Al4-Sunday News, May 4, 1980 By Energy Minister There has been con- siderable press criticism in recent days of my _ in- volvement in the debate over a resolution on Canadian Unity in the British Columbia Legislature. The press seems to feel that it is somehow un- Canadian of me to call into question the motives of the Leader of the Opposition, Dave Barrett, on such a delicate issue. However, I would suggest that the citizens of our province have a right to understand those motives on all issues and perhaps even more urgently on the sensitive subject of a united Canada. McCLELLAND ... blasts Barrett I accused Mr. Barrett of being a “ypocrite and of orchestrating a well staged performance during a speech in support of Canadian Unity. I have not changed my mind. I believe that in Mr. Barrett's public stance today, he plays fast and loose with history. And I would hke to tell your readers why. Mr. Barrett signed the “Waffle Manifesto” in 1969 - - a document that supports the separation of Quebec from Canada. The Manifesto itself says, “As New Democrats we see the recognition of Quebec nationhood as essential to the building of an _ in- dependent socialist Canada. The New Democratic Party supports the right of the people of Quebec to national self-determination up to and including the right to form an independent Quebec State.” The Manifesto was also signed by a number of other people. A Province newspaper story of Sep- tember 15, 1969, points out “Their Manifesto, which tis supported by pcople like Laurier LaPierre and McGill Professor Charlies Taylor, an NDP Vice President, as well as five B.C. MLA’'s, Dave Barrett, Eileen Dally. Gordon Dowding, Jim Lorimer, Alex MacDonald, and one Manitoba MLA, Cy Goarck ” It was also signed by Norman Lew. but he was not an MLA at the me the story was written The author. of Manifesto grateful for the support: of the B.C members. mentions them specifically in this way in a oumber ol the was extremely and references to his paper In all of the press coverage of the Manifesto debate in ON THE QUEBEC REFERENDUM... BOB McCLELLAND 1969, Mr. Barrett and his five colleagues are con- Sistently referred to as “supporting” or “endorsing” the Manifesto via their signatures. Yet, today, Dave Barrett says he only signed the document so it could be debated at the convention. Now I ask you. Would you sign (support, endorse) a document in which you did not believe? I doubt it. I know I wouldn't and I would bet very few of our readers would either. At any rate, why Dave Barrett? Not one of the 22 NDP Members of Parliament signed it. In fact, the only other elected representatives in Canada, other than those from British Columbia, to Sign it was one Manitoba MLA. I am truly surprised at our sophisticated and enquiring press accepting almost without question such a patently false argument. Dave Barrett also says today that not only did he Sign it just for discussion purposes, but he also spoke against it and voted against in at the NDP convention in Winnipeg. Well, I can find no evidence anywhere of Dave Barrett speaking against the Manifesto. In fact, Paddy Sherman of the Province wrote of the convention on November 8, 1969, “The B.C. party is without stature on the federal scene. Dave Barrett, the B.C. House Leader, has little enthusiasm for, or interest in national affairs, and made no impact on the convention.” The rules of the con- vention for debate on the Manifesto policy proposal called for seven speakers on each side to give prepared Statements after which a general debate was allowed for about an hour. I can find no record that Dave Barrett joined in the debate, but one of the seven pro-Manifesto speakers allowed in the formal debate along with Laurier LaPierre was Gordon Dowding. former Speaker of the B.C. Legislature. One can only assume that Mr. Dowding was echoing the support of Levi, Lorimer, Dailly. MacDonald and Barrett. Last week -- with the Quebec referendum only 20 days away -- The News received two communications from B.C. provincial Jleaders in Victoria on the vital question of Canadian unity. The first, from Social Credit Energy Minister Bob Clelland, took the form of a strong attack on NDP Leader Dave Barrett’s “unity performance”. The second, from Mr. Barrett himself, set forth his personal view of the referendum issue. We publish here the full, unedited text of each statement and leave our readers to make their own judgements regarding the respective authors -- EDITOR. By Opposition The referendum on whether Quebec will stay within Canada will be held on May 20. It is important that every Canadian, regardless of role, be ab- solutely specific and clear about what they want the people of Quebec to do in. face of the referendum. The next few weeks are serious in this country. The next weeks call for quiet ght Jand consideration y nadians about what is taking place in a founding province of this nation. It is also incumbent upon all Canadians to understand I believe the facts are quite clear that Mr. Barrett has been less than candid in this matter. If he has changed his mind and now rejects the Manifesto proposals then that is good news. Butuf one can’t believe what Mr. Barrett says about the past how can one believe what he wants us to believe about the present or future. Today, Dave Barrett says he supports one Canada. Ten years ago, he ts on record as supporting a paper which endorsed Quebec separation. So far, Mr. Barrett's 1980 Unity performance is more Disneyland than Shakespeare. odi- Call ANSWERING SERVICES LTD. 980-3611 Personal Answering & Paging Services for the North Shore Medical Profession Leader DAVE BARRETT that they have an individual role and an_ individual responsibility, not only in witnessing the debate, but in participating in it as well. The fundamental prin- ciples of the British North America Act has served this nation very well. However, it is tragic that most of native- born Canadians have really not had the opportunity to understand the impact of this Act. As a consequence, the great debate that is taking place in the province of Quebec does not find that much popular interest in the rest of Canada on a day-to- day basis. I would hope that in any discussion of a constitutional change that must take place in this country, there would be very little deviation fram the basic understanding of a federal commitment and provincial rights under the British North America Act. I want to make a heartfelt appeal to the people of Quebec for the sake not just of the people of Quebec, but for the sake of the people of Retailers expand your shop wiridow' 133 232 peopie on the North Shore could see this message it could be your ad Call display advertising 960-0511 Does McClelland know Barrett better than Barrett? British Columbia, to vote “no” in the referendum. The strength of this country lies in the programs such as Medicare that have been developed over the years to emsure that all Canadians have access to a decent standard of life. Our strength lies in what we have achieved as a nation through the hard work of people of all political parties who do have, and have had a shared goal of building Canada rather than separating it. It is true that there have been intense political debates within the framework of Canada about how we should go about building a better Canada. It is true that there are intense tegional differences within that debate. But let us never confuse small political, regional differences as any great reason or argument to separate any part of this country from the whole that makes Canada. Yes, we will have dif- ferences, but at the outset, what must be said, and clearly understood is that nothing can replace the form of dealing with our problems, or the problems of the people of any other province and the people of Quebec, than resolving those problems’ within Confederation. Sometimes a debate such as this, which has been raging through the country for the last eleven or twelve years, may lead to self- fulfilling prophesies. Nonetheless, none of us have any choice now in the matter. Those of use who have mixed feelings about involving ourselves in a debate have to understand that the hour is here whether we like it or not. The sooner all of us, as Canadians, deal specifically with this problem, the better it will be for all Canadians to un- derstand exactly where we stand, regardless of dif- ferences of political or regional opinion. BARRETT .-- backs Canada Admittedly the = par- uicipation of the provinces with the federa) government is long overdue in terms of constitutional reform. However, to contemplate the destruction of the nation as a _ bargaining tool in negotiations is going one step too far. For that reason I would choose the option that envisions a future for this country. Remember we are a nation founded upon respect for the diversity of regions, peoples and cultures. Our history and our future hes in this uniqueness as constituted by the provinces and in particular the province of Quebec. I would like to go on record as expressing my faith in the future of Canada as a nation. If you're calling the NEWS, dial 985-2737 to reach: Editorial Dept. Accounting Dept. Credit Dept. Publisher's Office 980-0571 Dial to reach: Display Advertising only Main Oftice Display Advertising Classified Advertising Circulation Department 985-2131 980-0511 986-6222 986 1337 sunday news north shore news 1139 Lonsdale Ave., North Vancouver