April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 639 LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY OF ALBERTA Title: Monday, April 19, 1982 2:30 p.m. [The House met at 2:30 p.m.] PRAYERS [Mr. Speaker in the Chair] head: INTRODUCTION OF VISITORS MR. SPEAKER: Today I have the honor to introduce to all my colleagues in the House Mr. Austin Zvoma, As­ sistant Secretary of the Parliament of Zimbabwe. He's accompanied by Mr. Gordon Barnhart, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly in our sister province of Saskatche­ wan, and by Mr. David Mitchell, Clerk Assistant for Procedure in the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan.

I'd like to ask if they might stand and receive the welcome of the House. head: TABLING RETURNS AND REPORTS MR. COOKSON: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon it's a pleasure to table with the Assembly the 1981 annual report of the Environment Council of Alberta. head: INTRODUCTION OF SPECIAL GUESTS DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I'm pleased to introduce to you, and through you to members of the Assembly, 68 grade 6 students from Rudolph Hennig school in Fort Saskatchewan. Accompanied by their teachers Mr. Bill Lopka and Mr. Ron Fraser and by parents Mrs. Malthy and Mrs.

Abbott, they are seated in the members gallery. I'd like them to rise and receive the recognition of the Assembly. MR. PURDY: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the Member for Edmonton Whitemud, it's my pleasure to introduce to you and to members of the Assembly 41 grade 6 students from the Brander Gardens school in Edmonton. Accompanied by teacher Mr. Inglis, they are in the public gallery. I ask them to rise. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr. Speaker, through you to the members of the Legislature, I would like to welcome 30 Calgary students who are all politicians.

They are student council members of 26 different grades 6, 7, and 8 class­ rooms in the Sir John A. Macdonald school in Calgary McKnight. With them are their group leaders Martha Crane, Sharon Klint, and Larry Elaschuk, who is the vice-principal and is exhibiting the kinds of economies we're used to in Calgary: he's also the bus driver. Mr. Speaker, I ask them to rise and receive the welcome of the House. head: ORAL QUESTION PERIOD Western Canada Lottery MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Culture is with regard to the Western Canada Lottery Foundation, the Alberta division.

I wonder if the minister could indicate whether there will be changes with regard to the distributorships across the province. I un­ derstand that at present 13 private entrepreneurs do the distributing. Is consideration being given to changing that to distributors or vendors being employed by Western Canada Lottery? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, there will be no change with the distributors for the next three months. We are continuing in the same manner we have in the past.

As for what will happen in the future, we will be having meetings with the distributors, the Alberta divi­ sion for Western Canada Lottery, and the caucus com­ mittee on lotteries. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate whether recommenda­ tions have gone to the Premier and other cabinet minis­ ters, with regard to a new format and a contract with the various distributors across the province? MRS. LeMESSURIER: I have received copies of it, and I think most of my colleagues have looked at the pro­ posed new contract. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate whether the new con­ tract was initiated by the minister or by someone else? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, the contract is with the Alberta division of the Western Canada Lottery Foundation. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate whether the intention of that new contract is to have the various distributors and 80 to 100 commercial salespersons become salaried per­ sons of Western Canada Lottery? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, earlier I did say that discussion is going on.

Right now, I can't say if that is going to be so or not. I did state that the manner in which lotteries are being done right now is going to continue the same for the three months. During that three-month period, we will be meeting with the distribu­ tors and with the Alberta division. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate whether the alternative I am outlining in my questions is being considered for the new contract after July 13, 1982? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, that is one of the concepts, but I can't say right now if that is going to be accepted.

It will be up to the caucus to discuss it and make a decision. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate whether a caucus com­ mittee has already been appointed to talk about this

640 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 proposed new contract? Who are the members on that caucus committee? MRS. LeMESSURIER: There is a committee, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps the caucus chairman would like to indicate who his members are. MR. SPEAKER: I'm not sure question period makes caucus chairpersons the equivalent of ministers, for the purpose of answering questions. Perhaps the information could be sought privately or in some other way that would be in order. MRS. LeMESSURIER: Sorry, Mr. Speaker. I'll make sure the Leader of the Opposition receives the names of the caucus committee. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate the reasons for changing the present contract to the proposed contract, in which the private distributors would no longer exist and com­ mercial salespersons would become employees of Western Canada Lottery? Could the reasons be enunciated in this Assembly? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. Leader of the Opposition could get that information from the Alberta division. They have the contract at the moment, and the licence.

And as I stated, please: the distributors are continuing in the same manner for three months, and we are meeting with them. I can't go any further than that. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion. Could the minister indicate whether the government or Western Canada Lottery have a set of guidelines for distributors and for retail policy directives, such as is set out in the province of British Columbia? Does the Alber­ ta government or Western Canada Lottery, which is the responsibility of the minister, have that type of manual? MRS.

LeMESSURIER: There is a policy, and that is of the Alberta division of Western Canada Lottery. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a further supplemen­ tary question. Could the minister table the proposed new contract in this Assembly, for consideration by members of the Legislature outside the Conservative caucus, so we could review the contract and look at the reasons we're taking private entrepreneurs out of the field in Alberta? MRS. LeMESSURIER: Mr. Speaker, we have not de­ cided if they're going to be removed from the distributor­ ship. But I will certainly ask the Alberta division.

If they wish to have their contract tabled, I'll do so. Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct my second question to the Minister of Hospitals and Medical Care. It's with regard to the Walter C. MacKenzie health centre. It's my understanding that consideration is being given at this time to phase two. I wonder if the minister could indicate whether a decision has been made on whether or not to proceed? MR. RUSSELL: No it hasn't as yet, Mr. Speaker. We are looking at various alternatives. I'm meeting with the board, and discussions are still going on. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr.

Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion to the hon. minister. A number of the contracts expired as of April 15. Are those contracts to be renego­ tiated, or will they go to tender? What is the present status of those contracts? MR. RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, just to clarify the situa­ tion, there are no contracts which expire. The hospital board obtained firm estimates, by way of tenders, for a shell. They were to expire on the 12th of this month if no decision was made. Of course, that date is now past, but no contracts as such were involved. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary ques­ tion.

One of the considerations or concerns is with regard to the space for research. I wonder if the minister has looked at a proposal that I believe he has received, with regard to the future of research in that centre? MR. RUSSELL: Yes I have, Mr. Speaker. There's a fair amount of confusion about what is meant by research space in that facility, whether it's pure or applied research space; that is, carried on at the lab bench or at the bedside. As it's been built so far, the hospital has a great deal of bedside research space available.

The hospital board did appoint a joint committee, which involves the university board of governors as well as the hospital board, to develop that report on research space for us. I've just received it, and that will be one of the factors given consideration when a decision is made on phase two. CIL Explosion DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the hon. minister responsible for Disaster Services. Can the minis­ ter indicate to the Assembly what involvement Disaster Services has had in the investigation of the recent CIL explosion? MR. MOORE: Mr.

Speaker, on Sunday morning, short­ ly after the explosion occurred, the city of Edmonton disaster services officer contacted Alberta Disaster Serv­ ices, as they are required to do, and relayed information with respect to the extent of the explosion and the fact that a fire had occurred or was in the process of burning but was well under control by the Edmonton fire depart­ ment. Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, Disaster Services has no further responsibility at the present time.

It may be that my colleague the Minister of Labour, who is responsible for fire prevention, may want to comment further upon what investigation might be car­ ried out by the Edmonton fire department or by others. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. I apologize to the hon. member who is the MLA for that area, but that approximates on my constituency as well, so I thought I'd ask the question. I'm sure the member will have a question to ask too.

I would like to know if the hon. minister responsible for Disaster Services can indicate, first of all, what damage has been done to the surrounding community as a result of the explosion.

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 641 MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, I cannot and would not attempt to give a full report in that regard. Indeed I'm not really sure it would be my responsibility to do so. Such a report would be developed by the municipal authorities concerned and reported to the Minister of Labour, I believe, in due course. MR. HIEBERT: A supplementary question, Mr. Speak­ er. I know that the hon. Member for Clover Bar often shares the same bar, but not the clover and the gold. My question, relating to the same incident, should then be directed to the Minister of Labour.

Could the minister indicate what discussions are taking place between inspec­ tion branch officials, CIL officials, fire fighters, and so on, in making a full assessment of the incident and the causes? MR. YOUNG: Mr. Speaker, I can advise that after the explosion yesterday morning, officials representing the pressure vessels branch of the Department of Labour were on the scene, and are still there today. They will be concerned to identify the cause of the mishap and how a repetition may be avoided in future.

As well, there is close co-ordination between fire department officials and the boiler and pressure vessels officials. I expect a report, but it may be some time before we have a complete report which identifies, with absolute certainty, the concern that created the problem. Mr. Speaker, I should add that the company has had a history of very safe operations and has been most co- operative in all relationships with the Department of Labour.

As I understand, they have their own firefighting capacity, which they integrated with the city force, to the extent that they shared information and understood how each would operate in a situation such as this. MR. HIEBERT: A supplementary question. Is the minis­ ter in a position to advise whether the preliminary inves­ tigation has determined whether the detection systems were adequate or were functioning properly? MR. YOUNG: Mr.

Speaker, there is no information as to what caused the problem; nor is information available as to why, if there was a malfunction, the problem reached the point where it produced the explosion. Obviously, it would seem that something did not function the way it was supposed to, but that's speculative for the moment. I imagine that we will not be able to provide any definitive information for some time. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the minister responsible for Disaster Services.

Can the Minister of Municipal Affairs indicate the co-ordination among the petrochemical plants in the area, to make sure that if there's a major disaster, other plants in the area that have firefighting and related equipment assist the plants that are in difficulty? MR. MOORE: Mr. Speaker, the area falls partly under the authority of the city of Edmonton now and partly under the county of Strathcona, but an emergency re­ sponse plan to disasters is developed by every municipal­ ity. In this particular case, it would have been the city of Edmonton.

There is also a very specific, co-ordinated effort among all the owners in the refinery area, with respect to such occurrences. In the question period, I cannot provide a detailed explanation of the emergency response agreement that is in place, but there certainly is one. I'd be pleased to provide the hon. member with further information with respect to the type of emergency response which exists for that particular area. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. minister.

I'm not concerned about the details; I just want to know if one is in position, similar to what the the petrochemical com­ plexes in the Fort Saskatchewan area have. MR. MOORE: Yes indeed, Mr. Speaker, a very detailed plan is in existence. ORDERS OF THE DAY head: GOVERNMENT MOTIONS 11. Moved by Mr. Johnston:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta express its assent to the Constitution Act, 1981, proclaimed in Canada on April 17, 1982, by Her Majesty the Queen. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Speaker, in moving Motion 11, I'm sure all members of the Assembly recognize that as of last Saturday, Canada's constitution now resides in Canada. This has been a long process.

Many of us have had an opportunity to be involved at various times, and all of us in this Assembly have had an opportunity to express our constituencies' points of view, the view on behalf of the citizens of Alberta and, I guess, our particu­ lar feeling as to what it means to be a Canadian with our own fundamental law. That difficult 115-year period of conflict ended Saturday, April 17, particularly because our search for an amending formula was solved and, after 115 years, our constitution was able to be returned to Canada.

On the weekend, I think all Canadians were very proud to have Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II visit Ottawa and provide the final royal proclamation to that piece of legis­ lation, which required process through Westminster in London. But I think it was particularly symbolic that she was here to bring it back to Canadians and, in a very important way, give final independence to our country; to allow us total dominion status among all the large coun­ tries of the world, and now be able to make our own constitutional changes within our own country through the institutions and the processes which are truly Cana­ dian.

So it was more than just a symbolic move; to many people who took in the event, I think it was a very emotional move. It's very heartening to know that the debate in this Legislative Assembly was significant and, in fact, contributed dramatically to the changes which were effected in the constitution. Mr. Speaker, there's no doubt that the British North America Act of 1867 has served us well as our fundamen­ tal law for more than a century. Of course, that is the heart of our new constitution.

We should be fully aware that the amendments in that legislation, which fully set out the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government, are a very effective outline of a very strong federation which has now had a history of ex­ perience and which, in my view, is working fairly effec­ tively in terms of Confederation. I think the principles established by the British North America Act must be continued in this new constitutional Act. It is a matter of legislative record that the principles, the legal aspects, and the traditions of the British North America Act will be

642 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 continued in the constitution and are now part of our basic law in Canada. As I noted, a division of powers between the provincial and federal governments is always a difficult aspect of any federation. Through the period of 1981, we have seen many extremely competitive difficulties between the two governments. For example, we saw the difficult energy time, coupled with a very difficult constitutional time in 1981. But from that, I think we can say that we have resolved some of these problems. For example, for the first time in our history, we have seen the conventions really play a big

part in our constitutional law. Those conventions were recognized by the Supreme Court deci­ sion and are now quite clearly part of our fundamental law. They cannot be changed by

interpretation of the courts, because that classic piece of judicial

interpretation will remain with us forever. Other institutions and conventions will be there as well. We all have the history of parliament, the way in which it operates, the way in which the executive operates and, I think more importantly for most of us here in Alberta, the fact that the monarchy remains within our govern­ mental system and Queen Elizabeth II plays a very important role as the Queen of Canada. Those are the institutions and traditions we all honor and which we all grew up with, and I hope they will all continue for as many years in the future as we can imagine.

The BNA Act has not been diminished in any sense by the fact that it has been merged into the Constitution Act. In the case of the citizens of Alberta, I think we can be assured that under the the Constitution Act, we now have more protection than we may have had under the British North America Act. Quite clearly, when the province of Alberta became involved in 1976, most recently with respect to the constitutional debate, it was our objective to ensure that any changes in the constitution — whether by actual constitutional changes or by

interpretations — would not take away that feeling of confederation, that need within Confederation, which I think all Albertans expected us to protect. Those principles — the principle of equality among provinces; the rights that we now have would not be removed — were maintained by our gov­ ernment, and were maintained through a very hotly con­ tested period. I can assure you that the province of Alberta did not take lightly the alterations to the compact of Confederation. In my view, we protected very clearly and very effectively the jurisdiction which is ours and which will continue to be ours.

Let me note that in this Assembly, I think we are unique among assemblies in Canada. We have a broad range of backgrounds, broad differences in cultural un­ derstanding, and we represent different parts of our prov­ ince. Even in a debate in this Assembly, we can see those perspectives outlined, we can see a sharing of views, and we all become more understanding of the ways our whole province operates. If we magnify that 10 or 20 times, in terms of various parts of our country across Canada, I think we can see as well the multicultural make-up and the very diverse nature of our country.

All of that has been brought together in this Constitution Act, and will remain as a very important heritage to us. As well, I think it is clear to say that we in this Legisla­ tive Assembly had a very definite opportunity to debate the principles in the constitution. All of us know that over the past four or five years, Harmony in Diversity was the key philosophical and government position. It was introduced by the previous Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, now the Provincial Treasurer. It was well debated in this House and, I think, well understood by the people of Alberta.

As I said previous­ ly, the debate was not carried just in this Assembly but was quite pervasive through most of Canada, through most of Alberta. We had citizen participation; a lot of activity, a lot of debate on what should be in our consti­ tution. I think those principles are reflected there, and I certainly think the people of Alberta, in particular, un­ derstand what is in the constitution and how it safeguards their rights and ensures the future for them. There is no doubt that the process was a difficult one in terms of constitutional change through 1981, as I said.

There were attempts by the federal government to move unilaterally against the province. There were attempts to change the jurisdiction of this Legislative Assembly by the Charter of Rights. Had it not been for the recom­ mendations of our Premier and the determination he as the leader of our government gave to us, these changes would have taken away our jurisdiction. We would have had a different responsibility than the one we can now say we have today, and we would have worked under a different uncertainty in terms of our jurisdiction for the future. Fortunately that did not happen. The process was reversed.

The federal government, along with all other provinces, recognized that participation by the provinces was key and that they must be involved in these changes which would dramatically move the jurisdiction of the provinces. In fact, that has been the case, and I think that will be a key result of this difficult period in 1981. But I think it reflects the results of a determined government and reflects the result which will not be reversed, in terms of equality of the provinces and the way the provinces make up Confederation.

I previously outlined the history of the constitution in Alberta, in the debate on Motion No. 15 that we had here on November 18, 1981. I'll not repeat what is a matter of record, Mr. Speaker, but I can give my assurance that I am more convinced than ever that Alberta has become stronger in its jurisdiction, while the rights of its citizens are more secure from this day forward than ever before. Let me just note the amending formula. We've all had an opportunity to think about the way jurisdiction could be changed by the majority of provinces or the majority of the population.

We all have a feeling of the possibility that our rights could have been eroded under an amend­ ing formula wherein two thirds of the provinces, repre­ senting a larger percentage of the population, could change the fundamental law. But as you well know, it is the Alberta amending formula which is in the constitu­ tion. That protects our jurisdiction forever.

Should this Legislative Assembly object to any change recommended by the majority of other provinces and the federal gov­ ernment, by resolution of this Assembly we have the right to opt out of any change which would detract, reduce, or take away existing rights. We can all note the difficult time we had to secure our resources, under the Resources Transfer Act of 1930. We all know it was on our minds that the possibility may have existed that the resources could well be taken away from us again. However, that is not the case.

We have equality among the provinces, and we have the clear protection of the resources. Both as members of this Assembly and as citizens of Alberta, we can all take pride that it is the Alberta amending formula which is included in the constitution, and that agreement among the prov­ inces to include that amending formula triggered the pa¬ triation of our constitution back to Canada, a conun­ drum which has faced Canadians for over 115 years.

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 643 At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Canada has a Charter of Rights which sets out some fundamental freedoms. I think it clearly sets out the way people are protected from governments. To a very great extent, that enhances the very important human rights protection legislation of this Assembly. As I noted, the Premier suggested that we must protect the jurisdiction of this Assembly; that is, we could not have parliamentary supremacy eroded by the courts, and we would not transfer to the courts the responsibility of elected people.

That responsibility stays with this Assembly today, as a result of the notwithstand­ ing clause. That was a difficult argument suggested by the Premier in November 1978. The support in that period was not too enthusiastic. But as you well know, that has now been reflected again in the Charter of Rights in the constitution, and it saves [for] this Assembly the right to legislate in its own jurisdiction. Mr. Speaker, recognition of the equality of women is also reflected in the charter. That does not suffer the notwithstanding clause.

It stands by itself and ends a long period when the rights of women were perceived as, and in fact legally were, less than the rights of men. Again it was at the insistence of the province of Alberta that that change was made. Mr. Speaker, the protection of existing Indian and Metis rights is also clearly established in the constitution. Because we attached such a high priority to resolving this issue, the provinces and the federal government agreed to a first ministers' conference. In fact, that has been written directly into the constitution.

From Alberta's point of view, we will adhere to that responsibility and obligation. We'll do our best to carry forward and join the native leaders in our province in forming and finding the resolu­ tion for their constitutional problems. I hope it can be achieved. It is one of our major priorities over the next year. Equalization: one of the important ties of fiscal federa­ tion is the way equalization works in this country. Equal­ ization does not take away from provinces like Alberta.

It simply means that we share a responsibility with other provinces, other regions, and other people in other parts of Canada, to provide them with a similar level of serv­ ices and opportunities within their own jurisdictions, at a reasonable level of cost. We have talked about the great deal of conflict in terms of developing equalization for­ mulas, and the way a fiscal federation can operate, but that is a result of the way our federation evolves and the way problems are debated.

None the less, there is in principle the fact that equalization will continue, and that will be a means by which federal revenues will be shared among the provinces. In fact, it is the first time that has been written into the constitution. Clearly, the province of Alberta supports that principle. So we have a sense of pride and identity in this new constitution, Mr. Speaker. I think we can say we are now Canadians. We have an autonomous dominion. We're able to deal with the problems which confront us, in terms of constitutional change.

We have an opportunity to remove the vestige of colonialism which may have been perceived or may in fact have really existed. We now have our own constitution. I believe Alberta is ready to deal with the changes in the constitution which still remain before us. I believe that Alberta will as ever be ready to participate, to provide leadership where necessary, and to debate fully, on a public basis, any changes which may be suggested. I already mentioned the question of natives. Of course, we'll be involved very directly in that in the near future.

I can add to it the suggestions we have had from many Albertans, with respect to an area such as communica­ tion, perhaps even looking at the Senate and the very broad range of questions which still remain to be solved. I have said that we have made the first step. We brought home the constitution, with an amending formu­ la. We provided an opportunity to debate what Canada is, from a federal point of view. And, quite clearly, we've had an opportunity to express the views of Albertans, as reflected by this Legislative Assembly, in the formulation of this new constitution.

So I think that over the past year, we resolved what many people considered to be an impossible task. Yes, deals were made. Yes, I suppose there was ample oppor­ tunity for trade-offs. Not everybody won their positions or had them well protected, but we've knitted together a fundamental law. As I said, in my view it's stronger than the constitution we had before. It goes further in protect­ ing the jurisdiction of the province of Alberta in such areas as resources, property rights, and cultural rights. It very clearly protects, in a further and more specific way, the rights of the people of Alberta.

In that sense, I think we can all be proud of the resolution of the constitution. Mr. Speaker, although I was not here, I had the opportunity to read the brochure on the Canadian consti­ tution, which was tabled. I hope all Albertans have had a chance to read it. We tried to provide a symbolic and informational brochure to commemorate the constitution in Canada. I hope Albertans have a chance to read it and perhaps even save it, as a significant memento of the constitution.

I know we are very pleased to have been able to circulate that to all Albertans over this past weekend, as part of our participation in the constitution of April 1982. Mr. Speaker, with this constitution, with this debate we've had in this Assembly, I think Albertans and Cana­ dians can now move forward to other challenges which exist. I've indicated our obligation to deal as effectively as possible with other constitutional changes. I know that in the future we can deal in a better way with the challenges we face, in terms of the difficulties in our Confederation. But one of the fundamental hurdles is behind us.

I simply feel that now that history has been recorded on April 17, we've established our true identity. We have proclaimed what is a proud day for Canada and a proud day for all Albertans. I look forward to the debate. I'm sure other members would like to participate and give their views on what happened this past weekend. Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address a few brief remarks to the Assembly, on this very special resolution. The hon. Leader of the Opposition will be back in a minute or two, but I would like to indicate to the Assembly where I stand. Mr.

Speaker, I am a Canadian from sea to sea, and that will never change. This is a large country. It is a difficult country to govern. It has a diversity of regions, a diversity of people; it's a melting pot of nationalities from throughout the whole world. Why are we not proud to be Canadians? I guess because we're such rugged individualists, it seems to be our uniqueness in this country to have a great propensity for complaining. But surely we as a people have matured in this great Canada of ours. We should be putting more effort into keeping this country together than trying to tear it apart.

644 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 As a Canadian living in this great province of Alberta, I'm appalled at some of the attitudes in this province. I was very upset when we had a Canadian province talking about separatism, and I am very disappointed that we have some of those rumors going about in this province. What are we trying to do? Are we so disillusioned with our federal government, are we so upset with our provin­ cial government, that we want to wreck the entire coun­ try? Are we using this form of blackmail to make eastern Canada listen to us? Mr.

Speaker, instead of threatening to leave, we should be promising leadership, because this is too great a country to have people threatening to separate. Mr. Speaker, I look with great shame and great dismay at people who are aspiring to political office telling half truths, and in many cases outright lies, to try to achieve political ends. I have great confidence that the people in this country and this province will understand that the whole country is more important than people trying to better themselves politically.

Some people don't seem to understand how the people outside a certain region per­ ceive you when you're flirting with separatism. I know that if I were president of a banking institution in Montreal, Quebec, Toronto, or the Maritimes, and I were thinking of moving my headquarters to Alberta and saw this flirtation with separatism, I would say: hold it; what is going on? These are some of the dangers people who flirt with separatism don't seem to understand. Quite obviously, they would never give this message to the people they are trying to woo. As of this day, Mr.

Speaker, I will never ever speak of being a Ukrainian Canadian; I will speak of being a Canadian, period. I would like to tell a story that indi­ cates that. I have a very good friend with the last name of O'Kane. When his wife had their last baby, they had to fill out a form. They came to the

section that says nationality; he put down "Canadian". The nurse said, I can't put that down. He said: well, I'm a Canadian; that is my nationality, that is my wife's nationality, and that will be the nationality of my child. She said, I can't put that down. He said, well, then just put "nationality unknown". Mr. Speaker, we are Canadians; we are not hyphenated Canadians. As a person involved in the preservation of the culture of the ethnic group I belong to, I sometimes think we get a little carried away in wanting to become more Uk­ rainian than Canadian.

Let's preserve those cultures, but let us remember we are Canadians. In the United States, when you ask those people south of the 49th parallel what they are, they say: we're Americans. They don't say, we're Polish Americans or Italian Americans; they say, we are Americans. Our background might have been Ita­ lian or of some other racial origin. Mr. Speaker, it is a great country. And I challenge the people in this province to go some place besides Alberta and Hawaii. If they go across this great country, they will understand what I am saying.

I am saying to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs and the Minis­ ter of Culture, one of the greatest programs we had in Canada, implemented by the federal government, was when our young people were going back and forth across this great land. Mr. Speaker, that was a tremendous expenditure of the taxpayers' money. Let's get the young people, because if this country is going to survive, it's going to be through our young people, not through the politicians. Sometimes I think the politicians haven't done a very good job. It is a great country; it has a great people.

So the last word I want to say and reinforce: let us as citizens and legislators of this great country do more to build up the country and work for the unity of this country than to break it down. I stand in my place, and I wish to say that I am a Canadian from sea to sea; I will always remain a Cana­ dian from sea to sea. Mr. Speaker, I am asking all the members of this Assembly to work towards making this a unified country, even though we have differences of opin­ ion at the bargaining tables when both levels of govern­ ment meet, at social functions, and at parliamentary conferences. Mr.

Speaker, it is one of the greatest coun­ tries in the world. Let's be proud to be Canadians first and foremost, and forever. I thank you, Mr. Speaker. MRS. EMBURY: This afternoon I am very pleased to speak to this resolution and, with the members of the Assembly, reflect on the weekend procedures in Ottawa. It is with a sense of pride to all Albertans that His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, the Premier of our province, and the Minister of Federal and Intergovern­ mental Affairs represented Alberta this past weekend.

Albertans, along with other Canadians, were grateful for the opportunity to view the ceremonies surrounding the visit of Her Majesty the Queen and Prince Philip. It was significant that the actual formal ceremony was held outside. This provided many Canadians with the opportunity to be right there in Ottawa to catch a glimpse of Her Majesty and to witness the formal part of the ceremony. Unfortunately, far too many Canadians had only a fleeting interest in the proceedings. This happened for many reasons.

First of all, the total issue of the constitu­ tion and the ties to Britain is very complex, not one easily understood by all Canadians and Albertans. Secondly, the very long debates and the publicity surrounding the actual agreement unfortunately created in the minds of many people a mistrust and a disinterest. Thirdly, the pressing problems of the Canadian economy, the high interest rates and the drastic downturn in the oil activity in our province, due to federal policies, cast a shadow on this great auspicious occasion. Certainly no one wants to belittle the proclamation of our constitution.

I believe the Member for Clover Bar certainly alluded to the feelings of the people in this province. But frankly, there is still a great concern out there about why our constitution had to come back to Canada at this particular time. So many people you talk to in your constituency will say, what was wrong with what we had before? Were we not well protected when the constitution was in England? Why have the Prime Minister and his government taken this particular time in history to shield the pressing concerns before Canadians?

Fourthly, the absence of the Premier of Quebec: there is a hint of sadness when one realizes that a total province was not represented by its premier at the formal part of the ceremonies. When one recalls the referendum in Quebec in May 1980, it is known that there is a strong feeling among the people of Quebec to remain part of Canada. Interestingly enough, in 1981 a similar event — but not yet of the magnitude of the referendum — took place in Quebec for 49,222 registered nurses.

The board of direc­ tors of the Order of Nurses of Quebec, which is the professional nursing association, recommended that Que­ bec nurses should no longer be part of the Canadian Nurses' Association. A vote on this issue was held.

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 645 Fortunately for all nurses in Canada, the nurses of Quebec rejected the proposition. This was indeed a very dramatic and grave concern to all nurses across Canada. Of the 135,097 members of the Canadian Nurses' Asso­ ciation, Quebec nurses have played a major role in the development of our national association, through their membership and leadership. One can only speculate what was behind this proposal for the nurses of Quebec. First of all, there were internal budgetary concerns within the professional association.

Also, of significant proportion to the nurses of that province was the general feeling of separatism and unrest. Needless to say, it was a great relief to all Canadian nurses that Quebec will remain part of their association. In June of this year, the Canadian Nurses' Association will be holding its annual meeting in St. John's, New­ foundland. Those of us privileged to be there will antici­ pate a great feeling and bond toward our fellow nurses. Hopefully, we can work together and move on to the challenges before us, as no doubt this is the expectation for our country and our future constitutional changes.

If you recall, the Prime Minister stated this on the weekend, when he said: there is much work to be done. It is not the completion of the task but renewal of hope; not so much an ending but a fresh beginning. In her speech, Her Majesty the Queen expressed pleas­ ure that the equality of women was accorded full respect, that disabled people are protected against discrimination, and that the rights of the aboriginal people are recog­ nized, with full opportunity for further definition.

While all Canadians who viewed the ceremony would no doubt share my pride, one special event would be of particular interest to women in Canada and, above all, to members of the nursing profession. Dr. Huguette La Belle, Unde­ rsecretary of State, participated in the formal part of the ceremony. At one time, Dr. LaBelle was the principal nursing officer in the government of Canada, also past president of the Canadian Nurses' Association. Following the speeches by the Prime Minister and Her Majesty the Queen, and the formal signing of the proclamation, Dr. Huguette LaBelle read the proclamation. Dr.

LaBelle was, and still is, well respected by members of the Canadian Nurses' Association. Many women across Canada who are nurses follow her career with great inter­ est, as a symbol for all women. Dr. LaBelle illustrates what one person, a woman, can do and attain in the government of Canada. The Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs outlined very concisely, but very well, what the return of the constitution to Canada means to all Canadians, par­ ticularly to Albertans.

One of our responsibilities will be a continual communication process, for all Albertans to understand the significant milestone that has now been reached. It is significant to really gain an appreciation of the basic principles: that all provinces will be equal; that our natural resources are protected; that traditional rights, such as property rights, are protected; and that the supremacy of the elected legislatures, rather than the courts, will remain.

One of the issues that has caused great concern to many Canadians — and it certainly was expressed by some people in my riding — was, would this mean that the Queen would no longer be our Queen? I think that it is very significant for Canadians to appreciate the fact that the Queen will still be retained as Queen of Canada. Many Albertans and Canadians who know little of our constitution now, or knew of the historical development of our constitution, at least have developed an ongoing interest, and have asked, and will continue to ask: what does it mean to me?

The Member for Clover Bar stated that he was proud to be a Canadian; he certainly spoke those words, and everyone in the Legislature would agree with him. He wants Alberta to remain part of Confedera­ tion. I would only say to him that that has happened due to the strong leadership of the Premier of our province. Yes, we did sit down at the negotiating table, and it was a very long battle over many of the issues. But fortunately for the leadership of our province, we can be very proud today that the constitution has returned to Canada and that we can accept the terms in that that constitution agreement.

It is certainly not the end; it is the beginning of a new phase. We know that there will be many ongoing constitutional conferences. The Queen again stated in her address one of the concerns: yes, the abori­ ginal rights are protected, but there will be a future redefinition of those particular concerns. As a member of the Legislature, I'm very proud of the significant role our Premier played in the constitutional debate.

Albertans will long remember that due to his supreme efforts, we have brought back to Canada a constitution that will ensure and guarantee that we will truly be a federation where the government of Canada and every province will be equal and will work together for our future. MR. R. SPEAKER: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a few remarks with regard to this resolution. The first thing I'd like to say is that we must start from where we are. We now have a Canadian constitution, the Canada Act; it's in place. We have a framework for revision and for adjustment.

I've said earlier in this Legislature, in speeches with regard to the constitution, and at the time the Premiers agreed, that that framework for the patriation of the constitution and the Act being in Canada was a necessary part of the Canadian federation and that it was time we made our laws in Canada, changed our constitution in Canada, negotiated and compensated as Canadians, as elected representatives, whether we represent the federal Parliament or provincial legislatures.

Even in saying that, though, I think that we in this Legislature — and as well in the House of Commons — must recognize that our job has only started. We haven't finished or completed a job; we have only moved the decision-making to Canada, completely in Canada at this point in time. I believe we should immediately look at some of the necessary changes. The government of Alberta should take on that responsibility and initiate the work. Three areas need our attention. Firstly, there is concern with regard to property rights.

Albertans are not con­ vinced that property rights are protected as adequately as they should be. I think Albertans are saying and directing their government, or directing elected members of the Legislature, that property rights should be spelled out in that Canada Act as an area that is protected for all of us as Canadians, and that those rights will not be violated in any way. As has been pointed out earlier in this Legisla­ ture, I believe, the history is that some of the provinces disagreed. The Prime Minister of Canada says that west­ ern Canadian premiers didn't want to add the property rights.

Whoever it was in the past doesn't matter. I think it's incumbent upon governments today and in the future — the next few years — to take on that responsibility and bring in that amendment to the Act. The second necessary area is with regard to the right of better representation in western Canada, and representa­

646 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 tion here in Alberta. The population shift has occurred to some degree, and recent announcements indicate that we will have more Members of Parliament in western Cana­ da. But that still doesn't satisfy our need in terms of equal, better, and effective representation in the House of Commons in Ottawa. From my point of view, I certainly support looking at a regionally elected Senate with an enlarged representation that would balance the power of the Senate and balance that power with the House of Commons. Through that mechanism, Albertans could feel better elected.

Too often we in Alberta hear that when the votes are taken in Toronto, we might as well forget about voting, because we know whether the Liberals or Conser­ vatives are going to be our federal government. That could change by better use of the Senate, of elected personnel in the Senate, and a Senate that would have elections every two years or on a rotation basis, so we would have a continuous change in that representation. The third area that should be worked on and needs immediate attention is indicated under

Section 37 in the Canada Act, where native and aboriginal rights will re­ ceive the recognition those various groups desire. I think it's incumbent upon not this government but the federal government to deal with that effectively and as rapidly as possible. Those are the immediate things I see that not only must Alberta work on, but certainly must be the responsibility of a federal government. This Lougheed government must recognize that.

If those changes are not initiated prior to the next election and are not placed on the platform, directions, or objectives of this Conservative government, I think other parties will be seeking a mandate to obtain those very fundamental changes in our constitution. Those changes are being demanded not only via political parties but by the populist movement that is rising up in the province of Alberta and in western Canada as a whole. I think westerners are saying that they want equal opportunity in this country. They are asking that three basic changes must be taken into consideration.

First of all, political changes: they feel a lack of representation from western Canada in Parliament, as I've already indi­ cated. In the next election, it is proposed that the west will have 90 seats. Ontario will have 105, and Quebec 79. Ontario and Quebec have 184 seats, which means that political representation in our House of Commons or in our Canadian government is out of balance. Western Canadians are not going to stand for that. Secondly, western Canadians want economic changes, in terms of their freight rates. Because they live in the west, they have to freight their goods some distance.

They're concerned about that, concerned about the fact that for goods processed in central Canadian markets, western Canadians pay the freight rate back to western Canada. Western Canadians want greater access to inter­ national markets. They feel that the centre of Canada in terms of international markets, Toronto and Montreal, must change; that our goods and products, not only from the oil and gas industry but from agriculture, must re­ ceive equal representation, equal opportunity, in these international markets. Western Canadians want access to national markets. Mr.

Speaker, I guess the best example I can give is the present circumstances in the sale of Alberta oil. Offshore purchases of oil by eastern refineries are holding down the market opportunity for Alberta oil. To all of us in Alberta, that's not satisfactory. A week and a half ago, the minister Mr. Lalonde announced that he had told the eastern refineries and they should buy more oil from Alberta; they should not buy as much offshore oil. But that's all he did, spoke to them in a meeting. In terms of effectively being concerned about the sale of Alberta or western Canadian oil, his words were not that effective.

We in the west lost. Central or eastern Canadian refineries are buying off shore oil for anywhere up to $9 a barrel cheaper, when you figure in the subsidies, than they're getting it from Alberta. In terms of a business opportunity, they're going to continue to do that.

But if we believe in western Canada having equal opportunity and that the federal government or western Canada stops subsidizing these companies so they can buy off shore, then it takes some action by government to recognize that there is western alienation, a western discrimination in terms of federal policy and with regard to the access we have to our own national markets, specifically for oil. Other examples could be given, with regard to farm produce as well. What else economically?

The federal government and central Canada — and I said this in an earlier speech and, I believe, in 1978 — considers the west as the hinterland. That concept has grown up through the ages: we in the west supply raw materials and goods that are processed in central Canada; those in turn are shipped back to us, and we act as the consumers. Mr.

Speaker, that type of image for western Canada must stop, because that does not allow us the maturity and recognition for the industriousness and capability we have in western Canada, and certainly doesn't recognize the economic capability and opportunity we need in Alberta and western Canada. So, Mr. Speaker, Albertans are concerned with that type of framework in which we work under this present federal constitution. Third is with regard to a cultural attitude of western Canada. We in western Canada are of a different origin than central Canadians. Our origins are multicultural.

Six out of 10 Albertans are of an origin different from English. Often we are put into the mold of this English/ French relationship. As western Canadians we're saying, look, we speak English; we come from many back­ grounds, but we are Canadians under those terms of reference. We keep asking the central government in Canada, why then do you try to fit us into this English/ French mold? That's one of the basic reasons many westerners and Albertans feel the need for one language.

They say, we speak English in western Canada; why do you fit us into the two-language system when we're not demanding that; you're not listening to us; you are telling us the framework for us to live within as Canadians. Mr. Speaker, that is the problem with regard to all three of those concerns of western Canadians: political, cultural, economic. Over the last number of years — 40, 50, 60, 70 years — the federal government has not lis­ tened to what western Canadians have been saying and has not responded to those three basic general needs I have outlined.

That continually causes an alienation of western Canadians with the rest of Canada. I think the challenge lies with us — not only in Alberta, not only with the Lougheed government, but each and every one of us — that we use some common sense and fight for these kinds of rights in a very sensible way, in the near future and in the future ahead. If we don't, if we as politicians are not able to listen to those very basic cries at the grass roots, those forces will cause the break-up of Canada. That would be a most unfortunate situation. Mr. Speaker, it isn't any political party as such that can

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 647 cause dissension within Canada. It is issues of concern basic to all individual Albertans and western Canadians. Today and in the future, the challenge for any political party lies with those concerns. The political party must be able to listen and, in turn, translate that message into an effective federal system of government, a better Canada. I would make the point I made some time ago in this Legislature, that it was necessary to patriate the constitu­ tion, to establish a framework upon which these kinds of changes could be brought about. We do have that oppor­ tunity, Mr.

Speaker. But if Ottawa or this present gov­ ernment in Alberta sits in a very complacent way and ignores these very basic cries from the people of Alberta and the west, Albertans will not stand for it. Albertans will not allow any government to ignore their rightful place in Confederation. That's what our democracy is built on. That's what the representative system is built on: people directing their governments to meet certain basic needs.

If that government doesn't meet that need, one, they can take the government out of power and, two, a government that says they can represent the people better in a certain way can then take on that responsibility. Even at this point in our history, I question whether the government presently in this province is listening to those very basic concerns. And with even greater doubt, I question whether the federal government is hearing west­ ern concerns. It is time that this whole environment in western Canada and in Canada be assessed by the politicians.

In Alberta, the questions arise: are we or are we not being treated fairly? Do we or do we not need a party that will separate or call for independence of a province or for western Canada? Why are people saying that at the present time, Mr. Speaker? We have a new Canada Act. Why are people saying that? They're saying that because of the three reasons I outlined and, as well, because their politicians are not listening. But Albertans are saying that the need for a referendum is only there when the elected representatives are not listening. If they're not going to listen to us, we must take more drastic action.

As a last resort, they are prepared to go to a referendum and look at the question of western independence. Mr. Speaker, I think it's a sad situation that that kind of environment may be created today and may be created in a few years. But it is an environment that can be avoided if this government, or some other political party that has the capability of dealing with the concerns of western Canadians, takes the right steps. I think the opportunity is there for change that can meet the needs of Albertans.

That is the challenge that faces not only us as present legislators but future governments that may sit in this Legislature. MR. HORSMAN: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in support of the motion today, I want to touch on two particular points. If I may, I'll deal with one very quickly before I come to the issue of property rights, which has been raised on many occasions in this Assembly and just now, once again, by the Leader of the Opposition. The first point I wish to touch upon, the role of the monarchy in the future, has already been raised by the Member for Calgary North West.

This is one of the very difficult things that all of us as people in public life have difficulty interpreting to the Canadian people when we hear distortions being spread about with respect to cer­ tain aspects of our new constitution. One of those distor­ tions being spread about this province and Canada relates to the role of the monarchy in the future. I stand in this Assembly, proud to say that I am a strong believer in the constitutional monarchy. I believe that applies to all members of this Assembly, since we have sworn an oath.

I want to say that I was very upset and disturbed the other morning, listening to the constitutional ceremony from Ottawa, to hear an exceptionally well-qualified — I thought — commentator say that the ordinary amending formula with respect to amending certain aspects of the constitution applied to the role of the monarchy. That is not true, and I want to deal with that.

Section 41 provides this: An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and the House of Com­ mons and of the legislative assembly of each prov­ ince . . . And those things are: (

a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province . . . In other words, unanimity of the federal Parliament and each province in this country is required before any change can be made in the office of the Queen. That is important for all of us to understand, particularly since some people, for whatever reasons I don't know, are spreading about this province the notion that there has been a change in the role of our monarchy and the constitutional monarchy as it affects this country. People who do that are doing a great disservice to this nation.

Now I'd like to deal with the second point. The Leader of the Opposition raised it this afternoon. He told us that people are concerned about the issue of property rights. With a good deal less enthusiasm than November 10, last fall, when he supported a similar resolution, he suggested that a number of things have to be done. That's agreed. It's agreed upon by the premiers of the provinces and the government of Canada that certain things need to be changed.

Then he went on to tell us that Albertans are concerned about the role of property rights, that they are not being properly spelled out in the new constitution, in the Canada Act, and he wants it changed some way. When the Leader of the Opposition does that, Mr. Speaker, he is ignoring the fundamental facts relating to property law as they exist in Canada today, that we have the new constitution, as they existed in 1867 and before that, as was so very well spelled out by the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs on April 6 of this year, in the debate of his estimates.

But for the record, once again let's retrace what has happened with respect to property rights. Let's get it clear for the Leader of the Opposition, who, for the time being, leads what is left of his party and what is left of the previous government. Let's make it clear that as a leader, he has a role to come out and level with the people of the province as to exactly what the facts are with respect to property rights.

Common law, as it developed over centuries in the United Kingdom, made it very clear that the right of the individual to hold property is one of the fundamental rights enjoyed by people in that country. In Great Britain first, that right spread across a quarter of the world, and certainly into Canada. In 1867 and the years leading up to Confederation before the BNA Act was passed, under one of the fundamental aspects of a federation, there was a division of powers between the central government and the provinces. Not everybody is a constitutional lawyer, a constitutional expert, but surely every Canadian must

648 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 have heard of

Section 91 and

Section 92 of the British North America Act; and

Section 93, which I'll touch on very briefly. What does

Section 92 say, and what has happened to

Section 92 of the British North America Act in today's constitution? First of all,

Section 91 deals with the rights of the federal government. Then

Section 92, under the heading Exclusive Powers of Provincial Legislatures, says: In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next herein-after enumerated; that is to say . . . It goes through a list of them. Then it comes to Subsec­ tion 13. And what does that say? It says: Property and Civil Rights in the Province. In other words, the rights of the province, of the Legisla­ ture of the province of Alberta, are exclusively to deal with the subject of property rights in the province of Alberta. Now what has happened to

Section 92 of the British North America Act in the new constitution? They remain exactly as they are spelled out in the British North America Act. There has been no change whatsoever. The Charter of Rights affects those exclusive jurisdictions and responsibilities of this province not at all. Those who go about this province saying otherwise do a great disservice to the people of Alberta and to the people of Canada. The same thing applies to the question of education under

Section 93 of the British North America Act, which spells out — and this is of particular concern to me because of my responsibilities to this government, and to my colleague the Minister of Education — that: In and for each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Education . . . Is anybody going about this province today suggesting that that has been changed by the new constitution, except those laws relating to language instruction, which is clearly spelled out to be subject to the qualification "where numbers warrant"? There's been no change there.

Yet there are people who tell us that property rights are not protected. Mr. Speaker, we recall that this constitution has been debated in this Assembly on many occasions, occasions on which I had the opportunity to participate in the debate and occasions on which I had to listen to what was being said by members of this Assembly — not only members of the government but members of the opposi­ tion. I recall the resolution in 1976 and have reviewed the debate. I recall that the now Leader of the Opposition supported our resolution in 1976, as amended by the Official Opposition.

I recall as well that on November 24, 1980, by a vote of 70 to 1, a resolution was passed by this Assembly, which very clearly laid out the position of this government and, I think, clearly expressed the feelings of the people of Alberta. I quote part of that:

Be it resolved that the Legislative Assembly of Alberta support patriation [of the British North America Act] with appropriate safeguards for the protection of provincial rights, proprietary interests, and jurisdiction . . . Surely that resolution, passed by a vote of 70 to 1 in this Assembly, is of great significance today. DR. PAPROSKI: Who opposed it? MR. HORSMAN: As I recall, the only one who opposed that resolution was the hon. Member for Spirit River-Fairview. SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame. MR.

HORSMAN: The fact was that from that point on, we went forward into a series of very difficult negotia­ tions, armed with the knowledge that the issue had been debated in this Assembly in 1976, put before the people of Alberta in the general election which followed, and armed with the resolutions which subsequently were dealt with in this Assembly. It was quite clear that the last thing in the world this province or this government was prepared to do was back away from that resolution, and we did not. So I go back to the question of provincial rights.

Surely the right to legislate with respect to property rights remains solely that of this Legislature, and rightly so. I am aware of the arguments that went on, by very distin­ guished Canadians, that we should not even have a chart­ er of rights at all. Many of those arguments were well founded, based upon the whole aspect of common law and the British parliamentary system. That's one of the reasons we sought and obtained the notwithstanding clauses with respect to the Charter of Rights that are now in the constitution.

But why those same people who didn't want a charter of rights at all come before the people of Alberta and Canada today and say that we must have property rights included in that charter, is beyond any comprehension of mine. Surely, if properly understood by the people of Alberta and Canada, it is beyond their comprehension as well. The fact is that our property rights are protected. I can go through the statute books of this province to show just how they're dealt with.

One of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed by this Assem­ bly was the Land Titles Act, which provides for this province, among others — the province of Saskatchewan has the Torrens system of land tenure as well — indefea¬ sibility of title. Property rights in this province are pro­ tected through Acts such as that. But I want to add one additional Act that is over­ looked, ignored completely by those who argue that property rights in this province are somehow in jeopardy.

I want to turn the attention of members of this Assembly to the first Act passed by the government led by the Premier of this province. That is the Alberta Bill of Rights, now in the Revised Statutes of Alberta 1980 as

Chapter A-16. Let's see what it says. And remember that this is the primacy piece of legislation in Alberta and cannot be overriden unless a subsequent Act provides specifically that it operates notwithstanding the Alberta Bill of Rights. In the last 10 years, legislation of that nature has never been passed by this Assembly. Under

Section 1, it says: It is hereby recognized and declared that in Alber­ ta there exist without discrimination by reason of race, national origin, colour, religion or sex, the fol­ lowing human rights and fundamental freedoms, namely: (

a) the right of the individual to liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law . . . Mr. Speaker, it's clearly spelled out as the primacy piece of legislation in this province. The Alberta Bill of Rights makes specific reference to the protection of property, and passed by the only legislature in this country that has the constitutional responsibility and authority to make and pass such laws with respect to property. Mr. Speaker, reference has been made to the Diefen­

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 649 baker Bill of Rights and its reference to property. Anyone who knows anything about constitutional law knows that the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights made reference only to property under federal government jurisdiction and not to property rights under the jurisdiction of the provinces. That refers to such rights of property as may be enjoyed upon land owned by the federal government — in nation­ al parks, military bases, and in territories — but not within provinces, where there is constitutional responsi­ bility and jurisdiction for property rights.

So it's clearly spelled out in the British North America Act and, without any question, continued as part of our new constitution. Those who argue otherwise do a great disservice and mislead the people of this province in a way I find deplorable. I thank the hon. Member for Clover Bar for having said that in his remarks today. I hope he can persuade the leader of his party and educate him on the subject of property rights, so he won't be going about this province misleading the people in any way as to what the facts are. Mr.

Speaker, I just want to conclude on that subject by quoting what I said on November 10 last year. You will recall it was on the eve of Remembrance Day, and we were debating a resolution of a similar nature to that before the Assembly this afternoon. Perhaps I should have gone farther than I did at the time, but to me it was so self-evident that the constitution contained protection of property rights by having them remain the sole juris­ diction of the provincial legislatures. Perhaps I should have gone farther, but I didn't think it was necessary.

But today I think it is, in view of the distortions and mislead­ ing statements made throughout this province by certain political parties and people who should know better than to do what they are doing. I said then: . . . Mr. Speaker, I want to say to those concerned about the subject of property rights that it is impor­ tant to recognize that property rights remain, as they have since 1867, the responsibility of the govern­ ments of the provinces.

I say to anyone in Alberta that that is properly where they should lie and should be the subject of control by the elected repre­ sentatives who sit in this Chamber now and in the years ahead. That will give the best protection of property rights for the people of Alberta they could possibly hope for in our Confederation. That is as true today, when we have that new constitu­ tion, as it was on November 10, when I spoke those words in this Assembly. Today I added a number of arguments — the facts — to buttress that statement.

I come down finally, in the most conclusive way, by quoting, as I did earlier, the protection provided to all Albertans with respect to prop­ erty rights in the Alberta Bill of Rights. That's where I want property rights to remain, and not be part of the Charter of Rights of Canada and thereby become subject to

interpretation and adjudication by any other level of government, or by the courts interpreting the law in such a way as to make law, as can occur when charters of rights are in force. If at any time it were to become part of the Charter of Rights, I would urge in the strongest possible way that we apply a notwithstanding clause to the issue of property rights, so they might legitimately remain, as they have since the founding of this country, the constitutional responsibility of every member of this Assembly now and in the years ahead. Mr.

Speaker, that is the truth about property rights, and those are the facts. I urge hon. members to support this resolution. DR. REID: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure to take

part in debate on Motion 11 and to express assent to the Constitution Act, 1981. To express assent is to put my emotions somewhat mildly. The celebrations of last Sa­ turday, April 17, 1982, and the proclamation by Her Majesty the Queen, signified an event just as important as the day in 1867 when her great great grandmother pro­ claimed the British North America Act, which founded our nation. Along with other members, I spoke in the debate last November 10. I'm going to try to be brief, not repetitive, and try not to be too emotional about the situation.

In this Assembly I represent the people of the Edson constituency, and they are just about as diverse as this country. They — either their parents or grandparents, or they themselves — come from all corners of the world.

But on this particular occasion, perhaps I may be so bold as to say that I can represent those Albertans and Canadians who were not born in Canada but who came either as children with their parents or, as Anne and I did, as a conscious decision as adults, who came to Canada because of what it represented to us — its opportunities, its freedoms and, in particular, its diversity and its acceptance of the diversity that exists within the country. I come from a country which is governed by the Mother of Parliaments, in Westminster.

As I said last November, perhaps because of that I was somewhat more accepting of what existed in Canada when I came here in 1955: the constitution we had, the British North America Act, and of course the unwritten part of that constitution, the now famous conventions. One has to look at that constitution, written and unwritten, to understand why so many have come to the shores of this country from all corners of the world. They've come from parliamentary democracies; they've come from constitutional monarchies. But they have also come from countries with much more totalitarian forms of government.

Perhaps those who come from those countries have been more appreciative, in the past, of what they have had in our country. Perhaps it's because of that, that during the last several years and months, those people have been more appreciative of the process, the sometimes painful process, we have gone through during those years and months. The freedoms and opportunities that exist in a parlia­ mentary democracy and a constitutional monarchy are unique in the history of mankind on this planet.

They've developed over a long period of time, starting in Greece, and they have resulted in countries where individual free­ doms and the right to be different are much more widely recognized and accepted than they are in some other countries. Canada has perhaps been more fortunate than many countries in the opportunities it has given to its people, and it has always tried to do it with fairness. In the past, there have been attempts to try to write it down, either in John Diefenbaker's Canadian Bill of Rights or in the Alberta Bill of Rights.

But one always has to consider that what is written down is not the total. There has to be a willingness on the part of people to accept individuals in all their shapes and forms, and their natures. Canada has perhaps done that better than most coun­ tries, and that is why it has become such a diverse nation. It has accepted the individual differences. In particular, it

650 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 has allowed national groups to retain their differences within Canada. We talk about multiculturalism and the two founding nations of Canada. The reason we talk about them so much is that those societies and values continue to the present day, whether it be Ukrainian dancers or Chinese food, whether it be haggis or whether it be the English with their own peculiar characteristics. But we have retained all those cultural assets, because we have had a willingness to accept them.

I spoke earlier, in the brief remarks I intend to make, about our unwritten constitution and the conventions. Now included in the constitution are not only the British North America Act and its amendments, the Canada Act and the Constitution Act, but those unwritten conven­ tions also continue to be a part of our constitution. Those conventions have not been abolished. Mr. Speaker, during the period from 12 to 18 months ago, you and five other members of this [Assembly] were remarkably fortunate people. Six of us travelled across this country, a very large country.

I was the only immi­ grant in the group — I believe the others are all Canadian-born — and I had an opportunity that I regret not many immigrants have. I had the opportunity to really see the diversity of this country. As I think I've said before in this Assembly, I spoke to university presidents, bus drivers, premiers, and housewives, about what their country meant to them. We expressed what Albertans felt in Canada, but we also listened to what other Canadians felt about their country.

I found — and I think the other members of the committee found — that this is a much more diverse country than I had recognized before. The concept, the very essence of a federation is its diversity, culturally and regionally, and is very well represented by the provinces. That diverse federation is what makes Canada. That's what makes it different from any other country on this planet of ours. In his remarks, the Leader of the Opposition comment­ ed on property rights.

Until I spoke to the recent Premier of the province of Prince Edward Island, in Charlotte- town, I had no concept of the importance of provincial property rights to that smallest of all our provinces. The forebears of the people of Prince Edward Island lived through the days of absentee landlords. Had we en­ trenched property rights as a federal jurisdiction, rather than their remaining with the provinces, as it has always been, those concerns of Prince Edward Island would not be under the control of the parliament of Prince Edward Island.

They would be elsewhere, and that small province could very easily be bought by people from other parts of Canada. They would return once more to absentee land­ lord status. I'd like to speak now with some emotion, Mr. Speaker, and it has to do with what I can see across this Chamber. In this Assembly, we now have a separatist member. He has chosen not to be here during the debate on this motion, and he has left in his place something that I personally find unacceptable; that is, the Alberta flag flying at half-mast. Speaking as an immigrant and now a Canadian and a member of this Assembly, I find that offensive.

I find it offensive to the people of Alberta; I find it offensive to the people who have worked so hard for our constitution; and I find it particularly offensive in the Legislative Assembly of this province. I would like to raise the flag to its top and put beside it the Canadian flag that was on the desk of the Member for Calgary Buffalo and is now on the desk of the Member for Clover Bar. If it is possible to make that a formal motion of the Assembly, I would do so. Mr.

Speaker, the other thing I would like to mention at this time, on a somewhat emotional basis, is that having travelled this country with you and other members last year, I find some difficulty when people speak about English Canada as being the nine provinces and the two territories other than the province of Quebec. Of course, being a Scot by origin I find the words "English Canada" perhaps somewhat less acceptable than other people. But a few minutes ago, I spoke about our diversity. Perhaps in a more jocular fashion than my recent remarks, I could say that English Canada is not one entity.

It's multicul­ tural; it's represented by many national groups who have come to this country. It is represented by nine provinces and two territories that are just as different individually as the province of Quebec is from the province of Alberta. In closing, I would like to comment about the fact that our Queen, the Queen of Canada, in her remarks last Saturday, recognized the part played not just by the Prime Minister but by the premiers of this country; not just by the Houses of Parliament in Ottawa but by the provincial legislatures and provincial governments.

When one takes those remarks of our Queen, it's difficult to accept some of the derogatory remarks made about the process of arriving at the constitution. Does it really matter if some of the negotiations were concluded, or at least almost concluded, in kitchens? I don't know where John A. Macdonald held his negotiations. With the repu­ tation he has, I don't think it was over a cup of tea. But the result in 1867 was surely a constitution that was very acceptable to Canada at that time.

Whether the negotia­ tions took place in backrooms or in kitchens, surely the negotiations completed last November 5 showed just as much wisdom as those in 1867 and preceding that year. Mr. Speaker, for the first time, Canada is now truly a self-governing federation; a federation of equals, indivi­ dually and regionally as represented by the provinces. I would like to think we can use our new constitution so that that federation, based on a framework of equality, will improve and change over the years for the benefit of both present and future Canadians, in all regions and in all provinces of our country.

Thank you. MR. D. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support the resolution now before this Assembly, I'd like to deal with my remarks in the context of the constitution of Canada as it now exists. The constitution of Canada, according to

Section 60 of the Act proclaimed by Her Majesty the Queen on April 17, is in fact the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982. I think it's important that all Cana­ dians and Albertans clearly realize that our constitution now encompasses not only the Act signed last Saturday but what was formerly known as the British North America Act — now titled the Constitution Act of 1867 — and all changes to that that have taken place up to and now including the Constitution Act of 1982.

I would like to deal briefly with the constitution as it exists and the history that has motivated its coming to pass, starting with the Constitution Act of 1867, or the British North America Act. It's interesting to note that many of the events surrounding the 72 resolutions passed in Charlottetown in 1864 that resulted in the British North America Act being proclaimed on July 1, 1867, had similarities to the ceremonies we saw last Saturday. Indeed we saw fireworks; soldiers paraded and bands marched, or vice versa. There was a ceremony that many Canadians came out in thousands to support. On the

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 651 other side, it's interesting to note that some French- Canadian members of that new Dominion of Canada, along with some people from Nova Scotia, paraded against the signing of the British North America Act, saying that to be part of a nation of what was then 4 million people would jeopardize their culture and herit­ age. It's interesting that one newspaper in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, wrote: Born on Monday last at 12:05 a.m. (premature) the Dominion of Canada, the prodigy known as the infant monster of Confederation. We can see some similarities today.

Some Canadians, a minority — very few in fact — had concerns about that Act passed in 1867, as there was some expression of concern with the Act passed on April 17, 1982. If we look briefly at what that Act in 1867 accomplish­ ed, it was to establish the Queen as head of our govern­ ment, the Governor General as her representative in Canada, and Lieutenant-Governors as representatives in the provinces of Her Majesty the Queen, or the monarch at the time. Very importantly, it established a division of powers, a series of clauses in the constitution.

Briefly, the federal government was given regulation over trade, unemployment insurance, taxation, postal service, mili­ tary, fisheries, currency, banking, Indian people, and criminal law. The provinces were given authority over education, welfare, municipalities, and a number of other sections, including property rights, so eloquently referred by the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower.

The 115-odd years that have transpired between the signing of the British North America Act, or what is now known as the Constitution Act of 1867, and last Satur­ day, saw a series of changes to keep in tune with the times. It also saw a number of attempts to bring the constitution of Canada home, starting in [1927] with Mackenzie King attempting to bring the premiers togeth­ er. The problem there, was the amending formula, as it was in 1931 with R.B. Bennett, and in many subsequent meetings that took place.

So we had an evolution of the constitution that's now in place in Canada, taking place up to and including the round of talks which began to form what is now the Constitution Act of 1982. I think it's important to note that the discussions that took place began with many concerns.

Those concerns were underlined and identified in extreme ways when in October 1980, the Prime Minister mentioned on televi­ sion, in passing, to the Canadian people that he was willing to move unilaterally, against all parliamentary tradition, against all the history of the country, in estab­ lishing a Canadian constitution if that was not agreed to by the provincial premiers. Mr. Speaker, I believe what followed from that point must represent some of the finest hours Albertans have had.

Indeed we will never forget the Canadians and those Albertan Canadians who fought in World War I and World War II to hold this nation together. But at this time, on this day, when we pass this motion — as I believe we should and will — we must not forget that Albertans fought, from that 1980 date on, for a constitu­ tion that is here today in full. We started in this Assem­ bly, with four other provinces, in opposing the federal actions in the Supreme Court.

Albertans from all walks of life began to write letters to their fellow Canadians and to British parliamentarians, and to speak to them, travel, present petitions, and at their own expense give tours across this nation, to make sure that we didn't have a constitution, as the Prime Minister had originally pre­ sented, which would have made us a second-class prov­ ince and would have jeopardized our rights and privileges. With the hon. Member for Edson, who spoke just before me, and with you, Mr.

Speaker, I had the oppor­ tunity to travel the country, following to some extent much of the work done by Canadians in this country. Particularly on the tour I took through southern Ontario, I was absolutely convinced that those letters, phone calls, and speeches from Alberta businessmen and other indi­ viduals helped a great deal in helping all Canadians recognize that we needed a constitution that treated each province fairly and that looked at the problems and diffi­ culties Canada has in the context of a federation, not one state run out of Ottawa alone. I was further convinced, Mr.

Speaker, on a trip you invited me to take to Britain, where I had a chance to talk to many British parliamen­ tarians who had been receiving 50, 100, 150 letters from Canadians, many of them — in fact often the majority — Albertans, who had written outlining their concerns with the constitutional package the Prime Minister had attempted. Another major aspect of that process was the discus­ sions of the council of ministers through which the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs had an opportunity to lead this province.

From observing part of those discussions, I have to say that without question this province owes a great deal to the Premier of the province in leading much of the nation into the provisions of this Act as they now stand; also to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs, who played a very dynamic, definite leadership role in the negotiations bringing together the other provinces, first as several provinces, then as eight, and finally as nine sign­ ing this accord to give us the constitution we have today; a difficult task in a nation with interests as diverse as this. Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to take a brief look at some of the provisions in this Constitution Act of 1982, which we add to the others to make the constitution of Canada. Are there concerns? Indeed there are. I have concerns, as did people in 1867, about the BNA Act, as Canadians have had in different parts of the country to different provi­ sions throughout history. There's no doubt that native people have concerns about this Act, although it emphat­ ically protects their rights as they now exist.

But we have established a process through which in a conference we'll discuss the very complicated issue of their land rights, which many native people have trouble coming together on, and other issues. Of course, the problem of Quebec's not having signed this agreement is a grave one for Canada. That represents a very large percentage of our population. I think we should all be concerned that that didn't take place.

It is interesting to note that the separatist government of Quebec, the one government that didn't sign it, has allies in this province who also oppose the Act, ostensibly for different reasons, but on a similar basis, because they want a separate country and, in participating in signing

an Act that brings the country together, to some extent sign their own political death warrant. I think there's some political expediency there. I believe that in this document, the people of Quebec are protected fully and as completely as other Canadians. I'm sure that the majority of the people in that province who do not believe that now, will come to believe it. There are some concerns with respect to the legal chal­ lenges that will likely take place to aspects of the Charter of Rights. I'm sure that some of the people who've questioned the fundamental rights, and have suggested

652 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 that lawyers will have an addition to their income as a result of that, are correct in many respects. The saving grace for this province is not only the rights that are included, or those which I think every citizen of this province would want, but also that we have something called a non obstante clause or, for those of us who aren't lawyers, the notwithstanding clause.

It says that tomor­ row in this Legislature we can pass a Bill that clarifies any of the sections defined in the fundamental rights or legal rights, and make sure that they represent the feelings of the people of Alberta. That was a crucial part of the constitution that was necessary. Mr. Speaker, a very important provision is included in this Constitution Act.

Section 26 indicates that despite the rights outlined in this particular Act, they shall never be construed as taking away any existing rights and privi­ leges in the country, thereby cementing the Constitution Act of 1867 with the changes made in between and the Act passed on Saturday. It clarifies the issue of property rights, which the hon. Minister of Advanced Education and Manpower dealt with in some detail, and which I won't repeat.

But clearly, property rights have existed in this province and country since Confederation and, by the passage of this Act, now exist to an even firmer extent than they did before.

I find it highly ironic that the group of individuals claiming that property rights do not exist and should be written in this Act, want to separate from Canada, because by claiming that those property rights should be in this Act, they in fact say that we should move them from provincial to federal jurisdiction; ironic in the extreme, that a separatist organization would want to take away the rights of property as proclaimed by this Legislature and put them in the hands of federal interpre­ tation, be they the courts. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure hon. members have read a number of other sections.

I think the amending formula is of extreme importance, and it's been dealt with very well by the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Af­ fairs. Many Albertans may not realize that there are in fact two aspects of the amending formula in this Consti­ tution Act of 1982. One we haven't often mentioned requires unanimous consent of all provinces and the fed­ eral Parliament. Again, I don't know how any individual reading this particular Act could at any point claim there's any jeopardy to the monarchy as part of the Canadian system of government.

Clearly in this Act, with an amending formula that requires 10 provinces and both Houses of Parliament, is the protection of the Queen, the Governor General, and the Lieutenant-Governor. No change can be made to those offices by anything except unanimous consent across this country. The other

section — which is a major achievement and which in effect writes in stone for all time that this province can control its jurisdiction, rights, and powers — is the amending formula, which says that while seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population, with the federal Parliament, can make changes to the constitu­ tion, no change can be made in the province of Alberta if this Legislature passes a motion saying that it is null and void. That is declared fully and clearly, and perhaps more than any other way protects rights such as property for time and eternity. Mr.

Speaker, those are some of the provisions of the Act which make me excited about it, which make me proud to have participated in some small way, as have all Canadians, in bringing together this Act. It makes me proud of the Albertans who fought vigorously for this Act, and with no question won the battle to protect their rights and jurisdiction. Is there much to do? Yes, there's no doubt about that. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition and others who've spoken, that this is the beginning.

Many Alber­ tans are now saying: without question we now have our rights fully protected, and we would now like to look at ways in which we may have even more influence in the direction of this nation as a whole. I personally would support significant changes to the federal Senate. My preference would be for an elected one that had powers to safeguard the rights of provinces, and would have power over many appointments to feder­ al boards and agencies, possibly even over certain minis­ ters of Cabinet.

I'm sure we would have a great degree of difficulty getting that through certain parts of this coun­ try, but none the less it is one which might protect and balance the provinces in the future. I would like to see the government very seriously consider, with the input of Albertans, evolving a package that will go on with that next phase of these constitution Acts which started in 1867, and which proceeded with a great step forward on April 17, 1982.

I suggest that some body, perhaps some small committee of prominent Alber­ tans, bring together the thoughts of Albertans and, first of all, make sure that Albertans know what's in the current constitution, take suggestions as to the direction we should go and, perhaps as early as the fall, recom­ mend to this Legislature how we might proceed in press­ ing home the advantage we've won in taking in hand the constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, and adding to them even more strength for this province. Having said that, Mr.

Speaker, I'll conclude my re­ marks by saying that I think we owe a great deal of thanks to every Albertan who participated in developing this. It gives us a strength, a permanence, a clear guaran­ tee that in the past has been unclear. We owe a great deal of thanks in particular to the leader of this government and to the Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs who, in the last, very difficult couple of years, piloted this through. With those remarks, Mr. Speaker, I certainly urge every member of this Legislature to vote in favor of the motion now before us. MR. MUSGREAVE: Mr.

Speaker, I had not intended to get into this debate but, after listening this afternoon, I too want to make a few comments. First of all, I strongly support the resolution. I'm not going to comment, as have some of my colleagues, by quoting various Acts and parts of Acts. Today, I'd like just to talk from the heart. I spent six years of my life in the air force. Many of my colleagues in this Legislature spent similar amounts of time in either the army or navy. When war was declared, we didn't sit around and debate whether we should go; we just went.

The reason we went was that Czechoslovakia had fallen, the Rhineland had been occupied, and Poland was finally being occupied. We realized we were fighting for democracy and freedom. I must confess that I don't share the feelings of the hon. Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs with regard to the constitution. Not being a lawyer, I didn't have any concerns about my freedoms, my property rights, or anything else. I just assumed I had them, because I was part of a nation that used to be part of the British empire.

We inherited their parliamentary system and English common law, and I felt that as time went on, my rights would be protected. I realized of course that the BNA Act wasn't in Canada, and we did have to vote for

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 653 certain things to Britain, but I felt that in time we would work that out. All this was foisted on us by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Prime Minister of Canada who, when war was declared, didn't even feel it was in his best interests to go. So he didn't bother going. I would like to point out that particularly during the Second War, many citizens of Quebec were members of the air force or navy; many were members of French regiments. By joining those particular units, all these people were available to go into any theatre of war in any part of the world.

They were not conscripts; they were not draft dodgers. Like the rest of us from other parts of Canada, they were volunteers. As I said earlier, I'm speaking from the heart, and I do have the concern that 25 per cent of the Canadian people were not represented by their Premier in those ceremonies on Saturday. We still have a festering sore in our midst. I noted that the ordinary people from the province of Quebec who were there, whom they spoke to as the TV cameras moved through the crowds, were mostly Anglo- Saxons. I didn't see a single French Canadian who was there by his own volition.

One concern of the province of Quebec is that in spite of Bill 101, the number of people working in the French language is actually declining. Their leaders know they have a problem. Our challenge is to make sure that when they vote for separation, which the Premier of Quebec announced he was going to bring forward again, the people of Quebec feel they are still part of Canada. A lot of people say, well, last year the vote was passed with a good majority.

But I point out to you that a lot of the Anglo-Saxon people have since been transferred out of that province; a lot of the people who voted were of my generation, and the natural course of events is taking care of them. The next time around, we may not be as fortunate on that vote. One reason I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, is that I want to take this opportunity to personally praise the Member for Lethbridge East for his fine work over the past several months — I think he's taken more out of his life than perhaps he realizes — and likewise our Premier, in taking up this struggle.

As time goes on, I think we'll realize that this issue is more important than the energy issue, for which our Premier has also fought a good fight. But I would like to make a few comments with regard to what the Leader of the Opposition said. He said we have to listen to the people. I suggest we are listening. He said that we could have an elected Senate. Well, back in 1921, Mackenzie King ran an election on Senate reform, and it hasn't changed very much since. He then said we should have recall by vote of citizens, or we should settle issues by referendum.

He's really saying that he would like to take some bits and pieces from the American system of government, and try to interpose them in the parliamentary system we enjoy in Canada. You can't have it both ways. We live in a federation, and if you believe in democracy, obviously the majority of the people is going to control the votes. Sure we can fight and struggle and do all these other things. But just go back in Canadian history and the progressive movement that came after the First World War. Macken­ zie King was smart enough to take it over and stay in office. Later we had the CCF, which became the NDP.

Then we had Social Credit. These were all protest movements. They all sprang up, and they've all died. I hope the present separatist movement has a similar fate as soon as possible. Mr. Speaker, we live in a federation. I hope we believe in democracy. Regrettably, depending on your point of view, Mr. Trudeau has effectively ruined the Liberal Party in every part of Canada except Quebec and parts of Ontario. We don't have an opportunity to have people participating in the government of Canada because of that huge block of votes from the province of Quebec.

Quebec has other unique positions: it always has three members of the Supreme Court; it has people in the Senate; it has representation in the House of Commons. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we will consider anything the Leader of the Opposition would like to bring forward, if he can convey to us how he would see us allowing the people of western Canada to become more effectively represented in Ottawa. As the hon. Member for Calgary Currie mentioned, I know there are certain agencies, boards, and institutions that are federal in nature, and hopefully we will be represented on them more than we have in the past.

When I saw some of the people before the television cameras, I think the only way that's going to become effective is by a change of government in Ottawa. I would like to close by saying that I'm concerned that the hon. Leader of the Opposition keeps making these comments. Unfortunately, to me, he's so imbued with the American way of life and the American system of gov­ ernment that he seems to forget that we don't live under that kind of system.

I think he's doing a disservice to his constituents when he suggests that we can have parts of their form of government, which are not unique to our system, and which would really destroy our parliamen­ tary system as we know it. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, I'm sure many would have been disappointed if I didn't stand and take my place; maybe not. I think the hon.

Member for Calgary McKnight has vividly brought to the attention of many members of the Assembly the exact point I've made in this Legislative Assembly many times: the lack of representation that western Canadians, and Albertans in particular, have under the democratic system of this country. He again brought to the attention of members of the Assembly the lack of concern the government of central Canada has for western Canadians and Albertans. It was also brought up by the hon. Member for Calgary Currie that our system certainly isn't perfect, and that we have problems. I'm glad they brought those things up.

Today we live in a country where western Canadians or Albertans go to the polls, cast their ballots, and have no vote. The hon. Member for Calgary McKnight talks about the Leader of the Opposition wanting to implement American policies in the Canadian system. Let me say this: any time something works, and if it can be imple­ mented, only fools would not use that system; only fools would turn away from something proven to be more effective than the system they have. We're very selfish in representing our constituents when we close our eyes to new ideas and ways of solving the problems we face.

I think April 17 will go down in history as one of the saddest days we've ever experienced in this country. Again, I find it amazing that it's only in the areas I travel that people are concerned. I travel the length and breadth of this province, and everywhere I go I hear that people are concerned. For a long time, only one particular group seemed to care about these property rights. I find it interesting that members of the government turn their ears to the counsel given by many legal advisers through­ out the country now, from judges and solicitors who

654 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 come forth every day and express the great concerns they have for the constitution of this country, who express the fact that there are many dangers — not just one — in that constitution. Property rights are only one area that can destroy us. It's not from Western Canada Concept; it's from people who aren't even members of the Western Canada Concept Party, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Calgary McKnight talked about a Prime Minister who had so little regard for our country that during the Second World War he refused to defend this land.

I find it interesting that he has so much faith in that man today that he can stand up and defend a constitution basically implemented by that Prime Minis­ ter.

I wonder if he thinks a Prime Minister who, with the constitution, can take total control of this country, will have as much regard for Canadians now that he has that power in his hands as he had when he refused to fight for this country: In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be con­ tinued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.

Through that constitution, the Prime Minister is given more control than any prime minister in the history of this country. I'm pleased the hon. Member for Calgary McKnight brought out the consistency of the Prime Minister in dealing justly with Canadians. Bill C-94 is another example of the total lack of regard the central government has for the people of this country. We have those who are valiantly trying to curtail Bill C-94. But because of the political structure of this coun­ try, it will never be stopped.

More infringements upon our rights: we have some 3,500 orders in council; we have metrication through an order in council. I wonder how the members of this government are going to justify to their constituents what went wrong when we don't have any guarantees left; when, in fact, as Alberta goes to the table to try to get a good deal for Alberta, it can't be negotiated. The fairness of the constitution is related somewhat in the bilingual clauses. Always English, proportionately this province certainly has many languages more than French.

However, thanks to the government of the day, we now have French forced on the people of this province. MR. STEVENS: Rubbish. MR. KESLER: It's not rubbish. [interjections] As hon. members recognize, many Albertans today are being re­ fused employment through federal agencies in this prov­ ince; it's taking place even now. Perhaps they should get out and talk to people who have not been hired because they were not bilingual. This day our constitution returned to Canada, but it was returned in such a flawed state that it is worthless to most Albertans.

This is the constitution the Prime Minis­ ter had to tell the Members of Parliament in Westminster to hold their noses and pass. British parliamentarians knew it was a document flawed in many areas. We have a Charter of Rights this government assented to in which we have no guarantees of one of our most fundamental rights in a democracy: property rights. I suggest that many of the hon. members consult with legal experts who certainly are concerned about those property rights. AN HON. MEMBER: I don't agree with you. MR.

KESLER: Hon. members on the other side of the House claim they cannot understand my stance on prop­ erty rights. The reason they cannot understand my stance is that they do not listen. I should outline just one more time why I think the constitution is so fundamentally flawed in its omission of property rights. Property rights are an inalienable human right. They are not a right given to anyone by government. You had the right; you have the right.

No government has the right to tell you it's a right they have given you, and as such they should be recognized in the constitution of this country, if Albertans are to remain a part of this country. Why a person seeking independence would worry about property rights in the constitution was brought up. Well, I suggest the reason is that when independence takes place, the people of this province will still have some­ thing. Let us have a statement that Albertans can have property rights in their constitution.

Let us take the issue to Albertans in a referendum, and ask them: if property rights cannot be put into the constitution of Canada, are you in favor of creating a new state where Albertans' property rights can be guaranteed in the constitution? Another issue which concerns me is the entrenchment of language, and I've already mentioned that. "Guaran­ tees bilingualism in the province of Alberta" — guaran­ teed, to a province that speaks English. Why do Alber­ tans need that? French is only one language among many others spoken in the province of Alberta.

Besides our primary language, English, we as Albertans do not need French entrenched in the constitution. The people of Alberta do not need a government in Ottawa which is officially bilingual. They need a national government which cares, which listens to all of them, regardless of the language they speak. And I suggest they need a provincial government that listens to them when they speak. Hon. members talk about going to the people now: we'll go to the people and get some input to the constitu­ tional changes. Why didn't they go to the people before, and get some input? MRS. EMBURY: We did. MRS.

FYFE: Many times. MR. KESLER: The hon. members feel that if they have a caucus meeting, they went to the people. [interjections] When you go to the people, it'll be interesting to find out the results. AN HON. MEMBER: It sure will. MR. KESLER: Mr. Speaker, if they cannot have a government that cares within Canada, then I suggest that they have one without Canada. Some areas need revision. I think that history has proved it. Perhaps the hon. Leader of the Opposition has already touched on them. One is a Senate elected by region, so that the entire country has proper representa­ tion.

Perhaps another would be a Supreme Court where all provinces have recognition. The list goes on. But I wonder why, prior to the negotiations on the constitu­ tion, the government of Alberta did not prepare a list and present it to the central government of this country, so

April 19, 1982 ALBERTA HANSARD 655 that they could have presented it to the people of Alberta and said: these are the things we want before we'll support bringing home the constitution; these are the things we'd like to see in place to guarantee that the province of Alberta has a future in this country. After the fact is often too late. My concerns are that it will be too late again, not because of my total mistrust of the government of Alberta, but because never in 115 years has the central government of this country bowed to the needs of Albertans and western Canadians.

I think the constitution's coming home will not change that and, in fact, gives more power and a greater degree of latitude for the Prime Minister of this country to destroy demo­ cracy and erode those rights that traditionally have been Albertans'. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury permit a question? If the hon. Member for Olds-Didsbury is to lead Alber­ ta out of Confederation, can he indicate to the Assembly under which constitution Alberta would be operating? MR.

KESLER: The province of Alberta will be operating under the constitution that the people of this province will put together. That will be decided at conventions of Western Canada Concept, and there will be input from the people of this province on what they want in a constitution. DR. BUCK: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member per­ mit just one more short question? Would the hon. member indicate to the Assembly and the people of Alberta if he would be leading Alberta out of Confederation in consultation with other members of the western provinces, or just Alberta? MR. KESLER: Mr.

Speaker, the answer is that we would certainly work very closely with the other provinces of western Canada. We would be in consultation with them, so that finalization would be in accordance with plans so that they could be brought in as a unit. MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as has been said on the occa­ sion of other debates in this Assembly, the constitution which binds together a people is not so significant in its words on paper as it is in the attitude the people of the nation display towards its preservation. For example, the British have no written constitution. The hon.

Member for Olds-Didsbury might enjoy consid­ erable success in the United Kingdom, persuading them that because of the deficiencies of a written constitution — in their case, because of the complete absence of a written constitution — they should all be concerned about their future well-being, and that Kent should with­ draw from the United Kingdom as quickly after Scotland as is possible. Of course, the hon.

Member for Olds- Didsbury knows that he wouldn't be successful with that argument in the United Kingdom, because the people of the United Kingdom have almost a thousand years of experience, based upon the idea that their constitution resides in their heart, in their mind, in their attitude towards their government, and in their government's atti­ tude towards them. Much as we would like to think it, the well-being of a nation does not depend upon anything that we write or fail to write. It depends upon the attitude we have towards our nation.

If our attitude is that we will forget 2 million square miles of territory, 300 years of history, and 22 million people with whom we have lived, then that dictates one course of action for Alberta. If our attitude is that we are going to continue to be a part of one of the most blessed lands on earth, if we are going to continue to share the good as well as the bad with 22 million other Canadians, and if we are going to carry into the future what we have gained from the past, then the future course for Alberta will be very, very different. I was born in a very small community just outside Ottawa: Perth, Ontario.

I lived my first two years, which of course I don't remember, in Quebec, because my father was attending McGill University. It was in Quebec that my parents met and married, one having been raised in Atlantic Canada, and the other at Thunder Bay — then Port Arthur — at the head of the Great Lakes. I came to Alberta at the age of 2. As a very young man, I had many opportunities to travel throughout this coun­ try. In that respect, I have been more fortunate than most. I consider this land mine from one end to the other, from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria. I love the country, and I love its people.

That's sometimes a little difficult, but I do. As an adult, and in this Assembly, I represent many electors who are here by choice, immi­ grants who could well have stayed in some other land, and have come here because of the opportunity they believed they would find. And to a man or woman, they believe the choice is well made. I am a Canadian. But to understand what that means requires me to tell you that I am an Albertan first. I am a Canadian; I am in my core an Albertan, and that Alberta experience defines what it means for me to be a Cana­ dian.

I have stood at a point in the foothills, west of Claresholm, where you could look west right into the face of the Rockies. You took one step around, and you could look out over 500 or 600 hundred miles — at least it looked to be that much — of flat prairie, untreed, rolling away to the Lake of the Woods area. I have flown into Hanna, Alberta, in November when it looked like the most desolate place on earth.

You could not help but admire the courage, perseverance, and breath-taking humanity of the people who chose to make their lives there, chose to make it a human community, chose to make it a place where people could live. I have walked into Garden River, Alberta, in April, over a road that was nothing more than a Caterpillar track from the airs­ trip to the community, wearing gum boots that had to be pulled out of the mud with your hands with each step. I have been raised on W. O. Mitchell. I have been raised to understand something of art in this province through the contribution of the Banff School of Fine Arts.

I have been raised to understand something of sports because of the Edmonton Eskimos. And that makes my experience as a Canadian different from the experience of a Nova Scotian, a Quebecois, an Ontarian, or a British Columbian. I have been in Nova Scotia in the fall, to the Quebec winter carnival, to Expo '67, and all through the Great Lakes basin. I consider them to be part of me. I consider the citizens of those areas to be my compatriots in this country, but what those experiences mean to me is not what they mean to the Canadians who live there.

Our experiences are different, but they are equally real, equally vital, and equally Canadian. This debate reminds me of an excerpt from a poem by T.S. Eliot, The Hollow Men, and I'd like to read just one stanza: Between the conception And the creation

656 ALBERTA HANSARD April 19, 1982 Between the emotion And the response Falls the Shadow The shadow is there for every one of us in every day of our lives. And on April 17, 1982, there is, as always, a shadow touching every single Canadian, individually and as citizens of this nation. But that shadow will not deter me, and it will not deter most members of this Legislative Assembly. I regret profoundly that it will deter one hon. member. Much remains to be done. There is much that is imperfect. Great challenges remain to be overcome. But those challenges are going to be overcome within this nation, Canada.

The potential of the nation is going to be realized. I am 36 years old, and in the time that remains to me, with other Canadians in whom I place my trust, this country will be moved from conception to creation. We will direct our energy towards creation, not destruction, and we will make a nation that will live in our hearts, that will be recognized around the world for the opportunity it gives to every man. It will be a great nation. Great as Alberta is, the nation we make will be greater than this province, and every single one of us will participate in the making of it. Thank you. [The question being put, Mr.

Speaker declared the mo­ tion carried. Several members rose calling for a division. The division bell was rung] [Three minutes having elapsed, the House divided] For the motion: Adair Isley Pengelly Anderson, D.

Johnston Planche Batiuk King Purdy Bogle Kowalski Reid Borstad Kushner Russell Bradley LeMessurier Schmidt Buck Little Shaben Carter Lougheed Sindlinger Chichak Lysons Stevens Clark Mack Stewart Cookson Magee Stromberg Crawford McCrae Thompson Cripps McCrimmon Topolnisky Diachuk Miller Trynchy Embury Moore Webber Fjordbotten Musgreave Weiss Harle Oman Wolstenholme Hiebert Osterman Woo Horsman Pahl Young Hyland Paproski Zaozirny Hyndman Payne MR. SPEAKER: I'm not aware of any member in the Chamber who hasn't stood. There would appear to be no purpose in asking those opposed to the motion to stand.

I therefore propose we await the count from the Clerk. Total: Ayes – 62 MR. CRAWFORD: Mr. Speaker, it's proposed that the Assembly sit this evening in Committee of Supply. The Department of Recreation and Parks will be called first, and after that, if there is time, the Department of Government Services, the Solicitor General, and Utilities and Telephones. I remind hon. members that in the event we reach 8 o'clock tomorrow night, that sequence would be varied for the reason of the schedules of some of the ministers involved. The Premier will be dealing with Executive Council at 8 o'clock tomorrow night. Our

schedule will be interrupted if that happens. Mr. Speaker, I move that when the Assembly recon­ venes at 8 o'clock, it be in Committee of Supply, and that the House now adjourn until the Committee of Supply rises and reports. MR. SPEAKER: Does the Assembly agree? HON. MEMBERS: Agreed. MR. SPEAKER: It is so ordered. [The House recessed at 5:25 p.m.] [The Committee of Supply m