Record Turnout Hears Ludlow

Libertarian Supper Club
by Robin Gillespie
September 1981

On September 12 the GVLA held its most successful supper club meeting to date. Over thirty people, including a large number of guests, turned out at Cheung's Restaurant in New Westminster to listen to Laurie Ludlow of the BC Progressive Conservative Party.

Mr. Ludlow is chairman of the Party's Philosophy Committee. His committee had no members other than himself, so he invited the Policy Committee to sit in on his first few meetings. Not surprisingly, he reported great difficulty in getting through to most of them. Specifically, these "conservatives" seemed totally incapable of understanding the connection between the freedom and free enterprise they claim to espouse, and the institution of property rights upon which they rest.

He said that the lack of philosophy in the regular party member is not entirely a disadvantage, however. At a recent policy convention Mr. Ludlow reported that he, Paul Geddes and Morley Evans (both members of GVLA and HALT) were able to have a substantial influence on the policies adopted precisely because those more socialistically inclined members were unable to back up their proposals.

Because of the ascendancy of people such as himself and leader Brian Westwood, a devotee of Ludwig von Mises, Mr. Ludlow argued that libertarians can now seriously consider joining and operating within the BC Progressive Conservatives. This view was supported in the question period by Marco den Ouden who noted that the Libertarian movement's greatest strength and chance for success lay in the area of education and that if we wanted our political policies implemented soon we would do better to infiltrate and influence an amenable existing party.

The information Mr. Ludlow presented indicates a golden opportunity for libertarians to influence the policies of the BCPC Party and maybe even its chances for power in BC.

Trudeau constitution attacked

In his speech at the Supper Club Laurie Ludlow dealt extensively with the matter of the proposed new Canadian Constitution. He is chairman of a group called CRI -- the Constitution Reform Involvement Committee and he presented some of the results of their rather extensive researches. He confirmed all of my fears about this document and added some new ones.

As we all know, the Liberals and the NDP saw to it that the right to own property is specifically excluded from the Charter of Rights. However, the Constitution will be the supreme law of Canada and will nullify any law which is inconsistent with it. Say goodbye to Provincial Bills of Rights recognizing property rights and indeed property titles in general.

Section 15 guarantees every individual equality before and under the law but it will not take effect for three years after the constitution is adopted. We will at least be able to amend the constitution. Or will we? Part 6, Section 50(2) seems to say that an amendment resolution may be revoked if it is done before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it. It doesn't say revoked by whom. The same section appears to give the Referendum Rules Commission powers greater than the Constitution itself.

Notice the repetition of "appears to" in the preceding paragraph. Because of the ambiguous language used in the first six parts, "appears to" is often the best that can be said about a grant of power. Section 7 dealing with resources and government's total powers over them is all the more remarkable for its clarity. It even contains a definition of resources -- the only definition in the document.

Finally and most disturbingly, there is the matter of the French "version" of the constitution. Item 3 on page 2 informs that "so far as it is not contained in [the English version] the French version of this Act is set out in Schedule A to this Act and has the same authority in Canada as the English Version thereof." (emphasis added). Schedule A has not been debated nor relayed to the public nor possibly even written yet. It may be asked why this matters as it is only a simple translation. The problem is that this wording does not restrict it to a translation.

The operative word is "version". Why was this word used? These people know the meaning of words. "Version" neither denotes nor connotes the same thing as "translation". We could end up with a French version of the Constitution substantially different from the English version (which is bad enough) but which will have the same force of law.

For those interested, CRI can be contacted at:

Copyright © 1981 West Coast Libertarian. All Rights Reserved.