A6-Wednesday, October 29, 1980 - North Shore News North Vancouver City Alderman Bill Sorenson's proposed solution to the flegal suites problem deserves careful con- . sideration. He has called for the legalization of “revenue suites” in single-family homes under certain carefully supervised con- ditions. Such suites would have to be licensed. They would have to meet fire, health and other appropriate municipal regulations. Suites would be limited to 50 per cent or less of the size of the house, with only one suite per house, occupied by no more than two persons. And the suites would be subject to a licemse fee to cover the cost of in- spections. Under the present system hundreds of these suites. are known to exist. In theory, ‘thelr occupants can be turned out on to the street at any time by a municipal inspector. In practice, municipalities largely turn a blind eye unless they receive a specific complaint from neighbors -- but the fear and stress borne by both tenants and landlords are always present. At a time when rental vacancies are virtually zero, and when many homeowners are hard pressed to meet soaring mortgage payments, the current situation is ridiculous. The chief beneficiaries of Alderman Sorenson's scheme would be the more deserving members of our society -- senior citizens, young couples, single parents and students. City council would demonstrate common sense, humanity and leadership by adopting Alderman Sorenson's concept and setting an example for other municipalities which have hitherto dodged the issue. Laws are meant to serve people -- not the reverse. Stay involved The re-election of two North Shore mayors and three West Van aldermen by acclamation prompts a note of warning. Voters shouldn't be lulled into staying away from the polling booths on November 15. In both North and West Van there are lively battles for seats on the school boards, which spend more of your tax dollars than councils. Stay involved -- for your pocketbook’s sake. THK VOSCE OF HOST AND WEST vaecouven sunday » news north shore. news 1139 Lonsdale Ave North Vancouver BC V7M 2H4 (604) 985-2131 NEWS ADVERTISING CLASSIFIED CIRCULATION 985-2131 980-0511 986-6222 986-1337 Publisher Peter Speck Associate Publisher Editor-in-Chief Robert Graham Noel Wright Advertising Director Enc Cardwell Classified Manage: & Office Administrator Bern Hilhard Creative Director Tim Frances Production Rick Stonehouse Faye McCrae Managing Editor Andy Fraser News Editor Chris Lioyd Photography Eilsworth Ora ckson Accounting Supervisor Barbara Keen North Shore News. tounded 1m 1968 as an mdependent ¢ornmunh ty newspaper and quabhed under Schedule Wh Pat Wl Paragraph Ut of the t xcise Tan Act oo published each Wednesday and Sunday by North Shore Freee Press tid and distebuted to every Goon on tre North Shore Second Clasn Man Hoyintiation Nusntoer JBBS Subscunpthions $20 per year Entire Free Prans Lid Albrgits canerved on Lents, TOO) Nace th “shrene a No cesporeibedty ae cepted fam ares marae ripts amd pe tures thee etendd veteran we haha whet oe) CD fry OE CTY O00 stamped adidhbesned ce tare ever verte age: VERIFIED CIRCULATION §0,870 Wewtnendasy 49 BID osurcheay THIS PAPER IS REC YCLABLE OTTAWA (SF) - There's ‘nothing like a constitutional debate to take the heat away from things like an economy which is sputtering badly. It’s even better if you are politically astute enough to tie a troubled economy, an energy policy which hardly deserves the name policy, and the constitution all into the same bag. For the better part of a year we've heard the age-old Canadian hassle with constitutional reform referred to as a “crisis.” If such is the case, then the crisis is manufactured. Public opinion polls show clearly that Canadians, if they care, would like to see the Canadian constitution removed from the British Parliament and brought home to Canada. The same polls also show that not many Canadians consider the issue one of prime im- portance. In the view of Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, the constitution surpasses the economy and energy as an urgent need for the Canadian body politic. He’s in the driver's seat, so that's what we get. remiers don’t trust | Canadian Comment BY PETER WARD Now there’s nothing wrong with some of the things that Pierre Trudeau says we should have in a patriated constitution. There's considerable sympathy for his position which advocates acting over the heads of provincial governments. The problem is that any good system of government can be fouled up badly by an incompetent leader, and most bad systems can be made to function well under the right n. In a nut shell, provincial governments do not trust Pierre Trudeau. They have been given every reason not to trust him, as have Canadians in general. He is the man who brought in the “Excellent. Now, do you have any other references besides your mother?” War Measures Act, then used it to destroy political Opposition in Quebec. He's the man who told us that price and wage controls would be the worst kind of folly, and then imposed them. He's also the man who told us there was no need to pay something close to world prices for oil, and then slid through price increases under the guise of other things. Is it any wonder that Provincial premieres meeting in conference with Mr. Trudeau, are skeptical about his intentions. Without question if one of the lesser Liberal lights had been chairing the September constitutional conference — Justice Minister Jean Chretien, say. or even Finance Minister Allan MacEachen — we would . have finished the meeting with agreement. The premiers balked basically because they don't trust the prime minister of Canada: They have every reason not to trust a man who has said openly that only he knows the ultimate aims and goals of a government which he totally controls. The one-member ‘partnership’ By the time you read this, the gory details of the federal budget and Mr. MacEachen’s plans for digging still deepe: into your pocket will have been announced - column’s deadline. unfortunately, By comparison, after this the con- stitutional wrangle may almost rank as light relief. But maybe that’s just what you need after reading the budget speech. Budget speeches have at least one virtue. The nasty parts of them are all too easy to understand. Not so the quarrel between Ottawa and most of the provinces over patniation of the BNA Act. It has even the top. con- stitutional lawyers of the country arguing vigorously pro and con in two opposed camps. When things come to this pass among the so-called experts, there's obviously no reason for anyone to feel shy about joining in the fray. So here’s the FOCUS child's guide to what's happening. What's happening 1s actually far less important than how it’s happening. Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau is determined to bring the constitution home from Britain, which has had custody of it, under the titic of the British North America Act, for the past 113 years Patriation, it’s calicd, and there's little doubt that 99% of Canadians agree with him {not to mention the British government itself which would be heartily glad to wash its hands of respon- sibility for Canada's destiny ) DECIDE IN CANADA Patriation) of the con stitution in itself ts) purc motherhood. It should mcan that Canadians alone decide in future -- and im Canada how they will be governed The basic problem 1s that Mr Trodecav has gone well beyond the simple motherhood concept of patnation, penod He has added three other things to the patniation resolution to be presented to the U.K. parliament: e Provision for an amending formula decided by himself. © An entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all his own work. ¢ An entrenched principle of equalization (the mech provinces help pay the bills of the poor provinces). When, under Mr Trudeau's plan, the BNA Act is finally shipped back home to become the Canada Act, it will come with the above three additional clements alrcady built into it without pror agreement in Canada itself. There's little dispute about the equalization principle. It has already been in operation for many ycars and most Canadians regard it as fair and cquitable. But a majonty of the provinces (including B.C.) are up in arms against the arbitrary and unilateral imposition by Mr. Trudeau of an amending formula and a charter of mghts before the BNA Act has even started its yourncy across the Atlantic They arguc that these are gut tssucs that must be settled by consensus in| Canada once the BNA Act in its present form has been translated into a Canadian statue PARTNERSHIP Consensus? Who says x0” asks Mr Trudeau We ve been trying without success for S3 years to get a con Noel Wright ee] sensus of the provinces on an amending formula for a patriated constitution Isn't it time, at long last, for the federal parliament” -- representing Canadians from coast to coast through their MP’s -- to break the log jam andact? It might be, apart from two factors One well known, the other less well known This is where we really begin to spin around in circles. First, Mr Trudeau's all- powerful Liberal majority in the present parliament is based almost cxclusively on Ontario and Quebec. West of Winnipeg the Grits haven't a single MP Par- ticularly in the two fastest growing areas of the country, B.C. and Alberta, they don't cven begin to represent “Canadians from Coast to coast” Second, the BNA Act in Ms present fornt clearly envisages the relationship between the provinces and the federal government as a focus partnership -- cach partner performing the functions of government it its equipped to handle. So’ Ottawa controls things like defence, foreign affairs and - unemployment insurance; the provinces control resources, education, labor relations and other regional interests. The division of powers is functional. In theory, no partner is “superior” or “mferior” to any other. MASTER, ~c RV ANTS It's a theory (and practice) that hasn't served Canadians too badly for well over a century. Mr. Trudeau's unilateral patriation drive would change all this. His ap- plication to the U.K. parhament contains built-in elements that diminish the powers of the provinces without their consent. As a result, it would = fun- damentally alter the whole concept of the BNA Act, transforming Canada into 4 unitary state with Ottawa as the master and the provinces as its servants. All this before the patriated con- stitution even reached our shores. Small wonder, therefore, that B.C. and five other provinces are taking the matter to court. What they are saying is: “Patriate the constitution exactly the way it is. We'll worry about amending it and entrenching a charter of rights once it's safely in Canadian hands ~ For Mr. Trudeau, however, the end (tc. hts personal version of the constitution) justifies the means. Dozens of dictators in other countries have used the same argument That's what the fight is all about best.“