[ Page 4333 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Motion I

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4333

Mr. Barrett –– 4337

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 4342

Mr. Macdonald –– 4346

Hon. Mr. Smith –– 4347

The House met at 9:30 a.m.

Prayers.

Orders of the Day

On Motion 1.

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

"That we, the members of the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia, reaffirming our allegiance to the Crown, our commitment to a united Canada within the Canadian federation and asserting the sovereign status of Canada as a free and independent nation, (1) support early patriation of the constitution of Canada from the United Kingdom and (2) a formula for the amendment of the constitution of Canada in respect of matters affecting federal-provincial relationships with the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces and of the Parliament of Canada."

Today in Canada, because of the substance contained in the unilateral proposals of the Trudeau government, the heritage not only of British Columbians but Canadians in other parts of our country is threatened. We as legislators are but stewards of that heritage. It is not ours to give away, it is not our right to trade it away and it is not our right to allow it to be taken away. It is our task to preserve and protect that heritage for the future, for our children and our children's children. It is a question of who will own and govern British Columbia in the future. Is it to be Ottawa? I say no. Will it continue to be the duly elected governments of British Columbia who can continue to develop that heritage for the betterment of our citizens? I say yes. Not only have these unilateral proposals caused deepening divisions in the country today by instigating disagreement within the Canadian family, but they threaten the very future of our province and will unalterably change the face of our country. They are embarking on a centralist, big-government philosophy which is foreign to our land. We are not alone in our opposition to both the substance and the process by which the Trudeau government has initiated this disastrous course. Peoples and governments across this land, now becoming aware, are rising up in protest.

This motion will restore historic practices and traditions. It will give us an opportunity to come together in unity. It will allow us to patriot our constitution — to have it in Canada — with an amending formula that, while preserving and protecting the heritage of the people of all provinces, will not demand the rigidity of unanimity that has prevented us from proceeding with desirable change. And that is rightly so.

This motion I am introducing today will allow us to get back to the conference table. It will be a means to end the confrontation.

It is my intention today to place this debate in its full and proper context. In doing that, I intend to acquaint the House with the constructive efforts in the matter of constitutional reform which this government has taken since it came to office, also to show that the unilateral action proposed by the federal government represents a serious erosion of our federal system. At the outset I need hardly reiterate the fact that we live in a country which is unparalleled in the world for the opportunities provided to its citizens, for the freedoms and democratic institutions which undergird its society, and for the great potential open to its citizens in the future.

We'd do well to remind ourselves that these accomplishments have been brought about in the context of a federal form of government. There were other choices open to the Fathers of Confederation. They could well have followed the concept of a unitary state, such as Great Britain, or the republican form of government of the United States. But because of the vast size of the country, even in 1867, they deliberately chose a federal form of government under the Crown, which provided for maximum autonomy at the provincial level on a wide range of issues of local concern. The basic characteristic of such a system is that there are two equal and coordinate levels of government, each exercising its own powers, and neither one subordinate to the other. This concept of partnership is the very essence of federalism. It is the basis on which British Columbia entered Confederation in 1871. The terms of union of that entry have been described by judicial authority as "a transaction being of the nature of a treaty between two independent bodies." It was on the basis of that kind of partnership, and in the spirit of good will, appropriate to a partnership, that my government undertook its extensive efforts towards constitutional renewal.

The current round of federal-provincial discussions originated in a proposal put forward by Prime Minister Trudeau by letter on March 31, 1976. I might add that we were a newly elected government then, Mr. Speaker, but not unaware of the commitment and responsibility we had to respond to that letter. The Prime Minister sought approval of all provincial governments to begin again the negotiating process for constitutional change. He proposed three options: the first one was simple patriation; the second one was patriation with an amending formula; the third one was patriation with an amending formula and substantial change. It is significant to note that the Prime Minister's letter clearly recognized that patriation with an amending formula could not be accomplished by the federal government unilaterally, taking a joint address to Westminster. The Prime Minister made it clear that if the federal government did proceed with patriation and an amending formula, such amending formula would only come into force when approved by the legislatures of all of the provinces of Canada.

In response, Mr. Speaker, I immediately established a Cabinet Committee on Confederation, comprised of eight ministers. Their task was to address this in important issue and to respond to the initiative of the Prime Minister. My government was prepared to support the Prime Minister's first two options: that is, simple patriation, with or without an amending formula, provided approval of the legislatures of all the provinces was obtained, My government still offers that support today. Other provinces took the position at that time that they wished substantial change to be made to the constitution, as well as patriation and an amending formula. In the spirit of the country we accommodated those desires.

Constitutional reform was the main subject for discussion at the annual Premiers' conference held that year, 1976, in Edmonton. Such was the progress among the provincial Premiers at Edmonton, and I would emphasize very strongly the fact that the provinces are able to reach agreement on constitutional matters. But a further two-day meeting of Premiers was held in Toronto on October 1 and 2, 1976, to

[ Page 4334 ]

further our efforts. I will table for the House a statement which I made upon my return to the province, following that meeting, clearly indicating the extent of provincial agreement that had been reached. Premier Lougheed, as chairman of the provincial Premiers that year, informed the Prime Minister of the progress that had been made. The federal government chose not to respond favourably to the considerable effort and agreement that had been reached among the provinces.

In November 1976, Mr. Speaker, as our government's constitutional position evolved, I published a document entitled "What is British Columbia's Position on the Constitution of Canada?" and I will table a copy of that document. It restated the province's willingness to accept the patriation of the constitution, and went on to advocate that if patriation were to be accomplished, accompanied by an amending formula, it ought to be an amending formula that recognized today's realities and the importance of British Columbia within the federation.

You will recall that the 1971 Victoria Charter amending formula would have given each of Quebec and Ontario a separate voice on constitutional amendment, and all four of the western provinces would have been lumped into one and given only one vote. We considered that to be unfair in that it failed to reflect the importance of the west in Confederation. In terms of labour force, population and capital investment, it is readily apparent that any amending formula ought to give greater weight to the west than one voice out of five, which is what the Victoria amending formula would have provided — the other four being Quebec, Ontario, the Atlantic region and the federal government. We then called for an amending formula giving the west two voices out of six in keeping with the importance of western Canada to the nation as a whole. The six would have been British Columbia, the prairie region, Ontario, Quebec, the Atlantic region and the federal government. If substantive changes were to be made to the constitution, we also called for greater representation on the major federal boards and commissions in the country, such as the Bank of Canada, the CTC and the CRTC. Unfortunately British Columbia is woefully underrepresented on such institutions.

The federal government established the Pépin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity, comprising nine outstanding Canadians who were given a broad mandate to obtain and publicize the views of Canadians regarding the state of their country, and to discover the basis for a fresh accommodation which would permit the people who inhabit this vexing and marvellous country of ours to live together in peace, harmony and liberty. My government made a formal submission to that task force, and on February 8, 1978, I presented the first brief to that committee during its two-day hearing in Vancouver. I will table a copy of that brief also, Mr. Speaker. You will see that the brief further develops the view of this government, which has been, and is, the underlying theme of all of our proposals for constitutional change, namely that the province of British Columbia is woefully underrepresented in the central institutions of the country: the Senate, the supreme court, major boards and commissions, and even the House of Commons. Our whole theme throughout has been for greater representation in these central institutions.

We do not want continued isolation. We do not want continued alienation. We do not want separation. We want to be more involved than ever in the councils of decision-making in Ottawa. Such a course would strengthen the federation. A position at the centre for the provinces is not divisive; it is unifying, and it is necessary to this country. It was quite amazing, given the concerted effort by the provinces in Edmonton and Toronto in 1976, and given the fact that the Pépin-Robarts task force had become established but not yet reported, that in June 1978 the federal government, without any substantial consultation with the provinces, introduced into the Parliament of Canada a most elaborate bill for basic changes to our constitutional structures in Canada, known as Bill C-60. On June 26, 1978, I wrote to the Prime Minister, expressing to him my serious concerns about the nature of the process of constitutional review that he proposed to follow.

Although the Prime Minister had indicated in an earlier letter that he was "committed to extensive consultation with the provinces," he was unclear as to the nature and scope of those consultations. I wrote to the Prime Minister thus:

"I would hope that the consultation process with the provinces will not be limited to your seeking merely our reaction to your proposals. Rather, I trust that the process will provide a full opportunity to the provinces to put forward their own proposals, if they so desire, to be treated at the conference table on an equal basis and with the same degree of deference as the federal proposals now made public.

"Speaking for my province, I can advise you that for many months we have been working on the development of a comprehensive set of constitutional proposals, through our Cabinet Committee on Confederation. We expect to have them finalized by later August or early September. I expect that other provincial governments are doing likewise.

"That being the case, does the consultative process which you have in mind allow for the full and proper consideration by first ministers of any and all such proposals in equal light? When phase I ultimately goes forward and becomes part of our constitution, will it represent a truly joint effort, bringing together the proposals of all governments?

"I hope that you envisage a consultation process along the lines just described. I fear that if the process is anything less — for example, a few brief meetings during the summer at the official level, followed by a single first ministers' conference in the early autumn with an agenda consisting largely of the federal proposals, followed by the introduction and passage of the legislation in Parliament shortly after the conference — then there is a good chance that the new Canadian constitution will neither have the support of many parts of the country nor contribute usefully to the lasting solution of many of our national problems.

I will table a copy of that letter.

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

"The process, as I see it, is certainly not limited to the federal government seeking merely your reaction to federal proposals. I have said repeatedly that we will welcome alternative suggestions to the various proposals contained in the constitutional bill. While our own ideas have not been arrived at lightly and have been put forward after a good deal of thought and represent our considered view, we do not in any way preclude the possibility that other ideas may be presented which could, after discussion and reflection, seem even better."

[ Page 4335 ]

Again I'm going on with the Prime Minister's answer: "The technique of using a bill as a basis for discussion is not in the least intended to shut off debate but is intended rather to facilitate a deeper discussion with a greater chance of producing results of lasting value.

Two parliamentary committees were established in Ottawa to consider the provisions of Bill C-60. I am pleased to say that our government filed a comprehensive brief before these committees. We were the only provincial government to do so. Mr. Mair, on behalf of the government, appeared before those committees to present the brief and answer questions.

In late September 1978, in advance of the first ministers' conference on the constitution in Ottawa on October 31, 1978, British Columbia published its comprehensive constitutional proposals on the following subjects: (1) an overview paper; (2) a paper supporting the concept of British Columbia as a fifth region of Canada, based on historic and economic considerations; (3) a proposal for major reform of the Canadian Senate; (4) proposals for the reform of the Supreme Court of Canada; (5) suggestions for improved instruments for federal-provincial relations; (6) a paper on the Bill of Rights in the constitution; (7) proposals regarding the distribution of legislative powers; and (8) proposals on an amending formula for the constitution.

These are the most comprehensive set of proposals put forward by any provincial government in the current round of negotiations. In fact, in his letter to me on November 20, 1978, the Prime Minister of Canada states: "The range and depth of the work you have done are really most impressive, and I do congratulate you on making this major contribution to the national debate which is now underway." Those proposals developed the underlying theme of the need for the province to be properly represented in the central institutions of the country if feelings of alienation and remoteness were to be abated.

At the first ministers' conference on the constitution held in Ottawa in late October 1978 the federal government proposed, and the provinces agreed, to establish a continuing committee of ministers on the constitution to make a concerted effort toward agreement on a range of constitutional subjects over the course of a three-month period. Meetings of this committee, on which B.C. was represented by the Hon. Mr. Mair and the Hon. Mr. Gardom, were held in Mont-Sainte-Marie, Quebec, Toronto and Vancouver leading up to a further first ministers' conference in Ottawa in February 1979. It was readily apparent to those of us involved that the tight timetable, largely imposed by the federal government, was totally unrealistic given the complexities of the issues involved.

Had there been further meetings of the Continuing Committee of Ministers and first ministers, there might well have been agreement among all governments on a range of constitutional issues. Two federal elections then intervened, and it was on June 8, 1980, that the Prime Minister requested a meeting at 24 Sussex Drive with the ten Premiers. At that meeting the Prime Minister proposed a further round of constitutional discussions involving 12 items for discussion. They were: natural resources and interprovincial trade; communications; the Upper House; the Supreme Court of Canada; fisheries; Charter of Rights; offshore resources; equalization; family law; patriation and the amending formula; a preamble, or principles of the constitution; and a twelfth item, powers over the economy. All of these subjects except powers over the economy had been discussed at previous meetings of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the constitution.

My government, under the direction of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), did a comprehensive review of our government's policy position on each one of these items. We worked hard. We worked in the honest belief that a federal-provincial agreement was possible. During this past summer four weeks of meetings of the CCMC were held in Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa.

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: We showed flexibility. We were prepared to, and did, move away from positions that we'd previously taken, in the interests of reaching an agreement. We did so in the Canadian way and in the interests of a stronger Canada. This intensive summer round of meetings was preparatory to the first ministers' conference held in Ottawa between September 8 and 12, 1980. It was our desire to negotiate with good will and in good faith, and we did just that. At the end of the five-day conference, agreement was not achieved. Agreement could, and should, have been achieved. Never have I seen a greater willingness, at least on the part of the provinces, to seek agreement, nor have I seen the provinces closer together on such a large range of issues. Unfortunately, however, the federal government did not see fit to add its support to the provincial consensus that had been reached on most of the 12 items. It is regrettable that the pleas of numerous Premiers around the table on closing day to extend the conference or to meet again at an early date were not heeded by the Prime Minister. All indications were that we must be inextricably pushed toward the Prime Minister's preconceived timetable.

At the closing session of the conference I made these observations. I will not read them all, but I did say in part — I will table this at the conclusion of my movement of this motion:

"I think we have a good chance, and the chance is not yet lost, Mr. Prime Minister. We will stay and we will talk and we will negotiate, but we will not sell out Canada — our vision of Canada, our Canada — or sacrifice any part of the country. I think we have a chance. We had a chance yesterday, when we had that agreement amongst the Premiers, and that is not lost."

We were willing to stay, and so were others, Mr. Speaker. However, that was not to be. The Prime Minister, on October 3, 1980, unveiled a proposed joint resolution to the Senate and House of Commons which provides for patriation of the BNA Act and other British constitutional documents. But it does far more than that: it proposes to put in place several amending formulae and also to make substantial changes to our constitutional arrangements. If the resolution is passed by Parliament, it is the expressed intention of the government of Canada to submit the joint address to the Queen, requesting that the British Parliament enact the provisions of a draft bill which is attached to the resolution,

[ Page 4336 ]

entitled the Canada Act, and a schedule comprising 59 sections. I deplore this unilateral action by the federal government. It is contrary to the basic concept of federalism for such basic changes to be put forward, without first having the consent or approval of the provinces affected. These proposals substantially affect the provinces. The bill of rights would diminish the powers of provincial legislatures; the various amending formulae proposed would seriously undermine existing rights of the provinces regarding amendments to the constitution. I say again, it is wholly contrary to the spirit of federalism and the partnership concept which it entails for one level of government to proceed unilaterally in this way. From the beginning of the federation, the leading public figures of this country have recognized the necessity of securing the concurrence of the provinces before any amendments affecting their rights were requested from Westminster. I will be tabling this paper of substantial argument from leading figures of our country's past. But let me quote a few, because it contains the name of Sir Wilfrid Laurier; it contains the names of the Fathers of Confederation; it contains the names of Prime Ministers and of those who were to be Prime Ministers of this country, those who have carefully guarded, preserved and protected the concept of partnership and the federal system in the past.

In 1931 — a significant date for the Statute of Westminster — the president of the Canadian Bar Association and a man who was to become Prime Minister of this country, Mr. Louis St. Laurent, said in his presidential address: "The Houses of the Dominion Parliament would have no jurisdiction to request or to consent to enactments that might extend or abridge provincial legislative autonomy." I could point out quotes from other great Canadians who have sought to preserve and protect the federal system and the partnership arrangements. The Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, at the dominion-provincial conference in 1960, said: "Over the years I have advocated that when an agreement could be arrived at between the Dominion and the provincial governments Canada should proceed, at the very earliest opportunity, to take those measures necessary to assure the amendment of our constitution in Canada" — by agreement, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Lester B. Pearson said in 1964: "We will proceed with the preparation of a resolution, submitting the proposed act to Parliament as soon as we have received confirmation from all provinces regarding the accuracy of the text and their concurrence, by their legislatures, in the substance of the proposed act." Always, Mr. Speaker, it has been by agreement. The country has been held together and built by agreement, not by unilateral action.

But I would go on and I would quote the present Prime Minister of Canada. This is during the federal-provincial conference of first ministers on the constitution in Ottawa on February 6, 1979, in response to questions from the Premiers concerning the ground rules under which the process of constitutional reform was to proceed. The Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, responded as follows:

"So will there be unilateral action by the federal government regardless of the result of this conference? Our priority would be to seek agreement and move in areas of federal and provincial concern where we could move together. But if we are not successful, I repeat, we preserve our constitutional right to change our constitution — the federal one — just as the provinces keep their right to change their provincial constitutions, and I do not think either the provinces or the federal government would want to give up that right."

That was in 1979. He goes on to say:

"Our priority is to change this constitution collectively, federal and provincial. We will adopt a charter of human rights; we will constitutionalize it. We cannot force the provinces to do it. We are trying to convince them to do it.

"I can answer unequivocally that the federal government intends to entrench a charter of basic human rights and of linguistic rights. Now this will bind the federal government; it won't bind the provinces unless they want to bind themselves."

That's what the Prime Minister said then, and that was in keeping with the statements of every Prime Minister this country has had; it was in the spirit of the country. He went on to say:

"The final question was one of unanimity. We have the rule of unanimity, says Premier Bennett" — this is Prime Minister Trudeau speaking in 1979 — "I think it is clear from what we said ourselves on Sunday night that this conference has also accepted the rule of unanimity."

Mr. Speaker, there has been a remarkable change from this commitment to our country in just a very short time since those statements in 1979.

The requirement for provincial consent is obvious. Sovereignty in any federation is divided between the two orders of government. Sovereignty is not the private preserve of the federal government. The federal government has its areas of exclusive jurisdiction, and the provinces have their area of exclusive jurisdiction. It is contrary to the basic concept of federalism for one level of government to intrude upon another. It is even more undesirable for the government of the United Kingdom to be put in the embarrassing position of having to look behind a request from the government of Canada because all the prerequisites in Canada have not been met. Such is the situation that is likely to happen.

What is the present position of the government of British Columbia? As I said at the conclusion of the first ministers' conference in September, I very much regret that the conference did not succeed. Success could yet be achieved, I am convinced, if we get back to the conference table. That is why my Minister of Intergovernmental Relations telexed all governments on November 10, 1980, reiterating my view for a return to the table and for a 60-day cooling-off period concerning the constitution and budgetary proposals of the federal government. I will table a copy of that telex.

What I proposed then I propose again now. I call upon the federal government to suspend its constitutional and budgetary proposals until ministers' conferences on these subjects can be held and agreements concluded. Negotiations and compromise leading to accord are the Canadian way, and I believe it most necessary that attempts are again made to resolve our problems through this process.

What have we done in the meantime, Mr. Speaker? Reluctantly, but very necessarily, we have combined with five other provinces to go to court in Manitoba to challenge the unilateral action of the federal government. Similar proceedings will soon be brought in Quebec and in Newfoundland, and it is the government's intention to be represented at those hearings. Additionally, reluctantly but very necessarily, we have tabled an extensive brief before a standing

[ Page 4337 ]

committee of the Parliament of the United Kingdom in response to an invitation of that committee to all interested persons to make their views known as to the proper role of the United Kingdom Parliament in the circumstances. Four other provinces have done the same.

The future of this country ought not to be bound to the personal timetable or desires of any one individual. Substantial progress has been made in constitutional talks. An agreement is within reach. What we need is a greater measure of good will and openness on the part of the federal government. We urge them to return to the conference table. We urge them to abandon their unilateral action, which would impose upon the provinces — against their will — provisions which will basically alter the constitutional structure of Canada for all time, and place upon the provinces an amending formula which is seriously opposed by most of them.

As we stated in our London submission, federalism is a fragile form of government. Its success is never assured, even in the most stable and sophisticated countries. Success flows entirely from hard work, tolerance, a willingness to compromise and faithful adherence to the framework of federalism provided in the constitution. Failure will flow inevitably from the diminution of these ingredients. The remedy for political deadlock in a federal nation cannot be unilateral action by one level of government. Rather, the remedy must be an even more dedicated search for compromise, as expressed by Prime Minister Trudeau several years ago. Cooperation and interchange between the two levels of government will be, as they have been, an absolute necessity. The government of British Columbia believes in the wisdom of those words, and says the federal government's current attempts to unilaterally change the fundamental principles of the Canadian constitution is folly and divisive and destructive. We call upon the federal government to cease in its unwise course of action, to return to the conference table, and to resolve our problems in Canada by Canadians.

Let me reiterate what I said when I opened this address. In the past, strong British Columbians have fought within our country to preserve and protect our heritage: Sir Richard McBride, a Conservative; Duff Pattullo, a Liberal; W.A.C. Bennett, a Social Crediter. Today we are fortunate to live with the results of their vigilance — a way of life and opportunity that would not be ours now if they had failed in their duty. They were not willing to trade away our heritage. They were not willing to give away our heritage. They were not willing to allow it to be taken away. Nor am 1. They had a vision and a dream for British Columbia, and so do I — a vision and a dream that cannot be realized by a centralist philosophy which is foreign and unworkable in our country.

The course we propose in this motion is not to escalate the confrontation initiated by the Trudeau government, but to stop it; to return to the conference table; to maintain the historic practices of the country; to patriate our constitution in a spirit of unity; to have an amending formula upon which we all agree and which will preserve and protect the heritage of the people in every province of this country, while ending the rigidity of unanimity on desirable change so that we can have a Canadian constitution with the opportunity for made-in-Canada changes.

Because of this, Mr. Speaker, future British Columbians will judge us all by what we say and even how we vote on this important resolution. Their future is in our hands. May God give every member the wisdom and the courage to speak for them and for our future.

Mr. Speaker, I so move.

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

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity of formally standing in my place, other than through unexpected interruptions, may I add my voice to the many welcomes of your return to the office of Speaker. I had the opportunity of visiting your constituency just the other day, and I publicly wished you well there. I hope it doesn't do you any harm in the future.

Mr. Speaker, it's very early in the morning. There's been a little bit of politics going on here, which isn't foreign to this chamber; as a matter of fact, it's part and parcel of our system that once in a while a little bit of politics creeps into the normal routine of business of this Legislature. It doesn't happen too frequently — mostly in this House everything is above politics. That is the wish and desire, I think, of all people when they start talking about issues, that they appear to be bringing to their present point of view a little bit of history that they don't want to be reminded of.

I'd like to start off by just quoting the Premier, and if my quotes are incorrect it's because I wrote them in a hurry, listening intently to him. I thought he said towards the end of his speech that he wanted a formula that brought an ending to "the rigidity of unanimity for desirable change." Mr. Speaker, I think he should have been called to order for making that statement, because it is in direct contradiction to the motion in front of us that says that unless there is absolute unanimity there be no change whatsoever.

After coming in with this motion, they tried to explain to the press, "We only want unanimity on the part that we want to be unanimous on," but today he's announced that we don't need unanimity on the parts that we desire for change. That's what the logic is of their position.

As I read the quote, and I looked through the Blues: "...ending the rigidity of the unanimity of desirable change." If that's correct, why is the second part of this motion in the motion, if they say they want unanimity on desirable change by patriation of the constitution but not unanimity on desirable change in other areas that they will be the ones to define?

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

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: That's right! I'm glad that the government agrees that there is confusion abroad, because if anybody is confused in their position, and twisting it and changing it and turning it depending on polls, it is that group over there.

Mr. Speaker, I couldn't believe my ears about some other statements. I wrote one down quickly, and if I'm quoting the Premier wrongly I would welcome correction. Did I hear him correctly to say: "What we need is a greater measure of good will"? If that's correct — and I think I heard him correctly — does calling the Prime Minister of this country "an arsonist" develop an atmosphere for greater good will? Does the highplane level of asking for good will include a continuous invective of personal insults, calling the Prime Minister an arsonist and then saying "we want a cooling-off period"? There is an inconsistency and a confusion there.

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

[ Page 4338 ]

Some weeks ago we were told there was going to be a session of this Legislature. The announcement was made by the Premier's secretary. We asked what the session was going to be all about, and we didn't know until the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) announced that the session was somehow going to deal with the constitution. Then after he got here he said to the press: "I'm not sure why it was called after all." But nonetheless, Mr. Speaker....

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

MR. BARRETT: It was what you said outside on the radio that I heard. I can't avoid punishment from him at all times, Mr. Speaker, and I prefer listening to him over the radio, considering what he does to television camera men. Mr. Speaker, I value what I've got, and quick-trigger over there gives an example of how he likes good will and unanimity: punch him out.

MR. SPEAKER: Now to the amendment.

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

There are two points that I wish to make about the amendment and unanimity. First of all, Mr. Speaker, if there was a genuine desire on the part of the government to have unanimity in this House on this single question of patriation, why not pick up the phone and call the Leader of the Opposition and say: "Mr. Leader, this is above politics, just as it was when we asked you to sign a motion handed to you in the corridor about keeping Quebec in Confederation, just when we showed that unanimity in the House when you signed that motion and we agreed to it and we had a high-level debate in this House about our unified desire to keep Quebec in Confederation. Mr. Leader, come down to my office. Let us work out the wording of a resolution to show that we are above politics and that we can have unanimity in this House. Let us both sign a resolution and bring it to this House."

It was more than acting unilaterally and dealing with the Leader of the Opposition or the opposition which, by some percentage, speaks for some part of the population — a traditional segment of the population that has varied in percentage from election to election, but is constantly rising in terms of election results. Not only did he not tell the cabinet what the session was all about, but there wasn't even the courtesy in terms of arranging for a debate that they have defined to be an important debate relating to the unity of this country and to the role of British Columbia. There wasn't even the courtesy of picking up the phone and saying: "Can we, through good will and cooperation, sit down and work out a joint resolution that will have the impact of all segments represented here in this House, as we did with Quebec."

Why was that not done, Mr. Speaker? Why wasn't an effort made to sit down and say: "What is it that we agree on; what is it that we disagree on? Let us come to this House with a compromise in the great Canadian way, with a joint resolution between the government and the opposition." Let it go on record that not one single effort was made to get unanimity in this House, let alone any other approach.

Unanimity of participation. Let us go beyond the narrow political definition of this chamber. Let us go out to those citizens out there who have delegated power and authority to this chamber. Ask them if they have been asked to participate in formulating a unanimous position to present to Ottawa. Some of my colleagues have mentioned, and I mention, Mr. Speaker, that in coming into this kind of debate it would have been worthwhile had we had a House committee travelling around the province listening to people, getting their ideas, letting citizens of this province participate, so that we could make use of an avenue of passing on to the federal government the opinion of the citizens of this province.

Do you know what happened, Mr. Speaker? The criticism I heard from the government spokespersons was: "It's too late. We were faced with a deadline of December 9, and now February 6." Mr. Speaker, I don't think those government members read the order paper. Just last session there was a motion on the order paper, presented by a member of the opposition last spring, to deal exactly with this point of participation, seeking unanimity and a broader base of support, and this motion was never called. It is an important motion to read into the record, to understand step by step how this government has been escalating what they see as a continuous fight with Ottawa, commonly defined in the press — in the vernacular — as Ottawa-bashing, outside of any effort to show any leadership in finding alternatives or building this country.

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

"That this House establish a special committee to receive and consider proposals for constitutional change in Canada, including submissions from the public, as well as constitutional opinions and reports thereon, with all convenient speed, so that the position of British Columbia with respect to these matters may reflect the interests and opinions of the people of the province as well as their elected representatives, and that this committee be struck by the selection committee and be empowered to continue its sittings and deliberations outside the times of the sitting of the Legislature. "

Unanimity, public participation, desire to let the citizens of British Columbia have a say in what's going on — this motion went on the order paper last spring. It was never called by the government; there was no intention to call this motion; they never intended to ask anybody else's opinion, other than the one they had concocted for themselves and falsely stated as represented all of British Columbia.

Was the B.C. Chamber of Commerce asked for an opinion? Was the B.C. Social Credit Party asked for an opinion? Was the B.C. Federation of Labour asked for an opinion? Were the teachers or the doctors asked for an opinion? Was any citizen considered worthy enough to be asked for an opinion — to come to a committee — so that the government, finally taking a position, could be strengthened by saying: "We asked our people what they think, how they feel and what they want, regardless of political party. We went beyond that and we said we want you all to participate." They have been unilateral in handling this debate from day one, and now they're complaining about unilateral action.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Speaker, it's reminiscent. It sounds like something that Prime Minister Trudeau would do. The very things that we hear complained about, the very decisions by the Prime Minister that moved the Premier of this province to call the

[ Page 4339 ]

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

Why not a phone call? "Hello, Dave. You remember last spring we sat down and worked out a resolution together on behalf of all the citizens of British Columbia so that I could go back and tell them that we all want you to stay in Confederation? Dave, let's work out a resolution so that I can go back to the federal government and tell them what we agree on." None of that, not a phone call, not a jingle, not even a tap on the shoulder in the hallway saying: "Would you like to participate above politics, like we did last spring?" Methinks there are politics involved. We have seen a pattern of deliberate, provocative statements being made by this government on the theme of Ottawa-bashing — escalating, de-escalating, escalating, de-escalating. The only time there's a change in escalation and de-escalation, in my opinion, is after the latest reading of polls — no other position beyond that.

In a debate we're supposed to respond to statements that are made in this House. The Premier said, as I understood it, that the Victoria Charter was no good. I don't have the original order-in-council with me, but I thought the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was in the cabinet at that time; he signed it. Alex — through you, Mr. Speaker — you hadn't made it yet. The minister who has reversed the decision in carrying the can on the Marguerite, you weren't in there yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: He was in the government.

MR. BARRETT: You were in the government. You never spoke out against the Victoria Charter. The member for Okanagan North (Hon. Mrs. Jordan) never made a peep. Her decision wasn't jaded. She never said a word. The Deputy Premier, Mrs. McCarthy, is never at a loss for words, and there was not a peep from her against W.A.C.'s position on the Victoria Charter. Up in the galleries, Mr. Shelford, he never said a word about the Victoria Charter; he was just happy to get down here in those days.

We have a complete and absolute repudiation, purely for momentary political purposes, of a decision made by the previous Social Credit government in this province. The Premier says to us — I couldn't believe it — "We want to end the rigidity of unanimity for desirable change." The question has always been: who desires what change? The Premier seems to have the fixed idea that if he desires the change, everybody else agrees with him. That spells rigidity to me. Is he trying to tell us that in the face of all the known history of this country, he's going to get unanimous agreement beyond patriation? You're not going to get it, and you know it. You can't even agree with the previous Social Credit government on an amending formula, let alone agree with opponents of yours.

I hear these pious themes, the Premier quoting his own letters to the Prime Minister. I think I wrote it correctly — I might be incorrect, as I wrote it quickly, but as I understood it he said in a letter to the Prime Minister: "I hope that your proposal process is not limited to just a consultative process." Is that what you said to the Prime Minister?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said consultative.

MR. BARRETT: Consultative. Thank you very much. "I hope that our participation is not limited to a consultative process." The very thing that he's hoping the Prime Minister would not limit it to was not even open to us as the official opposition. He's telling the Prime Minister: "Don't you come in here with a series of proposals and ask that we be consulted on your proposals." But he comes in here today and says, "Here is a motion, and you vote for it or don't vote for it," without any consultation on the role of British Columbia and Canada as he sees it. He went out to the public. He's the one who said it to the Social Credit convention. He's broadcast it, saying he wanted all British Columbians to participate. And when the chance came for participation, there was none from the citizens, none from the opposition. He unilaterally lays down a motion and says that's British Columbia's position. I say that's hogwash.

His theme about greater representation in this process.... Do you know what his greater representation is? He said that he wants more role in the Senate. How does he want more role in the Senate? He wants to appoint people to a Senate unilaterally. There's no consultation with the taxpayers or the citizens. He wants to go back to a droit de seigneur approach to government: "I'm in power and I deign you to be in the Senate." Is that what you want unanimous approval for? I will never give approval to appointing people to legislative bodies that have no accountability to citizens through the democratic process.

He supports the continuation of an appointed Senate an anachronism in this day and age of a sovereign nation. The Americans did away with it, as my colleague reminds me, in 1913. Why we have fostered and continued that hotbed of irrelevance, that hand-picked retirement boneyard for old party hacks, and call that a Senate in terms of response to the electoral needs of the people of this country, I don't know. But when you ask me to pay tax dollars to keep that Senate going, when I've never had a chance to vote for them, then I say nay, nay, nay — never!

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

MR. BARRETT: In part of his argument he says that we're underrepresented in Ottawa. Could it be that part of the reason is that some people don't even care enough about the Canadian government to bother to vote? Could it be that some people have such disdain for the democratic process in the selection of government that when it comes time to act in civic responsibility leading to that hope for unanimity by participation in the democratic process, Hawaii calls more than the ballot box. Actions are a terrible betrayer of intentions and commitments, Mr. Speaker. Running away again, even from a federal election and then saying we are underrepresented in the House of Commons. Run away, run away, run away. He can't even find his way to a ballot box, and he has the nerve to stand up in this House and say we are underrepresented in Ottawa. What a showpiece of statesmanship for the many thousands of young children who are now witnessing their teachers demonstrating today on the issue of the constitution. Yes, Mr. Speaker, what a demonstration for those children to know that the Premier didn't even bother to vote, but he is going to tell the federal government what he thinks because he claims they are underrepresented. Why didn't you vote?

Interjection.

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

[ Page 4340 ]

don't bother to vote; you want unanimity on your position and yours alone; you don't consult the citizens of British Columbia; you don't pick up the phone and call the opposition. You, who yell across the floor: "taking the high road," I'll tell you what road to take, Mr. Speaker. If you believe everything you've done is the right course in terms of British Columbia's role in the constitutional debate and building Canada, not bashing it, then take your proposals and take your record, on this issue or any other, to the people of British Columbia right now and let them decide whether or not it is the high road.

AN HON. MEMBER: You made the challenge.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province laid down the challenge. The Premier of this province said all along that we wanted unanimity, we wanted the position to speak for all British Columbians, we wanted to be able to say to the federal government that we've got the backing of all British Columbians — no consultation, disdain for Ottawa or insults to the Prime Minister, whose policies I do not agree with and whose person has the respect for being a person in office. Something the Premier of this province has never understood is that the office commands respect.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will remind the Premier of his behavior in opposition when a certain threat was made on my life. What was his high-level response? He had to be reprimanded in a newspaper editorial over it. That man of statesmanship said: "Well, he brought it on himself. " Is that statesmanship? Is that showing a pattern of responsibility and understanding that the office is delegated by the vote of the people? Calling the Prime Minister an arsonist, Ottawa bashing for months, taking an intransigent position, not consulting anyone, and then saying: "That's it, take it or leave it." Well, that's my challenge in response to his challenge. He called us here; this is his session; he's the one who wanted this; this is his motion. We are opposed to it. We've thrown the gauntlet right back at him. Take it to the people and let them decide what they think, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, we have had a serious series of problems in this country well beyond the constitution. I have been quoted many times — for those who are interested in repeating my quotes — as having said that if I had my druthers, I'd druther we weren't in this constitutional debate. However, the government that is in office said clearly that if elected they were going to deal with the constitution. What are they guilty of? They are guilty of keeping an election promise. That's why we have this debate in this House. That's why we have this debate across the country. I wouldn't have made it a priority in an election campaign, but they did. They kept their promise.

In 1975, Mr. Speaker, in terms of a charter of rights related to this amendment, that Leader of the Opposition, as he was then, made a promise to the people of British Columbia that they would have a charter of rights. He was elected in 1975. Where is the charter of rights that he promised to the people of British Columbia five years ago? Five years ago today and not one whit of action has taken place on his promise to have a charter of rights for British Columbians. Do you just say things in election campaigns because they spring out of your mouth or is there a commitment? You talked here today about the loss of power at the provincial legislature level with a federal Bill of Rights. You promised a provincial one. Where is it? I'd like to ask these questions, Mr. Speaker. What is it in the Bill of Rights that the province feels it would lose power over?

It scares me when they talk that way about a bill of rights. I can understand the legal argument amongst lawyers, in terms of suggesting that common law may be a better approach to deal with rights. But as I understand it, no one has before suggested in this debate that the provinces might not agree with the rights that the federal government is talking about. What are these legal rights that they're afraid somebody will interfere with? The most frightening statement made by the Premier today was the very statement that I refer to, Mr. Speaker, that somehow the federal government would take away their authority in these rights: the rights to life, liberty, security; the right not to be deprived of the principles of fundamental justice; the right to be secure against search and seizure, except in accordance with the procedures established by law; the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned; the right to free speech.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, when that Premier stands up and tells us that there is going to be some interference in the province's dispensation of these rights, it has a slight smell. It reminds me of previous Houses, of what is euphemistically known as "Gracie's Finger." Is Ottawa going to interfere on redistribution of boundaries? Is that what they're afraid of? It reminds me of the catalogue of interferences in the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Williams') department that are now before the court, as I understand it. There's a whole host of questionable actions by a government, with no recourse. And then they're so scared about it that they're worried that Ottawa is going to take away these fundamental rights. Or Ottawa may guarantee those fundamental rights, Mr. Speaker. Is that what they're really worried about?

Somebody down in Ottawa may say: "No matter where you live in this great country of ours.... We agree with John Diefenbaker. We're going to take his charter of rights and entrench it in a bill of rights." Could John Diefenbaker have been all that wrong, Mr. Speaker? Not at all. They're talking about embedding rights, not taking them away. Your arguments raise a whiff of fear in terms of your past performance as a government.

Mr. Speaker, there were so many other contradictory quotes that the Premier made, that I've got them scattered all over here. What's unanimity now? Does he think René Levesque is going to give him unanimity? Does he think Peter Lougheed is going to let him say aye to the unanimity position? There's that infamous meeting of the two cabinets, where the Alberta cabinet dominated this group, and we ended up being water boys to the main team. When phone calls were made about statements and agreements that came out of that in terms of seeking unanimity, the Alberta cabinet minister said: "No, that's not the way it was. This is the way it is, and this is the way it's going to be." No position taken by B.C.; just a tack-on, hang-on, hope-for-the-best with the Premier of Alberta's image in terms of trying to formulate a position. Ottawa-bashing, Canada-bashing; and then he says: "Compromise. Peace and love." "Arsonists." "But

[ Page 4341 ]

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

I referred earlier to a unanimous amendment we had in this House, and that unanimous amendment brought about the Premier going to the province of Quebec and speaking in Montreal. I don't know who wrote that speech for the Premier, but it was a good speech. Mr. Speaker, is the Premier really familiar with Montaigne? Do you know who Montaigne is? I was impressed that the Premier quoted from Montaigne, Mr. Speaker. I was impressed that in the approach the Premier had taken he did refer to what history has proven to be one of the most provocative and thoughtful essayists, Montaigne.

What a beautiful quote the Premier selected. The quote which the Premier gave us is in Hansard, which was used again May 7, 1980, was this: "Those who give the first shock to a state are the first overwhelmed in its ruin." That's a very thoughtful statement. But is there any evidence that the Premier of British Columbia was committed to Montaigne's philosophy? After saying this in May he called the Prime Minister an arsonist, he continued on a course of Canada-bashing, then he arrived here today with no consultation with the citizens of British Columbia and demanded that he have his way in Canada-building or else. "If we don't have unanimity, if we don't have what I agree is desirable change, there will be no change whatsoever." That's hardly in the spirit of Montaigne, yet it was the Premier who committed himself to Montaigne's words. And I'll come back to Montaigne in a moment.

Mr. Speaker, here we are in December, in this short session that we all wondered what was all about. There was some speculation in one of the newspapers that this was an attempt to embarrass Ottawa by the December 9 closing day of the committee. Lo and behold, the mysterious forces of democracy were at work again, politicians began to shift ground, and that federal committee that was to close on December 9 is now going to be continued for two months. Hurray for Joe Clark! Hurray for Ed Broadbent! Hurray for Prime Minister Trudeau! Hurray for democracy! We're going to have another 60 days for consultation, input and participation, the very thing our Premier wants. Hallelujah!

Yet, Mr. Speaker, did we hear one word today that the Premier is committing himself to go down to that committee and present his position in Ottawa? Not a word. The forces of democracy that opened that committee, that responded to the demands for more time, gave more time, committed more time. His bluff was called and he hasn't even said today that he is going to go down and speak for his own position. He's not going to go to Ottawa. He's not going to do anything more. His whole game of Ottawa-bashing has been exposed, and while his bluff is called in Ottawa — not purely on the basis of his needs — and the committee is extended for two months, to my knowledge he hasn't asked for time on the agenda to go to that committee to give his case to the representatives of parliament, not only from British Columbia.

Underrepresented, he says. It's his chance to go to Ottawa. Why didn't he stand up and say he welcomed some shifting of attitude in that spirit of compromise he spoke about today? Why didn't he, for once, drop the gauntlet and say: "We're making progress; times are cooling down. There is a greater consultative thing going on, and I'll go to Ottawa and participate"?

MR. MACDONALD: He went to London instead.

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

MR. MACDONALD: He sent two people to London.

MR. BARRETT: He sent two people to London and hired a lawyer. He showed that he really believes that we are still a colony by that particular action, in my opinion; we're still a colony running to London, Mr. Speaker, on that basis.

MR. MACDONALD: We are a grown country now.

MR. BARRETT: We are a grown country, Mr. Speaker. In March 1924 one of the first motions that went on the order paper for unilateral patriation, alone — no other ifs, ands or buts about it — was by the Rev. J. S. Woodsworth in the House of Commons. Has he ever taken that simple position, Mr. Speaker, and presented that to Ottawa? Not on your life.

Mr. Speaker, on and on it goes in contradiction and confusion. On and on it goes almost like a spoiled, whining voice saying: "If I can't have my way, nothing will be done.'' On and on it goes, insulting people in elected office and then immediately saying: "Oh, well, I want the temperature to cool down." On and on he goes, making bellicose statements to his own convention and to the press, about Ottawa and what he's going to do in this chamber, and then when his bluff is called there is no approach to the people, no approach to go back to Ottawa and appear before that committee.

It's just politics, not to be unforgiving. It occasionally happens in this House, but on rare occasions, too, we have had unanimity when opposition and government have been asked to work together quietly over a single resolution. That was done on Quebec — not in the form that I would like, but at least I got to sign a motion on the way into the House. There was no consultation with the opposition, no consultation with the people, just a hard-line position, ram it home, only to be called on another bluff by circumstances in Ottawa — the committee is going to sit two more months, and there's no commitment from the Premier, after having that bluff called, of going to Ottawa.

We're not here testing who's a better Canadian or a worse Canadian. What we are really here for is to debate a series of events leading to this country growing up. This country is in its adolescent phase and, like all adolescents, the country is going through wide ranges of emotions, feelings and attitudes. The opinions expressed by the citizens of Quebec and the opinions expressed by the people of British Columbia and the opinions expressed by everybody in between are part and parcel of a nation building. It is important for people to stand back on occasion and understand those processes of growth, those developments in a nation. In understanding the process of growth and the development of a nation, any rigidity that demands "my way or else" doesn't add a single bit to that growth. When all's said and done, 100 years from now the most we can hope for is that some poor child in the curriculum will be forced to read about some of these debates that took place.

The last time Sir Richard McBride was invoked was on the same Santayana theme that when in trouble, the last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism. We're not at that point. We don't have to be. We've never been an ultra-

[ Page 4342 ]

nationalistic, ultra-flag-waving, ultra-committed people to some form of mythical patriotism. In this country we've always known what we don't want to be. We've always had examples that have been easy to judge in saying we don't want to be like this country or we don't want to be like that country. But when we're asked, as Canadians, what we want to be, we say we're not sure yet. That's good. We've only come a short way in 100 years. Over you, Mr. Speaker, carved in the Speaker's chair when this very chamber was opened, just some 83 years ago.... As a Clerk in the chamber of this House we had a gentleman who lived, until his departure some years ago, almost as long as the life of this province. He'd seen it all come and go in this chamber; he'd heard it all before. That's how young we are.

There is hope out there. There is a desire to build. There is a desire to change. We worked through our nationhood through two wars, one of which my father served in, one of which he spoke of with bitter memory. But in terms of the participation in those wars, we were told through history that Canada had carved out its own unique role as a nation no longer suckling at the breast of the mother country. We're now asking to confirm in law what we won a long time ago — our own independence and freedom as a country. We do not need to go, cap in hand, to London and ask for patriation with conditions or anything else. Prime Minister Thatcher has made it very clear what her position is going to be. When the legitimate government of the day asks for patriation, she's going to give it. Otherwise it would be a betrayal to every citizen who fought for this country or who built this nation as a nation. Any other position would be a betrayal.

In that spirit we're now asked, as a family of provinces and as a group of peoples from all backgrounds, especially those people who were not born in this country but who chose to become citizens.... They understand this country more than some of us who were born here. They know why they came here. Those of us who were born here were lucky by accident of fate. They don't want to see this country ripped apart. They have an allegiance to Canada and to their provinces. When I walk around my constituency in Vancouver East and speak to people who are from Yugoslavia, Italy, Germany, Taiwan and other countries in the world, they appear fearful and confused over what this debate is all about. They love British Columbia, but they know Canada is their country. They know that very clearly. No provincial government can be a substitute for a federal government. It is a partnership. The federal government is the country.

I say to you, Mr. Speaker, this is my home; I was born here; I have had opportunities unparalleled for any immigrant son from a second generation away, as all of us were eventually immigrant sons. I tell you this: as much as I will fight tooth and nail for my views and my vision and my hope for British Columbia, I will never fight on the terms of not understanding that Canada is my country and I'm a Canadian first. Let's understand that.

Politicians come and go. Prime Minister Trudeau has come and gone and come again, but someday he will be gone forever — not the Liberal Party. Someday Barrett will be gone forever — later, I hope, rather than sooner. Someday Bennett will be gone, sooner or later. We are just the actors on the stage for a very brief period of time in nation-building.

This stuff is not great rhetoric for the hustings, Mr. Speaker. This is not the stuff and guts of campaign fights that swell the crowds. This is the stuff where we can set aside, for some few brief moments, a hope and a dream together about building a country. We have not been given that opportunity by this government — not at all.

How can we support this resolution, which I suspect is more than a little bit politically motivated, more than a little bit a continuing of Canada-bashing, more than a little bit provocative, in an attempt to find political ground of safety rather than building? The bluff has been called. Two more months in Ottawa — will the Premier go to the committee? We're going to oppose this rigid, uncompromising position.

Mr. Speaker, we're asking the government to ensure that when the vote comes our vote is recorded. If they really believe that their position is what all British Columbia believes, then let them take it to the ultimate test. In effect, Mr. Speaker, in a vernacular that is probably more appropriate for this House than any other place, put up or shut up.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am most pleased to take part in this debate today on the resolution that is, I think quite appropriately, before the members of this House. I think it is important for members who sit here at least to make an attempt to understand what the resolution says. When the resolution was first placed before this House there was a misinterpretation, unfortunately, by certain members of the media — not intentional, but only because the language was misinterpreted. Then we heard from other members on the opposite side of this House parroting the interpretation given to the resolution by certain members of the media. Today we have a further elaboration of that by the Leader of the Opposition as to how contradictory this resolution is with respect to the speech given by the Premier today.

The resolution is not contradictory; it is very clear. It asks, in part, that there be unanimity in developing an amending formula for the constitution of Canada. It asks that the legislative assemblies and the Parliament of Canada agree on a formula to amend the constitution further. Not only is that not difficult to understand; it also reflects the history and the traditions of our country. The Leader of the Opposition today said that we can't expect unanimity among the provinces. One other member suggested Quebec would never agree. Somebody else took a shot at individual Premiers who may or may not agree — Levesque was mentioned.

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that the persons we choose in our country to lead provincial governments are persons of integrity, and the persons we choose to lead our Parliament in Canada are persons of integrity. I believe that these people, duly elected by their constituents, have the capacity, the ability and the desire to reach unanimity, if it's necessary to ensure that modifications to the amendment of the Canadian constitution can occur in the future as needed. To suggest that they can't do it is either ignoring the realities of life, questioning the integrity of our leaders, or perhaps simply prophesying for other purposes, perhaps to suggest to people that they know more than anyone else does.

A great deal has been done over the years in our country to try to establish a formula whereby Canada can amend its own constitution and not in any way appear to be subservient to a foreign nation. A great deal has been done and a great number of amendments have occurred — I think in excess of 20. Those amendments, which associate with federal-provincial relationships, have occurred with the consultation and approval of the provinces. To suggest it can't be done is ignoring that it has been done, and it has been done on more than one occasion.

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

[ Page 4343 ]

position. We have greater strength today than perhaps previously when amendments were approved with the consent of all the provinces who would be affected by it. The integrity is there, and the desire is there to reach consensus. It's unfortunate that some members perhaps didn't take the time or have the interest to pay attention to the debates which were going on in our country for a long period of time, culminating in the meeting in Ottawa last September which was televised, well reported and deeply frustrating to those who took part. We had quotes today by the Premier with references to communications between himself and the Prime Minister where the Prime Minister of Canada clearly indicated that if there are to be changes which affect the provinces, those changes will occur after agreement has been reached among the provinces and the federal government. That theme or concept was echoed in the past by other Prime Ministers of Canada, by Premiers of previous times in Canada, by Premiers of today. If we are to discuss amendments which will affect the relationships between the provinces and the federal government, then we seek unanimity. In our resolution, put forward by the hon. Premier, it asks that a formula for amendments to the constitution be one with the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces and the Parliament of Canada. It is traditional in our country to do that. I would suggest that a person is offering a disservice to our country, our provinces and our people to suggest, in some pious way, that it can't be done. It can be done, it has been done, and it probably will be done.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Reference was made to rigidity, the undesirable aspects of having a rigid position with respect to the resolution which is before us. Yet no reference was made to the undesirable aspects of a similar position by the Prime Minister of Canada, a Prime Minister who, within the past year, had communicated to the provinces and said: "We respect your sovereignty, but we also respect our sovereignty. Where we're dealing with matters that deal with federal powers, we believe we have authority to make such amendments. But where we're dealing with matters affecting provincial powers, we believe you retain that authority." Now the same Prime Minister has said: "Thank you for coming to Ottawa. Thank you for spending five or six days in negotiation, but the script's already written." It was written in August, the month previous to that dreadful conference. The answers were already there; they were prepared and even distributed — surreptitiously, but they were distributed. The 64 pages are here. The plan was already in progress. We knew before the debates even began that the federal government had contingency plans in the event that agreement was reached, not reached or, perhaps, some form of compromise was achieved.

Among the more quotable sections of this intriguing document was:

"The challenge now lies with the federal government to try to bring out the agreement on a package which appears to be within reach, and failing this, to show that disagreement leading to unilateral federal action is the result of an impossibly cumbersome process or the intransigence of the provincial governments, and not the fault of the federal government."

This was before the meetings took place. It's repeated throughout this document. It's the cynicism of this type of negotiation.

Mr. Speaker, the delegation from British Columbia went to that conference in good faith and in an attempt to achieve consensus or agreement on a number of issues — a number of issues which were not of our choosing, but were suggested to us by the Prime Minister of Canada — and we concurred that we would offer our opinion on those positions, and we agreed that we would work with the other provinces and with the other governments in an attempt to achieve accord. Strangely enough, contrary to what the Leader of the Opposition suggested today, consensus was achieved on a number of issues. Unfortunately, when that ten-province consensus was presented to the Prime Minister, he chose to veto that consensus and said: "No, we won’t accept it." The Prime Minister offered several formulas. In one instance he summed it up by saying: "Seven provinces agree, three don't, the federal government does — it looks like we can do it." On another occasion he said: "Four provinces agree, six do not, the federal government does — it looks like we can do it." And in other circumstances he said: "Ten provinces agree, the federal government does not — it appears we can't achieve it." The Prime Minister quite correctly told the delegations that we all had one vote — each province has one vote — for a total of ten, and the federal government has ten votes, for a total of....

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, and the chairman can vote twice.

Mr. Speaker, I am rather distressed — but only mildly so — today that the debate entered into partisan politics. I thought the speech offered by the Premier was nonpolitical. I thought it was an attempt to place in perspective the historical significance of British Columbia's role in Confederation, addressed to a particular problem which is before us in Canada today. The Leader of the Opposition suggested that it was all politics; he suggested that one should respect I office." I presume — and I am not putting words in his mouth — that he does not include the office of the Premier of British Columbia, when he calls for respect for the office. He suggested that our Premier was to be chided for calling the Prime Minister of Canada an arsonist.

In his speech today the Premier made reference to quotations of past leaders — past Prime Ministers in the country and others. Perhaps — to be more understandable, Mr. Speaker — the Premier today, when he referred to Prime Minister Trudeau as being an arsonist, may have in some way been quoting a former leader in that context. Perhaps the thought stayed in his mind and was used again. Four years ago today — five years ago today, I guess it was election time, and five years and a day ago it snowed like you know what — in 1976, perhaps the Premier was reading some material, and he may have come across this, which is from Halifax. "Barrett" — Leader of the Opposition at the time — "said: 'Prime Minister Trudeau's attitude toward the Parti Quebecois election was disappointing. The Prime Minister was saying that Canadians should keep calm and cool, yet he says we have a crisis'." It goes on to quote Mr. Barrett as saying: "The analogy I make is that one of the fellow who goes out and sets his own outhouse on fire and then comes in promising to put out the conflagration he has created." Well, I don't know. Does that mean he is an arsonist or does it mean he had someone's permission to set his outhouse on fire?

[ Page 4344 ]

We are asking the Prime Minister of Canada and the government of Canada to reconsider their unilateral action to bring about changes in our country — changes which will be with us for many, many years. We are suggesting that this House support early patriation of the constitution from the United Kingdom. Probably very few people in the country would disagree with that desire. We are asking that a formula for future amendments to the constitution of Canada be developed with the consent of the Legislatures of the provinces and the Parliament of Canada. Once that has been achieved, once the rules have been agreed upon, then future amendments can be made in Canada by Canadians with prior agreement as to how the formula works. And we can all agree to that.

Who knows what that formula may be? The ten provinces and the federal government could say that the formula we all support is unanimity; they could say that. They could say that it is the Victoria Charter; they could say that it is the Vancouver formula or they could say it's something else that's been suggested. We're saying that if we're going to develop a formula that will affect our province, that will affect every province and affect every citizen of the country of Canada, then surely if we're going to develop that formula, let's agree on what that formula should be. To suggest that can't be achieved is suggesting that Canadians lack integrity, lack desire and purpose, and I will not accept that.

We are saying that the Prime Minister has erred in judgment in taking it upon himself, within his own self-imposed timetable, to achieve certain aspects with respect to the constitution. We say there is no rush, there is no panic. There is a desire, yes, and we share in that desire. There doesn't have to be a timetable dreamed up to coincide with the anniversary of Canada's founding. We'll have another July next year, the year after and the year after. There's nothing magic in saying it has to be achieved by July 1, 1981. We're going to be around after that, I hope. Probably many of us will still be involved in public life after July 1, 1981. The Prime Minister may not be, because he said he plans to leave. But we shouldn't attempt to achieve changes in Canada's constitution, changes in the fabric of this nation, simply because it's convenient for a person who is going to retire from his job. He hasn't earned that right. He doesn't have the capacity to make such demands. It is the people of this nation with whom we must be concerned, not the individual ambitions of one person, no matter how bright or ambitious that person may be. We are asking very clearly: let's sit down and let's discuss in good faith the changes we feel are needed for our country.

It was an amazing education for many people back in Ottawa last September when the ten Premiers had the opportunity of sitting down and discussing various issues — the flexibility of the leaders of our provinces in recognizing and appreciating one another's points of view, and being able to achieve consensus or unanimity on some issues, which is perhaps rare in Canada, but perhaps may not be that rare in the future. There were those who suggested, yes, we could agree on many issues; unfortunately, the Prime Minister was not one. We made it very clear in Ottawa that we respected the individuality and the sovereignty of the provinces. We made it very clear that we did not intend to sacrifice a region or a province of the country to obtain something in which perhaps we had a greater interest than they, and that was reciprocated by some of the provinces. It was a very worthwhile attempt to resolve the problem. We said at that conference: "All right, we didn't achieve what we came here to achieve. It's not that it's unobtainable, but we didn't achieve it this time. Let's continue to talk."

In this ridiculous document which was prepared in advance of that conference, it is suggested that the federal government might look good if they suggested: "Let's stay here and keep talking. " But they rejected that. We suggested we stay there and keep talking, and they said: "No, it's all over. Too bad we didn't get together, but it's all over. We are going to do our thing our way now, as outlined in this document." That was prepared before the discussions even began, including prepared television ads to advise Canadians how unfortunate it was that we couldn't get along, even before we knew we couldn't. As a matter of fact, some of us thought we were getting along, but that was not to be the case. The geese went into reverse.

As I mentioned earlier, I find it unfortunate that some pretty silly political references were made today. Here is the leader of a party who advised this House last year that they stick together like you know what. Whether it's the provincial party, the federal party, the municipal party, whether it's the party here, in Saskatchewan, Alberta, New Brunswick, wherever, or federally, they stick together. Well, we have suggested that, rather than unilateral action on the part of the federal government, we consult, discuss, talk about it, and see if we can solve it. So does the NDP. They agree with that. At least they agree with it in Ottawa. Prior to the conference, they presented a policy resolution of the federal New Democratic Party, which said in part that if by the end of the first ministers' conference there was deadlock and no prospect of success through the first ministers' negotiating process alone, in place of unilateral action, which could be divisive, "we recommend a new round of deliberations be started almost immediately."

Interjection.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Well, somebody in Ottawa.

The question, Mr. Speaker, is very grave and very serious in Canada today. It's unclear when it all began about the need for these amendments, patriation — the contemporary need for it. It is suggested that it was a chance remark by a Tory member in the House one day, and the Prime Minister thought: "That's not a bad idea; it might even become a good campaign suggestion." The timetable has not been proved to many people in this country as being as essential and precise as the Prime Minister suggests. The Leader of the Opposition today said: "There is confusion abroad." You don't have to go very far to know where "abroad" is: it's across the floor.

The seriousness of the consequences of amending the constitution is very real. The traditions upon which our country is based are very, very important. The traditions suggest — through the works of scholars or lawyers, or the odd scholarly lawyer — that tradition in Canada says unanimity not only can be achieved but has been and should be achieved. The academics agree with historical references on this. The need for changing the constitution probably is primarily to satisfy the pride of a nation — that is, we are in charge of out own affairs. I share that desire. To do so by July I next year is very questionable and not proved.

To amend the constitution in Canada, I think, is achievable and desirable. However, I believe it is wrong to do it in a unilateral fashion which would remove British Columbia's opportunity to be involved in that process. The alienation

[ Page 4345 ]

which can be created by unilateral action on the part of the federal government is very serious indeed.

The Leader of the Opposition referred to polls. When polls go for you, you refer to them and speak about the integrity of polls; when they don't, then you refer to them and speak about their failings. The Gallup Poll, a favourite instrument of the federal Prime Minister, suggests that by a ratio of two to one Canadians are not supporting the concept of unilateral action by the Prime Minister. In British Columbia 61 percent of those polled said: "It is wrong." The NDP, according to their leader, says: "The people are wrong, because we do not support this resolution. We're going to vote against this resolution" — this resolution which is asking Ottawa: "Don't do it on your own."

Mr. Speaker, references have been made, and I'm sure further references will be made by people who have studied the history of our country, the history of British Columbia's entry into Canada, and I think they will clearly indicate that we have a unique formula in this country. We entered Canada; we joined Canada. We may have been a junior partner, but we were a partner. We did not give up our authorities, our responsibilities and our privileges; we came with them, and we retained them. The federal government has a role to play in our Confederation, as the provinces have a role to play. We're not asking that they be changed; we're asking that they be retained. If the federal government were successful in not only patriating the constitution and having an amending formula, but also in specifics they've asked for, we don't know what that might mean to British Columbia's capability of being sovereign in areas in which traditionally it has had authority.

It's important, Mr. Speaker, even though most Canadians would not spend a great deal of time paying attention to this type of debate and maybe the subject. Many Canadians are speaking about this today, however, Canadians who have spent a considerable amount of time examining this problem.

With respect to the amending formula, I can read some words to you. It says: "We already have an amending formula in Canada. The conventional rule has grown up that with respect to any amendment which affects the division of legislative jurisdiction between Parliament and the provincial legislatures or reduces their legislative jurisdiction, then the consent of Parliament and of all the provinces is necessary." The consent of Parliament and of all the provinces is necessary: that's what we say in our resolution. We are speaking about federal-provincial relationships. This person, who is a lawyer and somewhat of a scholar — he was a Rhodes scholar — says:

"...the convention or rule has grown up that with respect to any amendment which affects the division of legislative jurisdiction between parliament and the provincial legislatures, or reduces their legislative jurisdiction, then the consent of parliament and of all the provinces is necessary before a request is made to the British parliament to change the BNA Act. The BNA Act contains two lists: one, the laws that the federal government can pass, and the other of the laws that the provincial governments can pass. If, by a proposed change, any subject is moved from one list to the other or struck off either list, then the consent of all eleven governments is required to make the change."

So goes the rule.

It's recognized in our country today that while not all matters may be contained in the constitution, or even in our statutes, there are traditions which are respected. There are rules of common law which are known. That's how our country functions and that's how it has always functioned.

These statements, which fully, completely and quite eloquently support this resolution, were made by a person who took part in that constitutional debate in Ottawa last September. When he is not taking part in constitutional debates, he's the Premier of Saskatchewan and he belongs to the NDP, Hon. Allan Blakeney. He understands this. Unfortunately the leader of the NDP in British Columbia probably has not yet read the resolution, or asked even for minimum interpretation as to what the resolution says. It's not good enough to use your basis of research and interpretation of a resolution on a misinterpretation by a reporter.

Mr. Speaker, I believe it would be desirable if unanimous approval were given to this motion. I sincerely believe if politics were not part of it we could achieve that in this chamber. But I don't think it is vitally urgent or vitally important. This motion should be passed in this chamber, and I'm sure it will be passed. If members of the opposite side don't wish to approve it, fine. If they wish to make it a political situation, fine. As the Leader of the Opposition said, sometimes politics enters into these debates.

But, Mr. Speaker, I think it is vitally important for the people of our province to appreciate that this matter is serious. It has been given serious attention by this government for a number of years. We did take our part in the negotiating process which is known to this country. We not only took part, we offered our suggestions, our solutions and our resolutions to the problems placed before the various provinces. We believe in that system. We believe it can accomplish a great deal. We believe it can achieve consensus and the desires of the people of our country.

I find it disheartening to hear members of this chamber refer to individual Premiers, prejudging their capability in achieving unanimity or consensus with their fellow Premiers. Perhaps it's because they have a very limited association with these ten leaders of our country. I believe that it is not only possible to achieve a great deal of consensus and unanimity with the various Premiers in Canada, but that it is very likely to occur.

Premiers of today, Premiers of yesterday, Prime Ministers of today, Prime Ministers of yesterday and other people who were involved in elected public life, but not necessarily achieving either the job of Premier or Prime Minister, have stated repeatedly over the years the unique nature of Canada with reference to its constitution and how changes can and should be made. We're not asking that that idea be changed. We are asking that that idea be used once again to achieve a formula whereby future amendments to a constitution, which is in Canadian hands, can be made to resolve some of the problems in our country today and in the future.

Mr. Speaker, we too on this side are proud Canadians, as has been suggested when the flag was waved a while ago. We're proud Canadians; we're proud British Columbians; we're proud people; we're proud individuals; we're proud of our constituencies, our municipalities, our cities, our families and everything else. It's not an exclusive right or privilege of one party or one side of the House. Wave the flag all you want. It has been suggested that we, as Canadians, are not as patriotic as others. Well, we may not be as nationalistic as some, but we are certainly patriotic.

[ Page 4346 ]

Mr. Speaker, this is not a question of patriotism; it's not a question of partisan politics. It's a question of a very serious problem facing our nation, and it's a question of the government responding to that serious problem in a very legitimate, intelligent way. Members of this assembly have the opportunity to vote on this motion. If they say no, then the motion fails, but I'm sure the majority will say yes. I see nowhere in this resolution where it suggests that unanimous consent must be achieved so the motion can pass without unanimity here in this chamber. Those are the rules of the game, and it will pass, I'm sure. I would recommend to all in this chamber that they stand up and be counted and say yes, this motion should pass.

I look forward to hearing from other speakers who have studied this problem and can offer some specific information on many of the issues that are covered by the resolution.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'm just going to make a few remarks, because I thought the speech of the Leader of the Opposition was one of the best he's ever given in this House. He was right on the point in terms of what's happening in Canada, and he challenged them to take the matter to the people and not just guffaw, as the former Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) likes to do.

The fact of the matter is that the constitutional process in Canada is simply in midstream at the present time. There has been no formulation either of the Bill of Rights or of the amending formula, and the duty of the government of the province of British Columbia is to go down to the joint committee in Ottawa and attempt to improve the package, to fight for the rights and interests of this province of British Columbia. This they have signally failed to do.

The Premier has, almost in a pouting manner, refused to go to a joint Canadian committee that is going to formulate a resolution that is going to London. I ask him directly this morning, because I think we should know this: will the Premier agree to go down and make representations to that committee, as Premier Blakeney is going to do?

HON. MR. GARDOM: He backed out.

MR. MACDONALD: No, he has changed his schedule, but he is going down. You think it's a big joke, but he changed his schedule in view of the extension of the time of the hearings, which is perfectly logical. I ask this government whether or not they are prepared to fight this much for British Columbia — that they will at least go to the joint committee and state what the interests and needs of this province and of the west are. Are you going to just default on the whole process of constitutional change, which is going forward whether you like it or not?

I agree with the Leader of the Opposition — I don't think Trudeau should have embarked on this course at all. There's nothing more divisive or acrimonious than a debate about constitutions or the bylaws of a small association, as we all know. But he has. The Prime Minister of Canada has embarked on a change in terms of getting the patriation of the constitution and a few other matters which should not meet the opposition of this House, such as the Bill of Rights.

I listened to the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), and he was talking about the iniquity, in effect, of entrenching the Bill of Rights.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I did not!

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you criticized the entrenching of the Bill of Rights....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You weren't even in here!

MR. MACDONALD: I heard your speech and I read it in the Blues.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You heard it in the Blues?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, you got me there, Mr. Premier, eh? You've had so many stumbleburn affairs...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: ...with the dictionary yourself that I have no objection to your catching me out. I heard it in the Blues, just as if I'd seen it on television.

What the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations has never told this House or the people is what he objects to about the entrenchment of certain basic democratic rights in the federal constitution. Which one are you against? I'm going to challenge you to come out and tell the House, if you're going to speak in this debate. Are you against the general statement about life, liberty and security of the person, the freedom of expression sections, the expressions relating to the administration of justice? Just what is it that this government fears? What particular right are you afraid of if it should be entrenched in the constitution?

What this government is doing is almost by default. It's refusing to fight for the interests of British Columbia, going to London on a mission impossible....

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not what they think in London.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, yes, it is. It's exactly what Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher has told you after you sent two of your people there. She has told you....

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll tell you what she told you. She has told you that if Canada is a country that says it's an independent country, then why doesn't it settle its own affairs. Whether you have a Bill of Rights or whether you have an amending formula of this or that is something for you grown-up Canadians to decide for yourselves. Maggie sent your messengers home. To go to London on that kind of mission impossible, asking the British government to, in effect, interfere in Canadian affairs, and refusing to go to Ottawa, is surely the hallmark of colonialism. That's the attitude. You do not recognize that Canadian problems have to be solved within Canada.

I'd just like to refer to one other matter, because I'm not going to repeat any of the things that were so ably said by the Leader of the Opposition. But there's another aspect where this government has badly let down the people of this province through a process of bickering, bad-mouthing, confrontation and failure to do their homework, and that's in the field of resources. The NDP, in government....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Do you want us to debate the next motion too?

[ Page 4347 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Is it going to come on?

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you like to?

MR. MACDONALD: You've made an announcement. Is it coming on or not?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. second member for Vancouver East has the floor on the resolution, and I'm sure the hon. member is aware of the rule of anticipation.

MR. MACDONALD: That's true. I'm not talking about the resolution, Mr. Speaker; I'm talking about the general question of protecting the resource rights of the province of British Columbia.

In 1974 I was one of a delegation, including the Premier....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Goodness, that minister's touchy today. What is the problem over there? Mr. Speaker, I'm going to let them simmer down for a while.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

In 1974 Premier Barrett, as he then was, and I and Mark Eliesen went back to Ottawa, and there we met in opposition to a tax on natural gas in the province of British Columbia, which was proposed at that time. I'm not talking about 1980. On the other side of the table there were Donald MacDonald, the Minister of Energy, Acting Prime Minister Drury and Mickey Cohen from the Finance department. We got a commitment out of the federal government that they would not impose an excise or export tax on the natural gas of the province of British Columbia. We did it. But as a result of the kind of antics, confrontation, bad-mouthing, bickering and refusal to participate in the whole process which is the hallmark of this government.... You won't go to the committee; you go to London instead.

As a result, we are now faced in this province with a surcharge on our natural gas, which is only 30 cents but which will increase. What we blocked you have allowed to happen to this province. You are not standing up for the resource rights or any other rights of this province. You are a negative, confrontation government and you are letting down what are the essential interests of this province.

I have given the facts of the matter: what the NDP was able to block, which was an export tax on natural gas, you people have allowed to happen. You have allowed it to happen, and I would suggest that you change your negotiating team because what you have sent down to these conferences and what you've sent down to Ottawa has been a bunch of bumblers so far as the legitimate interests of this province are concerned. You have let Trudeau and central Canada walk all over you, and it is time we put in a team that could negotiate and speak up for this province, one that doesn't pout and play politics and say: "I won't go to that committee."

All right, that's what I wanted to say. I am just going to say it in a few words and not repeat what the Leader of the Opposition has said — which the other side finds so funny — except for the last line, where he said: "Okay, you have challenged us on this measure." The Premier has challenged us about this resolution and when we call his bluff, what is he going to do — slink away to Maui, to Mexico? When you are challenged what are you going to do? Are you afraid to take it to the people, Mr. Premier? You challenge and walk away; you throw down the gauntlet and walk away.

HON. MR. SMITH: I want to thank the second member for Vancouver East for yielding three-quarters of his time to me. I, however, am not going to take that time; I am going to be brief.

Mr. Speaker, I hoped and waited this morning for some small thread of understanding of the resolution that was before us. Instead of that we had a long rambling dissertation by the Leader of the Opposition involving everything from the "finger" to Canada-bashing to being colonial by fighting the resolution and so on.

I guess the most disappointing thing of all about the speech was that apparently he still doesn't understand the requirement in the resolution that a formula for amendment have the consent of the legislatures of the provinces. He seems to mistake that for some eternal, unanimous-consent formula for all time which will block all constitutional change. I think that's disappointing, because we could have had a good debate here today. But he apparently chooses to read Montaigne and not to read the resolution.

This is a serious resolution. It's serious because it's calling upon British Columbians to support patriation of the constitution of Canada, and to provide for a formula that will have the consent of all the legislatures. Those words aren't put in there lightly. It's necessary that all provinces consent to the new formula, because all provinces came into Confederation by consent. That is often forgotten. This province came in voluntarily; nobody shanghaied us in here; nobody twisted our arm. We voluntarily sought union, and when we sought that union we were reciprocated by Canadians of large spirit.

In those days they had large spirits — Cartier and Macdonald, men like that, men who were prepared to reach out, prepared to yield a railway, prepared to make very substantial concessions for a small colony with a very small population of about 25,000 people who were scattered along this coast, with a depleted economy, a gold rush that had ended, with very little in the way of resources. Yet those Canadians of large spirit reached out. Today they're not reaching out at all. Today we go a different route. Today we go the route of memoranda, with game plans even before the meetings.

This province came in and responded to the Canadian men of good will and large spirit. We entered Confederation. We entered Confederation with the ownership of our natural resources. All the provinces did. The Prairie provinces won that in the 1930s. All the provinces have ownership of their natural resources.

I think we certainly owe an eternal debt of gratitude to the federal NDP leader for having now negotiated control of our natural resources, when we already had ownership of them. That was an enormous contribution to the Confederation debate.

Now if we entered Confederation because of large spirit and because of a climate of consent and trust, that is the way we must alter Confederation. There is no other way to alter

[ Page 4348 ]

Confederation. Changes in the constitution as fundamental as have been proposed by the federal government in their resolutions of October 2 must have the cooperation and the support of all Canadians. It is quite clear from the recent Gallup poll that they do not.

Mr. Speaker, I'm amused by those in this chamber and elsewhere who say that for a province to go to London and protest, they are being colonial. That really makes me laugh. The whole proposition of these resolutions that are being sent to London is this: "Please would the United Kingdom Parliament write a Canadian constitution for Canadians." But if you protest that, you're colonial. You're not allowed to protest it. The United Kingdom is being asked to do the job, Mr. Speaker, that should be done in Canada.

This province presented a brief to the parliamentary committee — a solid brief and a responsible brief — and it simply said: "Patriate the constitution, and the decisions can be made in Canada." This province also will make submissions to the parliamentary committee in Ottawa. I would commend members opposite to read some of the things that their own federal members have been saying in that parliamentary committee and in the House of Commons about the federal government's resolutions: a catalogue of criticism of those resolutions — speeches, obviously, that the Leader of the Opposition has never read and doesn't care about, but constructive criticism on every one of the major propositions of the constitutional resolutions.

I'll just read a couple of extracts of what their federal members, who apparently do their homework in Ottawa — unlike here — have to say. Mr. Lorne Nystrom, Yorkton-Melville, House of Commons, October 7, 1980, says:

"I believe we should have strong provincial governments able to implement programs which respond to differing provincial and regional needs. I strongly believe in this country we have two orders of power, two sets of jurisdiction, partners between federal and provincial powers. As Allan Blakeney, the Premier of my province, says: 'These powers are equal'."

Mr. Nystrom goes on to point out a number of trenchant criticisms of the very dangerous implications of these constitutional proposals that were introduced into the House of Commons on October 2. I also commend, Mr. Speaker, that the members opposite read the speeches and the remarks of Mr. Svend Robinson, Mr. Lyle Kristiansen and others who have studied these proposals. Maybe they could give the gentlemen opposite just a tiny little bit of help in understanding what we face in this country.

One of the great disappointments that this province has with the federal constitutional proposals is that they never address those issues of constitutional reform which were promised to be addressed. They were never dealt with. There was no consideration in there of reform of the upper House; no consideration of readdressing the power over communications; no sharing of appointment authority for the supreme court; nothing to do with offshore resources — the rights of the maritime provinces and this province were absolutely disregarded there; nothing to do with family law, despite enormous consensus on that subject as a result of meetings over two or three years. It was very, very disappointing. The great promise that we had following the Quebec referendum in May 1980, that we were going to address serious constitutional reform with consensus in this country, never came to pass at all. After the abortive discussions of the first ministers in September, the federal government simply decided to go ahead on its own course. I think that it is highly regrettable.

Another thing that apparently the members opposite have not done is to examine the resolutions that are before the House of Commons and decide whether they want to entrench for all time an equalization formula. Do they wish to see a formula entrenched, or would it be better to continue to participate, as this province does, as good Canadians, in equalization payments without enshrining them into the constitution and making it impossible at a later time to make adjustments to them?

Another thing that I'm sure the members opposite have never examined — although Mr. Nystrom examined it — was the amending formula that was contained in those resolutions. It was a most odious formula, Mr. Speaker, because under that formula what happens is this: for a period of two years after the constitutional resolutions become law — if they do — no change will take place without unanimous consent for a period of two years, and that's fine. But after two years, if there isn't agreement, then the federal government has the unilateral right under the proposed changes to put a referendum to the people. They can put a referendum directly to the people, and if that referendum carries, under the breakdown of the provinces and under the Victoria Charter, then that amendment will become the law of the land. That means that at any time and on their own initiative Ottawa can launch a referendum. That referendum, if carried in those provinces in various parts of the country with 50 percent of the population, will then bind the country without any reference to the provincial legislatures.

You may think that's a fair way to amend the constitution, that it's flexible and democratic, but you must remember that it is the federal government that has the initiative and may pose the question and do it in the way it chooses and in the time it chooses. They can spend another $25 million for an advertising budget, let the geese fly on TV, and simply put the question at a time that may be expedient and in a manner that is simplistic. That is certainly not the way to bring about change in a federal state.

Mr. Nystrom has eloquently spoken about that in a most enlightened way. He disagrees with the national leader on that issue, and certainly he has taken the time, which the Leader of the Opposition in this House hasn't, to examine that bill very closely. He points out in his speech what would happen if there were a tremendous energy crisis — a conflict in the Middle East and a tremendous increase in the price of energy — and if there were a national referendum to have more control of resources go to the federal government. It might even carry in two of the western provinces, representing 50 percent of Canadians. For example, it could isolate the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which have oil. "It is dangerous to have the power which exists in section 42 and section 46 of the resolution." Then he says: "The federal government can make the rules. I have been in politics long enough to know that money can manipulate public opinion.

So he's concerned about the referendum provisions.

Imagine changing the rules of the game, by the whims of referendum based on the rigidity of the Victoria Charter. But that is what is proposed in the constitutional amendment resolutions that are before parliament.

The approach of the federal government to constitutional reform is unilateral and it is unfortunate. It is wrong; it constitutes a breach of trust. It is possible in this country, I believe, to attain consensus, and consensus between the

[ Page 4349 ]

provinces was on the brink of realization in September of this year at those meetings in Ottawa. I think it is also unfortunate that even before those meetings the federal representatives were considering other courses of action, and in their memorandum of August 30, 1980, which was leaked to the delegates in Ottawa in September, the federal mandarins pointed out in that memorandum:

"There would be a strong strategic advantage in having the joint resolution passed and the U.K. legislation enacted before a Canadian court had occasion to pronounce on the validity of the measure and the procedure employed to achieve it. This would suggest the desirability of swift passage of the resolution and the U.K. legislation."

Imagine considering that course of action before the historic discussions that were to take place a week later, and to advocate that the thing should be rammed through the Canadian parliament and the U.K. parliament before a Canadian court had a chance to pronounce on its validity. That was one of the proposed courses of action.

They also discussed in that paper the advantages and disadvantages of hard-sell and soft-sell advertising campaigns. In conclusion they said — and I think this probably tells it all:

"The probability of an agreement is not high. They recognized that.

"Unilateral action is therefore a distinct possibility. In the event unilateral action becomes necessary, ministers should understand that the fight in parliament and the country will be very, very rough. For as Machiavelli said" — an apt choice of author — "'It should be borne in mind that there is nothing more difficult to arrange, more doubtful of success and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes in a state's constitution'."

So that was the unfortunate climate and the procedure that was followed to bring about those discussions in Ottawa that failed in September and then led to the preparation of these unilateral resolutions in October. Mr. Speaker, that is not at all the way to bring about fundamental change in this country and to bring home the Canadian constitution. It can be done in a different way; it can be done through consultation and good will.

It is interesting, Mr. Speaker, as the time has dragged on and the debate on the constitution has intensified in Ottawa before the parliamentary committee and before the British special committee of the House of Commons investigating this matter, that a number of constitutional experts in Britain, including Sir Jeffrey Marshall, Mr. Wade and others, have come forward and said that it is a strong and well-established convention of the Canadian constitution that amendments affecting the provincial powers will not be sought and granted without the consent of the provinces involved. That has been established before that parliamentary committee as a strong convention, and that is the convention that other Canadian governments have followed in the past in constitutional discussions. That is the convention followed, for instance, when the British North America Act was amended in modern times to give power to Parliament over unemployment insurance and old-age pensions, and that is the way to bring about fundamental change now when you are considering entrenching a bill of rights, changing an amending formula and doing things that will affect the balance of power and the way this nation operates in the future.

So I say to this House: when you come to vote on this resolution, please rise for a moment, if you can, above partisan considerations. Please don't seek refuge in calling committed Canadians and British Columbians — which we are just as you are — Ottawa-bashers and colonials because we don't agree with something that has been going on in Ottawa and we seek to bring to the attention of the British parliament that if they pass these resolutions they are not interfering in Canadian affairs, they are passing a measure following the wishes of the Canadian government against the wishes of the majority of provinces, and they should simply send the measure home and allow that debate and that decision to be made in Canada.

Hon. Mr. Mair moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:21 p.m.