Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Recognition of Women’s Rights”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (18 November 1981)


Document Information

Date: 1981-11-18
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 12890-12891.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).


The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to pd@theccf.ca. Your help will make PrimaryDocuments.ca the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text

[English]
THE CONSTITUTION
RECOGNITION OF WOMEN’S RIGHTS
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): Madam
Speaker, I have a straightforward question that is directed to
the Prime Minister, regarding the constitutional proposais.
Will the Prime Minister confirm that ail of the provinces,
except Saskatchewan, have now agreed to the inclusion intact
of the equality clause, Section 28, as it was introduced to the
House of Commons earlier this year with unanimous approval
by ail parties of this House?
* (1500)
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Madam
Speaker, the negotiations on this particular subject have been
going on for several days because it was a matter of clarifying
what the premiers intended when they signed the accord.
There has been, effectively, disagreement between them as to
November 18, 1981
12890
November 18, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 12891
what particular interpretation should be given to a particular
section. I can only say that to this moment it bas been
impossible to get all nine premiers who signed the accord, on
the same wavelength, and to agree to the same text.
Mr. Blackburn: You do not have to worry about Sterling
Lyon any more.
Mr. Trudeau: Since we told the provinces that we would be
tabling the resolution in its final form today, as a direct answer
to the hon. lady’s question I must say that there is more than
one province which disagrees with the complete restoration of
the section as it was. Therefore, in the spirit of the accord, I
think we will have to go with a modified version of the text
that we had originally proposed, not only in the resolution
which has been before the House for a year, but also in the
drafting sessions. I do not think it is appropriate to point out
any particular province. There has been a great deal of
negotiations going on, but obviously there is some lack of
unanimity among the provinces as to what was intended in the
accord.
*

Read less

Leave a Reply