Document Information

Date: 1978-08-09
By: Richard Hatfield
Citation: 19th Annual Premiers’ Conference, Statement by the Hon. Richard Hatfield, Doc 850-10/013 (Regina/Waskesiu: 9-12 August 1978).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

DOCUMENT: 850-10/013

19TH ANNUAL PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE

Statement by the Hon. Richard Hatfield
Premier of New Brunswick

Regina/Waskesiu
AUGUST 9-12, 1978

STATEMENT BY THE HON. RICHARD HATFIELD
ON THE OCCASION OF THE
PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE – AUGUST 1978

FREDERICTON, AUGUST 9 – THE PROVINCIAL PREMIERS WILL BE MEETING THIS WEEK IN SASKATCHEWAN TO DISCUSS THE PROPOSALS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION. THOSE PROPOSALS HAVE BEEN SET OUT IN BILL C-60 AND WERE INTRODUCED IN PARLIAMENT IN JUNE. IT IS APPROPRIATE, THEREFORE, THAT I SHOULD PUT FORWARD THE POSITION I WILL TAKE ON THIS FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION OF CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE.

TO BEGIN WITH, MOST CANADIANS AND THEIR POLITICAL LEADERS ARE AGREED TO GIVE SERIOUS CONSIDERATION TO ANY FORMAL PROPOSALS WHICH HAVE THE INTENT OF IMPROVING UPON THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION. CANADIANS GENERALLY, I BELIEVE, RECOGNIZE THAT IT IS TIMELY TO DO SO NOW AND EVEN WHILE I AM PERSONALLY ON RECORD AS HAVING REGRETTED THE DECISION OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO PRESENT ITS PROPOSALS IN THE FORM OF A BILL AT THIS TIME, I AM PREPARED TO DISCUSS BILL C-60, IN ALL ITS LENGTH AND COMPLEXITY, IN A FRANK AND CONSTRUCTIVE WAY AND IN AN EFFORT TO FORWARD CONSENSUS AND AGREEMENT.

NEVERTHELESS, I HAVE TO SAY THAT WE MIGHT WELL HAVE MADE MORE PROGRESS IN THIS MATTER HAD WE NOT BEEN GIVEN A DEADLINE. THERE ARE MANY WAYS BY WHICH WE COULD PROCEED IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE WIDEST ACCEPTANCE OF SPECIFIC CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES PERHAPS THE WORST WAY TO PROCEED IS BY MEANS OF SOME ARBITRARY TIME-TABLE, WITHIN WHICH PERIOD WE ARE TO BECOME ENGAGED IN CLAUSES AND SUB-CLAUSES AND MECHANISMS EVEN BEFORE WE ARE AGREED UPON BASIC PRINCIPLES AND GENERAL OBJECTIVES.

NONE OF THIS, HOWEVER, PREVENTS ME FROM RETURNING TO, AND EMPHASIZING, THE BASIC PRINCIPLES THAT WILL BE MY GUIDE IN CONSIDERING THE PROPOSALS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, AS CONTAINED IN BILL C-60, OR, FOR THAT MATTER, THE PROPOSALS TO BE MADE BY NEW BRUNSWICK OR BY OTHER PROVINCIAL PREMIERS. I HOPE THAT BY PUTTING THESE PRINCIPLES ON RECORD NOW, THE PEOPLE OF NEW BRUNSWICK WILL HAVE A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF THE POSITION TO BE TAKEN IN THESE DELIBERATIONS AND THEY WILL GIVE THEIR APPROVAL AND SUPPORT. NEW BRUNSWICK, AS A PROVINCE, IS DEEPLY COMMITTED NOT ONLY TO CANADA BUT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CANADIAN FEDERALISM; WHICH IS TO SAY, NEW BRUNSWICK IS FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE CONSTITUENCY IS THE NATION AS A WHOLE AND WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO SERVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN ALL MATTERS WITHIN ITS PERVIEW.

THERE ARE NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND THERE ARE NATIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH CAN ONLY BE EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH BY NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, IT IS INARGUABLE THAT EACH AND EVERY CANADIAN, IN WHATEVER CANADIAN PROVINCE, HAS NATIONAL INTERESTS, NATIONAL CONCERNS AND A SENSE OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WHICH ONLY OUR FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS CAN SATISFY. IT FOLLOWS, THEN, THAT I, FOR ONE, AM CONCERNED BY THE WEAKENING OF OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BY THE EMPHASIS UPON INCREASING REGIONAL FACTIONALISM WHICH IS A COMMON THREAD RUNNING THROUGH THE FEDERAL PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE HOUSE OF THE FEDERATION. THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE PROVINCES OF CANADA HAVE NOW SUBSTANTIAL AND, I BELIEVE, SUFFICIENT CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL INTERESTS. TO PROPOSE, AS DOES BILL C-60, THAT MEMBERS OF CERTAIN NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WILL ALSO REPRESENT THESE REGIONAL INTERESTS IS TO ENCOURAGE FACTIONALISM AND DISCOURAGE THE FORMULATION OF NATIONAL POLICY IN LEGITIMATE AREAS OF NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT NATIONAL ISSUES MUST BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STRONG NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. SUCH WILL ULTIMATELY BEST SERVE THE INTERESTS OF EVERY PROVINCE. IF, HOWEVER, OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BECOME MERELY REPRESENTATIVE OF REGIONAL GROUPS AND FACTIONS AND ARE, INDEED, MANDATED TO DO SO, THEN THEY ARE ONLY TOO LIKELY TO BE DOMINATED AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LARGER REGIONS OF CANADA TO THE ULTIMATE DETRIMENT OF PROVINCES SUCH AS NEW BRUNSWICK. IT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING TO SEE SUCH A COURSE PROPOSED FOR THE NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SENATE, WHICH AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED, DO ACT AS A CHECK UPON THE NUMERICAL DOMINATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE LARGER PROVINCES.

SURELY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE OF US INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN THESE CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS TO FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS AND THE REAL DEFECTS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE MEANS OF RECTIFYING THEM. WE SHOULD NOT BE DISTRACTED BY NEBULOUS OR IMPRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT A SIGNIFICANT DECENTRALIZATION OF POWERS TO THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL OR, CONVERSELY, A GREATER CENTRALIZATION OF POWER IN OTTAWA, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT.

I FIND SUCH CONSIDERATIONS DIFFICULT TO CONTEMPLATE, IT HAS BEEN MY PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE, AS A PROVINCIAL PREMIER, THAT BOTH LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT PRESENTLY HAVE ADEQUATE POWERS IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THEIR APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITIES. QUITE FRANKLY, THE PROBLEM AT BOTH LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT IS, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, CREATED BY A REFUSAL OR AN INABILITY TO EMPLOY FULLY THE EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS WITH SUFFICIENT SKILL AND IMAGINATION. THERE IS, AS WELL, A COVETOUS ATTITUDE ON BEHALF OF ONE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE POWERS OF THE OTHER LEVEL – A CASE OF THE GRASS ALWAYS BEING GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FENCE. IT IS MY POINT, AND MY BELIEF, THAT IT IS NOT THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTIONS THAT NEEDS REFORM IN THIS INSTANCE. WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IS A CHANGE IN SUCH ATTITUDES.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT NEW BRUNSWICK IS NOT PREPARED TO CONSIDER THE TRANSFER OF PARTICULAR RESPONSIBILITIES FROM OTTAWA TO THE PROVINCES OR FROM THE PROVINCES TO OTTAWA. IT IS ONLY TO POINT OUT THAT NEGOTIATIONS ON SUCH MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AS A WHOLE THE PRESENT DISTRIBUTION IS GREATLY OUT OF BALANCE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE IN THE CONSTITUTION A CHARTER OF RIGHTS, I HAVE ONLY TO STATE MY BASIC AGREEMENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES, NEW BRUNSWICK HAS ALREADY GIVEN AN INDICATION OF ITS POSITION ON THESE MATTERS THROUGH SUCH LEGISLATION AS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT AND OUR RIGHTS ACT. I WOULD ONLY HAVE THE CONCERN THAT THE INTENT OF THESE PROVISIONS BE MADE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE SO THAT, IN FACT, CERTAIN RIGHTS OF ALL CANADIANS ARE INDEED BETTER SECURED AND LESS SUBJECT TO CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRARY JUDGEMENT. I DO ACKNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH ARE GENERALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FEELINGS OF MOST CANADIANS AND WORTHY OF INCLUSION IN ANY REFORM OF THEIR CONSTITUTION.

ANOTHER BASIC CONSIDERATION MUST BE TO ESTABLISH A PROPER PURPOSE FOR ANY PROPOSAL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM. THE STIMULUS FOR A CHANGE IN ANY COUNTRY’S CONSTITUTION MAY OBVIOUSLY AND QUITE PROPERLY COME FROM THE PRESENT COURSE OF EVENTS, BUT WHEN CONSIDERING THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF SUCH CHANGES A LONGER VIEW MUST BE TAKEN. IF CANADA IS TO UNDERTAKE MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM, IT MUST BE REFORM DESIGNED TO BETTER SERVE THE NATION FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, NOT JUST TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS OF THE MOMENT. IT MUST BE REFORM WHICH IS SENSITIVE OF AND A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE FULL SCOPE OF OUR HISTORY, AND NOT JUST TO YESTERDAY’S POLLS AND IDEAS OF CURRENT FASHION.

THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY COUNTRY NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THOSE NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE DEEPLY VALUED BY LARGE ELEMENTS OF THE POPULATION. INDEED, ONE WOULD THINK IT FOOLHARDY TO TAMPER WITH SUCH INSTITUTIONS, AND ANY PROPOSALS FOR REFORM WHICH, FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SEEM TO DO SO, SERVES ONLY TO CREATE DOUBTS AS TO THE WORTH AND PURPOSE OF ALL OTHER PROPOSALS.

THAT OBSERVATION IS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSALS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEALING WITH THE ROLE AND PLACE OF THE MONARCHY IN CANADA. WHILE THE PROPOSALS IN BILL C-60 WOULD NOT ABOLISH THE MONARCHY IN CANADA, IT IS MY CONCERN THAT THEY WOULD TEND TO DIMINISH IT. THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, AND THE PERSON REPRESENTING IT, ARE BOTH HIGHLY ESTEEMED BY MILLIONS OF CANADIANS. THE MONARCHY HAS SERVED US WELL AND EARNED ITS PLACE IN OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE AND IN THE AFFECTION OF OUR PEOPLE. THE ATTITUDE OF BILL C-60 INHERENT IN ITS PROPOSALS, DEMONSTRATES AN UNFORTUNATE INABILITY ON THE PART OF THE PROPONENTS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM TO APPRECIATE AN INSTITUTION ABOUT WHICH MANY CANADIANS CARE DEEPLY. WE ADD NOTHING TO THE CAUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM BY DIMINISHING THE POSITION OF THE CROWN.

IT MAY BE THAT WE SHOULD CONSIDER STEPS TO CLARIFY THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND TO ENHANCE THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ABILITY TO FULLY REPRESENT THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IN CANADA. AS LONG AS IT REMAINS CLEAR THAT THE POWERS THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL EXERCISES ARE, AS THEY WERE, VESTED IN THE CROWN’S REPRESENTATIVE. THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS FOR SERIOUS OBJECTION, BUT IF MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS INTENDED BY THE FEDERAL PROPOSALS, THEN THAT SHOULD BE FRANKLY ACKNOWLEDGED AND THE JUSTIFICATION SHOULD BE FULLY EXPLAINED.

IN DECIDING UPON APPROPRIATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES, WE ARE NOT PROCEEDING DE NOVO. WE ARE NOT STARTING FROM SCRATCH. OURS IS NEITHER A NEW COUNTRY NOR A SHATTERED ONE. WE ARE CONSIDERING CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FOR AN ONGOING NATION WHICH, FOR OVER 100 YEARS, HAS NOT MERELY SURVIVED BUT, WITH REMARKABLE SUCCESS, ACHIEVED THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF FREEDOM AND SECURITY FOR ITS PEOPLE.

IN LIGHT OF THIS, THOSE WHO WOULD ADVOCATE DRASTIC CHANGE MUST ACCEPT THE ONUS FOR DEMONSTRATING THE NEED. WE ARE NOT ATTEMPTING TO DISMANTLE OUR EXISTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE NAIVE BELIEF THAT BY ALTERING OR REMOVING THEM, WE WILL BE IMPROVING OUR PROSPECTS AS A NATION. INSTEAD, WE ARE SEEKING A REALISTIC CONSENSUS ON A NEW DOCUMENT WHICH OUR WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE WOULD TELL US WILL SERVE THE NATION IN FUTURE AT LEAST AS WELL AS THE PRESENT DOCUMENT HAS SERVED US IN THE PAST.

A CONSTITUTION FOR CANADA MUST ACCOMMODATE COMPROMISE, CONSENSUS AND TOLERATION. TO PRODUCE SUCH A CONSTITUTION IS NOT AN EXERCISE IN ABSTRACT POLITICAL OR LEGAL THEORY. RATHER, IT WILL DEMAND THAT WE BE SENSITIVE TO THE MEMORIES AND DREAMS OF ALL CANADIANS. IT IS MY HOPE THAT IT IS THESE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WILL GUIDE US IN THE TASK.