Document Information

Date: 1981-11-02
By: Sterling Lyon
Citation: First Ministers’ Conference on the Constitution, Opening Statement by the Hon. Sterling Lyon, Premier of Manitoba, Doc 800-15/012 (Ottawa: 2-5 November 1981).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

DOCUMENT: 800-15/012

Opening Statement by the
Hon. Sterling Lyon
Premier of Manitoba

Ottawa
November 1982

[Page 1]

I WELCOME THIS MEETING OF THE HEADS OF CANADA’S ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS. I HOPE AND BELIEVE THAT. . . AT THIS MEETING. . . WE CAN AGREE ON ACTIONS TO IMPROVE THE CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS UNDER WHICH WE LIVE AS A FEDERAL NATION.

THE MAJORITY OF US AROUND THIS TABLE HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET YOU TO DISCUSS THE IMPORTANT MATTER SINCE SEPTEMBER OF 1980, PRIME MINISTER. BUT, AS YOU KNOW, EIGHT OF THE PROVINCES HAVE MET REGULARLY. WE HAVE WORKED AND NEGOTIATED TO ACHIEVE A CONSENSUS – A FOUNDATION UPON WHICH THE ONGOING PROCESS OF CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND AMENDMENT CAN GO FORWARD.

AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE ACHIEVED SUCH A CONSENSUS.

BUT JUST AS WE HAVE NOT MET WITH YOU TO DISCUSS OUR CONSTITUTION IN THIS LAST YEAR AND MORE. . . OUR GOVERNMENTS HAVE NOT MET TO DISCUSS THE OTHER URGENT AND IMPORTANT MATTERS THAT MUST CONCERN US ALL. I THINK PARTICULARLY OF THE STATE OF OUR CANADIAN ECONOMY, AND THE CO-OPERATIVE ACTIONS GOVERNMENTS AT THE FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL LEVEL SHOULD BE TAKING TO ADDRESS OUR ECONOMIC PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES. AND THIS HAS BEEN TRUE, PRIME MINISTER, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE PROVINCES – ALL TEN

[Page 2]

OF THE PROVINCES OF CANADA – HAVE BEEN ASKING FOR SUCH A MEETING FOR MORE THAN A YEAR.

THE CONSTITUTION IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER. . . BUT I BELIEVE THE MAJORITY OF CANADIANS WOULD AGREE THAT OUR ECONOMY IS AT LEAST EQUALLY IMPORTANT, AND FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THOSE WHO CANNOT FIND JOBS, OR YOUNG PEOPLE WHO CANNOT AFFORD HOUSES BECAUSE OF INTEREST RATES, CONSIDERABLY MORE URGENT.

BUT IT IS ONE OF THE IRONIES OF THIS PROCESS WE HAVE ALL BECOME INVOLVED IN – THIS PROCESS OF CONSTITUTION-MAKING BY CONFRONTATION – THAT IT HAS NOT ONLY FAILED TO PRODUCE A CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT, BUT HAS WEAKENED AND UNDERMINED OUR EFFORTS TO WORK TOGETHER IN OTHER AREAS WHICH ARE AS IMPORTANT TO CANADIANS. EVEN YOU, PRIME MINISTER, MUST NOW ACKNOWLEDGE THAT – RATHER THAN MAKING US STRONGER AND MORE UNIFIED – THIS PROCESS WHICH YOU HAVE INITIATED HAS MADE US LESS UNIFIED, AND LESS ABLE TO WORK TOGETHER TO MEET OUR RESPONSIBILITIES AS GOVERNMENTS IN CANADA.

WE CANNOT AFFORD THAT WEAKENING, PRIME MINISTER, AND SO IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT WE PUT THIS ATMOSPHERE OF CONFRONTATION BEHIND US SO THAT WE CAN DEAL EFFECTIVELY – NOT ONLY WITH THE CONSTITUTION – BUT WITH ALL OF THE OTHER MATTERS THAT CONCERN CANADIANS AND THAT MUST CONCERN US AS HEADS OF GOVERNMENTS WITHIN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM. WE CANNOT ANY LONGER PERMIT THE HABIT OF CO-OPERATION AND CIVILITY THAT HAS EXISTED THROUGHOUT OUR HISTORY

[Page 3]

AS A NATION TO BE REDUCED AND ERODED FURTHER THROUGH CONTINUING CONSTITUTIONAL DISAGREEMENTS.

HOW DO WE END IT? HOW DO WE MAKE OUR CONSTITUTION – AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DELIBERATIONS – A SOURCE OF UNITY FOR CANADIANS? HOW DO WE BEGIN TO WORK EFFECTIVELY TOGETHER ONCE MORE? HOW DO WE END THE BICKERING THAT IS WEAKENING AND DIVIDING US, AND THAT NOW SURELY IS BEGINNING TO TIRE CANADIANS?

WELL, TO BEGIN WITH, I BELIEVE WE MUST ENTER THESE PARTICULAR NEGOTIATIONS DETERMINED – NOT FOR ONE SIDE OR THE OTHER TO WIN – BUT TO AGREE. I BELIEVE THAT WILL REQUIRE THAT WE BE REALISTIC ENOUGH TO RECOGNIZE WHAT THINGS CAN BE AGREED NOW, AND WHICH THINGS WILL REQUIRE MORE WORK AND MORE NEGOTIATION BEFORE WE CAN ACHIEVE A CONSENSUS. AND IN THOSE AREAS WHERE AGREEMENT IS NOT NOW POSSIBLE, WE MUST BE PREPARED TO WORK TOWARDS SOME FUTURE AGREEMENT, WITHIN THE LAWS AND THE CONVENTIONS THAT GOVERN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL LIFE.

I BELIEVE THAT IS WHAT THE EIGHT PROVINCES HAVE DONE THROUGHOUT THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT LED TO THE SINGING OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ACCORD IN APRIL OF THIS YEAR. WITH THOSE SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS WE CAN NOW SAY – AS WE COULD NOT HAVE SAID A YEAR AGO – THAT ALL ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA FAVOUR THE PATRIATION OF OUR CONSTITUTION. WE CAN SAY THAT EIGHT OF THOSE ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT ON A MEANS OF

[Page 4]

AMENDING OUR CONSTITUTION IN THE FUTURE.

THOSE ARE VERY SIGNIFICANT AGREEMENTS INDEED, PRIME MINISTER. ONCE OUR ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS AGREE ON PATRIATION- ON BRINGING OUR CONSTITUTION HOME TO CANADA – WITH AN APPROPRIATE AMENDING FORMULA – WE WILL HAVE COMPLETED THE WORK OF BUILDING A FULLY INDEPENDENT NATION. WE WILL BE – IN FACT AND IN LAW – TOTALLY INDEPENDENT, AND WE WILL HAVE THE MEANS ENTIRELY WITHIN OUR DISPOSAL TO MAKE OUR CONSTITUTION WHAT WE WILL.

THERE WILL BE NO MORE NEED FOR YOUR GOVERNMENT OR FOR OURS TO GO TO LONDON. WE WILL, INSTEAD, HAVE TO RELY UPON AND TRUST CANADIANS THEMSELVES TO DECIDE THE FUTURE SHAPE OF OUR CONSTITUTION.

AS YOU KNOW, PRIME MINISTER, IN THE PAST SOME PROVINCES HAVE BEEN RELUCTANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION WITHOUT FIRST CLARIFYING JURISDICTIONAL QUESTIONS RELATING TO RESOURCES OR FISHERIES OR COMMUNICATIONS OR FAMILY LAW. BUT IN THE NEGOTIATIONS THAT LED TO THE SIGNING OF OUR ACCORD, WE AGREED THAT THESE THINGS COULD AND SHOULD BE DEFERRED AND DECIDED IN FUTURE – HERE IN CANADA AND BY CANADIANS. WE ARE PREPARED TO HAVE THESE MATTERS AND ALL OTHERS DECIDED BY THE LAWS. THE CONVENTIONS, AND THE TRADITIONS OF THIS COUNTRY RATHER THAN HAVING THEM RESOLVED IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, HOWEVER MUCH MANY OF US VALUE AND RESPECT THE CROWN AND OUR CONNECTION WITH GREAT BRITAIN.

[Page 5]

AND SO IT WOULD SEEM APPROPRIATE FOR US TO BEGIN THESE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE THINGS UPON WHICH WE CAN AGREE: PATRIATION – ABOUT WHICH WE DO NOW AGREE, UNLESS YOUR POSITION HAS CHANGED; AND AN AMENDING FORMULA – AND EIGHT PROVINCES INCLUDING THE PROVINCE OF QUEBEC HAVE AGREED ON A FORMULA WITHIN WHICH THERE ARE NO FIRST AND SECOND CLASS PROVINCES, AND NO FIRST OR SECOND CLASS REGIONS IN CANADA. AND THAT SHOULD BE THE BASIS OF OUR NEGOTIATIONS.

IF WE CAN AGREE ON PATRIATION AND AN AMENDING FORMULA, WE SHALL HAVE ACHIEVED SOMETHING THAT HAS ELUDED THE ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS OF CANADA IN THE PAST. WE SHALL HAVE DEMONSTRATED AN ABILITY TO COMPROMISE, TO NEGOTIATE REASONABLY AND IN GOOD FAITH, AND TO REACH A GREATER CONSENSUS THAT HAS BEEN ACHIEVED IN THE PAST.

WE SHALL HAVE ACHIEVED A VERY GREAT DEAL, INDEED.

AND NOT THE LEAST OF THE THINGS WE SHALL HAVE ACHIEVED WILL BE THE PRESERVATION OF OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.

WE ARE NOT HERE, PRIME MINISTER, TO ARGUE AGAIN THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA WITH RESPECT TO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION. THE REMARKS OF YOUR MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOTWITHSTANDING, THE IMPORT OF THAT DECISION IS NOT ARGUABLE. ANY ATTEMPT TO CHANGE OUR CONSTITUTION IN A WAY THAT

[Page 6]

AFFECTS THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY OF THE PROVINCES WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS IS CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. IT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ACTING UNILATERALLY, TO DIMINISH THE RIGHT OF CANADIANS TO USE THEIR PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS TO ACHIEVE THEIR OBJECTIVES WITHIN AREAS OF PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION AND THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS, UNDER OUR SYSTEM, ARE THE GUARDIANS OF THAT RIGHT AND HAVE BEEN SINCE 1867.

AS YOU KNOW, SIR, THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA FOUND THAT YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL PROPOSALS WOULD “ABRIDGE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY ON A SCALE EXCEEDING THE EFFECT OF ANY PREVIOUS CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR WHICH PROVINCIAL CONSENT WAS SOUGHT AND OBTAINED.”

THE COURT FOUND, IN ITS MAJORITY DECISION, THAT “THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR PROVINCIAL AGREEMENT TO AMENDMENTS WHICH CHANGE PROVINCIAL LEGISLATIVE POWERS”, AND REFERRED TO THE WHITE PAPER PUBLISHED WHILE THE LATE RIGHT HONOURABLE LESTER PEARSON WAS PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA AS “A RECOGNITION BY ALL ACTORS (INCLUDING THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF PROVINCIAL CONSENT IS A CONSTITUTIONAL RULE”.

AND THEY DESCRIBED THE REASON FOR THAT RULE AS “THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE”. THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE CANNOT BE RECONCILED WITH A STATE OF AFFAIRS WHERE THE CONSTITUTION CAN BE CHANGED UNILATERALLY BY ANY SINGLE LEVEL OF GOVERNMENT – FEDERAL OR PROVINCIAL.

[Page 7]

IT WOULD INDEED OFFEND THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE THAT “A RADICAL CHANGE TO (THE) CONSTITUTION (BE) TAKEN AT THE REQUEST OF A BARE MAJORITY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE CANADIAN HOUSE OF COMMONS AND SENATE.

“THE PURPOSE OF THIS. . . RULE IS TO PROTECT THE FEDERAL CHARACTER OF THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION AND PREVENT THE ANOMALY THAT THE HOUSE OF COMMONS AND THE SENATE COULD OBTAIN BY SIMPLE RESOLUTION WHAT THEY COULD NOT VALIDLY ACCOMPLISH BY STATUTE.”

HOW MUCH BETTER, PRIME MINISTER, WOULD IT BE FOR US TO REACH WHAT AGREEMENT WE CAN, AND THEN TRUST CANADIANS THEMSELVES TO FORM OUR FUTURE CONSTITUTION.

SO LET US STRIVE FOR AGREEMENT IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS, SO THAT WE CAN APPROACH THE PARLIAMENT OF GREAT BRITAIN FOR ONE FINAL TIME, AND TELL THAT PARLIAMENT THAT WE WISH TO BRING OUR CONSTITUTION HOME, AND THAT WE HAVE AGREED ON AN AMENDING FORMULA – AS EIGHT OF THE GOVERNMENTS HERE HAVE ALREADY PROVEN POSSIBLE.

IF WE AGREE ON MORE – FINE. BUT WE HAVE HAD MONTHS OF CONFRONTATION – MOTHS IN WHICH THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISES AND MOVEMENT HAVE COME FROM THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE PROVINCES. AND WE HAVE OTHER URGENT MATTERS THAT REQUIRE OUR ATTENTION AND OUR JOINT ACTIONS. AND IF, IN THIS CLIMATE, WE AGREE SOLELY

[Page 8]

ON PATRIATION AND AN AMENDING FORMULA, THAT WILL STILL BE A SIGNIFICANT AND AN HISTORIC AGREEMENT.

AND IT WILL BE AN AGREEMENT WHOSE SIGNIFICANCE WILL GO FAR BEYOND THE IMMEDIATE QUESTION OF OUR CONSTITUTION, AS FUNDAMENTAL AND AS IMPORTANT AS THAT QUESTION IS. IT WILL GO TO THE ENTIRE EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT WITHIN OUR FEDERAL SYSTEM.

THE PRINCIPLE OF FEDERALISM OF WHICH THE SUPREME COURT SPOKE IS NOT ONLY A CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE, PRIME MINISTER. IT IS ALSO A PRACTICAL AND OPERATIONAL PRINCIPLE THAT TOUCHES VIRTUALLY EVERY ASPECT OF THE LIVES OF CANADIANS. WHEN OUR GOVERNMENTS FAIL TO CONSULT AND TO AGREE AND TO CO-OPERATE – WE DO NOT FAIL ONLY IN THE CONSTITUTIONAL AREA. WE ALSO FAIL ECONOMICALLY. WE FAIL IN TERMS OF SOCIAL NEEDS OF CANADIANS. AND WE FAIL THAT THE SENSE OF CONFIDENCE AND UNITY WHICH CANADIANS FEEL.

EACH OF US AROUND THIS TABLE COULD RECITE A LIST OF THE PROBLEMS AND CHALLENGES THAT A PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT, WORKING ALONE, CANNOT RESPOND TO IN AN EFFECTIVE MANNER – AND WHICH EVEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, WORKING ALONE, CANNOT OVERCOME: I REFER OF COURSE TO THE IMPACT OF INTEREST RATES, HOUSING, GRAIN HANDLING, ENERGY, POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION, THE PROVISION OF FRENCH LANGUAGE EDUCATION OUTSIDE OF QUEBEC, PROVIDING REAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR NATIVE PEOPLE.

[Page 9]

AND WE COULD RECITE A LIST OF PAST SUCCESSES – SUCCESSES THAT WERE ACHIEVED BECAUSE WE WORKED TOGETHER UNDER THAT FEDERAL PRINCIPLE” UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, INCOME SECURITY FOR THE AGED, EQUALIZATION, AND ALL THE REST.

BUT AS THE LIST OF PROBLEMS THAT REQUIRE OUR CO-OPERATION UNDER THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE GROWS, PRIME MINISTER, THE LIST OF RECENT SUCCESSES I MUST SAY WITH REGRET IS SHRINKING. AND IT IS SHRIKING AT LEAST PARTLY BECAUSE OUR CONSTITUTIONAL DIFFERENCES HAVE ERODED AND UNDERMINED THE HABIT OF CO-OPERATION BETWEEN THE TWO LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT THAT HAS MARKED OUR HISTORY.

AND SO WE ARE NOT HERE – WE CANNOT BE HERE – JUST TO TALK ABOUT A CONSTITUTION. WE MUST ALSO BE HERE TO TALK ABOUT A COUNTRY – A COUNTRY THAT NEEDS ITS GOVERNMENT TO BE EFFECTIVE AND CAPABLE OF WORKING TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE PROBLEMS THAT ASSAIL CANADIANS, AND TO SUPPORT CANADIANS IN THEIR EFFORTS TO GRASP THE VAST AND EXCITING OPPORTUNITIES THAT ARE BEFORE US.

SO – WHY ARE WE HERE, PRIME MINISTER.

WE ARE HERE TO AGREE, AND WE ARE HERE TO TAKE THAT AGREEMENT AND TREAT IT AS A FIRST STEP IN LIVING UP TO THE FEDERAL PRINCIPLE.

IT WILL CALL FOR COMPROMISE – AND AS MY COLLEAGUES WHO TOOK PART IN THE NEGOTIATIONS AMONG THE EIGHT PROVINCES WILL ATTEST –

[Page 10]

COMPROMISES ARE SOMETIMES PAINFUL.

IT WILL CALL FOR US TO AGREE THAT WE WILL NOT ARGUE OUR DIFFERENCES IN ANOTHER COUNTRY, BUT THAT WE WILL MANAGE OUR AFFAIRS HERE IN CANADA, WHERE ALL JUDGEMENTS AND ALL DETERMINATIONS WILL BE MADE BY CANADIANS.

BUT THE BENEFITS OF ACHIEVING AN AGREEMENT, SIR, ARE VAST AND FUNDAMENTAL. WITH AGREEMENT, WE SHALL HAVE BROUGHT OUR CONSTITUTION HOME. WE WILL HAVE ESTABLISHED RULES UNDER WHICH CANADIANS THEMSELVES CAN CHANGE IT AT NEED (AND IT SHOULD NOT BE FORGOTTEN THAT AMONGT THE THINGS CANADIANS CAN CHANGE IN FUTURE, SHOULD WE WISH TO, IS THE AMENDING FORMULA ITSELF). WE WILL – FINALLY – HAVE COMPLETED THE JOB OF BUILDING AN INDEPENDENT NATION. AND FROM THERE, CANADIANS CAN GO ON WITH THE REST OF THE JOB OF NATION-BUILDING, WITHOUT ASKING LEAVE OR PERMISSION FROM ANY OTHER COUNTRY.

MORE THAN THAT – WE WILL HAVE STARTED TO WORK TOGETHER AGAIN, AND MY GUESS WOULD BE THAT – WHETHER CANADIANS AGREE WITH YOU, WITH ME, WITH THE PREMIER OF QUEBEC, OR THE PREMIER OF BRITISH COLUMBIA ON PARTICULAR CONSTITUTIONAL MATTERS – THEY ARE ALL AGREED THAT IT IS HIGH TIME WE STARTED DOING JUST THAT.

[Page 11]

SO, PRIME MINISTER, THE PROVINCES ARE NOT HERE ASKING FOR ANY POWERS OR JURISDICTION THAT WE DO NOT NOW HAVE.

WE ARE HERE TO REACH AN AGREEMENT – AN AGREEMENT WHICH, FOREVER AFTER, WILL BE WITHIN THE POWER OF CANADIANS THEMSELVES TO CHANGE BECAUSE WE WILL FINALLY CONTROL OUR OWN CONSTITUTION.

AND WE ARE HERE TO HELP TO RESTORE AND REVITALIZE THE FEDERAK PRINCIPLE WHICH HAS BEEN BADLY BATTERED ABOUT IN THE PAST 18 MONTHS – THAT HABIT OF CO-OPERATION WHICH HAS MARKED OUR HISTORY.

SHOULD WE FAIL TO REACH AGREEMENT IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS, IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE THE PROVINCES ARE NOT PREPARED TO AGREE.

THE COST OF FAILURE HERE WOULD NOT BE SIMPLY A CONSTITUTIONAL COST. IT WOULD BE REFLECTED IN A FURTHER WEAKENING AND EROSION OF THAT FEDERAL PRINCIPLE – OF OUR ABILITY TO WORK TOGETHER – OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF EACH OF THE GOVERNMENTS WE LEAD – AND OF OUR UNITY AS A NATION. BUT WE NEED NOT FAIL, PRIME MINISTER.

WE ARE ELEVEN GOVERNMENTS, ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT WE MUST BRING OUR CONSTITUTION HOME. EIGHT OF US HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON AN AMENDING FORMULA. LET OUR NEGOTIATIONS BEGIN THERE, AND LET THEM LEAD TO A STRONGER AND MORE UNITED FEDERAL CANADA.