Document Information

Date: 1978-10-30
By: Richard Hatfield
Citation: Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers, Statement by the Honourable Richard Hatfield on the Constitution, Doc 800-8/029 (Ottawa: 30 October-1 November 1978).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

DOCUMENT 800-8/029

Statement by the Honourable Richard Hatfie1d
on the Constitution

NEW BRUNSWICK

Ottawa
October 30-November 1, 1978

I BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD ALL HAVE GREAT HOPES FOR THIS MEETING – HOPES THAT WITH A RENEWED CONSTITUTION OUR CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN CAN EXPECT THE FULL SATISFACTION AS CANADIANS THAT WE HAVE; HOPES THAT THE VALUES AND SYMBOLS THAT WE ALL HOLD DEARLY AS CANADIANS WILL BE DEEPLY ENTRENCHED IN A DOCUMENT THAT BECOMES A LIVING REMINDER OF OUR COMMON ASPIRATIONS; AND WE SHOULD ALL HOPE THAT WE CAN ACCOMPLISH THIS IN A GENEROUS AND COOPERATIVE SPIRIT.

THIS IS WHAT WE SHOULD EXPECT OF OURSELVES; THIS IS CERTAINLY WHAT THE PEOPLE OF CANADA EXPECT OF US.

[Page 2]

MANY PEOPLE SAY THAT THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT THE MAJOR PROBLEM IN CANADA; THEY SAY THE ECONOMY IS. I DON’T SUBSCRIBE TO THAT KIND OF PRIORIZING. BOTH ARE MAJOR PROBLEMS. BUT ONE REASON THAT MANY PEOPLE HAVE THIS VIEW SURELY IS BECAUSE WE AS PROVINCIAL AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS DON’T SEEM TO BE ABLE TO SIT DOWN AND WORK OUT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS. RATHER, WE ARE SEEN TO BE CONSTANTLY BICKERING, ALL THE WHILE ADOPTING HARDER POSITIONS.

OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS OR MORE, THERE HAVE BEEN SIX SERIOUS ATTEMPTS AT THE POLITICAL LEVEL TO DEAL WITH OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFICULTIES – THE PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE IN ALBERTA IN 1976, A FURTHER PREMIERS’ MEETING IN NOVEMBER IN TORONTO, THE PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE IN ST. ANDRENS IN 1977, A FURTHER PREMIERS’ MEETING IN MONTREAL IN FEBRUARY 1978, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT’s BILL C-60 AND THE REGINA PREMIERS’ CONFERENCE THIS PAST SUMMER.

[Page 3]

THIS IS THE SEVENTH ATTEMPT. I HOPE IT WILL BE MORE FRUITFUL. BUT IF IT ISN’T, THEN WE MUST TRY AGAIN, AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. WE MUST NOT GIVE UP. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A LAST CHANCE.

THE STRAINS THAT OUR CONFEDERATION ARE UNDER WILL NOT GO AWAY. WE MUST FACE UP TO THEM IN A PRACTICAL, POLITICAL MANNER. WE MUST BE PREPARED TO DEAL; WE MUST BE PREPARED TO COMPROMISE.

[Page 4]

TO DO THIS, WE MUST WORK COLLECTIVELY AS ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS. WE CAN NO LONGER AFFORD THE LUXURY, IF THAT IS THE WORD, OF A CONFRONTATION BETWEEN TEN PROVINCES AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THIS IS NOT THE WAY THE COUNTRY CAN BE ADMINISTERED, AND THIS IS CERTAINLY NOT THE WAY IN WHICH TO CORRECT OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DEFICIENCIES. I SUGGEST, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT THERE IS SOMETHING UNHEALTHY IN A PREDISPOSITION WHICH ACCEPTS WITHOUT RESERVATION THE ASSUMPTION THAT THERE ARE ONLY TWO POSITIONS ON ANY ONE CONSTITUTIONAL QUESTION THE POSITION TAKEN BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND THE POSITION TAKEN JOINTLY BY THE PROVINCES. NO ONE CAN WIN IN THAT SITUATION; THERE ARE ONLY LOSERS.

NEW BRUNSWICK, AS A PROVINCE, IS DEEPLY COMMITTED NOT ONLY TO CANADA BUT TO THE PRINCIPLE OF CANADIAN FEDERALISM, WHICH IS TO SAY, NEW BRUNSWICK IS FULLY COGNIZANT OF THE NEED FOR A NATIONAL GOVERNMENT WHOSE CONSTITUENCY IS THE NATION AS A WHOLE AND WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY IT IS TO SERVE THE NATIONAL INTEREST IN ALL MATTERS WITHIN ITS PURVIEW.

[Page 5]

THERE ARE NATIONAL OBJECTIVES AND THERE ARE NATIONAL PROBLEMS WHICH CAN ONLY BE EFFECTIVELY DEALT WITH BY NATIONAL INSTITITUIONS. IT IS INARGUABLE THAT EACH AND EVERY CANADIAN, IN WHATEVER CANADIAN PROVINCE. HAS NATIONAL INTERESTS, NATIONAL CONCERNS AND A SENSE OF NATIONAL CITIZENSHIP WHICH ONLY OUR FEDERAL INSTITUTIONS CAN SATISFY.

IT FOLLONS, THEN, THAT I, FOR ONE, AM CONCERNED BY THE WEAKENING OF OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS BY THE EMPHASIS UPON INCREASING REGIONAL FACTIONALISM WHICH IS A COMMON THREAD RUNNING THROUGH THE FEDERAL AND SOME PROVINCIAL PROPOSALS RELATING TO THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA AND THE HOUSE OF THE FEDERATION.

THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE PROVINCES OF CANADA HAVE NON SUBSTANTIAL AND, I BELIEVE, SUFFICIENT CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS IN ORDER TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE PROVINCIAL AND REGIONAL INTERESTS. TO PROPOSE, AS DOES BILL C-60, THAT MEMBERS OF CERTAIN NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WILL ALSO REPRESENT THESE REGIONAL INTERESTS IS TO ENCOURAGE FACTIONALISM AND DISCOURAGE THE FORMULATION OF NATIONAL POLICY IN LEGITIMATE AREAS OF NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

[Page 6]

I BELIEVE STRONGLY THAT NATIONAL ISSUES MUST BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF STRONG NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. SUCH WILL ULTIMATELY BEST SERVE THE INTERESTS OF EVERY PROVINCE. IF, HOWEVER, OUR NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ARE TO BECOME MERELY REPRESENTATIVE OF REGIONAL GROUPS AND FACTIONS AND ARE, INDEED, MANDATED TO DO SO, THEN THEY ARE ONLY TOO LIKELY TO BE DOMINATED AND REPRESENTATIVE OF THE LARGER REGIONS OF CANADA TO THE ULTIMATE DETRIMENT OF PROVINCES SUCH AS NEW BRUNSWICK.

IT IS PARTICULARLY DISTURBING TO SEE SUCH A COURSE PROPOSED FOR TNO NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS – THE SUPREME COURT AND THE SENATE, WHICH AS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED, DO ACT AS A CHECK UPON THE NUMERICAL DOMINATION OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE LARGER PROVINCES.

SURELY IT IS IMPORTANT FOR THOSE OF US INVOLVED DIRECTLY IN THESE CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS TO FOCUS ON THE ACTUAL PROBLEMS AND THE REAL DEFECTS IN THE CONSTITUTION AND THE MEANS OF RECTIFYING THEM. WE SHOULD NOT BE DISTRACTED BY NEBULOUS OR IMPRACTICAL CONSIDERATIONS.

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT A SIGNIFICANT DECENTRALIZATION OF POWERS TO THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL OR, CONVERSELY, A GREATER CENTRALIZATION OF POWER IN OTTAWA, SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ANY NEW CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT.

[Page 7]

I FIND SUCH CONSIDERATIONS DIFFICULT TO CONTEMPLATE. IT HAS BEEN MY PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE, AS A PROVINCIAL PREMIER, THAT BOTH LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT PRESENTLY HAVE ADEQUATE POWERS IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THEIR APPROPRIATE RESPONSIBILITIES. QUITE FRANKLY, THE PROBLEM AT BOTH LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT IS, MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, CREATED BY A REFUSAL OR AN INABILITY TO EMPLOY FULLY THE EXISTING CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS WITH SUFFICIENT SKILL AND IMAGINATION. THERE IS, AS WELL, A COVETOUS ATTITUDE ON BEHALF OF ONE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT TOWARDS THE POWERS OF THE OTHER LEVEL – A CASE OF THE GRASS ALWAYS BEING GREENER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL FENCE. IT IS MY POINT, AND MY BELIEF, THAT IT IS NOT THE DIVISION OF JURISDICTIONS THAT NEEDS REFORM IN THIS INSTANCE. WHAT IS REALLY NEEDED IS A CHANGE IN SUCH ATTITUDES.

THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT NEW BRUNSWICK IS NOT PREPARED TO CONSIDER THE TRANSFER OF PARTICULAR I RESPONSIBILITIES FROM OTTANA TO THE PROVINCES OR FROM THE PROVINCES TO OTTAWA. IT IS ONLY TO POINT OUT THAT NEGOTIATIONS ON SUCH MATTERS SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT AS A NHOLE THE PRESENT DISTRIBUTION IS GREATLY OUT OF BALANCE.

[Page 8]

ONE OF THE BASIC PRINCIPLES OF OUR CONFEDERATION HAS BEEN THE REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH FROM THE MORE ADVANTAGED AREAS OF THE COUNTRY TO THE LESS ADVANTAGED. THIS PRINCIPLE WHICH MAKES CANADA UNIQUE AMONG WORLD’S FEDERATIONS HAS BEEN REALIZED THROUGH EQUALIZATION, WHICH HAS CONTRIBUTED IMMEASUREABLY TO THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT AND STABILITY OF OUR COUNTRY.

THE DETERMINATION TO SHARE THE BENEFITS OF OUR COUNTRY THROUGH THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUALIZATION MUST BE ENTRENCHED IN OUR NEW CONSTITUTION.

AS RECENT EVENTS SHOW, MR. CHAIRMAN, IT MUST NEVER AGAIN BE SUBJECT TO THE WHIMS OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE DAY.

WITH RESPECT TO THE FEDERAL PROPOSAL TO INCLUDE IN THE CONSTITUTION A CHARTER OF RIGHTS, I HAVE ONLY TO STATE MY BASIC AGREEMENT WITH THE PRINCIPLES. NEW BRUNSWICK HAS ALREADY GIVEN AN INDICATION OF ITS POSITION ON THESE MATTERS THROUGH SUCH LEGISLATION AS OUR OFFICIAL LANGUAGES ACT AND OUR HUMAN RIGHTS ACT. I WOULD ONLY HAVE THE CONCERN THAT THE INTENT OF THESE PROVISIONS BE MADE AS CLEAR AS POSSIBLE SO THAT, IN FACT, CERTAIN RIGHTS OF ALL CANADIANS ARE INDEED BETTER SECURED AND LESS SUBJECT TO CONTROVERSY AND ARBITRARY JUDGEMENT. I DO ACKNOWLEDGE, HOWEVER, THAT THE PROVISIONS SET FORTH ARE GENERALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FEELINGS OF MOST CANADIANS AND WORTHY OF INCLUSION IN ANY REFORM OF THEIR CONSTITUTION.

[Page 9]

ANOTHER BASIC CONSIDERATION MUST BE TO ESTABLISH A PROPER PURPOSE FOR ANY PROPOSAL FOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM. THE STIMULUS FOR A CHANGE IN ANY COUNTRY’S CONSTITUTION MAY OBVIOUSLY AND QUITE PROPERLY COME FROM THE PRESENT COURSE OF EVENTS, BUT WHEN CONSIDERING THE FORM AND SUBSTANCE OF SUCH CHANGES, A LONGER VIEW MUST BE TAKEN. IF CANADA IS TO UNDERTAKE MAJOR CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM, IT MUST BE REFORM DESIGNED TO BETTER SERVE THE NATION FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE, NOT JUST TO DEAL WITH PROBLEMS OF THE MOMENT. IT MUST BE REFORM WHICH IS SENSITIVE OF AND A MEASURED RESPONSE TO THE FULL SCOPE OF OUR HISTORY, AND NOT JUST TO YESTERDAY’S POLLS AND IDEAS OF CURRENT FASHION.

THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED IN THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ANY COUNTRY NEED TO BE SENSITIVE TO THOSE NATIONAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH ARE DEEPLY VALUED BY LARGE ELEMENTS OF THE POPULATION. INDEED, ONE WOULD THINK IT FOOLHARDY TO TAMPER WITH SUCH INSTITUTIONS, AND ANY PROPOSALS FOR REFORM WHICH, FOR NO APPARENT REASON, SEEM TO DO SO, SERVES ONLY TO CREATE DOUBTS AS TO THE WORTH AND PURPOSE OF ALL OTHER PROPOSALS.

[Page 10]

THAT OBSERVATION WAS ESPECIALLY PERTINENT WITH RESPECT TO THE PROPOSALS BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DEALING WITH THE ROLE AND PLACE OF THE MONARCHY IN CANADA.

THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY, AND THE PERSON REPRESENTING IT, ARE BOTH HIGHLY ESTEEMED BY MILLIONS OF CANADIANS. THE MONARCHY HAS SERVED US WELL AND EARNED ITS PLACE IN OUR NATIONAL HERITAGE AND IN THE AFFECTION OF OUR PEOPLE. WE ADD NOTHING TO THE CAUSE OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM BY DIMINISHING THE POSITION OF THE CROWN. I AM PLEASED THAT WORK IS NOW UNDER WAY TO ASSURE AGREEMENT ON WORDS TO ESTABLISH THE MONARCHY IN OUR NEW CONSTITUTION.

IT MAY BE THAT NE SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER STEPS TO CLARIFY THE ROLE OF THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL AND TO ENHANCE THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL’S ABILITY TO REPRESENT FULLY THE CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY IN CANADA. AS LONG AS IT REMAINS CLEAR THAT THE POWERS THE GOVERNOR-GENERAL EXERCISES ARE, AS THEY WERE, VESTED IN THE CROWN’S REPRESENTATIVE, THERE WOULD BE NO BASIS FOR SERIOUS OBJECTION.

[Page 11]

IN DECIDING UPON APPROPRIATE CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES, WE ARE NOT PROCEEDING DE NOVO. WE ARE NOT STARTING FROM SCRATCH. OURS IS NEITHER A NEW COUNTRY NOR A SHATTERED ONE. WE ARE CONSIDERING CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES FOR AN ONGOING NATION WHICH, FOR OVER 100 YEARS, HAS NOT MERELY SURVIVED BUT, WITH REMARKABLE SUCCESS, ACHIEVED THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF FREEDOM AND SECURITY FOR ITS PEOPLE

IN LIGHT OF THIS, THOSE WHO WOULD ADVOCATE DRASTIC CHANGE MUST ACCEPT THE ONUS FOR DEMONSTRATING THE NEED. WE ARE NOT ATTEMPTING TO DISMANTLE OUR EXISTING INSTITUTIONS IN THE NAIVE BELIEF THAT BY ALTERING OR REMOVING THEM, WE WILL BE IMPROVING OUR PROSPECTS AS A NATION. INSTEAD, WE ARE SEEKING A REALISTIC CONSENSUS ON A NEW DOCUMENT WHICH OUR WISDOM AND EXPERIENCE WOULD TELL US WILL SERVE THE NATION IN FUTURE AT LEAST AS WELL AS THE PRESENT DOCUMENT HAS SERVED US IN THE PAST.

A CONSTITUTION FOR CANADA MUST ACCOMMODATE COMPROMISE, CONSENSUS AND TOLERATION. IO PRODUCE SUCH A CONSTITUTION IS NOT AN EXERCISE IN ABSTRACT POLITICAL T OR LEGAL THEORY. RATHER, IT WILL DEMAND THAT WE BE SENSITIVE TO THE MEMORIES AND DREAMS OF ALL CANADIANS. IT IS MY HOPE THAT IT IS THESE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH WILL GUIDE US IN THE TASK.