Document Information

Date: 1969-02
By: British Columbia
Citation: Constitutional Conference Continuing Committee of Officials, Propositions on the Constitution: British Columbia, Doc 46(1) (February 1969).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

Document No. 46 (1)
February, 1969

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
CONTINUING COMMITTEE OF OFFICIALS
PROPOSITIONS ON THE CONSTITUTION: BRITISH COLUMBIA

NOTE BY SECRETARIAT

The attached propositions on the Constitution
have been submitted by the Province of
British Columbia for distribution to members
of the Continuing Committee. The two proposi-
tions which were filed earlier by British
Columbia should be withdrawn since their
substance is included in the new propositions.
Since there has been no indication, as yet,
that these propositions will be made public,
this document has been classified as
“Confidential”.

CP/BC/HP/6
(Revised)

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
FILED WITH THE CONTINUING COMMITTEE
OF OFFICIALS ON THE CONSTITUTION.

CP/BC/WP/6 (Revised)

The following is a set of nineteen propositions
which have been filed with the Continuing Committee of

Officials on the Constitution.

The Committee has decided that the process of
Constitutional Review might be broken down into fifteen
categories of subjects and each proposition has been

placed under the appropriate category.

The explanations which accompany some of the
propositions are taken from the Province of British
Columbia’s brief entitled, “Proposals of the Province
of British Columbia on the Constitution of Canada,”

dated December, 1968.

As is the case of the propositions of all Govern-
ments filed with the Committee, these propositions are
not binding upon the Government that files them nor are
these propositions meant to contain the sum total of
British Columbia’s proposals on the Constitution. More

may be added from time to time.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 1

Subject: Object of the Constitutional Review

THE BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT SHOULD CONTINUE
TO BE THE CONSTITUTION FOR CANADA WITH SUCH
ALTERATIONS AS MAY BE NECESSARY – PARTICULARLY
IN THE AREA OF FISCAL CAPACITY AND THE POWER
OF AMENDMENT .

Explanation:

“British Columbia takes the View that our

Constitution has, by and large, served us well and
has shown itself to be a viable and flexible document
capable of adjusting and coping with the growing-pains
of nationhood. British Columbia, however, does not
hold sacred or sacrosanct the British North America Act,
but as one of the senior surviving constitutions among
the western democracies we say it has proved its worth.
With alterations – perhaps major ones,pparticularly in
the area of fiscal capacity – together with the
patriation to Canada of the power of amendment, it can
continue to be the Constitution for Canada’s great future.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 2

Subject: Object of the Constitutional Review

BRITISH COLUMBIA CONSIDERS IT INAPPROPRIATE
FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO IKTROUUCE
LEGISLATION WHICH IS AKIN TO, IF NOT IN FACT,
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDEENT AT A TIME WHEN THE
WHOLE EXERCISE OF A CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW IS
IN PROGRESS.

Explanation:

“On October 17, 1968, without consultation with
the Provinces, the Federal Government introduced into the
House of Commons Bill C-120, The Official Languages Act.
Section 2 of the Bill declares that the “English and
French languages are the official languages of Canada for
all purposes of the Parliament and Government of Canada.”
At first blush these words would seem to indicate that
matters covered by the Bill have little to do with the
Provinces, but are purely matters of exclusive concern
to the Federal Government. A closer examination, however,
indicates otherwise. The Bill would permit a person
charged with a crime, or his counsel, to be heard in a
Provincial Court in either French or English and, at the
option of the Court, to have the entire proceedings
conducted in either language.

There are very strong doubts as to the Bill’s
constitutional validity. It certainly represents an
extension of section 133 of the British North America Act,
and, if it is not unconstitutional on that account, it may
well be unconstitutional in its attempt to make Provincial
Courts bilingual, bearing in mind that the “constitution,
maintenance, and organization of Provincial Courts, both
of civil and of criminal jurisdiction” is vested exclusively
in the Provinces by head 14 of section 92 of the British
North America Act.

It seems inappropriate for the Federal Government
to introduce legislation of this kind on a matter which is
viewed by British Columbia as being akin to, if not in fact,
constitutional amendment at a time when the whole exercise
of a thorough constitutional review is in progress.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 3

Subject: Objectives of Confederation

THE EQUAL AND FAIR-TREATBENT OF ALL THE
CITIZENS OF CANADA, WITHOUT REGARD TO
RACIAL ORIGIN, CULTURE, RELIGION OR
ECONOMIC STATUS.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 4

Subject: Objectives of Confederation

AS ONE MEANS TO BRING ABOUT GREATER ECONOMIC
OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL CITIZENS IN ALL REGIOES
OF CANADA, BRITISH COLUMBIA CALLS FOR THE
ALTERATION OF THE BOUNDARIES OF SOME OF THE
PROVINCES AND THE ABOLITIOH OF SOME OF THE
OTHER PROVINCES SO AS TO PROVIDE FIVE VIABLE
AND EFFECTIVE POLITICAL UNITS IN CANADA IN
CONFORMITY WITH THE FIVE ECOFOKIC REGIONS OF
CANADA. IN ADDITION, THE BOUNDARIES OF THE
PROVINCES APPLICABLE SHOULD BE EXTENDED
NORTHWARD TO THE NORTHERN LIMITS OF CONTINENTAL
CANADA.

Explanation:

“The stresses within the nation at the present time
are primarily economic and financial in nature. Unless
the problems of the glaring discrepancies in standards of
living and economic opportunities for low-income citizens
wherever they may be found in Canada are met, then the
consideration of many of the matters which are being dis-
cussed during these days may prove to be little more than
academic. I am not minimizing the importance of such
matters as language, culture, and constitutional review
generally. But I am saying, that if we are to have and
develop the kind of Canada we all unquestionably desire,
then the scope of our vision must embrace the economic facts
of life in Canada, which call for a frank appraisal of what
National policy should be adopted to improve the situation.
British Columbia believes the solution lies in direct
assistance to persons of low income rather than through large
unconditional payments to certain Provincial Governments.
Naturally, any policies to raise the standards of living of
all loweincome persons will benefit most those areas with
the highest incidence of inadequate incozz. But no matter
what government policies of special help to individuals are
involved, no real solution will come until we have more
uniform wage rates across Canada. Governments should start
by introducing uniform minimum wage rates by comparable
industry in all of Canada.

-2-

Further in this connection, I believe the
time has come to recognize that in the interests of
economic realities the boundaries of some of the
Provinces will have to be altered and the separate
existence of some other Provinces will have to be
abolished so as to provide five viable and effective
political units consonant and in conformity with the
five economic regions of Canada. Imagine the increased
efficiency and resultant substantial savings to the
Canadian taxpayer that would result.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 5

Subject: General Principles of the Constitution

CANADA’S FUTURE CAN BEST BE REALIZED
UNDER A FEDERAL SYSTEM OF GOVERNMENT.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 6

Subject: General Principles of the Constitution

CANADA SHOULD CONTINUE TO BE A
PARLIAMENTARY DEMOCRACY WITH THE
QUEEN AS HEAD OF STATE.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 7

Subject: General Princiyles of the Constitution

THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE MEANS TO
DEVELOP CULTURAL AND LINGUISTIC DIVERSITY
AND SHOULD NOT CONTAIN ANY LANGUAGE
GUARAETEES BEYOND THOSE NOW CONTAINED IN
SECTION 133 OF THE B.N.A. ACT.

Explanation:

“British Columbia recognizes that the English and
French cultures and languages are the predominant ones in
Canadian society today, and every effort should be made to
encourage, cultivate, and foster them – not from the point
of view that Confederation consisted of a union of two
founding races or cultures, because British Columbia does
not believe history supports that view, but rather because
of their intrinsic worth and the benefits to nationhood to
be gained by doing so. Having said that, we also recognize
that there are six million Canadians whose ethnic origin is
neither English nor French. We do not intend to see these
people made second-class citizens by constitutional means.

The question, then, is: What are the best means to
foster and develop those ethnic and cultural diversities
with which Canada is blessed? The cold legal language of a
constitution would not, in British Columbia’s opinion, be
the means at all. In point of fact, the constitution has
little effect on how people live in so far as language and
culture are concerned. Our linguistic and cultural attitudes
are tempered not by legal considerations embodied in a
constitution, but in the final analysis reflect the personal
habits, attitudes, and practical necessities of the popula-
tion of the nation. It is when individuals, encouraged by
their governments, come to realize the worth of another
language and culture on their own merits – it is in that
climate that culture and language will flourish and Canada’s
heritage will be enriched.

“Canada is a large country with major centres
of one language and culture or another. The sparsity
of French-speaking Canadians in many parts of Canada
makes it inappropriate for a constitution to require
equality of language and culture rights in every corner
of the nation. The Commission on Bilingualism and
Biculturalism appreciated this fact, and the action the
Commission recommended in the first report was not, for
the most part, to take the form of constitutional
amendment, but rather was to take the form of legislative
action in those particular jurisdictions in which the
number of French-speaking Canadians made action appro-
priate. In British Columbia there are fewer citizens
per capita whose mother tongue is French now than there
were when British Columbia entered Confederation in
1871.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 8

Subject: Fundamental Rights

BRITISH COLUMBIA SHOULD NOT SUPPORT A BILL
OF RIGHTS WHICH WOULD ENTRENCH LINGUISTIC
RIGHTS AND WISHES TO RESERVE ITS POSITION
ON WHETHER IT WOULD SUPPORT ENTRENCHMENT
OF POLITICAL, LEGAL, EGALITARIAN AND
ECONOMIC RIGHTS UNTIL THE IMPLICATIONS OF
SO DOING ARE FULLY CONSIDERED.

Explanation:

“For the reasons contained under Proposition #7,
British Columbia would not support a Bill of Rights which
would entrench linguistic rights. Koreover, linguistic
rights are not the kind of natural rights which traditionally
have been the subject of constitutional protection in those
jurisdictions that have enacted Bills of Rights.

As far as fundamental rights are concerned, British
Columbia is firmly committed to the proposition of the fair
and impartial treatment under law of all its citizens and
the citizens of Canada. In that sense we completely support
the expression in law of a person’s fundamental rights. The
question is: Can these best be insured by an entrenched
Bill of Rights as is suggested? Before that question can
properly be answered, we must have the fullest discussion on
the implications of entrenchment.

The first implication of an entrenched Bill of Rights
is that it amounts to a restriction on the principle of
legislative supremacy, which has been the underlying philosophy
of our parliamentary system. Are we now in a position in
Canada to depart from the principle of parliamentary supremacy
which has guided us so well in our first one hundred years?
Moreover, such a restriction on legislative supremacy would
to a greater extent be at the expense of Provincial jurisdic-
tions rather than the Federal jurisdiction, for it is the
Provincial Legislatures that have legislative competence over
property and civil rights within a province.

There are more significant ways to effectively ensure
that our laws do not offend basic human rights and are kept
up to date and in keeping with our ideals of justice and
freedom.”

Filed by Govcrnment of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Conference Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 9

Subject: The Constitution of the Central Government

(e) Senate

THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD PROVIDE FOR
REPRESENTATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA IN
THE SENATE EQUAL TO EACH OF THE OTHER
FOUR ECONOMIC REGIONS IN CANADA.

Explanation:

“An examination of those sections of the British
North America Act to do with the constitution of the Senate
of Canada indicates it was intended the Senate would rep-
resent the various regions of Canada and thereby bring to
bear upon the Federal legislative-making process the
legitimate needs of those regions.

The economic realities of today indicate there are
five regions of Canada, the fifth being British Columbia.
The Federal Government has recognized this fact, for the
records of the Dominion Bureau of Statistics and other pub-
lications of the Federal Government show the economic regions
to be as follows:

(1) Atlantic,
(2) Quebec,
(3) Ontario,

(4) The Prairies,
(5) British Columbia.

With the population of British Columbia growing at
twice the rate of the rest of Canada, the presence of British
Columbia as an economic region of its own is more obvious as
each day passes.

If the Senate of Canada is to continue to exist, then
British Columbia calls for the redistribution of its seats
based on today’s realities so that British Columbia as one
economic area would have equal representation with each of
the other four.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 10

Subject: The Constitution of the Central Government

(e) Senate

THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD PROVIDE FOR THE
APPOINTMENT OF SEHATOHS BY THE PROVINCIAL
GOVERNMENTS, SUCH APPOINTMENTS TO BE FOR
A NUMBER OF YEARS CERTAIN.

Explanation:

The adoption of the proposal would increase
interregional co-operation and would ensure that the
Senate would be more effective in reflecting the
legitimate aspirations of the various regions.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 11

Subject: Constitution of the Judicial System

THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA SHOULD CONTINUE
TO BE THE FINAL COURT OF APPEAL FOR CANADA
WITH CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS INCLUDED IN ITS
JURISDICTION.

Explanation:

“British Columbia is of the View that the Supreme
Court of Canada should continue to exist as the final
court of appeal for Canada. Because a separate constitu-
tional court would result in a court dealing in theory
rather than in the day-to-day realities and practicalities
of life, British Columbia is opposed to a separate constic
tutional court and favours the present practice of the
Supreme Court of Canada having jurisdiction in constitutional
matters.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 12

Subject: Constitution of the Judicial System

APPOINTMENTS TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
SHOULD BE FROM THE FIVE REGIONS OF CANADA SO
THAT AT ALL TIMES THE MEMBERSHIP OF THE COURT
IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE WHOLE OF CANADA.
SUCH APPOINTMENTS SHOULD BE APPROVED BY THE
SENATE, RECONSTITUTED AS PREVIOUSLY SUGGESTED.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 13

Subject: Constitution of the Judicial System

ON THE HEARING OF COISTITUTIOHAL MATTERS
THE QUORUM OF THE COURT SHOULD CONTINUE
TO BE SEVEN JUDGES AND WHEN THE CONSTITU-
TIONAL VALIDITY OF A STATUTE OF A
PARTICULAR PROVINCE IS IN ISSUE, IT IS
DESIRABLE THAT THE JUDGES APPOIKTED FROM
THAT PROVINCE, OR FROM THE REGION OF WHICH
THAT PROVINCE IS A PART, SHOULD SIT ON THE
HEARING OF THE CASE.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 14

Subject: The Distributicn of Legislative Powers

Taxing Powers

THE CAPACITY OF EACH GOVERNMENT TO TAX
MUST BE SUFFICIENT FOR EACH GOVERNMENT
TO EFFECTIVELY DISCHARGE ITS CONSTITU-
TIONAL OBLIGATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE
FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD LEAVE EXCLUSIVELY
TO THE PROVINCES THE DIRECT TAX FIELDS AND
SUCCESSION OR ESTATE TAXES. HAVING DONE
THAT, THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD RESTRICT THE
SPENDING POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO
THOSE MATTERS UNDER ITS JURISDICTION.

Filed by Governmant of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 15

Subject: The Distribution of Legislative Powers

(b) Powers of the Central Government

THE POWERS OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT
MUST BE SUFFICIENT FOR IT TO EFFECTIVELY
FULFILL ITS ROLE OF REPRESENTING THE
COLLECTIVE INTERESTS OF CANADA AS A WHOLE.
THE ENUMERATED CLASSES OF SUBJECTS SET OUT
IN SECTION 91 OF THE B.N.A. ACT ARE SUF-
FICIENT FOR THAT PURPOSE.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 16

Subject: The Distribution of Legislative Powers

(c) Provincial Powers

IN ADDITION TO THE POWERS CONTAINED IN
THE ENUMERATED HEADS OF SECTION 92 OF
THE B.N.A. ACT, THE PROVINCES SHOULD
HAVE THE POWER TO LEGISLATE IN ALL
RESIDUAL MATTERS, I.E., ALL CLASSES OF
SUBJECTS NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE ENUMERATED
HEADS OF SECTION 91 AND “ALL MATTERS OF A
MERELY LOCAL OR PRIVATE NATURE IN THE
PROVINCE.”

Filed by the Government of thy Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 17

Subject: The Distribution of Legislative Powers

(d) Shared Powers

THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD PROVIDE FOR
CONCURRENT CONSTITUTIONAL JURISDICTION
AND SHARED RESPONSIBILITY IN RELATION
TO CERTAIN MATTERS.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee Of Officials

PROPOSITION NO. 18

Subject: The Distribution of Legislative Powers

(h) Delegation of Powers

SUPERIMPOSED UPON THE DISTRIBUTION OF
POWERS THE CONSTITUTION SHOULD PERMIT
THE DELEGATION OF JURISDICTION BETWEEN
THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVBERKENTS.

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Continuing Committee of Officials

PROPOSITIONS NO. 19

Subject: Amendment Procedures

IMMEDIATE ACTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO
BRING TO FRUITION PAST EFFORTS TO
AGREE UPON A FORMULA FOR AMENDING THE
CONSTITUTION IN CANADA.

Explanation:

“Throughout the course of the first one hundred
years the British North America Act has, as the need arose,
been subject to amendment by one means or another, at least
a score of times. British Columbia, however, is not
satisfied with the vagaries of the present method of amend~
menu. I recall that over an extended period of years,
culminating in an agreement in Charlottetown in 1964, all
Governments participated in a series of meetings called for
the purpose of agreeing upon a formula of how to amend the
Constitution of Canada. British Columbia was one of the
contributors to the solution then reached. And yet, in
spite of unanimous agreement at the time, subsequent events
prevented the formula being implemented.

We are now embarked upon what has been described as
a “total review of the Constitution.” The substance of
constitutional review is infinitely more complicated and
much less likely to be the subject of agreement than the
relatively simple question of determining a method to amend
the Constitution in Canada. And yet if we are unable to
bring to fruition extensive efforts that were expended in
that more simple exercise, then the question that comes to
my mind is: Are we now unmarked on a task utterly incapable
of fulfilment, having regard to the differences of opinion
that do exist between us on matters of substance?

As an indicator of our good intentions in respect

of the total review now under way, I call upon all Govern-
ments to readdress themselves to the fundamental proposition
of how to amend the Constitution in Canada, ta?ing on from
the point of earlier agreement and making such adaptations
to the formula as would make possible its unanimous accep-
tance in 1969.”

Filed by Government of the Province of British Columbia