Canada, Senate Debates, “Motion for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen—Motion in Amendment—Debate Continues”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (24 April 1981)


Document Information

Date: 1981-04-24
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, Senate Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 2364-2381.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).


2364
THE SENATE
Friday, April 24, 1981
The Senate met at I0 a.m., the Speaker in the Chair.
Prayers.
THE CONSTITUTION
MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS T0 HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN-
MOTION IN AMENDMENT—-DEBATE CONTINUED
The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the Special order adopt~
ed by the Senate on Wednesday, April 15, I981, the Senate
will now proceed to the Order of the Day for resuming debate
on the motion of the Honourable Senator Perrault, P.C., that
an Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen respecting
the Constitution of Canada and on the motion in amendment
of the Honourable Senator Yuzyk.
The Leader of the Government has the floor.
MOTION IN AMENDMENT BY SENATOR PERRAULT
Hon. Raymond J. Perrault (Leader of the Government)
moved:
That the motion of the Honourable Senator Perrault,
P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Frith, that an
Address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen respect-
ing the Constitution of Canada, be amended in Schedule
B of the resolution as follows:
(a) by adding, immediately after the heading
“CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND
FREEDOMS” on page 3, the following:
“Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that
recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:”
(b) by striking out, in clause ll of the French version,
line 36 on page 5 and substituting the following:
“déclaré coupable et puni;”
(c) by adding, immediately after line 40 on page 9, the
following clause:
“Z8. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the
rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed
equally to male and female persons.”
(d) by renumbcring the subsequent clauses accordingly
(e) by striking out subclause 33(1) of the French
version at lines 27 to 29 on page l0 and substituting the
following:
“33. (I) Les droits, ancestraux ou issus de traités,
des peuples autochtones du Canada sont, par Ies
présentes, confirmés.”
(f) by striking out, in subclause 45(1), lines 20 to 24 on
page 16 and substituting the following:
“inces.”
(g) by adding to clause 54, immediately after line 20 on
page 20, the following paragraph:
“(c) the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada
set out in Part lI;”
(h) by lettering paragraphs (c) to (h) of clause 54 as
paragraphs (d) to (i).
[Translation]
SPEAKERS RULING ON POINT OF ORDER SUSTAINED
The Hon. the Speaker: Under the same special order of the
Senate, I now recognize the Leader of the Opposition, the
Honourable Senator Flynn.
Hon. Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition): Honour-
able senators, I have before me five specific amendments and
before moving them, I would like to ask Your Honour to rule
whether I can move them separately or ifl have to group them
so that we would vote on them all at once.
I indicated somewhat yesterday why I felt that I have such a
right. The only serious objection raised concerns the wording
of the order of the Senate to the effect that I am entitled to a
single amendment, while the Leader of the Government is
entitled to several. This shows, of course, the inconsistency of
such an interpretation and the fact that it is a grammatical
error, as I mentioned it when it was proposed, In other words,
I would be in an inferior position because, according to that
argument, the Leader of the Government could move a series
of amendments, while I would be entitled to a single one.
Hon. Royce Frith (Deputy Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, we have nothing to add to the points we
made yesterday. We are waiting for the ruling requested by
the Leader of the Opposition.
Q (I010)
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, I have looked
into this matter for many hours, and I am not sure that I have
found the eternal truth. Of course, there is a very special
paragraph in the order wherein it is stated:
9. The provisions in this Order shall prevail notwith-
standing any rule or practice of the Senate to the
contrary.
If this paragraph were not there, I could not accept the series
of amendments proposed in one amendment by the Leader of
the Government because I think that the vote should be taken
on each of the amendments separately. However, because of
this special provision in the order, the practice does not apply
to this special order.
Paragraph 9 of the order states:

April 24, I981 SENATE DEBATES
2365
The provisions of this Order shall prevail notwithstand-
ing any rule or practice of the Senate to the contrary.
That is quite clear.
Paragraph 4 of the order states:
The Order to resume the debate on the main motion
shall be called at 10,00 a.m. on Friday, April 24, l98l,
and, notwithstanding any other motion in amendment
thereto, the Leader of the Government in the Senate shall
forthwith be given the floor to move any amendments to
the said Address adopted by the House of Commons—
What is the amendment adopted by the House of Commons?
It is the amendment as it was moved by the Leader of the
Government.
I think I have to accept the series of amendments as an
omnibus amendment, and I will have to do the same with
amendments moved by the Leader of the Opposition. That
means he can present many amendments, but I think that they
will have to be voted on in one vote.
Senator Flynn: With great respect, Your Honour, we want
to appeal your ruling,
The Hon. the Speaker: Call in the senators.
Honourable senators, the quution now is: Shall the Speak-
er’s ruling be sustained?
The ruling of His Honour the Speaker was sustained on the
following division.

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams
Anderson
Argue
Austin
Barrow
Benidickson
Bosa
Buckwold
Cameron
Connolly
Cottreau
Croll
Davey
Deschatelets
Everett
Frith
Godfrey
Goldenberg
Guay
Haidasz
Hastings
Hays
Hicks

Lafond
Laird
Lamontagne
Langlois
Lapointe
Lewis
Lucier
McElman
Mcllraith
Molgat
Olson
Perrault
Petten
Riel
Rizzuto
Robichaud
Rousseau
Stanbury
Steuart
Thériault
van Roggen
Williams
Wood-—46.

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Asselin
Bélisle

Bielish
Charbonneau

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Cook
Donahoe
Doody
Flynn
Fournier
Grosart
Macdonald
Macquarrie
Marshall

Molson
Muir
Murray
Nurgitz
Phillips
Roblin
Sherwood
Smith
Tremblay
Walker—-23.

The Hon. the Speaker: I declare the Speaker’s ruling
sustained.

Senator Flynn: Honourable senators, this decision of the
house would impose on senators the obligation to pass judg-
ment on a package of several questions which are not neces-
sarily related. I think it would be an insult to your intelligence
for us to present a basket of very different articles and ask you
to pass judgment on the whole basket. Therefore, I have
decided to select only one of the amendments that I had
intended to move. I had one dealing with some amendments to
the Charter, some meeting what the Leader of the Govern-
ment has already proposed with regard to the supremacy of
God, to which we would have added the family, and so forth.
We also added a reference to the enjoyment of property. In
any event, this is one of the amendments that was defeated in
the other place, and, in light of the exercise that we just went
through a few moments ago, we know very well what the result
would be here with regard to that amendment.

We had also, in the other place, presented an amendment
proposing a continuing constitutional conference of Canada.
This also was defeated, but it is not of the essence of the
debate we are now having.
There was a more important amendment which was also
defeated in the house relating to the amending formula. To put
it brie?y, I would say that we were proposing the amending
formula of the premiers that was also defeated, and so I am
not going to move this one. I will probably ask leave to table
the amendments, or to have them inserted in my speech in
reply, in order that others may be able to judge what we had in
mind.
Finally, not because it is the official policy of the Conserva-
tive Party but because it is the view of several members on this
side as well as on your side——and I mention at this point
Senators Asselin and Deschatelets—we have an amendment
which would in fact extend to Ontario the provisions of section
133. Because of the principle of not imposing unilaterally
anything in this act, as the government would want to do, we
have coupled with the one applying section 133 to Ontario an
amendment which deletes clause 63 of Part VIII and substi-
tutes the following therefor:
63. (1) This Act, or any provision thereof, shall come
into force on a day or days to be ?xed by proclamation to
be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal

2366 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, 1981
of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the
legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the prov-
inces that have in the aggregate, according to the then
latest decennial census, a population of at least fifty per
cent of all the provinces.
I have had some copies of this amendment prepared, but
perhaps I had better read it in its entirety.
Q (1030)
MOTION IN AMENDMENT BY SENATOR FLYNN
Hon. Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition): Honour-
able senators, I move:
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1981, be amended
as follows:
1. (a) by adding to Clause 16 of Part I, immediately
after line 32 on page 6 the following:
“(3) English and French are the official languages
of Ontario and have equality of status and equal
rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions
of the legislature and government of Ontariog”
(b) by renumbering subsection (3) as subsection (4).
2. by adding to Clause 17 of Part I, immediately
after line 3 on page 7 the following:
“(3) Everyone has the right to use English or French in
any debates and other proceedings of the legislature
of Ontario.”
3. by adding to Clause 18 of Part I, immediately
after line 12 on page 7 the following:
“(3) The statutes, records and journals of the legisla-
ture of Ontario shall be printed and published in
English and French and both language versions are
equally authoritative.”
4. by adding to Clause 19 of Part I, immediately
after line 20 on page 7 the following:
“(3) Either English or French may be used by any
person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing
from, any court of Ontario.”
5. by deleting Clause 63 of Part VIII and substitut-
ing the following therefor:
“63. (1) This Act, or any provision thereof, shall
come into force on a day or days to be fixed by
proclamation to be issued by the Governor General
under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized
by resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least
two-thirds of the provinces that have in the aggre-
gate, according to the then latest decennial census, a
population of at least fifty per cent of all the
provinces.
(2) A resolution made for the purposes of this
section may be revoked before the issue of a procla-
mation authorized by it.”
I think that we shall have copies of this motion available for
distribution. I
[Senator Flynn.]
I will yield to the Leader of the Government at this time so
that he can deal with his own amendments and, possibly, with
this one, if he so wishes, and I will follow.
Hon. Raymond J. Perrault (Leader of the Government):
Honourable senators, I appreciate very much the contribution
which the honourable Leader of the Opposition has made thus
far. I hope that we can have a productive morning.
I am pleased today to participate in this debate on Canada’s
constitutional future. We are nearing the end of a long process.
I suppose that it can be said, honourable senators, that this
process began in 1867. It began in real earnest, perhaps, in the
late 1920s. From time to time between 1972 and the present
time we have had constitutional conferences and meetings
involving first ministers, in order to discuss the method by
which we can achieve a truly Canadian Constitution. It has
been a long process, during which time it seems to me that
Westminster and the United Kingdom have been very patient
with the senior member of the Commonwealth and our inabili-
ty to determine the manner in which we want to patriate our
Constitution. I hope that the process can be brought to a
successful conclusion in the ncar future, and I know that this
feeling is shared by many honourable senators.
The Statute of Westminster in 1931 confirmed Canada’s
status as an independent nation, as all of us know. Successive
Canadian governments, whether they be Liberal or Conserva-
tive, have been working toward the patriation of that Constitu-
tion. Perhaps the efforts which have been expended during
recent months by parliamentarians in both houses, and by
many Canadians from coast to coast, can now be brought to a
successful conclusion.
I think that all members of the Senate can take pride in the
fact that many members of this chamber have played a very
active role in contributing towards the constructive consider-
ation of constitutional reform and change. At different times
over 50 senators participated in the work of the committee.
Senator Harry Hays, who was the joint chairman of that
committee, deserves special credit and our gratitude.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Perrault: Distinguished members of the opposition,
such as Senator Roblin, made an equally outstanding contribu-
tion to the work of that committee.
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Perrault: Throughout the entire process-—and
appropriately so, given the constitutional position of the Senate
and its role set forth by the Fathers of Confederation-—
honourable senators played an important role. The members in
both houses have worked unusually long hours to produce a
good resolution. There has been a level of informed debate
commensurate with the seriousness of the subject before us.
The recent part of the journey, I suppose, began at the time
of the Quebec referendum—that traumatic event for all
Canadians, whether they lived in the province of Quebec or
whether they lived in any other province. All of us recall the
determination which followed that referendum. All Canadians
felt determined that we would have to make federalism work

April 24, I981 SENATE
DEBATES ____ __ 2367
more effectively, that we would have to achieve meaningful
constitutional reform. I remember the successive statements
made by the provincial leaders following that referendum, to
the effect that, “We must find ways to build a stronger
Canadian family. We will have to involve ourselves in the
process of constitutional renewal.”
Honourable senators will recall the long, hot summer of
intensive federal-provincial meetings in which a wide range of
constitutional issues were discussed, culminating in a meeting
of first ministers in Ottawa last September. It was a good
process, but, again, it was a process which led to deadlock.
Agreement proved impossible.
I know many statements have been made about the alleged
in?exibility of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister and
the government during those meetings, but one need only study
the record of those federal-provincial conferences to know
where the in?exibility really was. During those meetings there
was ?exibility on the part of the federal government. Honour-
able senators, that record of ?exibility can be seen. I recall, for
example, that in 10 specific areas offers were made by the
national government to the provinces which would in no way
diminish their strength, their power or their rights, but which
would indeed strengthen those elements. One can only consider
the issues discussed at that time with respect to family law,
participation in the selection of justices for the Supreme
Court, and the areas of resources and telecommunications in
all forms.
The reply of the premiers at that time was, “You have
offered us something, but it is not enough. You are not going
to get your patriation, you are not going to get your Charter of
Rights, until you put more on the table.” I am sure that we all
recall the words of the Prime Minister at that time. He said,
“We are not going to trade fish for freedom.“
Senator Flynn: A horse trader like him!
Senator Perrault: I-le said, “We are not going to decentral-
ize this nation so that we have no nation at all. We are not
going to Balkanize this country”. Remember the notable state-
ment made by one of the provincial premiers, who is now in
the forefront of the campaign to oppose what Parliament is
attempting to do. He said, “We really see the national govern-
ment as an agent of the provinces, as a clearing house of the
provinces. That is the proper role for the national
government.”
What we have here, honourable senators, surely is a vision
of what Canada will be: we will either develop a loose collec-
tion of states with sovereignty association by instalment, until
we have no nation left at all; or we will develop once again an
authentic vision of a united country. This is really what we
have been about in the past few weeks and months. We have
been trying to find a way to build a stronger country. Once
again there was deadlock among the ll governments. It
became clear that the national government must act if Canada
is to enjoy even the most fundamental constitutional reform,
namely, a patriated Constitution and protection of basic rights
which Canadians have come to hold in common during the
entire evolution of our history. Surely, wc are the only federa-
tion or confederation in the world which has its constitution in
another country. We are the only federation in the world
which requires unanimous consent on the part of all its compo-
nents in order to bring about change.
. (I040)
Senator Flynn: You do not agree with that‘?
Senator Perraultz Honourable senators, disagreement has
come from the other side, and that is the right of the opposi-
tion, but these happen to be the facts.
Senator Flynn: But you said that it was not required.
Senator Perrault: I would be glad to discuss any point
further. I am saying that the deadlock which has been pro-
duced by the need for absolute unanimity, made unanimity
impossible, as the Leader of the Opposition surely knows, as a
means to patriate the Constitution. l know that had that
deadlock mechanism not been endorsed, the Leader of the
Opposition in the Senate and his party would have followed
the same course. So the belief, which reflected the wishes of
most Canadians, was that the national government must act if
Canada is to enjoy even the most fundamental of constitution-
al reforms. Thesc reforms include a patriated Constitution
protecting the basic rights and freedoms of individuals in
relation to their governments, along with a Canadian amend-
ing formula.
lt has been said by some opposition critics in the other place
and in this chamber that the Canadian people are unhappy
with this process. The last public opinion poll indicated that 85
per cent of the Canadian people want a Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. An overwhelming majority in that same range want
a patriated constitution.
Senator Flynn: It should be 100 per cent.
Senator Perrault: In my own province of British Columbia,
despite the adverse speeches made by people from time to
time, including the premier of British Columbia, 91 per cent of
the people want a Charter of Rights and Freedoms entrenched;
71 per cent of the people want that entrenchment to take place
within l2 months; and a great majority of them want these
matters dealt with in the United Kingdom before the Constitu-
tion is patriated. Those are the facts.
Senator Flynn: Not so.
Senator Perrault: I am reminded of an observation made by
the Right Honourable Joe Clark in Toronto shortly before the
onset of these federal-provincial discussions, when he
remarked in one of his greater speeches:
The participants in Monday’s conference speak for eleven
governments. Parliament speaks for 23 million Canadians.
If the First Ministers of the federation cannot make
marked progress towards changes which fit the Canada of
the 19805, then the Parliament of the federation may have
to assert a stronger role.
That is an official statement made by the Leader of the
Opposition.

2368 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, 1981
Senator van Roggen: It is the first time he was ever right.
Senator Perrault: Mr. Clark went on to say:
But if it does, that must not be as the instrument of one
government, but as the forum of all Canada.
Senator Flynn: Of one man,
Senator Perrault: Listen to what he said.
Parliament, alone among institutions, reflects that coun-
try and can lift the discussion above the question of what
governments need and focus on the question of what the
nation needs,
Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Perrault: Surely, this is the purpose of our efforts
here today. It is time for the Parliament of Canada, whether
one is serving in the Senate or in the other place, to look at this
nation in light of its needs today and say what must be done in
order to strengthen the country and not to be dissuaded by
certain provincial voices who say, “Well, unless we receive this
concession in this certain area, you will not receive our support
for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms.“
Most of the provincial premiers are not on the side of history
today. It is the Parliament of Canada which is on the side of
history and on the side of the Canadian people.
Senator Flynn: We will see about that in due course.
Senator Perrault: Last October the government tabled a
proposed resolution in Parliament. This resolution was then
studied by the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the
House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada which
received over 1,000 submissions from Canadians across the
country, I know there are many people who say, “Canadians
aren’t interested in the Constitution. They are only interested
in the more impoptant areas ofjobs, inflation and so on, so why
doesn‘t the government leave the good old B.N.A. Act the way
it is, with the British being the custodians of our Constitution,
and get on with more important matters?”
However, that committee received 1,000 submissions from
thoughtful Canadians from coast to coast, of every party, of
every ethnic background and religion. As a result of these
representations, on January 12, 1981, the Honourable Jean
Chrétien proposed further changes in this resolution which
were very widely supported. They were supported by a cross-
section consisting of such groups as the leading religious
orders, women‘s organizations, native organizations and those
concerned with the freedom and preservation of human rights
in this country.
Additional amendments proposed by all parties in Parlia-
ment were subsequently made in the committee. All were
designed to improve the measure. Finally, in February the
government tabled in Parliament the motion which we are now
debating. This motion and the proposals which l have made
today in the form of an amendment reflect all the changes
made by the special joint committee and, as a result, I think it
can be said that we have a much improved constitutional
proposal.
[Senator Perrault]
The basic substance of this resolution has clearly withstood
the very severe test of parliamentary consideration and debate
over a three-month period. Only a few additional changes are
proposed and found to be desirable at this time, and thcse are
found in the amendments to which approval was given last
night in the other place and the amendments which have been
proposed this morning in the Senate.
It is not suggested that this is a perfect measure, that the
amendments mcet all the present and future needs of Canadi-
ans. This is but a beginning of constitutional reform and
change. I am pleased, for example, to propose an amendment
which would incorporate in the Senate address the some
changes, and l will explain brie?y those changes in just a few
moments. With regard to the process for making these
changes, Parliament has agreed on the course to be followed.
In line with this, on April 15 the Senate adopted o motion
which we finally, I believe, clarified this morning, providing
for the arrangement for the Senate’s disposition of the motion
and any amendments to it. It is in accordance with this order
that l have moved an amendment consisting of eight elements,
four of which are substantive and four of which are technical,
The first of the major elements is a preamble to the Charter of
Rights which would recognize that Canada is founded upon
principles that recognize the supremacy of God as well as the
rule of law. I am sure all honourable senators will support that
amendment, Reference to the supremacy of God has been
proposed in response to representations made by Canadians of
all faiths, whether they are of the Christian, the Jewish or any
other heritage. Recognition of the supremacy of God is not
restricted to one race or to one religion. This is a matter which
I know many honourable senators are pleased to see dealt with
in the proposed amendments. Reference to God is included,
and I know it is something that all honourable senators can
support.
Q (I050)
I think the government has received a good deal of unjusti-
fied criticism on this point from opposition spokesmen—most
of whom have convenient memories. People have forgotten
that when the Canadian Bill of Rights was produced in 1961,
the so-called “Diefenbakcr Bill of Rights“—and the Honour-
able Senators Walker and Flynn will recall this—when that
bill went to committee there was no reference to the suprema-
cy of God. It was a Liberal, a former, distinguished, Leader of
the Government in the Senate, then a member of Parliament,
the great Honourable Paul Martin-
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Perrault: ~-who moved an amendment to include a
preamble recognizing the supremacy of God in the Bill of
Rights, and Liberals were gratified when the Conservative
Party supported that initiative.
Specific recognition that the charter is founded on the rule
of law will be an important reminder to all legislators of their
ultimate responsibility to their fellow Canadians, to ensure
that they are protected from arbitrary government.

April 24, 1981 SENATE
DEBATES 2369
In addition to this preamble, it can be expected that future
constitutional discussions will include the development of an
appropriate preamble for the entire Constitution. Honourable
senators are aware of the fact that there were very difficult
drafting problems with the provincial premiers last year when
an attempt was made to develop an acceptable preamble. A
number of drafts were submitted by the provincial premiers
and by the federal government, and the lack of consensus
made it impossible to produce a preamble with general support
across the country. We should have an appropriate preamble
for the entire Constitution, re?ecting more fully the nature,
the founding principles, and the aspirations of Canadians.
That is something that can be considered and dealt with when
the Constitution has been patriated and when we have our own
amending formula.
With regard to that amending formula, the government’s
intention was to enact, precisely, the formula that had been
agreed upon in 1971 in Victoria, not because this is held in
special esteem by the Right Honourable the Prime Minister or
by the Liberal Party, but because it was the only formula ever
developed in the history of Canada which, at one time, at least,
had the support of all the premiers of the day. It was proposed
as the best possible consensus, not as perfection.
Senator Asselin: Except Quebec.
Senator Perrault: It does not represent the first choice of the
Right Honourable the Prime Minister or of must members of
our party, but it was an attempt to say to the provinces, “This
was the formula you felt best served your interests in l97l,
and we offer it to you if all other alternatives are not avail~
able.” We say, “Here is this formula, but you have two years
of federal-provincial conferences to develop a formula which
will be acceptable to yourselves and to the federal government
and, surely, during two years of meetings we can achieve that
modest objective.”
The Victoria formula was agreed to by the provincial and
the federal governments originally, including my own province
of British Columbia.
When l listen to the Honourable William Bennett of British
Columbia condemning the formula as some sort of eastern
plot, as an attempt by a group of rapacious politicians in
Ottawa to subvert the interests of westerners, I can only quote
the words of his father in 1971 when, speaking to British
Columbians, he said:
British Columbia, as from the outset of the constitutional
review, states the importance of reaching agreement on an
appropriate amending formula coupled with patriation
and was encouraged by the formula that was committed
to writing and agreed to at our meeting.
The late Premier W. A. C. Bennett said that the Victoria
formula was the best protector of western rights, and he urged
the support of all British Columbians for the formula which is
now condemned by his son as an attempt to thwart the
ambitions or the rights and interests of the people of western
Canada. ‘
Honourable senators, you may say that times have changed.
Yes, times have changed. l-lere was a premier more concerned
with the protection of provincial rights than any other premier
in Canada who chose the Victoria formula as a key instrument
in reform.
I said, “Times have changed”, and that is why there is a
two-year period during which it is hoped that a new formula
can be developed. That is why the constitutional proposals
provide every possible mechanism to develop a different for-
mula which will meet the needs of Canadians wherever they
live.
As a result of strong representations made during consider-
ation of the proposal by the Special Joint Committee on the
Constitution, and outside the committee, one amendment pro-
posed today would change the formula in respect of the
western provinces to make that formula the same as it is in
respect of the Atlantic provinces. Thus, the amending formula
would be changed to drop the population requirement in
western Canada and to treat western Canada in the same way
as Atlantic Canada. In other words, amendments would be
made with the approval of Parliament and any two provinces
in western Canada, any two in Atlantic Canada, and the two
provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The third element proposed in the amendment package—
and I am certain it will have the support of all parties in
Parliament—~would ensure that the Charter of Rights applies
equally to men and women. That does not require any speech
on my part or on the part of anyone else; we accept that.
Senator Donahue: But you don’t say that.
Senator Perrault: The change will remove any doubt about
the intention that the Charter of Rights should apply equally
to both sexes.
Senator Donahue: Maybe, but the amendment does not say
“men and women.”
Senator Perrault: Finally, I am proposing an amendment
that will ensure that the part of the proposed Constitution Act
pertaining to aboriginal rights can only be amended through
the general amending formula, thus giving greater assurance
to the native peoples as to the entrenchment of their basic
rights.
Senator Murray: Ask them.
Senator Perrault: Acceptance of these changes will enhance
the protections already provided for in the government’s con~
stitutional motion for important groups of Canadians, and I
hope that honourable senators will wish to approve all of these
amendments.
Beyond this, I believe, there are no further changes which it
would be timely to consider at this juncture, changes which
cannot await further discussions on constitutional reform.
There is at least one impression abroad, that we are involved
in a process that will lock in forever a Charter of Rights which
may never be changed, amended or altered. That is not
correct. When this Constitution is patriated, the process of

3370 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, I981
change will be there with adequate protection through a
Canadian amending formula.
The changes I am proposing have received careful examina-
tion and widespread support in the country, and I have no
hesitation in recommending them at this time.
Honourable senators, a statement was made by the Leader
of the Opposition a few moments ago. I note with interest that
he has not moved a number of the measures proposed in the
other place by members of his party, and I am certain that we
are going to hear explanations later this morning of the reason.
He has made reference to the institutional language rights and
their relation to the province of Ontario.
Q (HOD)
He may be interested to know that the Prime Minister made
a last minute appeal to the Premier of Ontario to bring about
this change. That proposal was once again rejected by the
Premier of Ontario, who is also the Leader of the Conservative
Party in that province.
Senator Donahue: So what?
Senator Perrault: The honourable senator says, “So what?”.
May I give you the governments position on this matter, so
that you can consider it?
The opposition proposes to apply the institutional language
rights provisions of the charter to Ontario. Much as we would
all wish to sec these protections for the French language
minority of Ontario included in the charter, the government
has steadfastly maintained the position that it will not force
institutional language rights on any province that does not
request that.
I ask the honourable senator sitting in the back row, and
who is so vocal today, whether he is prepared to stand up today
and propose institutional language rights be imposed upon his
native province. Does he want the people of his province to
know that he wants the federal government to impose lan-
guage rights on his province?
Senator Donahoe: My premier made no bargain.
Senator Perrault: That is correct, he did not make any
bargain. I ask whether or not it is right for a national
government to impose anything in this manner. Since only
New Brunswick has thus far made such a request, that is why
it is the only province included in clauses l6 to 20 of the
Charter of Rights.
An Hon. Senator: You imposed education rights in my
province.
Senator Perrault: Section I33 language rights continue to
apply to Quebec and Manitoba, since these are historic, vested
rights established in the Constitution.
Honourable senators, other remarks will be made by speak-
ers for our party later in this debate. Time is getting along,
and I do not wish to infringe upon the time of the Leader of
the Opposition, but I should like to conclude by quoting from
the remarks of Professor David Kwavnick of Carleton Univer-
sity who recently stated:
{Senator Penanti.)
inevitably, every measure which has the potential to
unite us must begin by dividing us, precisely because the
fundamental issues which touch the real long-term inter-
ests of the nation run up against the resistance of a deeply
entrenched status qua.
In Canada, we must confront . . . divisiveness to achieve
the unity we all want. In this context, political wisdom is
the ability to discern the real long-term interests of the
nation while political courage is the willingness to act
accordingly. And Canada exists today because wisdom
and courage were found at crucial moments in our
history.
So, perhaps we are being called upon to exercise a good
degree of wisdom and courage at the present time. The nation
is not without its problems, but perhaps it has the greatest
potential of any nation on the face of the earth.
Honourable senators, in the full knowledge that the amend-
ments do not represent ultimate perfection, but do represent
improvement on the resolution which we have under consider-
ation, I urge your support for them this morning.
Hon. David Walker: Honourable senators, I thank the
learned leader for singling me out for comment. I wish to tell
him that for 20 years the Liberals opposed any Bill of Rights.
He was not in the Commons in those days, but if Paul Martin
at one time or another got up and said that he was in favour of
God, I am sure everybody else had said so before. I can assure
you that the Liberals were our greatest barrier. They did not
want a Bill of Rights. I know that because I had something to
do with the drafting of that Bill of Rights.
Senator Perrault: Honourable senators, may I say in reply
that the late Right Honourable John Diefenbakcr said that his
ultimate hope was to have a Bill of Rights entrenched in the
Canadian Constitution. We are making reality of that great
Diefenbakcr dream of 1961, and previous years. Wherever Mr.
Diefenbaker is—and I am sure he is in the sunny uplands—he
would rejoice in what Parliament is doing today.
Senator Walker: He would also be glad from above to know
that I am putting you right about the truth.
[Translation]
Hon. Jacques Flynn (Leader of the Opposition): Honour-
able senators, I said yesterday in the context of this continuing
debate that four significant decisions had been taken recently:
First, the decision of the courts and then the decision of
Parliament to wait for the verdict of the Supreme Court before
we take the final vote on this resolution. Third, the decision of
Quebecers on April l3 last and, finally, the decision of the
provincial premiers last week. As regards the court decisions, I
do not want to dwell on the subject except for pointing out to
the Leader of the Government that Mr. Diefenbaker never did
want to impose forcibly the inclusion of a Charter of Rights
and Freedoms in the Constitution because he always acknowl-
edged that one could act unilaterally in that field. He had
every respect for the rights of the provinces. That is the major
difference between Messrs. John Diefenbaker and Pierre Elli-
ott Trudeau.

April 24, l98l SENATE
DEBATES 2371
In that respect, I said yesterday that the role of Westminster
has changed completely since 1931, and especially since I949.
Westminster did not want to keep control over the Constitu-
tion, but at our request Westminster did accept to act as an
arbitrator. Since 1949, in the four instances when the Consti-
tution was amended through an Address to London-—this has
been repeated and I insist on saying it again—it was done with
the unanimous cooperation of the provinces
Getting back to the decision of April 13 last, yesterday
evening I watched the vote being taken in the House of
Commons. When I saw that not one of the members from
Quebec rose to support the traditional position of Quebec
which goes back to Jean Lesage, Robert Bourassa and earlier,
I felt truly humiliated. In fact, this constitutional reform works
mainly against Quebec. Because Quebec, having rejected the
Fulton-Favreau formula in 1964, rightly or wrongly»-today
perhaps I would say wrongly—having rejected the Victoria
formula in I971-~
Senator Frith: Not at the beginning.
Senator Flynn: Everybody knows that Mr. Bourassa had
said yes and that later on he said no, just as Mr. Lesage had
said yes and then said no. We are all agreed. But what I mean
is that because they said no on both those occasions, if this
resolution is legal, not only have we forced a patriating for-
mula upon Quebec, but we have also imposed on that province
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the possibility of a
referendum. We have provided the tools which will enable the
federal government to gnaw at the rights of the provinces so
that the position of Quebec is now twice as bad, with Mr.
Trudeau’s proposition which, to my mind, is directed more
against Quebec than it would have been had Mr. Lesage
accepted simple patriation with the amending formula in 1964,
or had Mr. Bourassa agreed to the suggestion made at
Victoria.
During the election campaign, Mr. Ryan told the Quebecers
that they should elect him if they want Mr. Trudeau stopped
in his tracks. In fact, we know full well that 90 per cent of all
Quebecers oppose the unilateral move of Mr. Trudeau. They
were caught between Mr. Ryan who, naturally, was against
the unilateral decision, and Mr. Levesque who also opposes it
but who looked more aggressive during the campaign. The
people in Quebec said no to Mr. Trudeau on April 14. Mr.
Trudeau could not care less. It does not matter to him in the
least. He is convinced Quebecers will continue to vote for him,
even if he imposes something on them they have always
refused. The situation is absolutely astounding, unbelievable.
Yesterday, I spoke of the shiftless Liberal herd in the other
place. I saw them at work last night: they got up one after the
other and not one of them supported the position adopted by
all political parties in Quebec; not one of them had the courage
to stand up and say no, you will not act in that way! Of course,
there is still some hope: the Supreme Court, and, as I said
yesterday, I am very confident.
Now to come back to the fourth decision, that of the
premiers who got together, they were criticized but the fact
8008/4~150
remains that the premiers did come up with an amending
formula. I fail to see how Mr. Trudeau would want to take a
chance on the Supreme Court deciding against him, instead of
meeting the premiers and trying to come to an agreement with
them, at least on patriation and an amending formula.
It is unbelievable that he should think he is the only one who
is right. It is incredible that he should say, I shall show them,
one after the other. I shall use the majority in the house.
Thank God, here in the Senate, the debate went on in an
atmosphere of far greater freedom. I am happy to see that
several senators opposite were not afraid to oppose the unilat-
eral action of Mr. Trudeau.
In any event, we are now coming to the end of this inter-
mediate stage. I find it amusing to see representatives of the
media in the galleries because last night on the French net-
work of the CBC, it was reported that the debate was over,
that the resolution was on its way to the Supreme Court. The
newspapers said the same thing this morning. The Senate has
been totally ignored. This probably coincides with the interpre-
tation of the role of the Senate given yesterday by Senator
Paul Lucier, who said: “What shall we do if the Senate does
not come to the same decision as the House of Commons?”
What would happen? Of course, Senator Lucier’s rubber
stamp philosophy is a generally accepted one and this is
unfortunately confirmed by the somewhat rigid discipline
which prevails in this house even though to a lesser degree, I
will admit it, than in the other place.
I asked earlier for leave to put on the record the amend-
ments that I wanted to move. If there is no objection, I shall do
so now. I intend to say a few words concerning these amend-
ments. As I indicated, we would like to extend to Ontario the
system already applicable to Quebec, New Brunswick and
Manitoba. We would not impose this system directly, no more
in fact than the balance of the charter, because we provide, in
amending section 63, that the law may be enacted only after
seven provinces, or at least two thirds of the provinces, whose
population represents at least 50 per cent of the population of
Canada according to the latest census, will have given their
approval. The law will be enacted only after two thirds of the
legislative assemblies will have accepted to implement the
provisions of the legislation with respect to both the Charter
and its provisions concerning linguistic rights, and so on, and
not before. This seems to me like a reasonable amendment.
Even then I would add that were the Senate to accept this
amendment to section 63, the Supreme Court would perhaps
consider the resolution in a more favourable way. There is no
doubt that the proposal now provides for an absolute imposi-
lion, while, with this amendment, the proposed amending
formula would provide for the coming into force of the
legislation.
In any event, we are submitting this amendment because we
have always held as a basic principle for amending the Consti-
tution that the federal level could not act nor impose solutions
unilaterally.
I hope that this alternative will be retained, especially in the
interests of Quebec, which actually is very much affected by

2372 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, 1981
this proposal. The resolution makes a mock of Quebec. It tells
Quebec: “You insisted on saying no in 1964 and I971. Now,
you will have to swallow not only an amending formula that
you do not want, but also the charter and the referendum
provisions”.
I hope that the arguments on the legal aspects of the
resolution expressed in this house–and I want to single out
the contribution of Senator Lang yesterday——will prevail, and
that the Supreme Court will rule that Mr. Trudeau has no
right to act as he intends to do.
Q (IIIO)
[English]
Senator Frith: Honourable senators, may I ask—
[Translation]
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Before giving you the ?oor, I wonder
if the Leader of the Opposition has any objection to these
amendments being included in his speech.
Senator Flynn: This is just what I had asked earlier, if
honourable senators agree.
The Hon. the Speaker: In the speech itself’!
Senator Flynn: Yes.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Very well.
(For text of proposed amendments see Appendix “A”, p.
2398.)
Senator Frith: I would like to ask a question for clarification
and not for argumentation. The fifth provision would replace
section 63 of Part VIII by something else. Am I right in
assuming that if we vote for your proposed amendment we
would be voting for two elements? First, there is the element
about section 133 which concerns Ontario, and, secondly»
Senator Flynn: All the rest.
Senator Frith: There is much more than the imposition of
section 133. It is another amending formula, is it not? The
result is that the whole act, not just section I33, will not
become effective until the approval of the seven provinces has
been given. In other words, there are two aspects~section 133
and the amending formula of the premiers. There are those
two aspects, are there not?
Senator Flynn: In other words, we are saying, “We are not
imposing that thing on you unless seven out of ten provinces
accept it.”
Senator Frith: You are saying a little bit more than that.
You are actually saying: we are not imposing anything in this
act not even section 133 without the approval of the seven
provinces or 50 per cent of the people.
Senator Asselin: Honourable senators—~
[English]
Senator Argue: I believe I was next on the list.
Senator Asselin: I thought you made a speech.
[Senator Flynn.)
Senator Frith: It was a question for the purpose of
clarification.
[Translation]
Senator Asselin: I have a question of privilege honourable
Senators. It is the second time since yesterday that someone
has taken my turn. Is there actually an attempt to silence me?
Senator Frith: Honourable senators, I have requested per~
mission to put a question to the Leader of the Opposition for
clarification. He agreed and I then asked my question. Was I
right in saying that there were two elements. He said yes. That
was only a question, not a speech.
[English]
Hon. Hazen Argue (Minister of State for the Canadian
Wheat Board): Honourable senators, with that important
clarification, I would like to contribute to this debate. 1 realize
that time is very limited, and I know there are other senators
who would like to participate, so I will be as brief as possible.
Q (H20)
This is, of course, an historic time for Canada, and I am
honoured—as I know other honourable senators are
honoured be part of this process. Canada is particularly
fortunate at this time to have as its Prime Minister the Right
Honourable Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who has a broad vision of
this country and its needs, who has shown himself to be an
outstanding leader, and who took the leadership in the Quebec
referendum to win for Canada at that time a resounding
victory.
To be shown his wisdom, foresight and agility, one need only
refer to Hansard of the other place for yesterday evening to
see that, in the main, behind the proposed constitutional
amendments are two of the national parties of this country;
and if one wishes to appreciate the degree of support in this
country, he has only to look at the votes taken in the House of
Commons last night. It is pretty clear that an overwhelming
proportion of the elected members of this country on the
national scene support the proposition that is before us today.
Senator Flynn: You have no mandate.
Senator Roblin: No mandate at all.
Senator Argue: The mandate is there, because there has
been a continuing endeavour over the years to bring the
Constitution home—
Senator Asselin: No.
Senator Argue: It is not a change of policy; it is a continua»
tion ofa Liberal Party policy that has existed for many years.
Senator Flynn: Not so.
Senator Argue: I want to add my voice to those who have
said that the senators have played a distinguished role in this
process. Senator Hays, as has been mentioned, was a joint
chairman of the committee. Senator Austin took a leading
role. I should like to pay tribute to my leader in the Senate. I
have worked with him for over a year in the cabinet, and I
have worked with him in the Senate for a long time. He is an

April 24, I981 SENATE
DEBATES 2373
outstanding government leader in the Senate. In my view, the
accomplishments of the Senate, in no small measure, are a
tribute to his foresight, his courage and his vision with regard
to the duties he has to perform.
The debate is going well. The vote is going well. A few
weeks ago, to read the newspapers, to listen to the debate, one
would have thought that the proposition that was put forward
by the government was in deep trouble.
Senator Flynn: It still is.
Senator Argue: When the Prime Minister put forward his
proposals for constitutional amendment, the outcry was that it
was a one-man show.
Senator Flynn: Yes.
Senator Argue: The outcry was that this man is rigid.
Senator Flynn: True.
Senator Argue: That he will not listen to suggestions for
change.
Senator Flynn: That’s true.
Senator Argue: I said in this chamber earlier, and I say
again, that I have watched the Prime Minister in action. He
listens very carefully to suggestions that are made. The fact
that 67 amendments came out of that joint committee is a
demonstration of the fact that this man and the government
are able to look at all points of view and make important
changes. Amendments were made in the other place last night.
So I think we can be proud of the process. We can be proud to
be living in Canada, because all of us have the privilege to take
part in this process, and it has resulted in many changes. It has
resulted in—
Senator Flynn: Closure.
Senator Argue: Well, now, closure—l suppose if it were left
to the opposition, they would enforce on the majority their
opinion that no vote should be taken. So it was Tory obstruc-
tion. However, there was an agreement. It was very wise, and I
believe the Leader of the Opposition in the other place was
part of that agreement.
I believe that we are forging an important consensus in
Canada in support of this package, and supporting it, of
course, are two national political parties, two provinces, and
the decisions of two courts.
Senator Asselin: What about the CCF?
Senator Argue: I am confident that when the Supreme
Court decision is known, there will be a further resounding
majority support for the proposition that this resolution should
be completed.
The provincial premiers came to Ottawa a few days ago.
They were to agree on something. They agreed on almost
nothing.
Senator Flynn: You are not serious.
Senator Argue: The surprising part of that agreement, for
me as a resident of Saskatchewan, is that the Premier of
Saskatchewan should be prepared to discard all of the things
he had accomplished by way of amendment in the proposed
proposition. He was willing to forget about equalization. which
has been fundamental to the operation of this country. He
forgot about any provision in the Constitution that would say
that provincial governments, where the per capital income was
lower than the average, would receive equalization payments.
The Premier of Saskatchewan was prepared to forget about
that.
He worked hard and diligently to get many amendments
accepted on the question of resources, of provincial control and
ownership of resources. He obtained indirect taxation as pro-
vided for in this resolution. He obtained shared jurisdiction
over interprovincial trade. This was so important to the
Premier of Saskatchewan that large ads were placed in the
newspapers in that province, such as the one headed: “Your
resources and the Constitution.” I will read only one sentence:
Since resources are so important to Saskatchewan, an
amended constitution must guarantee the province’s juris~
diction over resource management.
One would think that the fight over the Constitution was in
Saskatchewan. The ads are out there and a lot of provincial
money is being spent. So far as Ottawa is concerned, there
have been no matching ads and no federal money.
When the Premier of Saskatchewan got to Ottawa a few
days ago, he forgot about the question of resources in the
Constitution. When he was answering a reporter, he had this
to say:
I have to swallow twice when I say resources can wait.
But he thought they were so important that he spent the
taxpayers’ money in Saskatchewan trying to convince the
Saskatchewan electorate that he was on the right course, and
Blakeney disowned Blakeney. The money was obviously
wasted because he changed his course.
Senator Flynn: Trudeau did the same thing with the
Constitution.
Senator Argue: He has apparently disowned-—or he thinks it
is of little value»-—this question of resources in the Constitu-
tion, bccause he said he is prepared to forget about it.
The next whipping institution was the Senate. Well, he went
after the Senate. There were more paid ads, more expenditure
of taxpayers’ money. Herc is what he said about the Senate, in
part:
Saskatchewan’s position: We cannot support a resolution
which entrenches in our Constitution such broad and
unlimited powers for an appointed body. lt is totally
unreasonable and unacceptable that the Senate should be
allowed to thwart the will of Canadians.
Then he forgot about the question of the Senate, because he
said, “Well, you know, it doesn’t matter so long as you get the
Constitution home with some kind of agreement on an amend~
ing formula.” He was asked about the Senate, and here is his
reply:

23 74 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, 1981
The difference this time is that if there is a substantial
measure of agreement on the Constitution, l don’t think
the Senate will raise the same objections. Ho\v could it
hold the same view in the face of widespread federal-pro-
vincial agreement?
The fact of the matter is that the Senate has never been
obstructionist.
The fact of the matter is that painting the Senate as a body
that would thwart the will of Canadians gives a false picture.
It is inaccurate. I believe that the Premier of Saskatchewan
has demonstrated that his ads were window dressing–a sham,
but an expensive sham. He didn’t support what was in the ads.
This is a debate on the Constitution. The constitutional
proposals are going forward. They are going forward with
broad support of the Canadian public~
Senator Flynn: They may never come back,
Senator Argue: The media is starting to say that this
proposal is a good one, and if the Supreme Court should
decide that the federal Parliament has the right and the
authority to make this proposal, and to send it to the United
Kingdom, then l forecast that it will pass there; the necessary
legislation will pass, and it will come back to Canada. Canadi-
ans generally will then acknowledge that it was the Liberal
Party, assisted by the New Democratic Party-
Q (H30)
Senator Asselin: You speak like Broadbent did yesterday. It
is the same thing.
Senator Argue: These are facts. You cannot make me
responsible for the fact that the Tories are completely irre-
sponsible and have been playing the cheapest kind of politics.
They talked about separatism in the west, and everybody got
excited about it. The Prime Minister said he did not think
separatism was a real threat out there, and was roundly
criticized for saying this when it was being said that the
separatists were out there running wild in their thousands.
The man who has been leading separatism in the west, a
man by the name of Elmer Knutson, started out with some big
meetings. The first one, in Calgary, had 1,500 people present.
When he tried a little later to get 300 people in the same
auditorium, he set out 300 chairs. All he got, however, were
two dozen. Nobody was paying any attention to him, and so he
went to the Conservative Party convention in Alberta as a
registerd delegate, and they took him in.
Senator Flynn: They took you, too.
Senator Argue: With regard to the Conservative convention,
I find this in the news report:
Attorney-General Neil Crawford said in an interview
he did not think the party could expel a member who
advocates the breakup of the country although it expelled
Calgary MLA Tom Sindlinger last fall for disagreeing
with the party—-
So it is all right to be a separatist, I guess, in the Conservative
Party, but you must not disagree with Premier Lougheed’s
policies.
[Senator Argue. i
The distinguished Leader of the Opposition was in the
House of Commons for years, and has been in the Senate for
many years. He had a very distinguished leader in the House
of Commons, namely, the Right Honourable John George
Diefenbaker. On July l, 1960, Mr. Diefenbaker was proposing
his Bill of Rights. He said, in part:
All of us hope that when the bill of rights is passed it will
represent a forward step. It will not go as far as I would
have liked it to go.
Further on he said:
To wait for a constitutional amendment is to wait for
years to c0me—
Mr. Diefenbakcr, I believe, would have been happy with the
progress that is being made today.
Senator Smith: He was willing to wait.
Senator Argue: He would have been happy to see placed in
the Constitution of this country a Charter of Rights. A charter
that provides legal rights in this country.
Senator Smith: You are a great mind-reader.
Senator Argue: He would have been glad to see a charter
that would provide rights for men and women on an equal
basis, and also for ethnic people. l can tell you that for the
ethnic people of Canada-—-and perhaps that includes almost all
of us, since we are a people of so many diverse origins-Vthe
amendment that ensures them the right to preserve their
culture is extremely important, as I think it is important to
Canada.
I think we are travelling in pretty good company, led by the
Prime Minister. There are others who have been in favour of a
Charter of Rights, the Right Honourable John George Diefen-
baker among them. There are a number of leading persons in
the New Democratic Party that do not agree with the Premier
of Saskatchewan, including his national leader. The Premier of
Saskatchewan had an emergency council of the party called, I
have read, because he wanted to change their position. He lost
that battle, as he has been losing the others. Tommy Douglas,
a former leader of the federal national Democratic Party-~»
Senator Flynn: He was your leader.
Senator Argue: Let me read from the Prince Albert Herald.
Tommy Douglas, former leader of the federal New
Democratic Party and once CCF Premier of Saskatche~
wan, supports the federal government‘s plan to repatriate
the constitution.
In a private interview with The Herald, Douglas said he
wants civil rights entrenched in the constitution in order
to prevent “some provincial legislature“ from taking them
away.
wcnt on to say:
Trudeau‘s two-hour speech on the government‘s consti-
tutional proposals will go down in history with speeches
by George Brown on Confederation, Sir Wilfred l.aurier’s
speech on Canadian»British relations and John Diefen»
baker’s on the Bill of Rights.
He

April Z4, 1981 SENATE
DEBATES 2375
Senator Smith: Why do you not say something for yourself?
Senator Argue: l am speaking for myself. Tommy Douglas
has answered the Premier of Saskatchewan by saying that the
Premier of Saskatchewan has taken a wrong position. Premier
Blakeney has wasted public money in advertising certain
changes in the Constitution, and then denying those ads
himself.
We have only another few minutes to engage in discussion
on this question.
Senator Smith: Are you going to take them all?
Senator Argue: If you want to help me take them all up by
interrupting, go ahead. Otherwise, l will conclude quickly.
I believe that when the vote is taken in the Senate today,
when the Supreme Court decision is made, when the decision
of the United Kingdom Parliament is made and the Constitu-
tion comes back to Canada, together we will have been respon-
sible for bringing our Constitution home, with all the far-sight-
ed elements that are provided in it. This repatriation of the
Constitution will be another great step forward in the develop-
ment of this country, and in the establishment of national
unity from coast to coast.
I am proud to have taken part in this debate today.
{Translation}
Hon. Martial Asselin: Honourable senators, l did not think
that in the end my friends opposite would make such partisan
speeches as the one just made by Senator Argue, the minister
responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
The fact is that wc, in Quebec, have been experiencing a
political reality for almost fifteen or sixteen years. Since I966
or 1967, or since the Liberal Party has been in power in
Canada, we have been facing the problem of separatism in
Quebec.
Since then, as a result of confrontations and of a lack of
cooperation on the part of federal authorities, especially the
federal government, separatism has developed in Quebec. We
had further proof of this in the last election—
Senator Frith: This is not partisan!
Senator Asselin: On April 13 last, Quebecers voted for the
Parti Québéeois. Why? Well, because it was the only party in
a position to protect them against 0ttawa’s encroachment on
provincial jurisdictions and especially on Quebec’s rights. This
is precisely why Quebecers re-elected the Quebec government
on April 13.
However, this is not the gist of my comments. When I was a
member of the Committee on the Constitution as a representa-
tive of my party, l pointed out on several occasions the
unfairness of the non~application of Section l33 to Ontario.
Honourable senators, I will always remember the many times I
raised the matter, my friends on the government side simply
told me to move a motion which would be voted on.
But I would tell them: “Well, as you are in charge of these
committee proceedings, it is your responsibility as representa-
tives of the government to move a motion calling for the
application to Ontario of section l33 with regard to the use of
the French language”. They have always refused to do so.
Now I should like to thank the honourable senators of my
party, who understand the situation, for their patience. I did
not want to let this unique opportunity pass–it may not
present itself again for 20 or 25 yenrs—-without the Parliament
of Canada making its views known on such vital issues. That is
why I am grateful to the leader of my party in the Senate,
Senator Flynn, for moving this amendment on my behalf and
on behalf of Senator Deschatelets who had agreed to second
and co-sponsor this amendment mostly with a view to depoliti-
cizing the issue.
Let all senators, whether they sit on the government or the
opposition side, vote according to their conscience and in
complete freedom! It is with this in mind that Senator Des-
chatelets has agreed to co-sponsor the amendment which the
Leader of the Opposition has move on our behalf. As you
know, l was prevented by the Order of the Senate, and so was
Senator Deschatelets, to move the amendment; we had to
proceed through the Leader of the Opposition. l am sure that
the Leader of the Opposition shares our opinion about this.
I am also pleased that this amendment has been moved
because l wanted to do justice to the honourable members of
the other place who were unable to move a similar amendment
in the House of Commons.
You know what efforts Mr. Robert Gauthier and other
honourable members from Quebec as well as Ontario have
made, what steps they took to have their caucus accept the
possibility of moving in the House of Commons the amend-
ment you now have before you. That right, that authorization
was denied them. That is why, and I repeat it, that is, to do
justice to my colleagues of the House of Commons for whom
this was a gut issue, as it is for me also, we are moving the
amendment to section 133 which stands before you.
lt is also to remedy the injustice done to 600,000 Ontario
francophones who cannot use their own language in dealing
with government services, the courts of justice and Crown
corporations. As far as the courts are concerned, only in
criminal courts are French and English interpretation allowed
and the judges can try francophone criminals in their own
language. To be entitled to simultaneous interpretation in
Ontario, you have to be a criminal if you are a francophone.
This right does not apply in civil courts of law.
This amendment is also meant to show Quebecers are right
in the outstanding way in which they treat their anglophone
minority in Quebec. Never has a minority been dealt with so
adequately as the anglophone minority of Quebec. During the
election campaign, Quebecers showed they were fed up with
the fact that the unfairness with which francophone minorities
in the other provinces are treated is not being remedied. That
is why also many Quebecers voted for the Parti Québécois, to
protest publicly, officially, against this attitude of our repre-
sentatives in Ottawa who have been refusing for so long to
redress the injustices being committed against the French

2376 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, 1981
speaking minorities outside Quebec. That is why also we have
moved the amendment that is before you.
Honourable senators, I know Senator Deschatelets wishes to
address this amendment. I appeal to your goodwill, to your
sense of freedom. Wrongs have to be redressed from time to
time and important decisions must be made. Bilingualism is
official in New Brunswick because the provincial government
decided to comply with section 133. The Supreme Court also
ruled that Manitoba had a duty to comply with section I33.
There are 600,000 French Canadians in Ontario and yet
they are deprived of the right to use their language, despite the
fact that a recent Gallup poll showed that most Ontarians
were in favour of applying section I33 in the name of justice
for Franco-Ontarians. If there is one place where injustices
committed against minority groups in this country can be
redressed it is certainly here in the Senate. It is often said that
the Senate is an institution whose purpose it is to redress
injustices and provide minorities with the rights and privileges
that belong to them. This morning we have a unique opportu-
nity to do this. I am certain that the Canadian people are
going to examine and scrutinize very closely the vote that will
be taken to see if the Senate is still pursuing its avowed
objectives and aims, namely that of protecting the minority
groups of this country who have been wrongfully treated such
as Franco-Ontarians.
Senator Lamontagne: Honourable senators, I would simply
like to ask one question of Senator Asselin. Does he not
recognize that in its present form the amendment will in no
way force Ontario to comply with section 133?
Senator Asselin: That is quite right. It does not force section
I33 on Ontario. That was not our aim either. We have always
been of the opinion that neither the federal government nor
Parliament should act unilaterally. That is why we added a
clause pursuant to section 63. It is as simple as that.
g (mo)
[English]
Hon. Jack Austin: I would like to ask Senator Asselin
whether he can make up his mind between real justice for the
francophones of Ontario and his notion of justice with respect
to the provinces?
Some Hon. Senators: Order, order!
[Translation]
Hon. Jean-Paul Deschateletsz Honourable senators, with
leave I should like to speak for a minute or two.
I agreed to support this amendment of the Honourable
Senator Asselin, through the Leader of the Opposition, for two
reasons: first, this amendment will redress an anomaly, an
injustice, considering that anglophones in Quebec have enjoyed
such advantages since 1867. It goes without saying that at a
time when we are proposing a new Constitution, in 1981, the
largest minority in Ontario should, in all fairness, be able to
address its legislature and testify before Ontario courts in the
French language. Indeed I am very surprised that this consti-
tutional resolution does not already provide for such a correc-
[Senator Asselin.]
tive measure and that we are forced today to proceed through
an amendment.
Honourable senators, neither in the other place, nor in the
Senate, nor in the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution
have we had an accurate, reasonable and acceptable explana-
tion as to why the Province of Ontario should not be subjected
to section I33.
I was listening this morning to the Leader of the Govern-
ment when he tried to provide certain explanations, but they
certainly did not answer the following question which a
majority of Quebecers are now asking: Why should this Chart-
er impose unilaterally on Quebec provisions which infringe
upon its exclusive right to legislate on linguistic and education-
al matters if by the same principle Ontario is not forced to
accept at least institutional bilingualism? I have found no
satisfactory or valid answer neither here nor in the other place
nor in the joint committee.
Thus, honourable senators, today we have the opportunity to
correct an injustice and I invite my honourable colleagues to
give very careful attention to the decision they will make. For
my part, it was not only a pleasure for me to support this
motion this morning, but as a Quebec citizen, I believe that it
was also my duty.
Q (H50)
[English]
Senator Perrault: Honourable senators, I was asked a ques-
tion regarding the imposition of certain language rights.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, according to
the order of the Senate, all debate is to stop at noon. If there is
unanimous agreement that we continue the debate, then I am
at the pleasure of honourable senators.
Hon. Senators: No.
The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the special order, I must
now put the question on the motion in amendment of the
Honourable Senator Perrault, P.C. Is it your pleasure, honour-
able senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Senator Flynn: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of
order. Previously I indicated that because of the basket nature
of these amendments, my party does not feel that it would be
proper for us to voice our approval. Of course, there are some
elements with which we agree but, under the circumstances,
we must ask leave to abstain from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, according to
rule 49(1)(c), any senator may decline to vote. However, I do
not believe that the rule permits a mass abstention. It provides
for individual assigning of reasons before the senators may be
excused from voting.
Senator Flynn: I was merely attempting to simplify the
procedure.
Senator Frith: Each senator must give a reason.
Senator Flynn: Ijust told you that the reason is the basket
nature of the amendment.

April 24, I981 SENATE
DEBATES 2377
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, according to
rule 49(l)(c), each senator must indicate his or her intention
to abstain and give the reasons for so doing, to which the
Senate must agree. Howcver, if honourable senators have
another procedure to propose, I will listen.
Senator Mcllraith: Honourable senators, in accordance with
the provisions of rule 49(1) and 49(I)(c), I ask to be excused
from voting on these amendments for the reason that, as
honourable senators know, in a lengthy speech on March l7 in
the Senate, I indicated my opposition to the main motion on
grounds of principle concerning several parts of the main
proposal. My voting either for or against these amendments as
presented today, particularly in view of the speech of the
Leader of the Government, might well be misconstrued as a
change of view on the matters of principle I set out in my
speech on the main motion. The substance and points of
opposition still remain, and it is, therefore, in my view, desir-
able that I refrain from voting on the amendments before us.
The Hon. the Speaker: Shall the senator, for the reasons
assigned by him, be excused from voting?
Senator Frith: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of
order. According to the order of the Senate, the vote is to be
put at 12 noon. Of course, the vote could be delayed if every
single senator riscs to ask for leave to abstain. I believe that
the question should be put according to the order and that we
should have our vote, during which honourable senators may
abstain, if they wish.
Senator Cook: The rules say that we have a right to ask for
permission to abstain, and 1 want to abstain.
Senator Frith: Honourable senators who do not wish to vote,
do not have to vote. The point is that the rule which is being
invoked is dealt with in the order which says that the order
itself shall prevail, notwithstanding any rule to the contrary.
The order provides for a vote at 12 noon and I suggest that we
have that vote.
Senator Cook: Whether you vote or do not vote is part of the
VOIC.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the rules do
not permit a debate on a request to be excused from voting. As
to the comments of the Deputy Leader of the Government, the
abstentions cannot be called before the vote. Each senator has
the right to abstain, but I do not believe that I can allow a
mass abstention, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition.
Senator Flynn: I merely wanted to save time.
Senator Grosart: Honourable senators, I rise on a point of
order. It has been said that the order of the Senate supersedes
our rules as they stand. I suggest this is not so because it is
clearly defined in our rules that an order of the Senate is an
order by majority vote. Our rules make it equally clear that
the rules cannot be suspended by a majority vote, but only by
leave of the Senate.
Senator Frith: Look at paragraph 9.
Senator Grosart: I am making my point of order, and the
honourable senator may make his once I am finished. I say
that the rules are very clear in stating that an order of the
Senate may not be used as a means of suspending the rules.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, coming back
to the question of Senator McIlraith’s abstention, shall the
senator, for the reasons assigned by him, be excused from
voting?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Roblin: Honourable senators, if honourable senators
must indicate their stand on this matter before the vote is
called, then I wish to be included among those who wish to
abstain from voting, for the same reasons expressed by those
who spoke previously.
I (I200)
Senator Molson: Honourable senators, with great respect,
may I suggest that the reason for this disagreement is not
really very valid? If the vote is called when His Honour the
Speaker calls the yeas and nays, then there is nothing that can
prevent a senator from saying that he wishes to be excused
from voting at that moment.
Senator Perrault: Correct.
Senator Molson: Then the vote will be called at noon, and
the senator’s privilege to decline to vote is still available to
him. We are not breaking the rules; we are not breaking the
agreement; we will just carry on in a smooth way.
The Hon. the Speaker: The solution proposed by Senator
Molson seems very reasonable,
Will those honourable senators who are in favour of the
motion in amendment moved by Senator Perrault please say
“yea”?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators who
are against the motion in amendment please say “nay”?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
Some Hon. Senators: The “nays”?
The Hon. the Speaker: The “yeas”.
And two honourable senators having risen:
The Hon. the Speaker: Please call in the senators,
Senator Molson: Honourable senators, in view of the fact
that the vote has been called, I should now like to ask’to be
excused from voting on any amendments to the resolution.
My reasons are that, while some elements of the amend~
ments are desirable, particularly those applying to the exten-
sion of section 133 of the B.N.A. Act to the province of
Ontario, which should be enshrined, I find it impossible to vote
for the amendments en bloc or in an omnibus fashion, as I
have already stated in this chamber that l am against the main
resolution, in principle.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?

2378 SENATE
DEBATES April 24, I981
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lang: May I also ask to be excused from voting on
this resolution today? I think I amply provided my reasons to
this chamber yesterday afternoon.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Thompson: Honourable senators, I also ask to be
excused. I could enlarge on my reasons, but I think Senator
Mcllraith and two other senators, Senators Molson and Lang,
have expressed my reasons adequately.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed‘!
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Hicks: Honourable senators, I ask leave to be
excused from voting, largely for the reasons elaborated on by
Senator Mcllraith, but also because of remarks that have been
made, not in this chamber but elsewhere, that those who
support these amendments might be inferred to be supporting
the main resolution, and I have not yet decided whether I am
prepared to do that.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
I-Ion. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Bell: Honourable senators, I beg to be excused from
voting on the amendments for the reasons put forward. I
believe that yesterday evening I made it quite clear that it
would be impossible for me to support the main motion.
Therefore, considering the aspect of consistency, I feel I
cannot support the amendments.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Lafond: Since I cannot accept that a Charter of
Rights and Freedoms for Canadians which is premature
should be dealt with and ratified in Westminster, I will object
to the resolution as such.
I therefore ask the Senate, pursuant to our Standing Order
49(I)c) to be excused from voting on the amendments to the
resolution.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
Senator Cook: Honourable senators, I also ask to be excused
from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Smith: Honourable senators, I want to make sure
that, in the lumping together of senators’ names who have
asked to be excused, my name is not lost. I wish to be recorded
as abstaining.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
rm Hon. the Spcakenl
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Flynn: I also ask to be excused, for the reasons I
have already given.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Roblin: Honourable senators, may I be excused?
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Macrlonaldz Honourable senators, I also ask to be
excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Asselin: For the same reasons, honourable senators,
I ask to be excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Fournier: Honourable senators, I also ask to be
excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Bélisle: Honourable senators, I, too, ask to be
excused.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Bielishz Honourable senators, for the same reasons,
I ask to be excused.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
I-Ion. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Marshall: Honourable senators, for the same rea~
sons, I ask to be excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Murray: Honourable senators, I also ask to be
excused, for the same reasons.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Tremblay: With the consent of the honourable
senators, I ask to be excused from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed honourable senators.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
Senator Phillips: Honourable senators, I also wish to abstain
from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?

April 24, 1981 SENATE
DEBATES 2379
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Muir: I ask to be excused, honourable senators, for
the reasons given by Senator Mcllraith and by my leader.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed‘!
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Grosart: Honourable senators, I request leave to
abstain because, for the reason I have stated, I believe the
Senate is completely out of order in not following its rule that
these motions be voted on seriatim.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed’?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[ Translation]
Senator Deschatelets: Honourable senators, I rise to make a
point clear. I insist on voting on Senator Asselin’s amendment.
I am not yet asking to be excused.
[English]
Senator Hicks: But we are not dealing with that one now.
Senator Deschatelets: Very well.
[Translation]
Senator Charbonneau: Honourable senators, I wish to be
excused, for the same reasons as Senator Lafond.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
Senator Nurgitz: Honourable senators, I also ask to be
excused from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Macquarrie: Honourable senators, I ask for the
same course of action, for similar reasons.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Donahoe: Honourable senators, for reasons similar
to those advanced by Senator Grosart, I also wish to abstain.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Sherwood: Honourable senators, I also ask to be
excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Doody: Honourable senators, I too wish to abstain,
for the same reasons.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[Translation]
Senator Deschatelets: Honourable senators, for the time
being I would like to abstain from voting on the amendment
introduced by the Honourable Senator Perrault.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[English]
Senator Walker: Honourable senators, I also wish to abstain
from voting
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Will those in favour of the motion in
amendment moved by Senator Perrault, please rise?
An Hon. Senator: The bell is still ringing.
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, the whips are
in their seats. I do not see why we should not begin voting.
Motion in amendment of Senator Perrault resolved in the
affirmative on the following division:

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams
Anderson
Argue
Austin
Barrow
Benidickson
Bosa
Buckwold
Cameron
Connolly
Cottreau
Croll
Davey
Everett
Frith
Godfrey
Goldenberg
Graham
Guay
Haidasz
Hastings
Hays
Laird

Lamontagne
Langlois
Lapointe
Leblanc
Lewis
Lucier
McElman
MeGrand
Molgat
Olson
Perrault
Petten
Riel
Rizzuto
Robichaud
Rousseau
Sparrow
Stanbury
Steuart
Thériault
van Roggen
Williams
Wood-46.

NAYS
THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

–0.

Senator Frith: Unanimous
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.

2380
SENATE
DEBATES April 24, 1981

ABSTENTIONS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Asselin
Bélisle
Bell
Bielish
Charbonneau
Cook
Deschatelets
Donahoe
Doody
Flynn
Fournier
Grosart
Hicks
Lafond
Lang

Macdonald
Macquarrie
Marshall
Mcllraith
Molson
Muir
Murray
Nurgitz
Phillips
Roblin
Sherwood
Smith
Thompson
Tremblay
Walker–30.

The Hon, the Speaker: The motion in amendment of the
Honourable Senator Perrault is carried.
I will put the question on the motion in amendment of
Senator Flynn, Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to
adopt that motion in amendment?
Some Hon. Senators: Yes,
Some Hon. Senators: No.
[Translallon]
Senator Thériault: The vote has been called.
[English]
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators who
are in favour of Senator Flynn‘s motion in amendment please
say “yea”?
Some Hon. Senators: Yea.
The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators who
are against Senator Flynn‘s motion in amendment please say
“nay”?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
[Translation]
Senator Thériault: Honourable senators, I should like to
explain why I am abstaining.
[English]
Senator Asselin: It’s too late. We are voting now.
Senator Walker: Sit down.
[Translation]
Senator Thériault: As I am in favour of the resolution,
honourable senators, I should like to explain why I am abstain-
ing from voting on the Leader of the Opposition’s motion in
amendment. Need I repeat what I have just said in Chinese as
well as in English? The main reason I am asking to be excused
from voting on Senator Flynn’s motion in amendment is that I
am in favour of the resolution as I have always been, but in
principle I am fully behind the suggestion that the provisions
of section 133 should apply also to Ontario.
Q (IZIO)
[English]
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Mcllraithz Honourable senators, for similar rea~
sons, I ask leave to be excused from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Walker: For the same reasons, honourable senators,
I ask leave to be excused from voting.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators’!
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Thompson: Honourable senators, for the reasons
expressed by Senator Mellraith, I also ask leave to be excused.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lang: For similar reasons, I ask leave to be excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: ls it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Molson: For similar reasons, I ask to be excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: ls it agreed, honourable senators’?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Lafond: For the same reasons, honourable senators,
I ask to be excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: ls it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Bell: Honourable senators, for similar reasons I ask
to be excused.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
I-Ion. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Cook: For similar reasons, I ask to be excused.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it agreed, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The I-Ion. the Speaker: Call in the senators. Is it necessary
to wait?
Some I-Ion. Senators: No.
The Hon. the Speaker: Will those honourable senators
opposed to the motion in amendment of Senator Flynn please
say “nay”?
Some Hon. Senators: Nay.
The Hon. the Speaker: In my opinion, the “nays” have it.
And two honourable senators having risen:
The Hon. the Speaker: Please call in the senators.
Motion in amendment of Senator Flynn resolved in the
negative on the following division:

April 24, 1981
SENATE
DEBATES 2381

YEAS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Asselin
Bélisle
Bielish
Charbonneau
Deschatelets
Donahoe
Doody
Flynn
Fournier
Grosart

Macdonald
Macquarrie
Marshall
Muir
Murray
Nurgitz
Phillips
Roblin
Sherwood
Smith
Tremblay-—2l

NAYS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Adams
Anderson
Argue
Austin
Barrow
Benidickson
Bosa
Buckwold
Cameron
Connolly
Cottreau
Croll
Davey
Everett
Frith
Godfrey
Goldenberg
Graham
Guay
Haidasz
Hastings
Hays

Hicks
Laird
Lamontagne
Langlois
Leblanc
Lewis
Lucier
McElman
McGrand
Molgat
Olson
Perrault
Petten
Riel
Rizzuto
Robichaud
Sparrow
Stanbury
Steuart
van Roggen
Williams
Wood—44.

ABSTENTIONS

THE HONOURABLE SENATORS

Bell
Cook
Lafond
Lang
McIlraith

Molson
Thériault
Thompson
Walker-9.

The Hon. the Speaker: I declare the motion defeated.
Honourable senators, we now have to dispose of the motion
in amendment of Senator Yuzyk. I do not know whether it is The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, May 19, 1981 at 8
covered in the main amendment—-

Senator Flynn: It is. I think the wise thing to do is to ask
leave to have it withdrawn. If this question had been put
before the government amendments, could we have expected
that members opposite would have voted with us for once?
Senator Frith: I think we should say, certainly, on behalf of
many of us, that that would be a reasonable inference,
[Translation]
The Hon. the Speaker: The motion can only be withdrawn
with the unanimous consent of the Senate.
[English]
Is it agreed, honourable senators, that this motion in amend-
ment be withdrawn’?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Motion in amendment of Senator Yuzyk withdrawn.
The Hon. the Speaker: Pursuant to the special order, further
debate on the motion, as amended, is adjourned until a day to
be named by the Leader of the Government in the Senate.
Debate adjourned.
DOCUMENTS TABLED
Leave having been given to revert to Presentation of
Petitions.”
Hon. Raymond J. Perrault (Leader of the Government):
tabled:
Notice of Ways and Means Motion to amend the
Petroleum Administration Act.
Report of Minister’s Permits issued under the authority
of the Immigration Act, 1976, for the calendar year 1980,
pursuant to section 37(7) of the said Act, Chapter 52,
Statutes of Canada, 1976-77.
ADJOURNMENT
Hon. Royce Frith (Deputy Leader of the Government),
pursuant to notice of Thursday, April 23, moved:
That when the Senate adjourns today, it do stand
adjourned until Tuesday, May l9, 1981, at 8 o’clock in
the evening.
Motion agreed to.
The Senate adjourned until Tuesday, May 19, 1981 at 8
p.m.

May 19, 1981 SENATE DEBATES 2383
THE CONSTITUTION
MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN–—
PROPOSED OPPOSITION AMENDMENTS OF FRIDAY, APRIL 24,
1981, PRINTED AS APPENDIX
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, before pro-
ceeding further I should like to make a brief statement.
During the last sitting of the Senate, on Friday, April 24,
1981, the Honourable Senator Flynn, P.C. intended to move
certain amendments to the motion that an Address be present-
ed to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of
Canada. Those amendments were not moved, but, as indicated
on page 2372 of Debates ofthe Senate, it was agreed that they
should be included in Senator Flynn’s speech.
Through inadvertcnce, those amendments did not appear in
the Debates of that day, and it is now suggested that they be
printed as an appendix to today’s proceedings.
ls this procedure agreeable to honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
(For text of proposed amendments see Appendix “A”, p.
2398.)

Leave a Reply