[ Page 2311 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 2311

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

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

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 2311

Ministerial Statement

Cyanide spill in Vancouver.

Hon. Mr. Rogers –– 2312

Mr. Lauk –– 2312

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

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

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

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

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

Motion 10.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2316

Mr. Barrett –– 2317

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2318

Mr. Hall –– 2322

Mr. Kempf –– 2323

Mr. Gabelmann ?324

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 2326

Mr. Hanson –– 2328

Mr. Davis –– 2329

Mr. Cocke –– 2331

Mr. Hyndman –– 2332

Mr. Skelly –– 2334

Annual return for the calendar year 1979, submitted in accordance with section 53

of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2334

Matter of Urgent Public Importance

Salary of Minister of Tourism.

Deputy Speaker rules –– 2334

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, let me just extend a welcome to the Reverend Father Donald, who gave prayers to this assembly today, and also welcome back an old friend who is known to all members of this Legislature.

The special occasion today is not just the fact that Father Walter Donald is back to start us off in the right manner in our deliberations. It is Father Donald's twentieth wedding anniversary, and in the gallery today is his wife Rosemary. I hope the House will extend to them our best wishes in achieving this historic milestone in their marriage. Audrey and I were pleased to achieve our twenty-fifth just a few weeks ago.

I have a second welcome to the Legislature and an explanation of the red carnation I'm wearing today for those who might mistake it for being a memento of associations I've had over the past few days. The carnation is a start off to the drive for funds for the Multiple Sclerosis Society of Vancouver Island. Today I was pleased to participate with those members, who are raising funds and giving up their time, to help them in the publicity and, hopefully, also in a successful venture. Last year in this area, I believe, they raised about $25,000. I hope that all members of the assembly and the public of British Columbia will help them in their worthy cause to raise the funds to fight this terrible disease.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, this morning my colleague, the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall), and I had the pleasure of welcoming a very large group of students from Johnston Heights Secondary School in Surrey. Accompanying them were their teachers and 35 exchange students from the province of Quebec. I think the group was far too large to be in attendance here today, but I would ask the House to bid a special welcome to the exchange students from Quebec and their new-found friends from Surrey.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been informed by our Sergeant-at-Arms that Mr. G.I. Cameron, who is the Sergeant-at-Arms at the Yukon Legislative Assembly, is in our members' gallery accompanied by Mrs. McLaren. I think all members would like to bid them a very cordial welcome.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, in the members' gallery today are some guests I wish the House to welcome. They are Chief George Behn and Counsellor Harry Dickie of the Fort Nelson Indian Band; Mr. Andrew Schuck, who is the lawyer for the bank, accompanied by his charming wife; Mr. Fred Walchli, regional director general for the Department of Indian Affairs; David Sparks, local government officer of the Department of Indian Affairs; Mr. Bob Moss, who recently retired as petroleum commissioner for the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources; and a member of my office, Mr. Robert Excell, who is the coordinator of Native Indian programs. Chief Behn, Counsellor Dickie and the others are here today on a matter of moment to them.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome, from the Sir Frederick Banting Junior Secondary School in Coquitlam, Mr. Wickerson and his class of students, who are visiting us today.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a great pleasure for me to mention to the House that in the gallery today is a young man who's had a very distinguished career in the media, has made a great contribution to the Vernon and Kelowna communities and has been a great help to me, I must say, in my election, for which I could express even more appreciation. He's down here representing the city of Vernon on an emergency services training program sponsored by the government, and I would ask the House in all good humour to welcome Alderman Jim Yount.

MR. RITCHIE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the distinct honour of welcoming to the House 46 constituents of mine, members of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society. That was the first part of a tour. The second part is here today, and again I'm very, very pleased and honoured to welcome, I believe, 46 members of the Clearbrook Golden Age Society. Would you please extend a warm welcome.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the House to welcome a tireless worker for senior citizens, and a man who's been active in helping crippled children in our province through Lionism. He is a past member of this House — the Social Credit member for Vancouver East, elected in 1956, Mr. Fred Sharpe.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to ask the House to welcome another part of a delegation. The day before last we had 46 students from Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver visiting us, we have the second part arriving later this afternoon, and tomorrow I'll ask the House to welcome the third party. These are grade 11 students, who have just completed a course on the federal and provincial legislatures. They're over to see us operate and the wisdom with which we attend our deliberations. The students are under the guidance of their teacher, Andy Krawzyk. I would ask the House to welcome them this afternoon.

Introduction of Bills

FORT NELSON INDIAN RESERVE
MINERALS REVENUE SHARING ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled the Fort Nelson Indian Reserve Minerals Revenue Sharing Act.

Bill 22 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. Williams tabled an executed copy of an agreement between Her Majesty the Queen in the right of Canada and Her Majesty the Queen in the right of the province of British Columbia, dated January 1, 1977.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In introducing the bill, Mr. Speaker, and tabling this copy of the agreement, may I say that companion legislation and another copy of that same

[ Page 2312 ]

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

CYANIDE SPILL IN VANCOUVER

HON. MR. ROGERS: I rise to make a ministerial statement. At 11:35 a.m. today members of the Provincial Emergency Program were notified by officials of the city of Vancouver that a substantial quantity of cyanide had spilled in the 1700-block Powell Street. The city of Vancouver fire department, Provincial Emergency Program, and members of the waste management branch and the Vancouver police department have been at the site since early this morning. It was originally anticipated that vandalism had caused this cyanide to be spilled, but subsequent reports have indicated that it was done by a demolition crew. The Vancouver city fire department and police department had suggested evacuation of a rather substantial area of downtown Vancouver. They have now revised that downwards to a one-block area surrounding the spill. At the present time officials are in place neutralizing with lime the spill that took place.

I have no further details at this time; this last report was passed to me just two minutes before coming into the House. I will bring updates to the House as it continues. The matter may resolve itself or it may turn out to be much more substantial than we originally thought.

MR. LAUK: I thank the hon. minister for reporting to the House on this emergency at the earliest opportunity. But it does bring to mind the necessary response of the provincial government to requests made by other citizens' groups to have a clear statement, either through legislation or government regulation, about the handling of these dangerous substances and the transporting of dangerous cargoes. It's a clear warning, and a sobering one, to all of us in the Legislature, and particularly to the government, that legislation should be brought down forthwith.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I beg to rise on a question of privilege. I regret that I did not have the opportunity to advise Your Honour earlier about that, but it has just this moment come to my attention.

The question of privilege relates to Votes and Proceedings number 49 of yesterday's sitting, wherein on the following appears on page 2: "Mr. Howard challenged the right of the Minister of Tourism to vote on the question 'that the ruling of the Chair be sustained.' " The Blues, which I went to get, substantiate what it was that I did yesterday. I want to point out that I did not challenge the right of the Minister of Tourism to vote. A perusal of the Blues of exactly what I said will show that, and I would ask that the record be altered accordingly.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member.

Oral Questions

REVISED STATUTES OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

MR. BARBER: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Could the Attorney-General inform the House if he has decided the date of proclamation of the Revised Statues of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's not my decision, but perhaps I should inform you, and the hon. member, that a proclamation was issued a week ago which fixed May 17 as being the effective date for the Revised Statutes of British Columbia, 1979. I must apologize, Mr. Speaker, because it is my understanding that all members of this House have received a special notice of this. If the member has not, then I will certainly have it rectified immediately. It is an oversight. We made the decision a week ago Monday and special notices have been sent out to all subscribers of the Revised Statutes. It has been posted in all government offices, courthouses and libraries, and we trusted everyone would know. But if you don't know inside this building, then we will certainly rectify that.

MR. BARBER: I appreciate the courtesy of the minister's reply. I was not aware of that nor, I believe, has my office received such a note. However, that is my problem. I did, however, inquire yesterday at the ministry, and I was told that no date had yet been set. Nonetheless I am certainly happy to accept the minister's information.

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

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On that date?

MR. BARBER: Yes.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Well, Mr. Speaker, we have already on the orders of this House a number of statutes and they have been drawn in such a way as to.... Those statutes, to the extent that they amend pre-existing statutes, will amend the statutes in the revised form, so that it won't be necessary to pass two bills to accomplish the same matter. All the bills that are in your bill book, Mr. Member, are drawn in such a way that they will be effective with respect to the Revised Statutes.

MR. BARBER: I have a question about what appears to be a significant error in Revised Statutes, which I now am informed will not be amended in its current form prior to May 17. I draw the attention of the minister and the House to the Insurance (Marine) Act, Revised Statutes, chapter 203. I have no doubt that the cause of this error may prove to be quite trivial. It could be an editorial error, it could be a printing error, or a combination of both.

Nonetheless, now that we are advised this will become law in its current form, I have a couple of questions for the minister, because I think there is a serious problem here. I wonder if the minister is familiar with the omission altogether of sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Insurance (Marine) Act, and, in particular, if he is aware that the apparent omission altogether of something that is to become law on May 17, as I read it in the old law, will have the effect of making it impossible for persons who own jointly any marine vessel to obtain insurance.

It is a serious matter; three sections are omitted. If it becomes law in its present form on May 17.... Is the minister aware, as we are informed, that these sections in the former law established proprietary interests that would not otherwise be recognized in common law and exist only by virtue of these sections? Is the minister aware of this apparent

[ Page 2313 ]

omission? Mr. Speaker, is he aware of the import of this apparent omission? Can he inform the House what steps will be taken prior to May 17 to correct this significant failure in law?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: It is not an apparent omission; it is an omission. It was drawn to my attention shortly following the printing of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia. Examination discloses that the omission occurred in the course of printing, and the statute will be amended so as to replace those three sections. I am attempting to do so as soon as possible following May 17.

With respect to the consequences, I am advised by the revisions commissioner that the legislation providing for the revision can overcome any difficulties there may be because of that error.

Nonetheless, to ensure that the omission does not result in the concerns that the member has raised, legislation to correct the error will be forthcoming, and it will be retroactive so that no rights which may have been lost by reason of the error will affect any citizen.

MR. BARBER: I thank the minister for his answer. I'm not sure I heard correctly. The legislation to amend the error will be retroactive, did the minister say?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: To May 17.

BUS PASSES FOR
ELDERLY AND HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: My question is to the Minister of Human Resources, and has to do with bus passes. In approximately three weeks the bus passes for elderly and handicapped people will expire. There have been reports that the negotiations between the Ministry of Human Resources and the GVRD are breaking down because Human Resources is unwilling to pay the $72 per ticket which the GVRD is requesting so that the bus passes can be used at all times through the day, not just at off-hours. Can the minister assure the House that negotiations with the GVRD will be completed to ensure that 28,000 greater Vancouver residents will not be restricted in the use of their bus passes after that date?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe this question should be more properly addressed to the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who, really, is the minister responsible for negotiating with GVRD and the Greater Victoria Regional District regarding bus transportation and the turnover and installation of a new UTA to cover bus transportation.

But may I just say, in referring to the question asked and the Ministry of Human Resources' reference to bus passes for senior citizens, it was the Social Credit government in the 1960s who first introduced the bus pass service for handicapped and senior citizens in the province of British Columbia. At that time the $5 bus pass was an unlimited-hour bus pass and in turning over this responsibility to the new transportation authority, it has been this government's request of that authority and of the Greater Victoria and Greater Vancouver Regional Districts that the bus passes would be unlimited, from the point of view of their hours and restrictions and so on. We asked both regional districts to honour what we have honoured in this government as a policy of the Social Credit administration since the 1960s, when a colleague of ours in this House some years ago first introduced the senior citizens' passes in the province — and that was the Hon. Isabel Dawson.

I would like to assure the member that certainly that's the Minister of Human Resources' attitude, philosophy and direction, and I know that our Minister of Municipal Affairs has been trying to work out the very best agreement that he can. I do think though that in terms of further negotiations the question should be asked of the Minister of Municipal Affairs.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, on a supplemental to the same minister, is the Ministry of Human Resources purchasing bus passes from the GVRD which they've offered to pay the GVRD $50 per pass for? Is the Ministry of Human Resources still in the business of purchasing those passes from the GVRD?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I think that that whole matter is still under negotiation between the Minister of Municipal Affairs and the organizations involved.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, there has never been any question that this government would continue the commitment that we originated in this province under the Social Credit administration, and that, when the transfer of the responsibility to the UTA was completed, the Ministry of Human Resources would purchase the handicapped and senior citizens' bus passes from the various organizations involved.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Now my question to the minister is: will the minister be willing to pay the GVRD the $72 per pass, which they are asking for, to ensure that the senior citizens and the handicapped people can use the bus passes any time of the day rather than in just the off-hours?

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, this ministry has always taken the attitude that there is a responsibility on all of those who are responsible, both at the civic level and the provincial level. to retain the same service as we have had. Secondly, may I just say that I don't believe that this is the place to negotiate a price with the various organizations involved.

MS. BROWN: I have a final question — to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. In the event that the Ministry of Human Resources refuses to pay the $72 price-tag which the GVRD....

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

MS. BROWN: Has the Minister of Municipal Affairs decided to allow the senior citizens and handicapped to use their bus passes in an unlimited way, even if the Minister of

[ Page 2314 ]

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

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: On a point of order, I resent the inference that was just made by the member, with regard to the Ministry of Human Resources refusing anything. That is a hypothetical assumption that she is making, and as a member of this House, I would ask her to withdraw.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. An hon. member has found a remark made by another member to be one that she asks for a withdrawal on. If there was one, would the member withdraw any improper imputation?

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

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

Interjections.

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

CORRESPONDENCE FROM
GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in question period the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) posed a question to me and I responded, but incompletely. With respect to the letter which was sent by a member of the staff of the Ministry of the Attorney-General to the Attorney-General's office last May or June, may I advise the member that the letter was signed with a pseudonym, and therefore was considered to be, unknowingly, a letter from a citizen with a complaint. The letter was therefore passed forward to the ministry in order that the complaint might be investigated. During the course of the investigation, it was found that the writer of the letter was in fact an employee, and that's why the member may have come into possession of information that a letter from an employee was in fact turned over to his supervisor.

The procedure in the ministry, Mr. Member, is not to make such moves from the minister's office. There is, however, a procedure within the ministry whereby officials who have matters to raise can make those complaints through the system.

SALARY OF
MINISTER OF TOURISM

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

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

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

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Yesterday the first member for Victoria suggested that there is a question with respect to amounts paid to me as Minister of Tourism, and that he is not aware of the authority for the payment of these expenses. To assist that member, and any other member who may not understand the process by which this Legislative Assembly authorizes these expenditures, I should like to answer the question.

In the estimates of expenditure for the fiscal year 1979-80, there appeared vote 205, and I shall read the pertinent part of the text of that vote. It is headed "Minister's Office." The description of the vote is: "Provides for the office of the Minister of Tourism and Small Business Development, including his salary and expenses and those of his immediate staff." Below that, the vote is classified by standard objects of expenditure. There are amounts for salary, travel expenses, office expenses, office furniture and equipment, and materials and supplies. Those estimates, Mr. Speaker, were considered and passed by this House in Supply Act, No. 3, 1979, assented to on July 27, 1979, which gave authority for the expenditure of the amounts that I have mentioned in the estimates.

Section 2 of that act reads:

"From and out of the consolidated revenue fund there may be paid and applied as set forth in schedule B a sum not exceeding $4,628,090,738 towards defraying the several charges and expenses of the public service of the province, not otherwise provided for, for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1980, the sum to include that authorized to be paid under section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 1, 1979, and section 1 of the Supply Act, No. 2, 1979."

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the expenses of the office of the Minister of Tourism were given authority by that Supply Act in 1979, for the fiscal year 1979-80.

Dealing still with expenses, the authority for the payment of expenses in the current fiscal year — 1980-81 — derives from Supply Act, No. 1, 1980, which members will recollect was passed on April 3 of this year. That act authorizes the payment from consolidated revenue of moneys to defray the charges and expenses of the public service for this fiscal year to a stated amount.

Section 2 (l) of that act says, in part: "No sum out of the supply shall be issued or applied to any purpose or activity other than those provided in the main estimates or in excess of the estimate of expenditures in them. "

The main estimates for this current fiscal year contained vote 189, which refers to the office of the Minister of Tourism. The description of that vote is: "This vote provides for the office of the Minister of Tourism, including her salary and expenses and those of her immediate staff." Again the vote is classified by standard objects of expenditure, and they include travel expenses, office expenses, office furniture and equipment, and materials and supplies.

To make the explanation complete with regard to expenses, for the benefit of those members I should like to point out that on January 11, 1980, the Ministry of Tourism was

[ Page 2315 ]

established by order No. 49 of the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council. On that same day, by order No. 52, the Lieutenant-Governor- in-Council passed the Ministerial Functions Order, 1980. That order reads as follows:

" (1) The Minister of Tourism is charged with the administration of that part of the executive government formerly administered by the Minister of Industry, Tourism and Small Business Development that relates to tourism.

" (2) The duties and functions of the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Small Business Development that relate to tourism are transferred to the Ministry of Tourism. All money authorized by the Legislature to be paid and applied for the purpose of those powers, duties and functions, and remaining unexpended and comprising (a) vote 205, 206 and 207, and (b) votes 209 and 210, except the parts of them that relate to small business development costs, shall be expended by and through the Ministry of Tourism."

The statutory authority for those orders was shown as being the Constitution Act. I would remind the member of the public information that on that same day, by order No. 51, this member — myself — was designated as the Minister of Tourism. In that capacity, and by reason of the authorities that I have cited, I have received expenses as Minister of Tourism.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to now come to the question of salary. The first member for Victoria quite correctly referred to section 9(l) of the Constitution Act as it is now in force. That section provides that the executive council may consist of not more than 23 ministers. It also provides, in its present form, that not more than 19 of these ministers shall receive a salary. The present executive council consists of 20 ministers, not more than 19 of whom receive a salary. As Minister of Tourism, Mr. Speaker, I have not received and do not receive, a salary.

In order to complete this answer to the series of questions that were asked, I would say that I do receive a salary as a member of this Legislative Assembly, under the provisions of the Legislative Assembly Allowance and Superannuation Act.

Mr. Speaker, the comments that I have made are documented, and if the member had taken the time to review the orders-in-council that I have referred to, he would have seen the difference in the provisions of the two ministries as I've described, and the payment of salary.

Perhaps now, recognizing that all this information has been public knowledge — it's a fact of which the government has been aware — members of the opposition will try to say something constructive in this House. Perhaps they will try to stop wasting the time of this House with inferences of the kind made yesterday, which were designed to offend the Minister of Tourism and to falsely discredit the government of this province. I suggest it is rather to the discredit of those members that they should make such inferences. Either the questions that were raised were brought before you, sir, out of ignorance, which is inexcusable in any member of this assembly; or, as I say, the observations were merely intended to offend and delay the procedures of this House.

The documents to which I have referred have been public information for months. Mr. Speaker, you are aware that they are available to anyone, and if the member who raised these matters had been sincere instead of intent upon his frivolity, he could quite easily have informed himself of the situation.

I might add that in the tourist industry of British Columbia this ministry and this industry are working together as a team with many new business and innovative approaches to the management and development of this beneficial and exciting industry for British Columbia. We — both the industry and this government — would welcome the constructive criticism of the opposition members and a constructive contribution, in order that tourism in British Columbia will indeed be a good show for both the citizens and the guests of the province of British Columbia.

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

Interjections.

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

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. member, before we go too far in prolonging what could be a debate on a reply to an oral question, it is not a procedure that we have, to respond to a reply in question period. However, the member does ask for leave. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: She asked leave to answer a question.

MR. BARRETT: Answer a question, all right. The House was then under the impression that a question was going to be answered, not an attack on a member made. I would like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that when a debate is entered into under the guise of asking leave to answer a question and then is expanded to include a debate attacking a particular member, it has always been the traditional courtesy of this House to extend to that member the right to respond by similar leave. The member has asked for leave; it is now recorded that leave has been denied. If, of course, you wish to put the request for leave again and we hear the noes again, then there are other matters to deal with in this statement that I will come to next.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, order, please. The Leader of the Opposition may feel he has some legitimate cause to raise. but the Chair is powerless to act otherwise, and the matter has been disposed of. Leave was required and was not granted. With all due respect. hon. member. there the matter must end.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, I ask the member to withdraw the remarks casting aspersions on the motives of the member for Victoria, asking questions other than seeking information and casting aspersions on the character of the member during a response to a question. I ask the minister to withdraw those statements.

[ Page 2316 ]

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It is rather unusual in this House for another member to stand up to ask for a withdrawal of so-called aspersions on some other member. It is my understanding that we generally stand and ask that the member withdraws if something offends us, and generally the member withdraws. That Leader of the Opposition stands, without permission to begin with, in some effort of attempting to be statesmanlike, with a record of bullying the House for years and years during the time when he was the Premier of this province. He consistently refused to allow leave even to debate simple questions in this House. Some of us remember that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The practice in this House is that when another member is in the House and that member has felt that his name has been brought into any kind of discussion of that sort, it is up to the member himself, so affected, to make that point. It is, therefore, not valid for another member to raise that point of order. The point of order brought forward was not a point of order.

MR. NICOLSON: I would submit that it has often been uttered by the Chair that an attack on an hon. member is an attack on all hon. members in this House. For that reason, regardless of the feelings of the first member for Victoria, I would like to see a withdrawal of that because it is an attack on all members of this House on both sides.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. members. To resolve the matter, hopefully to the satisfaction of all, perhaps I could ask the Minister of Tourism if she would withdraw any remarks that might have been construed as imputing motives to any hon. member. If the member would simply advise the Chair that she so withdraws, the matter can be concluded.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of having used any words or made any derogatory statements which would prove offensive to the hon. member. I felt I had dealt with the truth but if, by any chance, he does feel offended about my pointing out the fact that he was fully aware of all this information before he asked the question, by all means I would withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you. Hon. members, it greatly assists not only the Chair but indeed the smooth running of the chamber if, when members are asked for a withdrawal in the parliamentary tradition, they simply rise in their place and make a withdrawal other than any statement that could be construed as a semi-withdrawal. That would greatly be appreciated by the Chair, certainly, in the operation of the House.

Orders of the Day

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

Leave granted.

On Motion 10.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to move, seconded by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, the following motion. Conscious of the great achievements of Canada's past, confident in the promise of its future and desirous of maintaining a country united from sea to sea, this House reaffirms its commitment to Canada and its desire to continue to pursue those reforms which are necessary to provide the opportunity for the people of all the regions of our land to reach their full potential within a united country. This House joins all Canadians in expressing to the people of Quebec our love of country, our desire for continued unity and that they continue to be, with us, a part of our great nation.

Now, in speaking to the motion, Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to take long, for I feel that the fact that this motion is here for us to discuss speaks perhaps more forcefully than what may be said. I also wish to say that I in no way wish to reintroduce British Columbia's proposals for a restructured constitution nor the economic suggestions we have made at first ministers' conferences which have been put forward as our answer to resolving many of the problems. I also wish to state I wish to use the period to wind up this debate to deal in greater detail with some aspects of this motion. I shall be brief.

In moving and supporting this motion, expressing our desire for a strong, united Canada, I'm not committing myself or this government to the status quo. There are too many frustrations, too many inequities expressed from the people and the governments of all the provinces and the regions of our country for anyone to be fully content. It is not just what Canada is; it is what Canada can be. The visions and dreams of those who brought together the territories and regions of this vast land to form a country from sea to sea have not been wholly met. If they had, such terms as "western alienation, " "economic disparity" "separation," "independence" and "sovereignty-association" would not be part of the Canadian vocabulary. Therefore let it be repeated that the status quo is not acceptable. That statement is made not only by myself, but has been made by every Premier of every province across this country. The renewed federation of Canada needs major constitutional restructuring to reflect the realities of today. The regions of this country are variable in their resources, their geography and demography and need the flexibility and power to develop to their fullest. Their strength, Mr. Speaker, will be Canada's strength.

The federal government, which is the creation of the provinces — not, as some would have you believe, the creator — must be given the role of dealing with the one resource common to all parts of the country, and that is the human resource. Common justice, basic standards of equity and the free movement of people in and to all parts of the country must be guaranteed. A major ingredient to the accomplishment of this task of political and economic restructuring is not necessarily in the proposals being put forward for adoption by the various governments or those who have expressed an interest, but in reality the basic ingredient will be the sincerity, trust, honesty and dedication of those who propose them. Without those ingredients the best proposals for the future of this country are doomed to failure. Great nations have great problems, Mr. Speaker; great nations resolve those problems. The time for resolution is upon us. I say to all parts of this country: come to the table; join with us in developing the structures that can help us achieve our common destiny.

[ Page 2317 ]

Those who would destroy our federation will initiate a series of events that could impact on all parts of the country; we will be forced to think the unthinkable. I offer a quotation from Montaigne for those who would embark on this course. It goes as such: "Those who give the first shock to a state are the first overwhelmed in its ruin." I've said before that British Columbia will never leave Canada, and I hope to god that the Canada we know and the Canada we love will never leave British Columbia.

The commitment for change within the Canadian family is now, Mr. Speaker. Let us harness that commitment for a better Canada, a stronger Canada, reflecting the needs, the desires and the aspirations of all of our people. I extend from British Columbia the hand to those of sincerity, honesty and good will in other parts of our country to go to the table together. It is time for men and women of resolve and resolution to deal with the problem. As I've said, Mr. Speaker, the time is now. What can be a time of uncertainty can be turned to a time of great opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, in accepting the very thoughtful and positive role and the opportunity of seconding this motion, may I say that this is a welcome, but all too rare, experience in this House, which, although in the past it has been and in the future will be criticized as being extremely partisan of nature, is in fact, by that partisanship, an example of the very structure that we hold in common and wish to preserve. That is the British parliamentary system, which demands that we participate this way on a daily basis with today being an anomaly in defence of the system itself, because the system has no favourites and no enemies. The system must be permanent, the system must go beyond all of us, and the system must be what we are committed to in terms of this country of Canada and our own parliamentary roles, within the British traditions, here in British Columbia.

I particularly welcome the Premier's statements. We are dealing essentially with emotions more than with facts at this point of the debate. Unfortunately the emotions which we express, I'm afraid, in terms of my own personal opinion, through no fault of anybody in the province of British Columbia, are late in the day for the intense pressures which the people of Quebec are undergoing in the debate of the referendum. I would hope that whatever is said in this chamber will be received by the people of Quebec with the understanding that it is a heart-felt statement, either endorsed or stated by all members of this House, as signified by the joint signatures on the motion.

I welcome, too, the Premier's statement that the details of the bargaining, which will be tough and onerous and difficult in the days ahead, are not the matter of debate at this point. Those debates and the points around this debates for all of us, in terms of our own particular roles at any time and our own responsibilities, will be dealt with in the traditional way of the adversary system that we hold so close to our own philosophies. I'm pleased that the Premier spoke today about a feeling about Canada. That's really all that we can say at this point. I think that is the one message which I hope is received in Quebec. It is difficult for us, as Canadians, to even embark on this kind of discussion; we find it, as a national heritage, somewhat an embarrassment to talk about country, nation or patriotism. We're too busy being Canadians to become or to have been flag wavers. We have generally been known throughout the world as generous, open people who have no territorial desires and who have, as a basic goal as citizens, lived our own lives with a maximum amount of freedom and the protection of a nation known as Canada.

In that role, Mr. Speaker, I want to make an appeal from my own frame of reference about some other areas of Confederation which perhaps — and I do not wish to make a judgment in this regard — may be overlooked by all of us citizens, including the people of Quebec. That is briefly a review of the role of this country beyond the regional problems which have plagued us, the regional differences which we have had difficulty with, and the religious, racial and cultural problems that rise and abate from time to time, and have risen and abated from time to time in every single region of this country, not just Quebec.

We loathe to talk about this country on the world scene. Sometimes I think we Canadians are self-deprecating to the point of not understanding what a great role we have played on the world scene. In this beautiful corner in this tranquil province, none of us go by a day without understanding that we are very fortunate people indeed to be alive and living here in this peaceful part of a very peaceful country. As evidence of that, those people who come to this country as immigrants and make a conscious decision to come and build this country in a way are more aware of the preciousness of our lifestyle in this country than those of us who were born here. In that sense, those immigrants strengthen this country every single time they commit themselves to become Canadians.

It is immigrants who understand what freedom means, because in many instances they've suffered the loss of it. It is immigrants who understand what tranquillity and law and order mean, because in many instances they've suffered the loss of it. We do not have violence as a way of life. We do not have terror as a way of life.

Despite the occasional conflicts that appear to border on terrorism in this House, Mr. Speaker, even that doesn't qualify for any comparison to what goes on elsewhere in the world. As I look through this chamber, I have colleagues and friends who have come from various countries which reflect the kind of conflict that I'm referring to. I am sure that the member for Kootenay (Mr. Segarty) can tell us of the tragic and unfortunate and unsolvable problems in Ireland. I'm sure that my colleague the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) can tell us of the experiences he had as member of the British armed forces in the Second World War and in the Arab-Israeli war of 1948. None of us who were born in Canada have those experiences to reflect on, in terms of being aware, day to day, how lucky we are to live in this country.

Aside from that, we have built a tradition in this country, ever since Canada's participation in the first discussions in San Francisco and Dumbarton Oaks about the establishment of the United Nations. I think the United Nations flag is proudly flying today right on the causeway; it has flown there frequently. There is a sense of pride in Canada's role on the world scene, regardless of our problems, in being able to say that we will participate in a peace offensive. We have always proudly served — from coast to coast, with members of the armed services from the Maritimes, from central Canada, from Quebec, from western Canada in those armed forces — under the flag of the United Nations as police people, and been seen as persons from a country that does not have the desire to become acquisitive of land and other peoples on the world stage.

[ Page 2318 ]

I would regret, Mr. Speaker, if we lost in this nation the opportunity to be a part of the peace-keeping of the rest of the world. It would be a tragic loss. We have a responsibility as Canadians to think beyond what we need as Canadians in this country. We must understand, as all citizens of this country must understand, that we have obligations to other peoples in the world, simply by the fact that we are here. We cannot squander those obligations, both moral and ethical, based on some, perhaps unnecessary, tension that allows us to dissipate this wonderful opportunity of keeping this nation together.

There is more than the armed services that this nation allows, and there is more than government, Mr. Speaker. I would ask the members to share with the citizens of the rest of Canada our own feelings about the extension of private organizations in this country. There are two that I wish to mention in particular. The Canadian Council of Churches, in its role in the World Council of Churches, has a spokesperson's opportunity in the free world of nations, based on conviction, on an ecumenical basis. The freedom of such private organizations allows Canada to not only extend commitments from its own government, but to be a moral force separate from any big-country, big-nation or superpower identification, in terms of mediating problems throughout the world on a moral basis — particularly the province of Quebec; I must make the reference. The Canadian Council of Catholic Bishops, who have been an important factor as a spokesgroup from Canada, have laid out a position of sympathy and understanding for struggles for freedom in Third World nations, especially in Latin America. We are not viewed — as the Soviet Union is, or as the United States is, by other persons on the world stage — as having any other motive than that of seeking freedom and equality for other peoples. We are sincerely viewed throughout the world as a nation that has the simplicity of purpose of trying to help other people solve their own problems, without imposing our will or our desire upon them in the solution of those problems.

When we talk about this country in terms of the benefits we receive from it in the region, we must also talk about this country and the moral obligations we have as Canadians to extend those benefits and those responsibilities beyond the borders of this country. The world will be a sorrier place if we lose Canada, its voice of independence and its role among the Third World nations. The world will lose a believable voice interceding in the struggles that go on in every part of this globe to extend, on the basis of human dignity, the freedoms and rights we enjoy in this country. We cannot lightly dissipate the opportunity this country has to lead in the Third World area, nor do we have the moral right to contribute in any way to lessening the responsibility we have of playing our role as a country on behalf of those Third World countries who do need friends, and friends who ask nothing in return for that friendship.

So the point that I am trying to stress today, Mr. Speaker, is that beyond the debate that must go on, in terms of colloquially saying, "defending our own turf," "protecting our own region," or "trying to carve out the best deal for the jurisdictions we are responsible for," there is a responsibility of citizenship that must be appealed to as well, and that responsibility of citizenship is to look beyond our borders and look to other countries that expect our advice and our leadership.

We're going to vote for this motion. I know that every member wants the opportunity of speaking on it, and I only regret that we can't have everybody speak on it. But no one has lost in the debate by not speaking on it. I'm pleased that the two House Leaders have worked out a cooperative schedule on the debate, and a sharing of that cooperation at a mature level that speaks well of the House and every single one of its members.

Let me conclude by saying, Mr. Speaker, that the message we must take to Quebec is a message that we all share as citizens. Not only do we take something out of this country, but we have a responsibility to give something back outside of the borders of this country.

We can be the model for other nations that are going through the same pressures and struggles based on inequality, as perceived or real, in language, cultural or religious issues. We can show the rest of the world that we do share these human problems. No one is without them. But we are willing to take the responsibility of sublimating immediate demands that we might see as temporary solutions to these problems, to cooperate and look for some more mature giving as well as taking, to build a nation. I know that when the negotiations do come, every citizen should be given the right to participate and there should be the fullest broadcast of the views that such negotiations should take place to every corner of this nation.

But in conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to share my feelings about this debate. We have a great deal to offer as politicians, in terms of ideas for problem-solving. We have biased points of view as to who can solve the problem best, and I confess, Mr. Speaker, that I am comfortable with my bias. I think I know best for everyone else, if they'd only vote for me. Unfortunately, I have not been able to convince 100 percent of the population. Fortunately, we've convinced 46 percent; the government, unfortunately, has convinced 49 percent. That battle will, and must, continue.

But one thing we share is the desire to debate the ideas, the desire to take something from the ideas, but above all, a commitment to give something in building this nation. It can't be all take; there must be some give. The message taken by our Premier to the tables of discussions and to the people of Quebec will, and shall, I know, include not only the desire to take, but to give, and to give in an open-handed manner the best that we can, in terms of help, advice and sharing, to build not only a better Canada for our citizens, but to meet some of the responsibility we have to the rest of the world, which is looking to us as a third option.

HON. MR. MAIR: First of all, I would, of course, like to congratulate the Premier — the mover of the motion — and the Leader of the Opposition for their speeches in support of this motion. I hope the Leader of the Opposition will not mind if the member for Kamloops of Scottish extraction leaves the solution of the Irish question to my friend from the Kootenay.

MR. BARRETT: Or Revelstoke.

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

I rise today, of course, as I'm sure all hon. members of this House do, in order to support this resolution. Because this is a matter of some emotion for all of us, I'm sure, and because, as may be apparent to some members of this House over the years, I have a little emotion in my soul, I'm going to stay a little closer to my prepared notes than I might otherwise do.

[ Page 2319 ]

I would like to speak today, Mr. Speaker, if I may, rather frankly about the things which divide our nation. I hope that by speaking frankly, and identifying our difficulties with openness and candour, the result will be that we will all be able to seek the solutions which will overcome these difficulties and which will enable us to rededicate ourselves as Canadians.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that in speaking frankly and candidly, no one in this House will take my words as in derogation of those already spoken by my colleague the Premier and my friend the Leader of the Opposition. I hope by the end of my remarks you will see that they are not intended in that way at all.

I must say initially that it will come as no surprise to anyone in this House that I am not an expert on constitutional affairs, but I have had the privilege of working for three years with a man who is not only an acknowledged expert but may even be the definitive expert on such matters. I refer to the deputy minister, Mr. Mel Smith. I hope that you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that even a slow learner like me was bound to learn something about these matters after so long and close an association with such a dedicated public servant.

My first involvement in constitutional matters came about by my having been appointed by the Western Premiers' Conference in 1976 in Medicine Hat to chair a Committee of that conference which became known as the western Premiers' task force on constitutional trends. I had the distinct honour to chair that task force for the years 1977-79, and as such I had the opportunity of working with the provincial cabinet minister involved in each of the western provinces, as well as the Premier of each province involved and, of course, the federal ministers and their staff involved in constitutional affairs.

I had the great honour and distinction to work with such men as Lou Hyndman, Dick Johnston and Jim Foster of Alberta, the Attorney-General from Saskatchewan, the Hon. Roy Romanow QC, Ian Turnbull — during the NDP government in Manitoba — and later Gerald Mercier, their Attorney-General at present. In April 1977 I became chairman of the Confederation Committee of cabinet, and in addition to my contacts already made and maintained on the western Premiers' task force, I became very much involved in all constitutional matters in which our province was represented. I extended the contacts I mentioned to Premiers and appropriate cabinet ministers in each and every province as well as the appropriate federal ministers including, of course, the first minister.

Mr. Speaker, from the time that I became chairman of the cabinet Committee on Confederation I had the honour of assisting our Premier on all interprovincial and federal-provincial conferences, including the ones on economic matters. My colleague the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), as he now is, was one of the continuing committee of ministers on Confederation which acted as a working group in preparation for federal-provincial first ministers' conferences.

My travels took me to the capital of every province in Canada with the exception of Prince Edward Island, which I missed by reason of two snowstorms. I think I can say that I learned during this exercise an appreciation of the constitutional viewpoints of every region of the country. I spoke on behalf of our government at a number of important conferences including Options Canada in Toronto in October 1977.

Interestingly enough, Mr. Claude Ryan was a speaker at that conference. I spoke to the Harvard Canadian Club in Boston in December 1979 and appeared with our Premier on one occasion and separately on three or four other occasions before the Pépin-Robarts task force on national unity.

Mr. Speaker, I had the honour to make British Columbia's presentation before the Senate-Commons Committee, as well as the Senate Committee especially struck to deal with what was then Bill C-60, the federal proposal for constitutional amendment. British Columbia was, I believe, the only province in Canada to appear before those committees.

My reason for this background is that I think I can say to the members of this House that, while I am not a constitutional expert, I did have some experience in the matters about which we are now talking. The whole effort became a labour of love, an all-consuming passion, and I hope that my words will have some meaning by reason of that experience..

One of the things that the government of British Columbia has done — it received little notice at the time and receives very little notice to this date — was to establish an academic advisory Committee under the chairmanship of Prof. Ronald Burns, who is, I am sure all will recognize, a distinguished Canadian academic. This Committee also included well-known constitutional experts such as Dr. Neil Swainson, Prof. Ron Cheffins of the University of Victoria, Prof. Ron Shearer, Prof. Alan Cairns, Prof. C.B. Bourne — who had the difficult task of teaching me in days gone by — and in the early stages Dean Kenneth Lysyk. All of these men are well-known specialists in their field.

Now, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the efforts of Deputy Minister Mel Smith, the cabinet Committee on Confederation, the academic Committee, the staff of the Attorney-General’s ministry and a great many others, British Columbia was able to put forward our constitutional proposals to the federal-provincial first ministers' conference in October 1978.

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT: This is too much.

HON. MR. MAIR: I don't want any special deference from now on, but this is a gesture long overdue, better late than never, and much appreciated.

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

HON. MR. MAIR: To continue, I had just been mentioning that we put forward our constitutional proposals to the federal-provincial first ministers' conference in October 1978 and I would like to point out the similarity of later proposals, including the Pépin-Robarts report and Claude Ryan's paper. It has been widely noted that there is a similarity between those papers and our own.

British Columbia was first in the field with serious, well-thought-out proposals for reform. We were, and are, in the vanguard of responsible movement for change. I would like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the effort that went into these proposals was enormous, and I'm sure that both sides

[ Page 2320 ]

of this House recognize that effort and those that made it. I'm sure that no responsible critic — certainly no one in this House — would belittle the efforts made by Mr. Mel Smith and others who advised the government in putting together these proposals. One might well, of course, criticize the proposals themselves — that's fair — but surely not the labour and sincerity that went into their creation. Part of this labour — a small part but an important cog in the process — consisted of a trip which Mel Smith and I took to West Germany and Switzerland. Regrettably, one so-called expert has suggested that this was a whirlwind trip which was the sole basis of our proposals for Upper House reform. One would usually, on an occasion such as this, allow such ill-considered pique to pass without comment, but these are, of course, serious times. This sort of offhand criticism often takes on proportions much more significant than normally would be appropriate. I would therefore like to lay this myth to rest once and for all.

When our Committee had come to the conclusion that one of the major structural weaknesses in our system was the failure to extend the original theory of the Fathers of Confederation concerning regional representation in parliament, it became only logical to look at other countries that had problems similar to ours. We knew that our founders had created the Senate with the idea of offsetting the inequities of simple representation by population, and it was quite clear that their solution had not stood the test of time.

Mr. Smith and I spent more time than I care to remember examining the constitutions of other countries and being briefed by the academic Committee and others on theories of political science with reference to federal systems. While it is obvious that no country has exactly the same situation we do, there are countries which have addressed themselves to similar problems — among them West Germany and Switzerland. Therefore our government decided, having studied the West German and Swiss systems from an academic point of view, that we ought to visit these countries to find out from those who work within those systems just how in fact they do work.

As a result Mr. Mel Smith and I spent two weeks in West Germany and Switzerland, during which time we conferred at great length with top public servants as well as a number of leading politicians, including two Premiers of West German Lander. I perhaps ought to have mentioned that we had already met with Premier Vogel of the Rhineland palatinate when he visited Victoria in December 1977, and he was gracious enough to host us again in Mainz. I have no doubt that the best way to find out how a system works is to speak with the people who must work within it. There is no question that this visit greatly assisted us in the formulation of our policy paper on Upper House reform. The firsthand knowledge we gained and the contacts we made were of enormous value. This policy paper was, of course, just one part of the far-reaching proposals that we tabled at the first ministers' conference to which I have already referred.

As I said earlier, all members of this House will know that these are serious times indeed in the history of our nation. This is neither the time for politics nor indeed the time for the type of high-blown rhetoric one used to hear on July 1. However, perhaps it's a pity that we don't have the old-style July I picnics anymore where ringing speeches about our country were the order of the day, and perhaps one of the symptoms of our present malady is the lack of this sort of patriotic enthusiasm to which the Leader of the Opposition rightly referred. It may very well be argued that had we patterned ourselves after our American neighbours, learned the art of symbology and made a great deal more of our history, perhaps even following their lead in rewriting history from time to time in order to encourage a patriotic view of events, we would be facing our present problems from a more solid base, if we had to face them at all. We didn't do that, however. We didn't even have a national flag until 1963 and it was even more recently that we decided what our national anthem was. Most of us in this part of the country didn't learn how to speak French, even though we took it for many years in school. And curiously enough, at least in my time, British Columbia's history was virtually untaught in our school curriculum. Mr. Speaker, I think it entirely appropriate that we examine for a moment our history, because our country rests upon some unusual foundations, which we honour by reason of the fact that they have carried us this far, but which we are also testing and perhaps finding in need of repair or replacement for our future requirements.

I think the first fact that we must remember is the conquest of 1759 and the Peace of Paris in 1763, which attached Quebec to British North America. The second historic fact to which we must address ourselves is the passage of the Quebec Acts of 1774 which, amongst other things, contained a quid pro quo with Quebec of enormous importance in the years to come and of enormous importance today. Members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that it was upon these acts that Great Britain guaranteed the French fact in Quebec; Britain hoped, of course, for Quebec's quiescence during the pending troubles between Britain and the Thirteen Colonies. This was, in essence, Quebec's Bill of Rights, which saved her from the fate which befell the Acadians of Louisiana — namely, assimilation.

The next item of historical significance was the report of Lord Durham and the subsequent bringing of responsible government to the united colonies of Upper and Lower Canada. By the time we had reached the point of pre-Confederation talks in the mid-1860s, a number of other events had occurred, not the least of which was the Civil War in the United States, which solved once and for all their federal-state struggle for power and allowed the Manifest Destiny movement to once more rear its head and flex its muscles. It's important to realize that it was as much, if not more, a threat from without as desire for union which brought the eastern provinces together in the first place. By this time, by the mid-1860s, Great Britain was in the midst of her Pax Britannica, and no doubt the Macdonalds, Tuppers and Cartiers questioned Britain's ability, and indeed her enthusiasm, to defend her North American colonies against any real effort by the United States.

The next event of significance was, of course, the act of confederation itself — the passing of the British North America Act, proclaimed July 1, 1867, by the Imperial Parliament. One of the fundamental provisions of this act, and upon which considerable time was spent in debate at Charlottetown, was the provision for regional representation in an upper house. This was indeed a fundamental provision, because our founding fathers recognized that there were at that time three distinct regions of Canada — the Atlantic provinces, Ontario and Quebec — and that pure representation by population would be inequitable. Furthermore, Lower Canada could never have been persuaded to enter into such a union, because it always would have been outvoted in the unicameral legislature by Upper Canada. Accordingly, at

[ Page 2321 ]

that time it was recognized that representation by population alone would not be equitable, and an upper house was created with equal representation granted to each region.

The next event of significance was the inclusion of Manitoba in 1870, followed by the inclusion of British Columbia in 1871, and then in 1905 by the creation of the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, and, of course, in 1949 the addition of Newfoundland. Again, it was recognized in the earlier days that representation by population would work a great hardship on distinct and somewhat remote regions, and the principle of upper house representation on an equal basis by region was extended to western Canada. In 1915, in an amendment to the BNA Act, a four-region Canada was recognized, with equal representation in the Senate from each of the four. British Columbia, of course, has, parenthetically, maintained for some time that a fifth region now exists on the west coast.

The last important event to which I wish to refer, Mr. Speaker, is the National Policy of Sir John A. Macdonald of 1878. It was this policy, and extensions of it, which determined that industry and manufacturing would remain in central Canada, to be supplied by resources from western Canada.

Then the nation of Canada, as we now know it — with the exception of Newfoundland — came into being shortly alter the turn of the century, it had at least four very distinguishing characteristics. First of all, it was a country clearly composed of regions, these regions being geographical, cultural, linguistic, demographic, historic and economic in character. Secondly, one of these regions contained within it a distinct and ancient culture with its own language, laws, customs and religious beliefs, all of which were guaranteed by the Quebec Acts of 1774. Thirdly, the country had a government structure, which, however imperfectly, took into account these regions, with an upper house allowing regional representation at the centre to offset any inequities of straight representation by population. Lastly, it had evolved an economic policy, backed up by federal statutes and contractual arrangements with the Canadian Pacific Railway, which in the result committed the western part of the country to be the hewers of wood, drawers of water and suppliers of basic foodstuffs for an industrialized and thus more populated central region.

Mr. Speaker, looking at this situation from the perspective of 1980, it's not difficult to see that trouble would fie ahead. A federal system had been created wherein each parliament was supreme within the powers granted to it. One part of the country would rely upon its natural resources — many of them non-renewable — for its prosperity, while another would build up an industrial base and yet another would, unfortunately, be required to look for federal assistance as a principal source of provincial revenue. One region had a unique culture and language to be preserved as a fundamental tenet. One, British Columbia, had a unique history, untapped resources and an unlimited future coupled with geographical and political remoteness. Any constitution at that time, to work as a unifying force, would, of course, have required great flexibility indeed.

A wise man today, with the benefit of a time machine, could no doubt go back to the political leaders of that day and give very wise advice which could, if followed, have obviated most of today's difficulties; advice that the uniqueness of the nation required a unique constitution ensuring fair play for all regions and protection of all cultures.

It is those same solutions that the wise man would take in his time machine to the politicians of 1905 that we must bring to bear on the problems which beset Canada today, because the problems are essentially the same, albeit aggravated. Our uniqueness, which ought to be our great strength, has unfortunately become our great problem.

What is the threat to national unity today? Is it Premier Levesque or the Parti Quebecois or Claude Morin? Is it the question of a referendum in a few weeks' time? I suppose the answer to these questions, on a one-dimensional basis, is probably yes. But surely, Mr. Speaker, only a fool would see our problems as being only, or even in the main, the matters to which I have referred, for the truth is that many of the underlying causes of Quebec's disaffection are the same as those which underlie serious concerns in Atlantic Canada, the prairie provinces and, of course, British Columbia.

Unquestionably there are issues of language and culture involved in the Quebec situation which, if they exist elsewhere, do so to a much lesser degree. I don't want to be misunderstood on this very important point. There are those in the province of Quebec who see their identity threatened and see separation as a way to preserve that identity; and I understand that. What I am saying, however, is that however important and valid that may be — and it is important and valid — there are maladies in the rest of Canada which, while somewhat different from those in Quebec, may well be cured by the same medicine.

I think the situation is as simple as this: Canada's survival as a nation depends upon more than mere resolution of the Quebec situation. While it is clear that Canada must have Quebec to survive — and I would argue strongly that Quebec must have Canada to survive — we must, if we wish to stay together as a nation, address all of the problems concurrently and with equal vigour.

Our good friend Gordon Gibson and I have certainly agreed on one thing for some years now: that is that we are in the midst of a very serious constitutional crisis in Canada. I remember saying that a few weeks ago in the House and seeing a few eyebrows raised. But surely there can be no doubt about that, or we wouldn't be here debating this important issue today. We must have the will to find the means by which this constitutional crisis can be solved and our future secured.

Speaking candidly and frankly, what are our options? Do we have the option of keeping a country together without Quebec? The Prime Minister has rejected the use of force in matters of this sort; and I associate myself completely with that position. If, therefore, secession takes place, can a fragmented country survive without the counterbalance of Quebec in our political system? I would not personally give such a union a dog's chance.

What then of western separation, or British Columbia separation? Once again I'm speaking frankly and candidly. I will deal with that shortly and unemotionally. Of course, I could give any number of emotional reasons why I want to stay Canadian and why I reject separatist notions, and I could go through my entire life history as a native-born Canadian. But just let me talk about the practical reasons. How do you think British Columbia could survive the north-south tug-o-war in which it would find itself? How long would our children or our grandchildren be able to resist the dream of a north-south axis from Alaska to the Gulf of California? If that were to happen, let me tell you that we would be swallowed up in the great American giant, and the self-government and

[ Page 2322 ]

local matters that we now enjoy as a province would be relegated to the virtual servant status of the individual states of the union. That choice would be, in my view, an undiminished calamity. That choice may be for some, but not for me.

What then is the message that we in this House ought to send to both the government and the people of Quebec when this resolution passes, as pass it surely will? Should it be simply: "We want you to stay, we cherish the French culture as part of our nation's mosaic, and we want to preserve a country that has been tested in the crucible of two world wars and a worldwide depression"? Mr. Speaker, of course the answer is "yes." We must say those things to La Belle Province. But we must say much, much more. We must say that we in British Columbia are willing to sit down at any time, at any place and for however long it takes to resolve the difficulties which beset our nation.

We must tell the people of Quebec that we, too, are impatient with unresolved problems, but that we have confidence that they can and will be resolved if men and women of good will sit down with a mind to resolve them. We must tell the people of Quebec that if they leave, if we fail to find reasonable solutions to our problems as reasonable men and women should, then no one will be the winner. The people of Quebec must know that no one will tolerate political separation with lingering economic benefits. It must be made clear that we reject sovereignty-association. And they must also understand that while we utterly reject the notion of sovereignty-association, we also reject the status quo.

All Canadians must be made to realize that the separation, the break-up of our country into however many pieces — and the separation of Quebec from the rest of Canada is the break-up of our country into pieces — will mean enormous losses: losses for all of us, and not just in economic terms, which are the least of our losses, but in cultural, social and emotional terms as well.

In conclusion, the message that we must send to the province of Quebec with this resolution must be a message that also goes to all Canadians everywhere. It must be a message of good will, of a desire for fairness, a willingness to negotiate change, and an optimism for the future within a rededicated and reunited nation.

MR. HALL: I was anxious to participate in this debate. In contradistinction to the Minister of Health, whom I listened to very, very carefully, I chose not to deal with some of the details of the constitutional proposals and reforms that we've been discussing over a while, important though they are — and indeed I know how hard the associate deputy, the deputy and others have worked on those proposals — but to look at this resolution from another point of view, and in the debate perhaps to reflect, as I speak, upon the fact that, in a very personal way — because this is a very personal moment, I think, for many of us, and a very personal resolution, if we read it very carefully — at this time in my life I've now spent almost as many years in Canada, a country of my choice to live and spend my life in, as I spent in the country of my birth, one of Canada's two founding nations.

In my maiden speech in this House, after I was first elected in 1966, just nine short years after arriving in this country, I paid tribute to the kind of country where that was possible; where, indeed, that perhaps rather unique but certainly rare possibility, opportunity, exists; where in such a short space of time newcomers to a country can take their full place in all walks of life, in all pursuits in public as well as in private life; where the doors of opportunity were wide open; where democracy was flourishing. I said that one would have to look far and wide to find a country so hospitable, so democratic, so full of promise and so rich in the rewards it could return to its citizens.

As I spoke in the House in my maiden speech all those years ago, I became quite emotional, for obvious reasons, and I have thought since this motion was proposed by the Premier of the province and seconded by the Leader of the Opposition that nothing has happened since my arrival in the country, or indeed since that maiden speech, that would persuade me to change one word in that speech or, indeed, to change any of the decisions I made all those years ago that led to my coming to this country and making it my home — a place to settle down, to get married, as I did, and to raise a family, as we have done. Mr. Speaker, may I tell you that there are now 17 of us who sit down on feast days, birthdays and holidays around the table: my sisters and I, my mother, and our children. They are citizens of Canada, five of them born here, all related to me, to my sisters or to my wife, and every day and in every way, I think, all of them live out the promise and the fulfilment of the thoughts that I've expressed in these few words, and certainly they live the words of the first part of the resolution proposed by the Premier of the province.

As an immigrant, Mr. Speaker, and long a citizen, I hope that I can add my voice in support of this resolution, and in particular express and underline the confidence, personally and physically expressed, as I've done, in the promise of the future. Those words occur in the resolution. The words are: "confident in the promise of its future and desirous of maintaining a country united from sea to sea." The resolution deals with confidence. As I look around and see not only people who have chosen to come here but people who proudly record where their parents came from and where their parents' parents came from, what better expression of confidence can one show than the confidence made by that personal kind of decision, that personal kind of action?

The resolution goes on to deal with our desire to continue to pursue reforms necessary to provide opportunity for all people to reach full potential within a united country. That single sentence of pursuing reforms necessary to provide opportunity for all people to reach full potential in a united country is a basic principle that has motivated me and I'm sure has motivated many people in this chamber into public life. It's probably a motivational factor in our private life, but certainly a motivational factor in our public life all the time. Indeed it would be a strange political party that did not have as one of its basic principles that basic point that our people have the opportunity to achieve full potential in a united country. To do otherwise is to really say that we're going to put up with waste and suffering in human as well as economic terms. Perhaps that has been one of the criticisms over the past hundred years in certain regions of Canada. That can be addressed politically and has been attempted to be addressed politically across this country. That ideal, which is embodied in the resolution and which should always be the cornerstone of political philosophy, we can and must support wholeheartedly.

Our message to Quebec and its people, currently debating their referendum, is one that should emphasize the positive effects of unity in a continued federal system. I listened very carefully to the previous speakers and agreed with much

[ Page 2323 ]

of what they've said. Unity surely isn't fixed, the constitution isn't fixed, the speeches we've heard aren't based on some fixed, immutable, graven-in-stone constitutional tyranny. I think that's really what we have to address ourselves, in time, to.

Reforms are needed for the west, for the Maritimes and, of course, for Quebec. Without a federal system we would have had little chance — witness what's happened in other northern American jurisdictions — of achieving universal hospital insurance, the portability between promises guaranteed, and so on. We've had to work on the changing of the rules of the original confederation. The previous speaker was most eloquent in dealing with that question.

What we have to do unceasingly, it seems to me, is to deal with the future. At this point in time, dealing with this resolution, we must take as our most important task to show to the people of Quebec that they can be part of the process of articulating a vision of what Canada should be in the next century, a vision of the enthusiasm of all of us — English-speaking, French-speaking, or any of the many other nationalities that make up the Canada which we know today. That unceasing, unflagging work must go on. I maintain that the emphasis today, because of this resolution, is to address ourselves to the obvious urgency that is reflected in the final part of the resolution, and to simply say that we want the people of Quebec to be part of the process of articulating the Canada of tomorrow. We want to meet any place, any time, as the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) said. We want them to be part of the articulation of the promise that is Canada.

Mr. Speaker, we've shown that we want and welcome the people of Quebec to be part of that process — the process of worrying out solutions, stressing alternatives and reshaping Canada together. I don't think we've done enough of that, even from a narrow western point of view. Perhaps now, because we've seen the trouble and we're now conscious of the alternatives that could happen — which the Minister of Health mentioned — we can take a lesson unto ourselves that we had better do some of that worrying about many of these problems and many of the required articulations — together — not only from the point of view of Canada as a whole, but of the regions as well. We're going to have to do a lot more of that.

I want to thank the House for the opportunity of speaking in this organized debate as one who perhaps represents a particular kind of Canadian, and to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that I am going to vote yes on this resolution, and I trust that the people of Quebec vote no on the referendum.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in standing in this debate, I would like, first, to congratulate the Premier, the mover of this motion, and the Leader of the Opposition, the seconder of this motion. Although my words today will be very brief, it gives me great pleasure to stand and speak in favour of this motion.

Few citizens of Canada are further away from Quebec than those I represent in my riding of Omineca, but the great distance between the province of Quebec and my riding does not stop me from rising to speak in this debate. In fact, the 3,000-odd miles between the centre of my riding and Quebec City encourage me to speak out for national unity. The reason for this is simple. Since I represent a constituency far away from the provincial capital, I am in a good position to know that distance alone cannot prevent people from feeling a part of their province or their country. Distance does not prevent me from speaking about Quebec.

Canada is a country which has long refused to let distance dictate to it. We have conquered many of the problems of vast distances by building an immense stretch of railroad, pioneering in air flight and developing advanced telecommunications. We built a country 250 times the size of Switzerland, with only three and a half times the population. Canada is something like a flimsy parcel held together with good, stout twine. The twine is a shared history, struggles, and, yes, even successes.

The first thing that Canadians outside of Quebec will want to ask themselves is perhaps a bit self-interested. That is: if Quebec decides to leave Canada, what will be left of the cord binding the remainder of the country? Although many answers have been offered, no one really knows the true answer. There can be little doubt that Canada will be far better off if the ties that bind its ten provinces and two territories remain uncut.

Leaving those fears aside for a moment, I hope to be able to speak directly to the people of Quebec. This may seem strange, for you might ask what the member for Omineca has to say to the people of Quebec. Well, to begin with, the people of Quebec. particularly those unhappy with the present state of Confederation, should realize that British Columbia is no stranger to those sorts of frustrations and hopes which have brought Quebecers to the present crisis in their relations with the rest of Canada; more accurately, in their relations with Ottawa.

I need not bother to quote a former member of this Legislature, Mr. Gerry McGeer, on the subject of distance between Vancouver and Ottawa. His remark is famous, and there was much truth in it. The discontent with B.C.'s position in the Dominion began long before Mr. McGeer's humorous remark. Right from the start our marriage with Canada has been called a matter of convenience. Curiously enough, the idea that Quebec's entry into Confederation was also a marriage of convenience is found in various separatist accounts of history.

In the 1870s, British Columbia had a series of disagreements with the federal government, which I will not outline here: it's enough to say, however, that our first decade in Confederation was enough to make anyone a separatist. In 1906 Premier McBride walked out of a federal-provincial conference. When he returned he received great ovations as his railway car stopped at various places in British Columbia.

Cooperation with Ottawa. rather than confrontation, is a very new thing in British Columbia. Naturally we welcome this development. But our history nonetheless makes us very aware of the price of Confederation, and the sometimes infuriating attitude of the federal government. So we in British Columbia, Mr. Speaker, have something of an understanding about the feelings of Quebec, and we ask Quebec to take heart from our experience, and to seek to replace confrontation with cooperation and frustration with a measure of understanding.

I support this motion in the hopes that this House may have some message to communicate to our fellow citizens in Quebec, to tell them that we know Confederation to be hard; also to tell them that we know it is a source of pride — the pride of overcoming distance by hard work and compromise.

British Columbians are also proud of living along one of the oceans referred to in our national motto, and we hope to remain citizens of a country which truly stretches from sea to

[ Page 2324 ]

sea; for a country that spans the distance between two oceans is something to be proud of. I am proud to be a Canadian, proud to have been born in a country of such richness and diversity.

Patriotism is a word that Canadians seldom use, unlike our neighbours to the south, but I think we all value it. If nothing else, the crisis in Quebec has brought to the surface the feelings of patriotism that were deep in our hearts — deep in the hearts of many Canadians. The present situation gives us the chance to stand up and be counted, to stand and express that kind of patriotism, those feelings. Hopefully Canada will emerge from this a much stronger and more close-knit country.

MR. GABELMANN: In thinking about this topic in the days preceding today and in talking to other people about this debate, I've frequently run across the idea that we may say a lot of things here in British Columbia, but who in Quebec will know about it, who in the rest of Canada will care? I just want to cite a personal example about how communications do sometimes work in this country.

In 1978 I was in Quesnel, as part of my task in those days was doing some organizing for the federal NDP in British Columbia, and in a very small meeting in a schoolroom in Quesnel, with no reporters present, I made the comment that I didn't think the NDP would win any seats in the upcoming federal election in Quebec. I knew that it wouldn't be much of an item because there weren't any reporters in that little schoolroom in Quesnel. Two days later it was on the front page of every French-language newspaper in Quebec that an NDP organizer in British Columbia said the NDP wouldn't win any seats in Quebec. So it depends on what we say. Other members in this House have talked about cornflakes and that ends up on the front page of papers in Quebec.

So I'm not one of those who believes — not that anyone has suggested that so far in the debate, but it's been suggested over the course of the last while with people that I've talked to around the province — that perhaps what we say here is irrelevant. I suspect it is not at all. I suspect, in fact, that what we do say — particularly if it's stupid like some of our comments have been over the years — will be reported. Hopefully, some of us will also be able to say some things that are intelligent and worthwhile and will, in fact, be picked up by the media in other parts of the country and in particular, in these few weeks, in the province of Quebec.

Like everyone else in the Legislature, I'm in favour of the motion. I want to just say something — not in criticism, but I want to react a little bit to something the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) said. He was "proud to be born a Canadian," and the member for Surrey was "proud to have chosen this country." I'm in a unique position because I emigrated to this country when I was three years old. I neither had, as the member for Omineca had, the opportunity to be born here, nor as the member for Surrey, the opportunity to choose this country. I came when I was three. I'm very happy — and have been ever since I've been old enough to be aware of it — that my mother made the choice that she and I should emigrate to this country following the war in Great Britain in 1947. That was a choice she made and I'm very, very pleased that she did. I love this country; I think everyone in this chamber does. It's a unique part of the world; I think it's like no other part of the world. I would want to live nowhere else.

I think it's important when we consider questions about the nature of our country, about the constitutional arrangements that have to be determined over the months and years to come, that we do look back a little bit to our history. I appreciate the Minister of Health doing just that in a very detailed way, although when we only have a few minutes as we do in a debate like this, it's very easy for us to simplify the history and therefore to appear to be misreading or misjudging our history. It would take many, many hours of talk and discussion to, in fact, get an accurate reading of what has happened to us.

But if I, with that caveat, can say that I see a certain part of our history in relation to this particular debate as being very important, that's the fact that Canada in many, many ways is a dual country. We have a duality in this country. We were explored and settled, and our first people — aside from the native people, and I'll get back to that later — the first of the Caucasians, the first of the Europeans, were French, later to become French Canadians. They gave this part of North America a uniqueness, and when that was combined with the exodus from the United States of the United Empire Loyalists that added another component to the uniqueness and duality of this country. It's one of the reasons — because of the French and because of the United Empire Loyalists — that we have resisted many blandishments from the south to join the United States.

I think it would be very possible, if we lost either of those components, if we lost that duality, that we could not resist eventual absorption by the United States. So I believe it's very important that this country retain, maintain and understand the nature of its uniqueness, the nature of its basic duality, which has been added to, and which is beyond that, of course, when we talk about the native people.

Other people have said — and I don't need to say very much about it — that Canada is a very difficult country to govern, and not just because of its size, not just because of its disparate people, not just because of its different economic regions and different economic interests and different languages — all the differences of size and the problems that go with a country like this one. It's very difficult to govern. I think we've done very well in this country. We've got problems. We'll continue to have problems. We will always have problems in trying to govern a land mass and a people as broad and as unique as we have here. It requires an immense amount of tolerance.

I hope that one of the things we learn in the debates that have gone on and are going on is that in our little corner of this country we must measure carefully what it is we say when we talk about other parts of the country. I referred earlier to the cornflakes-box question. I won't say more than that now. I think those days are probably behind us, and I don't expect that many British Columbians will any longer make the kinds of comments that can be interpreted in the province of Quebec as very anti–French Canadian.

I don't accept sovereignty-association, Mr. Speaker. I don't believe anyone in. this House does, nor do I believe anybody in this country accepts sovereignty-association, apart from a very small number of people in Quebec. I've heard some suggestion from some political leaders in this country that they will not negotiate sovereignty-association. I wish those political leaders would choose their words a little more carefully. I will never accept sovereignty-association, nor should we as a province; but I will not say to any other bargaining party coming to the table what they can or cannot bring to the table. I don't believe we can say to one Premier: "You may not bring the following issues to the bargaining

[ Page 2325 ]

table." We must say clearly that, yes, we will negotiate; we sure as heck won't agree to sovereignty-association but, yes, we will negotiate. That is a subtle point. A lot of people think that if you say we will negotiate sovereignty-association, that means that you're going to accept sovereignty- association. It doesn't. To negotiate something doesn't mean to accept it. You go into negotiations, and your position on some issues will be rigid and unbending; and on that issue we will be rigid and unbending, because sovereignty-association is nothing. It's contradictory and meaningless and cannot be accepted by any of us, and will not be accepted by any of us. But we cannot say, and we cannot leave an impression in Quebec, that we will not negotiate items that Quebec brings to the bargaining table. That, I think, is an important point, one that I hope will be heeded by politicians in English Canada over the days and weeks to come.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Many people in the province of Quebec will be voting yes on the 20th and will not be voting for sovereignty-association; I think that's clear. I've thought through what I would do if I were a resident of the province of Quebec; I honestly don't know and I don't think that I could honestly judge, not living there at the present time. But I think that if the question was simply yes or no to sovereignty-association, I would vote no. If the question was whether or not the people of Quebec give their government a mandate in negotiations with the rest of Canada, then I would vote yes. And that is part of the pitch for the yes vote in Quebec, and we shouldn't forget it. I have personal friends — French-Canadians — who are confirmed federalists and who are voting yes. They are voting yes because they believe the government of Quebec needs a clear signal from its people when it goes to the bargaining table. That's a reality. You may not like it, but it's a reality. It's also a reality that the yes vote may win.

I think if that did happen on the 20th, it's very important that we in this corner of the country don't over-react to a yes verdict, because for many Quebecers that yes will be simply a mandate for negotiation; for others, agreed it's a mandate for separation — let's never forget that. But when you look at the Canada West polling figures, the number of people who support outright separation in Quebec is about the same as the number of people who support outright separation in western Canada. The figures are marginally different; in Quebec it's about 19 percent. So let's not over-react if on the 20th a yes vote is rendered.

There's talk in this country about regional alienation, Quebec alienation, alienation of rich and poor — there's less talk about that, unfortunately — but there's talk about a variety of kinds of alienation. We in western Canada have in our way rejected Ottawa by not voting Liberal. That's how we reject Ottawa. In Quebec, their way of rejecting the centre is to be centralist or to be pro-Quebec — to be anti-federalist, to be in favour of a stronger provincial government. In general that's fair, even from both sides, whether it is Ryan or Levesque or any of their followers; they believe in a stronger Quebec. The reaction of many of them is to oppose federalism; our reaction is to oppose Liberals. Unfortunately in this country the idea of federalism has got caught up in the web of Liberalism, because the Liberals have governed for so long, and underneath both of them has been caught up the effect that the country is governed by people who are not representative of any of the people in this country.

No wonder there is alienation, no wonder there is rejection, when we in western Canada are economically deprived because of the fact that eastern big-business interests are governing the country in effect through their cohorts in the Liberal Party in Ottawa for the benefit of those big corporations in Ontario. But it's not even the Ontario working people who benefit. They don't, because they are just as alienated from the economic system as we are, and we must remember that, from my point of view at least. The problem that this country has had is that its people have not had any say in the economic decision-making in this country. That’s what the alienation has at its root. I’d like to make a two-hour speech on that subject alone, but I won't.

One of the things developing in the yes-no campaign in the province of Quebec is clear class divisions. In that province it's very clear when you look at the groups — there are always exceptions, but in general — who support yes and those who support no. The no side is the business community, the English community and the establishment generally. Those people in favour are the trade unions — the working people through their labour organizations, overwhelmingly the French-speaking population of Quebec, and, in general, the powerless in that province — not the people from Westmount, but the people from the eastern part of Montreal. Clear class divisions are arising. For that reason as well, we must not let ourselves get caught up in supporting clearly one side or the other, because to reject working people in Quebec by rejecting their option could be fatal in the long term. Even if they're not a majority now. they could be some day, and to reject them by rejecting their vote is to put into jeopardy some parts of future negotiations in this country. I feel that very strongly. I'm not asking others in the House to share that view. Obviously it's a view that comes from being a socialist, which I am, Mr. Minister of Health, and I state it for what it's worth.

One of the terms used a lot in the sixties when discussions were going on about the future of Quebec in Canada was "special status." It was a terrible term, and got a lot of us into political hot water because it didn't mean enough; people didn't understand what it did mean. In the coming negotiations, it seems clear to me that we cannot make the same arrangement precisely for the province of Prince Edward Island or the province of Alberta that we make for the province of Quebec: there are some things that are different, and there are some things that have to be negotiated specially for the province of Quebec. I don't know whether anybody in this House agrees with me about that; I don't particularly care whether anybody agrees with me or not. I believe that there have to be some special arrangements. We already have special arrangements, let me remind members of this House: Quebec has its own pension plan, it has a much broader say in immigration than any of the other provinces, it has a special place in the Supreme Court of Canada, and there are a variety of other things that Quebec has that we or Prince Edward Island don't have as a province. I think there might have to be a few more. as the negotiations proceed. As one Canadian, I certainly am prepared to be generous about those kinds of negotiations.

I think when the negotiations go on we should remind ourselves and should remember that we're a unique country. We're not just a country with the duality that I talked about earlier: we're a country with its regional differences — its five regions, if you will: we're a country with its ten provinces; and we're a country with its native Indians, who have

[ Page 2326 ]

not yet been dealt with in any of these constitutional talks in a fair and proper way. So when the discussions go on, they are not simply a discussion between English and French, between the five regions, between the ten provinces, or with those groups and the native people. They are a continuing discussion at all those levels. Some of the discussion will be concurrent and some will be consecutive, but the discussion must go on and everyone must understand, in my judgment, that there are different levels at which the discussion takes place. Negotiations have to happen. They have to happen in good faith, and they have to happen with the generosity of spirit that we have seen too little of in this country to date.

I believe the country is now willing to take the kind of steps that are required. I believe the country is now prepared, for the first time in our history, to seriously sit down and work out an arrangement so that all parts of this country can share the wealth and share the prosperity of this country so that some parts of the country aren't so filthy rich and some so poverty-stricken as now is the case. We could share that wealth, share our culture and build on the uniqueness of this country so we can prevent any eventual gobbling up by that country to the south of us.

HON. MR. SMITH: Because it's not my habit to make very many speeches in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, I would like to offer my congratulations to you, not only on your elevation to the chair, but on the way you carried out your duties in difficult times during the past five weeks, I think, to the satisfaction of both sides of this House.

This is an important debate and a rather rare opportunity, because I think that all members whom I have heard speak on this debate today have given a sincere and positive account of themselves and have not tried to use the occasion for some tub-thumping or for some political purpose. We have had good speeches from the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition and the other members.

I noticed in the midst of the speech of the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) that the firmament in this place got brighter and all the lights came on. I think that that really gave us an indication of the fire in his belly for Canada and it's a good sign for the future of the referendum on May 20. May 20 is indeed a rendezvous with destiny, not just the destiny of the province of Quebec but the destiny of the whole country. We should remember that independence movements in this country are not new. They have been going on for as long as the country. We had an independence movement in British Columbia in the 1880s that got the root of a resolution of succession which was taken by the Premier of the day to London. There was another resolution of succession in the Maritimes, endless resolutions from Nova Scotia and again the Maritimes in the 1920s. But this is the first time in the history of the country that an entire province is going to vote on a referendum on the question of independence.

What can we do as British Columbians to try to hold Canada together? I think it is well to remember that we have mutual bonds and mutual debts. I would remind the members that one of the reasons that we entered Confederation was more as a result of the efforts of a French Canadian by the name of George Etienne Cartier. Without his efforts we would probably not have entered Confederation. It was only 110 years ago when a small delegation of British Columbians set out to negotiate the terms of union in Ottawa in May 1870. Those three delegates were not certain — at least one of them and maybe two of them — of the future of joining with Canada. One of them, the most powerful of the group, Dr. Helmcken, was somewhat negative and skeptical about the bonds of union. But they travelled to San Francisco, took the first continuous rail trip ever across America during that year, spent about a week travelling through rugged mountains on the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific, and saw that you could build a nation in North America with our geography and you could weld that nation together with rail.

When they arrived in Canada that May it was a difficult time. There were Fenian raids that greeted them when they stopped in Chicago; there were Fenian uprisings along the Canadian border. The Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald, was deathly ill and the negotiations of the Canadian–British Columbian terms fell to that elegant French Canadian spokesman from lower Canada, George Etienne Cartier.

For weeks he talked to his colleagues, and toward the end of the deliberations, magically, without ever having been asked for by the British Columbians, the promise and the offer of a railway came from the Canadians. That was the work of a French Canadian. The great Joseph Trutch, one of the fathers of Confederation from this province and our first Lieutenant-Governor, called Cartier the "Lightning Striker," and said of him in a famous letter: "Had it not been for the pluck and determination of the lightning-striker, all our efforts would have been in vain." So I remind you that a French-Canadian statesman helped bring about confederation of this province and helped turn us from the tremendous attachments and seductions south of the line, and from an annexation manifesto which hundreds of merchants in this city signed gladly in 1869.

We have had other ties with that province over the years. You may recall that in the early sixties this province loaned $100 million to the province of Quebec on a lower rate of interest than the market rate at that time, and that was all paid faithfully by the province of Quebec within a five-year period. That was a special gesture made by the Premier of the day, Mr. Bennett, to the Premier of the province of Quebec, Mr. Lesage, whom he greatly admired.

I think that it would be a mistake — and the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) has pointed it out — to be overly simplistic about the problems which face the people in Quebec as they go to their referendum in several weeks' time. We have to remember that they come to this momentous and calamitous event — and I consider it a calamity that one part of this nation is voting on the future of this nation — after 20 years or more of what has been called the "Quiet Revolution," during which period that province really emerged from a protected rural parish to become a modern urban community with sophisticated political and social institutions. That was a process that began with Paul Sauvé in 1958 and was carried on through the regimes of Lesage and Daniel Johnson. Ultimately, in 1976, we woke up one morning and found that the people of Quebec had elected a government that was dedicated to the dismemberment of Canada.

How did that come about? How did we arrive at such a failure in our federal system that one province proposed to voluntarily liquidate our country? Much of this fault has to lie with the inability of successive national governments to solve the stresses and strains of Confederation: the failure in this country to come to grips with problems that face regions such as British Columbia, the west, the Maritimes and Quebec.

[ Page 2327 ]

During this 20-year period we've had all kinds of constitutional conferences and ministerial discussions. A major cottage industry of constitutional meetings has been spawned, but very little has been achieved. Go back and catalogue them all: the Fulton-Favreau formula, which would have allowed amending the Canadian constitution in Canada; John Robarts' Confederation of Tomorrow conference, in the centennial year; the 1968 federal-provincial meetings; and, finally, that famous Victoria Charter meeting in this city, under the leadership of the Premier of the day, W.A.C. Bennett, which came within a whisker of solving the problems that had dogged Canadian governments for the previous 30 years and almost brought about a formula to amend the constitution, reform the composition of the supreme court, and ensure language rights and the repatriation of the constitution.

Because that charter did not come to grips with the problem of separation of powers to the satisfaction of the province of Quebec, it was rejected by that province. The handwriting was then on the wall. No matter that the federal parliament with its joint parliamentary Committee chaired by the now Secretary of State for External Affairs brought forward positive recommendations to reform the constitution; no matter that the Pépin-Robarts report also contained positive resolutions; no matter that we had a series of constitutional meetings during the late 1970s, many of which the member from Kamloops and the Premier attended and made good contributions towards. All of those ended in dust.

There was no parliamentary constitutional reform, save and except for the ill-fated Bill C-60, which was introduced into the federal parliament in 1978, and which tried to sort of tinker with the mechanics of the constitution without addressing the real problems, tried to set up some weird and wonderful way whereby the appointment of supreme court judges would defy the drafters of the grievance procedure in a collective agreement. Many of the proposals that died in Bill C-60 will no doubt be revived, but during all this process there has been a considerable amount of disillusionment across the country as to the ability of the federal administration to come to grips with the problems of regionalism.

It is true British Columbia has made major contributions to the dominion-provincial debate. We have supported the division of powers in the constitution. We have urged that, as a major region of Canada, we should play a much stronger role in national decision-making. We argued for British Columbia appointments to key national decision-making bodies – not just the Supreme Court of Canada, but also key institutions such as the Bank of Canada, the Canadian Radio Television and Telecommunications Commission, and so on. We've also argued strenuously that major Senate reform would provide more decentralization for decision-making and allow for better accommodations of provincial viewpoints. As my friend the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) has said, the Upper House was always considered in the Confederation terms of this nation to represent the views of strong regional interests. It was to be a safeguard against the Lower House; it was to have a real position in the constitution. It was not to be a retirement home for party bagmen; it was to be a real functioning part of the constitution of the country. This province has consistently argued for better representation in the Senate.

We have also argued for moderate and responsible reform of the constitution. In the province of Quebec the viewpoint, however, has now diverged between the moderate position of Mr. Ryan, who wants to make the existing system work, but to make major changes in the workings, and Mr. Levesque, who wants to scrap the system and drift into a separate arrangement — a sovereignty arrangement. I say, Mr. Speaker, to you. that British Columbians will sympathize with the legitimate aspirations of the people of Quebec to have a more decentralized approach to the nation's affairs, to have more power over their own local destiny, and we will support those initiatives. But we will not support, and we will never support, the attempt of the leaders in that province to unilaterally dismember the country.

We have a strong tradition in this province of fighting for better terms — battles with Ottawa, and missions and meetings. The member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) alluded to McBride's famous walkout at the second interprovincial conference in our history, in 1906. He followed that by a triumphant trip to London in 1907, where he persuaded a rather nervy under-secretary by the name of Winston Churchill to alter a draft of the British North America bill that was going through the Lower House, which Churchill did. We had also, in addition to McBride, Premier Duff Pattullo, who walked out of a dominion-provincial conference in the late 1930s — at the outset of the war. We have always had fighters in this province. and fighters for the viewpoints of British Columbia. But that has always been characterized by a strong sense of national importance and national participation. The member for Kamloops so eloquently alluded to the contributions made by British Columbia to both world wars.

I want to give a couple of arguments why the people of Quebec might take notice as to what is being done, in a positive way, in this province, to wake them up to the fact that they have friends here and that British Columbia cares about them staying in Canada.

As Education minister, I have to administer French language programs, and a very, new language program which was introduced during the past year. It's called the core program for the children of francophone British Columbians. It allows French-speaking students in this province to be educated in their own language in a school district where ten or more students have applied. It is a very small program in numbers — it will never be a massive program — but there are 215 children of francophone parents in British Columbia who have enrolled in that program, and ten different school districts have participated. But much greater evidence of the interest in the French language in this province can be seen in the tremendous response to the French-language immersion programs.

It is important to emphasize that those programs aren't prescribed, laid down or forced upon the people of British Columbia by the provincial government; they are not part of some sinister plan to bilingualize British Columbians; they are a program offered by school districts who select them of their own free will, and they are attended by students whose parents wish them to speak the second language and who are motivated to do so. They do so at two levels. They do so at the kindergarten–grade 1 level, and at the later immersion level of grades 5 and 6. I can tell you that within the past year the numbers of school districts who have entered French language immersion programs has grown from 13 to 17, and that there are now about 3,200 students participating in these programs in British Columbia, every one of them of their own volition, and that many of these programs have line-ups and in many cities there are requests for additional programs.

That should be a message, I should think, that would be a

[ Page 2328 ]

demonstration to people in the province of Quebec that there are British Columbians who want not to have the second language forced on them, but want to learn it and choose to learn it. That is so much more important than some mindless, centralistic, bureaucratic policy emanating from Ottawa with bilingual labelling or road signs. This is the sort of policy that stems from the hearts of people and the desire of children to learn. We tend to hear, of course, only the negatives on the subject of bilingualism and not the positives from western Canada, but there are a lot of positives, I can assure you. Similar programs are beginning in the province of Alberta.

Next Monday our Premier goes to Montreal to address the Board of Trade on the eve of the Quebec referendum. I know that all British Columbians, regardless of party, wish him well in that speech and know that he will carry the message of this entire Legislature. I think it's very important that the Premiers of western Canada have spoken on this subject and have gone to Quebec and have spoken up positively for this country. I believe that there is a value in the people of Quebec hearing directly from western Canadian Premiers and hearing the message that I hear in British Columbia: that we want them to vote no on that referendum.

The member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) spoke of friends of his in the province of Quebec who are federalists who are going to vote yes on this referendum. I had exactly the same experience when I was in Quebec city in January of this year for a meeting of the council of first ministers in education. But curiously enough, talking within the past couple of weeks to these same people, I find that they are not still going to vote yes. They do not believe that they can enjoy that luxury, and a number of them have changed their minds, are voting no and are ringing doorbells.

One of the great ironies of the problem in the province of Quebec now is that the leaders of the government of Quebec are in every way the flower of that society. They are well-educated, articulate men, many of them bilingual themselves and extremely presentable, but they are totally wrong, I believe, and their viewpoint will be rejected.

It is a time, Mr. Speaker, in which statesmanship in this country is needed not only in the province of Quebec on this issue but from the entire English-Canadian population. I am delighted today to be able to stand in this House to support the resolution and urge the people of Quebec to vote no.

MR. HANSON: It's a pleasure to rise to give a short personal message to the people of Quebec on my own commitment to a united Canada. I had the pleasure and the privilege in 1965 of living for one year in Quebec. At that time I came to experience, enjoy and share in the richness of that culture and that part of Canada. It was quite an experience for me, coming from east end Vancouver into a province where at that time I did not understand the language at all. But I always made the effort to communicate as best I could in French, and that was always respected. I always found that people treated me, as another Canadian from the Pacific coast, fairly and with kindness.

I, like many Canadians, have taken more of an interest in my own particular ancestry because I'm interested in how my family came to this continent. I always thought I was a Scandinavian, but in actual fact my ancestors were Quaker farmers who emigrated from New Hampshire in 1808 to Quebec. My family on my paternal grandfather's side goes back to 1808 in the eastern townships in Stanstead County. Reviewing the early assessment, parish rolls and so on, seeing what their farm was like, what they grew, and how many children they had is a fascinating thing for me now. I have great pride in that period of time. But having lived in Quebec and gone to the Forum and competed to try and get a place on the rail to watch the Montreal Canadiens and screamed my head off and just lived day to day with the people of Quebec, I have a special place in my own life and heart for Quebec.

Many of the key points have been covered by previous speakers. The speaker for North Island pointed out some of the legitimate grievances of the people of Quebec, as have been pointed out on the other side of the House, but whatever grievances do exist — and there are grievances — we share more and have more in common than any differences that may exist.

The point is not how long people have been in this country, as the second member for Surrey (Mr. Hall) pointed out, and the member for North Island, who arrived when he was three. It's not how long people have been here, because many Canadians' ancestors have been here for 10,000 years: people as close as the Songhees reserve, who certainly have grievances. The point is not how long people have been here but how they are treated when they are here, and what future we have in this country.

We have a great deal in common, actually, as an economy with Quebec. Quebec is a primary-industry economy, a primary resource-extractive-industry economy, with seasonal high unemployment, with a high degree of foreign ownership — as we do — high seasonal fluctuations, and a feeling in many respects that they're not in control of their own destiny. I disagree with them when they point to Ontario or English Canada as the source of their problems. I don't feel that any of the problems are unresolvable within Confederation. I think that together the people of Quebec, with the people from other provinces and the territories of this country, can build a Canada that we could all be proud of. In a vast country with almost four million square miles, with 25 million people, with one of the richest storehouses of natural resources, with natural resources such as water power, iron, forest resources and excellent agricultural land, there is no need for anyone in this country to go without in any way. There should be no want. There should be no unemployment. There should be no person in this country going without.

So I'm in marked disagreement with those who feel that the solutions are to leave Confederation. I think together we can build a federated Canada, based on justice, that can be the model for the rest of the world. The way of the future is to have a federated state that encompasses people of different cultural and linguistic groups. I don't think there's any country in the world — probably with the exception of the United States — which has as many cultural, linguistic founding peoples as Canada has. But in Canada we have resisted the temptation as a society and as a country to encourage people to abandon their previous traditions and cultures. We've encouraged them to persist, that they continue to have those traditions respected by future generations and to keep them as a part of the richness of this country; and that distinguishes us from almost any other country in the world.

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I would just like to say on behalf of my party and my constituents, as has been stated by many of the members of this House so far today, that I wish that the people of Quebec would look to their brothers and sisters in the rest of the country to build a Canada we could all be proud of.

[ Page 2329 ]

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I support this resolution. Like all other members in this House, I'm sure, I'm all for one Canada. I'm for a contemporary country in which individual Canadians can live freely and in harmony with one another. I'm for an open society occupying half a continent in which freedom of the individual is paramount and in which respect for the human being takes precedence over everything else.

Clearly, however, something is wrong in Canada today. We're far too introspective for a young nation with all the living space and natural resources we possess. We are worrying about our individual aches and pains when we should be acting as an example to the rest of the world. We shouldn't be pulling apart; we should be coming together, but we need the right kind of cement, the right philosophical base, the right kind of enthusiasm with which to turn our hearts and minds optimistically toward the future.

Our basic problem, and it's an institutional one, Mr. Speaker, is collectivity. We're ganging up more and more for one purpose or another. We're incorporating big companies, forming large unions and letting government grow beyond all reason. As individuals we're being ignored in the process — at least we feel we're being ignored in the process; many Canadians certainly do. We are losing our freedoms and we're losing what we regard as a meaningful place in society, so we tend to strike back, often blindly, at those around us. We're letting old hatreds gain the upper hand. We're letting racism divide us in Canada, differences of wealth divide us in Canada and distance divide us from one another. We're letting petty tyrants exploit our fears, because we lack the leadership and the philosophy of individual worth and accomplishment which modern society so urgently demands.

Rapid advances in technology have something to do with it. Travel is part of it and communications are certainly part of it. Our world in many ways is getting smaller. Differences are disappearing. Traditions are being lost and families are being scattered all over the place. Naturally, there is a reaction to all this. We see it globally in the formation of new and smaller nations. They're breaking away from their neighbours in a desperate attempt to preserve the customs and the tribal ties which have been uniquely their own. It's easy for local demagogues to frighten the fearful and upset the unwary. Outsiders are the enemy. Foreign capital is the exploiter. Big corporations are bad. Big unions are worse. But the biggest villain of all, in my view, is big government, which grows and grows regardless of the needs for which it was originally created.

The biggest mistake, in my view, that we're making in Canada today is that we demand too much from government. We expect government to solve many of our problems. We encourage its growth. And, in a federal state, this presents additional hazards. Our several levels of governments increasingly burnp into each other. They compete for votes and they compete for taxes. Ottawa moves in on the province. The provinces meanwhile are convinced that they can do most things better and more expeditiously than the federal government can.

I agree that Ottawa, often, is clumsy and slow. Financially and in terms of employment it is already too big for our population. Ottawa's budget is bloated. Ottawa's payroll is immense. The reason: the federal government has strayed into many areas the jurisdiction of which is provincial and local in character. Taking the line of least resistance, spending now and collecting later, Ottawa has also been thrusting the private sector aside. It doesn't encourage private enterprise anymore, and it limits the freedoms of Canadians as individuals in the process.

Most thinking people agree. I'm sure, that the federal government has gone too far — at least most of them in British Columbia. It has become too big and must be trimmed back. I, for one, would have it focus exclusively on national issues and nation-building tasks which can best be dealt with on a country-wide basis.

These tasks are relatively few in number. They relate primarily to external affairs, money and banking, long distance transportation and, often, research. Other levels of government, together with the private sector, can take care of the rest.

Ottawa, in other words, must represent us collectively in our dealings with other countries. This includes foreign trade, treaties with other nations and national defence. To prosper economically we also need a common market in Canada. We must be free from internal restrictions on the movement of goods and services. To facilitate these ex-charities and to encourage the growth of the private sector, we also need a central banking system. We need a single, overall monetary policy. Mr. Speaker.

Operating in a larger national forum we will have the economics of scale and the larger market which we need in order to prove ourselves in a world of superpowers and supercommunities like the USA and the EEC.

Long distance carriers like Air Canada, the CPR and our major shipping and trucking companies must also be federally controlled. because their operations are interprovincial in character. But the role, in the case of federal transport, in my view, should be ''user pay." Ottawa shouldn't be subsidizing the movement of people or commodities in one part of the country and not in another. Government involvement of this kind leads inevitably to charges of regional discrimination, and those charges, warranted or not, are a major cause of disunity in Canada today.

I would do away with the federal Department of Regional Economic Expansion for the same reason. It diverts industry from one part of the country to another, Using your federal tax dollars and mine, it makes decisions which are highly questionable, especially from a long-run, job-producing point of view. Rarely does DREE solve deep-seated problems of a regional nature, in other words. Instead, it raises expectations for a time, only to have them dashed by the unforgiving laws of supply and demand. Thus, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, like other regionally biased activities on Ottawa’s part, adds to the list of grievances which those who live in the disadvantaged parts of Canada feel they have against Ontario and many of us who live in the west.

Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. I am not against sharing the wealth. I agree that there should be a sharing of income between the have and the have-not parts of Canada. Ottawa should continue to make equalization payments, in other words. This it should do in the case of people programs. as in education, health and human resources, which are provincial and local in character. By ignoring these local grassroots requirements, big government tends to be offending Canadians everywhere. This is part of the problem in Quebec. It is, in the eyes of most Quebecois, big Ottawa — as they view it, English-speaking Ottawa — that has its finger in everything. Its bureaucracy is demanding too much and federal red

[ Page 2330 ]

tape is becoming tangled up increasingly with provincial red tape. It is government compounded, so there is a growing feeling that Ottawa's input should be confined to as few activities as possible — in the case of the out-and-out separatist, not involved at all.

Government, in other words, must be simplified. This is the view of many Canadians from sea to sea. And to be responsive, it must be much closer to home. In Quebec's case, it must also talk the language of the majority of the people. This is why several million Quebecois are going to vote yes on May 20. This is why Premier Rene Levesque now has a better than even chance of getting a mandate to negotiate sovereignty-association with the rest of Canada. This is why Mr. Claude Ryan, if he is elected Premier of Quebec later this year or early in 1981, will also have to press for decentralization of authority in this country. Mr. Ryan may not be a separatist as such, but he will have to fight centralist Ottawa hammer and tong if he is going to retain a strong following in Quebec in the rest of the 1980s.

I'm not a separatist myself, Mr. Speaker, but I understand why many people are thinking separatist thoughts. Separatist feelings are by no means confined to Quebec. Many of the same considerations are influencing our own people out west. They also want less government, lower taxes and more scope to do their own thing in their own individual ways.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Premier will be going to Montreal to make a major speech before that province's referendum is held on May 20. I hope he tells his audience that we in British Columbia also feel put upon by big government, by distant government, by too many levels of government and by governments which collectively fail to meet our individual needs. I also hope the Premier tells our francophone friends in Quebec that they are not alone in questioning the ways we relate to one another.

Some societies have gone much further. They've put up tariffs, they've stopped trading, they've even gone to war with one another. There are many examples. Take Eire. It separated from Great Britain in the early 1920s. Now it is electing Members of Parliament to the same European parliament as the United Kingdom is. France joined West Germany, Italy and the Low Countries to form the European Common Market in the 1960s. They were at war with each other as late as the 1940s. Now they too are part of this big federation which is developing in western Europe. The new African nations and the older South American countries are also pulling together more and more in recent years. Countries are pulling together. They're certainly forming free-trade areas in southeast Asia. So people are getting together, many of whom separated, even went to war with each other in the past. Clearly the tendency to separate, then, has not been all one way. It has been a two-way street, with most of the traffic heading, especially in recent years, in the direction of larger communities, not smaller ones.

To Quebecers I would say: "Think separatist thoughts if you will, but be realistic. Admit that Quebec must have some kind of federal relationship with the rest of Canada in the year 2000." This is in the nature of things. Geography says it will be so.

The desire of many Canadians, Quebecois and otherwise, to speak with one voice on important international issues is another force which propels us in this direction of federation. So this, and any other referendum which may be held in Quebec in the future, is not really about separatism, about final separation, but about the best way the cause of unity can be served practically, realistically and democratically in the future.

Viewed in this context, Premier Levesque's idea of sovereignty-association may be a blessing in disguise. It is causing us all to think critically about Canada, its people, and our relationship with one another. In the end we are bound to realize that, while we have our differences, there are also opportunities on a continental scale which can inspire us all.

Trim Ottawa down to size by all means. Our four western provinces will undoubtedly agree to that. But also make sure that each provincial administration is committed to less government, not to more. Insist that it too is prepared to turn over some of its powers to local governments, to the communities, to people in our country.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this, in many ways, is what the present government in British Columbia is saying. I agree, in other words, with much of what it has said in its submissions to recent federal-provincial conferences, and to the Pépin-Robarts royal commission, and to the Canadian Senate in 1978 and 1979. But I have a few differences that I'd like to express. I, for instance, would put the accent more heavily on the individual. Governments aren't the only actors in the constitutional scene; our people are, Canadians are, westerners are, Quebecers are — every man, woman and child in this country is. For this reason, I would do several things.

Firstly, I would incorporate an individual bill of rights in our new Canadian constitution. British Columbia seems to be, perhaps, of two minds — a little reluctant on this issue, officially. I want us to stress the personal aspect, especially where the freedom of the individual is concerned. I want a Canadian constitution to say that definitely, and for all to see.

Secondly, I am against, wherever possible, concurrent powers. I am against powers shared jointly by the provinces and Ottawa. Overlapping jurisdiction between our two senior levels of government not only leads to poor administration but also tends to confuse the voter. So we should have two distinct lists of powers, one federal and one provincial — certainly better lists than we have in the present British North America Act.

Thirdly, I would insist that matters which touch intimately on the individual, like language and culture, are dealt with at the provincial and local levels, not at the national level.

Fourthly, each level of government should be as autonomous as possible. This is why I am opposed to our provincial Premiers being in a position to veto legislation passed by our elected representatives in the House of Commons. Improve the Senate by all means, even do away with it, but don't make it a house of the provinces, as a number of authorities would suggest.

Fifthly, and finally, while they are separate organizationally speaking, there have to be ways in which our different levels of government liaise with one another. We have federal-provincial conferences now. They should continue, but continue essentially on an informal basis. Similar meetings, in my view, should also be arranged, periodically, between our provincial administrations and local governments. These gatherings should also be as open as possible, the idea being that the public has a right to know what is going on, not only in government but between the different levels of government in this country.

[ Page 2331 ]

I could go on, Mr. Speaker, but suffice it to say that we as citizens of one country, Canada, have a choice. We have a third option, so to speak. We're not faced merely with the status quo on the one hand and the breakup of our nation on the other. We're not, as the saying goes, between a rock and a hard place; we have broad, common ground on which to stand. We can take a more individualistic approach, a less highly organized approach to the re-writing of the British North America Act. This will give us the best possible base on which to build our federation. I'm not talking about an old Canada renewed, or a new Canada made up of two distinct parts. I'm talking about building from the grass roots up; not about edicts given to us from on high. I refuse, in other words, to use words like separation, planning or, certainly, racism. I prefer instead to talk about freedoms, individual rights, and opportunities. Let us enthuse about the future, not argue about the past.

Finally, we can streamline Ottawa without inflating our provincial egos unduly. We can make our entire country a land that all Canadians are proud to call their home, Quebecois, Ontarians, Maritimers and westerners alike. We can go our own separate ways and still be members of a larger club. We can believe, without the passage of a host of laws, in a common destiny. We can work separately and we can work together. We can live independently and live in harmony with one another. This is why I support this resolution. This is why I hope that all other members in the House do too.

MR. COCKE: These are serious times in Canada. I think that first I'd like to say that probably one of the important things that has come out of the debate that is now going on, not only in La Belle Province but across this nation, has been the fact that we have woken up as a community of people across this country to the seriousness of the question and to the importance of our country to all of us, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. I guess it's an ill wind that blows no good, and I think that this is good. I'm not one who feels that rugged nationalism is the way to go, but I think that love of country and a sense of the importance of that country is extremely important in a world such as we have today. I grew up in a little town in the north. I don't think very many people know much about Athabasca except that there's a little bit of natural gas and some trees, a beautiful river valley, cold weather in the wintertime and mosquitoes in the summer — except for the fact that there's a big forest fire burning there now.

MR. BARBER: And hundreds of Cockes.

MR. COCKE: There are hardly any Cockes. We were not that prolific.

But the one thing that I learned as a child was a sense of community in an area that had been explored equally by French-Canadian, Scottish and English-Canadian people. Many of them settled there and it was fresh in my childhood. Many of the people that we talk about in history were people that were real to me, because they were the kind of people that opened up that country. They were almost equal in number. Therefore we had our own community, and I could see there, when I think now in the context of our whole country, the example that can be set for the rest of us across the nation.

There is a concentration, of course, of cultures and of languages in different parts of the country. There's certainly a concentration of the French language people — French Canadian and Quebecois — in the province of Quebec. But I see them as my brothers and sisters just the same as I see a person from the province of PEI or the province of Newfoundland. They're exactly the same, to my feeling. I believe that from this standpoint much can be achieved if we would just wake up to the fact that we began as brothers and sisters and we must remain that way. We are living in a world that's torn. We're living in a world of terrorism. We're an island in that world, an island of freedom and something that's really quite beautiful when you consider the comparison.

I believe that we will sacrifice if this country is divided in any way. I believe, as my colleague for the North Island constitutuency said, that we must negotiate. Everything must be done to hold this country together. We must show an open mind and an open heart to our brothers and sisters in other parts of the land.

I remember once walking down the beach in PEI, and I met an old gentleman picking Irish moss. He asked me where I was from, because he noticed I didn't have quite the same accent that he had. I told him Vancouver and had I told him Pluto. he wouldn't have been any more aware of where I'd come from. We are a diverse nation but we are a very important nation. I just hope that we remember that everything can be negotiated within Confederation that can be negotiated outside of Confederation. I believe that. I'm not going to do a trip on just what should happen from point A to point B, the size of government, and so on. We all know that there's lots and lots that has to be done in this country.

I saw this country when I joined the air force when I was 18 years old. I spent a fair amount of time in the province of Quebec, and at that time, through a kid's eyes, I saw some of the things that have achieved the situation that we're now confronting. I saw people divided by what I thought then, and still feel now to a great extent, to be the establishment — people whom big business felt they should keep in some sort of order. And they resented it. Not realizing that it was happening in the rest of the country, this group of people, the French-Canadian people, felt that they were they only ones beset with this situation. They were not, but when there is such a heavy concentration in one geographical area, it's easy to feel that you're all alone in that situation.

I suggest that partly out of that came the mass alienation which we've seen. We all have to think in terms of the importance of the person in our country who serves the multinational, whose dictates come from some other country altogether, which has no grave concern about our people and whether or not we break up or stay together. The concern there is for a different achievement. I think we better remember that that is part of our problem, and that was one of the things that suggested more to me about this question of the ingredients for self-destruction that we have within our society. But it's all over Canada; it's not only in Quebec.

I suggest that most Canadians feel as I do. When I leave this country and come back, I have a sense of relief, a sense of coming home. And when I go to the province of Quebec, I don't feel any different than I do when I'm at home, because I feel that I'm at home, despite the fact that there is a majority speaking a different language. Yet when I go to the United States and come back across the border, I feel very much at home. I think that that sense has to sort of get to all of us. I would hope that after May 20 there is going to be visitation after visitation back and forth across this land — a familiarization that should be taking place not only for people

[ Page 2332 ]

coming from Quebec to here, but for us going there and acquainting ourselves with our brothers and sisters on that side.

I feel that we have a great home and we must not let this home break up. I pray that it doesn't break up, because we can stick together and really make something out of this country — not a powerful nation that's going to fight the earth, but a powerful nation from the standpoint of a place where people can live and love in harmony, a place where people can be proud of their heritage, proud of the future they provide for their children, and just proud of the fact that we are a country from sea to sea that can hang in there and speak as one nation in a world in turmoil.

MR. HYNDMAN: In rising to support the motion on this very important topic, I would like the understanding of many of the members in alluding to notes, because I think what all of us have to say today is very important and words have to be chosen carefully.

Mr. Speaker, by way of introduction, I wish to summarize the two basic themes I hope to address. First of all, too many Canadians have forgotten how and why this country was formed. The reasons for Confederation are as valid in 1980 as they were in 1867. The fact that our constitution needs modernization is the simple result of the passage of time, and it is not an indictment of the basic concept of Confederation. Secondly, francophones and anglophones, who are perceived as being the chief persons in the debate, have a special responsibility to make Confederation work — a responsibility to our own native people, whom we supplanted, and a responsibility to those of many other racial and ethnic origins who came to Canada and have helped build it on the basis that francophone and anglophone were united in their resolve always to make this country work.

The problem that plagues this great debate on a national basis is that it proceeds from different starting points. Too many people from too many provinces in too many ways have lost sight of the basis of Confederation, and we find that we are not talking about the same thing. So we must go back to the beginning and ask ourselves what Confederation is. Where have we come from, and why? What was responsible for our birth as a country, and what compelled Confederation?

The need for nationhood and the concept of Confederation arose from political and economic factors which confronted the colonies of British North America with domestic frustration and external dangers. First, politically, there was an increasing awareness of the urgent need of creating a counterbalance to the growing power and dominance of the United States. Yet within the colonies all previous attempts at lesser forms of simple legislative association had resulted only in stalemate. A new and a greater form of solidarity was necessary. Second, and economically, the possibility of national government meant hitherto unattainable economic benefits because of a new national economy. So political and economic objectives, with domestic and external pressures, thus combined as motivating factors for Confederation.

The creation of the structure necessary to do the job called for the adoption of large concepts. First, it was necessary to realize that both English and French had an equal stake in the formation and working of the nation. Second, it was necessary to realize that a satisfactory working arrangement between the federal government and the provinces had to be structured. On the one hand it was clearly intended that a strong central government be established and endowed with the power and the resources to lead a nation. At the same time, by virtue of the unique capabilities of such a strong central government, the provinces were to benefit. The provinces deliberately created a federal government greater than themselves. They did this to receive in turn the benefits of nationhood and central government which could not be achieved for themselves even collectively.

This was not then political suicide for the provinces, although Confederation was only possible because provincial politicians were able in principle and in courage to make short-run sacrifices and think in the broad context of country. Respect and cooperation between the federal government and the provinces, though unmentioned in the actual blueprint for Canada, were intended as the catalysts to make Confederation work.

Mr. Speaker, as with any true and fruitful union, the results in terms of harmony, status, growth and potential advantages outstripped the same features as they would be if measured simply as the sum of those attributes as possessed by the separate parts. In Canada, then, not only is the whole greater than any part, but in this case the whole was to be greater than the sum of the separate parts. To me this proposition, if it does violence to the mathematicians, is self-evident in our concept of Canadian nationhood. The lack of viability that would have undermined the provinces as separate so-called nations, their inevitable absorption by the United States, the greater total potential as one nation than as separate: all these factors, I think, prove the proposition.

What was founded in 1867 was a system whereby the various parts joined together in a confederation which provided stability and continuity of government and continuity of policy in those affairs which were of mutual concern, while retaining a large degree of independence and unilateral action in those matters which were of local or regional concern.

"Union" is a word not often used to describe our country, yet it expresses exactly what Confederation achieved, and it does so without involving us in misunderstandings about semantics. What then can we say about the Canadian union? Firstly, four provinces — now ten — united to form one country. Secondly, the two original cultures came together in a union in which neither was submerged and both were equal, and outside of which it would not be possible for either to maintain its identity or enjoy its rights. Thirdly, the union — the country — would be greater than any part or than the sum of its parts. Fourthly, all would give strength to the union. Fifthly, in giving strength to the union, to the country, the parts would thereby make it strong, and all would derive strength from it. Strength to be given, strength to be received, strength to be shared in a partnership within a union: that is the concept, a concept held by all those who established Canada, not forced on one side by the other. Confederation was created as a conscious act of voluntary agreement by our forefathers; created, as it still exists, by design and not by accident. It was a joint active union, not a loose agreement of association. The work and the intentions of the founding fathers were summarized in an act of the United Kingdom Parliament at Westminster.

This official written statement of intent is the Canadian constitution, known commonly as the BNA Act. That our constitution was the product, necessarily, of a foreign parliament reflected our sudden transition from colony to country. Men of broad vision in the colonies had united to take a large

[ Page 2333 ]

step forward together into history. The BNA Act, when it was assented to in 1867, was one of the world's landmarks in legislative accomplishment. It was a masterful instrument by which four colonies and two cultures could come together and better meet the challenge of that day.

Three things are to be remembered about the BNA Act. First, it was the work of people and the direct product of the decisions of people — forward-looking people, confident people, people full of faith in the future of the union. Second, it was based on fundamental principles, chiefly that the central and unifying government would have control over all matters of common or national concern, and that local governments would exercise not only control over local matters but also, and specifically, control over those matters which in the context of those times were deemed to be essential as matters of local jurisdiction. The third fact to remember is that those persons, guided by those principles, initiated a division of authority and financial power which was appropriate to the conditions existing in 1867. The fact that they were able to do so and established the basis of a nation and the framework of its government, which has lasted more than 100 years, was a tremendously creative act. The novelist and Canadian commentator Hugh MacLennan has called it one of the most stirring acts of statesmanship accomplished anywhere in the world in the nineteenth century.

Surely, then, it is not detracting from their act of statesmanship to contemplate that, while the concept of Confederation is sound, the detailed arrangements adequate to meet the problems of 1867 may not be the best in detail to meet the problems of 1980. The concept remains; the problems are different. Our challenge is to adjust to these problems while not scrapping the concept, unless we have something better to substitute for it. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, we don't.

Confederation was a great concept in 1867 and it is a great concept now. The quality of the men who shared it stands out even more impressively today when we consider that at the time they met and developed it, Canadians knew much less of each other, of each other's plans, prejudices, aspirations, problems and goals, than we know of each other in today's world of rapid travel and rapid communications.

Canadians knew precious little of each other in those days, Mr. Speaker, but what counted in the end was that their leaders held in common this concept of one Canada towering over the northern half of this continent, a union in which fairness of status and partnership would be the keystone. It was a radically new concept on this planet, to be sure, but the founding fathers were men who dared to be different. To succeed, the concept demanded sacrifice and compromise on all sides, but these were men who were big enough to realize that the concept was bigger than any of them individually and bigger than any adjustments they might have to make. Who would deny the splendour of the concept? Canadians should take pride and inspiration from the fact that this was the first time that these principles were recognized and adopted in conscious application in the founding of a nation. This is the great and unique feature of the Canadian experiment.

Who can deny that on the basis of that concept the partnership, Canada, has risen, on occasion, to tremendous heights? Yet who can deny that the principle has not always been perfectly applied, that the concept has not always worked as well as it should have in these past 113 years, and that at present there are real stresses and strains? But surely, Mr. Speaker, we should not abandon the concept of the union on that account. Surely it still has an awesome potential. Surely the challenge of Canada's second century is to bring the concept up to date, and to make it work anew in our own time.

Both French and English in Canada, Mr. Speaker, would do well to ponder the words of the great philosopher, Alfred North Whitehead. He said this: "People of different habits are not enemies, they are godsends. Men require of their neighbours something sufficiently akin to be understood, something sufficiently different to provoke attention, and something great enough to demand admiration." The problems of fiscal relations and cultural relations must be seen and accepted as problems inherent in the Canadian union, not as problems deliberately created by one group or element for the frustration of the other. Who will deny that these problems require continuing concerted national effort to solve? But what country in this world would not like to have these problems instead of the curse of chronic poverty, famine, disease, illiteracy, war?

Our Canadian problems, Mr. Speaker, are the problems of the privileged. Of course we have real and human problems in Canada. There are problems of our country's poor, aged, chronically ill, unemployed and disabled. Our Canadian society is not without misery, and it stands out more vividly and more accusingly than a mosaic of otherwise unrelieved riches. But how fortunate we are that we have the means to alleviate it. How many of our sister nations can say the same thing? What a challenge and what a responsibility for Canadians. What an incentive for the individual to be a part of this future. What an inspiration for the country to share — for there is, and there will be, so much to share with the less fortunate nations of the world. What an opportunity for us to build a civilization here unparalleled in prosperity with ideals, principles and purposes just as rich. And what a rebuke for those, in any part of Canada, who talk about splitting this country as if any of its parts, east or west, could be as great as or greater than the whole.

We have genuine differences in this country — problems affecting Canadian unity. Let us understand what they are specifically and in detail rather than on the basis of slogans and old superstitions. Let us examine them on the basis of the concept of partnership that was agreed to in 1867 and which is just as relevant today as a concept as it was then. Let us consider these problems in perspective: in the perspective of a country materially blessed by God and nature as few countries have been. Surely these material advantages impose upon us a special responsibility as Canadians not to ignore but to respect and encourage our differences of tongue and culture while building a great and unique country together.

On the question of tongues and cultures, I think anglophones and francophones have a special responsibility in this national debate: a special responsibility to vote no or to speak in support of keeping Canada together. For anglophones and francophones have a special responsibility to Canadians of other racial origin; first, to native people who were supplanted by francophones and anglophones. At a time when native rights and issues are far from settled, can we in conscience allow our country to split and allow our native people and their rights and interests to be put to sea in new hazardous and uncharted waters? Secondly, they have a responsibility to all Canadians of various races and extractions who have helped build Canada: East Indians, Chinese, Italians, Japanese, Germans and Ukrainians, to name a few. Anglophones and francophones owe a special duty to make

[ Page 2334 ]

Confederation work and to keep the country together. Relying on the representations of anglophones and francophones, they had founded a Confederation that would last and work. Others came to Canada. To them and to their succeeding generations is owed a special duty to keep Canada together and to make it work.

Canada is not in an unhappy or unhealthy shape. We are a nation of wealth, growth, vigour and laughter. We are a going concern. Let us continue the Confederation debate with this assumption. Let our concern be to make what is good better, to make what is possible reality, and to make problems challenges.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me quote from the well known historian, Professor Frank Underhill, who said this about what makes a country: "What makes men and women into a nation is not necessarily community of race, community of language, or community of religion; it is their common history and tradition, their experience of living together, their having done great things together in the past, and their determination to do great things together in the future." To my brothers and sisters in Quebec, I would remind them in asking them to vote no that all of us in Canada have done great things together in the past, and I sincerely believe we can do great things together in the future.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

MR. SKELLY: I would like to thank the previous speakers for their recent debate. However, we are approaching the time of adjournment, and I would move adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House after today.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Curtis tabled the annual return for the calendar year 1979, submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act, Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

SALARY OF
MINISTER OF TOURISM

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, yesterday the hon. first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) sought to move a motion for the adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35 on a matter of urgent public importance. In his statement of the matter the hon. member alleged that the appointment on January 10, 1980, of the Minister of Tourism "is a violation of the Constitution Act."

The hon. member's application for leave must fail on one or more of a number of grounds which are set forth in Sir Erskine May's sixteenth edition on pages 369-71 as follows:

"1. Matters which may only be debated on a substantive motion expressed in specific terms.

"2. If the matter is not raised at the earliest opportunity it fails in urgency.

"3. If the facts have only been recently revealed that does not make the occurrence recent.

"4. Must not be offered when facts are in dispute or before they are available. "

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:44 p.m.