The estimated (Canada West Foundation) number of kooks is

350,000 — hardly a groundswell calculated to force immediate change in

Ottawa attitudes but at least a respectable parade that isn't about to

go away because of name-calling.

"Let me set

the stage for Barrett's previous stand. I had written a piece (in

January 1975) exploring the possibilities of western Canada seceding

from the rest of Canada because of the short shrift received by the

west down through Confederation years.

"Barrett was in Ottawa at the time attending a meeting of Canadian Finance ministers."

I may interject, I guess that was the time that the second member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said they were back doing the old soft

shoe and giving them the soft soap and all the rest of it. I don't know

what he was doing, but in any event it must have been at the same time.

"He

made mention of the column to the assembled ministers, pointing out

this was an expression of the feelings of many westerners. He urged

them to take serious note of a growing concern and to act accordingly.

"'I want to speak openly and frankly today on the federal government's

proposal in the budget to remove as a tax deduction the royalties paid

by oil and gas companies. This is a matter of great national concern,

and I must be clearly understood in my remarks.

''The federal government, through its taxation policies,

is encouraging greater alienation and frustration among a great number of Canadians,

especially western Canadians. The federal budgetary measures have almost overnight

destroyed nearly two years of some progress and development emanating from the

Western Economic Opportunities Conference. I am now asking the Prime Minister

to resolve this issue and adopt the recommendations I made earlier. Let us break

this impasse before it breaks us.'

"Upon his arrival back at Victoria, I asked Barrett about

his 'alienation' remarks, which, you understand, were pretty strong

for a provincial leader. 'I've always said I'm a Canadian first

and a British Columbian second,' Barrett answered, 'but.... '

The words drifted away, but the implication was clear — Barrett felt it was time

for either meaningful negotiations or strong hint of action. I wonder at his

180-degree turn today.

"It seems to me the topics — constitution and energy sales

taxation — of today's dissent are at least as important as the issue that

got under Barrett's craw six years ago. And, incidentally, when discussing

the federal government's taxing of natural gas resources, Barrett was very

blunt at that time. 'We decided ten days ago that British Columbia will

not back down on this issue.'

"That's when it was politic to run up the B.C. flag,

when it was incumbent on the leader of this province to be strong, forceful.

I guess today, because he is in opposition, he feels the need to attack western

leaders who would be strong, forceful in their defence of matters of financial

and ethical importance to the west. In 1975 those with separatist feelings were

patriots to a cause. Today they're kooks."

think, Mr. Speaker, that sums up pretty much what not only the members

on this House feel but what the 61 percent of those in British Columbia

who do not agree with Mr. Trudeau feel. I think that they would agree

with me when I say that while it is not too late, it is a shame that

the opposition have not had among their number a full-time committee

examining the constitutional questions that are before us, that they

have not done at least what the opposition in Quebec did — come out

with a Brown Paper, something to state their position — that they have

not acted responsibly to ensure that this debate in particular was

responsible, above politics, and in the spirit of nation-building. In

short, I think that they would share with me the sadness that the NDP

has not acted as a responsibly led opposition would in a national

crisis. As with everything else — and tragically at this time in our

history — the opposition has failed us.

[ Page 4360 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Hon. members, prior to recognizing the hon. member for New Westminster,

I must again advise all members that even when quoting from documents

the names of members are not to be used. This is a practice that has

been growing with some regularity in this chamber, and I must advise

all members, even when referring to a member in a quotation, to bear in

mind that we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. I

would recommend that to all members.

MR. COCKE: Mr.

Speaker, I have very few words to say in reply to the former speaker.

My reply to the Minister of Health was totally and completely taken

care of by a resolution on the order paper that sat through the entire

last session of this parliament. That was a call by the second member

for Vancouver East for an all-party committee to canvass this province,

to let the people of this province give input into our constitutional

position.

We are not the government of this province. What

we asked was that the opposition, along with the government members, be

given an opportunity to go out into this province and hear from the

people. But no, that elitist group over there decided that they would

go their own way. We've read their papers; of course we have. Why

should we jump into their bed? They should be listening to the people

of our province, and they are not. They are trying to make political

hay out of this particular situation, and we're not going to be a party

to it in any way, shape or form.

As far as the Senate is

concerned, Mr. Speaker, they want that to be a porkbarrel of this

government rather than of the Libs in Ottawa. It's been a porkbarrel

for them for years, and now this government wants it to be their own

porkbarrel.

They talk about representation by population.

What a group! What a gang to talk about representation by anything

after the Eckardt report, a disgraceful display of politics in this

province. How could anyone possibly...?

HON. MR. McGEER: Are you for or against the resolution?

MR. COCKE: We're against the resolution, my friend.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to join in this debate, surprising as it

is, with a preponderance of speakers from the government side and a

relative absence of speakers from the opposition side. I do hope that

as the debate progresses we will hear more from members on the

opposition benches.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, is

remarkably simple. It calls for two things: an early patriation of the

constitution and an amending formula that in my own words I call a

"cross-Canada amending formula." Early patriation is an enormously

simple concept, and one would think that without question all members

would agree to the wisdom of getting our constitution home to this

country as is, and the sooner the better. By a cross-Canada amending

formula, which is the second part of the resolution, I mean a formula

which calls for all parts of Canada, all ten provinces and Ottawa, to

agree on the formula for amendment so that the amending formula takes

account of all views across Canada.

I look forward to the

views of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), whom I know have done a lot of

research so they can participate constructively in this debate.

Why

is it helpful for us to have a cross-Canada amending formula? It is not

a unilateral formula, not a formula that would give a few elitist or

powerful parts of the country a right to change the constitution. Why

is a cross-Canada amending formula important? As the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) said so well this morning, it is

fundamentally important, if this union came together voluntarily and no

one was forced into it, that formulas to change it be made voluntarily,

completely and unanimously without force and pressure. That is the

spirit of how Confederation came together and was formed; it should be

the same spirit that applies if we are to create an amending formula.

But more important than voluntarism, Mr. Speaker, a cross-Canada

amending formula guarantees that the formula for change and future

change will reflect all views across this country.

If by

contrast there is to be an amending formula that is only partial or is

unilateral or imposed or superimposed on some parts of this country, it

must follow that certain parts, regions or interests will be ignored or

quashed when amendment takes place. That is not the spirit in the

context of Canadian federalism.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely

interesting if you go back to the several years after Confederation

when there was a fair amount of writing about this young child,

Confederation. Concern was expressed about future dangers to

Confederation. The Globe and Mail then, as it is today, was a

fine newspaper. I would like to quote very briefly from an editorial of

July 3, 1869, shortly after Canada's second birthday. In 1869 the Globe and Mail

editorially had this to say about the greatest danger to Confederation:

"The danger most to be feared is that men who really do not believe in

Confederation at all should so seek to extend and consolidate the

federal legislative and executive power that the local governments and

legislatures shall be in danger of becoming mere shadows and shams."

That was just two years after Confederation, Mr. Speaker. The leading central Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail ,

pointed out that the greatest danger to the future of Confederation

would be one of the gravest worries abroad in this country of ours

today — that some people who may not genuinely believe in Confederation

"so seek to extend and consolidate the federal legislative and

executive power that the local governments and legislatures shall be in

danger of becoming mere shadows and shams." And that is the danger in

an amending formula that is less than a cross-Canada amending formula.

am happy to support the resolution. I suppose I am not perplexed to

find that the opposition will vote against it, because the opposition,

the NDP, on October 22 of this year in Ottawa surrendered its position,

Mr. Speaker. They gave it away; they preempted it. With no consultation

and no consideration to the people of this province, they pitched in

and joined with Mr. Trudeau in the now infamous Trudeau-NDP deal that

will make British Columbia a second-class province. Mr. Speaker, the

motion before you today, the resolution, proposed an alternative which

is designed to keep British Columbia as a first-class province.

The

Trudeau-NDP deal provided the following. Firstly, that Ontario and

Quebec should have a special veto over any constitutional change.

British Columbia would have no veto to protect its interests. We would

become a second-class province. Further, the Trudeau-NDP deal gives

Ottawa the power to use a referendum to take away provincial control

over resources, education or any other field.

[ Page 4361 ]

October 22, in Ottawa, NDP Members of Parliament voted against a motion

to bring home our constitution and amend it in Canada by Canadians.

That motion, which the NDP voted against, would have contained an

amending formula that had been accepted by all ten provinces. So it's

little surprise and little wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP today

would not support the resolution. It was a little amusing this morning

to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about consultation and the

need for discussion when, in fact, the apparent position of the

official opposition in this province was given away, surrendered and

pre-empted some months ago in Ottawa.

It's interesting to

think about the Trudeau-NDP-Broadbent package, Mr. Speaker, and how the

NDP have become the footsoldiers of Mr. Trudeau. There's been some

recent talk about pay raises for Members of Parliament. Geoffrey

Stevens of the Globe and Mail put it pretty well. He wrote a

column last week talking about the pros and cons of pay raises for MPs,

and along about the middle of the column he had this to say: "And why,

in particular, should Ed Broadbent get more? Seeing as how he and Mr.

Trudeau are as one these days, they ought to be asked to share one

salary."

Of course, we heard this morning that the NDP in

this province really had nothing to say on this topic. We saw furious

stickhandling by the Leader of the Opposition in an effort to get away

from the issue. Implicit support of the Trudeau package comes from

those benches by their silence on the issues that concern westerners —

implicit ongoing support of the Trudeau-Broadbent package. It's

interesting to see Mr. Trudeau and the NDP in bed together. I think the

Leader of the Opposition is fond of trying to wrap himself in the

Canadian flag on this one, but I wonder if it's not Mr. Trudeau's

bedsheets that the NDP are getting wrapped up in.

It used to

be that the Leader of the Opposition would be pretty precise and call

you un-Canadian if you commented in support of legitimate western

interests. But now even Premier Davis of Ontario has recognized the

legitimate aspirations of western Canadians and their right to comment

on the issues of concern to them in the constitutional debate. Here's

what he had to say in Vancouver last week. Premier Davis, speaking of

the commission he advocates, said: "I believe that this commission

should focus specifically on those matters of federal and provincial

policy, in all jurisdictions in Canada, which must be addressed if

western equality within the economic, political and social mainstream

of this nation is to be achieved." More important, Mr. Speaker, he

went on to say: "Any lesser response to the legitimate aspirations of

the people of western Canada would, in my view, be un-Canadian." That's

Bill Davis saying a lesser response is un-Canadian, and it's

un-Canadian not to heed the legitimate aspirations and responses of the

Canadian people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, those people on your

left, the opposition, seem to have forgotten that one of their

responsibilities and duties in this field is as provincial legislators.

Listening to the Leader of the Opposition one sometimes gets the view

that this is supposed to be a federal parliament. This is a provincial

legislature, and we're here, primarily, to represent the provincial

point of view and the provincial interest in the constitutional debate.

It's

quite remarkable — I'm going to quote in a moment — that the federal

NDP Members of Parliament from the west are the only elected members of

the NDP in the west who've been talking about some of the western

Canadian concerns and aspirations. I think the provincial members of

the NDP in this province have been unusually silent on any of the

topics in the constitutional debate that concern westerners. The

Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) moments ago gave us a quotation from

the former Premier, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett),

about the importance of western legitimate interests. I'd like to

requote that for the record. Gosh, we heard from the Leader of the

Opposition this morning, and you wouldn't know it was this same fellow

who in January 1975 had this to say in Ottawa to a group of finance

ministers. The then Premier said:

"I want to

speak openly and frankly today on the federal government's proposal in

the budget to remove as a tax deduction the royalties paid by oil and

gas companies. This is a matter of great national concern, and I must

be clearly understood in my remarks.

"The federal government, through its taxation policies,

is encouraging greater alienation and frustration among a great number of Canadians,

especially western Canadians. These federal budgetary measures have almost

overnight destroyed nearly two years of some progress and development emanating

from the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. I am now asking the Prime

Minister to resolve this issue and adopt the recommendations I made earlier.

Let us break this impasse before it breaks us."

Now that's the Leader of the Opposition a couple of years ago. He didn't

have that kind of thing to say this morning. Mr. Speaker, it's very surprising

that we're now well into this debate, and from the opposition benches we

haven't heard any substantive comment on issues in the constitutional debate

of concern to the people of western Canada and the north. In view of that default,

I would like to place on the record some of those concerns shared by government

members of this House and, yes, shared by some federal NDP Members of Parliament,

who are doing a proper and legitimate job in representing the concerns, the

interests and the aspirations of western Canadians.

Let's

talk about native rights for a moment. Let me read you the kind of

comment that I would have expected we might have heard from the

opposition so far in this debate, instead of the loud silence. Mr.

Peter Ittinuar, the NDP Member of Parliament for the Northwest

Territories, has had this to say about the present constitutional

package in Ottawa:

"I'm also not a little disappointed on entering this

debate on the constitution, because in the resolution that proposes four classifications

of province, I find that as a territorial resident I am left completely out

of the picture, both in the pre-patriation and post-patriation stages. Let me

state this premise before I start: that the resolution on the constitution now

before the House ignores native people and their rightful place in Canadian

society.

few moments ago the hon. member for the Yukon said the resolution

ignores the north. In the near future the north will be contributing to

the economy of Canada through its resource development, and yet, as the

Prime Minister said to me last year, the Northwest Territories has no

standing whatsoever in making the constitution of Canada. I'm sure the

member for the Yukon echoes those sentiments.

[ Page 4362 ]

"I urge all members of this House to insist that patriation not take

place until adequate provisions have been made for native participation

in the constitutional revision process."

Now, Mr. Speaker,

in terms of native rights and that position, the resolution before us

should be supported. But how surprising — for all we hear from the

group to your left about native rights, not a comment on it so far in

this important debate today. We have the spectacle of federal NDP

Members of Parliament being the members of the NDP who one has to look

to, if you're a rank and file NDPer in the west, to comment on and

advance the legitimate aspirations and interests of western Canadians.

Here

is Lyle Kristiansen last month in the House of Commons, the member for

Kootenay West, and what he had to say. I haven't heard this kind of

thing from that group on your left today, Mr. Speaker.

want to also reject the notion — widespread, apparently — that we in

the west are greedy and want either as members or as provincial

governments to keep all our riches, old or new, to ourselves. That has

been, and remains, untrue. What is the federal interest, and what is

the federal government's record in resources? In the absence of a clear

and open commitment by the federal government as to its intent on this

matter within the context of their resolution, one is left to assume

they intend to intrude even further into the traditional provincial

domain.

"If the federal government ever wants

support for a greater role in economic development, they had better

start to improve their track record and credibility in that regard."

Why

aren't we hearing that kind of legitimate western comment and concern

in this debate from that group on your left? It's a very important

question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read some more.

MR. HYNDMAN: I've got some more for you, Mr. Member, your intergovernmental critic, Lorne Nystrom, has this to say:

believe we should have strong provincial governments, able to implement

programs which respond to differing provincial and regional needs. I

also strongly believe that in this country we have two orders of power,

two sets of jurisdictions, partners between federal and provincial

powers."

We're not hearing that from your group in this place.

Mr.

Speaker, it's amazing that the group on your left, the opposition, are

going to oppose this resolution and are going to go through this debate

failing to voice any of the legitimate concerns of western Canadians

about the issues in the constitutional debate that affect them. They're

going to implicitly support the Trudeau package, notwithstanding that

some of their federal counterparts have the maturity and the

responsibility as federal members to get up and talk about these issues.

Let

me conclude, in supporting this resolution, with three short quotations

from other people. Once again, they're quotations from NDP Members of

Parliament from the west. If those members were in this House, I'm

certain they'd be supporting this resolution; they are quotations with

which members of this government can agree. It is utterly amazing that

the opposition on your left, Mr. Speaker, sits in silence, unwilling

and afraid to say this kind of thing: "The resolution on the

constitution now before the House of Commons ignores native people and

their rightful place in Canadian society." "I want to reject the notion

that we in the west are greedy and want, either as members or as

provincial governments, to keep all our riches, old or new, to

ourselves."

Here's a better one, Mr. Member; you'll like

this: "The important thing when we put together the constitution is

that it be done in such a way that we can live together in balance.

There must be something in it for everybody, or everybody loses."

Those

are statements from your colleagues in Ottawa, ladies and gentlemen. I

think some of you in this House should stand up and be prepared to put

those statements as well, or else consider what your responsibilities

are in this debate in a place where your job is to represent provincial

interests.

You know, having regard to the Leader of the

Opposition, I've got to close with one more NDP quote from Ottawa. We

heard the Leader of the Opposition this morning. We watched him

stickhandle furiously away from the issue. Meanwhile the puck is down

the rink in his own net with Mr. Trudeau. The Leader of the Opposition

in this place, Mr. Speaker, should heed the words of his federal

leader, Mr. Broadbent, because the Leader of the Opposition once again

today, having nothing to say on the substance of this debate, attacked

the Premier. Here's what Ed Broadbent says in the House of Commons on

the constitutional debate: "I am not blaming the Premiers; that is

intellectually vacuous." So the Leader of the Opposition here today,

after his performance this morning, can sleep tonight in the

comfortable assurance that Mr. Broadbent thinks his approach

intellectually vacuous.

Mr. Speaker, by the silence and the lack of comment from the opposition on

these issues in this debate we see again the tacit support and approval of the

Trudeau package. The question has to be asked: if federal NDP Members of Parliament

in the federal House find the place and have the maturity and the responsibility

to stand and outline those issues in this debate that concern western Canadians,

why is it in this place — which is a place of provincial policy and jurisdiction

— those members sit in silence? I hope, following me, that we are going to hear

some policy remarks from some of that group, or else, as other members have

suggested, Mr. Speaker, we conclude that the silence is simply tacit support

of the Trudeau package.

MR. DAVIS:

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should thank the last member who rose in his

place in this House for putting forward so eloquently the official

position of the New Democratic Party. At least we know where they

should stand. They're not standing in this House, but they have stood

in their place in Ottawa, and a number of them expressed concern about

the present developments on the constitutional scene.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

am going to vote for this resolution, and I am going to argue that

everyone else in this House should. It's straightforward; it's

non-contentious, in my view. It doesn't divide us along party lines, so

it should be passed unanimously in this Legislature today.

The resolution as I read it, Mr. Speaker, comes in two parts: one says that we should patriate our Canadian constitu-

[ Page 4363 ]

tion

as soon as possible — everyone surely agrees; the other says that its

amending formula should be agreed upon by the Parliament of Canada and

all ten provinces. Now that's an ideal arrangement. Surely everyone

agrees that it is ideal. Indeed it's a must if we want to develop a

constitution in this country which is soundly based and in which all

our peoples, especially those in provinces like Quebec and the west,

can have faith in the future.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker,

is, as I have said, a two-part resolution. It doesn't fly in the face

of the Trudeau package — certainly not head-on. The present government

is embarked upon a course which will patriate our constitution,

hopefully in 1981. It also provides for a two-year working period in

collectively, can develop an amending formula. In 1982 and 1983 the

rule of unanimity applies. So that's what Prime Minister Trudeau plans

to give us, following his approach and reaching well into the 1980s —

prompt patriation and unanimity for at least two years. That's what I'm

saying; that's what the resolution says, Mr. Speaker.

There

can't be much argument, therefore, about this resolution. Even Pierre

Trudeau would agree with it, as far as it goes. Joe Clark would have to

agree. Ed Broadbent, it appears, has already embraced it. Obviously our

Social Credit government in British Columbia is for it, so why is the

official opposition so silent? Perhaps they're just holding out;

perhaps they're going to vote for it in the end. They really should.

Not to do so would indicate a kind of obstinacy which has no place in

times like these when essential issues such as the constitution demand

our full attention. They have to be resolved. Many of these other

issues which are not identified in this resolution have been mentioned

in this House and should be discussed. They can be dealt with in later

debate, Mr. Speaker, but they aren't being put to a vote in this

Legislature now.

So let us, in other words, agree on this

resolution, make a simple start and take one or two very short steps

down the road towards a constitution which everyone agrees with and

certainly can support.

What is the remainder? What is not

contained in this resolution? There are many important issues — a Bill

of Rights, for example. At this stage it is the entrenchment or lack of

entrenchment which divides many of us. Also there is the question of

provincial jurisdiction over resources, which is not before us in this

House today. The division of powers, especially as they apply to such

matters as communications and family law, is not before us today. The

whole question of sharing, and the reform of our institutions like the

Senate and the supreme court — those questions are not before us today.

We are not asked to take sides with respect to any of those very

important issues, but only the two simple ones that the resolution

identifies. Some of these other very important issues can be put aside

for a year or two, but they are very important. We must address

ourselves to them, and we must address ourselves to them as soon as we

can, but not today and not in this House.

Let me say a word about one that I regard as first: an entrenched Canadian

Bill of Rights, which I frankly think we need in this country, both as a unifying

force and as a simple statement of freedoms and privileges against which each

new law, federal or provincial, can be tested in this country. I must admit

right off, however, that there are strong arguments against it. The hon. member

for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) outlined some of them, and I'll give others.

One is that, being entrenched, it is a law above and beyond other laws. Not

only is it difficult to change, but it also casts a bigger shadow over provincial

legislation than it does over legislation passed by Ottawa.

Our

provincial legislatures have jurisdiction, for example, over property

and civil rights. So far, our civil rights legislation has been

sacrosanct: the Legislature has spoken, and that's the end of it. But

with an entrenched bill of rights provincial legislators will have to

watch out. They'll have to draft their laws more carefully, because if

these laws conflict in any way with a new, entrenched bill of rights

they may be thrown out by our courts. They could well be rejected by

the supreme court in Ottawa if they aren't set aside before that.

Federal

law, by contrast, isn't people law, at least to the same extent. It

deals mainly with such matters as trade and commerce, foreign affairs,

transportation, defence — essentially non-civil matters. The Criminal

Code is an exception, but, in the main, federal legislation is in a

different area than that covered by an entrenched bill of rights.

Ottawa, in other words, has less reason to be leery of a charter of

rights and freedoms than our ten provincial legislatures have.

second and more general criticism — and again this was referred to by

the hon. member for Kamloops — is that ours is a parliamentary system

of government. Parliament is, or should be, all-powerful; it should be

supreme. In a parliamentary democracy the job of the courts is to

enforce the laws that parliament makes. The courts don't have much

latitude in a parliamentary system when it comes to

interpretation, but

give the courts an entrenched bill of rights and our legislators could

be in trouble at times. They could be prevented from responding to an

obvious public need by a court which was out of tune with the times.

It's an old question: who do you trust most, a group of politicians who

can be replaced at election time, or a small group of lawyers who,

having been appointed to judgeships, can't be replaced at all?

course, there are those who would point to high-sounding bills of

rights in countries like the Soviet Union and, indeed, Iran, where

their effectiveness in protecting the freedom of the individual isn't

worth the paper they are written on. There has to be a good feeling

between the people in a society in the first place. They must want to

live together peacefully and work together for the common good. They

must respect each other's rights and especially each other's individual

rights. Then their institutions will comply because they will be made

to comply. They will, in fact, reflect the freedoms and rights which we

in this country hold dear. So a bill of rights isn't everything. It can

tie our hands as legislators. It can postpone much-needed social

reforms. It can drag our judges into the political arena, and it can

give an appearance of fairness when there's no fairness in the country

at all.

I admit these things. Still, I like the idea of

setting out our basic freedoms in a tidy package for all to see. I want

to know, and I want all other Canadians to know, what our freedoms

really are. I want to feel that regardless of what party is in power

and regardless of how successful the bureaucrats are in drafting new

rules and regulations, we will always have the following: freedom of

conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and

expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association in this

great country of ours. Not only must we have the inalienable right to

vote, but Canadians must be free to live anywhere in

[ Page 4364 ]

Canada.

They must be able to work in any province. They must have the right to

life, liberty and security of their person, and they musn't be

subjected to search or seizure except on grounds and in accordance with

the procedures of established law. They mustn't be subjected to any

cruel and unusual punishment. They must enjoy equality before the law

regardless of their race, national origin, colour, age or sex. This is

important, Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent Quebec referendum: they

French wherever numbers warrant. The "wherever numbers warrant"

qualification was, as I understand it, approved by all of our first

ministers in 1978.

Two of these freedoms are new ones on the

Canadian constitutional scene. One is the mobility feature — the right

of Canadians to move anywhere in Canada. The other is the second

language right. It's important not only for one million francophone

Canadians living outside of Quebec, but also for more than one million

French-speaking province.

I talked at some length about a

bill of rights, Whether it could be entrenched in our new Canadian

constitution or adopted in the form of ordinary law by our two

different levels of government is an important question. But it is a

question which should be settled here in Canada, not in the United

Kingdom, not by a parliament which has no direct interest in our

internal Canadian affairs. Prime Minister Trudeau, in an impatient

mood, thinks otherwise. He's tacking his own 69-clause bill of rights

and freedoms onto the British North America Act and sending it to

London to become part of a new constitution of Canada. I'm not sure

that the Thatcher government will do what he asks. But if it does,

we'll get an entrenched bill of rights whether we like it or not. We'll

get a bill of rights which is opposed by at least six of our provincial

governments, and we'll get it with a minimum of input from our

legislatures. That's no way to launch a new constitution in Canada,

even to reform an old one. Also, it's no way to treat the government of

a friendly power. The Thatcher government, if it passes the Trudeau

package, will be acting like a rubber stamp. It will be doing

everything our Prime Minister asks but it will also be doing something

which we collectively may not wish it to do at all.

Frankly,

I don't like this back-door approach to constitution-making. It's sly

and it could backfire. It could hurt Canada's good relations with the

United Kingdom, and it could damage federal-provincial relations in

this country even more.

The real question now is: what can

the provinces do about it? More particularly, what can the province of

British Columbia do about it? Well, there's one thing, in my view.

Appeal directly to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on essentially

political, as opposed to legal or constitutional, grounds. Tell her

that her United Kingdom government is stepping into a hornet's nest. No

matter what Prime Minister Trudeau says, the United Kingdom will be

interfering unnecessarily in Canadian affairs. It will be passing a law

— a unique law for Canada — which we can't get through our legislatures

here at home. That's not democracy. It's taking orders from the

Parliament of Canada in respect to matters over which the Parliament of

Canada has no right or, indeed, presently no power to act.

Parliament

in the United Kingdom, of course, can repeal the British North America

Act. It's a British act, not a Canadian act. The Parliament in

Westminster can also repeal

section 7 of the Statute of Westminster.

That's a British act as well,

an act passed in 1931. That's within the

competence of the Parliament in London. But to add some 69 clauses

supplied by Prime Minister Trudeau in his joint address of the Canadian

House of Commons in the Senate to the Queen is overdoing it. It's

changing the British North America Act in a massive way. It's not

simply sending it to Canada; it's legislating for Canada in a big way.

For example, many Quebecers won't thank the United Kingdom for that.

I was advising Prime Minister Thatcher I would say don't touch the

British North America Act at all — it's all right as it is — but repeal

section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. It, as many hon. members know,

was

an act of the United Kingdom back in 1931 which declared that

Canada, Australia, New Zealand and certain other members of the British

Commonwealth at that time were free to go their own way. Canada, then

as now, had a problem. It couldn't agree on a way to amend its

constitution, the British North America Act. It couldn't amend it at

home, so it had the British add

section 7 to the Statute of

Westminster, and that

section says that the British Parliament, on

request, could do the amending job for us.

We were passing

the buck then and half a century later Prime Minister Trudeau is trying

to pass the buck again. This sort of thing has got to stop. We've got

to face up to our own problem, and we'd be forced to do so if the

Parliament of the United Kingdom repealed

section 7 of the Statute of

Westminster. All it amounts to is two dozen words in three short

clauses. If you wipe it out, the United Kingdom will have no more to do

with our constitution. If it has to be changed, it would then have to

be changed in Canada. Please, Mrs. Thatcher, do this little thing for

us. Repeal

section 7 of the Statute of Westminster and you'll avoid a

lot of headaches on your side of the Atlantic, and we'll be able to

hold our heads up here on Canadian soil.

Back to the

resolution before us, Mt. Speaker. Let's agree on it and pass it.

Surely we all agree that patriating the constitution is desirable and

unanimity between Ottawa and the provinces is desirable in respect to

the formula used for future constitutional change. As I said earlier,

we agree on early patriation. We agree that our amending formula should

also be one that has the approval of Ottawa and all ten provinces. This

isn't much to ask. However, it has a certain symbolism. It will

indicate our continuing faith in a Canadian federation that is based on

consultation and a genuine respect for the rights of others.

unanimous passage of this resolution is a short step, but I contend,

Mr. Speaker, that it is a very important step for this Legislature to

take along the way toward constitutional reform.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, since 1924 the women of the United States have been trying

to get the constitution of their nation amended to enshrine their

equality in that constitution. Their amending formula didn't ask for

100 percent ratification from all of the states; it only asked that 38

of the 50 states be ratified. Since 1924 they haven't been able to get

even that. What we are faced with if we support this resolution is that

a charter of rights attached to the constitution is going to be

repatriated, which does not enshrine in it the kinds of equality for

Indian women, which they have been fighting for for a number of years,

or equality for any women at all.

[ Page

4365 ]

we support this resolution, we are going to find that the women of

Canada, and certainly the Indian women of Canada, are going to be

fighting without success to get that constitution amended in order to

enshrine our equality as equals in this nation. I don't think the

government took that into account when they moved this resolution,

because I'm quite sure if they had taken that into account they would

have understood why it is we cannot support that resolution.

The

rigidity of unanimity ensures that the kind of equality that Indian

women have been fighting for in this country and the kind of inequality

that the courts have enshrined against them in this inequality by the

Supreme Court decision of 1973, which enshrined that they do, in fact,

lose their status if they marry a non-Indian.... The rigidity of

unanimity enshrines that kind of discrimination in the constitution.

That is the reason — certainly one of the reasons — why we cannot

support it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Prime Minister of

Canada has suggested, and he continues to suggest, that the provinces

are not in agreement over an amending formula. I say, with every

respect to the hon. Prime Minister, that that is incorrect and

illogical. Some people perhaps would make a stronger statement than I

have concerning his

interpretation of what happened in Vancouver,

because there is an amending formula that all ten provinces can agree

to in principle, and it is known as the Vancouver Accord. The original

suggestion for this formula was made during the negotiations of

ministers from all provinces during February 1979. During this summer's

round of ministerial constitutional talks the pros and cons of various

formulae were discussed and were considered. Early on the conclusion

was reached that any formula that allows a majority of provinces to

unfairly impose upon a smaller province would be unacceptable. The

Vancouver consensus which was arrived at on July 24 of this year, with

agreement in principle by all provinces, prevented this. The situation

we have now is all ten provinces in agreement, in principle, upon an

amending formula, while the Prime Minister of our country is suggesting

that no agreement can be reached.

The Vancouver Accord

amending formula, generally assessed, is this: general amendments to

the constitution of our country would require the assent of Parliament

and two-thirds of the provinces that have within their borders at least

50 percent of the Canadian population. However, if an amendment affects

essential provincial interests, a province can have the choice of

dissenting and opting out of the proposed amendment. That's really the

bare bones of the Vancouver accord.

It has three main

features. First, it gives the federal government, through its majority

in Parliament, the overall power to determine what amendments can be

made to the constitution. This is very important, because it provides

the federal government with a strong role in its function of managing

our national affairs. There's no question that to have a strong Canada

we must have a national government with the powers it needs to

effectively perform its function. Second, the Vancouver accord prevents

a majority of the provinces from unfairly forcing its will on the

people of a smaller province. This possibility is a concern of each of

the eight relatively smaller provinces. They want to be treated fairly

within the Canadian federation, and the Vancouver Accord provides that

sort of guarantee.

The third main feature of the Vancouver accord relies on the undesirability

of establishing a checkerboard pattern of constitutional law forming across

Canada. It would be obvious to you, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions to permit

a new constitutional provision not to apply to a province must be difficult

to accomplish, and it must be tough to opt out of an amendment. It must not

be allowed to be done on whim, or with an idea that the people of a province

would be rushed into it only to regret that later on. In other words, an amendment

which would not apply to a province should be treated only as a last resort.

If the majority of the provinces wished to support an amendment that was so

unpalatable and unfair, and if one or two provinces began to believe that they'd

have to begin taking steps under the opting-out provision not to have such a

constitutional amendment applied to them.... For example, their option to

opt out of the measure, whatever the measure in question was, would in turn,

obviously, through the political process, encourage the supporting provinces

to rethink their actions, to demonstrate cooperative federalism and have the

dissenters come back to the table so they could have one amendment that would

apply right across the country. This is just old-fashioned, Canadian common

sense. Negotiation, compromise and accommodation — that is cooperative federalism,

and that would come into play. It would prevail, and all concerned would sit

down at the constitutional table to reach an accord that all could all live

with. That, Mr. Speaker, is the democratic course for a federation of provinces

with such diversity and varied interests as we have in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Sure, precise details of the Vancouver accord have to be worked out,

but with all of the ten provinces agreeing in principle — and I repeat

that. Surely those details can be worked out and, I'd say, in short

order, providing the will is there to do it. I say this to you, hon.

members: the will is there to do it, and in my view it can be done.

That's the situation we have today.

Unanimous provincial

agreement at this time on a completed formula would provide the

flexibility that Canada requires, which the last speaker was talking

about. It would heal many wounds, and it would certainly serve to

better unify and unite our country. There is no need for this

unilateral activity by the federal government, which is creating a

national embarrassment in our country. And we have you being prepared

to support it today. I can't believe it. It's against all the

principles of Canadian federalism. This unilateral activity that's

being taken by the Trudeau administration could well be a threat to the

fabric of our country.

You might wonder why an extra week or

two of work was not done on the formula of the Vancouver accord, and so

do we. The ministers on the continuing committee on the constitution,

following their instructions, following the federally initiated agenda,

developed consensus, developed accord, developed agreement, and turned

the matter over to the first ministers for their September 1980 Ottawa

meeting. But, purely and simply, that accord was not heeded nor

followed by the federal administration. Heretofore accepted Canadian

conventions, Canadian practices, Canadian usages, customs and

appropriate legal routes became abandoned. What happened? A complete

intrusion will have resulted if these federal proposals go forward into

the heretofore historically accepted division of responsibilities

between the people of the provinces and the people of the general

dominion. They each have their rightful place in the federal compact.

The

[ Page 4366 ]

concerns

that I'm talking about are being expressed right across the whole of

our country. We found that out yesterday. Those concerns are being

expressed by New Democratic people, by Conservatives, by Liberals, by

Social Crediters, by people of every political faith that we have in

our country. Why are you ignoring that today? You're turning your back

on the Canadian will, as is the federal administration. The unilateral

activity proposed by the federal administration is contrary to Canadian

custom, contrary to Canadian law, contrary to Canadian usage, contrary

to Canadian convention. Surely now is the time for some up-front,

straightforward, no-frills, Canadian-type negotiations — as the Premier

said, a return to Canadian common sense. Get the thing back on track.

That's what we're asking for, Mr. Speaker. These are not all my

sentiments. I'd like to read to you some statements from a few leading

editorials. This one was a while back, from the Winnipeg Free Press,

October 3, 1980. I'm going to quote some of it.

"Mr.

Trudeau claimed that it was the requirement of unanimity which blocked

agreement at the last constitutional conference, as at all previous

ones. In fact, there was substantial agreement on a large number of

items, blocked chiefly by the Prime Minister himself."

That,

Mr. Speaker, is fact. Then the editorial talks about the amending

formula. This is the federal proposal, contrary to the agreement in

principle of ten provinces right across our country.

"Its

worst aspect is the amending formula. An acceptable formula was

available" — which I mentioned to you earlier this afternoon —

"supported by all the provinces. Mr. Trudeau chose instead an ornate

procedure, whose obvious aim is to force acceptance of the formula

agreed on at Victoria in 1971, accompanied by a potentially dangerous

provision for a national referendum.

"The

referendum" — and other speakers have spoken about this — "could be used

to whip up public opinion for a constitutional assault on the rights of

one or more of the provinces in the west or the Maritimes."

Here is a more recent editorial which came as an advertisement, as a matter of fact, by the Globe and Mail in the Times of London, on December 3, 1980.

"If

Mr. Trudeau asks the Thatcher government to submit to Parliament a bill

that Members of Parliament can be expected to find questionable or

repugnant, he will be the meddler, and he will be meddling

unconscionably in British affairs. When the Prime Minister of Canada

goes to Westminster to ask for British help in clobbering the provinces

that he can't cope with on his own, who is the colonial in the case? If

the Prime Minister of Canada were to ask the British government to

submit to Parliament a bill that provided merely for the patriation of

the constitution — that is, a bill that would put the power to amend

the BNA Act into Canadian hands according to a formula to be settled by

agreement between federal and provincial governments — then the only

course open to the British government would be to act on that request."

I continue with the quotation:

"In

plain words, Mr. Trudeau is asking Britain to make changes to the

Canadian constitution that go far beyond the changes he could make

himself if the constitution had already been repatriated."

could not utilize the formula that he is proposing today to bring about

that which he is trying to impose upon the Canadian public and which

these people over here are blindly supporting. What about the court?

Are we forgetting about the rule of the court as well? I refer to a

very recent editorial in the Financial Post — I do not have a

date, but it is volume 74, number 49, and is from this month or the end

of last month — which quotes Senator Duff Roblin. He was talking about

a court decision and said:

"In the event this

House, along with others, may be asked to make up its mind on whether

it intends to proceed in defiance — if that is the correct word — of

the court's judgment, because the matter is bound to go to the Supreme

Court, I think the government's policy in the case of an adverse

decision should be made known to the Senate."

And the editorial carries on by saying this:

key element of our constitution is the division of powers between the

federal Parliament and the provinces. Jurisdictional disputes are

decided by the Supreme Court. That's the way our system works. It would

be unthinkable for Parliament to pass a resolution that the court had

clearly labelled unconstitutional."

This is what the

official opposition is ignoring today as it is being ignored by the

federal administration. The federal Senate, I suppose, is primarily

composed of members of the party in power in Ottawa today. This is the

report that has just come out in November. It says this, and this is

what you are ignoring too:

"It is generally

accepted today that Canada should have a genuine federation in which

each order of government would be sovereign within its own areas of

jurisdiction. This is the basic principle that has been recognized by

all the documents that have dealt with constitutional reform in recent

years."

It quotes Pépin-Robarts; it quotes the Beige Paper

of the Quebec Liberal Party; it quotes the 1978 White Paper of the

federal government itself. A lot of hard work went into these reports —

intense and scholarly work, Mr. Speaker — and the same conclusion was

reached in each. Again quoting the Senate, they say that other

documents as well have expressed their support for genuine federation.

There seems to exist, therefore, a general consensus on the principle

of sovereignty or non subordination of the two orders of government.

Why aren't you understanding this and supporting it?

Let's talk about some of our sister provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's not.

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Let's not, the hon. member says. Well, I'm going to. I'll read to you a

little bit about the resolution of the province of Alberta. It supports

appropriate safeguards for the protection of provincial rights for

proprietary interests and jurisdiction. The Legislative Assembly of

Alberta expresses its opposition to the unilateral action proposed by

soon as possible. That is the route taken by Alberta.

The

national Assembly of Quebec affirms that the renewal of the Canadian

constitution must take place in Canada in accordance with the

principles of federalism and, conse-

[ Page

4367 ]

quently, by way of negotiation between both levels of government and

with the joint consent of the federal Parliament and the provincial

legislatures. That is what our resolution is about.

What

about Newfoundland? The same: they object to the unilateral request.

They urge the federal government to recognize the established Canadian

practice of determining internal Canadian relationships by consultation

and agreement with all Canadian governments, and the immediate

reinstitution of federal-provincial constitutional discussions. We are

doing the same thing as our sister provinces, and you over there aren't

supporting that either.

The Province editorial of December 3 says:

"There

should at least be more time now for a search for consensus in Canada

that British MPs have indicated they would like to see before being

asked to act on a Canadian request."

That's why we have made our position known in London and very fully known in Canada.

"Meanwhile

the acrimonious constitutional debate will go on much longer in Canada

at great risk to national unity, unless the federal government is

prepared to compromise further in the search for consensus."

That's what we are asking them to do with this resolution today.

"Our view is that the search should be undertaken again

with more vigour."

The

Province , of December 11 says: "He" — referring to the Prime Minister —

"can no longer hide behind the notion that he has been promoting for

many months" — I'm paraphrasing here — "that the people support his

ideas. They patently do not." How come you fellows didn't hear that?

"A solid 58 percent of Canadians in the polls said they

would prefer to see Mr. Trudeau get the unanimous approval of all the provinces

before going to London." How come you can't hear that? "They don't

like the way Mr. Trudeau is going about this constitutional business. How come

you do?"

would like to say just a few remarks before sitting down about the

speech this morning by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would say

it was an unfortunate speech. It was unprepared, ill-conceived and full

of contradictions. But it did break at least, probably, two all-time

records: I think that it illustrated the greatest paucity of research

in the annals of this Legislature for any speech we have ever had on

the floor of this House, and it is certainly the weakest talk that he

has given during the whole of his political career.

Mr.

Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the

composition and the relevance of the Canadian dimension, because that

which is federally proposed and that which is supported by the New

Democratic Party in British Columbia — not by the New Democratic Party

in Manitoba, and I'd say not by the New Democratic Party in

Saskatchewan — is based on the following three concepts. These are

their concepts: (1) the British Parliament has got to be a rubber

stamp; (2) the federal government can run roughshod over the provincial

areas of responsibility, contrary to the will of the ten provinces in

our country; (3) they are proposing, I suppose, to obviate the function

of the court.

"Just a hunch" — says Geoffrey

Stevens in Ottawa — "that among the NDP provincial leaders, only David

Barrett, the hon. Leader of the Opposition in

British

Columbia, has publicly supported the federal government. Howard Pawley

in Manitoba has been mute. In Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, the pivotal

figure among the Premiers, is not opposing the Trudeau-Broadbent

approach, but he is not actively supporting it either. I'll say he's

not. "Sources say Mr. Blakeney wants more time to consider his

position."

I'm going to quote Mr. Blakeney before I sit down.

This

morning the hon. leader talked about his concept of federalism and the

provincial role. I say he has totally misconstrued it. Mr. Speaker, I

have to say to you without qualification that I prefer the comments,

the wisdom, the in-depth, precise and deeply researched reasoning and

attention that has been given to this concept during the history of our

country, and the philosophy of democratic federalism by the likes of

Louis St. Laurent, Borden, Mackenzie King, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the

hon. Guy Favreau, the hon. Earnest LaPointe, even the present Prime

Minister, former Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Mr. Allan Blakeney, the

Premier of Saskatchewan, than the leader of the official opposition. I

will join their camp, Mr. Speaker, rather than listen to what we heard

this morning.

Leading academics with world-renowned

reputations have worked on the number of papers that we have had in

Canada. They have presented evidence to different people in London.

Their view is practically unanimous that what is being carried on in

proportion to what is being done here is a definite intrusion into

areas of provincial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the hon.

Allan Blakeney, the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, produced,

I think, a very magnificent closing at the first ministers' meeting in

Ottawa on Saturday, September 13. 1980. The meeting was, for all

practical purposes, over. Mr. Blakeney got the attention of the Prime

Minister and he made this statement, which you people unfortunately are

rejecting today. He said:

"The national

interest cannot be stated by the majority view in the House of Commons.

That is the view of a unitary state, and under those circumstances one

does not really need a constitution. One can deal with the national

interest and identify it from time to time. The essence of Canada is

that it is a federation. The essence of Canada is, therefore, that in

major matters we need a double majority."

We're telling you that.

"We

need the majority of citizens as expressed by the popular will in the

House of Commons, and" — says Mr. Blakeney, so correctly — "we need the

majority, however defined, of the regional will. That is the essence of

a federal state."

Carrying on, he says:

"There's no other way to express the regional will, at least at this time, than through our provincial governments.''

Apparently

the hon. the leader of the official opposition for British Columbia was

interviewed by Richard Gwyn, in Victoria sometime in November of this

year, and here is a quotation that is attributed to the hon. Leader of

the Opposition. Mr. Barrett says in an interview: "Yeah, I've learned

the trick for laying out a wholly logical argument on an entirely phony

basis." I tend to think that was what was laid upon us this morning.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it's a treat to see you back in the chair once more. Why you're here is because of

[ Page 4368 ]

the

splendid job you've been doing on behalf of all the members, and why

the opposition is here, Mr. Speaker, is difficult to tell. There are

not too many occasions in the life of a parliament or in the time of a

Legislature in this House in British Columbia when the issues and

quality of debate bear not on the trivia of the moment, whether it be

egg marketing boards or whatever, but extend far beyond our time in

life, and where the things that we espouse will be of greater

importance to our grandchildren and their grandchildren than to

ourselves. It's at times like this that we find the New Democratic

Party most incapable of action, when we find them truly bankrupt of

ideas. Because it's a party of followers — followers of public opinion,

not leaders of public opinion. It's a party that's incapable of new

concepts or even of laying forth enduring concepts. It's a party that

has to wait until a poll is taken to see where the popularity lies and

then to follow that public opinion.

Suddenly, because of the

consistent stands that this government has taken on constitutional

issues, bearing in mind the good of the people of Canada and British

Columbia, and because of others in Canada coming to realize that what

British Columbia has been saying for these months and years has truly

been correct, you begin to see the public realizing the wisdom of our

position. The polls are beginning to change, and therefore the NDP are

so confused they're unable to speak. They have no ideas of their own,

and they're afraid to take the ideas of the general public, because for

once the people who have led in public opinion — the Social Credit

government — the people who have produced results, and often have been

at odds with the media and occasionally at odds with the public of

British Columbia, have proved once more that the case is right, and

what we have stood for is good for Canada and good for British Columbia.

We're

talking about issues that will last for hundreds of years. And as we

try and see in perspective where we should stand on these issues, we

must go back to the concepts of the Fathers of Confederation, who set

forth the precepts of a country based upon the voluntary association of

sovereign provinces and the creation of a national government to work

in partnership. The spirit of the Fathers of Confederation is

momentarily being lost. It's to recapture that spirit, to rekindle a

sense of Canadianism, that we put forth this resolution. It could not

have been better stated than by the Premier of the province, describing

the issues, laying out the history, setting a course of action, and

calling on all of Canada to come to its senses and produce for our

children, our children's children and all our descendants the kind of

document upon which the truly great potential of Canada can be reached.

Instead,

Canadians are divided. They're given a dilemma. How can people be good

Canadians and good westerners? How can we hold our heads up, if we take

to the Parliament of Westminster — our mother country — a set of issues

upon which they must be faced with the dilemma? We've not had these

issues clearly laid out for us by our own media, to my tremendous

regret. But, Mr. Speaker, it has been laid out for us by the London

Times , who stressed the dilemma facing the British Parliament if they

refuse to act on the unilateral request of our federal government,

knowing that six provinces in Canada out of ten oppose that action and

have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada; knowing that the official

opposition in the House of Commons, for which they claim dominance and

responsibility, is against their proposals.

In the

opposition, Mr. Speaker — the New Democratic Party is the lap-dog of

Prime Minister Trudeau, or vice versa — only the official opposition

presents the case for those Canadians who believe that Westminster be

respected. They should not be asked to undertake a course of action

that is divisive within Canada, and where the supreme court has not

rendered a decision upon the authority of the federal government even

to make the request.

So, Mr. Speaker, here is the dilemma

facing the British Parliament. First of all, if they refuse the

action, they treat us as a colonial power. If they agree to the action

of the federal government, they are meddling in internal affairs in

what it cannot achieve in its own country. Yet if they change the

request of that federal Parliament — that being the only one that can

officially be received — then, of course, that will be interpreted too

as meddling in the internal affairs of our country. Why is it necessary

for us to go at this particular time in our history, with so much

division as to the course of action, and thereby embarrass and indeed

compromise the Mother of Parliaments?

It has been said

repeatedly by representatives of the federal Parliament that consensus

on this issue is impossible, and therefore that they have no choice but

to act unilaterally in defiance of provincial legislatures, in defiance

of people in their own House of Parliament, and in defiance of the

spirit of Confederation, as laid down by the great people who founded

this country and those who nourished it and developed it to this point

in time.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question must be asked whether

it is really valid to say that consensus cannot be reached. Is it

sincere for the Canadian Parliament to make that statement? I am sure

that many of the Premiers and their officials who attended that first

ministers' conference in September — displayed before the eyes of the

public of Canada — were shocked to have released during the time of

that conference the confidential paper prepared for the federal

cabinet, which laid out the behind-the- scenes thinking which makes a

sham of the notion that we cannot reach consensus in Canada. Indeed,

what was laid out in that so-called confidential paper makes it

absolutely evident that the opposite was the case and that the action

chosen by the federal government was in defiance of that opportunity.

want to read into the record here in the Legislature of British

Columbia, in case it has not been done in other places in Canada, some

excerpts from that confidential cabinet document. I do that for a very

special purpose: to let it be known that it is possible to build

consensus in Canada, to eliminate divisiveness, to strike a

constitution made by Canadians in Canada, for each province in our

country, and that the contention that this is impossible is a

hypocritical sham. Let me quote from page 3 of this document, intended

for ministers' eyes only, but no doubt released by a Canadian whose

heart was for his country and not for loyalty to that small group of

people who, I assert here, are leading to divisiveness, not to

consensus. It says:

"The challenge now lies

with the federal government to try to bring out the agreement on a

package which appears to be within reach, and failing this, to show

that disagreement, leading to unilateral federal action, is the result

of an impossibly cumbersome process or of the intransigence of

provincial governments and not the fault of the federal government."

[ Page 4369 ]

That's

the challenge which the federal government set out to prove — that we

could not reach consensus. Mr. Speaker, it was not our fault. I say

that's a sham. When we have, operating at the national level,

insincerity and these kinds of Machiavellian documents being drawn up

to advise the federal cabinet, no wonder there is divisiveness in

Canada. No wonder there is a failure to reach consensus, No wonder we

place the British Parliament in a dilemma. And no wonder somewhere,

i.e. In this provincial Legislature and other provincial legislatures

across Canada, we must take action and say: "Mr. Speaker, that is not

good enough." What we have to do is have an abandonment of documents of

this kind, and genuine work on the part of the federal government to

bring consensus in this country, not for any immediate political

purpose, but for our descendants, who will bear gratitude for the

action we are taking now.

I read from another part — again, under "Significant Issues."

"Since the provincial position will continue to be unacceptable

to the federal government, the challenge remains to find some middle ground

that will be attractive enough to some coastal provinces to break the'provincial

front."

The issue