The principal two issues were: how do we amend the new Constitution, and what about a charter of rights?

The amending formula arrived at was the one suggested by B.C. and called the "Vancouver Charter."

Then there was the Charter of Rights and Freedoms -- do we codify rights, or continue with the common law which had served us well? 

The Trudeau hand was shown at the 1980 conference, famous for a memo from Michael Kirby -- then a public servant, now a senator -- which gave Trudeau the road map to scupper the report put forward by the Committee of Cabinet Ministers, which he did.

In November 1979, Garde Gardom became B.C.'s first minister for intergovernmental affairs, and thus took charge of constitutional matters, while I remained a member of the committee.

I can tell you that from the outset of the patriation exercise until 1982, I, on instructions of course, vigorously fought against the notion of the charter. I fought it not just because those were my instructions, but because that was my personal view.

At all First Ministers meetings in my time (I was at them all up to and including September 1980), the charter was vigorously opposed by premier Sterling Lyon of Manitoba, premier Allan Blakeney of Saskatchewan, premier Peter Lougheed of Alberta and premier William Bennett of B.C.

To the first part of the question, I opposed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms during the entire time I was in government, and thereafter in radio. In short, I opposed the charter from the outset, as did the government.

My opposition continued into my radio days, and right up to the signing of the new Constitution.

It would have been a decent argument had Trudeau laid it out as he should have -- a debate on whether or not "rights" should be imbedded in the Constitution and therefore decided by nine unelected judges on the Supreme Court of Canada, or remain as the common law rights we had inherited from Britain and had served us well. Allen Blakeney put it best at one constitutional convention with this statement: "Mr. prime minister, when I want to enforce my rights, I want to go to my MP, not my lawyer." 

The point is moot. We have a charter, and thus it will inevitably remain.

Here are the guts of the matter. Quebec premier Rene Levesque insisted that the new Constitution was subject to a Quebec veto, and the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in the Quebec Veto Reference that Quebec never had, according to constitutional convention, a constitutional veto, and that no province did.

It's ironic to note that after Meech failed, B.C. passed a law making any constitutional changes subject to a referendum and because of the new amending formula that was B.C.'s idea, the law was constitutional.

In conclusion, B.C. had no power to stop Trudeau as found by the Supreme Court of Canada. In spite of this, B.C. fought to the end for a reformed Senate, a proper amending formula, and against a charter of rights.

On a personal note, I spoke out on those issues from the start and have never wavered from that position.

I felt on reading the Tyee reader's comment, the facts of the matter should be recorded.

[See more Tyee rights and justice coverage.]