[ Page 4351 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Kaiser resources takeover. Mr. Stupich –– 4352

Mr. Lauk –– 4352

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

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

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

Annacis Island bridge. Mr. Lockstead –– 4354

Ministerial Statement

High interest rates.

Hon. Mr. Curtis 4355

Mr. Stupich –– 4355

Routine Proceedings

Motion 1

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 4355

Mr. Cocke –– 4360

Mr. Hyndman –– 4360

Mr. Davis –– 4362

Ms. Brown –– 4364

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 4365

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 4367

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 4370

Mr. Leggatt –– 4372

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 4374

Division –– 4376

The House met at 2 p.m.

MR. LEVI: I'd like a moment to introduce some people, Mr. Speaker. Sitting in the members' gallery is Mr. Glen Jacobson, the president of the Coquitlam Optimist club, accompanied by his colleague Mr. Hall Griffin. They have escorted four students, Abigail Frances, John Graham, Ian Cummings and Michael Leedham, to Victoria. These four people have won an award for outstanding contribution to the community in that they operate the Como Lake Sailing Club and instruct young people from the ages of 8 to 14. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to introduce 15 members of the Nelson high school swim team and their coaches, Fred Young and Wayne Prentice.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Speaker, I'm very happy today to have in the members' gallery three members of my family: my second daughter, Patty Davidson; my wife, Donnie; and my eldest daughter, Terry Brenna, who is here visiting us from Toronto. Terry has just finished playing a feature role in a film which was shot in Nova Scotia. Would the House please welcome them.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure of introducing to the Legislature some 55 grade 11 students from Carson Graham Secondary School in North Vancouver. They're continuing to try to keep up with the record of last year. This afternoon at approximately 4 o'clock we will have an additional 60 grade 11 students from Carson Graham Secondary School visiting us. They'll be under the guidance of their teacher, Mr. Dairon. I'd like the House to take notice of them at that time.

HON. MR. HEWITT: In the gallery today are two gentlemen from Vancouver, Mr. John Chutter and Mr. Mike Slahis. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, as we're approaching question period, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out two standing orders for Mr. Speaker's consideration. Standing order 2 says: "The time for the ordinary meeting of the House shall be 2 o'clock in the afternoon on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday and 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday, and if, at the times mentioned in this order, there be not a quorum, Mr. Speaker may take the chair and adjourn." Also, I should point out to Mr. Speaker that all members are required to attend the service of the House. This, of course, comes into question particularly when there's lack of a quorum.

Interjections.

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

MR. LAUK: I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that at the critical period of time during question period when there's a significant absence of a number of cabinet ministers, Mr. Speaker should consider expanding the interpretation of that rule to require the attendance of cabinet ministers. I think that is the intent of the rules of the House. I ask Mr. Speaker to so rule.

MR. SPEAKER: I would think, hon. members, that if such a rule were the desire of the House, it should be presented to the House by substantive motion, and that it be debated and made part of the standing orders in the regular sense and the normal fashion. I would recommend that procedure to the hon. member.

MR. LAUK: I appreciate that suggestion, except that in this case it's a question of interpretation, not a new rule. Attending the service of the House includes the report of the committee on question period, which has been adopted, and that the cabinet ministers attend and answer to the questions of all members of the House in accordance with that report. The House has already spoken in that regard, Mr. Speaker, and I ask Mr. Speaker to rule that the attendance of cabinet ministers be required.

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

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the point mentioned by the first member for Vancouver Centre, I think it's only fair to point out that there are, I believe, three ministers not in attendance while there are ten members of the opposition not in attendance. Perhaps that's the problem.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, it has been accepted in this House that attendance is related not so much to whether a member is in his chair as to whether or not he is in attendance in the precincts. This has been held to be the case in practice in this House ever since I have arrived here, and if the members wish to change that I would be delighted to have such a change brought to me in some formal fashion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

YEAS — 29

[ Page 4352 ]

NAYS — 23

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

Oral Questions

KAISER RESOURCES TAKEOVER

MR. STUPICH: I had hoped to ask this question of the Minister of Energy, but I'll direct it to the Premier. Can the Premier advise whether or not BCRIC has received an agreement from the government not to raise coal royalties on the BCRIC-Kaiser mines because of the 3.5 percent off the top which Edgar Kaiser is to receive as part of the takeover agreement?

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

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

To the same cabinet minister, has the Premier required a BCRIC management inquiry into why Edgar Kaiser was offered a 3.5 percent commission on every tonne of coal sold by Kaiser Resources, in view of the fact that one of the prime justifications used by BCRIC for its Kaiser takeover is the fact that Kaiser's coal is committed by contract to the Japanese? In other words, if the stuff is already sold, why do we have to pay a commission?

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

MR. STUPICH: Does the Premier, as leader of the government, realize that the government has, in effect, a controlling interest of BCRIC since it has roughly 5 percent of the shares? It's more than enough to have a controlling interest, and yet apparently it is not asking any questions of BCRIC management, every one of which was appointed by the same Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is incorrect in saying that all the directors were appointed by the Premier. Some have been appointed since the company came out of government ownership and into the hands of the people.

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intent of the government to intrude into management decisions in the private sector. Any government that's big enough to do anything in that regard can do a lot more to hurt the people of this province. It's our belief that the shareholders of public companies in the private sector have accountability of their management continually, but particularly at annual meetings.

MR. LAUK: I have a supplementary question to the Premier. When the concept of BCRIC was first announced, the hon. Premier indicated that all British Columbians should consider investing in this marvellous public company. Having regard for the public record, Mr. Speaker, no such statement was made by the Premier in relation to any other public company. How does the Premier reconcile his statements today with the statements at the first inception of BCRIC, particularly having regard for today being a landmark black day for shareholders of BCRIC — the price of the share being now less than $6?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's quite simple, Mr. Speaker. If the member would remember, at the time that the government was distributing the shares of BCRIC and a company was making a public offering, it was still owned by the government until such time as the applications had been received. Once they were distributed, the shares were then in the hands of the shareholders who then owned and presumably controlled their own company.

I would presume the member opposite will probably, from time to time, bring stock market reports to the Legislature, and I am waiting so that when prices are up on certain stocks he will share that news with the Legislature as well.

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

KU KLUX KLAN
ACTIVITIES IN B.C.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. On Tuesday of this week, in answer to a question from the second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes), the Attorney-General indicated that he had denied consent under section 281(2) of the Criminal Code for a prosecution against the Ku Klux Klan. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if that decision was based upon his own perusal of the material that was submitted, or was it simply based upon a recommendation of his regional Crown counsel?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the decision with respect to whether a consent is to be given in this particular case was taken on the advice of three counsel.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, section 281(2) provides that "any persons communicating statements in any public place inciting hatred against any identifiable group are guilty of an indictable offence." My question is this: could the Attorney-General advise why it was that the material that was submitted failed to comply — in his judgment or in the judgment of his advisers — with that hate propaganda section of the Criminal Code? Why did the material fail?

[ Page 4353 ]

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

MR. LEGGATT: No.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, he is seeking a legal opinion, and, as he is aware, it is not available. I also point out to him that he is misreading the section. Subsection (1) deals with the inciting of hatred and no consent is required for a prosecution under that section.

MR. LEGGATT: My supplementary question is this: would the Attorney-General table the material that was filed so that the public will be aware of the material alleged and also the public will be aware as to whether a decision was accurately taken in this particular case? Would the Attorney-General be forthcoming and open with the House? Let's have a look at the material so that we can all decide whether this was a reasonable decision.

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

TABLING OF GOVERNMENT
AIRCRAFT FLIGHT LOGS

MR. PASSARELL: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Can the minister explain why the government flight log for May 1979 until April 1980 was not tabled in the House last session?

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

MR. PASSARELL: Yes.

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

MR. PASSARELL: In view of the taxpayers' right to know how much they subsidize the Social Credit election campaign by providing flights for government members seeking re-election, has the minister decided to make this information available to the House?

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

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

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

FEEDING OF ELK IN EAST KOOTENAYS

MR. NICOLSON: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. On Tuesday the minister indicated that the thousands of elk stranded by snow in the East Kootenays should not be fed and nature should take its course. This morning the minister seemed to suggest that the problem would melt away. Does the minister condone the action of the East Kootenay Wildlife Association not to allow nature to take its course, but to unilaterally take steps to gradually introduce the elk to an alfalfa diet?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. It's obviously been raised several times by members on both sides of the House. You're raising it in question period. The answer is simply this: elk in the Kootenay area right now are not hungry.

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: They are not. If the animals are in difficulty, the difficulty is in moving around because of the depth of the snow. At this time of the year, any ungulates that have been browsing and feeding all summer, as you well know — your colleagues laugh, but I know that you, as the member, know perfectly well — have quite a substantial amount of stored body fat. They can't get to their feed at the present time, and if the thickness of the snow continues for such a time that they are not able to browse over the wintertime, then we will have a serious problem. But I am advised by the biologists from the region, and by the people from Cranbrook and the people from Nelson who are from the regional office, that the animals aren't in danger at the present time. They are having difficulty getting around. One of the reasons that they got on the railway rights-of-way and on the highways is that it's so much easier for them to move. Because they have sufficient stored body fat, they haven't got to starvation yet — it may come within the next two to three weeks, depending on what happens in the weather.

Now I have asked the staff to assist where possible, on a technical basis, anyone in the East Kootenay area who wants to try and save the elk by feeding them alfalfa pellets or otherwise. However, those people know very well that now is not the time to even start that program because of the fact that, if you're going to do that, you're going to convert those animals to the business of virtually running on domestic feed in the wintertime.

I have talked to ranchers in the area, I have talked to wildlife biologists in the area and I have talked to hunting and fishing groups from the area this morning, and that's the position we're in. We don't know what's going to happen with the weather. We haven't the funds in the budget to buy food and supply it to the animals in the area. The last time we had this program, the effectiveness of it was that we were able to get to only 15 percent of the animals, and the bulk of the animals that were left unattended had the same survival rate as the animals that we were able to get to with food.

It's not just the elk. All over the province there are animals every winter that die of starvation and die because of predators. It's not cruel; that is the way nature intended it to be. Where man has interfered, man must try and rectify the situation; but man has spent an enormous amount of money in that part of the province in efforts to rectify the situation in terms of coordinated range management.

If we are going to follow your argument to a conclusion — that is, we feed the elk — then what of the other animals that we're not going to feed? We have raptors that are in trouble because of the snow cover; we have a whole host of animals — the entire broad spectrum — and the ministry's responsibility is for predators, ungulates, birds, all of them. If we're going to pick out one that happens to be one that we

[ Page 4354 ]

all feel a little more emotional about than the others, then we're really violating the spirit and the intent of what we should do in terms of getting along with nature.

MR. NICOLSON: I have a supplementary question. The minister has indicated that there is not sufficient money to feed these animals. The minister knows that his ministry over the past six or seven years has spent $2.8 million on the coordinated land-use plan. Is the minister telling this House that, having spent $2.8 million on a coordinated land-use plan, largely to provide winter habitat for these very elk, they cannot afford $20,000 or $40,000?

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

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

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

ANNACIS ISLAND BRIDGE

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Highways. In view of the negative effect of the Annacis Island bridge on both sides of the river, can you advise this House whether any environmental impact assessments were undertaken? If so, will you table that study in this House?

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

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a supplementary question to the minister. I have been advised by the project engineer that no studies have been done, but I would like to ask the minister, in view of the fact that he told the Delta citizens he would accept submissions up to December 31 of this year, will he confirm that no final decision is made on the alignment of the bridge, and that he will meet with the Delta council and theSunbury Group Ratepayers' Association in the near future?

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

HON. MR. FRASER: I'm not clear what he's asking, but I've met with a lot of Delta people, and the decision of where the bridge is going to be located has been made.

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

Leave granted.

MR. LAUK: A very fine British Columbian has entered the public galleries, a person who has devoted much of his life to public service. Formerly the mayor of the city of Vancouver and now a great advocate, a tribune, for the older people of our province, Mr. Tom Alsbury.

MR. STUPICH: I rise pursuant to standing order 35 to ask leave to move adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Could you briefly state the matter?

MR. STUPICH: The matter of urgent public importance, Mr. Speaker, is the damage upon our economy, upon people with fixed incomes, upon people seeking mortgages on homes, upon small business persons and, indeed, upon all of Canada and British Columbia, which will result from the usurious interest rate policy of the federal government and the Bank of Canada, which policy saw the bank rate jump today to...

AN HON. MEMBER: Ottawa-basher.

MR. STUPICH: When it's advisable.

Interjections.

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

MR. STUPICH: ...16.14 percent from 14.76 percent just one week ago or, in other words, a shocking and destructive 1.38 percentage point increase.

Mr. Speaker, before you remind me that the House is currently considering the speech from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor, may I remind you that the next step in the process will be for the chartered banks to increase their rates, and if we're going to have any influence on the federal government and the Bank of Canada policy then we have to prevail upon the federal government immediately to make sure that the chartered banks do not take that next step. That's why it has to be done today.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sure in the mind of the member the matter is urgent, and the responsibility of the Chair is to determine whether or not the business which has been ascribed on the order paper for today shall be set aside. I must remind the member that it is the very business of today that provides the opportunity to debate the issue, so it is my opinion that it does not qualify.

MR. HOWARD: I rise, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to standing order 49. Having given the government a copy of a particular motion, I seek unanimous consent of the House to move that motion, which relates to this House declaring its objection to the usurious interest rate policy of the federal government.

MR. SPEAKER: Leave will be required for a motion. I would like to remind all hon. members that standing order 49 makes this provision: "A motion may be made by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice having been given under standing order 48."

I would also like to remind the House that they wish to be a little careful in the employment of standing order 49, because an abuse under this rule is very possible, and I would like to warn against an abuse of this House. However, I am going to allow this request and will ask for leave because certainly up until this date an abuse has not taken place.

Shall leave be granted?

Interjection.

[ Page 4355 ]

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

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. When leave is required, it is simply the duty of the Chair to ask for leave. There is no debate on whether or not leave shall be required. I was simply cautioning the House on standing order 49. I heard a no, and leave is not granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The point of order I was going to make, Mr. Speaker, would be that in relation to this topic the government could very much support the concern about the interest rates in this country. It is to this very point that the Finance minister is about to make a statement to the House regarding action he is taking that will carry the same message as forcefully to the government of Canada. The government is already quickly taking action...

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

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

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Chair does not determine whether or not a motion is required. The Chair simply responds to a request for leave and asks for leave. Leave was denied. Next order of business, please.

MR. HOWARD: The point of order I want to make, Mr. Speaker, is that the Premier rose spuriously on a point of order in order to enter upon a debate of the very motion that I sought to move, and it was the Premier's own crowd that gave objection to proceeding unanimously. He is trying to have it both ways.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. On numerous occasions the Chair has decried the practice of gaining the floor on the pretence of having a point of order. I would like to suggest to both sides that when a member stands and suggests that he has a point of order that, indeed, he does have a point of order. The Chair has no way of knowing, unless he hears at least one or two sentences, whether a point of order is in the offing. Short of that the Chair will then have to require, before he hears anything, under what standing order a member seeks to gain the floor. I hope that does not happen in this House. Next order of business, please.

HIGH INTEREST RATES

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a ministerial statement. Long before the members opposite thought of raising this in the House, the action had already been taken with respect to high interest rates. The provincial ministers meet next week with the federal Minister of Finance in Ottawa. My attendance there is dependent upon the business of the House, but certainly British Columbia will be represented. There is an important point, which I think the members opposite know, Mr. Speaker, and that is that suggestions have come already from more than one quarter in Canada to the effect that the governor of the Bank of Canada should be in attendance for a portion of that meeting of federal and provincial ministers of Finance. Whether or not that will be permitted is a matter which has yet to be responded to by the authorities in Ottawa. Nonetheless, there is absolutely no doubt that the issue which concerns members on both sides of this House, at this time and earlier, will be discussed in Ottawa next week.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the statement from the Minister of Finance and I noticed previously that he had asked for such a meeting. My concern in raising it today was the very large jump in interest rates today that will probably be reflected tomorrow in a substantial increase that will be reflected immediately on the costs of the people in the province and in Canada. It will be my position that the minister's position at that conference would be strengthened had the House agreed with unanimous consent that was required. I certainly regret that the House did not see fit to give unanimous consent so that the minister would be so strengthened, but certainly in going there he knows whether or not he has the support of the people on that side of the House. He certainly has everyone on this side of the House supporting him in his representations at that particular meeting.

Orders of the Day

On Motion 1.

HON. MR. MAIR: I note that this debate is going to command as much respect and attention from the opposition this afternoon as it did this morning. I must say that in a matter of such crucial importance and of such interest to all the people of Canada, it was with not only sadness but I think a degree of shame that we witnessed the performance this morning by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). I happened to be in my office during part of the speech by the Leader of the Opposition, and I heard him loudly cry "nay, nay, nay," and I thought it was probably only a matter of time before the conversion was complete to "hee-haw, hee-haw, hee-haw."

One would have thought that the Leader of the Opposition, even when he did retreat from his flights of fancy into the issues of the motion, would have been accurate at least insofar as he commented upon those matters. Of course he made some specious remarks about the question of Upper House reform as we in the government have proposed it. He totally misunderstood the proposals we have made, and he of course betrayed his total ignorance of everything that has been said and done by this government for the last five years. You know, Mr. Speaker, that might be understandable if all he were called upon to do were to read the transcripts and the various propositions that have been put forth by this government and other governments. I suppose it is a little hard for a person who shows so little interest in the constitution to read about those matters.

[ Page 4356 ]

The Leader of the Opposition was taken to Ottawa for the last federal-provincial conference — the one in September — at government expense, I presume. That conference lasted six days, and he wasn't seen again after Monday afternoon. He was there for half a day, and for five and a half days was somewhere else. I heard that he went to the baseball game in Montreal. I wouldn't know whether that was true or not; I'm sure he would be able to tell us. I also heard that he felt that there were reasons why he should not be seen on television, and so that's why he didn't stay for the conference. I gather that there was less risk of being caught by the television camera at the ball park than in the convention hall.

In any event, the one opportunity that the Leader of the Opposition had to come to grips at that late hour with the constitutional problems besetting the country he threw away for a baseball game or a trip to the National Gallery or some other thing that had nothing whatever to do with the reasons for which he was being paid to be there. So I'm not surprised to have heard in this House today the disgraceful inattention to this constitutional crisis by the opposition.

I want to say a word or two about a couple of things I have heard said by the opposition over the last few years. Particularly I would like to pick up the theme that my colleague the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) talked about this morning: that's this question of so-called Ottawa-bashing or Canada-bashing. I want to make it very clear once and for all that not only are people on this side of the House getting tired of that sort of nonsense, but the people of British Columbia are getting tired of having their patriotism called into question every time they disagree with Mr. Trudeau. I'm going to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'm as good a Canadian as anybody in this chamber, and I'm as good a Canadian as Mr. Trudeau, and I'm as good a Canadian as anyone else in this country. As a good Canadian, I happen to take a radically different view of this country than does Mr. Trudeau. That does not make me unpatriotic. It does not make me a Canada-basher. It does not make me an Ottawa-basher.

I want you to know that the cornerstone of my disagreement with Mr. Trudeau can be contained in his summing-up at that conference last September we talked about so much. He asked the question: "Who speaks for Canada as a whole?" He gave the impression that it certainly couldn't be the provincial governments, because their allegiance was only individually to their own provinces. He made the case therefore that he, as the leader of the government party in Ottawa, spoke for the nation as a whole; he was the one who spoke for all of us. I want to say quite clearly, here and now, that that is not the view held by me, it is not the view held by this government, and it is not, I might say, even the view held by Mr. Blakeney, the Premier of Saskatchewan.

I think it would be very helpful if, at this time, I gave the House the same advantage that we all had of hearing Mr. Blakeney's words, because I think they sum up very neatly the dichotomy that exists between those who would support Mr. Trudeau's view of Canada and those who would support a contrary view. Mr. Blakeney intervened at the end of Mr. Trudeau's remarks, where Mr. Trudeau laid out what he considered to be the two views of Canada — his and those which he perceived were the views of the Premiers. Mr. Blakeney said this:

"Mr. Prime Minister, I would like to add one comment. I wouldn't want you or the public to think that the provinces, or at least the province of Saskatchewan — I'll confine myself to speaking for our government — takes the position that there's not a national interest to be protected. We are strongly of the view that there is a national interest to be protected. We are strongly of the view that our efforts ought to be in the best interests of the nation as a whole, and I think our difference may very well be with respect to how the national interest is defined and how the national consensus should be arrived at.

"I do not believe that the national interest is represented by consensus of all provincial governments. The federal government has a role to play. It is not a creature of the provinces. This is not a confederation. Nor, however, do I believe that the national interest is to be ascertained by the majority will of Canadians. This is something more than a collection of citizens, and accordingly the national interest cannot be stated by the majority view of the House of Commons. That is the view of a unitary state, and under those circumstances one does not really need a constitution. One can deal with the national interest and identify it from time to time.

"The essence of Canada is that it is a federation. The essence of Canada is, therefore, that on major matters we need a double majority. We need the majority of citizens as expressed by the popular will in the House of Commons, and we need the majority, however defined, of the regional wills. That is the essence of a federal state. "

MR. MACDONALD: Good statement.

HON. MR. MAIR: It is a good statement. And do you know, Mr. Member, if you would stop playing the Mortimer Snerd to your Edgar Bergen, and would actually listen to your own national leaders, you might learn something about the constitution of this country.

No, Mr. Speaker, it is not Mr. Trudeau, and it is not the government that happens to command the majority in Ottawa at any particular time — whether it be, as it is now, by reason of cheap gas and a ninety-year-old hanging — that speaks for the entire country. The national interest is expressed by all of us — by the national government, by the provincial governments, by the people as a whole. This, I think, is essentially where Mr. Trudeau and those that he leads go astray from the thinking of those of us on this side of this House.

I was asked this morning by the two people who have thus far spoken for the opposition what we have against entrenchment of a bill of rights. "What is the matter with all of these rights?" is, I think, the question that the second member for Vancouver East asked. I would be the first one to agree — and I hope I'm not transgressing the thoughts of some of my colleagues here — that we in British Columbia ought to pass a bill of rights in this chamber, and I hope we do some day. I think it's a good thing that the federal government has, in its chamber, passed a Bill of Rights.

But there is one thing only that sets our type of government apart from all the others in the world, and that is supremacy of parliament — not just supreme in some things, not just supreme in the convenient things, but supreme in all things. Our position is simply that any erosion of the supremacy of parliament erodes the ability of the people to govern themselves. It's just as simple as that. I'm not afraid of any of the rights that are proposed. We have those rights, and if those rights were in a B.C. statute, or indeed, if they were in the federal government's Bill of Rights, it would be

[ Page 4357 ]

at great political peril that any legislature — this or the federal legislature — would legislate in such a way as to abridge the rights in that Bill of Rights. I'm not afraid of them at all. But the question I have to ask myself is: do I want the social conscience of this Legislature, regardless of who happens to be in government, tested by a court of entrenched judges, or do I want it tested by the will of the majority expressed at election time? I prefer the latter, because that's the British way, that's the Canadian way and that's our way.

We've heard a lot of rubbish over the last little while about an entrenched Bill of Rights and what it would do. All kinds of great things would happen and all sorts of bad things wouldn't happen, if you believe those who propose an entrenched Bill of Rights if indeed we have such an animal. Well, I want to read just a few of the excerpts from an entrenched Bill of Rights:

"Citizens enjoy in full social, economic, political and personal rights and freedoms proclaimed and guaranteed by the constitution; citizens have the right to work; citizens have the right to rest in leisure; citizens have the right to health protection; citizens have the right to maintenance in old age and sickness; citizens have the right to take part in the management and administration of state and public affairs and in the discussion and adoption of laws; in accordance with the interests of the people, citizens are guaranteed freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, meetings, street processions and demonstrations; citizens are guaranteed freedom of conscience, that is the right to profess or not to profess any religion; and to conduct religious worship or atheistic propaganda; the family enjoys the protection of the state; citizens are guaranteed inviolability of the person...."

And it goes on and on. It's the constitution and the entrenched Bill of Rights of the Soviet Union, where none of those rights are granted, although they're all enshrined in an entrenched bill.

I've heard Mr. Trudeau many times; I've had the privilege of listening to him talking on this subject. I've heard him go through the litany of complaints about how the rights of Canadians have been taken away by legislators from time to time over the years — and in many cases he's quite right. Legislatures and the Parliament of Canada have done some shocking things over the years. He somehow doesn't talk about the War Measures Act of 1970. That is conveniently left out of all of his lists.

MR. COCKE: Did you support it?

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

What I do want to remind the members of this chamber is of the classic example that Mr. Trudeau uses when he talks about rights that were taken away, which rights would not, apparently, have been taken away had we had an entrenched bill of rights. It was the shocking case of the Japanese in 1941 in British Columbia. There is nobody who lived in British Columbia at that time or since who doesn't feel a sense of revulsion and shock and shame at what happened to our Japanese citizens at that time. But we forget, Mr. Speaker, that the very same thing happened to the Japanese in California where they were under the protection of an entrenched bill of rights. The only difference is, Mr. Speaker, that the rights don't mean a thing; it's the will of the people to respect rights that means everything. That's why the entrenchment of a Bill of Rights has its downside, the erosion of parliamentary supremacy, and it has no upside. It means that instead of us being able to rely upon our right to throw the rascals out and make sure that our rights are protected, we're going to place those rights in the hands of people who are not elected but appointed, and appointed with tenure.

Let me just tell you a couple of other things, Mr. Speaker, that have happened in the United States of America since the Bill of Rights was entrenched as the first amendment to their constitution. I'm sure that a black man named Dred Scott would be very surprised to learn that his rights were protected by the Bill of Rights when his condition of slavery was made lawful by the Supreme Court of the United States on the grounds that to do otherwise would be to interfere with private property. I'm sure that the mine workers in the United States in the early 1900s were very grateful to the Supreme Court of the United States, who struck down child-labour legislation, working-condition legislation and other things for which they fought so hard. I'm sure that Clarence Darrow who, incidentally, was a self-proclaimed socialist, a civil libertarian, would be very surprised to learn that the Supreme Court of the United States, through its interpretation of the Bill of Rights, has been somehow a bastion of American liberties. I'm sure that Franklin Delano Roosevelt, were he alive today, would have some things to say about the exercise of social policy through the courts instead of through the elected representatives.

Mr. Speaker, we all must admit, however much we respect the bench, that the judges, like the rest of us, are humans with frailties and prejudices. The big difference is that, unlike us, they're entrenched along with the Bill of Rights. I would be the last to deny that they should be charged at all times with enforcing the law of the land, but so far as I'm concerned they should not be charged with the responsibility of determining the social policy of our parliaments.

Mr. Speaker, when I look at what Mr. Trudeau is doing with his unilateral action, with his entrenching of a Bill of Rights against the wishes of most Canadians, just what is he up to and what are the next steps going to be? We're living in a fool's paradise, if we stand here and say: "It will all be okay, because he says it will be okay." I can remember him saying it was all going to be okay in 1970; that there were all sorts of terrible people going to go to jail, after he put them in there without habeas corpus and without right to counsel — and nothing happened. What is going to happen? What is the slippery slope down which we're going if we agree and go along, as the opposition would have us do, with Mr. Trudeau's manoeuvres? Are we going to be a unitary state? Is that the reason we see the powers of the provinces eroded? Is it just convenience, as some of his apologists would have us believe, or is it because he really does think he knows best and believes it is better to have the provinces as municipalities than as full partners in Confederation? Are we going to be a republic? Is that the next move? Because I can tell you that once you erode the supremacy of Parliament, you have permanently taken something away from the parliamentary democracies we know. Is that going to be the next step? Are we going to have, as one of my colleagues mentioned earlier, a very carefully worded referendum in a couple of years followed by more radical surgery as a result? There's one thing for sure, Mr. Speaker: if we have a Parliament that is subject to the same review as the laws of Congress are, we

[ Page 4358 ]

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that one thing came out very clearly in this morning's debate, and I'm glad that there is time left for the opposition to correct these deficiencies. The one thing neither we nor anybody else have been able to find out is what their policy is. It's not just this side of the House that's asking that question. Marjorie Nichols — I don't often quote her with approbation, but I'm going to in this case — on May 27, 1980, she said the following:

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

"Still, Dave Barrett and company are having difficulty coming to grips with even a general outline of policy on a number of rather important issues. To be precise, there is the matter of the constitution.

"It seems to me Mr. Barrett and colleagues ought to be sitting down and committing to print an outline of the constitutional changes they would like to see. On this matter it is not good enough for the opposition to oppose any initiatives that may be laid on the federal-provincial bargaining table as early as July."

Michael Valpy, a nationally syndicated columnist, had this to say on April 26, 1980:

"There is some difficulty in taking seriously that kind of statement from a political party that has no position" — he's referring to the NDP position — "on constitutional reform, has gone out of its way to avoid talking about constitutional reform and does not intend to have a party position on constitutional reform until its next policy convention in the summer of 1981, one year and some months after the Quebec referendum. That is a sense of urgency?"

Mr. Speaker, I have to put the opposition on a little tighter timetable than that. We're debating this motion today because it's urgent, and it's urgent because this country — the country we all love — is in a constitutional crisis.

I would like to know a number of things. What is the position of the opposition on an amending formula? I'm not ashamed to say that I reject the Victoria Charter. As a matter of fact, probably one my first public utterances was on that, in a letter I wrote and had published at the time in almost all newspapers in British Columbia, saying that I rejected it.

The times have changed since 1971. It's a different situation. Also, I think perhaps we've had time to reflect upon the wisdom of having first-class and second-class provinces in any sense, but certainly in the sense of constitutional reform. I happen to support the Vancouver formula, not because it's good, but perhaps because — as Mr. Churchill said about democracy — it's better than all the others. It may simply be that it's the only way we can work it out, and if that's the case, then I'm prepared to go along with that rather than have something that is going to permanently create second-class provinces in our country.

In any event, it's not enough for the opposition to taunt that a former Social Credit government agreed to the Victoria Charter. That's not the end of their obligation. Their obligation is to come up with their own positive answers, and we haven't heard them.

I'm just going to take a few questions at random, Mr. Speaker. What about the Supreme Court of Canada? That's something that I have heard the Leader of the Opposition talk about. He has said, in essence: "It doesn't really matter who you pick as long as they're good lawyers. Just go out and get the best lawyers you can. " I don't really believe that a man with the political smarts that the Leader of the Opposition has could possibly mean that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Name two.

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

The constitution of the Supreme Court of Canada, how it is is picked and its powers, is without any question at all one of the most crucial issues facing us today. As long as the Supreme Court of Canada is going to be the arbiter of differences between the provinces and the federal government, then its selection process is crucial. Not only must the members be top-notch lawyers, they must also come from all regions of the country, so that fair play is reflected not just in their actions but in the appearances. Not only must there be a regional balance, but quite obviously we cannot have one party to the dispute continually appointing the judge.

I'm not here to say that hardship has been placed upon the provinces over the years by reason of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada judges are federally appointed, but I am saying this: you cannot have the appearance of fair play when one side gets to pick the umpire. It doesn't matter that the umpire is my brother, you're not going to believe anything that he calls that isn't in your favour. It doesn't matter how good he is; it doesn't matter a bit. It doesn't matter whether he's the fairest umpire in the world. If he's related to me, you're never going to accept it.

Interjection.

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

There's another thing the opposition has spoken about, and I'm surprised they haven't at least spoken on this in the debate. What about number 12, the powers over the economy? Surely this is something the opposition would have a great deal to say on. If I've ever heard any group bleat about multinationals, it's that group. The only time in recent memory that this province has gone against the powers over the economy that Mr. Trudeau wants was when the Premier of this province, with great courage, kept CPI from taking over MacMillan Bloedel. Now is that going to be denied us or not? Is it good that the province has some powers of its own over its economy, or are we prepared to give that all to the federal government? What is their opinion?

Interjection.

HON. MR. MAIR: Oh, a multinational would have been okay. There's a great difference, is there? The issue was not what you say, Mr. Member, although you love to get into that rhetoric. That hyperbole went out with the coming of the trade union movement, for goodness' sake. You know better than that. That's absolute rubbish!

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

AN HON. MEMBER: The manifesto.

[ Page 4359 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: No, I don't want to say that, because Marjorie Nichols will write another nasty column about me, and I've had more than my share this month — although it is curious to know that there was a certain flirtation with separatism in 1969 by a good many of the members opposite when they signed the Waffle Manifesto. But, you know, they only did that so the convention could talk about it. Sure, like I go and put resolutions before our convention that call for all sort of terrible things just so we can talk about them. But in any event, we won't go into that.

In my research I have come across what I think are the cornerstones and perhaps even the entire edifice of the NDP constitutional package. First of all, separatism is bad, unless of course it is practised by the president of the Quebec NDP — in that case it's okay. The second one — and this one is the gem; this is the one that has to be etched in everyone's mind — is that the whole is greater than the sum of all of its parts. That's the package there. You've got to remember that and use it in every speech. Abolish the Senate is another one. Don't do anything about the inequities of representation by population in its pure form; just simply abolish the Senate. Number four is that separatists are kooks. Number five: those who do not support the NDP are at worst separatists and at best Canada-bashers. Number six — and this came into play only today; this latest article of faith is hot off the press — it's probably all Judge Eckardt's fault.

If I may, I would like to put to this House the opinion of one of the local columnists. Some people say he's a rightwing columnist — I don't know. I don't often agree with him very much. I certainly don't agree with him on hockey teams. In any event, I'm speaking of Gorde Hunter. He has a column today which certainly sums up very well indeed the position I'm taking with respect to the opposition. I'm going to, if I may — I'm sure I have time left — read that column into the record, because I think it's something that all hon. members will want to hear. He says:

"Politicians, like women and columnists, are allowed the privilege of changing their minds. They are not rooted to one idea, one plan of attack. What sounds inviting this year may well be anathema two years hence. With this in mind and with no malice aforethought, I will show you how David Barrett, the Leader of the Opposition in this province of British Columbia, has changed his spots since the glory days when he was number one."

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

"At the moment, David is calling those western Canadians with separatist bent 'kooks.' The estimated (Canada West Foundation) number of kooks is 350,000 — hardly a groundswell calculated to force immediate change in Ottawa attitudes but at least a respectable parade that isn't about to go away because of name-calling.

"Let me set the stage for Barrett's previous stand. I had written a piece (in January 1975) exploring the possibilities of western Canada seceding from the rest of Canada because of the short shrift received by the west down through Confederation years.

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

If I may interject, I guess that was the time that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said they were back doing the old soft shoe and giving them the soft soap and all the rest of it. I don't know what he was doing, but in any event it must have been at the same time.

"He made mention of the column to the assembled ministers, pointing out this was an expression of the feelings of many westerners. He urged them to take serious note of a growing concern and to act accordingly.

"'I want to speak openly and frankly today on the federal government's proposal in the budget to remove as a tax deduction the royalties paid by oil and gas companies. This is a matter of great national concern, and I must be clearly understood in my remarks.

''The federal government, through its taxation policies, is encouraging greater alienation and frustration among a great number of Canadians, especially western Canadians. The federal budgetary measures have almost overnight destroyed nearly two years of some progress and development emanating from the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. I am now asking the Prime Minister to resolve this issue and adopt the recommendations I made earlier. Let us break this impasse before it breaks us.'

"Upon his arrival back at Victoria, I asked Barrett about his 'alienation' remarks, which, you understand, were pretty strong for a provincial leader. 'I've always said I'm a Canadian first and a British Columbian second,' Barrett answered, 'but.... ' The words drifted away, but the implication was clear — Barrett felt it was time for either meaningful negotiations or strong hint of action. I wonder at his 180-degree turn today.

"It seems to me the topics — constitution and energy sales taxation — of today's dissent are at least as important as the issue that got under Barrett's craw six years ago. And, incidentally, when discussing the federal government's taxing of natural gas resources, Barrett was very blunt at that time. 'We decided ten days ago that British Columbia will not back down on this issue.'

"That's when it was politic to run up the B.C. flag, when it was incumbent on the leader of this province to be strong, forceful. I guess today, because he is in opposition, he feels the need to attack western leaders who would be strong, forceful in their defence of matters of financial and ethical importance to the west. In 1975 those with separatist feelings were patriots to a cause. Today they're kooks."

I think, Mr. Speaker, that sums up pretty much what not only the members on this House feel but what the 61 percent of those in British Columbia who do not agree with Mr. Trudeau feel. I think that they would agree with me when I say that while it is not too late, it is a shame that the opposition have not had among their number a full-time committee examining the constitutional questions that are before us, that they have not done at least what the opposition in Quebec did — come out with a Brown Paper, something to state their position — that they have not acted responsibly to ensure that this debate in particular was responsible, above politics, and in the spirit of nation-building. In short, I think that they would share with me the sadness that the NDP has not acted as a responsibly led opposition would in a national crisis. As with everything else — and tragically at this time in our history — the opposition has failed us.

[ Page 4360 ]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, prior to recognizing the hon. member for New Westminster, I must again advise all members that even when quoting from documents the names of members are not to be used. This is a practice that has been growing with some regularity in this chamber, and I must advise all members, even when referring to a member in a quotation, to bear in mind that we cannot do by one means what we cannot do by another. I would recommend that to all members.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have very few words to say in reply to the former speaker. My reply to the Minister of Health was totally and completely taken care of by a resolution on the order paper that sat through the entire last session of this parliament. That was a call by the second member for Vancouver East for an all-party committee to canvass this province, to let the people of this province give input into our constitutional position.

We are not the government of this province. What we asked was that the opposition, along with the government members, be given an opportunity to go out into this province and hear from the people. But no, that elitist group over there decided that they would go their own way. We've read their papers; of course we have. Why should we jump into their bed? They should be listening to the people of our province, and they are not. They are trying to make political hay out of this particular situation, and we're not going to be a party to it in any way, shape or form.

As far as the Senate is concerned, Mr. Speaker, they want that to be a porkbarrel of this government rather than of the Libs in Ottawa. It's been a porkbarrel for them for years, and now this government wants it to be their own porkbarrel.

They talk about representation by population. What a group! What a gang to talk about representation by anything after the Eckardt report, a disgraceful display of politics in this province. How could anyone possibly...?

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

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

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to join in this debate, surprising as it is, with a preponderance of speakers from the government side and a relative absence of speakers from the opposition side. I do hope that as the debate progresses we will hear more from members on the opposition benches.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, is remarkably simple. It calls for two things: an early patriation of the constitution and an amending formula that in my own words I call a "cross-Canada amending formula." Early patriation is an enormously simple concept, and one would think that without question all members would agree to the wisdom of getting our constitution home to this country as is, and the sooner the better. By a cross-Canada amending formula, which is the second part of the resolution, I mean a formula which calls for all parts of Canada, all ten provinces and Ottawa, to agree on the formula for amendment so that the amending formula takes account of all views across Canada.

I look forward to the views of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) and the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), whom I know have done a lot of research so they can participate constructively in this debate.

Why is it helpful for us to have a cross-Canada amending formula? It is not a unilateral formula, not a formula that would give a few elitist or powerful parts of the country a right to change the constitution. Why is a cross-Canada amending formula important? As the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith) said so well this morning, it is fundamentally important, if this union came together voluntarily and no one was forced into it, that formulas to change it be made voluntarily, completely and unanimously without force and pressure. That is the spirit of how Confederation came together and was formed; it should be the same spirit that applies if we are to create an amending formula. But more important than voluntarism, Mr. Speaker, a cross-Canada amending formula guarantees that the formula for change and future change will reflect all views across this country.

If by contrast there is to be an amending formula that is only partial or is unilateral or imposed or superimposed on some parts of this country, it must follow that certain parts, regions or interests will be ignored or quashed when amendment takes place. That is not the spirit in the context of Canadian federalism.

Mr. Speaker, it is extremely interesting if you go back to the several years after Confederation when there was a fair amount of writing about this young child, Confederation. Concern was expressed about future dangers to Confederation. The Globe and Mail then, as it is today, was a fine newspaper. I would like to quote very briefly from an editorial of July 3, 1869, shortly after Canada's second birthday. In 1869 the Globe and Mail editorially had this to say about the greatest danger to Confederation: "The danger most to be feared is that men who really do not believe in Confederation at all should so seek to extend and consolidate the federal legislative and executive power that the local governments and legislatures shall be in danger of becoming mere shadows and shams."

That was just two years after Confederation, Mr. Speaker. The leading central Canadian newspaper, the Globe and Mail, pointed out that the greatest danger to the future of Confederation would be one of the gravest worries abroad in this country of ours today — that some people who may not genuinely believe in Confederation "so seek to extend and consolidate the federal legislative and executive power that the local governments and legislatures shall be in danger of becoming mere shadows and shams." And that is the danger in an amending formula that is less than a cross-Canada amending formula.

I am happy to support the resolution. I suppose I am not perplexed to find that the opposition will vote against it, because the opposition, the NDP, on October 22 of this year in Ottawa surrendered its position, Mr. Speaker. They gave it away; they preempted it. With no consultation and no consideration to the people of this province, they pitched in and joined with Mr. Trudeau in the now infamous Trudeau-NDP deal that will make British Columbia a second-class province. Mr. Speaker, the motion before you today, the resolution, proposed an alternative which is designed to keep British Columbia as a first-class province.

The Trudeau-NDP deal provided the following. Firstly, that Ontario and Quebec should have a special veto over any constitutional change. British Columbia would have no veto to protect its interests. We would become a second-class province. Further, the Trudeau-NDP deal gives Ottawa the power to use a referendum to take away provincial control over resources, education or any other field.

[ Page 4361 ]

On October 22, in Ottawa, NDP Members of Parliament voted against a motion to bring home our constitution and amend it in Canada by Canadians. That motion, which the NDP voted against, would have contained an amending formula that had been accepted by all ten provinces. So it's little surprise and little wonder, Mr. Speaker, that the NDP today would not support the resolution. It was a little amusing this morning to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk about consultation and the need for discussion when, in fact, the apparent position of the official opposition in this province was given away, surrendered and pre-empted some months ago in Ottawa.

It's interesting to think about the Trudeau-NDP-Broadbent package, Mr. Speaker, and how the NDP have become the footsoldiers of Mr. Trudeau. There's been some recent talk about pay raises for Members of Parliament. Geoffrey Stevens of the Globe and Mail put it pretty well. He wrote a column last week talking about the pros and cons of pay raises for MPs, and along about the middle of the column he had this to say: "And why, in particular, should Ed Broadbent get more? Seeing as how he and Mr. Trudeau are as one these days, they ought to be asked to share one salary."

Of course, we heard this morning that the NDP in this province really had nothing to say on this topic. We saw furious stickhandling by the Leader of the Opposition in an effort to get away from the issue. Implicit support of the Trudeau package comes from those benches by their silence on the issues that concern westerners — implicit ongoing support of the Trudeau-Broadbent package. It's interesting to see Mr. Trudeau and the NDP in bed together. I think the Leader of the Opposition is fond of trying to wrap himself in the Canadian flag on this one, but I wonder if it's not Mr. Trudeau's bedsheets that the NDP are getting wrapped up in.

It used to be that the Leader of the Opposition would be pretty precise and call you un-Canadian if you commented in support of legitimate western interests. But now even Premier Davis of Ontario has recognized the legitimate aspirations of western Canadians and their right to comment on the issues of concern to them in the constitutional debate. Here's what he had to say in Vancouver last week. Premier Davis, speaking of the commission he advocates, said: "I believe that this commission should focus specifically on those matters of federal and provincial policy, in all jurisdictions in Canada, which must be addressed if western equality within the economic, political and social mainstream of this nation is to be achieved." More important, Mr. Speaker, he went on to say: "Any lesser response to the legitimate aspirations of the people of western Canada would, in my view, be un-Canadian." That's Bill Davis saying a lesser response is un-Canadian, and it's un-Canadian not to heed the legitimate aspirations and responses of the Canadian people.

Well, Mr. Speaker, those people on your left, the opposition, seem to have forgotten that one of their responsibilities and duties in this field is as provincial legislators. Listening to the Leader of the Opposition one sometimes gets the view that this is supposed to be a federal parliament. This is a provincial legislature, and we're here, primarily, to represent the provincial point of view and the provincial interest in the constitutional debate.

It's quite remarkable — I'm going to quote in a moment — that the federal NDP Members of Parliament from the west are the only elected members of the NDP in the west who've been talking about some of the western Canadian concerns and aspirations. I think the provincial members of the NDP in this province have been unusually silent on any of the topics in the constitutional debate that concern westerners. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) moments ago gave us a quotation from the former Premier, the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), about the importance of western legitimate interests. I'd like to requote that for the record. Gosh, we heard from the Leader of the Opposition this morning, and you wouldn't know it was this same fellow who in January 1975 had this to say in Ottawa to a group of finance ministers. The then Premier said:

"I want to speak openly and frankly today on the federal government's proposal in the budget to remove as a tax deduction the royalties paid by oil and gas companies. This is a matter of great national concern, and I must be clearly understood in my remarks.

"The federal government, through its taxation policies, is encouraging greater alienation and frustration among a great number of Canadians, especially western Canadians. These federal budgetary measures have almost overnight destroyed nearly two years of some progress and development emanating from the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. I am now asking the Prime Minister to resolve this issue and adopt the recommendations I made earlier. Let us break this impasse before it breaks us."

Now that's the Leader of the Opposition a couple of years ago. He didn't have that kind of thing to say this morning. Mr. Speaker, it's very surprising that we're now well into this debate, and from the opposition benches we haven't heard any substantive comment on issues in the constitutional debate of concern to the people of western Canada and the north. In view of that default, I would like to place on the record some of those concerns shared by government members of this House and, yes, shared by some federal NDP Members of Parliament, who are doing a proper and legitimate job in representing the concerns, the interests and the aspirations of western Canadians.

Let's talk about native rights for a moment. Let me read you the kind of comment that I would have expected we might have heard from the opposition so far in this debate, instead of the loud silence. Mr. Peter Ittinuar, the NDP Member of Parliament for the Northwest Territories, has had this to say about the present constitutional package in Ottawa:

"I'm also not a little disappointed on entering this debate on the constitution, because in the resolution that proposes four classifications of province, I find that as a territorial resident I am left completely out of the picture, both in the pre-patriation and post-patriation stages. Let me state this premise before I start: that the resolution on the constitution now before the House ignores native people and their rightful place in Canadian society.

"A few moments ago the hon. member for the Yukon said the resolution ignores the north. In the near future the north will be contributing to the economy of Canada through its resource development, and yet, as the Prime Minister said to me last year, the Northwest Territories has no standing whatsoever in making the constitution of Canada. I'm sure the member for the Yukon echoes those sentiments.

[ Page 4362 ]

"I urge all members of this House to insist that patriation not take place until adequate provisions have been made for native participation in the constitutional revision process."

Now, Mr. Speaker, in terms of native rights and that position, the resolution before us should be supported. But how surprising — for all we hear from the group to your left about native rights, not a comment on it so far in this important debate today. We have the spectacle of federal NDP Members of Parliament being the members of the NDP who one has to look to, if you're a rank and file NDPer in the west, to comment on and advance the legitimate aspirations and interests of western Canadians.

Here is Lyle Kristiansen last month in the House of Commons, the member for Kootenay West, and what he had to say. I haven't heard this kind of thing from that group on your left today, Mr. Speaker.

"I want to also reject the notion — widespread, apparently — that we in the west are greedy and want either as members or as provincial governments to keep all our riches, old or new, to ourselves. That has been, and remains, untrue. What is the federal interest, and what is the federal government's record in resources? In the absence of a clear and open commitment by the federal government as to its intent on this matter within the context of their resolution, one is left to assume they intend to intrude even further into the traditional provincial domain.

"If the federal government ever wants support for a greater role in economic development, they had better start to improve their track record and credibility in that regard."

Why aren't we hearing that kind of legitimate western comment and concern in this debate from that group on your left? It's a very important question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read some more.

MR. HYNDMAN: I've got some more for you, Mr. Member, your intergovernmental critic, Lorne Nystrom, has this to say:

"I believe we should have strong provincial governments, able to implement programs which respond to differing provincial and regional needs. I also strongly believe that in this country we have two orders of power, two sets of jurisdictions, partners between federal and provincial powers."

We're not hearing that from your group in this place.

Mr. Speaker, it's amazing that the group on your left, the opposition, are going to oppose this resolution and are going to go through this debate failing to voice any of the legitimate concerns of western Canadians about the issues in the constitutional debate that affect them. They're going to implicitly support the Trudeau package, notwithstanding that some of their federal counterparts have the maturity and the responsibility as federal members to get up and talk about these issues.

Let me conclude, in supporting this resolution, with three short quotations from other people. Once again, they're quotations from NDP Members of Parliament from the west. If those members were in this House, I'm certain they'd be supporting this resolution; they are quotations with which members of this government can agree. It is utterly amazing that the opposition on your left, Mr. Speaker, sits in silence, unwilling and afraid to say this kind of thing: "The resolution on the constitution now before the House of Commons ignores native people and their rightful place in Canadian society." "I want to reject the notion that we in the west are greedy and want, either as members or as provincial governments, to keep all our riches, old or new, to ourselves."

Here's a better one, Mr. Member; you'll like this: "The important thing when we put together the constitution is that it be done in such a way that we can live together in balance. There must be something in it for everybody, or everybody loses."

Those are statements from your colleagues in Ottawa, ladies and gentlemen. I think some of you in this House should stand up and be prepared to put those statements as well, or else consider what your responsibilities are in this debate in a place where your job is to represent provincial interests.

You know, having regard to the Leader of the Opposition, I've got to close with one more NDP quote from Ottawa. We heard the Leader of the Opposition this morning. We watched him stickhandle furiously away from the issue. Meanwhile the puck is down the rink in his own net with Mr. Trudeau. The Leader of the Opposition in this place, Mr. Speaker, should heed the words of his federal leader, Mr. Broadbent, because the Leader of the Opposition once again today, having nothing to say on the substance of this debate, attacked the Premier. Here's what Ed Broadbent says in the House of Commons on the constitutional debate: "I am not blaming the Premiers; that is intellectually vacuous." So the Leader of the Opposition here today, after his performance this morning, can sleep tonight in the comfortable assurance that Mr. Broadbent thinks his approach intellectually vacuous.

Mr. Speaker, by the silence and the lack of comment from the opposition on these issues in this debate we see again the tacit support and approval of the Trudeau package. The question has to be asked: if federal NDP Members of Parliament in the federal House find the place and have the maturity and the responsibility to stand and outline those issues in this debate that concern western Canadians, why is it in this place — which is a place of provincial policy and jurisdiction — those members sit in silence? I hope, following me, that we are going to hear some policy remarks from some of that group, or else, as other members have suggested, Mr. Speaker, we conclude that the silence is simply tacit support of the Trudeau package.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I should thank the last member who rose in his place in this House for putting forward so eloquently the official position of the New Democratic Party. At least we know where they should stand. They're not standing in this House, but they have stood in their place in Ottawa, and a number of them expressed concern about the present developments on the constitutional scene.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I am going to vote for this resolution, and I am going to argue that everyone else in this House should. It's straightforward; it's non-contentious, in my view. It doesn't divide us along party lines, so it should be passed unanimously in this Legislature today.

The resolution as I read it, Mr. Speaker, comes in two parts: one says that we should patriate our Canadian constitu-

[ Page 4363 ]

tion as soon as possible — everyone surely agrees; the other says that its amending formula should be agreed upon by the Parliament of Canada and all ten provinces. Now that's an ideal arrangement. Surely everyone agrees that it is ideal. Indeed it's a must if we want to develop a constitution in this country which is soundly based and in which all our peoples, especially those in provinces like Quebec and the west, can have faith in the future.

This resolution, Mr. Speaker, is, as I have said, a two-part resolution. It doesn't fly in the face of the Trudeau package — certainly not head-on. The present government is embarked upon a course which will patriate our constitution, hopefully in 1981. It also provides for a two-year working period in which the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces, collectively, can develop an amending formula. In 1982 and 1983 the rule of unanimity applies. So that's what Prime Minister Trudeau plans to give us, following his approach and reaching well into the 1980s — prompt patriation and unanimity for at least two years. That's what I'm saying; that's what the resolution says, Mr. Speaker.

There can't be much argument, therefore, about this resolution. Even Pierre Trudeau would agree with it, as far as it goes. Joe Clark would have to agree. Ed Broadbent, it appears, has already embraced it. Obviously our Social Credit government in British Columbia is for it, so why is the official opposition so silent? Perhaps they're just holding out; perhaps they're going to vote for it in the end. They really should. Not to do so would indicate a kind of obstinacy which has no place in times like these when essential issues such as the constitution demand our full attention. They have to be resolved. Many of these other issues which are not identified in this resolution have been mentioned in this House and should be discussed. They can be dealt with in later debate, Mr. Speaker, but they aren't being put to a vote in this Legislature now.

So let us, in other words, agree on this resolution, make a simple start and take one or two very short steps down the road towards a constitution which everyone agrees with and certainly can support.

What is the remainder? What is not contained in this resolution? There are many important issues — a Bill of Rights, for example. At this stage it is the entrenchment or lack of entrenchment which divides many of us. Also there is the question of provincial jurisdiction over resources, which is not before us in this House today. The division of powers, especially as they apply to such matters as communications and family law, is not before us today. The whole question of sharing, and the reform of our institutions like the Senate and the supreme court — those questions are not before us today. We are not asked to take sides with respect to any of those very important issues, but only the two simple ones that the resolution identifies. Some of these other very important issues can be put aside for a year or two, but they are very important. We must address ourselves to them, and we must address ourselves to them as soon as we can, but not today and not in this House.

Let me say a word about one that I regard as first: an entrenched Canadian Bill of Rights, which I frankly think we need in this country, both as a unifying force and as a simple statement of freedoms and privileges against which each new law, federal or provincial, can be tested in this country. I must admit right off, however, that there are strong arguments against it. The hon. member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) outlined some of them, and I'll give others. One is that, being entrenched, it is a law above and beyond other laws. Not only is it difficult to change, but it also casts a bigger shadow over provincial legislation than it does over legislation passed by Ottawa.

Our provincial legislatures have jurisdiction, for example, over property and civil rights. So far, our civil rights legislation has been sacrosanct: the Legislature has spoken, and that's the end of it. But with an entrenched bill of rights provincial legislators will have to watch out. They'll have to draft their laws more carefully, because if these laws conflict in any way with a new, entrenched bill of rights they may be thrown out by our courts. They could well be rejected by the supreme court in Ottawa if they aren't set aside before that.

Federal law, by contrast, isn't people law, at least to the same extent. It deals mainly with such matters as trade and commerce, foreign affairs, transportation, defence — essentially non-civil matters. The Criminal Code is an exception, but, in the main, federal legislation is in a different area than that covered by an entrenched bill of rights. Ottawa, in other words, has less reason to be leery of a charter of rights and freedoms than our ten provincial legislatures have.

A second and more general criticism — and again this was referred to by the hon. member for Kamloops — is that ours is a parliamentary system of government. Parliament is, or should be, all-powerful; it should be supreme. In a parliamentary democracy the job of the courts is to enforce the laws that parliament makes. The courts don't have much latitude in a parliamentary system when it comes to interpretation, but give the courts an entrenched bill of rights and our legislators could be in trouble at times. They could be prevented from responding to an obvious public need by a court which was out of tune with the times. It's an old question: who do you trust most, a group of politicians who can be replaced at election time, or a small group of lawyers who, having been appointed to judgeships, can't be replaced at all?

Of course, there are those who would point to high-sounding bills of rights in countries like the Soviet Union and, indeed, Iran, where their effectiveness in protecting the freedom of the individual isn't worth the paper they are written on. There has to be a good feeling between the people in a society in the first place. They must want to live together peacefully and work together for the common good. They must respect each other's rights and especially each other's individual rights. Then their institutions will comply because they will be made to comply. They will, in fact, reflect the freedoms and rights which we in this country hold dear. So a bill of rights isn't everything. It can tie our hands as legislators. It can postpone much-needed social reforms. It can drag our judges into the political arena, and it can give an appearance of fairness when there's no fairness in the country at all.

I admit these things. Still, I like the idea of setting out our basic freedoms in a tidy package for all to see. I want to know, and I want all other Canadians to know, what our freedoms really are. I want to feel that regardless of what party is in power and regardless of how successful the bureaucrats are in drafting new rules and regulations, we will always have the following: freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression and freedom of peaceful assembly and association in this great country of ours. Not only must we have the inalienable right to vote, but Canadians must be free to live anywhere in

[ Page 4364 ]

Canada. They must be able to work in any province. They must have the right to life, liberty and security of their person, and they musn't be subjected to search or seizure except on grounds and in accordance with the procedures of established law. They mustn't be subjected to any cruel and unusual punishment. They must enjoy equality before the law regardless of their race, national origin, colour, age or sex. This is important, Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent Quebec referendum: they must be entitled to have their children educated in English or in French wherever numbers warrant. The "wherever numbers warrant" qualification was, as I understand it, approved by all of our first ministers in 1978.

Two of these freedoms are new ones on the Canadian constitutional scene. One is the mobility feature — the right of Canadians to move anywhere in Canada. The other is the second language right. It's important not only for one million francophone Canadians living outside of Quebec, but also for more than one million of the English-speaking people living inside that predominantly French-speaking province.

I talked at some length about a bill of rights, Whether it could be entrenched in our new Canadian constitution or adopted in the form of ordinary law by our two different levels of government is an important question. But it is a question which should be settled here in Canada, not in the United Kingdom, not by a parliament which has no direct interest in our internal Canadian affairs. Prime Minister Trudeau, in an impatient mood, thinks otherwise. He's tacking his own 69-clause bill of rights and freedoms onto the British North America Act and sending it to London to become part of a new constitution of Canada. I'm not sure that the Thatcher government will do what he asks. But if it does, we'll get an entrenched bill of rights whether we like it or not. We'll get a bill of rights which is opposed by at least six of our provincial governments, and we'll get it with a minimum of input from our legislatures. That's no way to launch a new constitution in Canada, even to reform an old one. Also, it's no way to treat the government of a friendly power. The Thatcher government, if it passes the Trudeau package, will be acting like a rubber stamp. It will be doing everything our Prime Minister asks but it will also be doing something which we collectively may not wish it to do at all.

Frankly, I don't like this back-door approach to constitution-making. It's sly and it could backfire. It could hurt Canada's good relations with the United Kingdom, and it could damage federal-provincial relations in this country even more.

The real question now is: what can the provinces do about it? More particularly, what can the province of British Columbia do about it? Well, there's one thing, in my view. Appeal directly to Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher on essentially political, as opposed to legal or constitutional, grounds. Tell her that her United Kingdom government is stepping into a hornet's nest. No matter what Prime Minister Trudeau says, the United Kingdom will be interfering unnecessarily in Canadian affairs. It will be passing a law — a unique law for Canada — which we can't get through our legislatures here at home. That's not democracy. It's taking orders from the Parliament of Canada in respect to matters over which the Parliament of Canada has no right or, indeed, presently no power to act.

Parliament in the United Kingdom, of course, can repeal the British North America Act. It's a British act, not a Canadian act. The Parliament in Westminster can also repeal section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. That's a British act as well, an act passed in 1931. That's within the competence of the Parliament in London. But to add some 69 clauses supplied by Prime Minister Trudeau in his joint address of the Canadian House of Commons in the Senate to the Queen is overdoing it. It's changing the British North America Act in a massive way. It's not simply sending it to Canada; it's legislating for Canada in a big way. For example, many Quebecers won't thank the United Kingdom for that.

If I was advising Prime Minister Thatcher I would say don't touch the British North America Act at all — it's all right as it is — but repeal section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. It, as many hon. members know, was an act of the United Kingdom back in 1931 which declared that Canada, Australia, New Zealand and certain other members of the British Commonwealth at that time were free to go their own way. Canada, then as now, had a problem. It couldn't agree on a way to amend its constitution, the British North America Act. It couldn't amend it at home, so it had the British add section 7 to the Statute of Westminster, and that section says that the British Parliament, on request, could do the amending job for us.

We were passing the buck then and half a century later Prime Minister Trudeau is trying to pass the buck again. This sort of thing has got to stop. We've got to face up to our own problem, and we'd be forced to do so if the Parliament of the United Kingdom repealed section 7 of the Statute of Westminster. All it amounts to is two dozen words in three short clauses. If you wipe it out, the United Kingdom will have no more to do with our constitution. If it has to be changed, it would then have to be changed in Canada. Please, Mrs. Thatcher, do this little thing for us. Repeal section 7 of the Statute of Westminster and you'll avoid a lot of headaches on your side of the Atlantic, and we'll be able to hold our heads up here on Canadian soil.

Back to the resolution before us, Mt. Speaker. Let's agree on it and pass it. Surely we all agree that patriating the constitution is desirable and unanimity between Ottawa and the provinces is desirable in respect to the formula used for future constitutional change. As I said earlier, we agree on early patriation. We agree that our amending formula should also be one that has the approval of Ottawa and all ten provinces. This isn't much to ask. However, it has a certain symbolism. It will indicate our continuing faith in a Canadian federation that is based on consultation and a genuine respect for the rights of others.

A unanimous passage of this resolution is a short step, but I contend, Mr. Speaker, that it is a very important step for this Legislature to take along the way toward constitutional reform.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, since 1924 the women of the United States have been trying to get the constitution of their nation amended to enshrine their equality in that constitution. Their amending formula didn't ask for 100 percent ratification from all of the states; it only asked that 38 of the 50 states be ratified. Since 1924 they haven't been able to get even that. What we are faced with if we support this resolution is that a charter of rights attached to the constitution is going to be repatriated, which does not enshrine in it the kinds of equality for Indian women, which they have been fighting for for a number of years, or equality for any women at all.

[ Page 4365 ]

If we support this resolution, we are going to find that the women of Canada, and certainly the Indian women of Canada, are going to be fighting without success to get that constitution amended in order to enshrine our equality as equals in this nation. I don't think the government took that into account when they moved this resolution, because I'm quite sure if they had taken that into account they would have understood why it is we cannot support that resolution.

The rigidity of unanimity ensures that the kind of equality that Indian women have been fighting for in this country and the kind of inequality that the courts have enshrined against them in this inequality by the Supreme Court decision of 1973, which enshrined that they do, in fact, lose their status if they marry a non-Indian.... The rigidity of unanimity enshrines that kind of discrimination in the constitution. That is the reason — certainly one of the reasons — why we cannot support it.

HON. MR. GARDOM: The Prime Minister of Canada has suggested, and he continues to suggest, that the provinces are not in agreement over an amending formula. I say, with every respect to the hon. Prime Minister, that that is incorrect and illogical. Some people perhaps would make a stronger statement than I have concerning his interpretation of what happened in Vancouver, because there is an amending formula that all ten provinces can agree to in principle, and it is known as the Vancouver Accord. The original suggestion for this formula was made during the negotiations of ministers from all provinces during February 1979. During this summer's round of ministerial constitutional talks the pros and cons of various formulae were discussed and were considered. Early on the conclusion was reached that any formula that allows a majority of provinces to unfairly impose upon a smaller province would be unacceptable. The Vancouver consensus which was arrived at on July 24 of this year, with agreement in principle by all provinces, prevented this. The situation we have now is all ten provinces in agreement, in principle, upon an amending formula, while the Prime Minister of our country is suggesting that no agreement can be reached.

The Vancouver Accord amending formula, generally assessed, is this: general amendments to the constitution of our country would require the assent of Parliament and two-thirds of the provinces that have within their borders at least 50 percent of the Canadian population. However, if an amendment affects essential provincial interests, a province can have the choice of dissenting and opting out of the proposed amendment. That's really the bare bones of the Vancouver accord.

It has three main features. First, it gives the federal government, through its majority in Parliament, the overall power to determine what amendments can be made to the constitution. This is very important, because it provides the federal government with a strong role in its function of managing our national affairs. There's no question that to have a strong Canada we must have a national government with the powers it needs to effectively perform its function. Second, the Vancouver accord prevents a majority of the provinces from unfairly forcing its will on the people of a smaller province. This possibility is a concern of each of the eight relatively smaller provinces. They want to be treated fairly within the Canadian federation, and the Vancouver Accord provides that sort of guarantee.

The third main feature of the Vancouver accord relies on the undesirability of establishing a checkerboard pattern of constitutional law forming across Canada. It would be obvious to you, Mr. Speaker, that the provisions to permit a new constitutional provision not to apply to a province must be difficult to accomplish, and it must be tough to opt out of an amendment. It must not be allowed to be done on whim, or with an idea that the people of a province would be rushed into it only to regret that later on. In other words, an amendment which would not apply to a province should be treated only as a last resort. If the majority of the provinces wished to support an amendment that was so unpalatable and unfair, and if one or two provinces began to believe that they'd have to begin taking steps under the opting-out provision not to have such a constitutional amendment applied to them.... For example, their option to opt out of the measure, whatever the measure in question was, would in turn, obviously, through the political process, encourage the supporting provinces to rethink their actions, to demonstrate cooperative federalism and have the dissenters come back to the table so they could have one amendment that would apply right across the country. This is just old-fashioned, Canadian common sense. Negotiation, compromise and accommodation — that is cooperative federalism, and that would come into play. It would prevail, and all concerned would sit down at the constitutional table to reach an accord that all could all live with. That, Mr. Speaker, is the democratic course for a federation of provinces with such diversity and varied interests as we have in Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure, precise details of the Vancouver accord have to be worked out, but with all of the ten provinces agreeing in principle — and I repeat that. Surely those details can be worked out and, I'd say, in short order, providing the will is there to do it. I say this to you, hon. members: the will is there to do it, and in my view it can be done. That's the situation we have today.

Unanimous provincial agreement at this time on a completed formula would provide the flexibility that Canada requires, which the last speaker was talking about. It would heal many wounds, and it would certainly serve to better unify and unite our country. There is no need for this unilateral activity by the federal government, which is creating a national embarrassment in our country. And we have you being prepared to support it today. I can't believe it. It's against all the principles of Canadian federalism. This unilateral activity that's being taken by the Trudeau administration could well be a threat to the fabric of our country.

You might wonder why an extra week or two of work was not done on the formula of the Vancouver accord, and so do we. The ministers on the continuing committee on the constitution, following their instructions, following the federally initiated agenda, developed consensus, developed accord, developed agreement, and turned the matter over to the first ministers for their September 1980 Ottawa meeting. But, purely and simply, that accord was not heeded nor followed by the federal administration. Heretofore accepted Canadian conventions, Canadian practices, Canadian usages, customs and appropriate legal routes became abandoned. What happened? A complete intrusion will have resulted if these federal proposals go forward into the heretofore historically accepted division of responsibilities between the people of the provinces and the people of the general dominion. They each have their rightful place in the federal compact. The

[ Page 4366 ]

concerns that I'm talking about are being expressed right across the whole of our country. We found that out yesterday. Those concerns are being expressed by New Democratic people, by Conservatives, by Liberals, by Social Crediters, by people of every political faith that we have in our country. Why are you ignoring that today? You're turning your back on the Canadian will, as is the federal administration. The unilateral activity proposed by the federal administration is contrary to Canadian custom, contrary to Canadian law, contrary to Canadian usage, contrary to Canadian convention. Surely now is the time for some up-front, straightforward, no-frills, Canadian-type negotiations — as the Premier said, a return to Canadian common sense. Get the thing back on track. That's what we're asking for, Mr. Speaker. These are not all my sentiments. I'd like to read to you some statements from a few leading editorials. This one was a while back, from the Winnipeg Free Press, October 3, 1980. I'm going to quote some of it.

"Mr. Trudeau claimed that it was the requirement of unanimity which blocked agreement at the last constitutional conference, as at all previous ones. In fact, there was substantial agreement on a large number of items, blocked chiefly by the Prime Minister himself."

That, Mr. Speaker, is fact. Then the editorial talks about the amending formula. This is the federal proposal, contrary to the agreement in principle of ten provinces right across our country.

"Its worst aspect is the amending formula. An acceptable formula was available" — which I mentioned to you earlier this afternoon — "supported by all the provinces. Mr. Trudeau chose instead an ornate procedure, whose obvious aim is to force acceptance of the formula agreed on at Victoria in 1971, accompanied by a potentially dangerous provision for a national referendum.

"The referendum" — and other speakers have spoken about this — "could be used to whip up public opinion for a constitutional assault on the rights of one or more of the provinces in the west or the Maritimes."

Here is a more recent editorial which came as an advertisement, as a matter of fact, by the Globe and Mail in the Times of London, on December 3, 1980.

"If Mr. Trudeau asks the Thatcher government to submit to Parliament a bill that Members of Parliament can be expected to find questionable or repugnant, he will be the meddler, and he will be meddling unconscionably in British affairs. When the Prime Minister of Canada goes to Westminster to ask for British help in clobbering the provinces that he can't cope with on his own, who is the colonial in the case? If the Prime Minister of Canada were to ask the British government to submit to Parliament a bill that provided merely for the patriation of the constitution — that is, a bill that would put the power to amend the BNA Act into Canadian hands according to a formula to be settled by agreement between federal and provincial governments — then the only course open to the British government would be to act on that request."

I continue with the quotation:

"In plain words, Mr. Trudeau is asking Britain to make changes to the Canadian constitution that go far beyond the changes he could make himself if the constitution had already been repatriated."

He could not utilize the formula that he is proposing today to bring about that which he is trying to impose upon the Canadian public and which these people over here are blindly supporting. What about the court? Are we forgetting about the rule of the court as well? I refer to a very recent editorial in the Financial Post — I do not have a date, but it is volume 74, number 49, and is from this month or the end of last month — which quotes Senator Duff Roblin. He was talking about a court decision and said:

"In the event this House, along with others, may be asked to make up its mind on whether it intends to proceed in defiance — if that is the correct word — of the court's judgment, because the matter is bound to go to the Supreme Court, I think the government's policy in the case of an adverse decision should be made known to the Senate."

And the editorial carries on by saying this:

"A key element of our constitution is the division of powers between the federal Parliament and the provinces. Jurisdictional disputes are decided by the Supreme Court. That's the way our system works. It would be unthinkable for Parliament to pass a resolution that the court had clearly labelled unconstitutional."

This is what the official opposition is ignoring today as it is being ignored by the federal administration. The federal Senate, I suppose, is primarily composed of members of the party in power in Ottawa today. This is the report that has just come out in November. It says this, and this is what you are ignoring too:

"It is generally accepted today that Canada should have a genuine federation in which each order of government would be sovereign within its own areas of jurisdiction. This is the basic principle that has been recognized by all the documents that have dealt with constitutional reform in recent years."

It quotes Pépin-Robarts; it quotes the Beige Paper of the Quebec Liberal Party; it quotes the 1978 White Paper of the federal government itself. A lot of hard work went into these reports — intense and scholarly work, Mr. Speaker — and the same conclusion was reached in each. Again quoting the Senate, they say that other documents as well have expressed their support for genuine federation. There seems to exist, therefore, a general consensus on the principle of sovereignty or non subordination of the two orders of government. Why aren't you understanding this and supporting it?

Let's talk about some of our sister provinces.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's not.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Let's not, the hon. member says. Well, I'm going to. I'll read to you a little bit about the resolution of the province of Alberta. It supports appropriate safeguards for the protection of provincial rights for proprietary interests and jurisdiction. The Legislative Assembly of Alberta expresses its opposition to the unilateral action proposed by the government of Canada; constitutional discussions must be resumed as soon as possible. That is the route taken by Alberta.

The national Assembly of Quebec affirms that the renewal of the Canadian constitution must take place in Canada in accordance with the principles of federalism and, conse-

[ Page 4367 ]

quently, by way of negotiation between both levels of government and with the joint consent of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures. That is what our resolution is about.

What about Newfoundland? The same: they object to the unilateral request. They urge the federal government to recognize the established Canadian practice of determining internal Canadian relationships by consultation and agreement with all Canadian governments, and the immediate reinstitution of federal-provincial constitutional discussions. We are doing the same thing as our sister provinces, and you over there aren't supporting that either.

The Province editorial of December 3 says:

"There should at least be more time now for a search for consensus in Canada that British MPs have indicated they would like to see before being asked to act on a Canadian request."

That's why we have made our position known in London and very fully known in Canada.

"Meanwhile the acrimonious constitutional debate will go on much longer in Canada at great risk to national unity, unless the federal government is prepared to compromise further in the search for consensus."

That's what we are asking them to do with this resolution today.

"Our view is that the search should be undertaken again with more vigour."

The Province, of December 11 says: "He" — referring to the Prime Minister — "can no longer hide behind the notion that he has been promoting for many months" — I'm paraphrasing here — "that the people support his ideas. They patently do not." How come you fellows didn't hear that?

"A solid 58 percent of Canadians in the polls said they would prefer to see Mr. Trudeau get the unanimous approval of all the provinces before going to London." How come you can't hear that? "They don't like the way Mr. Trudeau is going about this constitutional business. How come you do?"

I would like to say just a few remarks before sitting down about the speech this morning by the hon. Leader of the Opposition. I would say it was an unfortunate speech. It was unprepared, ill-conceived and full of contradictions. But it did break at least, probably, two all-time records: I think that it illustrated the greatest paucity of research in the annals of this Legislature for any speech we have ever had on the floor of this House, and it is certainly the weakest talk that he has given during the whole of his political career.

Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition does not understand the composition and the relevance of the Canadian dimension, because that which is federally proposed and that which is supported by the New Democratic Party in British Columbia — not by the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, and I'd say not by the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan — is based on the following three concepts. These are their concepts: (1) the British Parliament has got to be a rubber stamp; (2) the federal government can run roughshod over the provincial areas of responsibility, contrary to the will of the ten provinces in our country; (3) they are proposing, I suppose, to obviate the function of the court.

"Just a hunch" — says Geoffrey Stevens in Ottawa — "that among the NDP provincial leaders, only David Barrett, the hon. Leader of the Opposition in
British Columbia, has publicly supported the federal government. Howard Pawley in Manitoba has been mute. In Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, the pivotal figure among the Premiers, is not opposing the Trudeau-Broadbent approach, but he is not actively supporting it either. I'll say he's not. "Sources say Mr. Blakeney wants more time to consider his position."

I'm going to quote Mr. Blakeney before I sit down.

This morning the hon. leader talked about his concept of federalism and the provincial role. I say he has totally misconstrued it. Mr. Speaker, I have to say to you without qualification that I prefer the comments, the wisdom, the in-depth, precise and deeply researched reasoning and attention that has been given to this concept during the history of our country, and the philosophy of democratic federalism by the likes of Louis St. Laurent, Borden, Mackenzie King, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, the hon. Guy Favreau, the hon. Earnest LaPointe, even the present Prime Minister, former Prime Minister Diefenbaker and Mr. Allan Blakeney, the Premier of Saskatchewan, than the leader of the official opposition. I will join their camp, Mr. Speaker, rather than listen to what we heard this morning.

Leading academics with world-renowned reputations have worked on the number of papers that we have had in Canada. They have presented evidence to different people in London. Their view is practically unanimous that what is being carried on in proportion to what is being done here is a definite intrusion into areas of provincial responsibility.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Allan Blakeney, the Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, produced, I think, a very magnificent closing at the first ministers' meeting in Ottawa on Saturday, September 13. 1980. The meeting was, for all practical purposes, over. Mr. Blakeney got the attention of the Prime Minister and he made this statement, which you people unfortunately are rejecting today. He said:

"The national interest cannot be stated by the majority view in the House of Commons. That is the view of a unitary state, and under those circumstances one does not really need a constitution. One can deal with the national interest and identify it from time to time. The essence of Canada is that it is a federation. The essence of Canada is, therefore, that in major matters we need a double majority."

We're telling you that.

"We need the majority of citizens as expressed by the popular will in the House of Commons, and" — says Mr. Blakeney, so correctly — "we need the majority, however defined, of the regional will. That is the essence of a federal state."

Carrying on, he says:

"There's no other way to express the regional will, at least at this time, than through our provincial governments.''

Apparently the hon. the leader of the official opposition for British Columbia was interviewed by Richard Gwyn, in Victoria sometime in November of this year, and here is a quotation that is attributed to the hon. Leader of the Opposition. Mr. Barrett says in an interview: "Yeah, I've learned the trick for laying out a wholly logical argument on an entirely phony basis." I tend to think that was what was laid upon us this morning.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, it's a treat to see you back in the chair once more. Why you're here is because of

[ Page 4368 ]

the splendid job you've been doing on behalf of all the members, and why the opposition is here, Mr. Speaker, is difficult to tell. There are not too many occasions in the life of a parliament or in the time of a Legislature in this House in British Columbia when the issues and quality of debate bear not on the trivia of the moment, whether it be egg marketing boards or whatever, but extend far beyond our time in life, and where the things that we espouse will be of greater importance to our grandchildren and their grandchildren than to ourselves. It's at times like this that we find the New Democratic Party most incapable of action, when we find them truly bankrupt of ideas. Because it's a party of followers — followers of public opinion, not leaders of public opinion. It's a party that's incapable of new concepts or even of laying forth enduring concepts. It's a party that has to wait until a poll is taken to see where the popularity lies and then to follow that public opinion.

Suddenly, because of the consistent stands that this government has taken on constitutional issues, bearing in mind the good of the people of Canada and British Columbia, and because of others in Canada coming to realize that what British Columbia has been saying for these months and years has truly been correct, you begin to see the public realizing the wisdom of our position. The polls are beginning to change, and therefore the NDP are so confused they're unable to speak. They have no ideas of their own, and they're afraid to take the ideas of the general public, because for once the people who have led in public opinion — the Social Credit government — the people who have produced results, and often have been at odds with the media and occasionally at odds with the public of British Columbia, have proved once more that the case is right, and what we have stood for is good for Canada and good for British Columbia.

We're talking about issues that will last for hundreds of years. And as we try and see in perspective where we should stand on these issues, we must go back to the concepts of the Fathers of Confederation, who set forth the precepts of a country based upon the voluntary association of sovereign provinces and the creation of a national government to work in partnership. The spirit of the Fathers of Confederation is momentarily being lost. It's to recapture that spirit, to rekindle a sense of Canadianism, that we put forth this resolution. It could not have been better stated than by the Premier of the province, describing the issues, laying out the history, setting a course of action, and calling on all of Canada to come to its senses and produce for our children, our children's children and all our descendants the kind of document upon which the truly great potential of Canada can be reached.

Instead, Canadians are divided. They're given a dilemma. How can people be good Canadians and good westerners? How can we hold our heads up, if we take to the Parliament of Westminster — our mother country — a set of issues upon which they must be faced with the dilemma? We've not had these issues clearly laid out for us by our own media, to my tremendous regret. But, Mr. Speaker, it has been laid out for us by the London Times, who stressed the dilemma facing the British Parliament if they refuse to act on the unilateral request of our federal government, knowing that six provinces in Canada out of ten oppose that action and have gone to the Supreme Court of Canada; knowing that the official opposition in the House of Commons, for which they claim dominance and responsibility, is against their proposals.

In the opposition, Mr. Speaker — the New Democratic Party is the lap-dog of Prime Minister Trudeau, or vice versa — only the official opposition presents the case for those Canadians who believe that Westminster be respected. They should not be asked to undertake a course of action that is divisive within Canada, and where the supreme court has not rendered a decision upon the authority of the federal government even to make the request.

So, Mr. Speaker, here is the dilemma facing the British Parliament. First of all, if they refuse the action, they treat us as a colonial power. If they agree to the action of the federal government, they are meddling in internal affairs in Canada, because they are doing for the federal government of Canada what it cannot achieve in its own country. Yet if they change the request of that federal Parliament — that being the only one that can officially be received — then, of course, that will be interpreted too as meddling in the internal affairs of our country. Why is it necessary for us to go at this particular time in our history, with so much division as to the course of action, and thereby embarrass and indeed compromise the Mother of Parliaments?

It has been said repeatedly by representatives of the federal Parliament that consensus on this issue is impossible, and therefore that they have no choice but to act unilaterally in defiance of provincial legislatures, in defiance of people in their own House of Parliament, and in defiance of the spirit of Confederation, as laid down by the great people who founded this country and those who nourished it and developed it to this point in time.

So, Mr. Speaker, the question must be asked whether it is really valid to say that consensus cannot be reached. Is it sincere for the Canadian Parliament to make that statement? I am sure that many of the Premiers and their officials who attended that first ministers' conference in September — displayed before the eyes of the public of Canada — were shocked to have released during the time of that conference the confidential paper prepared for the federal cabinet, which laid out the behind-the- scenes thinking which makes a sham of the notion that we cannot reach consensus in Canada. Indeed, what was laid out in that so-called confidential paper makes it absolutely evident that the opposite was the case and that the action chosen by the federal government was in defiance of that opportunity.

I want to read into the record here in the Legislature of British Columbia, in case it has not been done in other places in Canada, some excerpts from that confidential cabinet document. I do that for a very special purpose: to let it be known that it is possible to build consensus in Canada, to eliminate divisiveness, to strike a constitution made by Canadians in Canada, for each province in our country, and that the contention that this is impossible is a hypocritical sham. Let me quote from page 3 of this document, intended for ministers' eyes only, but no doubt released by a Canadian whose heart was for his country and not for loyalty to that small group of people who, I assert here, are leading to divisiveness, not to consensus. It says:

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

[ Page 4369 ]

That's the challenge which the federal government set out to prove — that we could not reach consensus. Mr. Speaker, it was not our fault. I say that's a sham. When we have, operating at the national level, insincerity and these kinds of Machiavellian documents being drawn up to advise the federal cabinet, no wonder there is divisiveness in Canada. No wonder there is a failure to reach consensus, No wonder we place the British Parliament in a dilemma. And no wonder somewhere, i.e. In this provincial Legislature and other provincial legislatures across Canada, we must take action and say: "Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough." What we have to do is have an abandonment of documents of this kind, and genuine work on the part of the federal government to bring consensus in this country, not for any immediate political purpose, but for our descendants, who will bear gratitude for the action we are taking now.

I read from another part — again, under "Significant Issues."

"Since the provincial position will continue to be unacceptable to the federal government, the challenge remains to find some middle ground that will be attractive enough to some coastal provinces to break the'provincial front."

The issue is offshore resources. The objective of the federal government is to break the provincial front. We heard, after that first ministers' conference — when this script was followed to a T — that there would be no trading of freedom for fish.

I read from another part of this document — again, for ministers' eyes only; not to be known by the Canadian public; not to be known by those who sought to reach consensus and to build, as did the Fathers of Confederation, a stronger country.

"The position before the first ministers' conference. Ministerial guidance is requested with respect to whether or not the federal government wishes to reconfirm the federal offer as stated, which would almost certainly lead to an impasse, or whether ministers are prepared to consider further changes to the offer expressed, in the hope that agreement can be reached on this item."

What happened? I'll tell you what happened. The federal offer as stated was reconfirmed, in the full knowledge that an impasse would be reached.

Again, we come to communications. Again, it's pointed out that there's a division between the federal government and the provinces. Again, it's said that what is necessary is that the federal government make concessions in order that consensus can be reached. And again, Mr. Speaker, what happened? No federal movement, with the certainty that consensus would be avoided and that an impasse would be possible.

What about amending? That's one of the principal issues that is before us today. This is the one where the Leader of the Opposition, in his shallow presentation this morning before us, was unable to come up with any common sense statement as to what we should do. Well, let me tell you what, for ministers' eyes in the federal government only, was said:

"All of the provinces agreed in principle that they would be willing to adopt the Alberta proposal for an amending formula, subject to examination of a legal draft. The Alberta proposal provides for general amendments to be made with the assent of Parliament, and two-thirds of the provinces with at least 50 percent of the population — the Vancouver accord. However, if the amendment so approved by seven provinces is one affecting the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws, etc., it would not apply to any province that had expressly dissented from it. This procedure has been termed 'opting out'."

Again, Mr. Speaker, is consensus possible — even on amending a patriated constitution? You bet it is. Where does the problem lie? The problem lies not with ten provinces who cannot agree — that's a sham. It lies with the kinds of advisers who put forward a scenario of this kind, written "for ministers' eyes only." Who advised the federal government? The regret of it all is that the federal government accepted that advice. So here the scenario is laid out: do not reach consensus; take unilateral action and attempt to blame the provinces.

They discussed the packages then that they will unilaterally take to Westminster. They asked the ministers, before that first ministers' conference, advising them that no consensus can be reached. They said: "Pick the package now that you're going to take unilaterally, so we know where we stand at the time of the conference. " But hear this, Mr. Speaker. Right in the confidential document for federal ministers' eyes only, on what they should do about the package, I quote from page 41:

"Breaking up a solid western provinces' block of opposition is a prerequisite to our being in a position to take action on package 3, rather than package 3A. Saskatchewan may prove to be the key.

"The argument has been put to the provinces that they would do well to make a deal on resources now, because the chance to do so in the future may not come around for a long time, in which case they will have to live with the status quo because they wanted too much."

Mr. Speaker, after that package was brought down in Parliament, where did the Prime Minister of Canada go?

Interjection.

HON. MR. McGEER: Only second. He went to Saskatchewan first, fearing a western bloc, and he went there to trade resource concessions to the province of Saskatchewan in order to break that western bloc. This is the Prime Minister who on television before the nation said, "We will not trade freedom for fish," the Prime Minister who had in his possession this script and who has followed it to a T.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I only mention these points to tell you that whether I am a federal Liberal, a federal Conservative, a member of the New Democratic Party, a provincial Social Crediter, a provincial Conservative, or representative of any political party in Canada today, my responsibility is as a Canadian, and to the future of our country. I stand here to do and say those things which I believe must be done now in order to protect and build the future of my children and your children and their descendants. I condemn this kind of cynical document, because laid within these pages is the root of our problem now. I say if we can throw this away and get down to honest discussion of the future of Canada, this divisiveness will disappear and we will build a great country.

MR. LAUK: The cameras want another shot at that.

[ Page 4370 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: No, the press isn't here. Their interest is barely better than that of the NDP.

Mr. Speaker, when those final remarks were made at the first ministers' conference, I heard how important it was to build a strong Canada, and two views of Canada were presented. Neither of them accorded with my own. Even the Premier of Saskatchewan, who is the target of the federal government that won't trade anything in trying to reach disunity among the provinces, represented an alternative view of what is a good Canada.

I say this because I believe it reflects the honest and high spirit of the Fathers of Confederation. When they laid out the concept of this country it was that a person could be a great Canadian and a great Ontarian, Quebecer or Nova Scotian. We will have a great Canada and a great Confederation when people in every part of this country can say: "I am a great Canadian and a great Ontarian, I am a great Canadian and a great Quebecer and, yes, a great Canadian and a great British Columbian. "

When you throw away Machiavellian documents such as this and begin to sit down with honesty in your heart to build a Confederation that makes it possible for a Canadian in any part of this country to say I am a great Canadian and also a great British Columbian, then, and only then, will we have built a great country for the future.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to take my place in debate in support of this motion....

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I shall not be long. I know that the members of the official opposition are bored because in spite of the fact that constitutional discussion has been at the forefront of the news for months and months and in spite of the fact that they had several days' notice of this motion, they are either unprepared to participate in what can and should be for the people of the province of British Columbia one of the most significant debates of the decade, or they are so lacking in any views with respect to Canada in this province that they must sit there in silence.

This morning in the course of his remarks, the leader of the official opposition said that he'd made some hurried notes of what the hon. Premier said, and I did the same with the Leader of the Opposition. He was speaking about the fact that there are other issues that confront Canada at this particular moment, and he wanted to get on and discuss those. I agree with that. In this province, in every other province and in our national parliament there are issues of major importance to be discussed; but when the government and Prime Minister of Canada introduce initiatives which go to the very root of this nation, we must pause and take care that we address our nation as it is today and as it will be in the future. And the leader of the official opposition said, at the same time: "I'd rather not be in this constitutional debate." Well, he wasn't in it this morning, and none of his members have been in it the rest of the day. Oh, his seatmate, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), did get up on his feet for a few moments. In the course of his remarks he said that the people of the province were being badly let down. They're being badly let down by an opposition which has not taken the time to consider what its role is in this province and to recognize what its history is in this country — the history of that party.

MR. MACDONALD: Will you go to the joint committee?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The second member for Vancouver East has been chirping that across the floor all day, and he will get his answer in the appropriate time. But by the time that decision is made, the people of the province of British Columbia will be asking that member how it is that he has forgotten his beginnings and the beginnings of his party.

The hon. second member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. McGeer) spoke about the future of Canada and the opportunity to build. The opportunity to build a great nation is ours. That opportunity was given to us by the commendable foresight of the Fathers of Confederation who, with their advisers in the 1860s, considered carefully the opportunity that was then presented to them — the establishment of a confederation — a federation not in the classical sense, which was done by our American neighbours, but a confederation which is uniquely Canadian, one which has resulted in the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of the provinces being equal and coordinate in their own areas of sovereignty. That was a very careful decision that was made, and that was recognized by all of the leaders of this nation from 1867 through, unfortunately, until 1980.

As I was looking at some of the debates in the House of Commons over the years on constitutional matters, I came across the debates which took place in February 1925 when the Parliament of Canada was at that time considering an address to London, seeking amendment to the British North America Act. And I found that there was a distinguished member of that House who spoke in that debate — Mr. J.S. Woodsworth, the Member of Parliament for Winnipeg Centre.

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, you applaud. He was a distinguished Canadian. He brought with him a view from western Canada which was refreshing, significant and lasting in the national sphere. You're right to applaud. But he said, in Hansard in the course of that debate on February, 18, 1925....

Interjection.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: You, sir, would do well to listen to what he had to say, because you can take a lesson from the greatness of that gentleman.

In dealing with constitutional matters, Mr. Woodsworth said:

The minister — referring to the Minister of Justice for Canada — referred to the fact that there were obstacles in the way of achieving confederation. We quite acknowledge that, but I should like to urge that there are obstacles today in the way of maintaining confederation, and we should try to our utmost to remove those obstacles and lessen, as far as we may, the causes of friction.

He went on to say:

I would urge that the only way we can maintain confederation is to insist absolutely upon justice for all, for the newcomer as well as for the old-timer, for the westerner as well as the easterner, for those parts of the country which entered confed-

[ Page 4371 ]

eration more recently as well as for those that entered it when the British North America Act was passed. I believe in federation; I believe in still wider federation. I believe we all hope for an ultimate world federation — but these things can be accomplished only as we maintain a very large measure of home rule — and we ought to have home rule here in Canada. In order to obviate the difficulties that seem to face the Minister of Justice and several other members with regard to this resolution, I beg leave to move the following amendment, seconded by Mr. Shaw:

"That the resolution be amended as follows: by adding following the words after the word 'Dominion'....

"Upon first obtaining the consent of all the provinces of Canada."

This distinguished Canadian was Mr. Woodsworth, speaking in respect of a federal initiative to change the constitution of Canada in a way that he knew was going to affect minorities, old-timers, recent immigrants, the west, the east, the whole of the nation. He amended that motion to urge that it be done with the consent of all the provinces. He concluded his remarks on that occasion: "Surely such a resolution, if it is not harmless — that is the only possible trouble with it — would absolutely safeguard the fundamental principles laid down in the British North America Act." That is what this resolution we are considering today lays down: fundamental protection for the principles of the British North America Act.

During the course of discussions with regard to constitutional change in Canada we've all had the opportunity of meeting many Canadians who are concerned about this issue. I would like to ask the members of the official opposition if they would like to have the British North America Act — in fact the British North America Acts, our constitution, all of its elements — patriated to Canada so that our future constitutional destiny will be controlled in this country. I wonder what their answer would be. I know that the majority of Canadians answer the question saying: "Yes, we'd like to have that done." Then I would ask the official opposition: if our constitution is patriated should there be a method of amending that constitution? I'm sure their answer would be: "In the orderly, proper evolution and development of this nation and its constitution, of course there will need to be changes from time to time in order to accommodate changing circumstances." There's no question what their answer would be.

So the question that they are posed today, and the only one that can lead to their vote against this motion, is this question: are you prepared to have that forced upon you in a way that the federal government wants, or do you stand for what Woodsworth wanted? That's the question. Are you prepared to have the destiny of this nation dictated by what the federal Parliament thinks?

If that is your view, then, as I said a few moments ago, you deny the history of the party which was your beginning. You deny the remarks of a man like Woodsworth, who knew about this nation and stood up in 1925 and made it known that when they were to be tampering in a major way with the constitution of this nation, which touched upon the minorities and the rights of others across this nation, the consent of the provinces was required.

So it's clear what your vote will mean. If you follow what your leader has indicated — that you will oppose this resolution then it is clear that you are prepared to knuckle under to the dictates of the federal Parliament in this regard, in spite of the fact that for the 112 ½ years of the history of Canada, the convention, the law which underlies the principles of our Confederation, has denied that authority to the federal government. What could have happened after 112 ½ years of the history of this nation to have encouraged the government of Canada and its Prime Minister to take this action? What circumstance, and what, after all the history of this nation, could have encouraged the New Democratic Party to support this kind of action?

We've read the Machiavellian, cynical script for federal ministers' eyes only. We know the game plan. I'm compelled to the conclusion that there must be another part of the game plan. There must be some other part of the game plan. It must involve the New Democratic Party and its national leadership; other-wise why would they be so silent? Why would they support this kind of action after all these years?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Canada is an independent country, a sovereign nation, but is, as I said, a special kind of confederation. The classical confederation arose when the component elements of that confederation gave to the central government a measure of their powers and kept the residue. That's what led to the difficulties in the United States of America back in the 1960s. Our Fathers of Confederation, having seen what had happened in that federal system, decided it would be different. Therefore we have the unique federation where certain powers are limited to the federal government and certain powers are limited to the provinces. Each is sovereign in those areas, and any residue rests with the central government. With that comes the equal and coordinate status of provinces, which I mentioned. It's mentioned through all the debates on constitutional matters. An equal and coordinate sovereign position, which the provinces enjoy within their limited area, was itself recognized in 1931 with the passage of the Statute of Westminster. From that day, at least, there has been no question of Canada's independence as a nation and its complete separation from the United Kingdom except in one respect: if we come to amend our constitution as it affects federal-provincial relations, we must return to the U.K. But that is not in any sense a survival of an imperial colonial relationship.

The United Kingdom Parliament is in that position because they were invited by Canada to assume that role. Now why were they invited? If you look at the history of the meetings which took place leading up to the Statute of Westminster, you will know that when the Prime Minister of Canada was in Britain discussing the terms of the Statute of Westminster, questions were raised by the provinces, in particular the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, that what was being done would be a denial of the sovereign rights of the province. The Prime Minister came home from Britain and a federal-provincial conference was convened. As a result of that conference, there was unanimous agreement that the Statute of Westminster should go forward, with the inclusion of section 7 — to which the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) made mention earlier today. That's how it arose. That change took place because the provinces recognized that what was being done otherwise was to deny them their proper role in Confederation. And the federal of government of that day understood it. A federal-provincial agreement was convened, and there was unam-

[ Page 4372 ]

mous consent. That's how it happened. Canada grew up on that day. From that time only, the United Kingdom Parliament has only one role, and that is the role of a bare trustee. When Canada goes to the United Kingdom Parliament with the accredited request and consent, they are obliged to act in accordance with that accredited request and consent. But I tell you that a unilateral request from the federal Parliament does not qualify as an accredited request.

When dealing with an area of federal-provincial relations, a request from the federal Parliament and the necessary consent from Canada require that there be the consent of the ten provinces as well. That is the distinction, and this is what is going on in London today and in the next few months.

I'll deal with remarks from the member for Vancouver East in a moment.

What is going on today is an examination by the people in the United Kingdom, their Parliament and their government, of what is their responsibility in this field. Distinguished constitutional scholars have appeared before the Kershaw committee in London and have given testimony as to what their responsibility is. As I have stated, their responsibility is to be satisfied that if federal-provincial relations are being affected, the request from the federal Parliament must bear with it the consent of the ten provinces. If it were not so, the federal government wouldn't have to go to the U.K. at all, because in 1949 the BNA Act was amended so that the federal government could do it without going to the U.K. They tried it in the case of the Senate reference — Bill C-60 — and the Supreme Court of Canada shot them down. They said: "You can't use your sole federal powers to affect an institution which is Canadian in nature. That imposes itself upon the rights of the provinces. You must go to the U.K."

Well, they haven't gone to the U.K. yet, but they are going this time, again unilaterally. Since 1949 the United Kingdom has only been involved in those constitutional issues when federal-provincial relations are involved.

The second member for Vancouver East said this morning that our going to London was a "mission impossible." He is a great phrase-maker. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, that we did go to London and we did file a brief with the Kershaw committee. Representations were made to make certain that this province's views were made known — that when a proposal comes from the Parliament of Canada for the amendment of the BNA Act affecting the provinces they recognize that their authority is limited to those cases when the provinces have consented. That's not a mission impossible; that's a mission which is essential to the future of this nation. If you want to have Canada as an independent nation and if you really believe what you said this morning, you'll stand up and vote for this resolution when it is called. I dare you! Stand up for Canada! Stand up for British Columbia! Stand up for what your party believes! You won't do it, will you? No.

I just hope that Hansard got all of that recorded, as he was inquiring the other day, because he doesn't stand up for Canada; he won't stand up for British Columbia and he won't even stand up for the party which was his beginnings. He said, Mr. Speaker, "the rigidity of unanimity" is an interesting phrase and I am glad that the member raised it, because it reminds me of another phrase dealing with unanimity — "the tyranny of unanimity." That's how it was used by the Prime Minister of Canada.

When the first and second members for Vancouver–Point Grey and others have spoken, with what took place during this past summer, when in respect of an amending proposal for the constitution you have ten provinces with agreement and you have one federal government which says, "no deal," I ask you: where is the tyranny in that circumstance? And when the one who has said "no" turns around and says, "I don't care what you say, I'm going to do it my way," I ask you who is the tyrant.

It has been suggested that until we get the BNA Act patriated.... I hope that someday teachers in our schools will instruct the young Canadians what nonsense that is about bringing the BNA Act back. We're not bringing it back — we're passing two new statutes over in Westminster. I trust that when that takes place and all the discussion about whether we're colonials or not has died down from the current discussion, maybe someone will pause long enough to just recognize what the imperial colonial status is of what we're talking about. What the federal government is doing is saying to the people of Canada and to the provinces: "For 112 ½ years everybody thought you were equal and coordinate, that you were levels of government sovereign in your own areas and in your own right, owning your resources, responsible for the affairs of a local nature in a legislature such as we have here, but that's all wrong. You really are colonies out there. You, British Columbia, are the colony you were back in 1871, and you, Saskatchewan and Alberta and Manitoba, are like you were before you even became provinces, and you founding nations — forget it all. Go back to your colonial status. We, the federal government, will decide in this regard what is right for you, and we will go to the U.K. and get it done, and then when it comes back you will have a provincial status, modified as we want it to be."

That's the unilateral act. That's the message. That's the kind of Canada which is not ours. It may be the vision of Canada that one man has, but it is not the vision of Canada that will ensure its great future.

MR. LEGGATT:Mr. Speaker, we have canvassed a great deal of the subject today without examining very carefully from time to time what this motion really says. I think we should remind ourselves of what we are voting on today: "We, the members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, reaffirming our allegiance to the Crown" — certainly we can buy that — "our commitment to a united Canada" — we can certainly buy that — "within the Canadian Confederation" — and we can buy that — "and asserting the sovereign status of Canada as a free and independent nation" — yes, by all means — "support: (1) early patriation of the constitution of Canada from the United Kingdom" — yes, an excellent idea — " (2) a formula for the amendment of the constitution of Canada in respect to matters affecting the federal-provincial relationship...." Yes, we can support that. But it goes on. Why it goes on I don't know. If you wanted our support you could have had it, but you decided not to. Here it is.

Most of the debate this afternoon has just been nonsense. There's a reason that this little hooker was put in here. It's political. "...with the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces and of the Parliament of Canada."

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) just spent the last 20 minutes telling us about 112 years of history in this country. It's 112 years of history that the provinces of Canada and the federal government have failed to come to any agreement whatsoever around the amendment of this constitution. In fact, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General knows,

[ Page 4373 ]

the Premier knows and everyone on that side knows that there is no provincial agreement today around that subject, none whatsoever. What does Premier Davis say about it? What does Premier Hatfield say about it? Tell us. What's Hatfield's position? Would he be on your side of this debate? Would Premier Davis be on your side? I doubt it very much. You see, you've had 112 years, you're talking about, and you are saying that 150,000 people in the province of Prince Edward Island shall hold a veto over any change in the constitution. That's just plain wrong. That just doesn't make any sense.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: I've read the resolution. It's right here and it's as plain as the nose on your face: "...the consent of the legislatures of all the provinces, and of the parliament of Canada." I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that if you bring this constitution back on that basis, it will be enshrined in stone and you will never change anything in this country. You've got to release the deadlock of 112 years of negotiations.

But Premier W.A.C. Bennett understood the problem. You remember what he said about the Victoria Charter. He liked the idea that there had to be some kind of formula somehow or other that we are able to unlock this 112 years of stalemate around the constitution. But the Victoria Charter is something that this party has rejected now.

You know, the Premier went to Quebec before the referendum and made a good speech — in fact, I dare say a speech that contributed a great deal to the unity of Canada and perhaps contributed to the success of those who were opposing separatism in Canada. He said this:

"I have said it many times before, but let me repeat, that my government is fully committed to the wholesale renewal of the Canadian Confederation and a concerted effort to reform the constitution — and without delay."

That was a commitment that the people of Canada gave to the people of Quebec. I say the Premier should live up to that commitment, and he's not doing it with this resolution.

The other interesting thing was that this government and this Premier went all over the province of British Columbia and across the rest of the country saying that the federal government have got their hands in our pockets and they're going to steal our resources: that's why we've got to be tough with those feds. We believe in tough bargaining, and we think it's good that they stand up for the resources of the province of British Columbia. Who was it that acquired them and entrenched them in the constitution, Mr. Speaker? It was the leader of the New Democratic Party, Ed Broadbent, that's who.

I think there are people who care about the province of British Columbia. Let's just read into the record some of the correspondence. This was a letter dated October 20 from Ed Broadbent, directed to the Prime Minister:

"For the above reasons I stress the necessity of including in any proposal to Parliament, in addition to the above desired elements, the confirmation of the province's right to manage and control their resources, and more specifically of their right to levy indirect taxes in this sector and to share a concurrent power with federal paramountcy with respect to the interprovincial trade and resources."

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: What was the Prime Minister's answer to that? In a word, it was yes. "I confirm the jurisdiction of the provinces with respect to the exploration, development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including the making of laws in relation to the primary production of such resources." Mr. Speaker, the answer to the question is yes, and the Premier continues to cry wolf. The fact is that the New Democratic Party, with the interests of British Columbia paramount in mind, obtained what the Premier of this province couldn't obtain through negotiations in Ottawa. That's the facts.

I've listened with some care to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair). I was back in Ottawa for a portion of that particular conference. The Minister of Health told me today that he didn't see Dave Barrett at the conference. I was there, he was there and Dave Barrett was there. Perhaps if the Minister of Health hadn't been there so often we might have had a deal back there. That could have happened. The Premier could have been at the ball game. We might have got there.

I heard the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), I think it was, tell me that he's concerned about the enshrinement of equalization in this country — that that formula be entrenched in the constitution. I'm not concerned about that at all. That's the very least that we owe those in this country who are less fortunate. That's why Canada is more than just its provinces. It's more than just a sum of its regions; it's a different concept. Unless you have that equalization formula built into the constitution that concept will be lost. You see, we are our brothers' keepers in every other part of this country. I'm surprised to hear a minister say that he would not want to see the concept of equalization enshrined in the constitution. I can tell you that this party will fight, and fight forever, for that enshrinement of equalization.

Since the name of J.S. Woodsworth is raised in this House, I want to tell you J.S. Woodsworth would have been ashamed of your remarks this afternoon. He would have fought for enshrinement as the most important single principle of what he stood for. You always love our great heroes when they pass away. You notice how we always get praise about Tommy Douglas and J.S. Woodsworth. Where were you when they were alive? Why didn't you give them a little help then? We'd be a lot better country, a lot better off.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: The Minister of Education suggested that somehow people on this side hadn't been paying attention to the debate or hadn't been reading Hansard. I read Lorne Nystrom's speech; I thought it was an excellent, thoughtful speech. I hope he read all the speeches there. Maybe I should quote the former Premier of Nova Scotia, from Hansard, in the recent debates:

While I served as Premier of Nova Scotia I participated in the constitutional first ministers' conference in Victoria in 1971. In succeeding years I took part in 23 first ministers' conferences. In Victoria there were people like Premier Strom, for whom I have always had great respect, Premier Bourassa, the late W.A.C. Bennett, and various others who were Premiers. In those 23 first ministers' conferences, I came to know how they operate in

[ Page 4374 ]

closed session. Of course, they talk changes when the Prime Minister and the Premiers go into a closed room. Nine and a half years ago, in Victoria, we came closer to unanimity on the constitution than ever before. We were closer than is ever likely to happen again, given the emergence of the resource issue and the growing tendency of Premiers to hold Canada's aspiration for patriation of the constitution hostage for the yielding of ever more federal powers to the provinces.

That's a statesmanlike approach. There has to be a beginning for a new constitution, a beginning for Canada. I believe we're at that great opportunity now to finally come to grips with the problem and patriate the constitution. But the resolution we are asked to support today is a negative resolution, a resolution which will result in no change whatsoever to the constitution, and we can't support it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Speaker, most of what I wanted to say in introducing this motion, I said this morning. Normally this time is reserved for dealing with legitimate concerns that could be expressed about a motion of this nature — one so important to the future of our country, one dealing with the most topical item of the day in our country and certainly the one most important to our future. While I know it does not intrigue the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) or titillate the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) as much as talking of scandal and using innuendo at the usual high level that they're able to rise to, I want to say that I have been disappointed that the Leader of the Opposition in this House was not able to furnish some concrete suggestions, not only to do with the country.... It was obvious that not only did he and his party not understand a very easily understood motion, but they also do not understand, for the most part, what this country is all about. And that's the sad thing.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

They do not understand what the country is about, nor do they care what sort of country they are willing to leave our children — and, as I said this morning, our children's children. It could be that they are not willing to protect the heritage that belongs to the young of British Columbia and the future generations. It could be, if they wanted to stand up and say as socialists, "We believe in a strong central government, strong central ownership, and so that you know we believe that, we have already, when we were government, offered to give away a large part of the resources of this province in oil and natural gas," and if they had said that and said that they do not agree with the provinces and provincial rights, and that they want a unitary state, such as exist in many countries around this world — a strong federal system without the type of federal government that we have here in Canada — I could have respected them. For those who are elected to represent not only the present generation, but future generations as well, to abandon that heritage because of ignorance is very telling indeed and shocking. It not only shocked me but shocked many British Columbians today.

The debate on this motion may not be easily understood by them, but over the course of the weeks and months ahead, the people of British Columbia will understand that they failed to stand up for future generations. They failed to give the most important debate we may ever embark upon the full attention it deserves. The fact is that member after member over there, who can easily spend 40 minutes and more talking about dirty tricks or supposed scandals, has not one minute to talk about the future of their country.

The level of the commitment of the people of this province has been exposed. We see now that the debate and the arguments we've had with them these last two years have not been for the people but have been self-serving. Their only goal is re-election at any expense — at the expense of people's reputations and the public expense of not fully offering alternatives to government programs. They take 40 minutes for scandal — each and every one of them — day after day, but not a minute to talk about the country.

I want to tell the member for Coquitlam-Moody that he too has followed the mistake of his leader, or perhaps he doesn't want to have to explain to his leader, because they have struck this position and want to go along with it, that he is deliberately or inadvertently misreading the motion.

Mr. Speaker, the motion clearly talks about patriation being an act in which all Canadians can take pride — not repatriating, but patriating; we've never had the constitution here — patriating it to Canada with an amending formula agreed to by the historic principles that have always been held by every Prime Minister and legislative and parliamentarian giants in their time, giants of our history, that any substantial change to an amending formula must come with unanimity. The reason for developing an amending formula — that's why it says "amending formula" — is to get away from that unanimity but to provide a fair mechanism, a fair formula, one that will not only allow change without the inflexibility of unanimity but which will also have in it safeguards, not to hold up the country but to save the smaller provinces from the rape of their resources should an all powerful country and provinces gang up on them. They couldn't hold up the business of the country, but they could have safeguards, under the formula that the Premiers agreed to in principle on all items when I was at the meeting, for their resources and those rights they hold now.

Why do you think the province of Newfoundland, the latest partner in Confederation, is so concerned with that mishmash that is written into the Canada Act of two years and a referendum that could impose an amending formula that could change their boundaries, because they are under dispute and not clearly defined in Labrador, could take away their educational system, could take away their opportunity for the development of offshore resources? What sort of a Canadian are you, that you're not willing to have an amending formula that allows flexibility but builds in the safeguards for provinces like that?

You might have been in Ottawa so long that you're awed by their power and their size, but I tell you that the amending formula that all provinces agreed to did not give undue power to any single province, but it gave an opportunity for the majority of Canadians and a majority of the provinces to make effective change. That is the formula that we have agreed to and will agree to. That is the formula that can come out of this motion, not a referendum. What is disturbing is that we have not had the type of informed alternative viewpoint we might have expected, or even the type of unanimous support one would expect from informed legislators willing to take a leadership position.

I think the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) put his finger on it. He said that that party is a party of followers. They've tried to follow public opinion. A few months ago the polls showed that it

[ Page 4375 ]

was popular to sit in the lap of the Prime Minister. They hopped into bed with Broadbent and Barrett and Trudeau, and today they're losing. Here we have the federal NDP leader as lap-dog, and the lap-dog has got a lap-dog here on the west coast.

This motion clearly gives us an opportunity to get back to business in this country and to get back to stopping the confrontation that has been initiated by the unilateral action of the Prime Minister. I don't want to repeat all the arguments I made this morning.

MR. HOWARD: Thank heaven!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Skeena says "thank heaven," because he's not interested. Tomorrow we can get back to some sort of debate that suits your style. You'll have plenty of time in the coming months to....

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order.

MR. HOWARD: My point of order is that the Premier has just said that I am not interested in his debate and his speech this morning.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Of course, that's not unusual for him.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! We discussed earlier in the day the fallacy of purporting to gain the floor. It seems to me it was the member's own words: "On a spurious point of order." I decry that practice and that goes to both sides of the House. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, I guess when the member continually talks from his seat and says, "Thank goodness we're not going to present our arguments," one could only assume he's not interested, but I guess it's for some other reason that he doesn't like debate and he doesn't want to hear them, or perhaps it's difficult.

Anyhow, I just want to make this basic point. There has been a confrontation created in this country. It's come not only in constitutional form from Prime Minister Trudeau, it has come in the form of taxation measures that have been introduced and will be imposed on the people of British Columbia. They are taxation measures which for the first time allow the federal government, one level of government, in a major way to tax another level of government. But they're not taxing the Socreds. What they're taxing is the people of B.C. They're lifting that money right out of the provincial budget. That budget belongs to the citizens of B.C. They're taking it back further, over and above the sharing we already have committed in this country, and they say they can do it. Now we oppose them both on moral and legal grounds. They are taxing the poor of British Columbia. I'll tell you why. It's fully to assume that when we have a wealthy province like British Columbia, that all are wealthy. Or when you have a poor province like Newfoundland that all are poor. There are rich and poor in every province, in every part of the country. That might be relative in various terms.

MR. LEA: Have you ever seen a poor person up close, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It depends if it means poor in spirit, Mr. Member from Prince Rupert — poor in attitude or poor in commitment to their country. Yesterday I saw a lot of people poor in commitment to their country.

What they have proposed is to tax the people of British Columbia and take revenues from their government. But in doing that they're taxing the poor of our province, because most government programs go to help the disadvantaged. And we then have them saying that under the constitution we have now, with all of the federal powers available to them under those powers and without the significant change to create further change that they're proposing here, they can do that. They will effectively destroy the provincial status in this country, inch by inch, foot by foot, day by day, week by week, and we have the compliance, the acquiescence to that sort of action from the New Democratic Party in British Columbia.

The member for Coquitlam-Moody made the statement that the provinces had been saved by the deal that Ed Broadbent made. He saved the resources for the people of Canada. I'll tell you what he did, because traditionally.... If you study the entry into Confederation, or if you study any of the ownership rights given under Confederation, the provinces already own resources. But what he has done is fallen into the Prime Minister's trap. The Prime Minister says: "Oh, I'll tell you that you own what you already own, but by doing that I'll leave some items out. I'll leave out water; I'll leave out those resources not identified." In writing a list and not saying "all resources," they have in fact denied to the people of Canada those resources that aren't on that list. Ed Broadbent didn't even get back for us what we have. He shared some more with the federal government. But that may suit the purpose of a party whose commitment is socialism, big central government, big government. It's not ours, but I wish they had based their even token opposition on what they truly believe rather than no debate at all, rather than trying to confuse the public by saying they misread the motion.

When the debates of this Legislature on the motion are given wide circulation to the people of B.C., we'll see who understands it and whether they are willing to accept that lame excuse. This is a very important motion. As I said before, it's part of the getting back to the conference table that we have called for — stop the unilateral action, stop the attacks, and stop the divisions. It is an attempt to provide a mechanism and a first order of business that will be the healing process for the wounds that have been exposed in the fight that has been developing in this country. When we bring back our constitution with an amending formula, we can get on with the desirable and substantive change that will help us to build a better country and we can continue to press on with those issues that are of importance.

I can remember coming into the session last year in the spring, when the opposition said before the session that their main concern was going to be fighting in the Legislature about unemployment. They were going to speak to it; they were going to speak about the economy. I can't remember one substantial speech dealing with those important items from any of them during the whole sitting. And so it is brave announcements before a session.

I can remember, this fall there were not requests but demands from the opposition for a fall sitting of the Legislature. ''We must have a fall sitting of the Legislature" — demands for the Premier to recall the House so they could get on with the important items of the day, the things they wanted

[ Page 4376 ]

to talk about. The urgency that was there! We call the House back and they say: "Why are you calling us back?" They get here and the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says he wonders why we called them back too, because after listening to them for a day he sought refuge in his office and tried to get back to the real work of running the people's business. They weren't sincere, Mr. Speaker. They didn't want to come back; they were doing that just for politics. They haven't had a substantial set of good ideas for the betterment of the people of this province in the last.... I was going to say two years, but it is much longer than that.

Mr. Speaker, this motion, which I had hoped would be dealt with in a substantial way, has received some good debate. I think of the members on this side of the House who have made a contribution in this debate. They talked about our country and pointed out the opportunities, and they made a great contribution. Perhaps Hansard should be required reading for the opposition over the next two months to acquaint them with their country.

Mr. Speaker, I now move the motion standing in my name.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 22

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been informed that the mother of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is ill, and I think all members of the House would like to wish her the very best and a speedy recovery.

MR. SPEAKER: Would it be the wish of the House for me to send the appropriate wishes? So ordered.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:03 p.m.