Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers on the Constitution, Summary Record of Proceedings (8-13 September 1980)

Document Information

Date: 1980-09-08
By: Secretariat of the Conference
Citation: Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers on the Constitution, Summary Record of Proceedings, Doc 800-14/093 (Ottawa: 8-13 September 1980).
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

Document: 800-14/093
October 23, 1980


September 8 — 13, 1980


by the

Canadian lntetqovernmental Conference Secretariat


Oponing of thm Confuxonco

Opening Statmmen

Ru .urce Ownership and
lnterprovincial Trade

Cr>mmun.i<:a 1, :10 ns Supreme Court Aqpnda ILem: Family Law Agenda It>1: Fisheries

Offshore Resources


Aqengg ‘ Charter of Rights

.a ion and Amending

nvenda ILom:

1‘ nnda L\:_mn: Powers over the Economy

The Preamble/Principles

New Upper House, invaivinq
the Provinces

.on 96 of the B.N.A. Act

xxx :

Closing SLaLemenLs

Adjuurnmant of the Conference

Appendix A: Agenda
List of Delegates and Advisers

Appendix B:

RuporL oi the sub—Committee
on Family Law

Appendix C:














Queuing gs temonts



Lho Right Hon. Pjerr Elliott Trudeau,
T Ministers and their delegations, official
nd the public to whom the proceedings were
i‘r.l:e<1 by the media. noted thaf the Continuing Committee of on the Consti ion (CCMC) had prepared a 0 twelve agenda items they had discussed . er and that fhis repox . now before Ministers for their conside t on. Native which dun In} th: V’ leaders had p Asented their views on these items, were * torporac E as an annex to the ort. Follow} Socro‘ ‘s outjira of the administrative Tfimiimdn opened a brief discussion on >ments ,

nhc agenda. The Premier of Manitoba, expressing the pro-
vjnciu} consensus, suqg ed that First Ministers adhere

s that the CCMC had followed
Ministers agreed to follow this
order of di o<>d by opening statements from
each Pr I. (See Apo.ndix A for agenda and ngp Qgii g
for ’st of conference pax(3E3bants).

to the sequence of subjec
during Lh r. Fi

First Ministc 5 met in open session at the
.ntro from Monday, September 8, till Thursday,
, to nuhlicly review their positions on each
oer private sessions at 24 Sussex Drive
they reconvened in open session
to deliver closing statements.

agenda 1’ 1;

The Hon. William Davi , Premier of Ontario, prefaced his
rev: 2 of Ontario’s pr ori ice by hi§hli§hting the concerns
of native peoples, and the challenges presented by

inflation and unemployment. stressing the need for flexi~
hilitr in the Search for a new balance of power, Mr. Davis

ix med First M’ “ters of his govcrnment‘s support for

the entrenchment of do‘ cratic rights and freedoms, as

I ‘ ‘ y lsngu ge rights as they relate to education.
empha i he importance of a strengthened economic
indicaL=d the need Lo enshrine both the principle
bindinxg oblig tion to allow the free movement of
Devplfiy goods, services and capital, He concluded by
(L-xpressinq support: For the y3af,ri.ation of the constitution.

The Hon. Rene Levesque, Premier of Quebec, reminded First
Minisrzrs that fhe Quebec referendum had been the catalyst
for t o current round of constitutional negotiations.
sharing that fhr aspirations of Québecers would be met only
if Canada’s or.gin as an association of two distinct peoples
was rec qnized, he sf ssed the need for provincial control
of language and soc.a1 policy, educ on and communications.
Ho nmph sized rhat the areas were c cial to maintaining
anfl dcvelopinq Quebec’s distinct identify and further
defended the province’s right to do! rmine its own future.
In conclusion he said that patriation should only occur
zagrmzmom: on «’1 complete package of reforms had been

The Hon. John Buchanan, Premier of Nova gcggig, introduced
ioriLios for constitutional reform by reviewing the

of the Lharlot town meeting of 1864. He suggested
that the goodwill and determination which led to Con ederation
could once aqain lead to effective renewal. stressing the
need for strong provinces fully capable of directing their


own de .
rcsourn ,
from 110, development.
p V Lion 01 the constitut on with an amending formula,
and stated that this goal was within the reach of govern-
ments. He conckufied by recogn ‘ the n d for a strong
“doral “‘e»ance, but d th zation could only
‘no 1″ ‘

xlm to 100% of the revenue derived
fie indicated his support for


“.13, Premier of N53 Brunswick,
con.e;encc of ‘hre@ princ§p1E§”WE§Eh would
on of the agenda items:
the provincial and the federal
ement to i prove language
or suffic time to 110“
amvrgence of consensus. He felt that accegtance 0;
‘ity of these three cone gts woulé guarantee the
success of conmtjtutional renewal.

’c..i,n1acy ‘ ‘ be
2) the r.
3) the need


3 Lynn, Premier of Ma 0‘ , suggested to
aignificant pr5§ref§ ould result from
if they concentrated on issues upon
which agreement was possible. Sfxassing that discussion
of Lh cnnstitui’3n could not be €olat ‘ from the economic
Fituation, h suqqcsted that policy co~ordination between
19 province. / ti federal govermnent would be more
itfnl than a new dxvision of powe over the economy.
had been one of the recommendations of the 21st Annual
Pr mlers‘ C‘n€eren< He concluded by expressing his
support for a strong central government.

their delib

The Hon. William netL, Premier of
‘ duced his rexa s by noting t
was necessarv if Canada was to ove ome regional alienation
and prepar< f for the twenty— rsfi century. Affirming * 5 commitment to Canada, he acknowledged ].gitimat9 intores”§ of both the fnderal and prcvincial xme . e strefised th need to provide the more eifective V03‘ in central government and expressed support , pat ation of the ncluded by noting t}at First Ministers r efforts on those area$ where inst cu ions, constitutior. emen t I>renu’c>r of ’> _ ___N__
ers of the follv of7fi§§3Eh iK§”al1 of
5 L0 an outdat d constitution. He
n&nement and misuse of power by successive

2 and suggested that the need for an
‘edzral power was not avvarent. While affirming
.qualization, he st ssed that more at ention
yd on the causes of uneven development. He
*oposing that the dejand for increased
>rs woulfi not abate until the federal govern—
0 in the managemen of the country improved.
‘t thi» would not happen w;thout there being
tion of the provinces in a second chambar.

warzzod I-‘ix st I\
the country‘ ‘

f dmcal
.,QSL 1
suy’>_m>’rt :0
should be focu
concluded by
provincial p3

The fion. AJ.“n ikeney, Premier of Saskatchewaq, introfiuceé
his r«narks by noting the importance’E?“HEvelo Lug a package
of consti:uLiona1 reforms Ncceptable to all governments.
support for pat: tion of the constitution

but amphas1′ ‘ that the unanimous consent of all provinces
was a pre1.qui ice. Of Saskatchewan’s priorities for

Chan , Mr. Blakcney_m ntioned 1) the right to control the
‘f re;ourco proddction; 2) the right to tax resources;



‘oqnition of strong regional idAntities; and

4) rability of the entrenchment of language rights
whore numbers warrant. he conclud d by expressing support
for the principle of an economic union, with the proviso
that federal powers not be an impediment to provincial
experimentation in economic and social development.


The Hon. Peter Lonqhood, Premier of Alberta, afflrmed that
province’s ‘0mmitmm~* to Canada but Ffirzgized the need

{Jr a new ” itnde if Confederation was to function
effective opinion, such an attitude would
rccoqni 3 and res; the goals of the provinces and allow
provincial governments the opportunity to build upon their
SL nqth. He noted Lhc importance of jurisdiction over
)es>urccs, stating that the government closest to the people
should control the nature and pace of development. He
conC]udod by sugqi ing thz a new balance of power between
the fwo ord rs of government would lessen the tensions
presently ex sting in the country.

Tho Hon. Brian Peckford, Premier of Newfoundland, outlined
anr principles which formed his gov§?nmentT§M5§proach to
const tuiional renewal: J) respect for parliamentary
democracy and th ‘8ti%ut’0nal monarchy; 2) A balanced
fodcr.iion embran , ong and viable levels of qovernw
mont; 3) Lhc jU1ldiCal equality of provinces and equality
of opportunity for provinces and people; and 4) the
r.quirement for consensus. Mr. Peckford informed First
Minist 4 of the importance of ‘ sheries, offshore resources,
and the L’ansmission of electricity to the development of
his province, and stressed that equalization would only be
r.v~rsed if Newfoundland could control its offshore

r ources. He concluded bv warning against any unilateral
action on rhe part of the icderal government.

oF Canada stressed that Canada was the

. edoraET3n in the world. Despite that
fact, eight of the twelve agenda items involved requests

by the provinces for a transfer of jurisdiction. After
e1aborati.q on his cla qification of the agenda items, he
commented on the “peopln’s package“ and the need to enshrine
a common market in the constitution. He noted that the
Charter of Rights did not present a “power grab” by
either ”>vel of government, but constituted an acknowledge-
m0nL that the people were the basic source of governmental
aurhority. He expressed support for patriation and noted
(hat che requirement for unanimity on an amending formula
should not be used as a bargaining lever by the provinces.

rovincial Trade



.~0 discussion by reviewina the
so to pr vincial reques,s for inérease
fie acknowledged that a new constitutlon
‘ c al ownexship nd control over
as and note& the
n: with the text than had been

used supper‘ for concurrent jutxsdiction
in the inter .ovincial sphere, but

ov international trade
‘5 gympathy for th.
* O nroduciiou problems of indivxduai
indicated 3 w:11ingness to facilitate soluw

n , m
wh1ch mid not involve a transfer of jux

gov \ment was
taxation over

to disC.iminate
nces, In addition he

to extend provincial taxing
y production on upgrafled

myed his .aiti&l remarks on those items
nt 31 resolved, making specific
of ownership, management and
rect taxation and primary production. in
xnisters had yet to resolve how best to
and commerce with
no the nezd to add:
70 Lnat provinces could legitimately proceed

n di,oct n at local concerns without fear
q provauc .sdiction.

. . tonne to the
dove) <>pm@nt ind
his viox, “
reconc ”h

~ fundamental. ir.\po:c’i:ance of
,LbOUYLL Lovciopment and exp ssed support for the position
of the fe ‘al qovernment. He suggested to provincial
governmer 5 t?at 5omo movement towards the federal position
on “Powers ov tn Economy” and “Charter oi Rights“ would
no ; appro‘ response to the federal government’s
concessions 0. this item.

N emphasizofl th~ importance of resource develop-
’s future, rwminding First Ministers that
‘ that development were necessary
of the econonic base. He indicated
of r sources entailed the right

and to what extenf ,hose resources
1 as the right to ceive value for
. A to the 1m$t point, Mr. Lougheed
the 1973 oil export tax was considered a
uchmenr on provincial ownership rights, and
natural uaa exporL . was a similar

Sent io %.b
the revenues do


as we 1 as an overxiding emergency
‘ supply shortage. However, the right of
‘>ceive all due revenues was of primary
.ointed out that federal concession
indirccf taxation was not significant to

t was mainly involved wifih Crown proflnction.

.sti.2L3onal renewal. In Conclusion, he stated
Albe’ta co sidered the strengthening of provincial
vCUrCG owno hip extremely important and that the federal
proposals din not I pon& to that concern.



.» should bx» t.x<:aLed in the same way as resources This would entail the right to 100% of the ivod from their development and would allow his position on interna anal trade was A flexihln one; however h qovnr should rreutwd in the same way as the transmission of oi] and an. joined other qovernments in their support of 1 ownershia of resources, stating only that some way had to be found of including a reference to federal on in the ca 0 of compelling national in erest. opLinq the federal concession on the power of taxation, he noted the need for accompanying .ons whxch would prevent discrimination by producers aqai other provinces. In addition, he exyressed sympathy with Saskal:hewan’s concern with respect to a reconciliation of federal and provincial powers as they affec tradcx Mr Rnnnnt .mation of provincial owner hmp ox recognive potential as well as known resources in its formuiut ons. He stressed the priority his government attached to the right to control the pace and nature of development, and Lo receive full value in terms of revenues. 1 oh xcspact Lo Lhis last point, he warned governments of the disastrous of vet the proposed natural qas export tax wnu3d have on Brit: h Columbia‘s ability to provide services to its citizens. Mr. Bennett echoed Alberta’s position on adorn] conc‘ >jOH of the rj h. of inéirect taxation

‘u pnTL®d conLinued co~opera ion between Canada and

‘ h Columbia with respect to international trade.

while supporting con

Lévesqug disputed the fed 31 claim that resource

. t was not “people issue“ stating that it
pxovided the basis for the development of a province. Be
‘;dicated that a number of rights should properly flow from
ownershi of – and the f deral proposal did not
.xat fact. For that reason, he found
the federal proposal unacceptable.

Mr. Hyon underlined only two of Manitoba’s concerns,

5.: 1n;”that othgr governments had already expressed
Manitoba’s posf .un. He indicated an hydro—eloctric

power should be considered a resource, and that the proposed
fe eral tax on t export of provincially owned resources
constituted ‘n at ck on provincial rights as guaranteed

in t.e constitution.

‘ . an despite its view that the right of
indirect taxation could exacerbate the disparity between
resource—rich and resource—poor provinces.

that he concurred with the statements
by the Pren er of Prince Edward Island.

fir. Bu hanan

At Lha conc1u;ion of Lhis review of positions, Saskatchewan
sugg,sLed that of cials be charged with the preparation of
a draft. Aitor some discussion, it was decified to postpone
thaL move until after the discussion on “Powers over the


sources, also suggested that the constitution’


_ es of the ral
yrinclplee which n d been

, government must continue to
who uni of the country; and
have an inter” ovinclai or int
ederal 3 isoiction.

ice, the fn.~ 3. lrovc-rrnnxemz

‘u Isdiction over all telephone

ovince. Jurisdiction over interw

‘anal servio 6 remain

. QLLOR rates; a) to amt orize
and requxate PAY—TV within the province and related adver~
tlblflgi 4) to roqulate the twowway use of cable for business
. ormation banks; and 5) to authorize
‘re alarm/burglar alarm and other security

1 government would reserve the right to
kings serving subscribers in more than
. province, and wonié have tb- authority to oblige a ca ‘
system to c A national program service. Foreign progr
ming would can inx to be subject to federal control.

Mr. Trudeau said that the federal government was not willing
to surrender jurisdu ion over broadcasting. He suggested
rhat a further devolution of fedora‘ iurisdictiot could be

‘ mined after the above changes had been

in query
u c f 7- 0V
0% that aughority coulfl be
which irefl it through the mechanism of

there would be a

on. Fe waxned, however, that
‘ ~rn of jurisdiction

checkerboard pai

d support for the federal position

xrovi ce’s dissatisfactxon with the

, h and French language ra 10 and

In New Brunswick’s View the federal
nment had dcloqated too much authority to the CRTC

vi ion of ices had suffered as a result. he
jndicated that i e provincial telephone company required
ues f om the long distance Service in order to do its
job propcr1y. The CRTC’$ interference was detrimental to

the manag nt of the company.

television service.

that he found the federal proposal

ad @351 ?Cep”ablG. He emphasized that Quebec
had alwey ‘ . 9 ,cs complete jurisdiction possible
over comm wxthin 1t$ borders but had compromised
for the . agreement on a package of minimum reqnirev
ments. yqe ,d that the federal government examlne

the provincial COnS,h5US more carefully,

The Min’s1er of Consumer and Corporate Affairs of Eggtish
that his province supported the “Hes E forts
no iound t federal proposal paternalistic. He
assured Firs“ Ministers that the “Be3t‘Efforts Draft“
.2ent guarantees for the federal government
>ir concern, while
governments su cient scope to co-
znica sons with other provincial priorities.
he cited the ad 5n;s-
inherent in split jurisdiction over




‘ho infc1~ and ,
“sh Columbia‘, no ition that provinces have complete
authority over the telephone service.

with r spect to telephones, he
had ex: sed jurisdiCti0n over

itq te7cphGhh companies for V, rs. He emphas ed his

a cement with the fode al propo al to cont ol lonq~

inq that two—tieI regulation would

L0 n0ed]<>S Adm nistrativo problems. The “Best

‘LS DrafL“ provided for parliamentary intervention
should any >,.. ‘ ,. of disruption arise. with respect

to broadca lnq, Mr. Lyon pointed out that the “Best Elforfs
Dxaff” rccognizod the federal goal of preserv
‘ nmnnt of national unity but allowed provxnc
scope to reflect regional idonL:tics. He suggested that
the federal govcrnm nt should give further consideration
to the provincial proposals.

Mr. Pockforfi indicated his supper ‘or the “Best Efforts
” and‘ In comments made by Br tish Columbia and
‘fans. Lhat the provlncial proposals re’~
uonded to the leqjtlmato national concerns of the federal
<;c>v(=rmm>n V .

¢_ ch nan said that Nova Scotia tentatively approved
many oi Lhc ICONS that had been mentioned. He wished to
max» it clear that Nova Scotia already had complete jur
dis ion over the telephone service, and was dissatisfied
with Lhc intrusion of the CRTC into rate—setting which
was a matter of provincial jurisdiction.

Blakcney <atchewan’s support for the

_ vlEE73l ans ting thet while it addressed legitimate
fnderal concerns, it allowed the provinces suf cient

scope to encourage a regional and cultural identity.

Echoing the comments of other Premiers on intrusions by

the CRTC, ho not-A that its cont ol of technical matters
had led to incurslons into areas of provincial jurisdiction.

Thu Assoc‘ iini tor of Telephones of Alb gg indicated
his prov2’n<:e’s S’u;>p0r\‘. 0″ the “Best Effo? S ‘a ,” and

i’ ntifjnd an 3 of spe l’ic concern. Alberta disagreed
wi-h the proposed jurisdiction of the federal government
ove. lonq—disL nco telephone 5 vice and felt that local
non—broadcast t services and educational broadcasting
should come undo, Lho jurisdiction of the provincial
q0V(-.‘l.’!\J\’l(!l1 L .

The Secretary of State and Minister of Communications for
‘ clarified the rationale fox the federal proposal
.spondod to specific provincial concerns.

comments made about the CRTC,
bill would be introduced in
which would give the govern~

ment power bl ad policy directives to
the CRTC.
2. 1n response to Mr. Hatfield‘s concerns regarding

hrondoast services, he noted that further licensing
hearings would be held in the fall to extend the

3. H9 indi a.ed that the federal government did
-ntly have an influence in interprovincial

My ti: C>ns=.:r(-‘ 1.
and an eff

6. that t: provinces were being given
all local and provincial
7. ‘an, be stated a
_ uomxqnications into Lyn spheres of
tion would not be as e ‘tive an approach
uontr\1 by a revamped CRTC with both federal
pravincie participation.
8. al con

n.ed to establz h content rules
Ca 135 41.3.2} programniing .

er devolution of power than the
» av d to grant. He sugqestefi
nld be better able to move towards
r’%clmt ‘us once all agenda items had been
44. Trudeau afidcfi that, in his View, federalism did not

L 411: tha a devolution of power to the
ouid 13?? place because there was a provincial
that ‘e.



: At this point a discussion of the agenda

1% use, involving the Provinces” was begun.
Due to ?ho constzMAnts of time, the meeting was adjourned
wi:h the un’ ‘xg that thi discussion would be renewed
and comp} later stage of the conference. A‘

5 of V made dur ug t? discussions appears
Exter 1n this hex: under “Agenda item: New Upper House,
inv<>..Vvinq the §‘rnvj,m: ”







federal position on the questions
h Premier than addressed L! e
c proposals where appropriate.

1′<‘\7 i ovmd K .. , . , 1! CCMC r;\u:sl..ion:;, nmkin-5 T C11 The discussion revealed wide agreement in a number of ;14.:>a::a

11 governments agreed that the Supreme Court
nhOUld he entrenched in the constitution;


all govern . .anitoba agreed to e
the practlce r choosing, on an alternate basis,
3 Chief Justice from the cmmuou law or civil law
systems. Ma: uoba felt the practice shoulé
continua 3 Custom, not as a constitutional
r.”oq\n’ 2: mom‘ I

3. all governments agreed that the appointment 0
judges Lo the Supreme Court should continue to

be on the nomination of the Government of Canada,
but only af‘ar meaningful consultation with the
appronri ‘ provincial governments, New Bguf Qlgé
.sso& that no appointee should bewgeén as a’
legato from his province of origin;

4, no govornm< 1 .t that A éeodlock-breaking
mechanism was required;

all governments agreed that provinces should
have tho right to make references to the Supt
Court; and


0. no gov<:2:’un\ont xii mted the proposal that the jurisdiction of tie Court could only be modified in consults Jn wi h the provinces. Divux;cnL views were expressed on the composition of the Cour’. All qovornmonl supported some recognition of duality, although Saskutchewan, Nova Scotia and Ontario cautiox against allowing duality to be the primary factor influoncing composltion. Those governments cmphzasizrcd hat the Supreme Court; v 3 a working court. and hhat a major portion of its workload related to the crir’nal ju .ice system wh h was common to all of Canada. Thu: oomoosltlon based st 1 1y on duality, without refer- pHC@ to tho workload, was inappropriate. ‘=’founql-no xrd Islagg favoured n~man‘Eourt’wi11 six judfios F555 the common law _ ‘ five judges from the civil courts. All other proxincos preferred either a nine—ma court with a six/ three split between the common and olvil law appointees, or a move to an olevenvmun court comprising seven judges from the common law system and four from the civil courts. he ‘xl> 1 gg:‘IIhDnL indicated that it would follow the
provinc a] con ‘ “”

proposed that all constitutional questions be

_ wdent panel of jurists. The members
of (115 “constitut,ona1 panel” would be selected by the

“Q5 f‘om fifLy senior jurists nominated by the

2] government. Each case would be heard by seven

s oho n from the panel on federal nomination. The
Justice of Canada would determine if a case was
tutional in nature. Ontario questioned the practica-
bility ofi Alberta’s proposalmsiaflng that there was

and no”:-
Ontarlo also noted th t creation

‘ – np ,
2 expressed support for Alberta’s
that ‘t aid also consic
” C.‘0nri‘. _’ SW” ‘ *’ ‘ ’

3 ./. ..-
cons: cutional‘p3nel 0

agenda item, Mr Léveagge
96 of the BE}: sh Nortg
2 the fedc}”f*§5§é?5%E§f
a power whic“ any

Wsfue wibh pxovfncial gave ments.
to discufis L question after all other

HHS 21.-:8 bu‘.-.011 (let. ,1; wi E‘).

cuseian by reviewing the
;ct’on and describing the
– He noted that the con-

t, while civil laws relatj
by the provinces. my
increased jurisdictzan over
ish a unified family court
trat‘Je problems which resua
T ade=u indicated the federal
“n” 1231 but gtressed

that judgements imposed
He stated

A1“ ly law 0

. b
nystzm and av id

COk d be enforc d «
qovV‘nment won d continue to le islat on
won , 5 low . . provinces concurrent jurl.
on w3th pa;3mount.y sf that was their wish,

, V _‘ oba’s opposition to the proposed
-arisanct on over divorce and ancillary relief.
“ . al powers in
ncy and un1’orm1ty in the admin»
n support for his posit;on, he

d opposzt. tu the p oposeé changes on the part of
Canadian Bur A»sociaLion, the N3“ anal Council oi

‘,na3 AcLion Commit e on the Status of
WOnLn. The crur;aJ po‘nt, in Manitoba‘s view, was that
Canad’an$ won}? 3 well served by a transf I of juris-
d*ct on. to this point, th Hon. Gerald N.rcie:,
Manitoba, review the record 0. the

in which they pl sently have iur s—
(mild custoéy and maint nance
Bespite the ;act
ed a uniformity of Begislation among

at to interprovxncial enforcemmnt of
provinckal C £5, 75% of all maintenance orde S were
moi enforcci. ‘ .rences in priori .s and
approaches as the reason for tnis situation and questxoned

pzrov ‘ no



LhC cox ;nvnC‘s o: a , jurisdiction over
divorce. Ar urciwr pr dictcd the e gence of incon-
sistunl qxu has for divorce as well as inconsistencies with
pool Lo the related maintvnance and custody on
H suggesLud yhau the ;ame problems encountered in the
enforcemeit of orders resulting from legal separations
cncofi in the enforcement of orders ismy
He also drew acenntion to the pos.i~
ians might be tempted to move

and iko invanlaqo :VOUY&blQ divorce laws while poor
Canadians would he doniéd this option. In light L these
can ‘rations, and ii the interests of assurinq the
pxotucnion the family in a highly mobile society,
Manit(‘,~)>;‘-. !“( xnntendcéd:

1. conr‘nu0d fedo 1 jurisdiction over divorce and

anal) lary ]fI3llL”

7. V)? xpansjon of federal jurisdiction to encompass

enforcement of all maintenance or child custody
whethex i*sued as a result of legal
J&ImtiOD or divorce; and

S. the amendment of ‘a constitution to permit
ovinccs to annoint judges wi:h jurisdiction
or all matl *3 relating to family law.

proposal would facilitate the establishment of
a uni 3 family court systan.
The Hon. Ga do Gardom of I i h ggl~__’a expressed support
for the dYJlL p*oposa1s b .hey we Vd facilitate tie

p ovi in of o foc ive legal services. British Columbia’s
chief priori~ was to ensure that provinces obtain the
power in aupoint judges with full jurisdic.ion over fzwily
court mattors. In support 0: this, Mr. Gardom noted the
serious con~ iuenccs of the Br.tish Columbia Court of
Appeal do<’ spect to the jurisdictional limits of the provincial courts. ‘spvCl to ancillary relief, British Columbia agreed th.L maintonano and child custody orders resulting from divorc should fall wit in provincial jurisdiction. Mr. Gardom emphasized tlat this woulfi result in more , ive enforcement. Echoing Manito 3’5 concern that faring criunds for divorce would emerge across Canada, he said Brit >h Columbia placed a very low priority on
Con<:urz‘C-mi jux‘1‘<‘.)’c‘;,ion in this area lmcixus it did not
wish to see th. developmcnL of “the Reno situation”. He
poinLed ouh that one of the safequards of th present
proposals was the fact that the federal government would
have priricv with respect to the establishment of residence
and T@CQgUlLJOU rules of divorce. with respect to
ManiLoba‘< cane rn with enforcement, Mr. Gardom noted
Lhat or4c: made under Lhc D‘ o be Act would be valid
tmywh .c in (fzinada, “

\-3’ th 1,‘

no concludedmfiy applauding the move
to mane provincial orders binding on a national basis.

<3 that ifamjly law was a “people” issue
family was tho basis of society. Because

G reflect the nature and values of a

society, it w. clear tL.f change was long overdue. He
pointed Lo Lhe act that five courts presently have juris~
diction over mamily law and that unification of the family
zom was required to redress t is fragmentation.
stating that the Québec government was joined
of the proposals by the Québec Status of




fly disputes.
port of thi


zuat C T)

1 uzsxfu on
would only

d trano.er 0: jurisdiction

‘ ted himsel‘ with the arguments

Ody and main-
pursuant to
Lion; and

a’gointm‘nt 0; judges w’th _urisdic—
y dispu , thus fac litat
’ the fa court sy

.4: :1 be don

‘ouhfi be

provincial fiurisdiction was ta be
with an opt1n;—in provision so no
1*? ed to ace pt Jurigdictian it did not
.. b) emphasizi,g that Canadians would
in the area of family law by exclusive
j} uzf S,s;

, , on the condition
,cr the enforcement of child
orders be established.

7fare infervenefi in

thx< t clarific tion and
sugqo S of the draft proposal.
in h< National Advisory Council

. ontradiction of Section 3

and would *iat4on and non—enforcement
of or: Vcd the implication this had for
won the poorer of the twa parties.

1nterguv&rnmmnL 1 Affair$ Ear Saskat new n
‘ty as Co«Ch rman of hE”E5MC aE8

He noted that me draft
con romise between the Competing
He summarized its chief

5}. )}<r.:+,:5xn;az1 for
propo 5 a ‘1




I. p)0vinc*S may havc concurrent jurisdiction,
thaL is, In the divorce powe, which will
remain with ChG ieral government; and

2. enforcement, court jurisdiction and recognition
of Cxi\r<>rce d<—><:r(=e:= will remain with the federal
qov(v‘rnn\<.>nt .

tor provi ion would prevent: the
(2 havens‘

:0 ram’:-,ri H ; (‘I10 1
do\Ie.mprn(>n-.’ 03‘, divms’

‘ rx xect to the first point, he informed the conference
Lhut Saskatchewan had no intention of enacting pxovincial
vcrcc legislation and that the same might be said of

5. He noted that uneven provincial

. not nec zrily lead to provincial inco
tcucy in OJVOICQ law acr as Canada, ‘wee there existed
mechanisms such as the Canadian Uniformity Commissioners‘
Conferences to address such problems. with respect to
Maflame B57in‘s c0nmrnL on Section 5, he suggested that it
be Sub. it: ad with a Claus> which would ensure a uniform
approach Lo the enforcement of orders across Canada. He
concluded by stre.:inq that the aim of the draft proposals
was the .mp1ificatjon of the family court system as it
affects i. clients.

con<:ern \\ ‘ .
After cxa. however, Alber A was prepared to ac‘ept
the compromnsc reached by ministers. He noted that Alberta
would Tikeiy request concurrent jurisdiction over

diva: v was in ‘ill agreement w..h the sections

which incilitatcd the unification of the family courts.

summnr’zed the discussion on this item and
,ra1le movement had been made towards
aitulate he stated that:

Th(.‘ F
not ,
a C0) sonsus, To rec

,’s1aLive jurisdiction over marriage would be
transferred to the provinces;

2. loqislativo jurisdiction over divorce would be
concurrent with provincial paramountcy;

3. amendments would he made which would facilitate
the osLub1ishmcnt of a unifa family court
3-: y 5 tzexn; :1 nd

4. divorce deal .5 would continue to be valid on a
national basis,

‘I‘hc <.:‘2Ticu\’ty which } mined concerned Section 5 which

would ‘ . the var}. on or non-enforcement of A
‘ntcndncu or clild custody order. At the suggestion of
R<>n1;um\v, the (TCMC Sub-—Co3\\mittee of ~:‘)ffiCia1s on

Iv Ldwmwa‘ (Z‘h<‘i1(;(_‘ with the e>:amj.na{:ion of Section 5
rns exprc. ~d by Manitoba, Prince
Island and Carzda. (This Committee’s subsequent

3 .31: _
in the fii<;hi: 0 fitiwa report to thc conference is attached as ggpend , J that ,he iction Crer fisheries tration of reuuest, each sub— h”safegua , ,.»h habitat tional waters. 3, Jurisdic ; m mid rcmain vVr to pru ‘ 1 order shery. soggggg would be anadggmeus sp xotainud by tfie fed ral .. 5 of the flexi ;Jity on other is@ues. The fishery, province and it ta redress this . posed concur . , gery. Mr. Peckford not requesting ownership 0 did they deny a legitinate fed Val ‘ 4 _ ‘ d thé rights of other mi~xatmry nature of fish, and emphasized arbitration bc rd could be establ shed esource. He usal to allow concurrent ‘:>ility of

estlng t1at a ID
3 t‘ ea en the longwterm

st fmshery.
hery x.sources were conmon
cmcnt of a common property
$0 éuplicate programs and controversy.
on would be a.vided jurisfliction and the
View the industry as one system would be

. med the div, . of pox-Jars
oundl an and pointed out tial areas
a$ Tic nsing. quotas and conservation. He
that continued federal fiuriséiction
Pgdexa} financial involvement in research,

would guur




sxzrv‘ ‘1 Jamw, enfmu ii and the prmri ion of wharves,
bre.xwatCrs, skidways .nd haul~outs. Mr. Morris concluded
hy ;xprvSsing support for the transfer of jnrisdict on
as }’.’)L’()])0£$«}d on inland

tho , placed on
tho . a ion and the
m’onom : the province made shzx’r(.d ju1′.‘isdJ’ci;i0n

‘1’?! 0 Mini 5; L or of

Fm” N(:w3’oun«13an<.1‘s proposai tating; that i
of nine orovincc . He .
i To ensure managezent on
h_n<:mneni; of the

] and economic needs.

.~.u;.»pm 1
‘mxxfimi .1 cos .
. xruc juri.d1ction was requ
<3 I\\\)|ii\‘>].(“ A330 basis (-‘.‘2’1SUX‘iI‘.(} the ex‘
‘r‘<=sr:0u1r ‘ the )'(>c:og;1‘.*L(‘i


‘I‘h(: P-.Lt,o1″x‘.<7y Genexral of P)” n _c>.__I-Idward Ts513r‘_.€i con1m<‘ent’.ed on
the impressive ndminisLr3L;ve a1qun.n€§—Ghich had been
‘shallnd in snppoxt of the fade 1 proposal. These
ware, hawe r, the very important
xyed by provinc in the development of their
In ccms<aq\Ao.~hc:o, P33 ICC Edward Island supported Jcnrrent’ jm:isn.ction over the coe?-s§:al fishery with qnod 1uramounLcy for its various components. Mr. , indicated his recognition of legitimate areas of fedora] con; _n, but str sed that a constitutional [>x”0vi‘i0n .~:hou1ri uxisst to a. ow the provinces a role in
Lhc operation and development of t e fishery. he concluded
by aligning himself with Mr. Pockford’s position.

winded V st Ministers that it was on New
iativn that the concept of concurrent

juris ‘d been proposnd in 1979. Although it had

s* mod :0 he a promising .o1u( on the time, Mr. Hatfield
f.1t that it had since been widely misunderszood and was

no Imngnr ay , New Bruns ‘ck now indicated its
Lederal. pxwposal wi H: the understanding
on5ultaLion would guarantee the provinces

that nman.ing:’uI
an e§’f”<:L’i\/0 voice in the manaqexuczni: of the resource.

h wan’s supper: for the

.. .. H . “a potential difficulty
in the woxlin — ll proposal. He suggested that
in the provis on dealing wi:h Indian fishing rights, the
ph use “lndians shall have the right …” he changed to
“N0 proxrincu should 1<~3q.is1at ‘ to :xb7’id<‘.> the right …”
This would rzlp to avoid 1 >h.cms of d inition with
rosport to “Indian”. On (115 point, Mr. Blakeney ceived
.-3u_.,po2t {Wm H: Hatfield and the Chairman who Suéiiiested
that hath t 0 fjcinls and the Indian people be consulted
in (his Jnaiim .

Mr. Blakx u’

U .

Mr. Lfirosquw expressed 0 support for concurrent

iurns: ,on romindinq < Ls Hat his province nad
lonq nxpori ive zrranqements and could
al‘(’(\:.. to th., ‘r [10 .ent.J.a1 dihiculties.

‘ Support, for Newfoundland ‘ s
xctxon over the sea coast

M2“. l..ou:;ho-xi ind ‘i.ca£’<;-:1 ]\ 11303:: propz>sa1 0 cm1cm‘I‘(


d tho proposed transfer of jurisdi on
inland fnsharies. he no .d that the adminls rative agree—
between Canada and Or aria had worked well in the

> but a transfer of jurnsdiction was now in order.

with respect to sea coast fisheries, he supported the
proposal h\ the “Best orts Draft”.


was in touch
Refs because of the extensive

2 c>wopcrai,on betworn the twa orders
was a3ready vnk,ng place;

in .i13f,<‘2rnat.i.c))’:£xI, negyotia

=overnment reéognized Indian fishing
but no e that thvy could not take
ty ovar conservation.

comménts on the points raised

tha the Support of unions and
of a consideration in con
10,’ ‘* V “*3 <_;<>a‘s “ -‘

d velopm ,
al difficulty
. ’ .es, he

r; diCClOD already worked in
fiTLaS and couid work in the fishery as
efi that problems between provinces

to fiah stocks could be arbitrated with

sary to
with resfigct to the potenti

the difficuit problem of managing fish stocks
inter ta of all concernufil

> . the tederafl priaxity w
ihich was in basic confiiict with the goal 0.
raced hy province . He noted that provin-
‘ ‘pate:-1 in the manage mt:

<12 1. th


summarj provinc’al reactiong to the deral
xng that there was g me a] agreement to accept
-n1avd f’aherie sedentary species and
but tworprovin disputed retention by


aqx iul
the fade

‘at of jurisdicfion over the sea Coast
ring ins

“cad concurrent ju.is~
. e to a query y _g: Lgoq, Mr. Trudeau
L c C0513 of v ~earch and management relating
“ies would become the responsibility 0 the

no Lech Llid i;
to inland
proving Q.


ucod the topic by noting its inportance
several provinces and to the realiza—
Trudeau reaffirmed
dE1al E 3 to the
jurisdictlon over


Court. Becauc
major b .
to resid of co“ tel provluces,
— until “save” stavus was
qovernments would receive the same
kind of doriv d by provinces with resources under
the land Beyond that level, coastal provinces

wmnld he required Lo share an increasing proportion of
otha ‘ hadians. Mr. Trudeau assured

‘umbia that although it was classified as a

tho federal offer wculd guarantee it a

” from development. He

IVE arrangements to ensure
provinces woula have an effective voice

n of the development
futu c f Nova Sc0t1 .

h’u not been Vet in the
N‘ be fulfillm‘: if Nova:
0 control the pace
“one its for their province.
. , tzhese <_;r:al.<; could be .:».ch1’mved
through L dmjn s rativc ag meats anfi, for the
p nt, Lion or the q estiou of ownership could
be ouSpvhfi@d. M). Buchanan indicated that an examination
of his?ory had c nfirmed Nov Scot ‘5 t s with the
offshore and it right to control an‘ derive benefit from
dCVGlOpMOn[. Stxossinq that offshor resources should

he treated in the . those .ound on shore, he

no a that Ontarxn had ‘ved benefiits from the gas
whic‘ wu“ found under the Great Lakes system. Similarly,
Nova Scotiu had a riqht to the econom c benefits which
would r f),”<‘>m gas and oil. explora on and the commer-
cial development oi the offshore. He emphasized that the
right Lo control and derive bone extended to:

(‘.0 L1
tions which

‘ ‘mx .1

em) 5 which would
from resources

1. receiving 100% of the x
no mnlly accrue to a p.ov
found \m<i(~3r the land mass; 2. the righf to enact requlacnry controls so as to modora the impact of d V ‘opment on the physi J onvé ronment; and rich: #0 co—ordinat» development 0* . hora with other provincial priorit cs such emx_;>l oynmn t .

3. (h

no 1ndi‘atmd Nova Scotia’s willinqn % to share it
revenue with other Canadians, p 0v. ing that rho .
h iuq o Nova Scotians was assur . he concluded by
rccogniz’ng th legitimate role of the federal government
in the deve]opmenL of the offghore anfl indjcat ”

0 Nova
Seat 3‘ r adine s to enter into an administratlve
agroenlent .


3.. and J. gove3:nxmmi:“ were

2» a 2 ncc to
. as a Sfllu xon to a pxublem
hand was const.cutional

3. its 9o‘i+’o; of past

ppoxtmu A w£;undland.

{hat N0wfound3and‘$ position wa”
the constitution shoal

wry rights which
Noting that the RNA Act
own and control th
from thair aevelopmo
reswurces vuld be trea
Ely, S those found on 9’
of the offshore h,
xland befiora
duration had not altered

Cm . ..
that _ that Ontario own i and
unfier the seabed of the eat
only ownership cnnferred the
‘ty to control and manage

he was not seeking to

sing powers 0 the fed Kl
.L or d imate role. Rather,

tr\_.>jm; u
the ioqislai:
‘ ms’ ix:

.oVinc1al government

‘ e

2 5. m ght ent
gcments would deny to
and wou}d

shat Brit;;1 Coiumbia’s pos2.;on

, had been wpll exp: ssed by*Nova
’>undland: provincial ownership of resources
in thus. found offshore. With

’ jurisdiction

d cid(>.”‘ by the sup):
%:n of the queation wou3d not i
uitable ugcision. in his view,
<3er\anr’j¢ 1
to Ontario’s cont
called for a L

.0 Court, Mr‘ Bennett sujgeated
‘ Iv

J” (‘S U
.~3<x:mr.xa:“C: .05:
double :3,

owno‘ .
min rd 0 I‘ .wn .12.
IN western alianatxon,

3 revi%m d the history L negotiations and
V«;nmL..g of the 1977 Lgreement between the

nd three Mari provinces. The
3 governménts f both Canada and
ction over 0 shore oil and, in
a demonstration that the t 0 levels
Ne sfiressed th New-

t it had c< iv?) Confederaticn on
The Q I n5 ,me the basis of its
ML; Hatfield st ‘sea that consideratian







of the principle of ownership was a£f*cted by an
awnrexess of the money wh would k, generated by the
resources 0 the coast on he Yukon and the Northwest
Territo1.es. It would be necessary to come to an
aqreemcut with the citizens of the north so that all
Canadaans could share in that wealth. he noted that a
‘ t should he made to ognize Ncw£ound1and’s ne
~31 and manage development, and that the politica
irsc MinisL would be zécuired
10 brisg thi ue to resolution. He concluded by lflfl
~ that the federal government should show some
ssue, especially with respect to
31 position.

support for constitutional
ownership of offshore resources.
.ed that bc:ause of the potentially adv<rse
d0V“lOpment, provinces should have the le Js~

H re author my to influc e th t development and co«
ordinate it with their own prioritize. He stated that
hould be shared betwee the two levels of

xmenu in the same way as they would if the resources
were found under the land mass.

ind‘cated his support for Newfoundland’s
Ling th.t the province had not relinquished
ownership of resources at Confederation. with respect

to Qu5bec‘s siLuation, he questioned the principle which
allowed Ontario to control resources under the Great Lakes
but did not apply equally to Quebec’s aspirations in Hudson’s
Bay. He noted tha the BNA Act was silent on 0 Shore
rusour~ ~ and that 6 legal resolution to the problem would
.,.ce the s.atus quo. Adéitionally, a legal

ution would not be consistent with the aims and spirit

of constitutional renewal. He reiterated Quebec’s tra

tional do and for recognition of territorial rights and

erred that federal acceptance of the provincial con-
. x::s would demonstrate its commitment to constitutional

engx indicated that Saskatchewan supported
jurisdiction over offshore resources.

expressed his support for the views put forward
A Buchanan. He fe t that an administrative agree-
ment which would allow Nova Scotians to derive benefits
and e. ise control was eminently fair. The question
which n d yet to be resolved concerned determination of
the poinr at which revenues should be shared on a national
basj he stressed that a creative solution to the entire
problem of equity and distribution was required.

‘ to comments pertaining to the control Ontario
rc.s d over thz seabed under the Great Lakes, he
nonca thaL those resou 5 had been legally a part of
Ontario before Confederation.

Mr Ian indicated his support for the principle of pro-
vincial juri diction over offshore resources. In
Manitoba’s view, Lho resources of the offshore should be
accorded the same tree ent, consi tutionally, as those
found under the land mass. He noted Manitoba’s interest
in the resolution of the question because of the implica-
tions iL would have for the division of Hudson’s Bay.


ZRI3 ‘ .1

5 0 :7

<:onc6 th t the federal. response was totally
He stressed that int=rnational oomparison$
van: and pointed to the fact thst ten pxovinces
‘final “arties had expressed support for pro»
over the of hora. He indicated that
‘ would begin as soon as development
vd claims that Newfoundland intended
Mr. Peckford ompahsized that when
wchieved “have” status, it expected to
treated in same way as “have” provinces were treated
To introjucc a new system for the redistribution of
A . resulted in discrimina—
aqai19t No roundland. In fuxther support for nis
’ . d that h.s province had not relin-
quishoi jux1‘uio Jon ovex th mineral resources 0; the
V? at confederation.

Vim: ‘al in
the sharinq


wealth wou?d he nnacc ntable i

ififiiCutQd that there was a common position

as on this issue which should be acceptefl
govefnmcwt.V He predicted that the number
ovinces would be reduced as a result of
Jurlsdiction and described_the move as a more
“)nal disparity than equalization.
interest, he noted the simi—
arguments pr tly made by the

agaznst natural rosouces tranfer legislation. Mr. Lougheed




1,00 .


d’s wish to be . lf-reliant,
stressing Ll ‘nsLer of jurisdiction would be a

more of,ective way of chieving that aim than an adminis-
tivc agreement. Ha warned that administrative

omonts were often open to problems of interpretation.

ap;_f§ uudezl New ‘ounxi

undvrliued Lh‘ [act that Newfoundland had
.. wins on dif. , 1L terms and as a result deserved
consia Lion. Y indicated that fie fedora
nmont would have to show some flexibility if this
\-am; to be rcs:o.lveri.

wan emphasi d that the federal proposal did

no dgto Lno provinces‘ conviction that the oontrol
of offshore resources should 2 do with them. If con N
by n ovincos was to bu realizeu, the udminis’rative boata
roierrcd to by Mr. Lalonde would have to.be comprised of
a majority of provincial representatives.

dcral position was
iL was inappropriate to refer
as just fication.

five que empha
ptable , ’11:; the‘
to the experience of high countri

roiizratwd the specifics of the federal
.ress nq that:

1. all Canadians had contributed through their
taxes Lo exploration;

2. the coas-ul provinces would be the beneficiaries
of dcvr opment until they achieved “have” status;

3. heyund tF’L point all Canaoians would share in
r:o\I<’,-n\.n2:s , and 4. that :r> best way of accomplishing these aims
was a joint administrative board comprised of
an equal number of federal and provincial
reprz .xtafives.

Winn reference to the 1977 Maritime agreement mentioned
by Mr. ted that the federal
;”nmc’t had always been willing to honour it despite
that two of the provinces had withdrawn their

.e‘vuned to indicate that if it was agreed
Lnax Luci , iiction was appropriate because the
Laxpayor had sul di.od development through depletion
allowances, than Lhe same principle should apply to the
resources under the land mass. He also questioned the
validity of the ”l0D% of revenues” section of the federal
propo a1 stating thaL considerable revenues would be

ac ‘cted by the iudcrul government before the provinces
rec ived any moni

The Cl”rw~n summarized the discussion noting that seven
provinc upportcd a transfer of jurisdiction to the
proviucus, two piovinces were willing to see the question
resolved through the use of an administrative agreement,
while New Bruxcwick had indicated its willingness to abide
by an admi ..aLive agreement but recognized that a

” Luiion was required for Newfoundland because
terms under which it had entered Confederation.


1034 the 100% benefit woojd be in
fxts received uy equal zation.
that Qhn provinc 5 would receive 100%
3: re5ouTCO$ wc > on shore and th .
.dtjon would determlne what eff ct the luct
.th would have on their oliq

.d on two issues: tfé

i‘ m focur

and the choice of a

:.ut the constitution should con-
f Lhe prlncipl of sharing 0 equa1~

‘ sic to the Canadian experience.
. € conviction dated from 1969
ndiiatefi th ‘ commitment to
3, pr viding essential public
,7d promoting equal opportunity.
governments could choose
” tion: the British
. Jposal, the ML toba/Saskatchewan proposal or
the Québec proposal. Although many governments indicatefi
a willingness to accept any of the drafts under review,
all stated th ‘r preference for a particular proposal.

All governmon%s
éaiw .~30n‘x.’2 c \’; 3

106. .i an identical section
princ lo undex’jing equaliza-
ish Co1umb.a‘$ OAd%> dlffered from the others
much an .’
not b( prions. }r §i§h Colunmlk
and the ed this proposal because
0 F the
‘>n payments would be made to provin .
‘ to ensure the provision of ggasolablg
of public services rather
L08. the Québec 6 ft which was

. . hewan proposal except that
KEG second mod; ication gpeoified in
),z.\gx?a1.>h .

109, Prince Edward Islari Nova Scotia anfl New Brunswick

, one the impl.cation of the section in each of the
three dr cs which stated that questions of equalization
should be reviewed every five years. In their View the
princ‘ple underlying equa ization was too basic to the
Canaflian r ality to permit review. After some disc ssion,
‘ aided to ask mi ters and officials to det rmine
’ us of e;ua ization” could be replaced )1
.ism of equal ‘.ion”, or alternative}y( droyped
*ogethor. “t w; ag d that the final choice of draft
would be – in privafim session.

qhis should qo into the constitution.
. . he would persist in referring

) u p de*nl CharL*r of RighLs as a plea
for people’s riqhtzo a.. opposed to other agenda it
which involved L division of powers between govern—
mcnts. An ontrenchnd Charter of Rights would constitute
a tr n for of powe‘ from governments to people. he
di*puted the assertion that the rights of Canadians
,ent y well pxotoc by common law and
1) 1 contrary. Mr. Trudeau pointed out
that some x’i,<3I s 3:0 alwroady in the constitution and t‘uL his government was proposing that the list of consfltutionally guarant ed rights be expanded. The bills of . jhtS already in existence at the federal and provinex levels were too easily altered by Par1iamenL or legislatures. yr. Lyon outlined the reasons for Manitoba’s opposition to the entrenchment of a Charter of Rights. Manitoba’s opposilion did not constitute a bargaining tactic designed to gain cone: ions ewhere. Rather, Manitoba and other provinces found entrenchment to be contrary to parlia~ mentarv traditions. Mr. Lyon argued that the onus was on those WHO advocate change to d xonstrate that change was needed and that such change would be beneficial, not harmful. he went on to outline policies that have been im\]\monted in the past by both levels of government to the basic ‘ of Canadians. In addition to ice :5 hi orica] jL.tificatioh for the proposed Manitoba opposed the concept on the basis of the following principles: 1. an entrenched Charter would xemove the supremacy of Parliament and of legislatures: 2, ParliamenL and legi‘latures are better equipped Lo resolve social issues than are judges; 3. an cnireiched Charter would involve the courts in political matters; 4. CELL nchmont involves a loss of judicial impartiality and judicial independence; 6. sfatute law permits a more flexible response to social anfi other changes; 6. an entrenched Charter would encourage 1iti— gqtion wiLh respect to legislation; and 7. due .o its infle ‘bil ty an entrenched Charter would inf nit the development and acknowlcdgemcnt of new rights. and symba of entronchment “he pxutection oi ontatives has in no ting Sassatcbewan with many with respect to a powers between o mhe V1» J ex Lxssed by N* Ch&rter‘ impact an t]. 1e\is1.;ures and the juaxc; it should cont nne to be the role of governm nts to .>e conflicts Couct Ing rights. A transfer of powers
aiming to right» and fundamenta‘ freedoms to courts
would, he a gued, move C: J ram a society based
on compromise towarfl an wave s*‘ia1 system of decision~
L onai y, ceci ons éeterminod in the Supreme
of Canada would give n advantage to the rich:
tics would ha K M of the right to effectively
‘ ’ ,L, _ Delegation cf such law-
gourts would constitute both an
anadians confiider an obligation on
as to interpret community Values,
‘ on of the power of citizens to
/mg to community values.
. Lyon’s skepticicm regarding the

“vision of jhts would enhance
fenbakcr Bill of Rights
. l:vc., while almost
. adopt d the r own billa o
. Mr. B]uYCflLy boncludod by r05+e1‘tinq Saskatchewan’s
01 “on to the entxenchment of a 1 oad Charter as a
matter >f princip] , om the basis of the Ame“iCan experience,
and on the basis of sneculation as to how & nchment would
have worked in C“ ‘Ha. He emphasized that basic rights are
d by A sp rat of moderation and tolerance in a
not by kntrenchment.

. pondina
. d cision
My. Blakonuy echoed

rat on ‘

xrks by associating himself with
.5. Lyon and BL-keney. He made
of Rights which had been introw

ws. Mr. Lougheed noted
no this B111 would, in the View
y difficult political pxoblems.




‘ore, although ntrenchment would have the advantage
of mlnlmizing the risk of rights being tampered with,
.hment was c ‘entiaily unnecessary, given the politi—
cal rfikljtie. of hie province. Mr. Louqheeé acre. with
his two provi 1 colleaq that the resolution < c0nfli£:‘
and ina Lon of communlty standards should he the task

3 support fax the entrenchment of a
2 in 3 new constitution stating that it
fit‘s belie? that governments and the people
itment to th preservation anu
of the es of individuals. A Charter should
aha iollovinq items: a r; ’ on of cur commit»
fa1’2d. ln his presentation,
attention to 1.9 question of
.1ty lqngu He expre,sed support for the
iplo t .5 a child belonging to either the French-
’ ; or English qpeaxing minority in a province should

to rocexve ..s or her education in his or her mother

an explic


t.ng\1L2 .

Mr. Davis 5 ed that the unique multicultural makeup of
Canada made it necessary to ensure that the various peoples
within <1nada were guaranteed the r qht of choice in the

nd development of their respective cultural

v heritage. H also made specific reference

_ of Canada’s n tive peoples and indicated

that Ontario is committed to an early di cussion in the

‘and round of neqotiatlons on the subject of the entrench-

ment of native rights in the constitution. Mr. Davis
concluded by inq that the Charter of Rights must embody
~ mnnority rights and individual liberties while
remaining true to Canadian traditions.

The federal MinisLer of Justice, Mr Chrétien, began by
noting that many of the fre dome En oyed Evwfifinadians today
were arrived at only after a process of protracted struggle.
hccordinc y, the i e had come to entrench those rights. In
partic la) minorities had to be protected from pressures
irom the majority, parficularly within Parliament and
logis1aturL Additiz ally, quite apart from the legislative
sphere, ciaxzens had to be protected against unjust regulations
emanating from hureaucr‘ ‘ Any legal absurdities arising
judicial interpmetation of a Charter could be

ct,d through the process of constitutional amendment.

in response to those Premiers who considered a Charter of
Riqh s to he a break with our British parliamentary traditions,
Mr. ‘ion pointed out that as part of her membership in
the Eurupofin Community, Gre * Britain falls under the Charter
of Righ qove ning the Community. He expressed garticular
S3L§§ acLion WLLM Ontario’s decision to support the entrench-
ment of mino)‘ y lfiflguzqfi rights. Additionally, he hoped
that QuFbec would see fit to support entrenchment of language
his so as to remove what Mr. Chrétien consi-
aspects of recent language legislation in

that province.


the arguments put forward
sta ‘ .1 . constitution
‘ _’alatures anfi

L = growlng threat to
. .ield endorsed the entrenchmen:
. ngu:‘ cduca ion but would not why the

phr:se “when: numb nuftafit” should be included. He f it
it ‘ ‘ spite Cr, sms ofi Qu«Dec‘s
wh, min0rjLy language rights were bexner

an in any other province.

: that arguments as to whether
Should be groL:cted in flue
Sandra Love ac case would
the Interna .onal Covenant
to the argument that entrench-
. of rightg, Mr. Ratfield
did not x move power f; n anyone; thay
powers and their iimits. Hg took issue with
rtiox that en enchment wauld render.
Mr. Hatf;eld’$ view, citizens
through the courts than by
‘ ,leld concluded
these uncertain times, the entrenchment
ed a pan cularly urgent priority. He
’ tn“ ::z:xty:e1:<:}nuent of rights,
m nt wi u some of the wording

,ield went on *0
/ . (

that an

vs con ‘t ‘
conxmi 1. l, <*<“z 13 i <4 whilc r ‘ ii? areas of cult_rc and gducation. he thanked Mr. Hat ield ” complimanrary A zrks Iegazfiing the protection or .ry linguistic rj3hLs in Québec. The Québec govrrn~ . rasic pain of on this issu« consistec of Lhu v4uw that were not aczually in dangcx ; cntrenchment would not render V -5 Mr. Lévesque’s view, the :0 Charter of R; his and Freedoms provjdefi Québec rs the most ‘ ‘ protection in Canada. The Charter with one or we exceptions, had primacy aver all la ‘ Zr. ’ qua explained that in those ‘ canes his govexument had seen fit to go outside ’ hance I ghts. In his v ew, the , mnherent in the provincial charters . . means of enhancing Lue quality of life of Canadians than dlfl comet” u ional rigidity. Mr. Lévesque ‘ a number of a> 9 he felt that entrenchment

place progre slation in jeopardy. Moreover,

n_renchment would Complicate relations between levels of



the totalitarian
MI. ifivcsouo z_
” nt rcnchmen‘: , con):t.5

, nm,wj,1’ hst ‘=mr1j m;
.rI ‘:0 by Mr . i~Im.fie],d ,
:~: View that yen with

«;<x\ror’ nmm11′ . \~; wv>nM Lw,
in .<;o<::'<:ri

Lo :4rg\1n\cn”s
‘ and ‘chm? ‘
ubject ‘
, he emphasized QnFoec’s
,tic and cultural
He ciefbndczl Bil? 101 anni
‘nqn03s to soften the legis-
Lxfion, «:<wn1in<‘x’=m ugmn yo iprucal action being taken ix ‘
pYOV]nCG . Emu ns’s was 2 on the fact that provisions
for minorJx‘y J.’am.;uar_]<»> c>r1ucat‘i0n Qniihec remain superior to
chose existing in other provinc

On the
‘i,onnl and 1i,:u;uisLi<: polio
r . iuxmt:-ML ivy v.i rtuo of its linqn
wi Lhi n N :
” <;o\rc)*nn\cnt ’ h ieily addod to his earlier remarks by specifying Mr. t-ha, .1(>un3h hc rm;;a1*dm1 the r><h:c:.’3‘rot’
jnéeed lirnit, racher than

. on of the -principal

in the Attorney General’s

not, only vaould lxhrzzwi
mom: “om: Hm: u (.‘hu::’t(?x‘ might
enhance, the frwodoms of Canadian
(‘awn inhmrenz i ontrcnchmont wouhL
mimi, bx.‘ the <lH3’icull,y of dx‘aft:<‘’ ‘:
;u:‘<>r~\’:‘;<\ <‘3n2‘ini1j<>:\ 0. fund ,
.\1 . T udo.,\.\,1’s x:c><:oum.in<_; 01 past; violamions of freedoms,
-1Lo*nwy Gonoral argued that such instances were eventually

co rucLed wit ouL rosortinfl to the cumbe some proce.s of

c nstjtur’onn1 . ndment. Addi ‘onal1y, entrenchment would
entail a move away from Lhc most fundamental principle upon
which C. a was found ., namely, the now a onty of Parliament.
Roxur to the ar,nment concerning pa vio ions of basic
right‘ mi (‘.:1nz«nL1, the /\H.o.‘ncy Gen -Val av‘ met} that one could
poinf to other countries where a B.1l of Rights had been used

to dimin’ h freedoms‘ Finally, he r qistcred his apprehension
concelninq the potennial flUllCiCjZfl«iOfl of the judiclcry

Ha a result of entrenchmcnt.

The Minister of Science and Technology and Minfster of the
I-‘,mrir<mIm=nf’ of _(“e.r\—3<3e3 indic.=:€.m1 that he w 55 d .turbed by the no part of some qove.nments regarding “c0rd on basic human rights. He argued that land thcxnselves to solution by simple critics because of the need to protect the These rights would be best; prov. cted expressed through the court sys the sence of the question at ‘ma ‘ 2; pa. (>1 1 quest ion

” of m3’ho2’j’
by the rule of lnw u
‘l’hv.‘> Mi)\i.<st;<>r $3 ‘.‘c~d that

was whothwr Lo protect rights by lobbying or through litigation.
no mainta

find that

ran to.

the paoplo of Canada would prefer Lne

.rtcd that an entrenched Charter of Rights
h parliamen ry democracy and the rights of
Entrenchment, he argued, would conqeal all future

in the mrld rf 1980 Entrenchment, therefore, would
that cjvilnza ion w. unlikely to achieve greater
}hLs. he reiterated tlat his government’s position was one
o: principle and not a b.rqaining lever. Mr. MacLean concluded
by arguing that any attempt to forecast what decisions future
legislatures or Parliaments should come to, and then to entrench
‘.,hun\, \~l(l:3 a ddnn_[crOn.-‘3 one.


dily in th:

t was of

o ontrenchn of
‘” IAQHCS. However, hi
concerning other areas.
guod that the Supreme
«he experiences of
maintained that
is inct’vely
‘Lo;y and t-aai-‘0ns.
two years ago by th,
0: Mi es involv ng A requi
include in any decision pertaining

n*aL the
’“«.’m.(i;z:1\ ,
:ho pm
hnpzé . hat

precen 3 which lea to that fi

nmgo iabions, Mr. Peckfo” expressed
‘ ‘ tars would not be utilizing
s casing the orog ess of the

A consmnsus 0* the twc}v itcmv.
ity, in Mr. ?cckford’s view, had
’ d nu bow to

ro ru? Peck ord was preps

Rho ma

each 0
(Zara 1. p1’cposa1.

“ho categories of righ¢s

av it would be fijh icult for those

0 ant enchmen of any kind to partici”
ion‘ Tn ‘f ‘ ” explained that it was
djscu.~ allow P ..i,rs opposed
. ‘ ~ farm of
ho would be us¢ng the

b ..e proposed feéeral Charter of
1980. D‘ ‘ iculties over lihc-,
erred to ofificialg.


CUh)& be r

’ning to Fundamental F e u
x2nswi.(‘}< and Newfounzilami. .tut on by a protection. .)ns pertaining to Legal Rightfi was :6 Ontario. On aria indicated difficulties with the wording 1n 5 ttions 6,7, abs S 1’,‘ C‘ Um: 1: j i; ..Q(j- 8, ]O(l.>) and («H . ‘1‘? ; phr‘a.<;<»2ol<)gy u‘. ‘lj,2:ed hm} not bc
fa xhn test ‘V the rourts and in Ontz 10’s View the

I-*:u*h’nnmnt. 0 CaHm< had a respo1\.~:ibili.t\_I to clarf
wurding of lhuso 5ecti01.. Mr. Trudeau indicates u
vnmld continue on clar nu khe la: uage contained
ion to entrcnch—

aruft. Ikjl a its onpo
mun? qhL , bur whet on to 5 2 that with 1osn0cL
ing that miqhi take nlac they \-/ould s\1qgesi.

aviation 0. Sec inn ?” and tha placing of a ngn_oh
‘ Leg a I ‘

nments gave Lhcir views on the sc
Lty Rj.n,ht:s:

Six qovor

tr: Mobi,‘

0’s apprehension concerning
Th3E“§ec xon lé(3)(a) might be
legislation regarding

udeau assured
’w””””5E of the
of the S@CtlOD:

3!. ‘In ansx-.v<;>.1’ Ln Ont
the possihiiily
us to strike down provinc
so f—governing professions,
Ontlrjo thau this was not H

Hr) 5u<_

_Jny1 expressed its opposition to
.)(h) of the prcviou draft affecting the
‘ to make laws restricting ownership
. Prince Edward Islané indicated
that it would insist on the inclusion of a

nun obsggx clause if the draft at hand was

‘A gov rnments. ggggda indicated
thar ¢ d Pr nce Edward Esf§nd‘s

point concerning a ‘ stante clause to be a

ew Brunswick expressed its
support for Prxnce Edwarfl Island 5 position.

. .atcd that it was not prepared
, at L1mE to support th( entrenchment of any-
. g 0 ‘n 7 than Fundamental Freedoms and
Dam are in Rfiqhts. It suggested that discussion
of socuions 6 onward be set aside and continued
among governments over the next several weeks
0’ months until such time as some sort of con-
sensus Could be ‘cached. Newfoundland stressed
that certain affxrmative action programs were
0 snntinl fur a province’s development and that
natiuna! go(” could not be allowed to extinguish
equally laudable regional goals.

3. N Lo J reliance on restrictive legal wording. If
Mobil hy Rights w re 59% down as a guidepost. as
something to be worked toward, a greater degree
of ag;:‘oe1~.:cn(‘. zniqht be 0. .. ed.

nwadfi expressed sympathy with t 0 concerns
xpr ‘ N foundland and Brunswick and
suqqe Led that certain problems could be solved

Howevmr, it appeared that qovern*
would heae war dif”cu1ties with wording

njnq the division of powers, there was more
,:1 wording when it came to protectin,
f citizens.

J31. untrcr.hment of
lves in issues b rwken citxnen
between qoverx ,nt anfi citizen.
milar cencexnz
132. 2 an example of some C the cmmplications

tbn worfiing of the Oh rter. Qagggg
.5 th sec*’ us under discussion
‘ ‘watihg and that

La» 33;. ,

I C’CO«’j}1.)

1inn LE, the antrenchment of Official
.ezi (shat only :21 ‘ rieral gov:-2x:n—


‘xtrcnchmont oi Language Rights, the
(3 izhat. ,..t Mim‘,5te:cs would be
, wlth respect to Parliament and
in the course of the exchange, at the
nded the discussion to education,
Dq3’e stated that
nal zed bilingualism
‘ass made in Ontario
the ye . stressed that
shoul on .0nal system in the

bi} 1 ” ‘, ‘Mr. Davis was prepared to accept
‘ educafion:. services Whfllz
W ‘V ed his approval of
ents undertakwn by many provinces
Jan of Frenchvlanguage services
-W char. 5 5 di -erence between legislati
such arrang mont and haV‘ng a co stitutionally enshrined
H) concluded by asserting that entrenchment was
B nne t stressed their
d1ti0n$ and 4
. , cs would bone“ t more from leq slative actions
ihan Jiional guarant ‘ Lelt that
Lanquaqo Rights wcvo net only a mu.te1‘B. . .ing to gx>ups
withir province but in a wider sen$e constituted pert of
‘2 ”gon{eder>tjov 2 rqain”. Accordingly, Saskatchewan woulé
aznerxablcs to i,m7orp(>1’ ‘


10h of some language guarantees.

’ed M19 oftwstatefi gupport for fig. §;§k n§xL§
‘ 1 of Language Rlghfq was fffex
1, Legal and otxg‘ Rights. NI. Lyon
*3d Section ‘

…3li y of the‘; L
of his stand against entr achment
he noted that his gavexnmenn
vailability of education in Fxench,
L ~§E§ gave his View of the
Ame {ca and gave historical and
.on for Bill 101. He suggested that
Bill 103 was 9 5 nt 31 to the survival of this French fact
in Québcc and that the feder proposal would
threaten the aspir‘ ons of Québec.


—\-’$]v< .’~1r‘ ‘I’)”\1do’xu n an an numl’>L . comments conce ning the positions
iHKLM‘TE7€ho provinces 1 ardjng the proposed federal Charter
of §iqhr”. no “taxed his conviction that the advent of an
cntrenchpi Char er was only a matter of time and that Canada
was already bound by the U N. Chaxter. He argued that if such
rm to ;2 ’ wi ‘nin th ‘
ticn, \ €C[\.h;1ll)’ suxcablc
He nmod . . not ar<_:,\xed th
~ ‘ wnn1d he too dii xch items as equa
that they were ali quite hapvv to see equali. tion
by t (2 f%upren\<>, Cuux:’L. Simjf y, provinces were
J11 powers should be expJic;..y set down in the
rain r than go the route of administrative
ranqcmcnt On the fiubjc . of Langu(;0 Rights, Mr. Trdue
;’>2“c“:;mi tho l‘x0′,3e that Sect, .011 L33 0
a tendon Ln jur’5djciE0:; other than Québcc a d Manitoba.
He pr0Vi(@d rwo alternative scenarios, the first of whi.h
i11\ro1v<>,<‘i 11 c<>.-utjxma on of a Camxda made up of one sentiahy
French ‘:\1kinq province with the rest of the country spa king
aily 4..a.rmda in two zaiorxc; lixxqxxisstic 1’
5<7nm2x‘i<> \-:o\z].<“1 ‘Ln\rr>lve app1’oachin:.; the guest on of Cox
lion in thz ’oric. «us, of 5 “b rgain” between two
2”m.xnd’nn, 5 ‘I‘h:.< wmzld involve c<:~nst;it.ut.ional (;1 cf bilinqx . To th’ 0 , he sclicitad Québec‘s su;>ort
fior rho cnlrenchment of Y1unch language rights in other
]>1’<7Vinc(,. . rr 3 presentat !>1‘0vjrn,*4-\.~: rap] “Lexi Ln the Prime Minis.

j stressed the practicality of its
rcci ‘” approfi h to linquistxc bargaining

with uthcr provinces as opposed to the symbolic
‘ t cf cntrz-‘:z..

A6511‘; .

in an evoluntionary manner
1nd that its PYPSQIL system of rights was
supnrinr to any proposed Charter.

ndcd delegat of the dangers
nch minorltles.

‘ed the underlying strength
n. pa; . xtary democracy and the need to
‘Keck the div( of needs in the country
in any new constitution.

/5. Newt’ undhmr

x‘(>if.O.1 ted its support for £1 Charizex
., Ls with educational guarantees where
xmn\hors~; war)”z,1 nt. ‘

Ar; t.‘end 3 I tom:

xv 1-‘o rmu 1, a

:u<:cd this agenda item by reminding
t Canada was the only independent
‘Id incapable of amending its own o0n~
not d that next year would m “k the 50th
‘ Canadians had
tormula. Last Ray,
Ad to a ‘otion

The Chai man exp ssed his hope
would agree with that position.

untxy mo he


owing the Chairman’s introductory

jUiti?p G a discussion concerning the
inisters agreed to remain
necessary, to allow suFfic;ent

:1 L. awa until Sam): lay, i
ime for both pub and or v te sessions. First :inisce
then returned to the subject at hand.

his support for patriation of the

. .1v with an amending formula. is
cxpzwssca h – ‘ it‘$ preference ‘ the Victoria
formula but ‘ red to consider the Vancouver one.
M1. 7a\’ 5 f bility on this issue; he
muiH§u4D@d that Lhexe could never be a perfect amending

Le a euo made cares points concerning’his government’s
‘atjon. Firstly, ‘ on in itself did no
gth needs or aspirations 0;
Jmises made to Québecers during the
had been promised fundamen al changes
alism, not the “neutral gesture“

ct rized patxiation. Secondly,
Ministers that the Québec

y agreed to reject patriation as
part of a “package” of reforms

amework for renewal oi he Con? deration
~’xe explained that his government was

, mp1 to package be assembled L..
zxere no concrete evifience of progress.
.na11y, Mr. Lnvosgue argued that simple patriation, devfiid
oi a substamtiv< package of reforms, would be dangerous because it m, V erod* the fragile momentum for refiorm 9 rated by Lho Qu3hec I erendum. In his view, pacriation, accompanied by a few essentially cosmetic measur s, might c),,Le the falhe impre sion that the prose of consixt t onal renewal was comolete. This would cause long~sLdnding .rustrations in Québec to again rise to the surface and, lndeed, worsen, began by asgorting that patriation shoulé like AIL of the other items on the agenda; ‘ ed on its own merits and then dealt vablo package devoid of any negaw ,b1e unilateral ac on by the ieral at his government had originally g v z*nnm‘A,. . advocated a reg)>naT
However, they
the advantag
’ ‘I for \’:h

»n persuaded by oi er governments of
Lnherent in a provincial app oach, particu-
L weaker yrovinco . As such, 3 government

d the vi? a Charter in f”vour of the Vancouver
formula. Mr. Benno+. stressed the desirability of
patriation being accompanied by an acceptable amending



formula and pozsitjve ch4ingc::, including affirmation
of resource ownership and a greater recognition of
communicat on in the constitution and changes which
would orov. e for efficient and responsive government
for the people oi Canada. .


ion had changed since the last F .b. Ministers‘
ional Con’ once held in February 1979. His
government would ‘uppflrt patriation subject to agreement

on 3. um nding rmula, speci ically the Vancouver one.

He sugges i that if Fir t Ministers could not agree on
such a formula, then they should consider patriation

‘ther with a well—specified and carefully drafted approach
to unanimity and/or safeguards to ensure that the constitution
would not be pat iatod in such a way as to increase the
powers of the f>derol or provincial governments. thus
ensuring the neur a1 character of simple patriation.

Mr. Loughced ir Icated that although his government had

not gained anyt ing 0. signi rance thus far at the
conxerence (particularly in the area of resources}, he

was of the opinion that, considered in isolation, patriation
would be of symbolic value to Canadi as. Hence, his
govornmona was prepar d to support such a move, subject

no the above qualification. In doing so, however, he was
assuming that the Prime Minist r would respond to any
possible negative symbolic repercussions of simple
patriation that might ensue in other provinces, portion»
larly in the light of Mr. Lévesqne‘s remarks. Mr. Lougheed
strongly advised against any unilateral action on the part
of the fc<1cr;a.1 <;<)vLz1?1nnent. Such action would, in his view, he no, only cont ry to the spirit of Confederation, but also a potential mhar ‘ssment for the British government. Finally, Mr. Lougheed proposed that, in keeping with the symbo ic n: of patriation, the document could reside in Charlottetown. Such a move would reassure Canadians of tho fedoxal government’s awareness of the nature of the fedozul state. Mr. Lou he d n()tc‘2d tlmi: his qovernmen1:’5 Co n indicated that since Mr. Lougheed had invited ant his interpretation of the Québec View concerning pa intion, and how this differed from Mr. Lévesquo’s position, he would be happy to do so, particularly since Mr. Levesque had made several references to the rei rendum campaign, a campaign in which federal liberals t’om Qufibec had ac vely participated, He began by agr ‘mg with Mr. 1évesque‘s observation that the federal govcxament had, in the course of the referendum battle, éd Quéheccrs a renewal of the federalist system. . Trudeau pointed out that the present round of confer- ences was concrete ev lance of the federal government’s desire to mak= good its pr eforendum promises to Qu-.’>be<:ors;. S mplc: putr‘ It on, he argued, was a neutral
*0 only ‘in a very Specific sense: it did not affect
’ on of powers between the two levels of govern—
ment. He also specified 1 at far from placing the federal
government n a position to act unilaterally in the area
of cor tional change, patriation would oblige it to
.;bmit to an amending formula, whereas under the existing
system, the federal government can petition the British
government, with or without a provincial consensus.
Mr. Trudeau wcnL on to say that in another sense, pat:
was nrt neutral: it would possess both symbolic and
subs? nt vo valu , particularly for Francophone Canadians.
Patxiation would ‘er more power to the people in

the area of language guarantees.



the Premiers that
vin- had
‘ ‘ma thr

(t the Victoria

as had undertaken

33:” 3×7,
.hat went b yond the provisions

:72‘ Ho v oted t’
UV 182′!
+n mukc

Trudeau concluded

two points cf va
Those Qufibec
.l arena wexe
_ a many conc~ssicns
fcieral politicians were
Qua , : guri the larq Y ensemble and,
V 3, ware yromo xng pan-Canadian minority
-0 ané Anglophone language rights.

query, Mr.
re, indeed,
on this: issxw.

jnix what re felt were the
feaharas CL the Canadi‘
ion cf powers and
fade, 1 z 3 rovincial govv:n~

¢0 languages and the princi31@

. ‘ “ y 0? xailed attempts
amendztg for) La ané concludefi by saying
coma to compromise on this issue. He
,n’i<2d that, z.wc>m>1r.>. 0‘ Québec were not in agreenxent
the stand 2 :c7 bv their governmrzt .’ ng pre-
{cv thoir acceptance of patr’dL10n, As such,
vci ihg feaeral posxt on. Although he
‘ fox *la, he was 9 to
Finally, in recogni
Mr. ¥atfi>ld in
in tha patrmation
e u:rang*‘

S) tcn of {ovumm
welationshxp 1 ‘
1’ ants, I.” .

he remainei optimis
to achieve syme success

h levels of governmenl
in the near future. It
. his <7O\7¢. , ‘ xt ‘ ‘ ‘
be able
. .<. .<3.i.’1g,

the opinion that the
some amen wants, was the most
point of view of safi guarding
Mr. Buchanan ma*ntajnad that

i . very

t confrwntatlon azl non’
;o1t that Fiyst MinisLer5 Could ax-
mg formul in closed sessior

w 3, ‘:1 h

that his ‘overnment continued to
ngz to r ‘
9 pondinq A pe ceived n .
uandland and Labrador to strike a new
a “y uf t eqtment Mud opportunity

not merelv move the constitution
’om London to Cana&a, Mr. P‘ ‘aid stipulated-that

patriation nut only be acromuanjefi by an amending
formula, b also E A measu . of ement on thosc

sub$tantiv0 i ‘ Q agenda. H expressed his support



For flu: p<>::il;Jmm t‘a}<:>n by Out?-be-C and l3rit:ir5h Columhi
on this mALLer. Mr. Peckf xd stipulated that any
amendinq formula should contain the Following features:

ref]wcL the principle that all pro\

tutional tus. Any r lly
‘ed rormulu was, therefore, unacceptable;
7. ovigion pr<71liting the —ration of a vincv’s boundaries without the consent of 3. 0. ;.>1’<:)\risinm pzfohibj. um; Clxaxig affectixuq E3
provinc ‘9 natural resources, property or
](}giSl.l!ti\.’l? jurisd ,ion;

4. thz amending formula itself cannot be changed
\’thoul the unanimous consent of all provinces:

:1 ml

tho amending F(Vmula should provide for Chanda
given Mm <:on< H: of Parl, aunont plus two—~tlxi:,’d:e of ?’ prov” cos representing a majority of the Cdlluk ism ;’>c>pu.lai::’on.

ii argued that to say patriation $5 a symbolic
t say tiaL it is meaningless. Patriation
~sue at hand: the issue was how best

to accomplish patri.tion and,in so doing, contribute to
the process of natxon—building. he expressed his concern
uboul the possible development of “linguistic solitude “

in Canada, r sulrinq in the eventual separation of Québec.
Z\m:o1‘din<jly, he k)(*‘.V(? l”i.5 support in principle to the

ant nnchment of llngu. 2 rights and indicated that he
would be pl ‘sad ‘0 discuss specific terms. Mr. Blakcney
supported Mr, PeckFord‘s contention that First Ministers

not ox ‘.313 to n’:sp0m‘.l (‘.0 the aspirations of Qlxébec,

but the any package would, both in form and substance,

have to r< pond to some of the aspirations of other rcgions.
Bocausc oi the nature of the Canadian federation,

Mr Blakonc contended that any proposal for patriation
wlthonr £10 uroadost possible consensus would be counter-
produc(iV0. As for an amending formula, Saskatchewan
favotwod a fltzxible one, Although hf government; pzreferred
1211:: \I.1’c(‘m‘i.a f’<7nnu1a, he realized (ah-..“ it had 1. C10
suppo‘. from other governments and was therefore prepared
to <:<>nsid(.+r l:llcr formulas. –

.<;u<_;go.-‘s1‘s’a<‘l that it: was impe1:exi;ive that this ccoed in patriating the constitution with an *, given the long history of failed attempts. ka,chewan‘s v w that unilateral patria on ally i,nappro,: Ia and iv esponsible. l’-‘uz7thm‘— lt LhaL it would be simi rly unwise for future to luv nmzlo in Canada un .11 there is an acceptable ‘.mulo.. Manjt.(>l:a favoured the Vancouver uropoval,
with some rm rafting. Although from Manitoba‘s standpoint
Lha formula was no? from problems, Mr. Lyon argued

Llmt. no rmula could 1: perfect. He maintained that
djfficultius w5Lh :L to the amending formula ought

Lo be resolved in or days or weeks, in order to
ensure )r.ap1’

Ho shared 9.
would ho. t
n\or<\, he
anuvnrlnxrv :1 \-
.m\onrli In;

n c.’auI:)‘0n(—2 u 10L of this issue. He asserted that psychological
rs had been made by many of the First Ministers during

the Qué endum, in that certain commitments had
been made whxuh imyliod winners and losars in the process
of constlzutior 1 change. He took issue . Mr. Hatfield’s
remarks c0nce‘ning the extent to which Québea governw
spa} Mr. MacLean mulntained that
<>verzm:enL Quebec 1″: the pr’me sgzokc-zsxnan for the
0 of Od.JGu. g ’ormula,

‘th the proviso
ula be a&optefl unanimou ly, given the fact
ccs would, th.ough L adoption of such

opteé for
the “neutx


patciapion of a museum piece. Furthermore,
txonal enshrinement of b lingualism would only
be g ‘nirago” which also threatened to weaken or even
contrad’ ‘ Québec’s language laws in the area of education.

gional, _ tic and numerical consensus. Additionally,
it did not provxde for the development of the checkexboaxd
arm of jurisdiction that could ensue from the Vancouver
foxnula. no a ued t!at fears concerning the possibility
of the Victoria Chart): formula permitting governments to

” up” on on szavince were unfoundeu: he thought it

cly that governments would want to rid themselves of_
powers in order to deprive another province of that

“iI‘.Ei 1.

37, 1/31‘. ‘1

Idaau suggested that any amending

. should refer to the sovereignty of the people;

in such a way :01 sonda could be held in order to override
the Federal government or a particular provincial govern~
mar 1n the event of the exercise Of a veto.


‘Thercfore, the M nlstc

introduced this item by outl
nLLiUn that the free movem n.
.0rvice§ an} capital across Canada w
ntoud in the present constitution.
. .A. Act prohibited
we n p wvinces but did not
need Firfit Minicver
rnproa to the CCMC m e.

aimed , . da d’d not _0s ass the k‘nd of
anivcs of a cannon market found in other
as in the uropman Economic Community «U
Accord: qly, the oderal government wanted an azfirmat
0 :ho qua ntees within a new constitution. Such
guarantees would not, in Mr. Trudeau’s opinion, serve to
1renq.hen federal pu.,rs; if provinces were depri ad of
, u C rtain nonw ariff barri s between one

anoth rLa’n federal m“a“ures other than affirmative
nC‘ion p*oqrams that dincriminated h.Lween regions wouid
as well.


’ .ed support in principle for the strength-
cnxnq an ouch t con Litution of economic ties within
COHfGdVL&fiOH. It had been his und I%tandinq from the
CCMC sub~commi.toe report that there had been gener.
cccptanco in prxnciple for the strengthening of the

economic uninn. no ob‘ ‘ K past years, the
incidence oi various r _ces by provincial
covernments had increa ed, threatening to balkanize the
Canadian econom Mr. Davis agreed with the fedcra]
position an L the prin.ip1e of an econnm c union ought to

.0 onforcemble. He $uq ested that some sort of interg0Uern—
men . for m, perhaps xclated to a revised Upper House,
could est.blish quidelines or in some other way supplement
court N>n. no omphasi d that any such entrenchment
5hou]d n’: prevent the enactment of affirmative action
px’0<}:’;nn:4 .

0? Financn for Q’ =c informed First Ministers
nu! AQQCmh]Y com. ‘E had studied the first
fo,vral d a t pa jng to amendments to Sections 91(2)

and 321 and had found that d ft unacceptable. He around
that tho basis o{ the federal proposaie was that disc.imin—
utiwn was necessar ly a bad thing. H countered that to
gOVOTh w to dj criminate: the favouting of a particular
regi n or group ox people cycmnlified t.is gen ral p. nciplc.
The ..nister cited exampl 0 “positive” discrxmi a‘ion

on e p rt of the uébec gov “nmcnt, including hiring
practices on Jame B y construction sites and tax exemptions
for ou,h,co invo ng in Québec—based companies. He

hat the federal gov *nment also discriminatefi
provinces, for example in th area oi freiqht

, Ho dispu d the “idyllic” portrayal of non-
discrimination p ovisinns in oth jurisdictiona, re
to the p rchaqino policies of many .S. state5 and ccptionu
rm non—di ,riminat on clauses in effect in the Eu n
Community. on lance, he contend“d, Canadian expericnce

H Concludfid L at the cdera] pro osals could, for all

fire ‘Seal p rposcs, thr aten the powers of the provjvcea

in the “nth of economic development. R
inc u. on of the qu 1’f cation “unduiy r
he nntondnd that the :se of that nhraee in anti—trus
legislation had r .1 in jurisprudon al chaos.
that t application of
such A form to pr vincial development policies would be
hiqhly imprudent. He argued that the Canadian economy

Tho Mini



gm borrowings)
5 wt ch ran the
to an economic

n pruposais w
No Lira abs‘,c« <7

‘1g 1n co ra—
nc1ud4w“ remarks,

nmqu an}


. 1 relatxox , he noted
of.on Forced to di5crifiL
the ob ‘ ‘

provxnp a1 govornme
.nces of such policies.

of 1
hi} by members of
hi$ province. rfle
would threa*en New
sectors. Ad ionally,
had found it necessary fo take st ps to
ruction and other industries suf. ‘
low volume and reduced pro ;t
n ordex

2 groups in
1 px:om7s3.3J <5 ‘Gui ai )3 tot em; co fimest requ red policy inst uments the disadvanLaga$ stewming frmn a reg .ictions nm‘”ts sat down and analysed, over a of time, the probable impact (5 ,, to ma:.\, digtortions already in glace which the Ontario economy, mosf notably 0 low pric wc—\.,i’.x>y:v\ oii and (ms. HO conclude/i by stating


qovornmenfi the general pr ;ciple of an
union, but the expense of New Brunswick‘s fragile
of Justice, argued

realities, notably Cana a’5
the results 0 GATT nego‘ t ons.
apmct L0 Sccfilon 121, tr? Minister explained t*‘
0 orally pl d amendm !tS would not preclude
–ivo action the fefleral go nment simply wanted
wing acceptance o~ concept of provincial
]y to the Québe vssition, Mr. Chrétien

st federa3 draft but had b removed
onos. Additionally, he qua: 1 Red
rnment seemed unwilling to at 3 st

why the Quf

agree to the adopt¢on Of those mea$ures re1&ted to the
pa {.3 1‘

wd in its wh:i,t<:: went on to of an onom C union as out} on Sovc ‘ r; in the long run, the more powerful : any such economic war. He concluded my s nse of short—run urgency trigg ing must be balanced against th” 1 of achieving greater productiv., xtiani longer-1 in Canaan p;incip1e»of fr mom . , , .a;>j‘c .1. and p<.zopl(.> oxmdred
laudable, govn manta had to halancc that principle Vainst
vional realities. H5 st’\ssed the fact that Canada was

, hom0q<=, eons C0li)Hi).”y; its urxicguczness posed oblems not amenable Le a central solu ion. ‘ to assert Lha’. dc-‘1′>$t:e ‘:;h<=. ph :nr_:;—i:i GATT tawiff reductions, federal hoiicies would conti ue ourdon on wosLern consu rs of non—oompeL‘ five goods; ;.>1‘o:,’!u<:ed in Com. ‘(’23, Canada, In this
he , hood the comm nts of QtxCf$ recording dis-
c 1m1naL rv YT iqht r es. Not on}y had Bx ish Co1umb’
been deprived of the opportunity to establish a manufacturing
);a:;<: <:I,’m\p.’z2”;:1b].<: to ()nt.?.rio’s, but ;’ér1’i:J’sh Colunxbja, like
0z2Ln‘ri<>, had to make (equal, ation paym ts to other px:ovinc(es.
Hz: arqumi that hocmzse of ‘his stat: 0 affai S, th
pnopie of his provinces su ered a “double agqxievemcnt”.
VH0 also highlighted the ’06 ral g0vernment’s re’usal to
Vccogni’ British Columbia’s dividend kax credit on the
zgzwunds th ‘L w’x,, <i.isc:rjm2’natory. Th 31 similar vein,

ho noteo the c: jcsism c1jrec’r,,e<:I at his q<>verr)ment; })(5(:(3uSL3
of ” opposition to can Gian Pacific’s bid to acqu re
<:<>n(.r.'<)} 0 MacMi].1an Y>’]Oe(3Cl. He argued that both I‘:14P’iSU!'(-‘S
were zlcmigncd to . . 1 .h(>.n the eco
but, moi: ‘L (tho ex n 0 02‘ the res:
that the L>dcra1 natural gas export tax would constitute a
form 0:‘ cl m“im1’n:\.,” Mgonwrning from the extracfition of

“as xonomxcal” rev from only two provinces. with

to the mobility riqhts of C<~:dians, Mr. Bennett d that migration from 0th p:.ts of Canada to h Columh domonstra >vince’s commitm
to the pr0t@cf.on of He concluded by stating
that the principles nuno.at. ha scderaé propo.a]s,
Iaud.’:l>]e, (“(.>\Hd not. to f Jstrate the
nsvixktmons of “havv” and “h provinces, alike.

, Mr. Bhflfifitt rejected the federal proposals.

Z35 mov m

The l‘~‘..1’njScL=3f of I:‘,du(‘:n1:1’on for P

exp: sod his qovm:nxnr~:ni ‘.5 c”L2nE,, , views
<2.\’_;.:r(:: ‘sod by 1 Columbia, N “J s’5z*unswic}< and Québec.

He reminded First MinisLers that principles must be applied
to the exigenci of the real world. Additionally, his
<;ovm‘n1m>nt had (31 Ffiiculty in accepting the principle U1at
on1y the fedora] qovernment would h Ie the x qht to
inrorvenc in certain arnas of economic life in Prince

‘ and. The Minister made two additional yoints.

Pm did not I;r—‘1J'(~ve i:)1«”xt’ ‘
Lron\:\‘.m\ it .

m of C
1’c>:;:o<:t, <; roqa’i, !” alluded to the in‘ I ance of Canada’s
c<2ni:r.1 1’n::tjt.uL),on:;. it was the Minist r’

. 5 union we
.minatcc‘1 in favour of the
i<:;x1ly _p0w(,—>W”’u’!. due to its ad! ence to the v.
:a}e. no boli.v that many provinces
‘ orous pursuit of an


O on ,
of the (“ONE
would s\1f,xx.>r 1:: the evmzt oi

(mom C union . Dc? ‘pi fedora 3. P<1’1n.i5t.er ‘ s 1″ema:‘ks
-no the leg} ‘ a 1’ma ve action gxams,
his ‘. . ant was rclucLant to allow the courts to decide

Finally, on the question of equal-
echoed his governmcnt‘s View tha‘, in
ome ways, uqunlizatlon constituted a repayment for the
<‘x5\rez‘.m of. -<7 of cc=3″::1ir) national policies. HE: conrzlqdezi
by s’ inq that although his government could support the
federal proposal to some extent, it 5:111 had serious

i ation,




1 a ares conf xctod
provinces building on their
I enhance thc prosp ri ;
t First MAAiStQr” and

best ;
‘S. He urged t‘-~ L
sis mutt I be
‘tion for

he <:m*r,L ‘ 21 1 Ln }‘rL7¢5i ,. (3 1) .1.Z(£( .h the “motherhood” principle of he undcrlinefi the ;PTLnCP§ into considerat on, G to the $itua‘ion in the Mari ime L, i”; particu ml 112 r . u and dev 6 witn comp 01 and Mr. Buchanan criticixed moot Rev‘¢w Agency in .. A tine that it blocked fl ment on 6 his government’s .V(‘S m.€en ti . po}icy for Nova Scot an goods and services ‘ ‘ S serveé to undermine S province‘s support . Buchanan concluded comments, he’agre@d his government was 0‘ the opinion government already had auf cient powers onomic union under Sections 91(2), the £5 al government flischargeé the antics stemring with regard to the transm sion C ric pow- through Québec. that the ‘ob1em5 encountered -:tIcism as to the _ cditional powers. He went on to the 3 ght of the prevailing’internatio: 1 and gas, the federa} qvv ‘nment’s domestic woxe in onsistent witx its position cone inq the recoqy tlon of chsaging international ities as they uff8CtQd the C.nadian economic u.won. rring to affirmat’ e action proqxams, Mr. Peckforfi c;L0d some examyi s of fefieralvprovincial co—operation in Lhis area and asserted that there were certain “catch-up” §?(]0){r) had simply mm’. from i~hn.;r;- of T7z>’w‘(,‘

arnue hat in

.ces ior oil
cjnq polio


nco mpnx 1. c
mom: to

up, M1

r, ounces. .u ming
.wan proposal for


. for..c>ment.,
courts, in

Hm sul7’jc<:l; in forums

nmznt ‘ 5 wil

‘I a number of

Ml proposals in th.
-“t..~‘3 of coxnpo‘ 11 ion and product Sta: rds. With 2‘
to thu regal: ll 1 ado and commeyoo, ‘ government had
.xt:inns L:<,7nL:(“ning the inclu on of the ambi’m<>=.:s term

.i n the y “oposozi ‘ to clari‘
‘ “oa\1],am’,on of.”
– d similarly create dit.1culties with

at inq provincial ioooulairos

, nqly, AS had
res‘ 11 g<)ver:m “H: was not or ;2c.”‘(§d
‘ to trad

to :1<jz,‘<><> t. . ,
and con, , qhts, Mr. Blakeney
aought it to incoxborate in a charter
Ilfihffi for corporations to buy and sell assets. with
rofipobt to rh< hr uder issues ra’5ed by Seal on 121, he
xidexlinod his provinco‘s wi‘n to se*ure and improve the
0″onomic union, hut not to the exclusion of all oth
economic and soc} goal I noted that not all measur
thzzt would 1 L:’ m<)l:1l.1ty of labonzt were bad,
notaple ox np]($ nnina affirmarive action programs and
3ymonL ixiuzanco, He noted i the only fac‘ rs
‘ _ of people, goods, services and cat‘
the fwd ‘a1 proposal concerning Section
inod in terms of provinc.al boundaries,
lify tho: existed an eztonsive list of item
the economic union. He asserted that the
concapt of an economic un.on was, ll A sens a mythical
O) , because yerfect competition did not exist. He argued
Llwt A code 0. ‘ sible practiceg was reouired. There-
foxe, ‘L Minigrcrs should not agr . to insert in the
const tut on fho %FJ] proposal cont ‘hing Sectlon 121
sly agxee to ins ,ting a provision
puxsnit of an economic union, and possibly
agreement any further steps to be ilk
ard. Mr. Rlak nay made a final point concerning
He maintained that federal attempts to allay
\q the possibl. vulnerability of oer‘ ‘ laws
province were pointless, because uno
‘— ‘ judges would be making thos< doc
he expressed h 5 u sg’vinqs about the fact thax judges would
called upon incr ‘ to make decisions in new and

in this rm
the COU7.”‘( °
Y xrs com

.nf}.°»\‘,c-\: of I~m’in<“> and M.i.n1’st(~:r of I-Energy and Mines
-‘ existing barriers (2
these barriers hampered tn
Manitobaa manufacturing sector. However, he characterized
. ,,5 as bring part of a larger problem: that of
0 of Lhc eleven governments to harmonize economic
He also noted that many of these barriexs

‘cd legitimate 1,;.ona1, social and economic concerns
and thax the federal proposals would increase federal
powers in such a way as to impair such provincial
develomnont initiativc A The Mini ter reqistered his
support for the Sask thewan proposal and opposition to

the iqgosced federal amendments to Sections 91(2) and 121

xst MI rs that at the
CG hold in Auguat, the provi~‘>s had
governm procuru ent pol ci 5, capi’al
.nu onhance& co—2p ration. He called for gr?
rovivci l—r<}iQnal coilahoration and argued that
so 0 such cowcpe ion, th< could b
on 31:: the C .-“mci £’.\:x‘x<1amc:nt‘a.”
in the fcdu posals.

‘uitiated by the feden

x. <iis<‘.\:.~ J4 m 3 .
C U 1: follwwed,

‘.5 could agree in 5 incfi 16 to an improve”
the onomic union and to possible

men: arxafigemenis involving a political
,buna} 0: the mandate of a revised Uyper House.

support agress G by all

an e‘onoric union but pointed
sures enacted
C efzlciency in
:Vry. ’ous disputes between provinces

en but had been resolved in a reasonable

?” 1 faction with the’support

3. .
1e pri ciple of an economic
to Ont rio’s record in this
ixq upon sane of the legacies OE
,c0nomic histo .
4. , pa ed to suppoxt the principle
c union but stipulated that govern-
have to 51. we at agreements utilizing
1 ap_xoach. New Brunswick also reiterated
ire to see language of education rights
5. u noted that all ten provinces had

to fihe p“inciple of an economic union but
seven thought thaL di, , mination was, in
?, necessary. He notea the need for more
;ud take in these negmtia ions, anfl indicated
, a . tement of principle 1’self woulfi not
be acceptable to the federal governient.

Aqundm TLnm:




– 43 W

The Preamble/Principles

The Chairman raised two items of concern to the fedora]
government w1th r spect to a statement of princxplu .
Firstly, it was felt that the suggested phrase ”provinco9
freely united impléod that C da was no mot. t

union of She >rovinc 5. Secondly, Francophon
Qnfinec had ovxro. ad choir objection to one #
to dos ‘>0 thc dxsrinct Fronch—spe king soc; .
response Lo 3 question from Mr E939!» _, the Chairman
that a clause cove n, n tive rights was

.uded in the preambl und r consideraLion and
iew d by native 1,adu

sativfiod wxth both the
he mndicznxz/d that he was
ublo with the wording ” rely unitcc”;

d the phrasv to mean t} Canada adheres to
the doctrxne of sel «determination as enunciated by th
od Nuiions. R. rrinq to the Québec r rendum, he
t the decision to remain Canadian was a
indicative of Canada’s maturity. However,
phrase “f’ecly united” should be refined if it was
pruted to denote something 1155 than a nation. Mr.
stated that Fronch—spoaking residants 03 New Brunswick
could ac‘ st wording implying that Québec was a centre

d stated that he wa¢
the Manitoba drafts.

power for Francophones ou ide

He suggested that First Ministers deal wi n this
pro! in private session. In closing, he again stressed
thu need to cntrench linguistic rights.

Qnéhceo .

K” ‘ d First Miniature to the Québoc
proposal be no auted at that time. with respect

to the Wording “provinces freely united”, he argued that
the referendum had underscored the right of the Qucuec
people to so]§—detormination. He asserted that Québec

wa, unquomtionably a nation unto itsol‘ with respect to

w linq, M Lévosque felt that in A democratic society,
elaborate legal definitlons were unnecessary; a simple

r Tel as ch as the one suggested would suffice.
Purth(‘m0re, not to n: :he word “provinces” in conjunction
with “E. oly uniLed“ constituted an avoidance of reality.
Wlth re pact to the phraseology “centred in, but not
confined to Qu5bAc“ found in the CCMC report, Mr. Lévesoue
con: lured it Sn.ieduate in that it did not properly take
into account an amen .nQ Quéhec identity, particularly
among 0 young in that province. Additionally, the

suggc d wording did not, in his view, accurately reflect
the duality which lay at the base of Confederation.
Consequently, the Quéhec government suggested the following
wording: “rocogniving the distinct character of the people
of Québec which, in i.s French». eaking majority, con—
seitutcs one of the foundations O: the Canadian duality”.


The Minister of Int govornmen*al Affairs for O tL 10
quofitionvd the u of a dry, 1 galistic documed
preamble. He contended that a preamble should serve as

an i piration to the people of Canada. Furthermore, his
government rejected the no ion of including any references
to self—detormination. As an example of what he had in
mind, the Ministz 1 d to the conference a draft prczmble
first circulated at tho 1971 Victoria Conference and

rcc>n 1y redraftcd by a citizens‘ advisory group on

l69~ : for 43‘ gn’ anfi that the
included in any pxeamb
1. referonco to Canada as a fez‘ ;
2. the concept of provinces freely united;
no 0 of Québoc ,ciety
the basis of duality in Canada;
rouse to the constitutiz 11 monarchy; and
.ho native

.oxe 1 rst Minist”}5 to
be a <:< xi pm He noted that it had not ‘ rmfio1ved whoLhor this preamble was going to be ve or nu 1′ ‘ ional in nature. He 3n n wxxters ought to be e.trnsted with the final draft so as to enhance its inspi,a:ional nature. Iggggird Kisfikng arg\:xe2(‘i . .91‘, unado. ed and possess a modicum of dignity . ‘orm. He was not partf that the document might not, as he put it, of memorizat’0n”. ‘ h the phrase “romain freely united” in that .a t.e _in e of se1f—d ‘nation to be inLe¢ ) part of Confederation. Additzonally, he Ymed P4TSt Ministers of the suggestion he made durinq no preamble to the Diefenbaker Bmll ‘ous consideration. one of its the fact that it had re eived some past twenty ycoxs. _Fina11y, he , . in of his Premier‘s intention to 1 sxon of the 1cg’G1ature of ”rince fldward 1§1oUa to debate tr’ . determin at this tense, and to pass approprlate resolution$. judicla} Iomjx3c4 172 _ .t that a preamble should be an educational anu that he would accept any text that met with the View of the other First Ministers. – 1?}. noted that it appeared s if the two problems n” opening remarks ed unreS0lved. phrase “provinc s freely unitefl”, he 1 that the 9 were two distxnct points of View on on the one hand, the federa1_government, ,w Brunswick were arguing that ultimately Canada w r( or ating the constitution. . . sh Columbia appeared to be iyanq that -d bocau”0 of the will of ten pxovincos. with speak to the us of the term “people” by Qnébec, Mr. Truaeau indicated th t he was in,agroo ant with Mr. L? ;ue‘s use of the term in connection with a pooplc Juhab .ng a partfcular territory and sharing a common lanqua e and culture. He would also an tn Mr. Lévesav>‘s us of “people” in connection Wlth tne whole
populatlon of Qu’ C, provided that Mr. Lévesque ac epted
the phxaso “Canadian people”. with respect to seif~
determinat on, h maintained thaf “‘;st Ministers had to
specify whether tn y were recognizing the gelfwdetermination
of p,opl 5 or provinces. Mr. Trudeau argued that he knew
of no provis5>n JR international law that recognized the
right to So ’~dotermination of a piece of territory, as

Qxxémcc, Ix.



The United N ions, he , had
, tlm principle of s(2l.€—de‘s;<>r“ni:3. ‘.:i<;..
of peoples did no apply to the prospect of dix ding
S()\’O}”€.i.gl1 COUYILI ].(-35.

which were thy
‘d communities, was to move 6 n
050 {C an approach better suited to 8 ur:J’.tax‘y s
. 0 uphold t concept of two nations, called
que llon by Mr. Trudeau.

As a gas uro of compromise, M2 udeau indicated
Lhn Qufibep propnsa] would bo’uc6“’ a 0 to the f;
gov, me , on twn wand tions. Y stly, Quéhec cmuld

either re lace the woxd “people” contained in the fourth
indentation with “%0Cimty” or, alt -natively, acc pt

the use of th< sion “Canadian people”. Secondly,

Mr. Trudeau wa$ pxepurod rm make explicit reference to

the possibility of Canada b ing bro en up (although he
doubt d if such A reference would enjoy gene a1 nccewtance),
hzt .nce a <0 be made to the right of se)E— ons of a province. In rvply, fly. 1 esgu argued that provinces were coherent units un 1. federations which, in his view, could plainly be broken up. that Mr. Trud0au‘s cmpha 3 on the I – a con.‘itut10n did not give jciont wniqht to the notion 0f Canada as a feéeration. xprcssed go: I a_reement with Mr. Lévesque on this .1‘ $5122. ’x,’??% . H10. 52, (:7. C I’: _ ,;>zxz”e8. to
ping in mind

He mafia three prew
1 p sition on this

. t was committe‘
ondly, such a reform must
of Cflfl3da’S re inns ‘n {he natio. 1
, *0 expresged a .. fer Ce for repres-
of the regions, ag opposed to the

However, be indicated his
this matter furth r.

. njr»c;ion
Senate, p rhapg
‘ conferenc s.

‘ the feder

m;Lnr-,n t’. 1».
n pita]. Thi~
.a\ion of in
c ia J. g av

t the cornerstone o£ British
Con5LjL rional propos.”s h.s been the call

u da’s 1 ins stut‘ ms. He

tea h the Fathers

V arm two mawn . nct.ons; one,

to rfipresont proVin.. fl , gional interests so as to
provide a Conn or‘ to the overwhelming rearesentacion
of Ce ‘ ‘n in tne Hons: of Commons ané two, t
review slation. He contended that e

Iul 111 t F’ 0* those two goals.

unloqs Brit ‘5 r presentation
ctiun betv ?H the federal
WOI>Gfl. Bvcause of
.\€orm 9f the Upper House must be

of years, the British

a fir‘t step a Council

‘ propowed in the “Best
stare. This Council

ined list of subjects
ro f’; provinces, includj V federal

” jurisdiction, the passage

ed by the provinces 4e.g.,
to major boards ¢.n< ory gower «nd tie Benn tt indicated Lb a five region it had b ;.>téx“s’m1dc«zi to f;\.,3}U(.71(‘. czqxzex] ;’:x7<3\I. n rcpresen ‘ILLO
would be Jpointed my the$r provincia

‘3 the fwut that this Council
.rst step enly. He
‘ec:t.ead a commitmem;
to complete thL second Step, a
Uppmr Hou e, as quickly as possible.

x( and i.

vf em¢r’ ‘* . . Mr.
‘ had pr: fer)

,5″ )*<>:”m:m of

or firjtish Colnmbig stressed that
sacking in: her d centralization;

oppor unity to play a proper role


sport 0. hi arq mcnts, he cited a 1o’g
woncjes anfi crown corpuratjans, arguing
hians felt deprived of the represe ta»
that a pryvinco was ent tied to. fie made mention of
s thaL led to Brit sh Columbia’s entry into

fur the first time since Con£eder~



Confo«’icr:x(‘ion, .1‘. going that B itisih Columbia Com’:J’nue<‘£,
to f l qeographi ully, culturally and psy ologically
very remote from Ottawa. The Senate had .x1led to live
up 0 its int nded role as a regional Voice in tn»
d the fact t

‘ tion }.7ro<‘ess in his closf _ to complete the Confed .:v.Lc& dc1uoaL begun 109 years ago for British Columbia. To t . end, *’ utionod against the creation of a Chamber wi hout ‘ake of compromise. pnTpOSfi or meaning for the dcral qovox rcitciatcd .d(3.ral n:ommi . ,m to -2-‘ ona 1c>rosonLution in A .ccond chamber of Parliament. he
that the Senators had be=n very active in this
s as wall as in protecting regional intm
, no as a Brii’sh Columbian, he maintained that

certxx. of his provincial counterparts undermined their
case by consistontly overstatinq their grievances By

y of example, ha took issue with the Minister < Health’s LlOflS concerning British Columbian representation on 1 boards and commissions. arquing that in ‘ . ;Ly, Eritish Columbia was represented by a . L‘ proportion of posit ons. He also disputed the Minis . remarks concerning the importance of patronage in appoint- menrs to t . Senate. The Minis.or of Education for P~ince_fidward I sLr sscd e importance of theHco§ic it hand, g that over the course of the discussions held thus far, it had be omc apparent that the other 9] Von items under d1SCUSSiOn could, in various ways, relate to the natu . of ccnfral institutions. He expressed satisfaction with the fodorx] commitment to reform the second chamber in such a way as to strengthen regional input, although his province would ‘refer that the operative word he “province” not ”reqion“. ‘he Minister went on to explain that his government was of the opinion that, in many vxys, Ca ada‘s problems were not always related to the divisi~n ofi powc)§, but rather to the role of-the constituent parts of the ederation in central institutions. His government favoured an approach to Upper House reform geared to a “classic” notion of feficralism, that is, a second chamber based on tr‘ equality of the federation’s constituent parrn, comy cmenting the fix t chamber based on represcnta— ‘on by population. The Minister noted that his govern- mflnt placai more importance on the traditional legislative review funct on of the Upper House than did some other qovornments, since roughly 50% of legislation passed by Parliament would not be subject to the ratification unotion even Lhouqh this legislation was of extreme importance to the provinces (e.q., transportation, fiscal and tariff poli ies). Accordingly, he echoed British Columbia’s st nu ation that the second step of the reform p cuss as envisioned by the CCMC, the examination of the second Chamber’s legislative review function, proceed as quickly as possi b1 8 . Lou heed rai d two items of concern to his govern- reg .\q the British Columbia proposals. Firstly, he expressed the fear that a second chamber reconstructed along the lines suggested by British Columbia might thrn .en to supolant First Ministers‘ conferences. asiured Mr. Louqheed that his governw.nt’s 1 L} are in no way designed to eliminate First Aini tors‘ conferences. Rather, they would enable provinces to Lake action related to their concerns utilizing the 185. 1R6. E87. 188. * 48 ~ *mLodi41 in the propa:*ls. Secondly, sad !is uctanao .0 agree to a ed a r ence to the doc‘ ratory ,. . d to undex Sec ion 92(l0){c) O powers which Mr. Lougheed deemed archaic. .ion of H provlsion to assure thai f the éeclaratory power would ctfid. Mr. Bennett r plied tha, ls w5U§§:w?or the ISL time, provi ction from thc use of this power. , ‘ ‘LOQghgE§ exyr used parti” E support um} 3’5 p”c>v’s,ion- fox
ointments :0 na.iona) bodies, so as to ensu e

national, rather than merely federal,

the DNA Act,
fie oalleé for

opjnv” it the difficulties encountered
:5 in thalr attempts to reform tha Upp ~ House
»ne = the qualities of the present Senate
However, in the course of the discussions he a
, bx had been convinced of t . need to enhance
“;npuL into the national government in order to
ement the First nj5ters’ mechanism. He expressed
’emeut with sosals m-fie by Prince Edward Island

’ support for the views expressed

Br tlsh C Zumbix and Prince Edward Island, particularly
Iattcr. He agreed that the yresent formula for the

an obsolete one and expressed displeasure with
* ;‘>o;; en procedure. The Ministex of

a} Aff its for Québec notE5V?Eét there were
the form, compos. >n and

.g Senate and secondly, the way in which “713
amber would deal with the problem of dual ty.
govornm ts had yet to $tudy ederal powers
woulo relahe to the‘functions of a new
Because these questions had not yet been

x any d.}th, it would be difficuit, in the

ndmmh< uypor chambc would suit the Qu hec government. He concurred with the Cha’ nan‘s _‘. lon that such issues as the federal doclarator§ power could perhaps be studied in another round of talks. ecause of some of these unresolved issues, the Min‘ t r indicated that Québac would reserve weight Vnven to Québec in 5 new upper chamber. 1y, ho stated that as long as some measure of agreement had yet xched concorninq the division of powers in ‘ ‘1, and particularly with respect to fcaxicer’ ‘ , z*,’Ven|:,’Lon, the Qnébm: g«.’>vc~7 mnervt
‘=ssary $0 Continue to reserve its


progress had

bu I, demonstraL’
1 governments, He
oundland was also willing to be
.s Hssue.

i dioa
f exi

_ also axpressed satisfaction with the amount
schiev G over the past few wfieks. He
expressed the hogs that over the next few days, progress
could continua to he made.

indicated that he was sympathetic to the views
Brit; h Columbia. However, he expressed
some appx ‘ , arding the possible extent of the
powers rc idinq in an uppez chamber as outlined in the
He was of the oyinion that other agenda items

U ring on +he actual powers embodied in a
second hamber. Mr. Davis undo lined his
to be flexib1e’on mhi issue.

,.A(N7]L , . <> ¢
hould be to strenq
He also concurred wi
question of the Senate should b discussed bea2′
‘h0 distribution of powers bet en the fed.
ts‘ with res cc:
the proviajon that had been con
vidinq for annual meetings of F
Conn ctaon with Bill C-60, he x
through the hill to cor ct numer cal 1 bake ces
ional repr ‘enfation. Wi, respect to memh shin
ed Uppr House, he noted that governments w
cuss zuy her the issx of whether each prov
should hu\e an equ 1 number of n hers or if regions should
L .sLitu\e the ba ‘ of representation. Addi?ionally, he
noted the need to resolve the issue of whether the people
of u provjn e or the governments of the provinces should
be repr senL>i. H stated that his government was not of
” ‘ uni the rman system of governmer
ion was he >sari1y suitable for Cane

SC Ministers.
called his qove

alled that in Bill C~60, his govern-
ment had tended touhrd peoplc—ba5ed represents: on without
of provincial governments to appoint
indicated that in the livht of
thu., unresolved es, he felt that First Min; ,ers were
not yefi Arepnred to agree on what orm a new Senafe should
rake, although he wished to assure the Premiers that this
subject would not be sidetracked.

Senators. Mr. ’1‘z‘u{1e

that his government had eve”
. K ix: to ‘upport the British Columbia proposal on

the >asie of each province having an equal numbez of
membc 3 JR the Council of the Provinces and the app0in¢-
mnnt of members by the provinces. Mr. Lougheed stat d
tmat he would the rfore have dif’xcu1ty with the alt
Live approach 5 suggested by M1. Trudeau.

indjent-1 hhat his remarks were an out .10
native ap; L1ChES to reform. He emphasize} that
– q vernment had not rejected the British Columbia
proposals; it was simply sugges .1g that the implications
of these proposals be explored further.

suggested that the matter be discussed further
wlng day in pr’vate session. Mr. Trudeau

that he was to agree to the Brf?T§h’Col mbia
n, it would effectively constitute agreement wieh

Bennet suggested that
arm would be

in the event of such an int im solution a


C? ‘e could be placed on both the
Council of the Provinces. If,

we end of that pt
boon nompl tzi, both entities would be abol
a rman n i<1ted that the discussion on this subject would 33 con lnued the next day. Section 96 of the B.N.A. Act 194 ¢ ; 196, F to the Supe He chm: ointc& g ov ernmen t >a e& to surrender its >ointment power,
ought to devote some :,:e in the near future,
in the next rouné of constitutional fiiscussions,
ing the rake of yrovinc ‘ibunals.

> ted his government with
my Untarxo.

.vmpathy for provincial concerns w’:h
adminjg rative tribunals, 1 Tr an gave
5 why he fo.t that the solutioE”?b thfs pxobl
did not lie i‘ tho abolition of Section 96. Firstly,
certain .:n5 would ensue re, rding the relation-
’1 Supe.ior Cour to federal and provincial
ecordly, hi9 government wzs 0‘ the opinion t it
divi.1< of powers, prox ing fior the . ‘nw

‘ tice 1 the provinczs while leaving the
h the fed al Government, was
to its c0unL:1vaiIing features.
5$od that his government was
. pos$ibility of a provincial
. in the nomination mf judges. It was his
, ” ‘ that a solution to the difficultic$
raised by th: provinces could he and without abolishing
the present system. As Chairgan, Mr. Trudeau suggested
that this question cou1d’hlso E3 discussed the next day.

< 1 V$,$’_i!$fiII$1$$ §_ISCRE’.I‘AP.IA’l‘ hO’l l97. 198. 199. ‘>




Following the adjournment of their
diSCU$alODS on September llth, First Ministers met
in private at 24 Sussex Drive, on Friday,
September 12th. The conference was reconvened in
public session in the morning of September 13th,
for the purpose of closing statements.

At Lhc invitation of the ghairman, each Premier made
a cl ing statement outlining his views on the out-
come of the conference discussions.

Noting the mixture of optimism and apprehension which
he had felt at the beginning of the week, Mr. Dav‘
zd his disappointment in the results of th con—

. Although Canadians now had a more comprehensive
under nding of the items under consideration, it was
evidunt that provinces were divided on a number of issues
hecau$e of different conceptions of Canada. He reiterated
what his opening remarks had stressed: that constit —
tional reform would not be achieved unless the pursuit

of provincial goals was moderated by a concern for the
natio ul qood. several issues were important to Ontario:
patriation, economic union and basic rights; but none

took precedence over reaching consensus.

Mr. Davis 1isLed those items upon which he thought
agreement had nearly been attained: communications,
amending formula, family law, Supreme Court and equal-
ization. Several other items, however, had proved to
be stumbling blocks. He indicated his support for the
proposal to increase the influence of the provinces
through a new [ or House, but stated that he could not
accept that thn exclusively provincial body should have
the pou.r to veto federal legislation. He emphasized
the not to strengthen the Canadian economic union,
arguing that ten provincial governments working in
iaolation could not match the potential of a strong

Ca adian economy. He described the proposed Charter of
RighLs as one which achieved a balance between the tra—
ditions of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law,
and made specific reference to the reasons for entrenching
language of education rights. He took issue with the
view that self-determination should be recognized in a
new constitution arguing that a nation could not be
built with “an array of escape hatches”.

Mr. Davis emphasized that Canada was greater than the
sum of its parts and that Ontario’s vision for the
country included a strong federal government capable of
taking initiatives on behalf of all Canadians. He
concluded by proposing that First Ministers reach agrce—
ment on one fundamental item, patriation, and stated
that although Ontario would prefer patriation with an
amending formula, it felt the time had come to act
whether agreement on a formula could be obtained or not.

expressed regret that Mr. Trudeau had not

. . . ed closing statement first so provinces
could see whether he had altered his views of the previous
day. If he had not then the conference, in Mr. Lévcsque‘s
view, had xmlcd hncnx of federal intransiqence.
Mr. Lévesquc reviewed the events of the referendum
campaign, the speeches made by Mr. Trudeau and other
federal representatives and stated that Québec, and
indeed all Canada, had been promised meaningful change.



Th f % was the understanding or the yrovince‘ was
d monstrated at the Premiers’ xnual Mae? g in Winnipeg
when they haé E f rmed the need for cons ztutional xeform
,1 the aspirations of Québecors. He noted that
a provincial consensus had been reached on several items
and made specific re >rence to offshore resources,
communications, amexding formula and charter of rights.
Mr. wnflerlined Québec‘s particul 3 concerns in
eciaily aflamant in hos opposition

of righ.s. He emphasi’.d that
t on exclusive provincial jurisfliction
ion woulfi be tolerated. 1n_an attenmt to
yse fhe lack of progress, he sugcested that two
ptions of fedaraiism had been vxdcnt in the
ctions’of the provincial and federal governments.
The feaeral govurnment, on one hand, supported a concen-
tration 0’ power at the centre; most provincial governments,
on the othur hand, preferred a “complementary federalism”
which respected the strengths of all partners. Re
concludcd by emphasizing his opposition to patriation
without .ubstantive agreement on other issues and vowed
to . qht it with all available legal means.

_ _W§ggh§ggn payed L. bute to the sincerity, determina-
Lion and hlg debate which had been evident
fxroughout t ”ence. Their discussions hafl con»
bated to an increased understanding of positions and

5 fact augured well for the future. Mr. Buchanan
noted that Nova Scotia had approached the conference

with firm convictions and a moderate outlook, and had
been vohci‘ t in its support for equality among provinces.
And yet, despite the fact that all governments had com-
promised on former positions and consensus had been
reached on several it ms, they had failed to reach an
agreement. Mr. Buchanan indicated that his vision for
Canada dcmanfied strong federal and provincial govern~
ments fully capable of discharging their responsibilities.
Reconciliation of the interests of these two orders of
government was and would continue to be the task of

First Mixxsters. He predicted that with continued

effort, federalism woulfi be renewed.

Hatfield emphasized that the positions which he had
Eékéh dx 13E thei discussions were based on his con-
viction that it was necessary “to secure the confidence
of all Canadians in Canada”. In his view, the public
dcbate had promoted understanding, lessened divisions

and had thus paved the way for future agreement. He
encouraged the press to continue the process of informing
C‘ adians so that politicians could have confidence in
thc pub1ic‘s grasp of complex issues. He noted that
their debates had led to:

1. i creased support for a new Upper House
so that the provinces could exercise more
influence in central institutions;

acceptance of the need to protect minority
language rights anywhere in Canada; and

3. recognition of the right of Canadians to
‘five and work wherever they chose in

Although their deliberations had not led to an agreement
Mr. Hatfield stated that they had at least contributed
to “cnan_ mg the perception that Canadians had of their



i 5) i
country… for the better“ and this, in his view, was
a posi. ve achievement. He concluded by in. rminq F1

Minis ers that he would recommend to his government U
patri tion of the constitution with an amending formula
requiring the consent of all eleven governments.

h gggg began by reviewing those items upon which agree—
h’l seemed p ible at the beginning of the we k:
hore resources, qualization, fisheries, communications,
Supreme Court, the principle of an economic union and a
system of national enforcement of maintenance and child
custody orders. He acknowledged that although certain

0 .er ‘ ues had not held any promise of early agreement
there had been a strong possibility of achieving a

modest package of reforms. That this had not taken place
was due, in Mr. Lyon‘s view, to federal intransigonce in

the face of substantial provincial agreement. He noted

the similarity between the actual result of the conference
and that forecast in the federal strategy document, and
eylrcssed regret that no federal representative had seen
fit to disavow-the intent of that document.

Despite the failure to achieve agreement, Mr. Lyon
emphasi’.d the progress which had resulted from their
deliberations. There now existed provincial agr ment
on communications, the principle of equalization, offlshore
r- ourcve, specific par 3 of the family law proposals,
fisher‘ and an amending formula. Near consensus had
been reached on resource ownership and a charter gf
rights. That this was possible in light of the
province ‘ widely varying histories and current
o*perienc. .ifiod to the fact that they shared

a Vlslfln oi tan ha, a vision that embraced pride in
province and region and pride in Canada.

Mr. Lyon noted that he understood the federal government
might now consider patriating the constitution unilater-
ally with an amending formula requiring unanimous consent
for changes. He suggested that this not be done until
ag‘eemc1t was reached on a package of reforms. The

.ons of the past week were only a failure if

vi wed . the context of an unrealistic timetable and
First MihlSLf” had a responsibility to continue their
efforts. He “uggested that First Ministers meet again

in Winnipeg early in the New Year, and that governments
use the intervening months to re~examine their positions.

_ Benn ” emphasized that the value of conferences
such as he one they were concluding was that they gave

to the people of Canada a chance to hear their leaders

sp ak about the spirit of the country and the aspirations
of the provinces and regions. As a result, all Canadians
could better understand the diversity of Canada and the
deeply felt needs expressed by the Premiers. He noted
that he had come to the conference prepared to reach
agreement on all twelve items and convinced that all
Premiers must be satisfied that their aspirations had
been met. That the talks had failed was a result of the
fact that the Prime Minister did not share the Premiers‘
vision of Canada. He described the provincial consensus,
not as a power grab, but as an effort to fulfill the
intentions of the Fauiers of Confederation; an effort,

as well, to express the Voice of the people. He suggested
that if the Prime Minister doubted the commitment of
Premiers, he had only to reverse his position and test

IE (3 *3 .


gr word. He concluded by stressing that they mu$t
redouble their efforts in order to improve Canada for
all Canad ans.

qn expressed his conviction that acceytable
ons won 8 result from further efforts at constin
al. Far from being a failure the

‘~i forth a remarks‘ e den of
and goodwill and had only faxeed in term5
tic and nelfwimposed ‘ ctable. He under~
o.tance of their search for consensus,

‘ da was a mosaic comprised of many
quad that their task was fio arrive
hich co esponded to that real y. Tn
‘ ‘ ’ -pretation, he reminded %1rst
the RNA not had specified that the
federation was to “conduce to the
cos”. To ignore this fact, wae
concluded by encouraging Canadians

snoport .‘
N’2)j$‘ ”

to ignore history. H
to turn “inis seeming failure into a triumph for the
Canadian spirit”.

‘ 4enq1 expre sad disappointment that their dis~
L,.. .ns had not concludeé more sucC”sful1y. fie noted,
however, tn t in perspective the con rence would be

‘ n as a necessary step in the proceae of constitutional
ewal. He acknowlcdgea that the Quebec refierendum
had underlined the need fior reform but argued that
reform was necessary to respond to the aspirations of
I Canadians. In his view, responsibility for the
ilure of negotia IONS lay with all First Ministers who
‘ enough. Contxibuting factors
eral strategy memorandum and the fact
sad seemed to be two~fold: constitu~
anadians and satisfacnion of the
, with the means for me


reme Court, equal 2, family iaw,
oxfsnore xesouxoes, pnzriation and amending formula,

as well as scum aspects of powers over the

economy, oommunicatians and charter of rights. Because
of this progress, the week could be deemed to he a
partial succees. He warned, however, against using the
lazk of ag out on a total package as justification for
vrecipitate action by any government anfl stressed that
the task t, had set themselves had been too large for
the time allotted.

while cautic g against too much haste. Mr. Dlakeney
suggested tau; some action on patriation of the consti~
tution m ant be consid~red. He emphasized his objection
to any attempt to patL3at\ the conscitutinn in such a
way as to 4 nge the posi ion or powers of the provénces
without the v consent. Re acknowledged the Huggestlon
that the constitu xon be patriated with an amending
formula which specified_unanim¢ty, but argued that
Canadians would then have a difficult time changing
their constitution in the future. with respect to other
on the agenda, he suggested that First Ministers
pause to reconsifler their positions and consult with
their constituents.





Q _ggn3hgod noted thaL all First Ministers had pa‘ icipated
ii the con erence with the intention of strengthening

the unity of Canada. He described the provincial con-
sensus which had been worked out prior to their private
sessions with the Prime Minister as a reflection of their
profound respect for the aspirations of others. That

they had not been able to obtain the agreement of the
federal glvernment was due to the existence of two
fundament.lly different conceptions of Canada. The

crucial qu tion, in his view, concerned “who should

make the do isions that affect the lives of people“4

He stated that that prerogative should reside with demo-
crat; ally elected representatives, not court‘, and
underl.ned the djf culty of reconciling na’ nal interests
‘*1 regional im evatives. The feeling of tension and
ation in the country testified to the fact that

ons made by the national government were of ‘
confillct with the as_‘rations of the people in the regions.
Unfortunately, the conference had not been successful in
redr>ssing that situation; it had however contributed to
increased public awareness of the strengths and diver-

sity of the country.

Mr. ugheed made reference to several items under con-
sideration and articulated his position on each one:

1. he expressed support for patriation of
the constitution, but said that uni-
lateral patriation would pose a grave
threat to the federal system;

2. he was disappointed that the Vancouver
consensus on an amending formula had been
rejected by the federal government;

he stressed that most provinces felt that
riqhts were best protected by legislatures;



he emphasized that the question of resources
was important both in principle and in terms
of jobs. He noted that the steady encroach~
ment of the federal government in the
resource area was a cause of western dis-
content; and

he saw merit in British Columbia’s proposal
for a Council of Provinces.


Mr. Lough: d concluded by predicting that the existing
consritutlon would be put to a severe test in the coming
months as the negotiations on energy proceeded. He
stressed that the islue at stake was whether western
Canadians would perceive themselves to have been treated
equitably and fairly‘

d expressed his regret at the failure of

rs to reach agreement and indicated that
’empt1ng to stra.:jacket constitutional evolution,
aural government was frustrating the leg timate
rztions of the provinces. He reiterated N wfound~
nnos’s chief objective in the negotiations: to obtain
~rn1 recognition that offshore resources should be

– Led, constitutionally, in the same way as those found
on shore. This, unfortunately, had not been accomplished
despite the existence of a provincial consensus on the
matter. He referred to the resource transfer legislation
of 1930 and argued that those acts had come into being


“to a position of

‘HP oyig&u4I yrovinces of Canaan“.

980 was simply asking ’>r the same
‘:o‘3ed those provinces in 1930; not special
.1;al treatment.


i. re tme n i.
treatment but

Mr. Pcckford in vatéd that throughout the constitutional
disco io %, ‘empted to recognize

the pmioxi ‘ ‘ federal
wove s,.rch for a balanced fed

‘6 mm o tne views ofi othe
meats, atedly shown great fie xbility. with
resp had made Si ‘ ‘ compromises

in c1osud
I3 ut
4: on 3. <1 be nu dz? had “no manda tution“. act to offshore resources, no concession ’~aus@, as Mr. Peck‘ord emphasized, he .0 cnshrine inequa“.ty in the CODSti* the disc -sions among Premiers prior :0 the p;1vat. sass‘ w,,h the firime Mini5ter_had ‘ to him highly . gnificant and had demonstrated ?exibj?’5y of all provincial governments, including irred to the two visions of ed by Mr. T dean and Mr. Léve$que, in an& aligned himselfi with Mx. I vesque’s . fie b ” the fiiversxty of the country, xny it ms would be moxe amenable to solution through Lxe use of admixia tive agreements than through constitutional entrenchmc Mr. Peckford stressefl the i ance of arriving at agreemwnts based on Consensus no indicat 1 than §,‘()U(~‘~7CX’\m&‘ X‘) C . 1:‘: x-maid sccasul. t d ibat tL. . :edora Views 1 neé unchanged, fmi ‘ as Filst Mlnlsters to reach dgrecncnt on COnutitUtiOHal r.form. vith respect to the ‘nccs that had beax made to the “federal strategy document”, he raid thflw an honest examination of the document ‘ndica ed clearly that the fiederal preference had boo; to achieve success. The Prime Mi istcr reviewed the concessions which the .~doral qove nment had been willing to make so that an agreement might be reached: 1. had offered to transfer jurisdiction famj, 1 y 1, aw ,- 2. they had offered,.with r spect tc resources, tde right to_impose indirect $axes and share in the area of interprovincial trade; 3. they had proposed a transfer of juris- dic,ion over inland fisheries and sedentary species; 4. they had of red to the coastal provinces 100% ‘” the revenues from the development of of shore resources until they achieved “have status”; m . they had of .red to share jurisdiction over communications, giving, in the area of cable, a major share of the power; 6. they had aqroed v.vitZn the proposal submitted gy the provinces with respect to the Supreme Court; 7. they had agreed that the principle of equalization should be entrenched in the constitution; and 8. with rospecl to the SenaLo, they had been ‘no si cc 1969 that a new formula be “oped to permit increased representation of the regions. (hon reviewed the provincial response to federal priorities and proposals. Provincial governments had not been willing to agree to the ontrenchment of either: l. provisions which would guarantee the existence of a free and open Canadian common market; or 2. a Charter of Rights. This lack of agreement was due to the fact that they were inspired by dif erent views of Canada. According to one view, the n; onal common good was the sum of the best interests of all provinces; what was para- mount was the maximization of provincial self~interest. In Mr. Trudeau‘s view, however, there existed a national interest which transcended regional or provincial concerns; Canada was greater than the sum of its parts and the naLional interest took precedence in cases of conflict. To illustrate this disagreement on basic precepts, he reviewed provincial proposals on the pre- amble, the Senate and an Amending formula: 1. The dr ft preambles submitted by provinces referred to Canada as a free association of provinces. This implied solf—detcrmination and differed substan- tially from the federal conception of Canada as a free association of peoples. Mr. Trudeau quest oned whether all the provinces that supported the preambles agreed with the implied concept of se1f~ determination. 2. On the reform of the Senate, the federal government had been asked to accept a proposal which gave the provinces the power to veto federal legislation while denying the federal government represen~ tation in the Upper House. 3. The provincial proposal for an amending formula contained an opting-out provision and did not allow for a final recourse to the people should governments fail to agree. Mr. Trudeau warned that this formula could lead to a checkerboard pattern of jurisdiction but indicated that his government would have accepted it if it had been the only area of dispute. fort intervened to clarify his concept of Canada. He noted thé he supported “a free association of provin- ces” and Mr. Lévesque’s view of a looser federation but w to N 224. an 8 _ did not advocate the concept of Canada that the Premier of Québec had advocated in the referendum. Mr. Trudggu emphasized that Canada was more than “a community of communities” and that Canadians expected their national government to act on their behalf. he underlined the importance of patriating the constitution and ontrenching language rights with respect to education. He noted the items on which there had been agreement and stressed that only the requirement for unanimity p“~Vented their entrenchment. He suggested to First Mlnlsters that if they could agree on patriation with an amending formula, then the Canadian people could take advantage of the progress which had been made. Otherwise changes of government and the need for unanimity on a total packago would continue to exfiend the process interminably. The Prime Minister indicated in light of the results of the conference he would now be recommending to Parliament a course of action designed to begin the process of constitutional renewal. In response to Mr. Trudeau‘s Comments, Mr. Blakene stressed Saskatc’ en’s View that the natlonal interast was of orimary importance. The difficulty lay in defining that interest and determining how consensus should he arrived at. Although it was clear that the national interest was not the sum of provincial or regional priorities, neither was it represented by the majority will of Parliament. Canada was neither a confederation nor a unitary state; it was instead a federal state and consequently a double majority was required. The problem‘ was that there was no effective forum for the exyression of the regional will. The Second Chamber did not reflect it and so federal-provincial conferences had developed as a result. It was one of the tasks of constitutional renewal to address this situation, and arrive at some solution. fie concluded by emphasizing that any View of Canada which excluded either order of government from the determination of the national interest would not inspire effective constitutional ronewal. ggjournment of the Qonferencg an adjourned the conference. The g; APPENDIX A September, 1980 FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF THE FIRST MINISTERS ON THE CONSTITUTION AGENDA RESOURCE OWNERSHIP AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE COMMUNICATIONS NEW UPPER HOUSE, INVOLVING THE PROVINCES SUPREME COURT FAMILY LAW FISHERIES OFFSHORE RESOURCES EQUALIZATION CHARTER OF RIGHTS PATRIAT1ON AND AMENDING FORMULA POWERS OVER THE ECONOMY I Economic Union Trade and Commerce THE PREAMBLE/PRINCIPLES FEDERAL~PROV(NC]AL CONFERENCE OP RS ON THE CONSTITUTION l7′.IRS‘l‘ M LNI.‘ September 8-13, 1980 Ottawa The Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau Prime Minister The non. Allan Macliauhc-n Deputy Prime Min star and Minister of 1¢nanco =n Chrétien of Jus ‘ce, Attorney General of Canada and ter of State for Social Development The Hon. Senator H.A. (Bud) Olson Ministox of State for Economic Development The Hon. liezrbert Gray Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce The Hon. Daniel MacDonald Minister oi Veterans Affairs Thh Hon. Marc Lalmndc Mjnistcx of Energy, Mines and Resources SvnaLor Raymond Porrauit Government Leader in the Senate Hon. R Ménjst d ‘J“ec‘vmc>.§o:_;y anfi
imv mt

1 (:12 22:16} We:-.J.fare

H z: .

__ 0:3 131:: v.
Su9p3.y and Services

stmze and M.‘2.n.iSt r of Com:’num’.cat3′.0ns

5.: La 0 agzw
r of A(ti:>:m1 Def:-nce

‘1″ In (:-

– 0. ‘St.
Cmnad 1 an Whea


mm. (1ez’a].d Raga)‘:
Mini ‘ .. ‘ xbour and Minister of S’i:ai:.e for
5.«‘itne.<s.<.; slid An ur fspozrt

’I‘h(-3 lion. Marzr}: Maccuiggan

Se<:x'<>tz.n7y 03’: bizate for 122:: rnal Affairs

‘J’i’:r mm. R0136 *1; Kap3.an

Ro.«:pon.<;.i1fle for 1\1ulticuJ.Lura1isxn
‘F230 key
anzfl. R<.>.vemn=:

all Ilusizxess)





Hon. Lloyd Axworthy
MinisLer cf Employment and Immlgratzon

Hon. Paul Cosgrove
Minister of Public works

Hon. Judy Erola
Min.. ofi State (Mines)

11‘ amsmsezx S_L=-sreygrie.-,5.

Robin son
Par1′ xentary Secretary to
Mini of Just re, Attorney General
of Canada and Minlster of State for
Social Development


or of {Ix ice and Deputy
Gcmzxrzfl, 03’: Canada

P. M. PJ’tI:.i,

vy Council and

J. A. Coui.::s
P1*.in<:J.pa). S C *e‘ca1:y
Prime Minister SVO

P’i<—=v1(.- Juneau Ileputy Mjni.s1:or I)e;f.22rUnc>,nL of Communications


. ury
M3′.n.isi:z:y of stzzitc £037 }:‘.conomic Deve].opme»n1:.

A. (Eat) ieb _
l§n<3«‘:1‘~Sv’:. ,:».«:t;;ry of Stato for Exte-rnal Affairs

13. itawson
Deputy 1«i.i,n.i:5i;<2r .’~$j.nisi of State for Sociaxl. Development D. Love – Deputy M1′.r:‘ LC)? I-:2n;j>},o_y2nex:.., and .’l’mmig1fE3tiOn Czmada

‘.\.‘ih£i)Z ‘Les

mi Off; c.i.al Lang\1ages

Max Y,-2 ‘:,<‘$o H

<.,omm 1:.


R. Johnstanc
DepuLy Minister
Industry, Trade and Commerce

H , Label le
Under-Secretary of State
Secretary of State

Maurcwn O’N<

Status of Women Canada

6.8. Smith

Reeves Haqgan

Lard Veil1eux’
Nicholas Gwyn
Harry Strayer
Clovis Demers
Gerald T. Rayner
Frank Carter
David Cameron
Edward Goldenbcrg
Claude Lemclin
Alice Desjardins
Pierre Lefebvre
James Hurley
Fred Jordan
Barbara Reed
Edythe MacDonald
Robert Berqeron
J.T. Fournior
Alan Willis

Va] Travcrsy
André Juneau
Anne Moggs
Gordon Barnett
Charles McGee

Denise Hélisle

Vincent: Iii.
Sheryl Kennedy
Leonard Bellam

David Ablett

John Hylton
Allan Grossman
Richard Roberts
Richard Berger

Doug Clark

§§§pia1 Advisers
Michel Robert
Pierre Genest
Ron Watts
Raynold Langlois
Gerald Godsoe

Robert B. Bryce

Z“2’<_:«3 G1‘ bson
vnhiva D5

(2 J

1’1’ i ck (‘§<>:;zssa<_,; F1
.3 im Ciczcms

Tom z‘\\’\~Io:v: L hy

ole Sonoc‘.

Marie Portj r
iienr W13 5 L J and

SC1mm’*’t 2

A. F::11′<:»‘z1 0

Ruth Unrrfick

Bruce Anderson

G .i c; L} nt es
‘.Y‘m‘)r‘,v K<=}1el‘.<3:”


<1Lhn\:>.n St

3:61:25 13{>].anqez‘

1“.n.>)3<)z: a 21 Coy no

‘en MacKay
John Kitz
Elie Lalancette

<3; I.an<_‘;i,?.,.’! ]i‘rm In 0 (Eu:-‘=x‘:4;> L L L’:

Jeanna Viau
Donna Stabbing
Claire Dennis
Cam Trottman
Allan Fraser
T. O’Reilly
John Jones
Ward Elcock
George Tough
Bob Reade

Gus MacParlane
André Dulu&e
Jeff Goodman

Cécile Viau


Tho }lnn. W§.1.1j.am G. Davis

The U0!’ i1om:1s L. Wc:.11s~; k‘
Min1StOT of Intergovernmental Affanrs

‘mm Hon. R. Roy MCN rtry ‘
]I.L‘.;o:.‘n(.{y Gcrnctral of Ontario

The 110::

J‘-‘rrzn,‘r: :5. 1’-’x.i.!.io7‘
asmrvg of Ont: ,‘.iL>

‘Nu: ucm. R0n<:v ]31‘ur(-‘H.(:
Provim:iaJ. Secretary for Resources Dc-zvelopment

My i $955.

13. E. .‘$t.n\~Ia1″t
Dcput_y I-.nisl:c1:
Offi<:c of: the Premier: and
S crotary of the Cabinet

D01) W. – St0V@l’lSO.I‘.\ .
Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affalrs

H. Allan Leal
Deputy Attorney General

Hugh Sega].
.<‘>e:c:::eLary of Policy and Prioritlezs
l,’so;n”d of (.:,1.sino1:

L‘(l\v.\.rd D. Grczsxthod
L~).\:<:z:ul:i.v<.: l)i.rL:Cto1’ Mini: ;:y of In(;ergov«2x:nmcn1:a1 Affairs; Z‘.’os‘1\\n1‘. S].>(‘(‘KL7!’
L‘,\’ouu(:1\/c-, l)1’r‘or:r.ow:
(Ion 1\.un’.<:aL,i<m. M\ .sLr_y of ’1‘7.‘dxx,<3p<,>rt:ation and Coxnmunicafions

Gary P013011
Dix or
M.’Ln1′.::i.1‘y of Intur§;0v«:7Inn1enI:aJ. Affairs

J<>.m Ri,0[.>Q]
Advi or
Mjn.i..»L’.w:y mt’ ‘Lutergovrzrnmcnlzdl. Affairs

John Cnvarx
Ministry of the Attorney General

D;zv.id N\m<1c=.1.1,
‘ ‘u1 C<,>uz:s;e1
,h(: éxrztzcwxuey General

iz.civu.)méy (:onms.i1;tee on Confzczderation

Wa]i:ex* Beat]:
Municipal Li.ais5<>n Committee

Yuzri Shymko
Ixdviscury Council on Mult1’.-Culturalism and


Council for Franco~Ohtarian Affairs

17.12% i :3 .1‘: 1, 1 5:)’:

Pc; ‘5 <> 27 Ba ‘L 09

))orcr.=n C(.31zzm,H

I‘<z’>i,n’«:r 1. (may

L. ll)’ .H.><‘.>I”P

.1. . 1L:>rsw.i. 1]

no mi :‘4;::; ice 1.

Lm ,~‘£’xi,:\.62 Rafi‘


The Hon. Rex . Lfzvczsque
Promi <31‘

The Hon. (i dude Mo1″.1’n V
Minisfer of Intergovernmental Affairs

The Hon. Jacques Pnrizeau
MinisLer of Finance

The non. Claude Charron

Ilouso Leader
Minister responsible for Parliamentary Affairs

The Hon. Yves Bérubé
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources

The Hon. Bernard Landry
Minister of State for Economic Development


Pierre fie Bcllefeuille
‘ Pa1JiumPnLary Assistant to the
Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

rotary General to the Executive Council
Department of Communications

Robert Normand
Deputy Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

Rene Dussaulh
Deputy MinL

ter of Justice

Rnynali Bornier
1-ix c:u(;.1’vc A.-3. ‘
Minister 0.

Lant to the
.ato for Economic Development

x‘~1j.(:hs>.1 I..<.-guc:rrim’ 13>. cu ive Ass’

GraLia O‘Lear
Pro A is ant
l’remi<~:r ‘ 5 Of. . 5 1.ar:.>ci\o1]e
PET(3SS .7’ stzmt to the
M>I.ni:> or of ¥v‘iz7anc(é

B ;-mob

‘ “0 Beauduin
DJ‘ re-mtoxr of the ()ff‘i.<:e of the
Mini tor of Int ovczrnmental Affairs

Jan‘: Samssor:
Dfrettor of Legal Scrvicess

Dupe i*mc2nL of Into.3ove:nmeni;al Affairs

I.<>m‘.s L<-zcouzrs;

itutional Afi rs
Lntxzrgovermnen La]. Affairs

l)z2par1.,nxc2n1; of

Jamqucs Lacroix
Dir ‘tor of liconomic and I”inz=mcial Affairs
D( fruem: mf Int ‘governmental Affiairs


Kézahr 3,01 La1,r.m_d0

Dc.:part’mem: of Co:mm. :i,<::1tions (,i:i.H>ert; I.’I-icuyer
Canad ) Affiairs Branch
1)e:pzu”t;n.<2n.’c oi’: Inizerguvexnnxental. A:Ef’

.7<3;1n-Pan]. 1’2‘ ”
Special A<‘1\’iSOY.‘

inc 1;ag,‘a<“3
Dcpazrtmeni: oi Ilintczrgovcaztnmrsntal Affairs

. rs Branch

D<:pa.‘tnumt of Intergm/errninontal. Affairs

Adv 3. r


I-‘xary Pmice

Luc Iiéb£:1.’i.

R01: L I-‘ournier
Jozm~(3uy Guérin
Ronald Clmvalier

Nm’n\;m41 Ma:i.nv.’xlJ.e

Jacques wells

F mund 15. Mm:
Minis ex: 01.‘ K“iS}!C).’i(“
IntL2rgo\7<:rx1n\<2n 0 1“ Ed m’: a ti on Drlncigiral A: stzlm; to the Premiezrr Jose}.>I1 H. C1 rke
Secretzaxy to the Executive Council

i\r‘c.hnr R. Dormhoe,
Chaixrmzm of B0
Select Corns‘ ..

ca of Assembly
.e<—e an Constitutional Matters Deputy Mjn. cm‘ of Policy Board C-lozinion C01 ‘ Ix‘L,&.ox-nrray General wiliiiam SI ’ ty I\’;inisi;9): 0&3 Mines l.>.(3.L. I-‘r:\.»:c::
to the c1onstituti.ona3.

T:1>:ai:ion and Fiscal. Relations


L£1\«/).”k,‘.I1C(2 0′ Nei 1.
Executive Assistant to the Premier

Go.o!:g<-.’ ‘P. H. Coopez,‘
Ad\.h :

W<2m‘x<~11 Phfiknmry

Van Penick

Philip Teasdale
Department of Mines

.5_}1I;’.P.‘.’.’Lt 1’<2§§<2zI_r1e_1_

Nancy Kinsman


The km. 1’h'<:}1z‘:::(‘i liaitfielfl
1-‘rm: ‘

‘j’h<,> lion. Roc’im;m I,<.7g:xn
isf.L<2s’n<§y 1,; m3x‘z:1

The Hon. Ilrrcmdn Robmrtstm
Oh man of Select Comm:I.ttee on Constitxxtional Reform

The Hon. Jr-2an—MaLuic:<‘—~ 9imar<‘l
()h.’ziz:xrmn oi’. the ‘1‘: zzxsury Board

imrjcy ‘l‘D<>.},e
DC-putty Stacrezta y

to Cabinet {Policy & Pxriorit ies)

(lorrdozx G,‘e<3ory
De pu ty

nistcr 01’ Justice.

. Umw i son
Coo :;i.12L.xt’o.r of Int,ot’go\/mrnxrxenizal Affa’rs

Alan Reid
Leg 5…lat ivc Counsel

Bxrucu (Judah
Solicitor, Z)<3pe:“Ln\<;=.nt of Justice Cfscznmtd Special. Isfivisoy: on 1>.i,shcries




(Iampbe 1 1, (‘.<>:‘d(m
Special A553
Prr2m1’e.r‘s ()ft_,cc-2

Russ McKean
:1stnnk to the Premier

I:.><c3<:n Li Vt’ I Chiof Normand Cjmon Union of Nuw Brunswick Indians 16. L‘9£5_7‘: ‘1‘he Hon. Sterling; R. Lyon Premier ‘1‘ho Hun. I>ons21<:‘ W. C3ra.i.‘y<
Minister of 1-‘immce and z~iinistcr of Energy and Mines

‘§’he lion. Gerald 92.3’. Mercier
Attorney Gem‘-zral. and 2-iinister for Urban A5

§\W<ivi=~ D.R.C. Bc>.:3s<>n
.,or}:’ of the L

.<2<:u1, ive C<>1mc.il

Ix. I(mrr Twaciflle, Conn:-sol
C<:nsti(:utional C(JnSultZi1]‘l‘.

Brian F. Squair, Counsel
Department of the Attorney General

11 Deputy I~£i.z1is‘c<>.r.‘
Departrneni: of Finance

Doug Smith
As .sL;mt Deputy M.inistc»>r
Departmem. oi.‘ Communictations

.’§c}mc~ i::z>r
ml Coun..<;ol 1)onz1ld A. I.(>’3.tc.’}x
Ilmzd, Policy Coo;:’d.inat,$.on Group

1201:-y.v) D3′.am<>n<3
(.‘.0un:3L2 1.

{Jim Ixzrx .
Mm. a R<—2lai:i.<dz25;:

Cr:::g<} Yo 1′,

LIJDC on Con.<si;.ii:ut5.on;\1 Mattfirzs
I7ep;n:t12u=ni: of the A1-.t:o::ncy General

pcgcial I\0\I.i.:3<.ar








1sR1g1_.<3_n COLUMBIA

Hon . W . R. B<2nna£;(:
Prc-.m i. 0 2:

Hon. C rde Gardom
Minister of Intergovernmental Relatxons

Hon. Allan Williams
Attorney General

Hon. K. Rafe Mair
Minister of Health

Hon. Hugh Cur
Minister of Finance

Hon. James A. Nielsen
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs

The Hon. Dr. Patrick McGee):
‘ tor of Universities,
Science & Communications

L.J. Wallace

Deputy Minister to the Premier
Mo1vin H. smith

Deputy Minister (Constitutional Affairs)

MinisLry of Intergovernmental Relations
R.H Vogel

Deputy Attorney General
Tony Wozer

ExaCuLivu Director to the Premier
Nina Gray

Secretary to the Premier
Hall Iejron

‘ cztrury
tho Frau


MLn1sLry of Intergovernmental Relations

Xiar0].<.1 Page
A. nt Dopuizy M
Mini.<3Lry of‘ U1‘-,3‘.v ‘ ‘

wistcr (Conm\unic2\tions)
Science and Con:mun:i.om:J.ons

Duty Miris :7 (Conservation)

I.‘J.w i <3 Bane 7: son

Ass .a=.tant Deputy Ministzrsr of Finance

Exran Evans-Atkinson
Director of Communications
MiniSt)”y of lntergovermnental Relations

Robert. Edwards
Ministry of the Kxttorxxey General

Norntan Tmtnow
Ministry of the mttorney General

Wnyrnc I§)oggett
Acting Director
Izcononxics and Policy Divj..’
Mim’.str_y of F.“iI1£iI‘lC(.E

y of fin!:<>.’c<_}(>\r’:-3.: mc-nfial. ‘Relations

Da V <3 M; >11 we

y of the At’l:oz.’ney Gcmeral,

(319 ,5’: Mi ‘r,chiaJ..1 –

J-:>u:cutivo ‘/X :,istzmt to the
‘ oi Univez:s1 . S,
5: Comr.:um’.r,:a Lions

§1}_x>x>o i5_l‘_ers’onn(—2l

I.)<1z:c:cn H:.>‘ghLo.c:

Dzxgfimc i?'<‘:lc}m;m

Bob A1‘: (3 L21’ on


The Mon. at Im<_}us Ma<:Leam Premier The Hon. Fred Driscol] _ Minister of Educat1on The Hon. Horace Carver Atztonxcy (;c:2r,>.1’a1.

The Hon. Barry Clark
Minister of Ton ism,
lndustry and E ergy


Douglas Boylan
Executive Council

Arthur Currie
Deputy Minister
a1 Assistant to the Premier

, Secretary to the Premier

Richard Gosso
Deputy ixtiiormzy Genera].

John Whyte
Con5tituLional Advjsor
Attorney Gcneral’s Department

Jack Kinzel

Ken Lysyk
Legal Consultant

George Taylor
Legal Consultant

I)i<:k Proc tor
Saskatchewan House

Jocelyne Rofly



The Hon. Fe

r Loughe&d

The Hon. Neil S. C awford
Attorney Gone.

Who Hon. nick Johnéton
Minxstcr af Federal and Intergovernmental Affalrs

The Hon. Dr. Neil Wobber
Assoc ate Minister of Telephones

Connie E. Osterman, M.L.A.


Harry B. Hobbs
Deputy Minister
Executive Council

u.w. slay
gty Attorney General
J. Pei Heekison

.puty Minister of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

James J. Seymour
Director of Government Relations
Department of Energy and Natural Resources (Ottawa)

Bob Giffiin
rvccutive Di”‘CtOI
Premier’s Oi

Leo Richa)
1).i.re.< .or
Prem1er‘s Southern Alberta Office

W . Honkel
‘ Assistant Deputy Attorney General

Oryssin J. Lonnie
Executive Director
Research anfi P anning
Del ,ment of Federal and Intergovernmental Affalrs



utJ’.V<} Di z”<:ct<.wr
a.dl Policy and Ecunomlc Analysls
Alberta Treasury

Brigitta Lowe
Di rer:(.<7r
Interna ‘0nal co—ordination
Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

Judy wi
Dix-c ,-tor, Ottawa Office
Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

Ken Hurricane
CommunicAtions Policy Branch
Department of Utilities and Telephones

Nolan Steed
Legal Counsel — Constitutional Law
Department of the Attorney General

Gail Armitage
Senior Intergovernmental Officer
Research and Planning
DeparLment of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

Grant Robertson
Senior Intergovernmental Officer
Research and Planning
Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

Joan Speakman
Senior Intergovernmental Officer
Research and Planning
Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

Garry Pocock
Research Officer
Resources and Industrial Development
Department of Federal and Intergovernmental Affairs

Ron Licpert
News Sc‘ ‘rotary
Premier s Office

lie-1xr.\1i’. M.’.1ch
I\dv… 21*
D0PHFfm0HP of Economic Development

Linda Butler
Norma Slctto
Sylvia Imrbcxfss
Delores Dincow

Walter Loshny


The Hon. A Brian Pcckford

The Hon. G. Ottenhcf
Attorney Gene 4.

The Hon. Leo Barry
MiHi&LGI of Mines and fine

The Hon. William Marshal]
President of the Council

The Hon. James Marc n
Minister of F1 heries

The Hon. Dr. John Culling
Minister of Finance

C.J. Abery
Dnputy Minister
Intergovernmental Affairs

Ronald D nncy
Depu y Mini: or
Dopu tment of Justice

Gordon Slade
Dczputy Minis Jr
Department of Fisheries

Steven Millan
cutivc Director
Petroleum Di ectoratu

Cabot Ma’tin
Senlo” Policy Advisor
Premx, ‘5 Office

J.G. F braid
ant Deputy Minigter
Intergovernmental Affairs

B. Knight
Intergovernmcntal Affairs


T. Grundy
Intergovernmental Affairs

J. Thistle
Department of Justice

J. Ashley
Department of Justice

Prank Petten
Prc”5 Secretary
Premier’s Office

A. Hewlett
Chief Executive Assistant
Premier’s Office

$113295 }?f:‘..¥.S.CL”‘..L 1

J. Brown


Edward J. Watson
Confgrcnco Secretary





Report of the Sub—Committee

Family Law

At the request of the Chairman of the Conference
the sub~committee on Family Law of the Continuing Committee
of Ministers on the Constitution was reconvened for the
purpose of considering what amendments might be made to
section 5 of the “best efforts” draft in order to attract

a fuller consensus on these provisions.

The sub—committee met on three occasions and it
now appears thaL the delegates of the Government of Canada
and all provincial administrations except that of Manitoba
are now agreed that section 5 of the “best efforts” draft

is acceptable.

The further deliberations of your snb-committee
have confirmed that Manitoba remains opposed to both the
transfer of divorce jurisdiction and the present text of
section 5 of the “best efforts” draft. Manitoba indicated
it wou]d be willing to accept a revised text of section 5
which would restrict the power of the provincial legisla-
tures to make laws with respect to the variation of orders

where there is a change in circumstances.


Prince Edward Island has joined the consensus in adopting

the yrovisions of the present section 5 but remains opposed

to the transfer of divorce j\ sdiction to the provinces.

All of which is respectfully submittgé.

Read less

1 Comment »

Leave a Reply