1980 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 11, 1980

Morning Sitting

[ Page

4333 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motion I

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4333

Mr. Barrett –– 4337

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4342

Mr. Macdonald –– 4346

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4347

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

On Motion 1.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In moving the motion, I would first like to read the motion:

"That

we, the members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of British

Columbia, reaffirming our allegiance to the Crown, our commitment to a

united Canada within the Canadian federation and asserting the

sovereign status of Canada as a free and independent nation,

(1) support early patriation of the constitution of Canada from the United

Kingdom and (2) a formula for the amendment of the constitution of

Canada in respect of matters affecting federal-provincial relationships

with the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces and of the

Parliament of Canada."

Today in Canada, because of the

substance contained in the unilateral proposals of the Trudeau

government, the heritage not only of British Columbians but Canadians

in other parts of our country is threatened. We as legislators are but

stewards of that heritage. It is not ours to give away, it is not our

right to trade it away and it is not our right to allow it to be taken

away. It is our task to preserve and protect that heritage for the

future, for our children and our children's children. It is a question

of who will own and govern British Columbia in the future. Is it to be

Ottawa? I say no. Will it continue to be the duly elected governments

of British Columbia who can continue to develop that heritage for the

betterment of our citizens? I say yes. Not only have these unilateral

proposals caused deepening divisions in the country today by

instigating disagreement within the Canadian family, but they threaten

the very future of our province and will unalterably change the face of

our country. They are embarking on a centralist, big-government

philosophy which is foreign to our land. We are not alone in our

opposition to both the substance and the process by which the Trudeau

government has initiated this disastrous course. Peoples and

governments across this land, now becoming aware, are rising up in

protest.

This motion will restore historic practices and

traditions. It will give us an opportunity to come together in unity.

It will allow us to patriot our constitution — to have it in Canada —

with an amending formula that, while preserving and protecting the

heritage of the people of all provinces, will not demand the rigidity

of unanimity that has prevented us from proceeding with desirable

change. And that is rightly so.

This motion I am introducing

today will allow us to get back to the conference table. It will be a

means to end the confrontation.

It is my intention today to place this debate in its full and proper context.

In doing that, I intend to acquaint the House with the constructive efforts

in the matter of constitutional reform which this government has taken since

it came to office, also to show that the unilateral action proposed by the federal

government represents a serious erosion of our federal system. At the outset

I need hardly reiterate the fact that we live in a country which is unparalleled

in the world for the opportunities provided to its citizens, for the freedoms

and democratic institutions which undergird its society, and for the great potential

open to its citizens in the future.

We'd

do well to remind ourselves that these accomplishments have been

brought about in the context of a federal form of government. There

were other choices open to the Fathers of Confederation. They could

well have followed the concept of a unitary state, such as Great

Britain, or the republican form of government of the United States. But

because of the vast size of the country, even in 1867, they

deliberately chose a federal form of government under the Crown, which

provided for maximum autonomy at the provincial level on a wide range

of issues of local concern. The basic characteristic of such a system

is that there are two equal and coordinate levels of government, each

exercising its own powers, and neither one subordinate to the other.

This concept of partnership is the very essence of federalism. It is

the basis on which British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871. The

terms of union of that entry have been described by judicial authority

as "a transaction being of the nature of a treaty between two

independent bodies." It was on the basis of that kind of partnership,

and in the spirit of good will, appropriate to a partnership, that my

government undertook its extensive efforts towards constitutional

renewal.

The current round of federal-provincial discussions

originated in a proposal put forward by Prime Minister Trudeau by

letter on March 31, 1976. I might add that we were a newly elected

government then, Mr. Speaker, but not unaware of the commitment and

responsibility we had to respond to that letter. The Prime Minister

sought approval of all provincial governments to begin again the

negotiating process for constitutional change. He proposed three

options: the first one was simple patriation; the second one was

patriation with an amending formula; the third one was patriation with

an amending formula and substantial change. It is significant to note

that the Prime Minister's letter clearly recognized that patriation

with an amending formula could not be accomplished by the federal

government unilaterally, taking a joint address to Westminster. The

Prime Minister made it clear that if the federal government did proceed

with patriation and an amending formula, such amending formula would

only come into force when approved by the legislatures of all of the

provinces of Canada.

In response, Mr. Speaker, I immediately

established a Cabinet Committee on Confederation, comprised of eight

ministers. Their task was to address this in important issue and to

respond to the initiative of the Prime Minister. My government was

prepared to support the Prime Minister's first two options: that is,

simple patriation, with or without an amending formula, provided

approval of the legislatures of all the provinces was obtained, My

government still offers that support today. Other provinces took the

position at that time that they wished substantial change to be made to

the constitution, as well as patriation and an amending formula. In the

spirit of the country we accommodated those desires.

Constitutional

reform was the main subject for discussion at the annual Premiers'

conference held that year, 1976, in Edmonton. Such was the progress

among the provincial Premiers at Edmonton, and I would emphasize very

strongly the fact that the provinces are able to reach agreement on

constitutional matters. But a further two-day meeting of Premiers was

held in Toronto on October 1 and 2, 1976, to

[ Page 4334 ]

further

our efforts. I will table for the House a statement which I made upon

my return to the province, following that meeting, clearly indicating

the extent of provincial agreement that had been reached. Premier

Lougheed, as chairman of the provincial Premiers that year, informed

the Prime Minister of the progress that had been made. The federal

government chose not to respond favourably to the considerable effort

and agreement that had been reached among the provinces.

November 1976, Mr. Speaker, as our government's constitutional position

evolved, I published a document entitled "What is British Columbia's

Position on the Constitution of Canada?" and I will table a copy of

that document. It restated the province's willingness to accept the

patriation of the constitution, and went on to advocate that if

patriation were to be accomplished, accompanied by an amending formula,

it ought to be an amending formula that recognized today's realities

and the importance of British Columbia within the federation.

You

will recall that the 1971 Victoria Charter amending formula would have

given each of Quebec and Ontario a separate voice on constitutional

amendment, and all four of the western provinces would have been lumped

into one and given only one vote. We considered that to be unfair in

that it failed to reflect the importance of the west in Confederation.

In terms of labour force, population and capital investment, it is

readily apparent that any amending formula ought to give greater weight

to the west than one voice out of five, which is what the Victoria

amending formula would have provided — the other four being Quebec,

Ontario, the Atlantic region and the federal government. We then called

for an amending formula giving the west two voices out of six in

keeping with the importance of western Canada to the nation as a whole.

The six would have been British Columbia, the prairie region, Ontario,

Quebec, the Atlantic region and the federal government. If substantive

changes were to be made to the constitution, we also called for greater

representation on the major federal boards and commissions in the

country, such as the Bank of Canada, the CTC and the CRTC.

Unfortunately British Columbia is woefully underrepresented on such

institutions.

The federal government established the

Pépin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity, comprising nine outstanding

Canadians who were given a broad mandate to obtain and publicize the

views of Canadians regarding the state of their country, and to

discover the basis for a fresh accommodation which would permit the

people who inhabit this vexing and marvellous country of ours to live

together in peace, harmony and liberty. My government made a formal

submission to that task force, and on February 8, 1978, I presented the

first brief to that committee during its two-day hearing in Vancouver.

I will table a copy of that brief also, Mr. Speaker. You will see that

the brief further develops the view of this government, which has been,

and is, the underlying theme of all of our proposals for constitutional

change, namely that the province of British Columbia is woefully

underrepresented in the central institutions of the country: the

Senate, the supreme court, major boards and commissions, and even the

House of Commons. Our whole theme throughout has been for greater

representation in these central institutions.

We do not want continued isolation. We do not want continued alienation. We

do not want separation. We want to be more involved than ever in the councils

of decision-making in Ottawa. Such a course would strengthen the federation.

A position at the centre for the provinces is not divisive; it is unifying,

and it is necessary to this country. It was quite amazing, given the concerted

effort by the provinces in Edmonton and Toronto in 1976, and given the fact

that the Pépin-Robarts task force had become established but not yet

reported, that in June 1978 the federal government, without any substantial

consultation with the provinces, introduced into the Parliament of Canada a

most elaborate bill for basic changes to our constitutional structures in Canada,

known as Bill C-60. On June 26, 1978, I wrote to the Prime Minister, expressing

to him my serious concerns about the nature of the process of constitutional

review that he proposed to follow.

Although

the Prime Minister had indicated in an earlier letter that he was

"committed to extensive consultation with the provinces," he was

unclear as to the nature and scope of those consultations. I wrote to

the Prime Minister thus:

"I would hope that

the consultation process with the provinces will not be limited to your

seeking merely our reaction to your proposals. Rather, I trust that the

process will provide a full opportunity to the provinces to put forward

their own proposals, if they so desire, to be treated at the conference

table on an equal basis and with the same degree of deference as the

federal proposals now made public.

"Speaking

for my province, I can advise you that for many months we have been

working on the development of a comprehensive set of constitutional

proposals, through our Cabinet Committee on Confederation. We expect to

have them finalized by later August or early September. I expect that

other provincial governments are doing likewise.

"That

being the case, does the consultative process which you have in mind

allow for the full and proper consideration by first ministers of any

and all such proposals in equal light? When phase I ultimately goes

forward and becomes part of our constitution, will it represent a truly

joint effort, bringing together the proposals of all governments?

hope that you envisage a consultation process along the lines just

described. I fear that if the process is anything less — for example, a

few brief meetings during the summer at the official level, followed by

a single first ministers' conference in the early autumn with an agenda

consisting largely of the federal proposals, followed by the

introduction and passage of the legislation in Parliament shortly after

the conference — then there is a good chance that the new Canadian

constitution will neither have the support of many parts of the country

nor contribute usefully to the lasting solution of many of our national

problems.

I will table a copy of that letter.

The Prime Minister replied by letter on July 10, 1978, stating in part:

"The

process, as I see it, is certainly not limited to the federal

government seeking merely your reaction to federal proposals. I have

said repeatedly that we will welcome alternative suggestions to the

various proposals contained in the constitutional bill. While our own

ideas have not been arrived at lightly and have been put forward after

a good deal of thought and represent our considered view, we do not in

any way preclude the possibility that other ideas may be presented

which could, after discussion and reflection, seem even better."

[ Page

4335 ]

Again I'm going on with the Prime Minister's answer: "The technique

of using a bill as a basis for discussion is not in the least intended to shut

off debate but is intended rather to facilitate a deeper discussion with a greater

chance of producing results of lasting value.

Two

parliamentary committees were established in Ottawa to consider the

provisions of Bill C-60. I am pleased to say that our government filed

a comprehensive brief before these committees. We were the only

provincial government to do so. Mr. Mair, on behalf of the government,

appeared before those committees to present the brief and answer

questions.

In late September 1978, in advance of the first

ministers' conference on the constitution in Ottawa on October 31,

1978, British Columbia published its comprehensive constitutional

proposals on the following subjects: (1) an overview paper; (2) a paper

supporting the concept of British Columbia as a fifth region of Canada,

based on historic and economic considerations; (3) a proposal for major

reform of the Canadian Senate; (4) proposals for the reform of the

Supreme Court of Canada; (5) suggestions for improved instruments for

federal-provincial relations; (6) a paper on the Bill of Rights in the

constitution; (7) proposals regarding the distribution of legislative

powers; and (8) proposals on an amending formula for the constitution.

These

are the most comprehensive set of proposals put forward by any

provincial government in the current round of negotiations. In fact, in

his letter to me on November 20, 1978, the Prime Minister of Canada

states: "The range and depth of the work you have done are really most

impressive, and I do congratulate you on making this major contribution

to the national debate which is now underway." Those proposals

developed the underlying theme of the need for the province to be

properly represented in the central institutions of the country if

feelings of alienation and remoteness were to be abated.

the first ministers' conference on the constitution held in Ottawa in

late October 1978 the federal government proposed, and the provinces

agreed, to establish a continuing committee of ministers on the

constitution to make a concerted effort toward agreement on a range of

constitutional subjects over the course of a three-month period.

Meetings of this committee, on which B.C. was represented by the Hon.

Mr. Mair and the Hon. Mr. Gardom, were held in Mont-Sainte-Marie,

Quebec, Toronto and Vancouver leading up to a further first ministers'

conference in Ottawa in February 1979. It was readily apparent to those

of us involved that the tight timetable, largely imposed by the federal

government, was totally unrealistic given the complexities of the

issues involved.

Had there been further meetings of the Continuing Committee of Ministers and

first ministers, there might well have been agreement among all governments

on a range of constitutional issues. Two federal elections then intervened,

and it was on June 8, 1980, that the Prime Minister requested a meeting at 24

Sussex Drive with the ten Premiers. At that meeting the Prime Minister proposed

a further round of constitutional discussions involving 12 items for discussion.

They were: natural resources and interprovincial trade; communications; the

Upper House; the Supreme Court of Canada; fisheries; Charter of Rights; offshore

resources; equalization; family law; patriation and the amending formula; a

preamble, or principles of the constitution; and a twelfth item, powers over

the economy. All of these subjects except powers over the economy had been discussed

at previous meetings of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the constitution.

government, under the direction of the Minister of Intergovernmental

Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), did a comprehensive review of our

government's policy position on each one of these items. We worked

hard. We worked in the honest belief that a federal-provincial

agreement was possible. During this past summer four weeks of meetings

of the CCMC were held in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. Let's hear the debate. The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

We showed flexibility. We were prepared to, and did, move away from

positions that we'd previously taken, in the interests of reaching an

agreement. We did so in the Canadian way and in the interests of a

stronger Canada. This intensive summer round of meetings was

preparatory to the first ministers' conference held in Ottawa between

September 8 and 12, 1980. It was our desire to negotiate with good will

and in good faith, and we did just that. At the end of the five-day

conference, agreement was not achieved. Agreement could, and should,

have been achieved. Never have I seen a greater willingness, at least

on the part of the provinces, to seek agreement, nor have I seen the

provinces closer together on such a large range of issues.

Unfortunately, however, the federal government did not see fit to add

its support to the provincial consensus that had been reached on most

of the 12 items. It is regrettable that the pleas of numerous Premiers

around the table on closing day to extend the conference or to meet

again at an early date were not heeded by the Prime Minister. All

indications were that we must be inextricably pushed toward the Prime

Minister's preconceived timetable.

At the closing

session of the conference I made these observations. I will not read

them all, but I did say in part — I will table this at the conclusion

of my movement of this motion:

"I think we have a good chance, and the chance is not

yet lost, Mr. Prime Minister. We will stay and we will talk and we will

negotiate, but we will not sell out Canada — our vision of Canada, our

Canada — or sacrifice any part of the country. I think we have a

chance. We had a chance yesterday, when we had that agreement amongst

the Premiers, and that is not lost."

We were willing to stay, and so were others, Mr. Speaker.

However, that was not to be. The Prime Minister, on October 3, 1980,

unveiled a proposed joint resolution to the Senate and House of Commons

which provides for patriation of the BNA Act and other British

constitutional documents. But it does far more than that: it proposes

to put in place several amending formulae and also to make substantial

changes to our constitutional arrangements. If the resolution is passed

by Parliament, it is the expressed intention of the government of

Canada to submit the joint address to the Queen, requesting that the

British Parliament enact the provisions of a draft bill which is

attached to the resolution,

[ Page 4336 ]

entitled

the Canada Act, and a

schedule comprising 59 sections. I deplore this

unilateral action by the federal government. It is contrary to the

basic concept of federalism for such basic changes to be put forward,

without first having the consent or approval of the provinces affected.

These proposals substantially affect the provinces. The bill of rights

would diminish the powers of provincial legislatures; the various

amending formulae proposed would seriously undermine existing rights of

the provinces regarding amendments to the constitution. I say again, it

is wholly contrary to the spirit of federalism and the partnership

concept which it entails for one level of government to proceed

unilaterally in this way. From the beginning of the federation, the

leading public figures of this country have recognized the necessity of

securing the concurrence of the provinces before any amendments

affecting their rights were requested from Westminster. I will be

tabling this paper of substantial argument from leading figures of our

country's past. But let me quote a few, because it contains the name of

Sir Wilfrid Laurier; it contains the names of the Fathers of

Confederation; it contains the names of Prime Ministers and of those

who were to be Prime Ministers of this country, those who have

carefully guarded, preserved and protected the concept of partnership

and the federal system in the past.

In 1931 — a significant

date for the Statute of Westminster — the president of the Canadian Bar

Association and a man who was to become Prime Minister of this country,

Mr. Louis St. Laurent, said in his presidential address: "The Houses of

the Dominion Parliament would have no jurisdiction to request or to

consent to enactments that might extend or abridge provincial

legislative autonomy." I could point out quotes from other great

Canadians who have sought to preserve and protect the federal system

and the partnership arrangements. The Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, at the

dominion-provincial conference in 1960, said: "Over the years I have

advocated that when an agreement could be arrived at between the

Dominion and the provincial governments Canada should proceed, at the

very earliest opportunity, to take those measures necessary to assure

the amendment of our constitution in Canada" — by agreement, Mr.

Speaker. The Hon. Lester B. Pearson said in 1964: "We will proceed with

the preparation of a resolution, submitting the proposed act to

Parliament as soon as we have received confirmation from all provinces

regarding the accuracy of the text and their concurrence, by their

legislatures, in the substance of the proposed act." Always, Mr.

Speaker, it has been by agreement. The country has been held together

and built by agreement, not by unilateral action.

But I

would go on and I would quote the present Prime Minister of Canada.

This is during the federal-provincial conference of first ministers on

the constitution in Ottawa on February 6, 1979, in response to

questions from the Premiers concerning the ground rules under which the

process of constitutional reform was to proceed. The Rt. Hon. Pierre

Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, responded as follows:

"So will there be unilateral action by the federal government

regardless of the result of this conference? Our priority would be to seek agreement

and move in areas of federal and provincial concern where we could move together.

But if we are not successful, I repeat, we preserve our constitutional right

to change our constitution — the federal one — just as the provinces keep their

right to change their provincial constitutions, and I do not think either the

provinces or the federal government would want to give up that right."

That was in 1979. He goes on to say:

"Our

priority is to change this constitution collectively, federal and

provincial. We will adopt a charter of human rights; we will

constitutionalize it. We cannot force the provinces to do it. We are

trying to convince them to do it.

"I can

answer unequivocally that the federal government intends to entrench a

charter of basic human rights and of linguistic rights. Now this will

bind the federal government; it won't bind the provinces unless they

want to bind themselves."

That's what the Prime Minister

said then, and that was in keeping with the statements of every Prime

Minister this country has had; it was in the spirit of the country. He

went on to say:

"The final question was one of

unanimity. We have the rule of unanimity, says Premier Bennett" — this

is Prime Minister Trudeau speaking in 1979 — "I think it is clear from

what we said ourselves on Sunday night that this conference has also

accepted the rule of unanimity."

Mr. Speaker, there has been

a remarkable change from this commitment to our country in just a very

short time since those statements in 1979.

The requirement

for provincial consent is obvious. Sovereignty in any federation is

divided between the two orders of government. Sovereignty is not the

private preserve of the federal government. The federal government has

its areas of exclusive jurisdiction, and the provinces have their area

of exclusive jurisdiction. It is contrary to the basic concept of

federalism for one level of government to intrude upon another. It is

even more undesirable for the government of the United Kingdom to be

put in the embarrassing position of having to look behind a request

have not been met. Such is the situation that is likely to happen.

What

is the present position of the government of British Columbia? As I

said at the conclusion of the first ministers' conference in September,

I very much regret that the conference did not succeed. Success could

yet be achieved, I am convinced, if we get back to the conference

table. That is why my Minister of Intergovernmental Relations telexed

all governments on November 10, 1980, reiterating my view for a return

to the table and for a 60-day cooling-off period concerning the

constitution and budgetary proposals of the federal government. I will

table a copy of that telex.

What I proposed then I propose

again now. I call upon the federal government to suspend its

constitutional and budgetary proposals until ministers' conferences on

these subjects can be held and agreements concluded. Negotiations and

compromise leading to accord are the Canadian way, and I believe it

most necessary that attempts are again made to resolve our problems

through this process.

What have we done in the meantime, Mr.

Speaker? Reluctantly, but very necessarily, we have combined with five

other provinces to go to court in Manitoba to challenge the unilateral

action of the federal government. Similar proceedings will soon be

brought in Quebec and in Newfoundland, and it is the government's

intention to be represented at those hearings. Additionally,

reluctantly but very necessarily, we have tabled an extensive brief

before a standing

[ Page 4337 ]

committee

of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in response to an invitation of

that committee to all interested persons to make their views known as

to the proper role of the United Kingdom Parliament in the

circumstances. Four other provinces have done the same.

The

future of this country ought not to be bound to the personal timetable

or desires of any one individual. Substantial progress has been made in

constitutional talks. An agreement is within reach. What we need is a

greater measure of good will and openness on the part of the federal

government. We urge them to return to the conference table. We urge

them to abandon their unilateral action, which would impose upon the

provinces — against their will — provisions which will basically alter

the constitutional structure of Canada for all time, and place upon the

provinces an amending formula which is seriously opposed by most of

them.

As we stated in our London submission, federalism is a

fragile form of government. Its success is never assured, even in the

most stable and sophisticated countries. Success flows entirely from

hard work, tolerance, a willingness to compromise and faithful

adherence to the framework of federalism provided in the constitution.

Failure will flow inevitably from the diminution of these ingredients.

The remedy for political deadlock in a federal nation cannot be

unilateral action by one level of government. Rather, the remedy must

be an even more dedicated search for compromise, as expressed by Prime

Minister Trudeau several years ago. Cooperation and interchange between

the two levels of government will be, as they have been, an absolute

necessity. The government of British Columbia believes in the wisdom of

those words, and says the federal government's current attempts to

unilaterally change the fundamental principles of the Canadian

constitution is folly and divisive and destructive. We call upon the

federal government to cease in its unwise course of action, to return

to the conference table, and to resolve our problems in Canada by

Canadians.

Let me reiterate what I said when I opened this

address. In the past, strong British Columbians have fought within our

country to preserve and protect our heritage: Sir Richard McBride, a

Conservative; Duff Pattullo, a Liberal; W.A.C. Bennett, a Social

Crediter. Today we are fortunate to live with the results of their

vigilance — a way of life and opportunity that would not be ours now if

they had failed in their duty. They were not willing to trade away our

heritage. They were not willing to give away our heritage. They were

not willing to allow it to be taken away. Nor am 1. They had a vision

and a dream for British Columbia, and so do I — a vision and a dream

that cannot be realized by a centralist philosophy which is foreign and

unworkable in our country.

The course we propose in this

motion is not to escalate the confrontation initiated by the Trudeau

government, but to stop it; to return to the conference table; to

maintain the historic practices of the country; to patriate our

constitution in a spirit of unity; to have an amending formula upon

which we all agree and which will preserve and protect the heritage of

the people in every province of this country, while ending the rigidity

of unanimity on desirable change so that we can have a Canadian

constitution with the opportunity for made-in-Canada changes.

Because

of this, Mr. Speaker, future British Columbians will judge us all by

what we say and even how we vote on this important resolution. Their

future is in our hands. May God give every member the wisdom and the

courage to speak for them and for our future.

Mr. Speaker, I so move.

I now ask leave to table documents referred to within the framework of my remarks.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity of

formally standing in my place, other than through unexpected

interruptions, may I add my voice to the many welcomes of your return

to the office of Speaker. I had the opportunity of visiting your

constituency just the other day, and I publicly wished you well there.

I hope it doesn't do you any harm in the future.

Mr.

Speaker, it's very early in the morning. There's been a little bit of

politics going on here, which isn't foreign to this chamber; as a

matter of fact, it's part and parcel of our system that once in a while

a little bit of politics creeps into the normal routine of business of

this Legislature. It doesn't happen too frequently — mostly in this

House everything is above politics. That is the wish and desire, I

think, of all people when they start talking about issues, that they

appear to be bringing to their present point of view a little bit of

history that they don't want to be reminded of.

I'd like to

start off by just quoting the Premier, and if my quotes are incorrect

it's because I wrote them in a hurry, listening intently to him. I

thought he said towards the end of his speech that he wanted a formula

that brought an ending to "the rigidity of unanimity for desirable

change." Mr. Speaker, I think he should have been called to order for

making that statement, because it is in direct contradiction to the

motion in front of us that says that unless there is absolute unanimity

there be no change whatsoever.

After coming in with this

motion, they tried to explain to the press, "We only want unanimity on

the part that we want to be unanimous on," but today he's announced

that we don't need unanimity on the parts that we desire for change.

That's what the logic is of their position.

As I read the quote, and I looked through the Blues: "...ending the

rigidity of the unanimity of desirable change." If that's correct,

why is the second part of this motion in the motion, if they say they want unanimity

on desirable change by patriation of the constitution but not unanimity on desirable

change in other areas that they will be the ones to define?

Mr. Speaker, there is confusion abroad....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT:

That's right! I'm glad that the government agrees that there is

confusion abroad, because if anybody is confused in their position, and

twisting it and changing it and turning it depending on polls, it is

that group over there.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't believe my

ears about some other statements. I wrote one down quickly, and if I'm

quoting the Premier wrongly I would welcome correction. Did I hear him

correctly to say: "What we need is a greater measure of good will"? If

that's correct — and I think I heard him correctly — does calling the

Prime Minister of this country "an arsonist" develop an atmosphere for

greater good will? Does the highplane level of asking for good will

include a continuous invective of personal insults, calling the Prime

Minister an arsonist and then saying "we want a cooling-off period"?

There is an inconsistency and a confusion there.

Mr. Speaker, he calls for unanimity in this House. I find that to be an interesting request.

[ Page 4338 ]

Some

weeks ago we were told there was going to be a session of this

Legislature. The announcement was made by the Premier's secretary. We

asked what the session was going to be all about, and we didn't know

until the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon.

Mr. McGeer) announced that the session was somehow going to deal with

the constitution. Then after he got here he said to the press: "I'm not

sure why it was called after all." But nonetheless, Mr. Speaker....

HON. MR. McGEER: You didn't know what I said. You weren't in the House.

MR. BARRETT:

It was what you said outside on the radio that I heard. I can't avoid

punishment from him at all times, Mr. Speaker, and I prefer listening

to him over the radio, considering what he does to television camera

men. Mr. Speaker, I value what I've got, and quick-trigger over there

gives an example of how he likes good will and unanimity: punch him out.

MR. SPEAKER: Now to the amendment.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but that's the confusion leading to this session.

There

are two points that I wish to make about the amendment and unanimity.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, if there was a genuine desire on the part of

the government to have unanimity in this House on this single question

of patriation, why not pick up the phone and call the Leader of the

Opposition and say: "Mr. Leader, this is above politics, just as it was

when we asked you to sign a motion handed to you in the corridor about

keeping Quebec in Confederation, just when we showed that unanimity in

the House when you signed that motion and we agreed to it and we had a

high-level debate in this House about our unified desire to keep Quebec

in Confederation. Mr. Leader, come down to my office. Let us work out

the wording of a resolution to show that we are above politics and that

we can have unanimity in this House. Let us both sign a resolution and

bring it to this House."

It was more than acting

unilaterally and dealing with the Leader of the Opposition or the

opposition which, by some percentage, speaks for some part of the

population — a traditional segment of the population that has varied in

percentage from election to election, but is constantly rising in terms

of election results. Not only did he not tell the cabinet what the

session was all about, but there wasn't even the courtesy in terms of

arranging for a debate that they have defined to be an important debate

relating to the unity of this country and to the role of British

Columbia. There wasn't even the courtesy of picking up the phone and

saying: "Can we, through good will and cooperation, sit down and work

out a joint resolution that will have the impact of all segments

represented here in this House, as we did with Quebec."

Why

was that not done, Mr. Speaker? Why wasn't an effort made to sit down

and say: "What is it that we agree on; what is it that we disagree on?

Let us come to this House with a compromise in the great Canadian way,

with a joint resolution between the government and the opposition." Let

it go on record that not one single effort was made to get unanimity in

this House, let alone any other approach.

Unanimity of participation. Let us go beyond the narrow political definition

of this chamber. Let us go out to those citizens out there who have delegated

power and authority to this chamber. Ask them if they have been asked to participate

in formulating a unanimous position to present to Ottawa. Some of my colleagues

have mentioned, and I mention, Mr. Speaker, that in coming into this kind of

debate it would have been worthwhile had we had a House committee travelling

around the province listening to people, getting their ideas, letting citizens

of this province participate, so that we could make use of an avenue of passing

on to the federal government the opinion of the citizens of this province.

you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? The criticism I heard from the

government spokespersons was: "It's too late. We were faced with a

deadline of December 9, and now February 6." Mr. Speaker, I don't think

those government members read the order paper. Just last session there

was a motion on the order paper, presented by a member of the

opposition last spring, to deal exactly with this point of

participation, seeking unanimity and a broader base of support, and

this motion was never called. It is an important motion to read into

the record, to understand step by step how this government has been

escalating what they see as a continuous fight with Ottawa, commonly

defined in the press — in the vernacular — as Ottawa-bashing, outside

of any effort to show any leadership in finding alternatives or

building this country.

Here is a motion presented by my colleague, the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald):

"That

this House establish a special committee to receive and consider

proposals for constitutional change in Canada, including submissions

from the public, as well as constitutional opinions and reports

thereon, with all convenient speed, so that the position of British

Columbia with respect to these matters may reflect the interests and

opinions of the people of the province as well as their elected

representatives, and that this committee be struck by the selection

committee and be empowered to continue its sittings and deliberations

outside the times of the sitting of the Legislature. "

Unanimity,

public participation, desire to let the citizens of British Columbia

have a say in what's going on — this motion went on the order paper

last spring. It was never called by the government; there was no

intention to call this motion; they never intended to ask anybody

else's opinion, other than the one they had concocted for themselves

and falsely stated as represented all of British Columbia.

Was

the B.C. Chamber of Commerce asked for an opinion? Was the B.C. Social

Credit Party asked for an opinion? Was the B.C. Federation of Labour

asked for an opinion? Were the teachers or the doctors asked for an

opinion? Was any citizen considered worthy enough to be asked for an

opinion — to come to a committee — so that the government, finally

taking a position, could be strengthened by saying: "We asked our

people what they think, how they feel and what they want, regardless of

political party. We went beyond that and we said we want you all to

participate." They have been unilateral in handling this debate from

day one, and now they're complaining about unilateral action.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr.

Speaker, it's reminiscent. It sounds like something that Prime Minister

Trudeau would do. The very things that we hear complained about, the

very decisions by the Prime Minister that moved the Premier of this

province to call the

[ Page 4339 ]

Prime Minister an arsonist, are the very things that have been practised by this government since last spring.

Why

not a phone call? "Hello, Dave. You remember last spring we sat down

and worked out a resolution together on behalf of all the citizens of

British Columbia so that I could go back and tell them that we all want

you to stay in Confederation? Dave, let's work out a resolution so that

I can go back to the federal government and tell them what we agree

on." None of that, not a phone call, not a jingle, not even a tap on

the shoulder in the hallway saying: "Would you like to participate

above politics, like we did last spring?" Methinks there are politics

involved. We have seen a pattern of deliberate, provocative statements

being made by this government on the theme of Ottawa-bashing —

escalating, de-escalating, escalating, de-escalating. The only time

there's a change in escalation and de-escalation, in my opinion, is

after the latest reading of polls — no other position beyond that.

a debate we're supposed to respond to statements that are made in this

House. The Premier said, as I understood it, that the Victoria Charter

was no good. I don't have the original order-in-council with me, but I

thought the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was in the

cabinet at that time; he signed it. Alex — through you, Mr. Speaker —

you hadn't made it yet. The minister who has reversed the decision in

carrying the can on the Marguerite , you weren't in there yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was in the government.

MR. BARRETT:

You were in the government. You never spoke out against the Victoria

Charter. The member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) never made a

peep. Her decision wasn't jaded. She never said a word. The Deputy

Premier, Mrs. McCarthy, is never at a loss for words, and there was not

a peep from her against W.A.C.'s position on the Victoria Charter. Up

in the galleries, Mr. Shelford, he never said a word about the Victoria

Charter; he was just happy to get down here in those days.

have a complete and absolute repudiation, purely for momentary

political purposes, of a decision made by the previous Social Credit

government in this province. The Premier says to us — I couldn't

believe it — "We want to end the rigidity of unanimity for desirable

change." The question has always been: who desires what change? The

Premier seems to have the fixed idea that if he desires the change,

everybody else agrees with him. That spells rigidity to me. Is he

trying to tell us that in the face of all the known history of this

country, he's going to get unanimous agreement beyond patriation?

You're not going to get it, and you know it. You can't even agree with

the previous Social Credit government on an amending formula, let alone

agree with opponents of yours.

I hear these pious themes,

the Premier quoting his own letters to the Prime Minister. I think I

wrote it correctly — I might be incorrect, as I wrote it quickly, but

as I understood it he said in a letter to the Prime Minister: "I hope

that your proposal process is not limited to just a consultative

process." Is that what you said to the Prime Minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said consultative.

MR. BARRETT:

Consultative. Thank you very much. "I hope that our participation is

not limited to a consultative process." The very thing that he's hoping

the Prime Minister would not limit it to was not even open to us as the

official opposition. He's telling the Prime Minister: "Don't you come

in here with a series of proposals and ask that we be consulted on your

proposals." But he comes in here today and says, "Here is a motion, and

you vote for it or don't vote for it," without any consultation on the

role of British Columbia and Canada as he sees it. He went out to the

public. He's the one who said it to the Social Credit convention. He's

broadcast it, saying he wanted all British Columbians to participate.

And when the chance came for participation, there was none from the

citizens, none from the opposition. He unilaterally lays down a motion

and says that's British Columbia's position. I say that's hogwash.

His

theme about greater representation in this process.... Do you know what

his greater representation is? He said that he wants more role in the

Senate. How does he want more role in the Senate? He wants to appoint

people to a Senate unilaterally. There's no consultation with the

taxpayers or the citizens. He wants to go back to a droit de seigneur

approach to government: "I'm in power and I deign you to be in the

Senate." Is that what you want unanimous approval for? I will never

give approval to appointing people to legislative bodies that have no

accountability to citizens through the democratic process.

supports the continuation of an appointed Senate an anachronism in this

day and age of a sovereign nation. The Americans did away with it, as

my colleague reminds me, in 1913. Why we have fostered and continued

that hotbed of irrelevance, that hand-picked retirement boneyard for

old party hacks, and call that a Senate in terms of response to the

electoral needs of the people of this country, I don't know. But when

you ask me to pay tax dollars to keep that Senate going, when I've

never had a chance to vote for them, then I say nay, nay, nay — never!

AN HON. MEMBER: The Premier doesn't vote anyway.

MR. BARRETT:

In part of his argument he says that we're underrepresented in Ottawa.

Could it be that part of the reason is that some people don't even care

enough about the Canadian government to bother to vote? Could it be

that some people have such disdain for the democratic process in the

selection of government that when it comes time to act in civic

responsibility leading to that hope for unanimity by participation in

the democratic process, Hawaii calls more than the ballot box. Actions

are a terrible betrayer of intentions and commitments, Mr. Speaker.

Running away again, even from a federal election and then saying we are

underrepresented in the House of Commons. Run away, run away, run away.

He can't even find his way to a ballot box, and he has the nerve to

stand up in this House and say we are underrepresented in Ottawa. What

a showpiece of statesmanship for the many thousands of young children

who are now witnessing their teachers demonstrating today on the issue

of the constitution. Yes, Mr. Speaker, what a demonstration for those

children to know that the Premier didn't even bother to vote, but he is

going to tell the federal government what he thinks because he claims

they are underrepresented. Why didn't you vote?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: The high road — you've never got on the high road. You call the Prime Minister an arsonist; you

[ Page 4340 ]

don't

bother to vote; you want unanimity on your position and yours alone;

you don't consult the citizens of British Columbia; you don't pick up

the phone and call the opposition. You, who yell across the floor:

"taking the high road," I'll tell you what road to take, Mr. Speaker.

If you believe everything you've done is the right course in terms of

British Columbia's role in the constitutional debate and building

Canada, not bashing it, then take your proposals and take your record,

on this issue or any other, to the people of British Columbia right now

and let them decide whether or not it is the high road.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made the challenge.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province laid down the challenge. The

Premier of this province said all along that we wanted unanimity, we

wanted the position to speak for all British Columbians, we wanted to

be able to say to the federal government that we've got the backing of

all British Columbians — no consultation, disdain for Ottawa or insults

to the Prime Minister, whose policies I do not agree with and whose

person has the respect for being a person in office. Something the

Premier of this province has never understood is that the office

commands respect.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will remind the

Premier of his behavior in opposition when a certain threat was made on

my life. What was his high-level response? He had to be reprimanded in

a newspaper editorial over it. That man of statesmanship said: "Well,

he brought it on himself. " Is that statesmanship? Is that showing a

pattern of responsibility and understanding that the office is

delegated by the vote of the people? Calling the Prime Minister an

arsonist, Ottawa bashing for months, taking an intransigent position,

not consulting anyone, and then saying: "That's it, take it or leave

it." Well, that's my challenge in response to his challenge. He called

us here; this is his session; he's the one who wanted this; this is his

motion. We are opposed to it. We've thrown the gauntlet right back at

him. Take it to the people and let them decide what they think, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a serious series of

problems in this country well beyond the constitution. I have been

quoted many times — for those who are interested in repeating my quotes

— as having said that if I had my druthers, I'd druther we weren't in

this constitutional debate. However, the government that is in office

said clearly that if elected they were going to deal with the

constitution. What are they guilty of? They are guilty of keeping an

election promise. That's why we have this debate in this House. That's

why we have this debate across the country. I wouldn't have made it a

priority in an election campaign, but they did. They kept their promise.

1975, Mr. Speaker, in terms of a charter of rights related to this

amendment, that Leader of the Opposition, as he was then, made a

promise to the people of British Columbia that they would have a

charter of rights. He was elected in 1975. Where is the charter of

rights that he promised to the people of British Columbia five years

ago? Five years ago today and not one whit of action has taken place on

his promise to have a charter of rights for British Columbians. Do you

just say things in election campaigns because they spring out of your

mouth or is there a commitment? You talked here today about the loss of

power at the provincial legislature level with a federal Bill of

Rights. You promised a provincial one. Where is it? I'd like to ask

these questions, Mr. Speaker. What is it in the Bill of Rights that the

province feels it would lose power over?

It scares me when

they talk that way about a bill of rights. I can understand the legal

argument amongst lawyers, in terms of suggesting that common law may be

a better approach to deal with rights. But as I understand it, no one

has before suggested in this debate that the provinces might not agree

with the rights that the federal government is talking about. What are

these legal rights that they're afraid somebody will interfere with?

The most frightening statement made by the Premier today was the very

statement that I refer to, Mr. Speaker, that somehow the federal

government would take away their authority in these rights: the rights

to life, liberty, security; the right not to be deprived of the

principles of fundamental justice; the right to be secure against

search and seizure, except in accordance with the procedures

established by law; the right not to be arbitrarily detained or

imprisoned; the right to free speech.

AN HON. MEMBER: And against cruel and unusual punishment.

MR. BARRETT: The right against cruel and unusual punishment? That does not relate to this session, Mr. Member.

Mr.

Speaker, when that Premier stands up and tells us that there is going

to be some interference in the province's dispensation of these rights,

it has a slight smell. It reminds me of previous Houses, of what is

euphemistically known as "Gracie's Finger." Is Ottawa going to

interfere on redistribution of boundaries? Is that what they're afraid

of? It reminds me of the catalogue of interferences in the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') department that are now before

the court, as I understand it. There's a whole host of questionable

actions by a government, with no recourse. And then they're so scared

about it that they're worried that Ottawa is going to take away these

fundamental rights. Or Ottawa may guarantee those fundamental rights,

Mr. Speaker. Is that what they're really worried about?

Somebody down in Ottawa may say: "No matter where you live in this great

country of ours.... We agree with John Diefenbaker. We're going to take

his charter of rights and entrench it in a bill of rights." Could John

Diefenbaker have been all that wrong, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. They're talking

about embedding rights, not taking them away. Your arguments raise a whiff of

fear in terms of your past performance as a government.

Mr.

Speaker, there were so many other contradictory quotes that the Premier

made, that I've got them scattered all over here. What's unanimity now?

Does he think René Levesque is going to give him unanimity? Does he

think Peter Lougheed is going to let him say aye to the unanimity

position? There's that infamous meeting of the two cabinets, where the

Alberta cabinet dominated this group, and we ended up being water boys

to the main team. When phone calls were made about statements and

agreements that came out of that in terms of seeking unanimity, the

Alberta cabinet minister said: "No, that's not the way it was. This is

the way it is, and this is the way it's going to be." No position taken

by B.C.; just a tack-on, hang-on, hope-for-the-best with the Premier of

Alberta's image in terms of trying to formulate a position.

Ottawa-bashing, Canada-bashing; and then he says: "Compromise. Peace

and love." "Arsonists." "But

[ Page 4341 ]

let's cool things out." It's hardly an atmosphere for statesmanship, hardly an atmosphere for progress.

referred earlier to a unanimous amendment we had in this House, and

that unanimous amendment brought about the Premier going to the

province of Quebec and speaking in Montreal. I don't know who wrote

that speech for the Premier, but it was a good speech. Mr. Speaker, is

the Premier really familiar with Montaigne? Do you know who Montaigne

is? I was impressed that the Premier quoted from Montaigne, Mr.

Speaker. I was impressed that in the approach the Premier had taken he

did refer to what history has proven to be one of the most provocative

and thoughtful essayists, Montaigne.

What a beautiful quote the Premier selected. The quote which the Premier gave us is in Hansard ,

which was used again May 7, 1980, was this: "Those who give the first

shock to a state are the first overwhelmed in its ruin." That's a very

thoughtful statement. But is there any evidence that the Premier of

British Columbia was committed to Montaigne's philosophy? After saying

this in May he called the Prime Minister an arsonist, he continued on a

course of Canada-bashing, then he arrived here today with no

consultation with the citizens of British Columbia and demanded that he

have his way in Canada-building or else. "If we don't have unanimity,

if we don't have what I agree is desirable change, there will be no

change whatsoever." That's hardly in the spirit of Montaigne, yet it

was the Premier who committed himself to Montaigne's words. And I'll

come back to Montaigne in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, here we are

in December, in this short session that we all wondered what was all

about. There was some speculation in one of the newspapers that this

was an attempt to embarrass Ottawa by the December 9 closing day of the

committee. Lo and behold, the mysterious forces of democracy were at

work again, politicians began to shift ground, and that federal

committee that was to close on December 9 is now going to be continued

for two months. Hurray for Joe Clark! Hurray for Ed Broadbent! Hurray

for Prime Minister Trudeau! Hurray for democracy! We're going to have

another 60 days for consultation, input and participation, the very

thing our Premier wants. Hallelujah!

Yet, Mr. Speaker, did

we hear one word today that the Premier is committing himself to go

down to that committee and present his position in Ottawa? Not a word.

The forces of democracy that opened that committee, that responded to

the demands for more time, gave more time, committed more time. His

bluff was called and he hasn't even said today that he is going to go

down and speak for his own position. He's not going to go to Ottawa.

He's not going to do anything more. His whole game of Ottawa-bashing

has been exposed, and while his bluff is called in Ottawa — not purely

on the basis of his needs — and the committee is extended for two

months, to my knowledge he hasn't asked for time on the agenda to go to

that committee to give his case to the representatives of parliament,

not only from British Columbia.

Underrepresented, he says.

It's his chance to go to Ottawa. Why didn't he stand up and say he

welcomed some shifting of attitude in that spirit of compromise he

spoke about today? Why didn't he, for once, drop the gauntlet and say:

"We're making progress; times are cooling down. There is a greater

consultative thing going on, and I'll go to Ottawa and participate"?

MR. MACDONALD: He went to London instead.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't go to London.

MR. MACDONALD: He sent two people to London.

MR. BARRETT:

He sent two people to London and hired a lawyer. He showed that he

really believes that we are still a colony by that particular action,

in my opinion; we're still a colony running to London, Mr. Speaker, on

that basis.

MR. MACDONALD: We are a grown country now.

MR. BARRETT:

We are a grown country, Mr. Speaker. In March 1924 one of the first

motions that went on the order paper for unilateral patriation, alone —

no other ifs, ands or buts about it — was by the Rev. J. S. Woodsworth

in the House of Commons. Has he ever taken that simple position, Mr.

Speaker, and presented that to Ottawa? Not on your life.

Mr. Speaker, on and on it goes in contradiction and confusion. On and on it

goes almost like a spoiled, whining voice saying: "If I can't have

my way, nothing will be done.'' On and on it goes, insulting people

in elected office and then immediately saying: "Oh, well, I want the temperature

to cool down." On and on he goes, making bellicose statements to his own

convention and to the press, about Ottawa and what he's going to do in this

chamber, and then when his bluff is called there is no approach to the people,

no approach to go back to Ottawa and appear before that committee.

It's

just politics, not to be unforgiving. It occasionally happens in this

House, but on rare occasions, too, we have had unanimity when

opposition and government have been asked to work together quietly over

a single resolution. That was done on Quebec — not in the form that I

would like, but at least I got to sign a motion on the way into the

House. There was no consultation with the opposition, no consultation

with the people, just a hard-line position, ram it home, only to be

called on another bluff by circumstances in Ottawa — the committee is

going to sit two more months, and there's no commitment from the

Premier, after having that bluff called, of going to Ottawa.

We're

not here testing who's a better Canadian or a worse Canadian. What we

are really here for is to debate a series of events leading to this

country growing up. This country is in its adolescent phase and, like

all adolescents, the country is going through wide ranges of emotions,

feelings and attitudes. The opinions expressed by the citizens of

Quebec and the opinions expressed by the people of British Columbia and

the opinions expressed by everybody in between are part and parcel of a

nation building. It is important for people to stand back on occasion

and understand those processes of growth, those developments in a

nation. In understanding the process of growth and the development of a

nation, any rigidity that demands "my way or else" doesn't add a single

bit to that growth. When all's said and done, 100 years from now the

most we can hope for is that some poor child in the curriculum will be

forced to read about some of these debates that took place.

The

last time Sir Richard McBride was invoked was on the same Santayana

theme that when in trouble, the last refuge of a scoundrel is

patriotism. We're not at that point. We don't have to be. We've never

been an ultra-

[ Page 4342 ]

nationalistic,

ultra-flag-waving, ultra-committed people to some form of mythical

patriotism. In this country we've always known what we don't want to

be. We've always had examples that have been easy to judge in saying we

don't want to be like this country or we don't want to be like that

country. But when we're asked, as Canadians, what we want to be, we say

we're not sure yet. That's good. We've only come a short way in 100

years. Over you, Mr. Speaker, carved in the Speaker's chair when this

very chamber was opened, just some 83 years ago.... As a Clerk in the

chamber of this House we had a gentleman who lived, until his departure

some years ago, almost as long as the life of this province. He'd seen

it all come and go in this chamber; he'd heard it all before. That's

how young we are.

There is hope out there. There is a desire

to build. There is a desire to change. We worked through our nationhood

through two wars, one of which my father served in, one of which he

spoke of with bitter memory. But in terms of the participation in those

wars, we were told through history that Canada had carved out its own

unique role as a nation no longer suckling at the breast of the mother

country. We're now asking to confirm in law what we won a long time ago

— our own independence and freedom as a country. We do not need to go,

cap in hand, to London and ask for patriation with conditions or

anything else. Prime Minister Thatcher has made it very clear what her

position is going to be. When the legitimate government of the day asks

for patriation, she's going to give it. Otherwise it would be a

betrayal to every citizen who fought for this country or who built this

nation as a nation. Any other position would be a betrayal.

that spirit we're now asked, as a family of provinces and as a group of

peoples from all backgrounds, especially those people who were not born

in this country but who chose to become citizens.... They understand

this country more than some of us who were born here. They know why

they came here. Those of us who were born here were lucky by accident

of fate. They don't want to see this country ripped apart. They have an

allegiance to Canada and to their provinces. When I walk around my

constituency in Vancouver East and speak to people who are from

Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany, Taiwan and other countries in the world,

they appear fearful and confused over what this debate is all about.

They love British Columbia, but they know Canada is their country. They

know that very clearly. No provincial government can be a substitute

for a federal government. It is a partnership. The federal government

is the country.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is my home;

I was born here; I have had opportunities unparalleled for any

immigrant son from a second generation away, as all of us were

eventually immigrant sons. I tell you this: as much as I will fight

tooth and nail for my views and my vision and my hope for British

Columbia, I will never fight on the terms of not understanding that

Canada is my country and I'm a Canadian first. Let's understand that.

Politicians

come and go. Prime Minister Trudeau has come and gone and come again,

but someday he will be gone forever — not the Liberal Party. Someday

Barrett will be gone forever — later, I hope, rather than sooner.

Someday Bennett will be gone, sooner or later. We are just the actors

on the stage for a very brief period of time in nation-building.

This stuff is not great rhetoric for the hustings, Mr. Speaker. This is not

the stuff and guts of campaign fights that swell the crowds. This is the stuff

where we can set aside, for some few brief moments, a hope and a dream together

about building a country. We have not been given that opportunity by this government

— not at all.

How

can we support this resolution, which I suspect is more than a little

bit politically motivated, more than a little bit a continuing of

Canada-bashing, more than a little bit provocative, in an attempt to

find political ground of safety rather than building? The bluff has

been called. Two more months in Ottawa — will the Premier go to the

committee? We're going to oppose this rigid, uncompromising position.

Mr.

Speaker, we're asking the government to ensure that when the vote comes

our vote is recorded. If they really believe that their position is

what all British Columbia believes, then let them take it to the

ultimate test. In effect, Mr. Speaker, in a vernacular that is probably

more appropriate for this House than any other place, put up or shut up.

HON. MR. NIELSEN:

Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to take

part in this debate today on the

resolution that is, I think quite appropriately, before the members of

this House. I think it is important for members who sit here at least

to make an attempt to understand what the resolution says. When the

resolution was first placed before this House there was a

misinterpretation, unfortunately, by certain members of the media — not

intentional, but only because the language was misinterpreted. Then we

heard from other members on the opposite side of this House parroting

the

interpretation given to the resolution by certain members of the

media. Today we have a further elaboration of that by the Leader of the

Opposition as to how contradictory this resolution is with respect to

the speech given by the Premier today.

The resolution is not

contradictory; it is very clear. It asks, in part, that there be

unanimity in developing an amending formula for the constitution of

Canada. It asks that the legislative assemblies and the Parliament of

Canada agree on a formula to amend the constitution further. Not only

is that not difficult to understand; it also reflects the history and

the traditions of our country. The Leader of the Opposition today said

that we can't expect unanimity among the provinces. One other member

suggested Quebec would never agree. Somebody else took a shot at

individual Premiers who may or may not agree — Levesque was mentioned.

Mr.

Speaker, I would suggest to you that the persons we choose in our

country to lead provincial governments are persons of integrity, and

the persons we choose to lead our Parliament in Canada are persons of

integrity. I believe that these people, duly elected by their

constituents, have the capacity, the ability and the desire to reach

unanimity, if it's necessary to ensure that modifications to the

amendment of the Canadian constitution can occur in the future as

needed. To suggest that they can't do it is either ignoring the

realities of life, questioning the integrity of our leaders, or perhaps

simply prophesying for other purposes, perhaps to suggest to people

that they know more than anyone else does.

A great deal has

been done over the years in our country to try to establish a formula

whereby Canada can amend its own constitution and not in any way appear

to be subservient to a foreign nation. A great deal has been done and a

great number of amendments have occurred — I think in excess of 20.

Those amendments, which associate with federal-provincial

relationships, have occurred with the consultation and approval of the

provinces. To suggest it can't be done is ignoring that it has been

done, and it has been done on more than one occasion.

We are not in a less historic position than in some previous time in our country's history. We are not in a weakened

[ Page

4343 ]

position. We have greater strength today than perhaps previously when amendments

were approved with the consent of all the provinces who would be affected by

it. The integrity is there, and the desire is there to reach consensus. It's

unfortunate that some members perhaps didn't take the time or have the interest

to pay attention to the debates which were going on in our country for a long

period of time, culminating in the meeting in Ottawa last September which was

televised, well reported and deeply frustrating to those who took part. We had

quotes today by the Premier with references to communications between himself

and the Prime Minister where the Prime Minister of Canada clearly indicated

that if there are to be changes which affect the provinces, those changes will

occur after agreement has been reached among the provinces and the federal government.

That theme or concept was echoed in the past by other Prime Ministers of Canada,

by Premiers of previous times in Canada, by Premiers of today. If we are to

discuss amendments which will affect the relationships between the provinces

and the federal government, then we seek unanimity. In our resolution, put forward

by the hon. Premier, it asks that a formula for amendments to the constitution

be one with the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces and the Parliament

of Canada. It is traditional in our country to do that. I would suggest that

a person is offering a disservice to our country, our provinces and our people

to suggest, in some pious way, that it can't be done. It can be done, it

has been done, and it probably will be done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Reference

was made to rigidity, the undesirable aspects of having a rigid

position with respect to the resolution which is before us. Yet no

reference was made to the undesirable aspects of a similar position by

the Prime Minister of Canada, a Prime Minister who, within the past

year, had communicated to the provinces and said: "We respect your

sovereignty, but we also respect our sovereignty. Where we're dealing

with matters that deal with federal powers, we believe we have

authority to make such amendments. But where we're dealing with matters

affecting provincial powers, we believe you retain that authority." Now

the same Prime Minister has said: "Thank you for coming to Ottawa.

Thank you for spending five or six days in negotiation, but the

script's already written." It was written in August, the month previous

to that dreadful conference. The answers were already there; they were

prepared and even distributed — surreptitiously, but they were

distributed. The 64 pages are here. The plan was already in progress.

We knew before the debates even began that the federal government had

contingency plans in the event that agreement was reached, not reached

or, perhaps, some form of compromise was achieved.

Among the more quotable sections of this intriguing document was:

"The challenge now lies with the federal government to try

to bring out the agreement on a package which appears to be within reach, and

failing this, to show that disagreement leading to unilateral federal action

is the result of an impossibly cumbersome process or the intransigence of the

provincial governments, and not the fault of the federal government."

This was before the meetings took place. It's repeated throughout this

document. It's the cynicism of this type of negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, the delegation from British Columbia went to that conference in

good faith and in an attempt to achieve consensus or agreement on a number of

issues — a number of issues which were not of our choosing, but were suggested

to us by the Prime Minister of Canada — and we concurred that we would offer

our opinion on those positions, and we agreed that we would work with the other

provinces and with the other governments in an attempt to achieve accord. Strangely

enough, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition suggested today, consensus

was achieved on a number of issues. Unfortunately, when that ten-province consensus

was presented to the Prime Minister, he chose to veto that consensus and said:

"No, we won’t accept it." The Prime Minister offered several

formulas. In one instance he summed it up by saying: "Seven provinces agree,

three don't, the federal government does — it looks like we can do it."

On another occasion he said: "Four provinces agree, six do not, the federal

government does — it looks like we can do it." And in other circumstances

he said: "Ten provinces agree, the federal government does not — it appears

we can't achieve it." The Prime Minister quite correctly told the

delegations that we all had one vote — each province has one vote — for a total

of ten, and the federal government has ten votes, for a total of....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, and the chairman can vote twice.

Mr.

Speaker, I am rather distressed — but only mildly so — today that the

debate entered into partisan politics. I thought the speech offered by

the Premier was nonpolitical. I thought it was an attempt to place in

perspective the historical significance of British Columbia's role in

Confederation, addressed to a particular problem which is before us in

Canada today. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it was all

politics; he suggested that one should respect I office." I presume —

and I am not putting words in his mouth — that he does not include the

office of the Premier of British Columbia, when he calls for respect

for the office. He suggested that our Premier was to be chided for

calling the Prime Minister of Canada an arsonist.

In his

speech today the Premier made reference to quotations of past leaders —

past Prime Ministers in the country and others. Perhaps — to be more

understandable, Mr. Speaker — the Premier today, when he referred to

Prime Minister Trudeau as being an arsonist, may have in some way been

quoting a former leader in that context. Perhaps the thought stayed in

his mind and was used again. Four years ago today — five years ago

today, I guess it was election time, and five years and a day ago it

snowed like you know what — in 1976, perhaps the Premier was reading

some material, and he may have come across this, which is from Halifax.

"Barrett" — Leader of the Opposition at the time — "said: 'Prime

Minister Trudeau's attitude toward the Parti Quebecois election was

disappointing. The Prime Minister was saying that Canadians should keep

calm and cool, yet he says we have a crisis'." It goes on to quote Mr.

Barrett as saying: "The analogy I make is that one of the fellow who

goes out and sets his own outhouse on fire and then comes in promising

to put out the conflagration he has created." Well, I don't know. Does

that mean he is an arsonist or does it mean he had someone's permission

to set his outhouse on fire?

[ Page 4344 ]

reconsider their unilateral action to bring about changes in our

country — changes which will be with us for many, many years. We are

suggesting that this House support early patriation of the constitution

from the United Kingdom. Probably very few people in the country would

disagree with that desire. We are asking that a formula for future

amendments to the constitution of Canada be developed with the consent

of the Legislatures of the provinces and the Parliament of Canada. Once

that has been achieved, once the rules have been agreed upon, then

future amendments can be made in Canada by Canadians with prior

agreement as to how the formula works. And we can all agree to that.

Who

knows what that formula may be? The ten provinces and the federal

government could say that the formula we all support is unanimity; they

could say that. They could say that it is the Victoria Charter; they

could say that it is the Vancouver formula or they could say it's

something else that's been suggested. We're saying that if we're going

to develop a formula that will affect our province, that will affect

every province and affect every citizen of the country of Canada, then

surely if we're going to develop that formula, let's agree on what that

formula should be. To suggest that can't be achieved is suggesting that

Canadians lack integrity, lack desire and purpose, and I will not

accept that.

We are saying that the Prime Minister has erred

in judgment in taking it upon himself, within his own self-imposed

timetable, to achieve certain aspects with respect to the constitution.

We say there is no rush, there is no panic. There is a desire, yes, and

we share in that desire. There doesn't have to be a timetable dreamed

up to coincide with the anniversary of Canada's founding. We'll have

another July next year, the year after and the year after. There's

nothing magic in saying it has to be achieved by July 1, 1981. We're

going to be around after that, I hope. Probably many of us will still

be involved in public life after July 1, 1981. The Prime Minister may

not be, because he said he plans to leave. But we shouldn't attempt to

achieve changes in Canada's constitution, changes in the fabric of this

nation, simply because it's convenient for a person who is going to

retire from his job. He hasn't earned that right. He doesn't have the

capacity to make such demands. It is the people of this nation with

whom we must be concerned, not the individual ambitions of one person,

no matter how bright or ambitious that person may be. We are asking

very clearly: let's sit down and let's discuss in good faith the

changes we feel are needed for our country.

It was an amazing education for many people back in Ottawa last September when

the ten Premiers had the opportunity of sitting down and discussing various

issues — the flexibility of the leaders of our provinces in recognizing and

appreciating one another's points of view, and being able to achieve consensus

or unanimity on some issues, which is perhaps rare in Canada, but perhaps may

not be that rare in the future. There were those who suggested, yes, we could

agree on many issues; unfortunately, the Prime Minister was not one. We made

it very clear in Ottawa that we respected the individuality and the sovereignty

of the provinces. We made it very clear that we did not intend to sacrifice

a region or a province of the country to obtain something in which perhaps we

had a greater interest than they, and that was reciprocated by some of the provinces.

It was a very worthwhile attempt to resolve the problem. We said at that conference:

"All right, we didn't achieve what we came here to achieve. It's

not that it's unobtainable, but we didn't achieve it this time. Let's

continue to talk."

this ridiculous document which was prepared in advance of that

conference, it is suggested that the federal government might look good

if they suggested: "Let's stay here and keep talking. " But they

rejected that. We suggested we stay there and keep talking, and they

said: "No, it's all over. Too bad we didn't get together, but it's all

over. We are going to do our thing our way now, as outlined in this

document." That was prepared before the discussions even began,

including prepared television ads to advise Canadians how unfortunate

it was that we couldn't get along, even before we knew we couldn't. As

a matter of fact, some of us thought we were getting along, but that

was not to be the case. The geese went into reverse.

As I

mentioned earlier, I find it unfortunate that some pretty silly

political references were made today. Here is the leader of a party who

advised this House last year that they stick together like you know

what. Whether it's the provincial party, the federal party, the

municipal party, whether it's the party here, in Saskatchewan, Alberta,

New Brunswick, wherever, or federally, they stick together. Well, we

have suggested that, rather than unilateral action on the part of the

federal government, we consult, discuss, talk about it, and see if we

can solve it. So does the NDP. They agree with that. At least they

agree with it in Ottawa. Prior to the conference, they presented a

policy resolution of the federal New Democratic Party, which said in

part that if by the end of the first ministers' conference there was

deadlock and no prospect of success through the first ministers'

negotiating process alone, in place of unilateral action, which could

be divisive, "we recommend a new round of deliberations be started

almost immediately."

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, somebody in Ottawa.

The

question, Mr. Speaker, is very grave and very serious in Canada today.

It's unclear when it all began about the need for these amendments,

patriation — the contemporary need for it. It is suggested that it was

a chance remark by a Tory member in the House one day, and the Prime

Minister thought: "That's not a bad idea; it might even become a good

campaign suggestion." The timetable has not been proved to many people

in this country as being as essential and precise as the Prime Minister

suggests. The Leader of the Opposition today said: "There is confusion

abroad." You don't have to go very far to know where "abroad" is: it's

across the floor.

The seriousness of the consequences of

amending the constitution is very real. The traditions upon which our

country is based are very, very important. The traditions suggest —

through the works of scholars or lawyers, or the odd scholarly lawyer —

that tradition in Canada says unanimity not only can be achieved but

has been and should be achieved. The academics agree with historical

references on this. The need for changing the constitution probably is

primarily to satisfy the pride of a nation — that is, we are in charge

of out own affairs. I share that desire. To do so by July I next year

is very questionable and not proved.

To amend the

constitution in Canada, I think, is achievable and desirable. However,

I believe it is wrong to do it in a unilateral fashion which would

remove British Columbia's opportunity to be involved in that process.

The alienation

[ Page 4345 ]

which can be created by unilateral action on the part of the federal government is very serious indeed.

The

Leader of the Opposition referred to polls. When polls go for you, you

refer to them and speak about the integrity of polls; when they don't,

then you refer to them and speak about their failings. The Gallup Poll,

a favourite instrument of the federal Prime Minister, suggests that by

a ratio of two to one Canadians are not supporting the concept of

unilateral action by the Prime Minister. In British Columbia 61 percent

of those polled said: "It is wrong." The NDP, according to their

leader, says: "The people are wrong, because we do not support this

resolution. We're going to vote against this resolution" — this

resolution which is asking Ottawa: "Don't do it on your own."

Mr.

Speaker, references have been made, and I'm sure further references

will be made by people who have studied the history of our country, the

history of British Columbia's entry into Canada, and I think they will

clearly indicate that we have a unique formula in this country. We

entered Canada; we joined Canada. We may have been a junior partner,

but we were a partner. We did not give up our authorities, our

responsibilities and our privileges; we came with them, and we retained

them. The federal government has a role to play in our Confederation,

as the provinces have a role to play. We're not asking that they be

changed; we're asking that they be retained. If the federal government

were successful in not only patriating the constitution and having an

amending formula, but also in specifics they've asked for, we don't

know what that might mean to British Columbia's capability of being

sovereign in areas in which traditionally it has had authority.

It's

important, Mr. Speaker, even though most Canadians would not spend a

great deal of time paying attention to this type of debate and maybe

the subject. Many Canadians are speaking about this today, however,

Canadians who have spent a considerable amount of time examining this

problem.

With respect to the amending formula, I can read

some words to you. It says: "We already have an amending formula in

Canada. The conventional rule has grown up that with respect to any

amendment which affects the division of legislative jurisdiction

between Parliament and the provincial legislatures or reduces their

legislative jurisdiction, then the consent of Parliament and of all the

provinces is necessary." The consent of Parliament and of all the

provinces is necessary: that's what we say in our resolution. We are

speaking about federal-provincial relationships. This person, who is a

lawyer and somewhat of a scholar — he was a Rhodes scholar — says:

"...the convention or rule has grown up that with respect

to any amendment which affects the division of legislative jurisdiction between

parliament and the provincial legislatures, or reduces their legislative jurisdiction,

then the consent of parliament and of all the provinces is necessary before

a request is made to the British parliament to change the BNA Act. The BNA Act

contains two lists: one, the laws that the federal government can pass, and

the other of the laws that the provincial governments can pass. If, by a proposed

change, any subject is moved from one list to the other or struck off either

list, then the consent of all eleven governments is required to make the change."

So goes the rule.

It's recognized in our country today

that while not all matters may be contained in the constitution, or

even in our statutes, there are traditions which are respected. There

are rules of common law which are known. That's how our country

functions and that's how it has always functioned.

These

statements, which fully, completely and quite eloquently support this

resolution, were made by a person who took

part in that constitutional

debate in Ottawa last September. When he is not taking

part in

constitutional debates, he's the Premier of Saskatchewan and he belongs

to the NDP, Hon. Allan Blakeney. He understands this. Unfortunately the

leader of the NDP in British Columbia probably has not yet read the

resolution, or asked even for minimum

interpretation as to what the

resolution says. It's not good enough to use your basis of research and

interpretation of a resolution on a misinterpretation by a reporter.

Mr.

Speaker, I believe it would be desirable if unanimous approval were

given to this motion. I sincerely believe if politics were not part of

it we could achieve that in this chamber. But I don't think it is

vitally urgent or vitally important. This motion should be passed in

this chamber, and I'm sure it will be passed. If members of the

opposite side don't wish to approve it, fine. If they wish to make it a

political situation, fine. As the Leader of the Opposition said,

sometimes politics enters into these debates.

But, Mr.

Speaker, I think it is vitally important for the people of our province

to appreciate that this matter is serious. It has been given serious

attention by this government for a number of years. We did take our

part in the negotiating process which is known to this country. We not

only took part, we offered our suggestions, our solutions and our

resolutions to the problems placed before the various provinces. We

believe in that system. We believe it can accomplish a great deal. We

believe it can achieve consensus and the desires of the people of our

country.

I find it disheartening to hear members of this

chamber refer to individual Premiers, prejudging their capability in

achieving unanimity or consensus with their fellow Premiers. Perhaps

it's because they have a very limited association with these ten

leaders of our country. I believe that it is not only possible to

achieve a great deal of consensus and unanimity with the various

Premiers in Canada, but that it is very likely to occur.

Premiers

of today, Premiers of yesterday, Prime Ministers of today, Prime

Ministers of yesterday and other people who were involved in elected

public life, but not necessarily achieving either the job of Premier or

Prime Minister, have stated repeatedly over the years the unique nature

of Canada with reference to its constitution and how changes can and

should be made. We're not asking that that idea be changed. We are

asking that that idea be used once again to achieve a formula whereby

future amendments to a constitution, which is in Canadian hands, can be

made to resolve some of the problems in our country today and in the

future.

Mr. Speaker, we too on this side are proud

Canadians, as has been suggested when the flag was waved a while ago.

We're proud Canadians; we're proud British Columbians; we're proud

people; we're proud individuals; we're proud of our constituencies, our

municipalities, our cities, our families and everything else. It's not

an exclusive right or privilege of one party or one side of the House.

Wave the flag all you want. It has been suggested that we, as

Canadians, are not as patriotic as others. Well, we may not be as

nationalistic as some, but we are certainly patriotic.

[ Page 4346 ]

Mr.

Speaker, this is not a question of patriotism; it's not a question of

partisan politics. It's a question of a very serious problem facing our

nation, and it's a question of the government responding to that

serious problem in a very legitimate, intelligent way. Members of this

assembly have the opportunity to vote on this motion. If they say no,

then the motion fails, but I'm sure the majority will say yes. I see

nowhere in this resolution where it suggests that unanimous consent

must be achieved so the motion can pass without unanimity here in this

chamber. Those are the rules of the game, and it will pass, I'm sure. I

would recommend to all in this chamber that they stand up and be

counted and say yes, this motion should pass.

I look forward

to hearing from other speakers who have studied this problem and can

offer some specific information on many of the issues that are covered

by the resolution.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm

just going to make a few remarks, because I thought the speech of the

Leader of the Opposition was one of the best he's ever given in this

House. He was right on the point in terms of what's happening in

Canada, and he challenged them to take the matter to the people and not

just guffaw, as the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) likes to

do.

The fact of the matter is that the constitutional

process in Canada is simply in midstream at the present time. There has

been no formulation either of the Bill of Rights or of the amending

formula, and the duty of the government of the province of British

Columbia is to go down to the joint committee in Ottawa and attempt to

improve the package, to fight for the rights and interests of this

province of British Columbia. This they have signally failed to do.

The

Premier has, almost in a pouting manner, refused to go to a joint

Canadian committee that is going to formulate a resolution that is

going to London. I ask him directly this morning, because I think we

should know this: will the Premier agree to go down and make

representations to that committee, as Premier Blakeney is going to do?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He backed out.

MR. MACDONALD:

No, he has changed his schedule, but he is going down. You think it's a

big joke, but he changed his

schedule in view of the extension of the

time of the hearings, which is perfectly logical. I ask this government

whether or not they are prepared to fight this much for British

Columbia — that they will at least go to the joint committee and state

what the interests and needs of this province and of the west are. Are

you going to just default on the whole process of constitutional

change, which is going forward whether you like it or not?

agree with the Leader of the Opposition — I don't think Trudeau should

have embarked on this course at all. There's nothing more divisive or

acrimonious than a debate about constitutions or the bylaws of a small

association, as we all know. But he has. The Prime Minister of Canada

has embarked on a change in terms of getting the patriation of the

constitution and a few other matters which should not meet the

opposition of this House, such as the Bill of Rights.

listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr.

Gardom), and he was talking about the iniquity, in effect, of

entrenching the Bill of Rights.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I did not!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you criticized the entrenching of the Bill of Rights....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You weren't even in here!

MR. MACDONALD: I heard your speech and I read it in the Blues.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You heard it in the Blues?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you got me there, Mr. Premier, eh? You've had so many stumbleburn affairs...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD:

...with the dictionary yourself that I have no objection to your

catching me out. I heard it in the Blues, just as if I'd seen it on

television.

What the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations

has never told this House or the people is what he objects to about the

entrenchment of certain basic democratic rights in the federal

constitution. Which one are you against? I'm going to challenge you to

come out and tell the House, if you're going to speak in this debate.

Are you against the general statement about life, liberty and security

of the person, the freedom of expression sections, the expressions

relating to the administration of justice? Just what is it that this

government fears? What particular right are you afraid of if it should

be entrenched in the constitution?

What this government is

doing is almost by default. It's refusing to fight for the interests of

British Columbia, going to London on a mission impossible....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what they think in London.

MR. MACDONALD:

Oh, yes, it is. It's exactly what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has

told you after you sent two of your people there. She has told you....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD:

I'll tell you what she told you. She has told you that if Canada is a

country that says it's an independent country, then why doesn't it

settle its own affairs. Whether you have a Bill of Rights or whether

you have an amending formula of this or that is something for you

grown-up Canadians to decide for yourselves. Maggie sent your

messengers home. To go to London on that kind of mission impossible,

asking the British government to, in effect, interfere in Canadian

affairs, and refusing to go to Ottawa, is surely the hallmark of

colonialism. That's the attitude. You do not recognize that Canadian

problems have to be solved within Canada.

I'd just like to

refer to one other matter, because I'm not going to repeat any of the

things that were so ably said by the Leader of the Opposition. But

there's another aspect where this government has badly let down the

people of this province through a process of bickering, bad-mouthing,

confrontation and failure to do their homework, and that's in the field

of resources. The NDP, in government....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want us to debate the next motion too?

[ Page

4347 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Is it going to come on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like to?

MR. MACDONALD: You've made an announcement. Is it coming on or not?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER:

Order, please. The hon. second member for Vancouver East has the floor

on the resolution, and I'm sure the hon. member is aware of the rule of

anticipation.

MR. MACDONALD: That's true. I'm not

talking about the resolution, Mr. Speaker; I'm talking about the

general question of protecting the resource rights of the province of

British Columbia.

In 1974 I was one of a delegation, including the Premier....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD:

Goodness, that minister's touchy today. What is the problem over there?

Mr. Speaker, I'm going to let them simmer down for a while.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

1974 Premier Barrett, as he then was, and I and Mark Eliesen went back

to Ottawa, and there we met in opposition to a tax on natural gas in

the province of British Columbia, which was proposed at that time. I'm

not talking about 1980. On the other side of the table there were

Donald MacDonald, the Minister of Energy, Acting Prime Minister Drury

and Mickey Cohen from the Finance department. We got a commitment out

of the federal government that they would not impose an excise or

export tax on the natural gas of the province of British Columbia. We

did it. But as a result of the kind of antics, confrontation,

bad-mouthing, bickering and refusal to participate in the whole process

which is the hallmark of this government.... You won't go to the

committee; you go to London instead.

As a result, we are now

faced in this province with a surcharge on our natural gas, which is

only 30 cents but which will increase. What we blocked you have allowed

to happen to this province. You are not standing up for the resource

rights or any other rights of this province. You are a negative,

confrontation government and you are letting down what are the

essential interests of this province.

I have given the facts

of the matter: what the NDP was able to block, which was an export tax

on natural gas, you people have allowed to happen. You have allowed it

to happen, and I would suggest that you change your negotiating team

because what you have sent down to these conferences and what you've

sent down to Ottawa has been a bunch of bumblers so far as the

legitimate interests of this province are concerned. You have let

Trudeau and central Canada walk all over you, and it is time we put in

a team that could negotiate and speak up for this province, one that

doesn't pout and play politics and say: "I won't go to that committee."

All right, that's what I wanted to say. I am just going to say it in a

few words and not repeat what the Leader of the Opposition has said — which

the other side finds so funny — except for the last line, where he said: "Okay,

you have challenged us on this measure." The Premier has challenged us

about this resolution and when we call his bluff, what is he going to do — slink

away to Maui, to Mexico? When you are challenged what are you going to do? Are

you afraid to take it to the people, Mr. Premier? You challenge and walk away;

you throw down the gauntlet and walk away.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to thank the second member for Vancouver

East for yielding three-quarters of his time to me. I, however, am not going

to take that time; I am going to be brief.

Mr.

Speaker, I hoped and waited this morning for some small thread of

understanding of the resolution that was before us. Instead of that we

had a long rambling dissertation by the Leader of the Opposition

involving everything from the "finger" to Canada-bashing to being

colonial by fighting the resolution and so on.

I guess the

most disappointing thing of all about the speech was that apparently he

still doesn't understand the requirement in the resolution that a

formula for amendment have the consent of the legislatures of the

provinces. He seems to mistake that for some eternal, unanimous-consent

formula for all time which will block all constitutional change. I

think that's disappointing, because we could have had a good debate

here today. But he apparently chooses to read Montaigne and not to read

the resolution.

This is a serious resolution. It's serious

because it's calling upon British Columbians to support patriation of

the constitution of Canada, and to provide for a formula that will have

the consent of all the legislatures. Those words aren't put in there

lightly. It's necessary that all provinces consent to the new formula,

because all provinces came into Confederation by consent. That is often

forgotten. This province came in voluntarily; nobody shanghaied us in

here; nobody twisted our arm. We voluntarily sought union, and when we

sought that union we were reciprocated by Canadians of large spirit.

those days they had large spirits — Cartier and Macdonald, men like

that, men who were prepared to reach out, prepared to yield a railway,

prepared to make very substantial concessions for a small colony with a

very small population of about 25,000 people who were scattered along

this coast, with a depleted economy, a gold rush that had ended, with

very little in the way of resources. Yet those Canadians of large

spirit reached out. Today they're not reaching out at all. Today we go

a different route. Today we go the route of memoranda, with game plans

even before the meetings.

This province came in and

responded to the Canadian men of good will and large spirit. We entered

Confederation. We entered Confederation with the ownership of our

natural resources. All the provinces did. The Prairie provinces won

that in the 1930s. All the provinces have ownership of their natural

resources.

I think we certainly owe an eternal debt of

gratitude to the federal NDP leader for having now negotiated control

of our natural resources, when we already had ownership of them. That

was an enormous contribution to the Confederation debate.

Now

if we entered Confederation because of large spirit and because of a

climate of consent and trust, that is the way we must alter

Confederation. There is no other way to alter

[ Page 4348 ]

Confederation.

Changes in the constitution as fundamental as have been proposed by the

federal government in their resolutions of October 2 must have the

cooperation and the support of all Canadians. It is quite clear from

the recent Gallup poll that they do not.

Mr. Speaker, I'm

amused by those in this chamber and elsewhere who say that for a

province to go to London and protest, they are being colonial. That

really makes me laugh. The whole proposition of these resolutions that

are being sent to London is this: "Please would the United Kingdom

Parliament write a Canadian constitution for Canadians." But if you

protest that, you're colonial. You're not allowed to protest it. The

United Kingdom is being asked to do the job, Mr. Speaker, that should

be done in Canada.

This province presented a brief to the

parliamentary committee — a solid brief and a responsible brief — and

it simply said: "Patriate the constitution, and the decisions can be

made in Canada." This province also will make submissions to the

parliamentary committee in Ottawa. I would commend members opposite to

read some of the things that their own federal members have been saying

in that parliamentary committee and in the House of Commons about the

federal government's resolutions: a catalogue of criticism of those

resolutions — speeches, obviously, that the Leader of the Opposition

has never read and doesn't care about, but constructive criticism on

every one of the major propositions of the constitutional resolutions.

I'll

just read a couple of extracts of what their federal members, who

apparently do their homework in Ottawa — unlike here — have to say. Mr.

Lorne Nystrom, Yorkton-Melville, House of Commons, October 7, 1980,

says:

"I believe we should have strong

provincial governments able to implement programs which respond to

differing provincial and regional needs. I strongly believe in this

country we have two orders of power, two sets of jurisdiction, partners

between federal and provincial powers. As Allan Blakeney, the Premier

of my province, says: 'These powers are equal'."

Mr. Nystrom

goes on to point out a number of trenchant criticisms of the very

dangerous implications of these constitutional proposals that were

introduced into the House of Commons on October 2. I also commend, Mr.

Speaker, that the members opposite read the speeches and the remarks of

Mr. Svend Robinson, Mr. Lyle Kristiansen and others who have studied

these proposals. Maybe they could give the gentlemen opposite just a

tiny little bit of help in understanding what we face in this country.

One of the great disappointments that this province has with the federal constitutional

proposals is that they never address those issues of constitutional reform which

were promised to be addressed. They were never dealt with. There was no consideration

in there of reform of the upper House; no consideration of readdressing the

power over communications; no sharing of appointment authority for the supreme

court; nothing to do with offshore resources — the rights of the maritime provinces

and this province were absolutely disregarded there; nothing to do with family

law, despite enormous consensus on that subject as a result of meetings over

two or three years. It was very, very disappointing. The great promise that

we had following the Quebec referendum in May 1980, that we were going to address

serious constitutional reform with consensus in this country, never came to

pass at all. After the abortive discussions of the first ministers in September,

the federal government simply decided to go ahead on its own course. I think

that it is highly regrettable.

Another

thing that apparently the members opposite have not done is to examine

the resolutions that are before the House of Commons and decide whether

they want to entrench for all time an equalization formula. Do they

wish to see a formula entrenched, or would it be better to continue to

participate, as this province does, as good Canadians, in equalization

payments without enshrining them into the constitution and making it

impossible at a later time to make adjustments to them?

Another

thing that I'm sure the members opposite have never examined — although

Mr. Nystrom examined it — was the amending formula that was contained

in those resolutions. It was a most odious formula, Mr. Speaker,

because under that formula what happens is this: for a period of two

years after the constitutional resolutions become law — if they do — no

change will take place without unanimous consent for a period of two

years, and that's fine. But after two years, if there isn't agreement,

then the federal government has the unilateral right under the proposed

changes to put a referendum to the people. They can put a referendum

directly to the people, and if that referendum carries, under the

breakdown of the provinces and under the Victoria Charter, then that

amendment will become the law of the land. That means that at any time

and on their own initiative Ottawa can launch a referendum. That

referendum, if carried in those provinces in various parts of the

country with 50 percent of the population, will then bind the country

without any reference to the provincial legislatures.

You

may think that's a fair way to amend the constitution, that it's

flexible and democratic, but you must remember that it is the federal

government that has the initiative and may pose the question and do it

in the way it chooses and in the time it chooses. They can spend

another $25 million for an advertising budget, let the geese fly on TV,

and simply put the question at a time that may be expedient and in a

manner that is simplistic. That is certainly not the way to bring about

change in a federal state.

Mr. Nystrom has eloquently spoken

about that in a most enlightened way. He disagrees with the national

leader on that issue, and certainly he has taken the time, which the

Leader of the Opposition in this House hasn't, to examine that bill

very closely. He points out in his speech what would happen if there

were a tremendous energy crisis — a conflict in the Middle East and a

tremendous increase in the price of energy — and if there were a

national referendum to have more control of resources go to the federal

government. It might even carry in two of the western provinces,

representing 50 percent of Canadians. For example, it could isolate the

provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which have oil. "It is dangerous

to have the power which exists in

section 42 and

section 46 of the

resolution." Then he says: "The federal government can make the rules.

I have been in politics long enough to know that money can manipulate

public opinion.

So he's concerned about the referendum provisions.

Imagine

changing the rules of the game, by the whims of referendum based on the

rigidity of the Victoria Charter. But that is what is proposed in the

constitutional amendment resolutions that are before parliament.

The

approach of the federal government to constitutional reform is

unilateral and it is unfortunate. It is wrong; it constitutes a breach

of trust. It is possible in this country, I believe, to attain

consensus, and consensus between the

[ Page

4349 ]

provinces was on the brink of realization in

September of this year at those meetings in Ottawa. I think it is also

unfortunate that even before those meetings the federal representatives

were considering other courses of action, and in their memorandum of

August 30, 1980, which was leaked to the delegates in Ottawa in

September, the federal mandarins pointed out in that memorandum:

"There

would be a strong strategic advantage in having the joint resolution

passed and the U.K. legislation enacted before a Canadian court had

occasion to pronounce on the validity of the measure and the procedure

employed to achieve it. This would suggest the desirability of swift

passage of the resolution and the U.K. legislation."

Imagine

considering that course of action before the historic discussions that

were to take place a week later, and to advocate that the thing should

be rammed through the Canadian parliament and the U.K. parliament

before a Canadian court had a chance to pronounce on its validity. That

was one of the proposed courses of action.

They also

discussed in that paper the advantages and disadvantages of hard-sell

and soft-sell advertising campaigns. In conclusion they said — and I

think this probably tells it all:

"The probability of an agreement is not high. They recognized that.

"Unilateral

action is therefore a distinct possibility. In the event unilateral

action becomes necessary, ministers should understand that the fight in

parliament and the country will be very, very rough. For as Machiavelli

said" — an apt choice of author — "'It should be borne in mind that

there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success

and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a

state's constitution'."

So that was the unfortunate climate and the procedure that was followed to

bring about those discussions in Ottawa that failed in September and then led

to the preparation of these unilateral resolutions in October. Mr. Speaker,

that is not at all the way to bring about fundamental change in this country

and to bring home the Canadian constitution. It can be done in a different way;

it can be done through consultation and good will.

is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as the time has dragged on and the debate

on the constitution has intensified in Ottawa before the parliamentary

committee and before the British special committee of the House of

Commons investigating this matter, that a number of constitutional

experts in Britain, including Sir Jeffrey Marshall, Mr. Wade and

others, have come forward and said that it is a strong and

well-established convention of the Canadian constitution that

amendments affecting the provincial powers will not be sought and

granted without the consent of the provinces involved. That has been

established before that parliamentary committee as a strong convention,

and that is the convention that other Canadian governments have

followed in the past in constitutional discussions. That is the

convention followed, for instance, when the British North America Act

was amended in modern times to give power to Parliament over

unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, and that is the way to

bring about fundamental change now when you are considering entrenching

a bill of rights, changing an amending formula and doing things that

will affect the balance of power and the way this nation operates in

the future.

So I say to this House: when you come to vote on

this resolution, please rise for a moment, if you can, above partisan

considerations. Please don't seek refuge in calling committed Canadians

and British Columbians — which we are just as you are — Ottawa-bashers

and colonials because we don't agree with something that has been going

on in Ottawa and we seek to bring to the attention of the British

parliament that if they pass these resolutions they are not interfering

in Canadian affairs, they are passing a measure following the wishes of

the Canadian government against the wishes of the majority of

provinces, and they should simply send the measure home and allow that

debate and that decision to be made in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Mair moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1981,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada