Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Resolution Respecting Constitution Act”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (23 November 1981)


Document Information

Date: 1981-11-23
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 13082-13147.
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

13082 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions
DVA—CLIENTS FOR HEALTH CARE TRIAL PERIODS
Question No. 3,058-—Mr. McKenzie: ‘
With reference to section 10.47 of the 1980 report of the Auditor General, has
the Department of Veterans Affairs developed criteria for deciding which
veteran clients should be selected for future health care trial periods?
Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
The initial trial period of the proposed health care policy
which took place between November, 1979 and the summer of
1980 was undertaken to enable the health care teams to gain
experience in the process of the program while at the same
time providing services to clients in need of support. During
that period judgments as to who were in need were largely
medical and were made on an individual basis. It is not
envisaged at this time that further health care trial periods will
be held.
HOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS
Question No. 3,059—Mr. McKenzie:
With reference to section 10.48 of the 1980 report of the Auditor General, was
a federal-provincial agreement reached with respect to home support programs
and (a) if so. what are the terms and on what date will it be implemented (b) if
nut, what attempts are eurrently being made to reach one‘!
Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
The Auditor General’s observations were based on a pilot
project designed to test the operation of the aging veterans
program. As a result of this testing, Veterans Affairs accepts
the health care assessment of the province, and the doctor’s
report used by provincial authorities. There’is, therefore, no
requirement for federal-provincial agreementson this matter.
cosr or ORDER PAPER QUESTION
Question No. 3,25S—Mr. Cossitt:
l. What is the cost to the taxpayer (a) if the government answers ll question
on the Order Paper within two weeks to a month (b) if questions remain on the
Order Paper for periods of six months to five years‘?
2. For what reason does the government not answer all questions within
approximately one month of their appearance on the Order Paper’!
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Privy Council): 1. The only additional cost would be the
printing of the question on the Order Paper for as long as it
remains unanswered.
2. Often the information requested in questions requires
considerable research. When compiled, it must be translated
into the other official language. The government admits that it
is often difficult to persuade officials to deal with these
matters in an expeditious manner when some hon. members
quite clearly overload the system with questions seeking infor-
mation readily available by telephone or letter.
CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION STAFF CUTS
Question No. 3,263—Mr. Howie:
Did the Canadian Pension Commission order staff cuts in their district offices
across Canada and, if so (a) for what reason is this action being taken at this
time (b) will this action impair attempts to speed up consideration of veterans‘
claims with respect to disability pensions?
I-Ion. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):
N0. (a) Not applicable. (b) Not applicable.
[English]
Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I would ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Madam Speaker: The questions enumerated by the parlia-
mentary seeretary have been answered.
Mr. Cook: Madam Speaker, I rise in reference to the
questions being answered. Question No. 2,347 was asked on
April 3 of this year. The parliamentary secretary may be
interested in knowing why the question was asked. There is a
distinct possibility that the waterlot leases in Burrard Inlet are
so unfair and so totally different from one waterlot to another
that I can only presume that is the reason the question has not
been answered. Could the parliamentary secretary please
investigate and perhaps give me the answer?
Mr. Smith: I will take note of the hon. member’s representa-
tion, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
THE CONSTITUTION
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, I981
The House resumed from Friday, November 20, I981,
consideration of the motion of Mr. Chrétten:

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13083
The Cons/iturion
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain CONSIDERANT:
amendments to the Constitution of Canada que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a
have been made by the Parliament of the modifiéa plusieurs reprises la Constitution
United Kingdom at the request and with the du Canada a la dcmande et avec le consen-
consent of Canada; 5 tement de celui-ci; 5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the que, de par le statut d’Etat indépendant du
status of Canada as an independent state Canada, il est légitime que les Canadiens
that Canadians be able to amend their Con- aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur
stitution in Canada in all respects; Constitution au Canada;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable tolO qu’il est souhaitable d’inscrire dans la l0
provide in the Constitution of Canada for the Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance
recognition of certain fundamental rights de certains droits et libertés fondamentaux
and freedoms and to make other amend- etd‘y apporter d‘autres modifications,
ments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her 15 il est propose que soit présentée respectueu-
Majesty the Queen in the following words: sement a Sa Majesté la Reine l’adresse dont 15
la teneur suit :
T0 the Ql1¢¢”’$ M05‘ EX¢¢ll¢”l Majesty? A Sa Tres Excellente Majesté la Reine,
MOS! Gracious Sovereign: Tres Gracieuse Souveraine 1
We, Your Majesty’s loyal subjects, the Nous, membres de la Chambre des com-
House of Commons of Canada in Parliament 20 munes du Canada réunis en Parlement, fideles2O
assembled, respectfully approach Your sujets de Votre Majesté, demandons respec~
-Majesty, requesting that you may graciously tueusement a Votre Tres Gracieuse Majesté de
be pleased to cause to be laid before the bien vouloir faire déposcr devant le Parlement
Parliament ofthe United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projetde loiainsiconqu:
containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25
set forth:

13084 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Constitution
Art. /98/
enacted
Termination of
power to
lcgislalc for
Canada
French version
Short title
The Constitution
An Act to give effect to a request by the
Senate and House of Commons of
Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and con-
sented to the enactment of an Act of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to give
effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth
and the Senate and the House of Commons
of Canada in Parliament assembled have
submitted an address to Her Majesty
requesting that Her Majesty may graciously
be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before
the Parliament of the United Kingdom for
that purpose.
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:
1. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in
Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for
and shall have the force of law in Canada
and shall come into force as provided in that
ANNEXE AMSCHEDULE A
Loi donnant suite s une demande du Sénat et
de la Chambre des communes du
Canada
Sa Tres Excellente Majesté la Reine,
considérant 2 5
5 qu‘a la demande et avec le consentement
du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni
est invité a adopter une loi visant a donner
effet aux dispositions énoncées ci-apres et
que le Sénat et la Chambre des communes l0
du Canada réunis en Parlement ont pre-
senté une adresse demandant a Sa Tres
Cvracieuse Majesté de bien vouloir fairc
déposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-
Uni un projet de loi :1 cette fin, 15
l5 sur l’avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-
tuels et temporels et des Communes réunis
en Parlement, et par l’autorité de celui-ci,
édicte:
10
20
1. La Loi constituliorme/Ie de 198], énon- Z0 /\d_<>P\i@n_d¢|1|
, \ , , t , Lott-on.mm-
cee a l annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada ,,-U,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur /98!
conformement a ses dispositions.
Act. 25
2. No Act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act,
1981 comes into force shall extend to
Canada as part of its law.
3. So far as it is not contained in Schedule
B, the French version of this Act is set out in
Schedule A to this Act and has the same
authority in Canada as the English version
thereof.
4. This Act may be cited as the Canada
Act.
2. Les lois adoptées par le Parlement du Ccwion <1“
ouvoirdc
Royaume-Uni aprés l’entrée en vigueur de la 25 |pég,[é,c, p°,,,|,
Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas ¢=\”Hd=
partie du droit du Canada.
30 3. La partie de la version francaise de la }/érsivtt
présente loi qui figure a l’annexe A a force “’“”“’”
de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30
version anglaise correspondante.
35 4. Titre abrégé de la présente loi : Loi sur Tilrcabrésé
Ie Canada.

November ’23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES l3085
Rights and
freedoms in
Canada
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic
rights of
citizens
Maximum
duration of
legislative
bodies
Continuation lfl
special
circumstances
The Constitution
SCHEDULE B ANNEXE B
CONSTITUTION ACT, l98l LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
PART l PARTIE |
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND CHARTE CANADIENNE DES DROITS ET
FREEDOMS LIBERTES
Whereas Canada is founded upon princi~ Attendu que lc Canada est fondé sur des
ples that recognize the supremacy of God principes qui reconnaissent la suprématie dc
and the rule of law: Dieu et la primauté du droit:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Garantie des droits et Iibertés
Droiis at
5 libertés flu
Canada
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and l. La Charte canadienne des droits et
Freedoms guarantees the rights and free- Slibertés garantit les droits et libertés qui y
doms set out in it subject only to such sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be que par une regle de droit, dans des limites
demonstrably justified in a free and demo~ qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification
craticsociety. puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une
societé libre et démocratique. 10
Fundamental Freedoms Libertésfondamentales
Libcrtés
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- l0 2. Chacun a les libertés fondamentales rondamcnmcs
tal freedoms: suivantes :
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; a) liberté de conscience et de religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion b) liberté de pensée, de croyance, d’opi-
and expression, including freedom of the nion et d’expression, y compris la liberte15
press and other media ofcommunication; 15 de la presse et des autres moyens de
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and °°mmu”lCa1l°”l
(d) freedom of association. F) llbcrlé de Téunlon pacifiqve;
d) liberté d’association.
Democratic Rights Droits démocratiques
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit dc vote 20 Dfvits _
vote in an election of members of the House et est eligible aux élections législatives fédé~
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciales.
to be qualified for membership therein.
4. (1) No House of Commons and no 4. (l) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre Manda‘
legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes etdes assemblees législatives
than five years from the date fixed for the est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixée 25
return of the writs at a general election of its 25 pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members. générales correspondantes.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- Pr9|9t\|s§ti<>”§
invasion or insurrection, a House of Com~ nes ou celui d’une assemblée legislative peut Sp°°’“°’
mons may be continued by Parliament and a étre prolongé respectivement par le Parle~ 30
legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au-
legislature beyond five years if such con— dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d’invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more ou d’insurrection, réelles ou appréhendées,
than one-third of the members of the House pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas

13086
COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Annual sitting
of legislative
bodies
Mobility of
citizens
Rights to move
and gain
livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life. liberty
and security of
person
Search or
seizure
Detention or
imprisonment
The Consrizuxian
l’objet d’une opposition exprimée par les voix
de plus du tiers des députés de la Chambre
des communes ou de l’assemblée legislative.
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as
the case may be.
5. Le Parlement et les legislatures lien» $é@1″¢¢ amwslls
nent une séance au moins une fois tous les 5
5 douze mois.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament
and of each legislature at least once every
twelve months.
Mobility Rights Liberté de circulation et d’établissement
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de
demeurer au Canada, d’y entrer ou d’en
sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toutc per- 1OLjp¢rié_
person who has the status of a permanent sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent d°lab”“°m°“‘
resident of Canada has the right 10 au Canada ont le droit :
(a) to move to and take up residence in a) de se déplacer dans tout le pays et
any province; and d’établir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b) to pursue the gaining ofa livelihood in Vince; 15
any province. b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2)15 (3) Les droits mentionnés au paragraphe Rmrislinfl
are subject to (2) sont subordonnés :
(a) any laws or practices of general a) aux lois et usages d’application gene-
application in force in a province other rale en vigueur dans une province donnée, 20
than those that discriminate among per- s‘i1s n’établissent entre les personnes
sons primarily on the basis of province of 20 aucune distinction fondee principalement
present or previous residence; and sur la province de residence antérieure ou
(b) any laws providing for reasonable resi~ acilwllfl;
dency requirements as a qualification for b) aux lois prévoyant de justes conditions 25
the receipt of publicly provided social de residence en vue de l’obtention des ser-
services. 25 vices sociaux publics.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n’ont pas Pwswmmwtc
elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d‘interdire les lois, programmes ou f;Q’:;:”°“
as its object the amelioration in a province of activités destinés a améliorer, dans une pro~ 30
conditions ofindividuals in that province who vince, la situation d’individus défavorisés
are socially or economically disadvantaged if 3Osocialement ou économiquement, si le taux
the rate of employment in that province is d’emploi dans la province est inférieur a la
below the rate of employment in Canada. moyenne nationale.
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the
right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Legal Rights Garanties juridiques
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberté et a 35 \{i=- |_ib9″¢¢1
and security of the person and the right not la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut étre mumc
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porté atteinte a ce droit qu’en conformité
with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre F:”iL|_¢:\um m
. . . . . . . . r | _
against unreasonable search or seizure. les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 4O§aiS‘§cs ‘
abusives.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la D@‘¢’}\iv” <>”
trarily detained or imprisoned. 40 detention ou Femprisonnement arbitraires. f§;’;,§’s°””°

N°”¢mb@1′ 23, 1931 COMMONS DEBATES l
13087
*\”=$WY 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun ale droit, en cas d’arrestation
detention ou de detention 2
detention
Proceedings in
criminal and h
penal matters
(a) to be informed promptly of the rea-
sons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without 5
delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and
to be released if the detention is not
lawful. 10
ll. Any person charged with an offence
as the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable
delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(0) not to be compelled to be a witness in
proceedings against that person in respect
of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to law in a fair and public 20
hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail with-
out just cause;
(/) except in the ease of an offence under 25
military law tried before a military tri-
bunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where
the maximum punishment for the offence
is imprisonment for five years or a more
severe punishment; 30
(g) not to be found guilty on account of
any act or omission unless, at the time of
the act or omission, it constituted an
offence under Canadian or international
law or was criminal according to the gen- 35
eral principles of law recognized by the
community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not
to be tried for it again and, if finally found
guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40
be tried or punished for it again; and
(1′) if found guilty of the offence and if the
punishment for the offence has been varied
between the time of commission and the
time of sentencing, to the benefit of thc45
lesser punishment.
The, Constitution
a) d‘etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa
detention; 5
b) d‘avoir recours sans delai a Passistance
d’un avocat et d’etre informé de ce droit;
c) de faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la légalité de sa detention ct d‘obtenir, le
cas echeant, sa liberation. IO
Arrestation ou
detention
ll. Tout ineulpe a le droit : Affair”
criminelles cl
a) d’etre informe sans delai anormal de pennies
l’infraction precise qu’on lui reproche;
b) d’etre juge dans un délai raisonnable;
c) de ne pas étre contraint de temoigner l5
contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite
intentee contre lui pour l’infraction qu’on
lui reproche;
d) d’etre presume innocent tant qu’il n’est
pas déclaré coupable, conformément a la 20
loi, par un tribunal indépendant et impar-
tial a l’issue d’un proces public et
equitable;
e) de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause
d’une mise en liberté assortie d’un caution- 25
nement raisonnable; _
j) sauf s’il s’agit d’une infraction relevant
de la justice militaire, de benéficier d’un
proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale
prevue pour l‘infraction dont il est accuse 30
est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une
peine plus grave;
g) de ne pas etre declare coupable en
raison d’une action ou d’une omission qui,
au moment cu elle est survenue, ne consti- 35
tuait pas une infraction d’apres le droit
interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n’avait pas de caractere criminel d’apres
les principes generaux de droit reconnus
par Pensemble des nations; 40
h) d’une part de ne pas etre jugé de nou-
veau pour une infraction dont ii a ete
définitivement acquitté, d’autre part de ne
pas étre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une
infraction dont il a éte définitivement45
declare coupable et puni;
i) de bénéficier de la peine la moins
sévére, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne l’in-
fraction dont il est declare coupable est

13088
COMMONS DEBATES November 23» 1931
Treatment or
punishment
Se|f-crimina-
tion
Interpreter
Equality before
and under law
and equal
protection and
benefit of law
Affirmative
action
programs
Official
languages of
Canada
Official
languages of
New Brunswick
The Constitution
12. Everyone has the right not to be sub-
jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or
punishment.
13. A witness who testifies in any proceed- 13. Chacun a droit a ce qu‘aucun témoi—
ings has the right not to have any incriminat- 5 gnage incriminant qu’il donne ne soit utilise
modifiée entre le moment de la perpetra-
tion de l’int”raction et celui de la sentence.
12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cwwé
tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusités.
5 Témoignugc
incriminant
ing evidence so given used to incriminate pour l’incriminer dans d’autres procedures,
that witness in any other proceedings, except
in a prosecution for perjury orfor the giving
of contradictory evidence.
sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour
temoignages contradictoires.
I4. A party or witness in any proceedings 10 14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent 1O1M=rPr@w
who does not understand or speak the lan-
guage in which the proceedings are conduct-
ed or who is deaf has the right to the assist-
ance of an interpreter.
Equality Rights
15. (I) Every individual is equal beforei5 15. (1) La loi ne fait acception dc per-
and under the law and has the right to the
equal protection and equal benefit of the law
without discrimination and, in particular,
without discrimination based on race, nation-
suivre les procedures, soit parce qu’1ls ne
comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue
employee, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de
surdite, ont droit a l’assistance d‘un inter-
prete. I5
Droits Z1 1’égalité
iigalité dcvanl
la loi, égnlite dc
bénéficc cl
protection égalc
dc la loi
sonne et s’applique également a tous, et tous
ont droit s la meme protection et au meme
benefice de la loi, indépendamment de toute
discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20
al or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age 2Otions fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale
or mental or physical disability.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any
law, program or activity that has as its object
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan-
ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
Page ou les deficiences mentales ou physi-
ques.
(2) Le paragraphe (I) n’a pas pour effet25Pr§%w‘n;1n¢§d¢
d’interdire les lois, programmes ou activites §’o’c,’a|Z‘ ”
destinés a améliorer la situation d’individus
taged individuals or groups including those 25 ou de groupes defavorisés, notamment du fait
that are disadvantaged because of race, na-
tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability.
Official Languages of Canada
de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou
ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30
leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs déficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Langues oflicielles du Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le francais et l’anglais sont les I-rafyisycfi
languages of Canada and have equality of 30langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un §;a’,,°,’§’;°Sd”
status and equal rights and privileges as to
their use in all institutions of the Parliament
and government of Canada.
statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35
a leur usage dans les institutions du Parle-
ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le francais et l’anglais sont les langues Lflittms
languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un ‘,1i£’§lc,’;f,s.d“
equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges égaux quant4O Bwnswivk
leges as to their use in all institutions of the .5 leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13089
Advancement
of status and
use
Proceedings of
Parliament
Proceedings of
New Brunswick
lcgislaturc
Parlianicmary
statutes and
records
New Bru nswick
statutes and
records
Proceedings in
courts
established by
Parliament
Proceedings in
New Brunswick
courts
Communica-
tions by public
with federal
institutions
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-
wick. Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La presente charte ne limite pas le lffgeréisigflvm
authority of Parliament or a legislature to pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de ‘°g”‘““
advance the equality of status or use of Eng- 5 favoriser la progression vers l’egalite de 5
lish and French. statut ou d’usage du francais et de l’anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use Eng- I7. (l) Chacun a le droit d‘employer le ‘l[u\|vfl”Xd”
lish or French in any debates and other francais ou l’anglais dans les débats et tra- Manic“
proceedings of Parliament. vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10 (2) Chacun a le droit d’employer le fran~ l0?'{‘~\Y?!f1*d¢1;\
or French in any debates and other proceed~ cais ou l’anglais dans les debats et travaux de ‘“g’°°’“”° “
Nouvcau-
ings of the legislature of New Brunswick. la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick. Brwiswick
Doctiincnts
piirlcnicntaircs
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes
of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus ct les proces~verbaux du Parlement
in English and French and both languagel5sont imprimes et publies en francais et en 15
versions are equally authoritative. anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant ega-
lement force de loi et celles des autres docu-
ments ayant meme valeur.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of
(2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes Dorvmsnlsds
the legislature of New Brunswick shall be ML“ “ii
rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-208,, N§i,s,’¢n’:,ic
printed and published in English and French ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Bwflswk
and both language versions are equally Z0et publies en francais et en anglais, les dcux
authoritative. versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme
valeur. 25
Procedures
dOVflfll lcs
tribunaux
établis pm’ lc
Parlement
19. (l) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d’employer le
used by any person in, or in any pleading in francais ou l’anglais dans toutes les affaires
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le
by Parliament. 25 Parlement et dans tous les actcs dc procedure
qui en decoulent. 30
Procedures
devzint lcs
tribtinaux riu
Nouvcau-
Brunswick
(2) Chacun a le droit d’employer le fran-
cais ou l’anglais dans toutes les affaires dont
sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns-
wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui
en decoulent. 35
(2) Either English or French may be used
by any person in, or in any pleading in or
process issuing from, any court of New
Brunswick.
Comniunic:x-
tions critrc les
administrés ct
les institutions
fédértilcs
20. (1) Any member of the public in 30 20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit at
Canada has the right to communicate with, l’emploi du francais ou dc l’anglais pour
and to receive available services from, any communiquer avec le siege ou l’administra-
head or central office of an institution oi” the tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou
Parliament or government ofCanada in Eng- du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40
lish or French, and has the same right with 35 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a
respect to any other office of any such insti- l’égard de tout autre bureau de ces institu-
tution where tions la oft, selon le cas :
(a) there is a significant demand for com- a) l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais fait
munications with and services from that l’objetd’une demandcimportante; 45
°ffi¢el” 5″°h la”g“age;°Y 40 b) l’emploi du francais et de l‘anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.

13090 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, l98l
Communica-
tions by public
with New
Brunswick
institutions
Continuation of
existing
constitutional
provisions
The Constitution
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is
reasonable that communications with and
services from that office be available in
both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New
Brunswick has the right to communicate
with, and to receive available services from,
any uffice of an institution of the legislature
or government of New Brunswick in English
or French.
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates
or derogates from any right. privilege or effet, en ce qui a trait s la langue francaise
obligation with respect to the English and
5 (2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
droit a l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais
pour communiquer avec tout bureau des ins-
titutions de la législature ou du gouverne-
ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
21. Les articles 16 s 20 n’ont pas pour
ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de_porter
Communica-
tions entre les
administrés ct
les i|1Slllutl0I\s
du Nouvcau-
Brunswick
Maintien en
vigueur dc
ccrtaines
dispositions
French languages, or either of them, that atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations
exists or is continued by virtue of any other l5qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes 10
provision of the Constitution of Canada. d’une autre disposition de la Constitution du
Canada.
Rights and
privileges
preserved
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n’ont pas pour Dr<>i\§i>ré$¢rvi‘\
or derogates from any legal or customary effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privile-
right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either ges, antérieurs ou posterieurs a l‘entrée en I5
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la presente charte et découlant de
Charter with respect to any language that is la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres
not English or French. que le francais ou l’anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights Droits Z1 1’instructt’on dans la langue de la
minorité
Language of
_ _ 23. (1) Citizens of Canada 23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens : I-grisiw _
instruction d instruction
(a) whose first language learned and still a) dont la premiere langue apprise et 20
understood is that of the English or French 25 encore comprise est celle de la minorité
linguisticminority population of the prov- francophone ou anglophone de la province
ince in which they reside, or cu ils resident,
(b) who have received their primary b) qui ont reeu leur instruction, au niveau
school instruction in Canada in English or primaire, en frangais ou en anglais au 25
French and reside in a province where the 30 Canada ct qui resident dans une province
language in which they received that ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont recu cette
instruction is the language of the English instruction est celle de la minorité franco-
or French linguistic minority population of phone ou anglophone de la province,
the province, ont, dans l’un ou l’autre cas, le droit d’y faire 30
have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue.
that language in that province.
fionlifluilv 0′ (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant §0ntlr;ull§ I
i”§§;fl2,%k,n has received or is receiving primary or a recu cu recoit son instruction, au niveau ,af,g‘,,”e°’ E “
secondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en francais cu en 35 d’instriwlii>tt
French in Canada, have the right to have all anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire ins-
their children receive primary and secondary truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux pri-
school instruction in the same language. maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13091
Application
where numbers
warrant
Enforcement of
guaranteed
rights and
freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
ofjusticc into
disrcpute
Aboriginal
rights and
freedoms not
affected by
Charter
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under
subsections (1) and (2) to have their children
receive primary and secondary school
instruction in the language of the English or
French linguistic minority population of a
province
(a) applies wherever in the province the
number of children of citizens who have
such a right is sufficient to warrant the
The Constitution
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana- Jfiligivtgiiogic
diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire P r “ m ‘
instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite
5 francophone ou anglophone d’une province :
a) s’exerce partout dans la province oi] le
nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce
droit est suffisant pour justifier s leur
endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics.
provision to them out of public funds 0flO de l’instruction dans la langue de la
minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those
children so warrants, the right to have
them receive that instruction in minority
language educational facilities provided l5 gnement de la minorité linguistique finan~ 15
out of public funds.
Enforcement
minorité;
b) comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces
enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire
instruire dans des établissements d’ensei-
ces sur les fonds publics.
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola~ gsffurssncfls
as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui d§,,,§’Qf§if,:f,és
infringed or denied may apply to a court of lui sont garantis par la présente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 20s‘adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20
as the court considers appropriate and just in
the circumstances.
nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-
venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsec- (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au L[{f$¢\/abiliéé
I . ~ C C
tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des p,m”;°,;‘:§ °
obtained in a manner that infringed or 25 éléments de preuve ont éte cbtenus dans des 25 gisqiwradicritdt
– – I – – €COI‘|5l erer
denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by
this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded
if it is established that, having regard to all
the circumstances, the admission of it in the
proceedings would bring the administration 3Otion est susceptible de déconsidérer l’admi-30
of justice into disrepute.
General
conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou
libertes garantis par la présente charte, ces
elements de preuve sont ecartes s’il est établi,
eu égard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa-
nistration de la justice.
Dispositions générales
Fadministration
de la justice
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la présente charte garantit 24:i‘iiii=‘ii]$i\,¢$‘,
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- certains droits et libertes ne porte pas d;S’,j,focj,,:,c°:
strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 issus de traites ou autres – des peuples 35
that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of
Canada including
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been
atteinte aux droits ou libertes —~ ancestraux,
autochtones du‘Canada, notamment :
a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
F@°°8fliZ@d by ills R0)/81 PF<>¢lama1i°” °f b) aux droits ou libertes acquis par regle-
40 40
06101361‘ 7. 1763; fifld ment de revendications territoriales.
(b) any rights or freedoms that may be
acquired by the aboriginal peoples of
Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Oiherrishis 26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la présente charte garantit Mamie” <1“ and freedoms – . . . . , . autres droits ct ,,mammd by tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas mmés Charter l 3092 COMMONS DEBATES November 23. 1981 Multicultural heritage Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes Rights respecting ‘ chools certain s preserved Application to territories and territorial authorities Legislative powers not extended Application of Charter Exception Exception where express declaration The Constitution strued as denying the existence of any other une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. existent au Canada. 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation dc la présente Miiiiitiviidv manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l’cbjectif de pre- enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Smouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 Canadians. patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens. Egalite dc gariintie des droits pour les deux sexes 28. Notwithstanding anything in this 28. lndependamment des autres disposi- Charter except section 33, the rights and tions de la présente charte, exception faite de freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed l’article 33, les droits et libertes qui y sont equally to male and female persons. lOmentionnés sont garantis également aux per- IO sonnes des deux sexes. 29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 29. Les dispositions de la présente charte Mfl§””¢”d_¢§ _ derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile- anteed by or under the Constitution of ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du Canada in respect of denominational, sepa- Canada concernant les ecoles separees et l5 rate or dissentient schools. 15 autres écoles confessionnelles. 30. A reference in this Charter to a prov- 30. Dans la presente charte, les disposi- /\PP_|l°_“li_°”=”>
ince or -to the legislative assembly or legisla- tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature ‘°””°”°”
ture of a province shall be deemed to include ou leur assemblee legislative visent égale-
a reference to the Yukon Territory and the ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoircs du 20
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20 Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives
legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes.
be.
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the 31. La présente charte n‘elargit pas les Non‘-éiarsiw
legislative powers of any body or authority. competences legislatives de quelque orga~ ::,i,’,‘Pé$,,m
nisme ou autorite que ce soit. 25 Iécislaiiws
Application of Charter Application dc Ia charte
32. (l) This Charter applies 25 32. (1) La presente charte s‘applique 1 dc
(a) to the Parliament and government of a) au Parlement et au gouvernement du
Canada in respect of all matters within the Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant
authority of Parliament including all mat- du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-
ters relating to the Yukon Territory and nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoi- 30
Northwest Territories; and 30 res du Nord-Ouest;
t t ,
(b) to the legislature and government of b) a la legislature et au gouvernement de
each province in respect of all matters chaque province, pour tous les domaines
within the authority of the legislature of relevant de cette legislature.
each province.
_ (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec- 35 (2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), l’ar- 35 Restriction
tion 15 shall not have effect until three years ticle 15 n’a d‘effet que trois ans apres l‘en-
after this section comes into force. tree en vigueur du présent article.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature ‘liléécrgszrivgvar
province may expressly declare in an Act of d‘une province peut adopter une loi ou il est m,,em
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressément declare que celle~ci ou une de 40
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independamment
shall operate notwithstanding a provision d’une disposition donnee de l’article 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 s l5 de la présente charte, ou de

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13093
Operation of
exception
Five year
limitation
Re-enactment
Five year
limitation
Citation
Commitment to
promote equal
opportunities
Commitment
respecting
public services
this Charter, or section 28 of this Charter in
its application to discrimination based on sex
referred to in section 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in
respect of which a declaration made under
this section is in effect shall have such opera-
tion as it would have but for the provision of
this Charter referred to in the declaration.
5
(3) A declaration made under subsection
(l) shall cease to have effect five years after 10
it comes into force or on such earlier date as
may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov-
ince may re—enact a declaration made under
subsection (1). 15
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a
re-enactment made under subsection (4).
Citation
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadi-
an Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
PART ll
EQU./\LlZATlON AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES
35. (I) Without altering the legislative 20
authority of Parliament or of the provincial
legislatures, or the rights of any of them with
respect to the exercise of their legislative
authority, Parliament and the legislatures,
together with the government of Canada and 25
the provincial governments, are committed to
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the
well-being of Canadians;
(b) furthering economic development to
reduce disparity in opportunities; and 30
(c) providing essential public services of
reasonable quality to all Canadians.
(2) Parliament and the government of
Canada are committed to the principle of
making equalization payments to ensure that 35
provincial governments have sufficient reve-
nues to provide reasonably comparable levels
of public services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation.
The Constitution
Particle 28 de cette charte dans son applica-
tion a la discrimination fondée sur le sexe et
mentionnée a l’article 15.
(2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l’objet E,”fl=1e_l=
d’une declaration conforme au present article 5 demgamn
et en vigueur a l’effet qu’elle aurait sauf la
disposition en cause de la charte.
(3) La declaration visée au paragraphe (1) Burt? 9*
cesse d‘avoir effet a la date qui y est précisée vahdm
ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en 10
vigueur.
(4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut
adopter de nouveau une declaration visée au P “
paragraphe (1).
(5) Le paragraphe (3) s’applique a toute l5D1r§i9@
declaration adoptée sous le régime du para- W ‘0
graphe (4).
T ilre
34. Titre de la présente partie: Charte Titre
canadienne des droits er Iiberlés.
PARTIE 11
PEREQUATION ET INEGALITES REGIONALES
35. (1) Sous reserve des competences 20 Engagements
legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures {F鑧;’,§fé“,e,
et de leur droit dc les exercer, le Parlement chm“
et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-
ments fédéral et provinciaux, s’engagent a :
:1) promouvoir Pégalité des chances de 25
tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de
leur bien-étre;
b) favoriser le développement économique
pour réduire l’inégalité des chances;
c) fournir a’_tous les Canadiens, a un 30
niveau de qualité acceptable, les services
publics essentiels.
(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement _du lierfslaieflmsflt
Canada rennent l’en a ement de rinci e §e,‘,‘,;m§“f,b|;,,s
P P
de faire des paiements de péréquation pro-35
pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-
ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre
en mesure d’assurer les services publics a un
niveau de qualité et de fiscalité sensiblement
comparables. 40

13094 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, I981
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of
territories
General
procedure for
amending
Constitution oi
Canada
Majority of
members
The Constitution
PART III PARTIE III
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE CONFERENCE CONSTITUTIONNELLE
36. (1) A constitutional conference com» 36. (I) Dans l’année suivant l’entrée en
posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and vigueur de la présente partie, le premier
the first ministers of the provinces shall be ministre du Canada convoque une conference
convened by the Prime Minister of Canada constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers
within one year after this Part comes into Sministres provinciaux etlui-meme.
force.
(2) The conference convened under sub- (2) Sont placees a l’ordre du jour de la
section (I) shall have included in its agenda conference visée au paragraphe (1) les ques-
an item respecting constitutional matters tions constitutionnelles qui intéressent direc-
that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of iOtement les peuples autochtones du Canada,
Canada, including the identification and notamment la determination et la definition
definition of the rights of those peoples to be des droits de ces peuples at inscrire dans la
included in the Constitution of Canada, and Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite du Canada invite leurs représentants it parti-
representatives of those peoples to participate l5ciper aux travaux relatifs at ces questions.
in the discussions on that item.
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite
invite elected representatives of the govern- des représentants élus des gouvernements du
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North- territoire du Yukon et des territoires du
west Territories to participate in the discus- 20 Nord-Ouest s participer aux travaux relatifs
sions on any item on the agenda of the atoute question placéeal’ordre du jour dela
Conference
constitution-
nelle
5
Participation
des peuples
autochtones
10
1 5 Participation
des territoires
conference convened under subsection (I) conference visée au paragraphe (I) et qui,2O
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, selon lui, intéresse directement le territoire
directly affects the Yukon Territory and the du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest.
Northwest Territories. 25
PART IV PARTIE IV
PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
37. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut
etre modifiée par proclamation du gouver-
neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
autorisée a la fois :
a) par des résolutions du Sénat et de la
Chambre des communes;
I7) par des resolutions des assemblées
legislatives d’au moins deux tiers des pro-
vinces dont la population confondue repre-
scnte, selon le recensement general le plus
récent a l’époque, au moins cinquante pour
cent de la population dc toutes les
provinces.
(2) An amendment made under subsection (2) Une modification faite conformement
(1) that dercgates from the legislative40au paragraphe (I) mais dérogatoire a la
powers, the proprietary rights or any other competence legislative, aux droits de pro-
rights or privileges of the legislature or gov- priété ou a tous autres droits ou privileges
37. (I) An amendment to the Constitution
of Canada may be made by proclamation
issued by the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada where so authorized
by 30
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of
Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assem-
blies of at least two-thirds of the provinces
that have, in the aggregate, according to 35
the then latest general census, at least fifty
per cent of the population of all the
provinces.
Procedure
normalc dc
modification
25
30
35
Majorité Simple

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13095
Expression of
dissent
Revocation of
dissent
Restriction on
proclamation
Idem
Compensation
Amendment by
unanimous
consent
ernment of a province shall require a resolu-
tion supported by a majority of the members
of each of the Senate, the House of Com-
mons and the legislative assemblies required
under subsection (l).
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec-
tion (2) shall not have effect in a province
the legislative assembly of which has
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution
supported by a majority of its members prior
to the issue of the proclamation to which the
amendment relates unless that legislative
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup-
ported by a majority of its members, revokes
its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the
purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at
any time before or after the issue of the
proclamation to which it relates.
5
5
The Constitution
d‘une legislature ou d’un gouvernement pro-
vincial exige une resolution adoptée a la
majorite des senateurs, des deputes fédéraux
et des députés de chacune des assemblées
legislatives du nombre requis de provinces.
(3) La modification viséc au paragraphe
(2) est sans effet dans une province dont
l‘asscmblée legislative a, avant la prise de la
proclamation, exprime son desaccord par une
lOrésolution adoptee a la majorite des députes,
sauf si cette assemblée, par resolution egale’
ment adoptée a la majorité, revient sur son
desaccord et autorise la modification.
(4) La resolution de desaccord visée au
paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquee a tout
moment, indépendamment dc la date de la
proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
5
Désaccord
10
Levee du
1 S désaccord
38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20 38. (1) La proclamation visée au paragra- Rsslriclion
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration phe 37(1) nc peut etre prise dans l‘année
of one year from the adoption of the resolu- suivant l’adoption de la resolution at l’origine 20
tion initiating the amendment procedure de la procedure de modification que si l’as-
thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of semblée legislative de chaque province a
each province has previously adopted a reso- 25préalablemcnt adopté une resolution d‘agre-
lution of assent or dissent. ment ou de desaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 25ld¢”‘
under subsection 37(1) after the expiration 37(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l’adoption de la resolution a l‘origine
lution initiating the amendment procedure 3Ode la procedure dc modification.
thereunder.
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Cvmvcmliov
subsection 37(1) that transfers provincial sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s‘applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or pas une modification faite conformément au
other cultural matters from provincial legis- 35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere
latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d‘éducation ou dans d’autrcs domaines cultu-
reasonable compensation to any province to rcls, a un transfert de competences legislati-
which the amendment does not apply. ves provincialesau Parlement.
35
40. An amendment to the Constitution of 40. Toute modification de la Constitution C°”§§=r”=””=”l
Canada in relation to the following matters 40 du Canada portant sur les questions suiva
may be made by proclamation issued by the tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto~
unanlmc
n.
Canada only where authorized by resolutions risee par des resolutions du Senat,’de la 40
of the Senate and House of Commons and of Chambre des communes et de l’assemblee
the legislative assembly of each province: 45legislative de chaque province :
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a general et celle de lieutenant~gouverneur;
province;

13096 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Amendment by
The Constitution
(b) the right of a province to a number of
members in the House of Commons not
less than the number of Senators by which
the province is entitled to be represented at
the time this Part comes into force;
(c) subject to section 42, the use of the
English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court
of Canada; and .
(2) an amendment to this Part-.
41. (1) An amendment to the Constitution
b) le droit d’une province d‘av0ir a la
Chambre des communes un nombre de
deputes au moins égal a celui des sénateurs
par lesquels elle est habilitée a etre repre-
sentee lors de l’entree en vigueur de la 5
présente partie;
c) sous reserve de l’article 42, l‘usage du
francais ou de l’anglais;
d) la composition de la Cour supreme du
Canada; 10
e) la modification de la présente partie.
41. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu- Procéduw
no nlc dc
I . . . . .
f,f§§§§,,, of Canada in relation tothe following mat» tion du Canada portant sur les questions m,:dmiM,;0,,
ters may be made only in accordance with suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-
subsection 37(1): phe 37(1): l5
Exception
Amendment of
provisions
relating to some
but not all
provinces
(a) the principle of proportionatelfi
representation of the provinces in the
House of Commons prescribed by the
Constitution of Canada;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the
method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a
province is entitled to be represented in the
Senate and the residence qualifications of
Senators;
(d) subject to paragraph 40(d), the25
Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into
the territories; and
(_/) notwithstanding any other law or prac-
tice, the establishment of new provinces. 30
(2) Subsections 37(2) to (4) do not apply
a) le principe de la representation propor-
tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des
communes prévu par la Constitution du
Canada;
b) les pouvoirs du Sénat et le mode de 20
selection des senateurs;
c) le nombre des senateurs par lesquels
une province est habilitée a etre represen-
tée et les conditions dc residence qu’ils
doivent remplir; 25
d) sous reserve de l’alinéa 40d), la Cour
supreme du Canada;
e) le rattachement aux provinces existan-
tes de tout ou partie des territoires;
f) par derogation a toute autre loi on 30
usage, la creation de provinces.
(2) Les paragraphes 37(2) a (4) ne s’appli- EX°¢P\l°”
in respect of amendments in relation to mat- quent pas aux questions mentionnees au
ters referred to in subsection (1). paragraphe (1).
42. An amendment to the Constitution of 42. Les dispositions de la Constitution du 35|P§’!\>dig¢§”°”a
Canada in relation to any provision that 35 Canada applicables a certaines provinces cfiilnesc
applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, seulement ne peuvent etre modifiées que par P1’°Vl”°¢5
including proclamation du gouverneur general sous le
(a) any alteration to boundaries between grand 56%“ dll Canada, fllllflfiséfi P31‘ (165
provimesyand resolutions du Sénat, de la Chambre des 40
(b) any amendment to any provision thamocommunes ct de Fassemblee legislative dc
“flaws to ‘he use of the En “Sh or the chaque province concernee. Le present arti-
g 9 ,
French language within a province, dc S apphquc notamment ‘ I d f __
may be made by proclamation issued by the ”) imx °ha“5e’§‘em§ d“ “ace cs ‘°““°’ 45
Governor General under the Great Seal of res lnterprovfnclales‘ p _ _
Canada only where so authorized by resolu- 45 5) 3′-IX m°dlfi¢a”°n$ de5_dl5P°5m°”$ rel?‘
tions of the Senate and House of Commons Y1‘/65 5 rllsage dll f1’3″§=1l$ °l1 d5 llanglals
dans une province.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13097
Amendments
by Parliament
Amendments
by provincial
legislatures
initiation of
nmendmcnt
procedures
Revocation of
authorization
Amendments
without Senate
resolution
Computation of
period
Advice to issue
proclamation
Constitutional
conference
and of the legislative assembly of each prov-
ince to which the amendment applies.
43. Subject to sections 40 and 41, Parlia~
ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour
The Constitution
43. Sous reserve des articles 40 et 41, 1e
the Constitution of Canada in relation to the 5 modifier les dispositions de la Constitution
executive government of Canada or the
Senate and House of Commons.
44. Subject to section 40, the legislature
of each province may exclusively make laws
amending the constitution of the province. 10 la constitution de sa province.
du Canada relatives au pouvoir exécutif fedé- 5
ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des
communes,
44. Sous reserve de l’artic1e 40, une legis-
lature a competence exclusive pour modifier
Modification
par le
Parlement
Modification
par les
legislatures
10
45. (1) The procedures for amendment 455(1). L’initiative des procedures de
under sections 37, 40, 41 and 42 may be
initiated either by the Senate or the House of
Commons or by the legislative assembly of a
province.
modification visees aux articles 37, 40, 41 et
42 appartient au Sénat, a la Chambre des
communes ou a une assemblee legislative.
(2) A resolution of assent made for the (2) Une resolution d’agrement adoptee l5:’é<f§il;i:;§d¢
purposes of this Part may be revoked at any
time before the issue of a proclamation
authorized by it.
dans le cadre de la présente partie peut etre
revoquée a tout moment avant la date de la
proclamation qu’elle autorise.
46. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 20 46. (1) Dans les cas vises s l‘article 37, 40, Mvdifjvatirzitt
of Canada made by proclamation under sec
tion 37, 40, 41 or 42 may be made without a
resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue
of the proclamation if, within one hundred
41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut 20
d’autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n’a pas
adopté _de resolution dans un délai de cent
quatre-vingts jours suivant 1’adoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the25de la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons of a resolution authoriz-
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such
a resolution and if, at any time after the
expiration of that period, the House of Com-
mons again adopts the resolution.
derniere, aprés l‘expiration du delai, adopte 25
une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
sans rcsolu on
du Sénat
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au gigrggztatiflfl
gued or dissolved shall not be counted in
computing the one hundred and eighty day
period referred to in subsection (1).
paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les
periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
prorogé ou dissous. 30
47. The Queen’s Privy Council for 35 47. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le gfgzxljéisn
Canada shall advise the Governor General to
issue a proclamation under this Part forth-
with on the adoption of the resolutions
Canada demande au gouverneur general de
prendre, conformément a la présente partie,
une proclamation”des 1’adoption des resolu-
requircd for an amendment made by procla- tions prevues par cette partie pour une modi- 35
mation under this Part. 40 fication par proclamation.
48. A constitutional conference composed
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the
first ministers of the provinces shall be con-
vened by the Prime Minister of Canada
48. Dans les quinze ans suivant 1’entree en
vigueur de la présente partie, le premier
ministre du Canada convoque une conference
constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 40
within fifteen years after this Part comes into 45 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du
force to review the provisions of this Part.
reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitution
nclle

13098 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
PART V
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ACT,
1867
PARTIE V
MODIFICATION DE LA L01
CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1867
A'”=”d”*=”\ 1° 49. The Constitution Act, I867 (formerly 49. La Loi constitutionnelle de I867 Modification dc
named the British North America Act, I867) (anterieurement désignee sous le titre: Acre ‘,”:,:,‘Z-,,,,,-,,,,_
is amended by adding thereto, immediately de I’/lmérique du Nord britannique, 1867) 5″?!/P-#1867
after section 92 thereof, the following head- est modifiée par insertion, apres l’article 92,
ing and section: 5de la rubrique et de 1’article suivants :
Constitution
Act. I 86 7
Laws respecting
norvrcncwable
natural
resources.
forestry
resources and
clcctrical
energy
Export from
provinces of
resources
Authority of
Parliament
“Non-Renewable Natural Resources, < Forestry Resources and E lectrica! Energy ressources forestiéres el énergie électrique
92A. (1) In each province, the legisla-
ture may exclusively make laws in relation
t0 ‘
(tz) exploration for non-renewable natu-
ral resources in the province; 10
(I2) development, conservation and
management of non-renewable natural
resources and forestry resources in the
province, including laws in relation to
the rate of primary production there-15
from; and
(c) development, conservation and man-
agement of sites and facilities in the
province for the generation and produc-
tion of electrical energy. 20
(2) In each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the export from
the province to another part of Canada of
the primary production from non-renew-
able natural resources and forestry 25
resources in the province and the produc-
tion from facilities in the province for the
generation of electrical energy, but such
laws may not authorize or provide for
discrimination in prices or in supplies 30
exported to another part of Canada.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates
from the authority of Parliament to enact
laws in relation to the matters referred to
in that subsection and, where such a law of35
Parliament and a law of a province con-
flict, the law of Parliament prevails to the
extent of the conflict.
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque pre- <3<>m_|>él_=rI\¢=
vince a competence exclusive pour legifé- “‘°”‘”°‘“
rer dans les domaines suivants : 10
a) prospection des ressources naturelles
non renouvelables de la province;
b) exploitation, conservation et gestion
des ressources naturelles non renouvela-
bles et des ressources forestiéres de la15
province, y compris leur rythme de pro-
duction primaire;
c) aménagement, conservation ct ges-
tion des emplacements et des installa-
tions de la province destinés a la produc- 20
tion d’énergie électrique.
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exwgtalion
competence pour légiferer en ce qui con- ,,§;3,,’;;
cerne Fexportation, hors de la province, a
destination d’une autre partie du Canada,25
de la production primaire tirée des ressour-
ces naturelles non renouvelables et des res-
sources forestieres de la province. ainsi que
de la production d’energie électrique de la
province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de 30
lois autorisant ou prévoyant des disparites
de prix ou des disparités dans les exporta-
tions destinees a une autre partie du
Canada.
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas 35 Pwvoir dv
atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de légife- P”’°”‘°”‘
rer dans les domaines vises a cc paragra-
phe, les dispositions d’une loi du Parlement
adoptee dans ces domaines l‘emportant sur
les dispositions incompatibles d’une loi 40
provinciale.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13099
Taxation of
resources
“Primary
production“
Existing powers
or rights
Idem
(4) In each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the raising of
money by any mode or system of taxation
in respect of
(a) non—renewable natural resources 5
and forestry resources in the province
and the primary production therefrom,
and
(b) sites and facilities in the province
for the generation of electrical energy 10
and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported
in whole or in part from the province, but
such laws may not authorize or provide for
taxation that differentiates between pro~ 15
duction exported to another part of
Canada and production not exported from
the province.
(5) The expression “primary produc-
tion” has the meaning assigned by the20
Sixth Schedule.
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5)
derogates from any powers or rights that a
legislature or government of a province
had immediately before the coming into25
force of this section.”
50. The said Act is further amended by
The Constitution
(4) La legislature de chaque province a
competence pour prelever des sommes
d’argent par tout mode ou systemc de
taxation:
a) des ressources naturelles non renou- 5
velables et des ressources forestieres de
la province, ainsi que de la production
primaire qui en est tirée;
b) des emplacements et des installations
de la province destines a la production l0
d’énergie electrique, ainsi que de cette
production meme.
Cette competence peut s’exercer indepen-
damment du fait que la production en
cause soit ou non, en totalité ou en partie, 15
exportee hors de la province, mais les lois
adoptées dans ces domaines ne peuvent
autoriser ou prévoir une taxation qui eta-
blisse une distinction entre la production
exportée a destination d’une autre partie 20
du Canada et la production non exportée
hors de la province.
(5) L’expression cproduction primaire» a
le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme
annexe. 25
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent
pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus
par la legislature ou le gouvernement
d’une province lors de l‘entree en vigueur
du present article.» 30
50. Ladite loi est en outre modifiée par
adding thereto the following Schedule: adjonction de l’annexe suivante :
“THE SIXTH SCHEDULE
Primary Production from N0n—Renewable
Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this
Act, 30
(a) production from a non-renewable d’une ressource naturelle non renouvela- 35
natural resource is primary production
therefrom if
(i) it is in the form in which it exists
upon its recovery or severance from its 35
Production primaire tirée des ressources
naturelles non renouvelables et des
ressources forestiéres
1. Pour l’applic’ation de l‘article 92A :
a) on entend par production primaire tirée
ble :
(i) soit le produit qui se présente sous la
meme forme que lors de son extraction
du milieu naturel,
Taxation dcs
l‘CSSO\ll’C€$
.Production
primaire-
Pouvoirs ou
droits existanls
ldem
natural State» °” (ii) soit le produit non manufacture de 40
la transformation, du raffinage ou de

13100
COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Primacy of
Constitution of
Canada
Constitution of
Canada
A mcndmcnls to
Constitution of
Canada
Repcals and
new names
Conscqueniiai
amendments
The Constitution
Paffinage d‘une ressource, a l’exception
du produit du raffinage du petrole brut,
du raffinage du pétrole brut lourd ame~
liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-
des derives du charbon ou du raffinage 5
d‘un equivalent synthétique du petrole
brut;
b) on entend par production primaire tirée
d’une ressource forestiere la production
constituee de billots, de poteaux, de bois 10
d’oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure on d’autre
produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de
bois, a l’exception d’un produit manufac-
ture en bois.»
(ii) it is a product resulting from proc-
essing or refining the resource, and is
not a manufactured product or a prod-
uct resulting from refining crude oil,
refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refin- 5
ing gases or liquids derived from coal or
refining a synthetic equivalent of crude
oil; and
(b) production from a forestry resource is
primary production therefrom if it consists I0
of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, saw-
dust or any other primary wood product,
or wood pulp, and is not a product manu-
factured from wood.”
PART Vl PARTIE VI
GENERAL DISPOSITIONS GENIERALES
5|. (I) The Constitution of Canada is the I5 51. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la I5 Ptima_u\é_d=l*\
supreme law of Canada, and any law that is loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes §§’,§’§i,“”°”d“
inconsistent with the provisions of the Con- les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre
stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regle dc droit.
of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes 20
(a) the Canada Act, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule I; and
(0) any amendment to any Act or order
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). 25
(2) La Constitution du Canada comprend 1 ggmguiivn 4″
a) la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la 20
présente loi;
b) les textes legislatifs et les decrets figu-
rant 2 l’annexe I;
c) les modifications des textes legislatifs et
des decrets mentionnés aux alineas a) ou 25
b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of (3) La Constitution du Canada ne peut Modification
Canada shall be made only in accordance etre modifiee que conformement aux pou-
with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conferes par elle.
tion of Canada.
52. (1) The enactments referred to in 30 52. (l) Les textes Iégislatifs et les decrets3O’\”‘°14“”°”_°’
Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed énuméres a la colonne I de |’annexe I sont noumuxmm
or amended to the extent indicated in abrogés ou modifies dansia mesureindiquéea
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent en
continue as law in Canada under the names vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous les
set out in Column II] thereof. 35titres mentionnes a la colonne III. 35
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Tout texte legislatif ou réglementaire,
Act, that refers to an enactment referred to sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention
in Schedule I by the name in Column I d‘un texte legislatif ou decretfigurantalan»
thereof is hereby amended by substituting nexe I par le titre indiqué a la colonne I est
for that name the corresponding name in40modifié par substitution a ce titre du titre40
Column III thereof, and any British North correspondant mentionne a la colonne III;
America Act not referred to in Schedule I tout Acte de l‘Amerique du Nord britanni-
may be cited as the Constitution Act fol- que non mentionné a l‘annexe I peutetre cite
sous Ie titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de
Modifications
correlalives

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES l310I
Repeal and
consequential
amendments
French version
of Constitution
of Canada
English and
French versions
ofccrlnin
constitutional
texts
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its
enactment.
53. Part III is repealed on the day that is
one year after this Part comes into force and
The Constitution
‘l‘indication de l’annee de son adoption et
eventuellement de son numero.
53. La partie III est abrogee un an apres
l’entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le
this section may be repealed and this Act Sgouverneur general peut, par proclamation
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal
of Part III and this section, by proclamation
issued by the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada.
sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le
present article et apporter en consequence de
cette double abrogation les amenagements
qui s’imposent a la présente loi.
Abrogation ct
modifications
qui en
§ découlent
54. A French version of the portions of the I0 54. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada IOXZLSQSLC dc
Constitution of Canada referred to in est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs w,a,,,,,c,,c,
Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister delais, la version francaise des parties de la ¢<>”§til\1li<>nr\¢ls
of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos-
sible and, when any portion thereof sufficient nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante
Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l’an-
to warrant action being taken has been so l5est, des qu’elle est prete, deposee pour adop- I5
prepared, it shall be put forward for enact-
ment by proclamation issued by the Gover-
nor General under the Great Seal of Canada ment a la procedure applicable a l’epoque a
pursuant to the procedure then applicable to
Constitution of Canada.
55 Where an ortion of the Constitution 55. Les versions francaise et anglaise des
parties de la Constitution du Canada adop-
and French or where a French version of any tees dans ces deux Iangues ont également
– Y P
of Canada has been or is enacted in English
tion par proclamation du gouverneur general
sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-
la modification des dispositions constitution-
an amendment of the same provisions of the 20nelles qu’elle contient. 20
portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- 25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de
Versions
frnnqaise at
anglaise dc
certains textes
constilutionnels
English and
French versions
of this Act
Commence-
ment
Commence-
mcnl of
paragraph
Z3( l )(a) in
rcspecl of
Quebec
Authorization
of Qucbcc
ant to section 54, the English and French loi, des l’adoption, dans le cadre de l’article 25
versions of that portion of the Constitution 54, d’une partie de la version francaise de la
are equally authoritative. Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.
56. The English and French versions of 56. Les versions francaise etanglaise de la
this Act are equally authoritative. 30 présente loi ont egalement force de loi. 30 a,,g|a,,e dc la
présente loi
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall 57. Sous reserve de l’article 58, la présente E_””éw\
come into force on a day to be fixed by loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par pro- v’g“c“’
proclamation issued by the Queen or the clamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Canada. 35
58. (1) L’alinea_v 23(l)a) entre en vigueur35£5i”Lr§:r¢gc
pour Ie Quebec a’la date fixee par proclama- |-fiinéa 23m“)
tion dc la Reine ou du gouverneur general P°\H’l¢Q\\<‘=b¢¢
sous le grand sceau du Canada.
58. (I) Paragraph 23(I)(a) shall come
into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be
fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or
the Governor General under the Great Seal
of Canada. 40
(2) A proclamation under subsection (I) (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe /‘-“\,<giWi<=”-1″
shall be issued only where authorized by the (I) ne peut etre prise qu’apres autorisation 40Q“° cc
legislative assembly or government of de l’assemblee legislative ou du gouverne-
Quebec. ment du Quebec.

13102
COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
Repeal 0|‘ this
section
Short title and
cilalions
The Constitution
(3) This section may be repealed on the
day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in
respect of Quebec and this Act amended and
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal
of this section, by proclamation issued by the
Queen or the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada.
59. This Act may be cited as the Consti-
tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts
1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be
cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867
to I981.
(3) Le présent article peut etre abrogé a la Algrvzalivq <1“
date d’entrée en vigueur de l’alinéa 23(1)a) p’°S°”‘““°’°
pour le Quebec, et la présente loi faire l’ob-
jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et
5changements de numérotation qui en décou- 5
lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du
gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du
Canada.
59. Titre abrégé de la présente annexe: Titm
Loi constitutionnelle de 1981; titre commun l0
10 des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975
(n° 2) et de la présente loi: Lois constitu-
tionnelles de I867 Z1 1981.

80106-7

13104 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
MODERNIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981
Column I
Item Act Affected
Column I1
Amendment
Column 111
New Name
1 British North America Act 1867
30-at Vict., c. 3 (U.K.) ’ ’
An Act to amend and continue the
Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to
establish and provide for the Gov-
ernment of the Province of Manito-
ba, 1870, 33 Vict., c. 3 (Can.)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting Rupert’s Land and the
North-Western Territory into the
union, dated the 23rd day of June,
1870
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting British Columbia into the
Union, dated the 16th day of May,
1871
British North America Act, 1871,
34-35 Vict., c. 28 (U.K.)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting Prince Edward Island into
the Union, dated the 26th day of
June, 1873
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875,
38-39 Vict., c. 38 (U.K.)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting all British possessions and
Territories in North America and
islands adjacent thereto into the
Union, dated the 31st day of July,
1880
(1) Section 1 is repealed and
the following substituted therefor:
“l. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I867.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
(3) Class 1 of section 91 is
repealed.
(4) Class 1 of section 92 is
repealed.
(1) The long title is repealed
and the following substituted
therefor:
“Manitoba Act, 1870.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
Section 1 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“l. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I871.”
Constitution Act, 1867
Manitoba Act, 1870
Rupert’s Land and N0rth~West-
ern Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Constitution Act, 1871
Prince Edward Island Terms of
Union
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13105
ANNEXE I
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
ACTUALISATION DE LA CONSTITUTION
The Constitution
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne 11
Modification
Colonne III
Nouveau titre
Acte dc l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1867, 30-31 Vict., c. 3
(R-~U-)
Acte pour amender et continuer
l’acte trente-deux et trente-trois Vic-
toria, chapitre trois, et pour établir
et constituer le gouvernement de la
province de Manitoba, 1870, 33
Vict., c. 3 (Canada)
Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant la Terre de Rupert et le
Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date
du 23 juin 1870
Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant la Colombie-Britannique,
en date du 16 mai1871
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1871, 34-35 Vict., c. 28
(R-~U-)
Arrété en conseil de Sa ‘Majesté
admettant l’Ile-du-Prince-Edouard,
en date du 26 juin 1873
Acte du Parlement du Canada,
1875, 38-39 Vict., c. 38 (R.-U.)
Arreté en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant dans 1’Union tous les ter-
ritoires et possessions britanniques
dans l’Amérique du Nord, et les iles
adjacentes a ces territoires et posses-
sions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
(1) L’article 1 est abrogé et
remplacé par ce qui suit :
(1. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I867.»
(2) L’article 20 est abrogé.
(3) La catégorie 1 de Particle
91 est abrogee.
(4) La catégorie 1 de 1’article
92 est abrogee.
(1) Le titre complet est abrogé
et remplacé par ce qui suit :
< toba.»
(2) L’article 20 est abrogé.
L’article 1 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit : I
ml. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1871.»
Loi constitutionnelle de 1867
Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba
Décret en conseil sur la terre de
Rupert et le territoire du Nord-
Ouest
Conditions de l’adhésion de la
Colombie—Britannique
Loi constitutionnelle de 1871
Conditions de‘ Padhésion de
l’11e-du-Prince-Edouard
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du
Canada
Décret en conseil sur les territoi-
res adjacents

13106 COMMONS DEBATES November 23. 1981
The Cons/itulion
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981—Continued
SCHEDULE I
to the
Column I Column II Column III
Item Act Affected Amendment New Name
British North America Act, 1886,
49-50 Vict., c. 35 (U.K.)
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act,
1889, 52-S3 Vict.,c.28(U.1(.)
Canadian Speaker (Appointment of
Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59
Vict., c. 3 (U.K.)
The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw.
VII, c. 3 (Can.)
The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5
Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)
British North America Act, 1907, 7
Edw. V11, c. ll (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1915,
5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1930,
20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)
Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22
Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1940,
3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1943,
6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1886.”
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1907.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I915,”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1930.”
In so far as they apply to
Canada,
(a) section 4 is repealed; and
(I2) subsection 7(1) is
repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2, This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1940,”
The Act is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1886
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act
1889
Alberta Act
Saskatchewan Act
Constitution Act, 1907
Constitution Act, 1915
Constitution Act, 1930
Statute of Westminster, 1931
Constitution Act, 1940

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13107
ANNEXE I (suite)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
The C0nsliluti0r|
Colonne 1 Colonne II Colonne III
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de l‘Amerique du Nord britan-
nique, 1886, 49-50 Vict., C4 35
(R–U)
Acte du Canada (limites d’Ontario)
1889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (R.-U.)
Acte concernant 1’Orateur canadien
(nomination d‘un suppléant) 1895,
2° session, 59 Vict., c. 3 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1’A1berta, 1905, 4~5 Ed.
VI1,c. 3 (Canada)
Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4~5
Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45
(Rt-U-)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26
(R.-U.)
Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22
Geo1V, c. 4 (R.-U.)
Acte dc l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36
(R-~U-)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30
(R.-U.)
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
43. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1886.»
La loi est abrogee.
L‘artic1e 2 est abrogé ct rem-
placé par ce qui suit 2
<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1907.»
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par cc qui suit :
13. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1915.»
L’article 3 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
13. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I930.» .
Dans Ia mesure ou ils s’app1i-
quent au Canada :
a) l’artic1e 4 est abrogé;
b) 1e paragraphe 7(1) est
abrogé.
L’artic1e 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
a2. Titre abrégé 2 Loi consti-
tutiannelle de 1940.»
La loi est abrogee.
Loi constitutionnelle de 1886
Loi de I889 sur 1e Canada (fron-
tieres de l’Ontario)
Loi sur l’A1berta
Loi sur 1a Saskatchewan
Loi constitutionnelle de 1907
Loi constitutionnelle de 1915
Loi constitutionnelle de 1930
Statut de Westminster de 1931
Loi constitutionnelle de 1940

13108 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981»-Continued
SCHEDULE I
to the
Column I Column 11 Column I11
Item Act Affected Amendment New Name
20.
21
22
23
24.
25.
26
27
28.
British North America Act, 1946,
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1949,
12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
British North America (No. 2) Act,
1949, 13 Geo. V1, c. 81 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1951,
14—15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1952, l
Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)
British North America Act, 1960, 9
Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1964,
12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1965,
14 Eliz. I1, o. 4, Part I (Can.)
British North America Act, 1974,
23 Eliz. 1I,c. 13, Part I (Can.)
The Act is repealed.
Section 3 is repealed and the Newfoundland Act
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Newfoundland Act.”
The Act is repealed.
The Act is repealed.
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1960.”
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1964.”
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1965.”
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1)
(Can.) is repealed and the follow-
ing substituted therefor:
“3. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1974.”
Constitution Act, 1960
Constitution Act, 1964
Constitution Act, 1965
Constitution Act, 1974

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13109
ANNEXE I (suite)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
The Constitution
Colonne 1
Loi visée
Colonne I1
Modification
Colonne III
Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63
(R–U-)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22
(R.-U.)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c.
81 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32
(R.-U.)
Acte de 1’Arnérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15
(Canada)
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73
(R.-U.)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I
(Canada)
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. I1, c. 13, Partie
I (Canada)
La loi est abrogee.
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem- Loi sur Terre-Neuve
place par ce qui suit :
<3. Titre abrégé : Loi sur
Terre-Neuve.»
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogee.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
42. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1960.»
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
(2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1964.»
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit: ‘ w
12. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle de I965.»
L‘artic1e 3, modifié par le para-
graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Eli-
zabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est
abroge et remplacé par ce qui
suit :
:3, Titre abregé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle de1974.»
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
Loi constitutionnelle de 1964
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
Loi constitutionnelle de 1974

13110 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
CONSTITUTION ACT, 198 1—C0ncIuded
SCHEDULE 1
to the
Column 1 Column II Column III
Item Act Affected
Amendment
New Name
29. British North America Act, 1975,
23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)
30. British North America Act (No. 2),
1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.)
is repealed and the following sub-
stituted therefor:
“3. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act (No. I),
I975.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act (No. 2),
I975.”
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13111
The Constitution
ANNEXE 1 (fin)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
Colonne I Colonne 11 Colonne 111
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
Acte dc l’Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3, modifié par 1’artic1e Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975
nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. I1, c. 28, 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth 11, c.
Partie I (Canada) 28 (Canada), est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
(3. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle n” I de I975.»
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3 est abrogé et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 dc 1975
nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 placé par ce qui suit:
(Canada) 13. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle n” 2 de I975.»

13112 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
Madam Speaker: Just before we proceed, I want to tell the
House that I have examined the amendment proposed by the
right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), seconded by
the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss Mac-
Donald), and I find it to be in order. I am prepared to read it
to the House.
An hon. Member: Dispense.
Madam Speaker: Shall I dispense?
Some hon. Members: No.
Madam Speaker: The right hon. member for Yellowhead,
seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands,
moves:
Rights 28. Notwithstanding anything in this
svaflmlwd charter, the rights and freedoms referred to
in it are guaranteed equally to male and
female persons.
(ii) by striking out subclause 33(1), and substituting the following:
Exception 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a
Wm” °{<P”§5 province may expressly declare in an Act of
d“°’““”°“ Parliament or of the legislature, as the case
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof
shall operate notwithstanding a provision
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of
this Charter.
Q (1510)
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West): Mr. Speaker, when we
broke off debate on Friday I had indicated that I was happy to
read into the record a telex from the Premier of Ontario with
regard to that province’s view of Section 28 and the protection
in the charter for the treaty rights of our native people. It is
amazing, sometimes, what happens over a weekend. In a way,
I am rather happy to have had the break in the middle of my
speech since I am equally proud to put into the record today
what the attorney general of Ontario had to say over the
weekend about Section 28. It has now been admitted by the
attorney general of Ontario and the Premier of New Bruns-
wick that the resolution before this House to make Section 28
subject to the override provisions was never discussed prior to
the creation of the resolution and its introduction in this
House. It was not on the table, and now that it is public I hope
it will allow us to discuss it at length, as we proceed in this
debate on that issue, precisely because of the importance that
has been attached by members opposite, including the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Minister of Justice (Mr. Cl1réti-
en), to the need to preserve the accord without amendment.
Aside from the fact that there are a number of amendments
in the resolution that are, in fact, outside of what was dis-
cussed leading up to the November 5 accord, it is now becom-
ing more clear that the amendment to Section 28, which is
being used as a block by members opposite to the amendment
which my leader has moved, was in fact also brought in after
the accord was drawn. As this becomes more clear, I hope we
will recognize the simple justice that returning to Section 28
will bring.
Before I continue my remarks which 1 started last week, I
might also indicate my sadness, after listening to my Prime
Minister—and I say that advisedly and only as a citizen»-
returning to the shotgun diplomacy style. I think most mem-
bers of this House realize that in the middle of some very
complex behind~the-scenes negotiations to try to bring every-
body onside concerning the amendment to Section 28, as well
as amendments to the rest of the charter which my leader has
proposed, including what will become clearer——if it is not now
public—about conversations with several people in the prov-
ince of Quebec, that it is frustrating, using that word advised-
ly, to come back to this house in Ottawa to hear the Prime
Minister indicate that as long as the amendment is decided on
by tomorrow night, it is all right. That is another guillotine,
Mr. Speaker.
At this point in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves
that it was this same Prime Minister who wished to impose
this same guillotine and tried to impose it last year. It is the
same Prime Minister who tries to impose this guillotine on
these clauses who did not include these rights in the original
document presented to the House of Commons. It is the same
Prime Minister who fought the committee which tried to put
these rights in. The Prime Minister is now arguing that these
rights are not there because of the premiers whom he did not
want to meet with in the first place.
It surely should be clear by now that the reasons for the
amendments in the resolution relating to aboriginal rights,
treaty rights and to women’s rights are that they were taken
out, apparently, in the meetings. It takes two to agree. There-
fore, all attempts to portray the Premiers as the villains I hope
will be rejected by the general public, because it took the
Prime Minister of Canada to agree to remove those rights in
order for the accord to get to this House of Commons. Let us
not forget that.
As we continue this debate, which as I indicated I hope will
not be unnecessarily long, I would like to make some general
comments and then return to the specific matter of our
amendments. I should also point out in that respect that as a

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13113
Canadian, I believe that any discussions this week which will
help improve this charter can only be regarded as helpful by
all of us in this I-louse. l would like it to be clear on the record
that if it requires more time in the back room to sort thme
problems out, I do not believe there is one member on this side
of the House who is not prepared to see the debate lifted out of
this House so we can continue with the budget. I would like to
make that very clear at this time.
There will be an attempt made by some to argue that,
because some of us are trying to improve the charter, we
regard the resolution and its improvement as the priority of the
Conservative Party. The priority of Canadians today is to get
people back to work. In this country, the right to a job is
equally important as the right to equality. If it is necessary for
us to break off this debate so we may conclude the budget
debate, which was the position put forward by our House
leader last week, and since we have had no finality yet as to
when we would be able to conclude the budget which we would
like to see concluded as soon as possible, I am sure members
on this side would not only support that but would regard
concluding our economic package as very important.
I would like to refute a current view about what we have
been through in the last year to 15 months, I think that just as
important as to note the issues that our party is moving
amendments on-—which I will come to later——~in that now that
we have all had the direct experience of the difficulties of
constitution-writing in our diverse federal state, this experience
should give us cause to marvel at and be grateful for the
sagacity and capacity of the fathers of our nationhood who
more than 100 years ago had the ability to craft what until
now has been the backbone of our written Constitution, the
BNA Act.
Now that we may be so close to a totally made-in-Canada
Constitution, it seems fitting to note that those who hold to the
view that for all those years we have been fundamentally
flawed, that we have been somehow eunuched as a nation, are
wrong, It is precisely because of the wisdom of our forefathers
that the exact opposite is true. Because of that wisdom, we
have had a package of laws, conventions and co-operation
which has allowed us to live together as well as we have while
we have sought a consensus on how to take the next step, a
consensus which reflects our essence as a federation, a consen-
sus which in itself contains the way to amend our constitution~
al package in future in line with the reality and spirit of our
federalism.
Some have argued that federalism could not work, that
more meetings last year would not help to resolve the impasse,
and that we could not wait any longer and our nationhood
demanded severe unilateral action. When our party undertook
to fight such radical unilateralism, a fight initiated by a
decision which took guts and courage and a commitment to
principle by the leader of our party, a decision in keeping with
the traditional Canadian way of doing things—and I hope
more Canadians will come to see these qualities as the highest
qualification for the highest office in this land—there were
some, notably those who think the world can best be governed
The Constitution
through a newspaper column rather than through the melee of
politics, who thought we must either be kidding or that we
were crazy, that we were suicidal or bent on self-destruction.
Time and the Supreme Court have shown the opposite.
Time has shown that compromises can be found, Time has
shown that consensus and agreement is possible if one wants it
and is willing to work for it. Time, even since the first
ministers’ meeting and the accord which resulted from it, has
shown that even further agreement is possible. I am referring
to the ongoing attempts to protect the equality of women and
men from the override provisions of Section 33 and of the hard
work toward that end by so many women and some men in the
last few days.
I mean no offence to others involved in those conversations
if I mention in this House again the telegram that came from
the Hon. John Buchanan of Nova Scotia as a direct result of
the intense efforts of the hon. member for Kingston and the
Islands (Miss MacDonald).
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Bosley: When our party fought for more time last fall
and last winter, it was because we believe our underlying
constitutional law, conventions and practice are fundamentally
sound enough that we could afford to take the time to make
change properly and get it right the first time, rather than rush
ahead with who knows what possibly disastrous consequences.
We thought that was, at the very least, what had been
promised Quebecers in the spring of 1980, particularly federal-
ists in the province of Quebec.
Q (1520)
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, we still believe this, and that is why it is
important to amend Clause 39 so that a province wishing to
retain the right to provide services in any area now under
provincial jurisdiction will receive financial assistance if in the
future this field of jurisdiction is transferred from the prov-
inces to the federal government by constitutional amendment.
It is not only fair and equitable that a province which contin~
ues to provide services receive reasonable compensation from
Ottawa if the federal government provides and pays for these
services in other provinces, but the omission of such a reason~
able clause was probably the first of the three reasons men-
tioned why the Quebec government did not sign the
agreement.
[English]
The amendment has the support of at least the eight prov-
inces which originally dissented, including Quebec, and
appears to be opposed only by the government here. Not only
is it just, therefore, but its adoption by this House is critical if
we are serious about trying to bring at least the people of
Quebec into this historic moment.

13114 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1931
The Constitution
[Translation]
Whatever we might think about the sincerity of the commit-
ment to federalism of the Premier of Quebec, I cannot overem-
phasize to those opposite the true fairness of the amendment
which the Quebec premier as well as the other premiers
consider so important. I cannot believe that anyone would
seriously consider not offering an olive branch to the Quebec
people when this is not only possible, but has the added
advantage of strengthening the resolution without diminishing
the support of the rest of the provinces.
[English]
Not only, therefore, is it just and reasonable,_but it must be
pointed out that, contrary to the views expressed last week by
the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent),
who argued that the amendment would somehow protect rich
provinces which would be able to keep out socially beneficial
programs, in fact it will do exactly the opposite. So that it is
clear for those who listen or read I-Iansard, what the amend-
ment says is that in the case of a constitutional amendment—
in other words, an amendment which in future has the support
of at least seven provinces, meaning that a majority of the
provinces will already have decided that a program should be
undertaken—contrary to the view of the Leader of the New
Democratic Party, in the circumstance where a province stays
out it should be entitled to the right to be paid. The reason for
that is to protect provinces which will be put in the position,
without such protection, of having to cast votes at a constitu-
tional conference without protection from whose who are
better off than they are. That surely is the spirit of federalism.
I mentioned earlier that it is critical that Section 28 apply
without limitations—if hon. members will excuse my view of
this thing—so that men will at long last be guaranteed equal
treatment with women under the law. Without that change let
us be absolutely clear that the resolution would be deeply and
fundamentally flawed, and without that change at least some
will argue that the resolution will not deserve our support.
Some will say that in addition to that change the compromise
allowing legislatures to override, at least temporarily, court
decisions which appear in a legislature‘s view to be inappropri-
ate also eliminates a flaw.
When I started on Friday I made reference to my earlier
experience at the municipal level with the Toronto Centre plan
and the view of one critic that it must be good because it
equally displeased everybody. I think that might be exactly
true regarding the override provisions, but this compromise is
typically and indisputably Canadian. Those who favour parlia-
mentary supremacy will be able to say that that has been
preserved, and perhaps it has been. Those who prefer the
coded or entrenched protection of our individual rights will be
able to say that that has been achieved, or almost so, and that
political pressure will prevent too frequent use of the override.
Like the Toronto plan, in other words, the change will equally
displease everybody.
This is a difficult issue because it is an attempt to marry two
important federalist principles. One is that there should be no
constitutional change without the consent of those affected; in
other words, our provinces. The other is a desire to separate
from government some of our freedoms for which there is in
the law no final protection today because Parliaments may do
what they wish.
I know my own view, and it is this. When we–and I—
argued for the right of the provinces to consent, it never
occurred to me that the answer the provinces would find would
be the right to override basic freedoms. I would much have
preferred, and would still prefer, a negotiated and, if neces-
sary, an abbreviated list of individual freedoms agreed to by
the provinces and by the federal government-—thereby preserv-
ing the Canadian way—~adopted by the governments as bind-
ing on themselves and therefore not subject to being overriden.
I believe government has now become so big that relying on
political pressure to prevent a government from taking away
our individual rights—~and in this context I think particularly
of the government opposite-~is naive. Whether wiser negotia-
tion by the federal government or a step by step approach
moving simply to patriate with an agreed amending formula
would have produced a happier result in this regard appears
now to be a question for the historians, but one cannot help but
wonder; what if‘?
If an important compromise has been reached on the chart-
er, therefore, there nevertheless remain other flaws which
should, and I hope will, be corrected. Here I think particularly
of the refusal of too many governments and too many parties
to include the right to property, a right which most Canadians
regard as fundamental to their wellbeing. There is one other
major flaw which can be corrected before this document is
passed, since I am persuaded that the odds for getting property
included are not very large. I am persuaded of that by those
who are smiling at me; I sat and watched the neosocialists and
the true socialists get together last year to prevent the inclu-
sion of property, and I suspect they have not changed their
view on that one bit.
One other major flaw that can and should be corrected
before passage of this resolution is the resolution’s failure to
recognize native and aboriginal rights and treaty rights. Some
will argue that too many provinces object to the inclusion of
the old Section 34, although I am glad to see that that number
shrinks every day. I repeat that it would be a shame if the
personal timetable for this document of the Prime Minister
were to prevent the movement, which appears to be growing,
toward recognition of these rights from achieving its proper
fruition.
Some will argue that too many provinces object to the
inclusion of the old Section 34, which in fact only recognizes
that treaties were signed and rights were created, as our
common law has made so clear. To them and to those prov-
inces I only say that the rights created by the Crown—which
we now regard as our Queen—in treaties with our first peoples
predate the provinces themselves and, while the provinces have
legitimate concerns with regard to the interpretation of those
treaties, the desire of some that our constitutional law not
recognize that those rights exist is both impractical, given

November 23, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES l3 l 15
existing court decisions, and, to put a kind face on it, less than
noble. Just as this Parliament had a duty to protect the
legitimate involvement of the provinces themselves in the
development of a Canadian constitutional consensus, so this
Parliament and other Parliaments have a duty to protect the
treaty rights of those whose rights were created even before
the rights of our Parliament were created.
Q (I530)
I said I would not speak for very long today. It is not the
wish of those on this side, as we will be indicating throughout,
to delay unduly conclusion of the matter. It certainly is not
mine. I indicated earlier I would prefer, if necessary, that we
revert to the budget. However, I want in closing to deal with
one or two matters.
I specifically refer to the argument being made by hon.
members opposite, notably the Prime Minister and the Minis-
ter of Justice, who in their comments on Friday said that no
amendments were possible because that would violate the
spirit of the accord. Second, and this caused me the greatest
problem, the phrase was used by the Minister of Justice on
behalf of his government that “we must keep our word with
the provinces”. Suffice it to say that would be the first time in
the entire history of the government that it kept its word on
anything.
I am therefore loath to accept the argument from people
who gave us wage and price controls, promised us no oil
increases and said if there were they would quit if elected, that
they are supposed to do what is asked of them because they
wish to honour their word. On the other hand, it is possible
that a lesson may be learned over there—that when they give
their word, they should honour it. Maybe that lesson will be
learned.
I now want to deal with the more important question.
Seine hon. Members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Bosley: Sometimes the other side does react. I am more
than happy to be part of a group that makes them respond to
concerns about keeping their word. Let me repeat to the hon.
member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) that I hope that is
something his party learns.
In closing, let me return briefly to the more important issue,
the issue of moving amendments. The resolution adds matters
outside the accord, notably the section applying what is called
the Canada clauses on minority language rights. That would
imply to me, given the argument that one cannot introduce
amendments not described in the accord, that the government
may introduce amendments or modify the accord but no one
else may.
I suggest, as members from this side will be continually
suggesting, that to try and say to members of Her Majesty’s
Loyal Opposition that they have no role to play in trying to
improve a process or resolution is ludicrous. This document, as
we will continue to indicate until it is corrected, is fundamen-
tally flawed.
The Constitution
To ask members of the House of Commons in I981 to
support a document which not only does not recognize treaty
and aboriginal rights but attempts to deny the fundamental
justice that every Canadian subscribes to, namely the equality
of our people, be they men or women, are so far behind the
times that I guess if it were not actually before us, I would
have said there was not a hope in heck that we would see it.
As I said at the beginning, this is historic; this is constitu-
tional renewal. If we are going to go this route and if we are to
proceed, it is to me and many member of my party critical that
we honour the promises we made in the referendum in 1980. It
is critical that we honour the expectations of Canadians and
honour the traditions of the original writers of our eonstitu~
tional law. Now that we are making change, because of the
strength they gave to this country all those years, let us honour
their commitment to Canada and to the people of Canada
today and make sure we do it right with justice and honour the
first time.
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury
Board): Mr. Speaker, members of this House need not be
reminded by me of the historical significance of this debate to
which the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) just
made reference, nor of the remarkable consensus that has been
forged between the diverse interests which are the very nature
of Canada and, of course, of the importance of enshrining in
our Constitution a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nor need
I remind hon. members of the compromises and the disap-
pointments that compromises necessarily entail in order to
reach a consensus. I suggest those kinds of compromises are
necessary for the greater good consensus can bring.
The hon. member for Don Valley West mentioned the issue
of sexual equality and aboriginal rights. These issues are very
much alive, alive to the point where some members seem to
suggest that they may vote against this resolution on that
account. I have received representations from members of my
constituency of St. Henri-Westmount requesting me to vote
against the resolution on those grounds.
Let us all hope that these matters will be resolved before the
resolution leaves this House. In any event, to those in the
House who have negative feelings about the resolution on that
account and to those members of the community who are not
directly present here but who are asking us to reject the
resolution ontthat account, I ask them to reflect upon the
following. – ”
What would be accomplished by defeating this resolution?
Would a defeat of the resolution in its present form be a
victory for sexual equality’! Would a defeat in any way
enhance the aboriginal rights to which the hon. member for
Don Valley West just made reference? Would it accomplish
anything other than to rekindle the constitutional haggling and
debate which has lingered on for so many years‘? I ask hon.
members to bear in mind that this resolution before us preju-
dices no one. lt gives rights. It takes nothing away, it only
adds. Most importantly, it adds a means of accomplishing
further constitutional change here in Canada. This resolution
provides Canadians with the tools to finish the job, to ensure

13116 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, I981
The Constitution
that the charter is improved to meet the legitimate concerns
and demands of those who may require further protection.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, by voting against the resolution just because of
a few shortcomings, we may very well undo all that has been
achieved up to now, and raise the same feelings of bitterness
again, and we shall not be helping those individuals and groups
who failed to obtain what they wanted and hoped to obtain
through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They
have not won yet, Mr. Speaker, but they have not lost. Perhaps
such members who intend to vote against the resolution will
indeed do so, safe in the knowledge that the resolution will be
passed just the same, because enough fellow members will act
responsibly to support a measure that is in the best interests of
all Canadians, including those they claim to protect.
[English]
I suggest that to vote against this resolution because it does
not contain enough would be an odd way indeed of advancing
the cause of sexual equality or aboriginal rights. In my judg-
ment it would be tantamount to a declaration that if some
cannot have everything they want at this point in terms of this
resolution, others should have nothing. I know that such is not
the spirit or the motive of those who take issue with the
resolution, but unfortunately that would be the result. That is
what a vote against this resolution would be saying.
Surely it is a selfish gesture to deny the rights the charter
contains to Canadians because the charter has certain defects,
defects which I am the first to agree we should all strive to
correct as soon as the Constitution is patriated from the
United Kingdom. But the defects take nothing away. They are
omissions. This is the very process of compromise, Mr. Speak-
er, that the Supreme Court of Canada has told us is an
essential element of the constitutional convention. The conven-
tion has now been observed.
Q (I540)
[Translation]
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a
subject of particular interest to English-speaking Quebecers. I
have already quoted requests from constituents, asking me to
vote against the resolution because of the shortcomings I have
just mentioned and described. Many others have begged me
not to support the motion because in their view, the language
rights of English-speaking Quebec citizens are not adequately
protected, compared with the protection given francophones
outside Quebec.
[English]
For a moment I should like to discuss the issue of English
education rights in the province of Quebec and, more precisely,
why I have concluded that it is important, in fact essential, as
an English—speaking Quebecer to support the resolution in its
present form.
The basic and historic protection in Quebec for English
language education derives from Section 93 of the British
North America Act. The provision in question guaranteed the
right of dissent by a Protestant or Catholic minority, as the
case may be, and the concomitant right to establish a separate
school board, to pay separate taxes, if you like to effectively
establish a separate school system founded on religious distinc-
tion. All those rights, of course, continue to exist. There is
some authority for the view that language may also have been
protected through the provisions of Section 93. That point has
never been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I now turn to Section 23 of the resolution before us. What is
the effect of that article? It provides that citizens whose
mother tongue is French or English can send their children to
a school in the language of their mother tongue. That is the
provision which I will deal with in a moment in regard to its
non-application in the province of Quebec. It also provides that
they can send their children to a school of the language in
which either parent received his or her education in Canada.
This latter provision of Section 23 has come to be known as
the “Canada clause“, because it permits complete mobility
within Canada by Canadian citizens. All provinces, except the
province where my riding is located, have agreed to accept
Section 23 in its entirety namely that the maternal language
criterion would apply and the parents’ language of instruction
criterion would also apply.
The acceptance by the other nine provinces is most signifi-
cant. It ensures protection for the French-speaking minority
outside of Quebec which, for the first time in our history, is a
major accomplishment. The acceptance of the mother tongue
criterion is particularly significant for provinces other than
Quebec because in the past there were few French minority
language schools. Hence, the maternal language criterion is
fundamental to ensuring the ongoing protecting of the French
linguistic minority outside of the province of Quebec.
Within Quebec the situation is different. Because of Section
93 which I referred to a moment ago, English-speaking Que-
becers have always had their schools. The criterion of the
Canada clause provides protection to English-speaking Que-
becers and to all citizens of Canada coming to Quebec from
other provinces whose father or mother, as the case may be,
has taken primary education in English anywhere in Canada.
Clearly the maternal language provision, to which I made
reference, would also be beneficial for Quebec. It would
protect English speaking Canadians, naturalized citizens
coming from other parts of the world, whose children might
wish to attend English schools at the primary school level.
That is where the maternal language provision would, in my
view, be most significant. Unfortunately, for reasons which I
will describe in a moment, it will apply in Quebec only when
there is authorization either by the National Assembly or by
the government of the province. The political reality is that
such acceptance is unlikely under the present provincial gov-
ernment. That is the difference between the application of
Section 23 in Quebec and its application in the rest of Canada.
Why would we agree to modify the application of Section 23
in the case of the province of Quebec? Why do I, as an
English-speaking representative, representing a riding in

November 23, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES l3 l 1 7
Quebec with a substantial English-speaking population, agree
to support the resolution in its present form‘? My decision was
taken only after weighing the long-term advantages and the
disadvantages of the approach which I must say I instinctively
and intellectually find most appealing; that is to say, that the
clause should be imposed in its entirety. In the rational world
of pure theory, Mr. Speaker, that would not only be the logical
thing to do but I also suggest in today‘s world it would be the
civilized thing to do.
However, in the real world with which we are confronted
today in the province of Quebec, political prudence and
wisdom dictate otherwise. We must not win a battle and lose
the war. The war against separatism is still being waged. My
colleagues from Quebec are convinced that the imposition of
the mother tongue provision would be misunderstood, and it
would provide substantial ammunition to the separatist
movement.
The Canada clause is quite another matter. Mr. Levesque in
1977, at the conference of first ministers in St. Andrews,
offered such an arrangement to each of the other provinces. I
understand he reconfirmed that offer the following year in
Montreal. The Canada clause derives from an idea of Mr.
Levesque’s own creation and the notion of reciprocity within
the terms of the Canada clause contemplated by Article 86 of
Bill 101. Therefore, the Canada clause is nothing new. This is
not a provision to which Mr. Levesque could take exception on
grounds of principle and nor could his separatist followers.
Moreover, it also seems to be a provision which enjoys wide
acceptance among members of the provincial Liberal Party.
This brings me to my second area of concern. Make no
mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, we shall have another show-
down with Mr. Levesque and his separatist government before
the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the province has
finally dissipated. That showdown may take many forms; it
may take the form of a referendum; it may take the form of a
provincial election. Mr. Levesque and his colleagues will
undoubtedly choose their time and place. When that hour is
upon us, we will need the coalition of support that so success-
fully carried us to victory in the referendum of 1980. We will
need the support of all Quebecers. Though many may be
Quebec nationalists in one sense, they are total federalists.
Some of these federalists have taken the position that nothing
should be imposed on the province which in any way dimi-
nishes the powers of the National Assembly. Those representa-
tions have been made to me. While I respect those views, I am
unwilling to support a constitutional resolution which does not
impose the Canada clause as a minimum.
At the other end of the spectrum are those members of the
English-speaking community who insist upon the application
of Section 23 in its entirety, notwithstanding the fact that such
a gesture will give further ammunition to the Parti Quebecois,
for the reasons I have mentioned.
Q (I550)
In addition, such an imposition might divide and irreparably
damage the provincial Liberal Party itself. Our provincial
The Constitution
colleagues are essential to the coalition which must be forged
to defeat effectively and definitively the Parti Québecois and
its separatist option. I would hope that the middle ground we
have selected will provide a basis for that coalition and that
Mr. Ryan, who frankly made a magnificent contribution to the
referendum debate and for whom I have the greatest respect
and admiration, will close ranks with us. Rather than fracture
the ranks of Quebec federalists, I accept a compromise which
invokes the Canada clause that adds to the rights of English-
speaking Quebecers and will permit all federalists of whatever
party stripe or affiliation to come together to fight separatism.
Certainly I would prefer to have the mother tongue provisions
of the first part of Section 23 apply, but I must also be
sensitive to the political realities of the province of Quebec in
the 1980s.
In the context of this linguistic issue, let me return to my
opening comments. The resolution provides additional protec-
tion for the English~speaking minority in Quebec. It imposes
the Canada clause, a clause which will guarantee that no
further erosion can be made of the rights of the existing
English~speaking community and that other English-speaking
Canadians are able to come into Quebec and attend English-
speaking schools by right. These protections do not now exist.
Further protections may be required, such as the mother
tongue protection, but let us place such improvements in the
same light as my earlier comments on aboriginal rights and the
rights of sexual equality. When the Constitution has been
patriated, let us make it a better Constitution than the one
contained in the resolution before us. But let us not jeopardize
the remarkable progress we have made and the additional
rights we have acquired under the Canada clause which will
apply in Quebec under this resolution. To vote against a
resolution which provides greater protection than now exists
for English-speaking Quebecers because there are further
rights guaranteed to French-speaking Canadians outside
Quebec would be at best a “dog in the manger” attitude. It
would surely be the perfect example of the old adage—cutting
off one’s nose to spite one’s face.
[Translation]
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I should also like to discuss the
connection between the economy in the province of Quebec
and this constitutional debate. It is common knowledge that
reaching an“agreement with the Quebec government on consti-
tutional matters is practically impossible, if it continues to
view the separatist option as its objective. With my colleagues,
I feel very frustrated about the situation, not only because I
would like to see the constitutional matter settled once and for
all, but also because as long as this uncertainty exists, I feel
there is very little hope of seeing any improvement in Quebec’s
economy. That is the connection between the economy and the
Constitution which is sometimes forgotten. Quebec is in finan-
cial trouble. That was made quite clear by the Minister of
Finance, Mr. Jacques Parizeau, last week. And of course, the
Quebec government continues to blame all its problems on
Canada, a strategy that will probably be used more often in

13118 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, l98l
The C onsliluzion
order to camouflage the province’s deplorable financial
administration. Can one trust a government that is willing to
spend millions of dollars of its taxpayers‘ money to satisfy the
nationalistic urges of its ministers and purchase the Asbestos
Corporation, a government that at the same time makes
cutbacks worth one-half billion dollars in its social services? It
is appalling!
Until the Levesque government stops sowing the seeds of
discord in the business world at the provincial, Canadian and
international level, Quebec is going to remain in its economic
slump. One essential factor that could help us get out of the
slump, Mr. Speaker, would be to see the end of this endless
debate on the Constitution and have the assurance that
Quebec will remain within a strong and united Canada.
In the interest of all Quebecers, Mr. Levesque should agree
to the compromise solutions offered by Mr. Trudeau, but he
has refused outright. These compromise solutions, which are
supported by the federal members who speak on behalf of the
interests and aspirations of Quebecers, are very reasonable and
very substantial. For instance, in addition to a lack of financial
resources in the province of Quebec, sometimes we also lack
human resources. It often happens, Mr. Speaker, that we need
engineers, scientific researchers, professors, and high technolo-
gy experts. We need these people like any country, any prov-
ince and any region needs them, to better achieve our industri-
al goals. We cannot do without them. Modernization and high
technology industries are absolutely indispensable to the indus-
trial future of our province, if we are to revamp the soft sectors
of the economy, such as textiles and footwear. As you know,
Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just earmarked more
than $250 million for that purpose. These people are not going
to take the place of Quebecers but they are going to create
jobs in new enterprises, more profitable jobs in areas where we
can compete at the world level. One example is the aerospace
industry, where thanks to federal programs, Quebec already
has the infrastructure in Quebec on which we can build
further.
That is why Section 23, the so~ealled Canada clause, is so
important. It is important because it says that if a Canadian
citizen who comes to the province of Quebec was educated in
English, he will have the right to send his children to an
English school in the province of Quebec. This minimum
protection is indispensable if we are to attract Canadians to
Quebec in order to meet the nccds that I have just mentioned.
As I indicated before in English, Mr. Speaker, because at the
St. Andrews’ Conference in I977, Mr. Levesque himself
offered to enter into reciprocal agreements with the provinces
that would guarantee schools for the francophone or angio-
phone minorities, as appropriate, the Canada clause in this
resolution will, in fact, be entrenching Mr. Levesque’s own
concepts. So, Mr. Speaker, with the Canada clause we have an
element that is extremely important to the economy of the
province of Quebec.
[English]
In conclusion, if ever there was an example of the whole
being greater than the sum of its parts, surely it is this country
of ours—Canada. Our Fathers of Confederation had the fore-
sight to pursue that dream, and a record of I14 years bears
eloquent testimony to their conviction. Sir John A. Macdonald
said the following shortly before his death:
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over
their intellect, I would leave them with the legacy: Whatever you do adhere to
the union—we are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the
universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we
suffer it to be broken. God and nature have made the two Canadas one-—lei no
factious men be allowed to put them asunder.
I believe all hon. members of the House accept Sir John’s
challenge. We will not let factious men put Canada asunder.
We will not permit faetious men to rob generations of Canadi-
ans of this great legacy.
Q (I600)
The adoption of the resolution before the House today, Mr.
Speaker, is an important step in ensuring that Canada will
remain greater than the sum of its parts for the benefit of all
future generations of Canadians.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Jake Epp (Pror/encher): Mr. Speaker, once again it is
an honour to participate in the development of our Canadian
Constitution. Before I begin my comments, I want to thank the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) who, prior to leaving the
House this afternoon, indicated to me that he would not be
present for my remarks. I understand he is engaged in the
activity of telephoning various premiers, an activity which
some of us have also engaged in over the last days, weeks and
months. I can appreciate the work that lies before him today.
One hundred and sixteen years ago, the provincial Parlia-
ment of Canada engaged in a debate on the confederation of
the British North American colonies. While it was the practi-
cal men such as Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and Gait who
outlined the immediate advantages of the confederation
scheme, it was Thomas D’Arcy McGee who outlined the
general principle which was to be the foundation of the new
nation. He said:
There is something in the frequent, fond recurrence of mankind to the federal
principle, amongst the freest peoples, in their best times and worst dangers.
which leads me to believe that it has a very deep hold in human nature itself-an
excellent basis for a government to have.
In the one hundred and fourteenth year of the confederation
which those men helped to create, Canadians have debated
this same cornerstone of the Canadian nation-—the federal
principle.
On one side there have been those who have grown impa-
tient with the federal process and who believed that federalism
no longer worked. They felt that the merits of such measures
as an entrenched charter of rights or a clarification of resource
jurisdiction justified a departure from the Canadian tradition
of seeking compromise and consensus on major constitutional
issues.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES 131 l9
On the other side there have been those who have fought for
the maintenance of the federal principle. We believed that
unilateral action was based on a false premise: that the federal
system no longer worked and that progress could not be
reached by compromise and consensus. We rejected that atti-
tude completely.
On October 2, 1980 the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposi-
tion (Mr. Clark) recognized that the government’s constitu-
tional proposal offended the federal principle. Since that time,
under his direction, the federal Progressive Conservative Party
has fought the government at every step to ensure that the
federal system would be protected. We were among those who
believed that the federal system still could work if all our
political leaders had the will to make it work.
On November 2 of this year, almost one year after the
government’s original deadline for debate on its unilateral
action, an event occurred for which those of us who defended
the federal principle had fought long and hard. Eleven political
leaders of Canada who both represented and reflected the
diversity of Canada met to discuss the constitutional
resolution.
This meeting was made possible by the decision of the
Supreme Court of Canada that the government’s original
plans were unconstitutional. It is the conclusion of that meet-
ing that we are discussing today. That decision occurred before
the government‘s proposals were rushed off to Great Britain
only because our party, under our leader, fought a long
parliamentary battle last spring. Many Canadians may have
forgotten that at that time we were told by the Leader of the
New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that we were wasting
the taxpayers’ money and that we should get on with the job,
although it was a position that he had supported earlier.
In spite of it all, we remained determined to fight for the
right of the Supreme Court of Canada to render its decision.
We remained hopeful that Canada‘s first ministers would use
the opportunity which we had provided them to meet once
more.
On November 2 the first ministers did use that opportunity.
And on November 5, Canada’s political leaders restored our
faith in the federal system. They proved that they could put
aside their personal, political and sectional interests to reach a
compromise for all Canadians. I suggest to hon. members that
the same spirit must prevail in this House as well.
In defending the Canadian federal tradition of consensus,
we were often accused of being naive or of failing to support
such worthwhile measures as the Charter of Rights and Free-
doms. But we retained our faith in the nation, in the principle
of federalism and in Canada‘s political leaders. And in the
end, I believe we and all Canadians who held that view have
been rewarded for that faith.
What, then, is the resolution before us and how does it
compare to the old resolution? I believe that Canadians have
been rewarded by a new constitutional resolution which is
dramatically different from the one which we debated last fall,
winter and through the spring.
Oral Questions
When speaking in those debates, I and other members of my
party outlined four main objections to the government‘s pro-
posal. Our primary objection was to the unilateral action of
the federal government. The resolution before this Parliament
today has the support of ten Canadian governments. It repre-
sents the result of compromises on all sides. As a result,
Canadians will have a truly Canadian Constitution made in
Canada through the Canadian tradition of consensus.
We also objected to the interim amending formula which
would have subjected Canada to the tyranny of unanimity for
several years. We believed such a complicated formula was
unnecessary because agreement could be reached on a perma-
nent way to amend the Constitution in the future if the federal
and provincial governments met once more to discuss it.
The new resolution contains no interim amending formula.
We must ask why that is so. It is because the agreement which
we always believed was possible was reached.
The old resolution also had a permanent amending formula
to which we objected. The outdated Victorian formula did not
conform to the reality of the Canada of today nor, I suggest to
hon. members, to the Canada of tomorrow. It did not treat the
provinces equally and it provided central Canada with a
permanent veto.
Since October 2 of last year, our party maintained that the
so-called Vancouver consensus amending formula represented
the reasonable basis for an agreement among all governments.
The Vancouver formula had the advantages of treating prov-
inces as equals and of being flexible while still protecting the
diversity of Canada.
It is this formula, as adapted through intergovernmental
co-operation, which is contained in the present resolution. I say
to all hon. members that it was that amending formula, one
which created different classes of provinces and therefore, by
extension, different classes of citizens in Canada, that we
fought so hard to have removed from the resolution. Those of
us who do not come from central Canada felt it was time not
only that we be given equal rights, but that we also be given
the responsibility of contributing to the country on an equal
basis.
Among the government’s original proposals there was one
feature which we regarded as highly dangerous and divisive.
That was the referendum provision, controlled entirely by the
federal government, which was open to potential abuse and
would have created needless strife within the country. There
are those who say it is the ultimate exercise of democracy, but
if we look at the old resolution we will see that the manner in
which it could be used would have led to division, strife and
rancour rather than agreement. Canadians did not want a
Constitution which might pit region against region and neigh-
bour against neighbour. Canadians needed and wanted a Con-
stitution which would unite them.
There is no provision for a permanent referendum anywhere
in the present resolution. Canada‘s political leaders have
indicated in their wisdom that such a dangerous and divisive

13120 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
mechanism, a provision which like unilateral action reflected a
distrust of the federal principle, was unnecessary,
Throughout the debate on the old resolution, our party
offered a number of compromises which would have eliminat-
ed our major objections. But most of all, we asked that all our
governments return to the bargaining table to discuss the
constitutional proposals. When they finally did, Canada’s gov-
ernments removed the most objectionable sections from the old
resolution and, I believe, crafted a completely new document
of which Canadians should be proud,
The Constitution agreement reached by ten Canadian gov-
ernments and opposition parties in this House produced a
Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which all Canadians should
take much pride.
The charter of Rights and Freedoms before the House today
contains all the essential features which were developed by the
Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, with exceptions
that I will come to later, in response to the representations of
thousands of Canadians. Today those representations are
crafted in a document which will enable the courts, Parliament
and the legislatures actively to protect the rights of all
Canadians.
Q (16l0)
The premiers’ particular contribution was to introduce the
concept of a legislative override. This is an important innova-
tion which will strengthen the effectiveness of the charter of
Rights and Freedoms. I think it is important that Canadians
understand this innovation, particularly because some people
are suggesting that this innovation has produced a “watered
down“ Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
No country in the world, not even Canada, enjoys a system
which could perfectly guarantee our rights. The Parliament
and legislatures of Canada are not perfect. They have done
injustices to individuals and minority groups. But the Supreme
Court of Canada is not infallible either. lt is equally capable of
making mistakes and doing an injustice to Canadians. In an
imperfect world Canadians must choose between frail human
institutions and decide which should hold the final authority.
A legislative override leaves the final authority, and only the
final authority, with the people’s elected representatives. You
might then ask how that would work. Suppose a future
Supreme Court decided that provincial legislation allowing
prayers in public schools violated the charter, and specifically
the freedom of religion provisions‘! A provincial legislature
would have to decide whether this legislation was so important
and so popular that it should still be enacted. It might feel that
the court had misinterpreted the intentions of those who
drafted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the popular will
of the people.
Having decided that the legislation was important enough,
Parliament or the legislature would have to state publicly that
it would pass the legislation knowing that it conflicted with the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not only that, it would have
to introduce the legislation knowing it would have to be passed
and scrutinized again every five years. Obviously, a govern-
ment would do this only when it felt that the legislation was
very important and was supported by most people. This prob-
ably explains why legislative overrides have never been used by
any of the provinces which include them in their bill of rights
in Canada at the present time.
It is important that Canadians understand that Parliament
or a provincial legislature would not be opting out of the
guarantee of, in this example, freedom of religion. It would
only be stating that this single piece of legislation should still
be effective even if it conflicts with the freedom of religion. All
Canadian governments have affirmed their commitment to
protecting our traditional rights, such as freedom of religion
and speech. Ten Canadian governments are also committed to
guaranteeing more modern rights, and here I am thinking
specifically of the rights of the mentally and physically dis-
abled. It is that section which I believe puts our charter in the
vanguard ofa modern charter, so to speak, and I am pleased to
see those provisions included.
The importance of the commitment of Canadian federal and
provincial governments to the rights contained in the charter
should not be underestimated. This commitment will open the
way to progress in including further guarantees in the Consti-
tution over which our party has expressed some concern. More
importantly, all the work which was done, all lofty phrases
which were inscribed, and all the promises which were made
by all parties in this Parliament during the hearings of the
Constitution committee would have been worthless without the
full commitment of the provincial governments to the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. It was unthinkable, in my view, that
we would have a charter of rights and freedoms and then we
would have provinces saying from time to time that the charter
would not apply in their province. How, for example, would
one be able to opt out of rights?
There are a number of members who insist that a charter of
Rights and Freedoms is a hollow document, that it cannot
protect the rights of citizens. While I am one who cherishes
the rights handed down through the English common law, I
remain convinced that redress for violations of rights by
government is made possible through the inclusion of a charter
of rights and freedoms——the example of Japanese Americans
who, while not protected by the charter of rights of the United
States either, were given compensation after the war. Japanese
Canadians have not been compensated to this day. I have one
such person in my riding at the present time. What we have to
fear is not the violation of our rights by our fellow citizens, but
by the government itself.
Additionally, there are those who point to the U.S.S.R. and
other dictatorships as having an entrenched charter of rights,
and yet, despite this provision, violations of human rights goes
on daily. How do we answer this charge’?
I said’that our government institutions are fallible because
we as people are fallible. The difference between the U.S.S.R.
and democracies though is apparent. Dictatorships use chart-
ers for propaganda purposes. They have no intention, either at
home or internationally, to observe the rights they so piously
adopt.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13121
I would now like to Speak personally for a moment. My
father and his family carne to this country in the 19205. They
were given freedom. Yes, they were given that freedom with-
out a charter. But many immigrants, because of the loss of
country and status, see a charter as a symbol, as a written
guarantee of the rights they so vigorously defend. charters can
be empty of resolve. My uncle spent 22 years in a labour camp
in the Soviet Gulag. My cousins to this day cannot return to
the Ukraine where their family lived, but must remain in the
so-called virgin lands. The rights in the U.S.S.R. are empty.
Their charter is for propaganda purposes only. But let us not
compare either the purpose or the action of the Soviet authori-
ties with our country and the desire of its citizens to protect
our basic rights.
On October 6, 1980 the Minister of Justice suggested that
the government was completing the work of the Right Hon.
John George Diefenbaker. Back then, nothing could have been
further from the truth. Prime Minister Diefenbaker respected
and loved Canada too much to have acted unilaterally in a way
which would have affected the federal system. But I am also
certain Prime Minister Diefenbaker dreamed of the day when
all provincial governments would commit themselves to
entrenching a bill of rights in the Constitution. Now Canada’s
first ministers have helped to fulfil that dream.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms and
extends the freedoms of all Canadians. It should be a source of
pride to all Canadians for all generations to come.
If the first ministers drafted a document of which all
Canadians should be proud, some people must be wondering
why our party has suggested some changes to the accord.
Perhaps it is because, as Sir John A. Macdonald once said of
the American constitution:
To say that it has some defects is but to say that it is not the work of
Oinniscicnee, but of human intellect.
We must not forget that our first ministers met in a pressure
packed period of four days and may not have had the opportu-
nity to consider the full implications of some of the actions
taken.
I am suggesting that Parliament has a role to play to ensure
that the rights of all Canadians have been kept in mind and to
provide, though it might be foreign to us in this chamber,
“sober second thought” to their work. That there is room for
change and “sober second thought” is obvious from the fact
that the resolution which we are debating is not identical to
the one which would have been produced by the constitutional
accord.
A tremendous furor has been created over the application of
the “notwithstanding clause” to the guarantee that rights
should apply equally to men and women. A similar furor has
surrounded the absence of the guarantee of aboriginal rights
from the present resolution. Both of these outcries, on the part
of women and on the part of the native peoples, have been
perfectly justified. And it would now appear that both impor-
tant segments of the Canadian federation will find a place in
the final accord which this Parliament will approve. That is a
hopeful sign.
Ora! Questions
It is a hopeful sign because it indicates that many Canadi-
ans want to play a part in the agreements which are often
reached by first ministers behind closed doors. They want to
make sure that those agreements truly reflect the diversity of
the Canadian federation. Canadians have shown that they
want to be part of the process of constitutional change.
I want to speak for a moment about native rights. People
sometimes ask me why I am interested in going beyond the
entrenchment of the rights that are now in Section 25. One of
the practical examples I have been using is as follows. Sup-
pose, Mr. Speaker, that you have bought a quarter section of
land but when you receive title you find that you receive title
for that quarter section with one small omission: the back 40
acres are not included. Suddenly you find that instead of 160
acres you have only 120 acres, although the deal was for 160
acres.
Q (i620)
There are many Indian people in Canada today whose
treaties still are unfulfilled. They still have treaty entitlement.
They are still cut off from lands in British Columbia, and
there are treaties still to be signed north of 60. l say to
Canadians, all we are asking is for a fair deal. We are asking
them to apply this to themselves to see whether or not it would
be acceptable to them if the agreements they had made were
in fact different from the agreements they received in the end.
Also in reference to Section 28, this party, as proposed by
my leader on Friday last, insists that Section 28, as it appeared
in the resolution which came out of the joint committee, be
restored in its full power.
There is a hopeful sign during these days and these hours
when these negotiations take place that these agreements can
be made and included as amendments to our constitutional
proposals.
On Friday also the Minister of Justice suggested that every
Member of Parliament should use gentle persuasion wherever
possible to pave the way for a solution in the areas of disagree-
ment. It is in this spirit, and not in a partisan way, that our
party has been seeking a reconciliation in the areas I have
mentioned of women’s and native rights. Now is not the time
for any party or person to trumpet their role in bringing about
a potential consensus in these areas. It is a time for all of us
quietly to play whatever role we can in bringing about these
changes.
lt is in this same spirit that members of our party have been
seeking to make the constitutional accord acceptable to the
people of, and perhaps the government of, Quebec. As a
Canadian from the west, I can remember the isolation and
alienation which we felt when the constitutional proposals
were going to be imposed on us, proposals we thought were
detrimental to our region and our people. 1 do not think we
should forget now that the same sense of isolation could be felt
by another important region of the country,
Under the direction of our leader, we have been seeking to
make the constitutional proposals acceptable to the people of
Quebec. That is the spirit in which we will propose the

13122 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
amendment on financial compensation. That is the spirit in
which today our leader has contacted the Premier of Quebec
concerning minority language education provisions. The
Leader of the Opposition has asked the Premier of Quebec for
a clear commitment that his government will recognize the
right of all Canadian citizens to minority language education.
We are asking the Premier to take the essential first step, in
guaranteeing these rights, after which would commit the gov-
ernment of Quebec to accept the rights of all Canadians to
minority language education voluntarily.
All Canadians would like to see all regions involved in the
final constitutional accord, and all Canadians feeling at home
in this country. What we are seeking is a compromise which
would make the accord acceptable to the government of
Quebec.
Some members of the House, the press and of the public
might say that is impossible. If that is the case, let us be sure
that the people of Quebec realize that their government will
reject all reasonable proposals. If, regrettably, that is the case,
let us make it clear to the people of Quebec that they only
appear to be isolated, isolated by a Quebec government which
is more interested in deliberately asserting its separatist views
than in working within the framework of the Canadian federa-
tion to reach a genuine agreement.
I want to spend some time, Mr. Speaker, speaking in
reference to how the accord affects the people living north of
60, in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
The accord provides an amending formula which, I believe,
requires modifications to meet the requirements of Canadians
living north of 60. Many of us dream of the day when
Canadians living in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon
achieve full responsible government. That should happen
today. I just cannot understand why we cannot have full
responsibility for those territories today, why we cannot accept
the concept that those who are elected must be responsible to
those who elect them, and why we cannot remove the federal
bureaucratic shackles that have existed for so long north of 60;
but I guess change comes very slowly.
Having said that, we look forward to the day when they will
achieve full responsible government, and once having achieved
that government they eventually will make the decision on the
advisability of attaining provincial status. The amending for-
mula allows these citizens to make that judgment, as we see it
now, without further change to the amending formula; that is,
we are not restricted to the number of provinces needed under
the amending formula, but rather to a mathematical formula.
There is a section in the accord which I seriously believe brings
into question the future of the people living north of 60, and
that is Section 41, specifically Section 41(e).
As this Parliament takes a sober second look at the resolu-
tion, we might also want to consider the part of the constitu-
tional resolution which will involve the provinces in the crea-
tion of new provinces out of Canadian territories. The power to
create new provinces out of territories presently rests with the
federal government. That is in Schedule 2 of the amendments
to the British North America Act, 1871. According to the
resolution, this power will still rest with Parliament in part,
but in another section, namely Section 41-—the schedule is in
conflict with Section 41-this power will rest with the federal
and the provincial governments. This contradiction should be
cleared up so that the intentions of the government in this
matter are very clear to all concerned. 1 suggest to the
Minister of Justice that he look at both the schedule and
Section 4l(e) to see if we cannot clarify that matter before the
resolution has the final approval of this House.
Mr. Nielsen: And Section 41 (f)
Mr. Epp: My colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr.
Nielsen), also refers to Section 41(f). l believe he will be
speaking more specifically about the north later on in the
debate.
As always when compromise is reached, one would like to
see changes which cannot be achieved at the moment without
jeopardizing the agreement itself. For example, the fact that
property rights have been left out is of personal concern to me
and I know to many colleagues on this side of the House at
least. I urge the provinces to rethink their opposition to this
provision. If rights relating to property can be included for
other groups, such as natives, I would think that some way
could also be found to guarantee property rights and yet allow
provincial governments the administrative freedom to acquire
property for the benefit of the general public.
I also want to issue a warning to this Parliament and future
legislators regarding the absence of rights for the unborn. I am
not speaking as a critic of my party but personally as a
member of this I-louse. The Minister of Justice and his offi-
cials argue that the charter is neutral on this issue. I pray that
legislators and courts will not take away, because of this
neutrality, the rights of the most defenseless in our society. lfl
have any disquiet today, Mr. Speaker, it is on that topic.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Epp: In conclusion, the debate in this Parliament on the
resolution is beginning to settle in the minds of all members of
this House the fact that constitutional compromise is possible.
When we have concluded this debate Canada will have a
Constitution which contains all of the good features of the
British North America Act which have served us well in the
past. Canada will also be able to change its Constitution in
Canada, and we will have entrenched a commitment to equali-
zation, a fuller definition of provincial resource ownership, as
well as the charter of Rights and Freedoms to which I referred
earlier.
I am relieved that a debate which began in anger and which
has created deep divisions in the country is ending in good will.
I hope there are others like myself who have had their faith in
the federal principle, upon which this nation was founded,
rewarded, and I hope there are others whose faith in the
principle has been restored.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13123
Q (I610)
There are many challenges to be overcome in the coming
decades which will require the same Canadian tradition of
consensus and compromise. It is time that we left division. It is
time that we left the bitter words of the last year far behind us
and start to face the challenges of the future.
Someone has said, and John A. Macdonald used to para-
phrase it, that Canada is more than a mere geographical
expression. All of us who have taken a look at Canada’s
geography know its geographical grandeur. Whether one
sweeps from east to west to north or the other way around, one
has been filled with awe with our country. Canada is more
than a geographical expression. It is a land of people, people
who in their own way each want to build a better Canada.
During the confederation debates in 1865, the Hon. George
Etienne Cartier said:
I view the diversity of races in British North America in this way: we were of
different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to
compete and emulate for the general welfare. This diversity is our strength.
The question might be asked, how do we repay those who
laid the foundation of this country? Lord Tweedsmuir prob-
ably said it best when he said, “We can only pay one debt to
the past, by putting the future in debt to ourselves”. That, Mr.
Speaker, has been our work and that should be our legacy.
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)): Mr. Speaker,
I am very proud at this moment to be a Canadian woman.
Equality for myself and all Canadian women has ceased to be
an elusive dream. Instead, it is taking on the shape of reality,
moulded by generations. It is equality not according to the old
maxim “As persons in matters of pains and penalties”, but as
persons in the matter of rights and equality. You can bet that
we want full equality.
What is this equality that we women have been fighting for?
How many generations of men and women have asked the
question: What do women want? Well, for our grandmothers
who were not even considered persons and who fought for the
vote, and for our mothers who supplied the labour force during
the war and since, and for our sisters and daughters and
granddaughters, I will tell you what we want. We want the
rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed
equally to male and female persons. That means the original
wording of Section 28:
Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to
in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
It is that simple. We want the reference to Section 28 in the
override clause, Section 33, deleted. The charter will then
carry a forceful statement of equality. This will give the courts
a strong direction that sex discrimination cases require their
strictest scrutiny.
Oral Questions
For those who argue that affirmative action programs are
jeopardized by the removal of Section 28 from Section 33, I
remind them that the present constitutional proposals clearly
state that affirmative action programs are not subject to the
normal rules barring discrimination on the basis of sex.
To go back to some of the things which have happened to
women in this country, I am sure there are many who are not
aware of the fact that long before the era of the suffragists,
women in Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had been
entitled to vote and hold office. Why? What happened?
Simply because it had not occurred to anyone to make laws to
prevent them from voting. Of course, you can guess what
happened when this existed; legislation was enacted to remove
that right.
It was not until April 25, 1940, with the capitulation of
Quebec, which was the last province to give votes to women,
that the injustice was overturned. It is curious to recall that in
our so-called enlightened age it is almost impossible to believe
that the late Senator Therese Casgrain as recently as 1970
became the only one of Canada’s leading suffragists to hold
federal office. I would like to think that Madame Casgrain,
who died just three weeks ago, would be sitting in that gallery
this afternoon, but I am sure that she is with us in spirit today.
Well, women got the vote and, as most women know, we
who were busy building homes, feeding cattle, ploughing the
fields and milking the cows—as my mother did—having
babies and raising families, then had to fight for the right to be
recognized as persons. Most of us in this House are familiar
with the Persons’ case, but I think it is worth while to go over
it again. In 1928 five Alberta women, the “five persons” as
they were later known, Henrietta Edwards, Irene Parlby,
Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy,
appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide whether
women were “qualified persons” who could be appointed to the
Senate. Of course, the Supreme Court rejected this idea. The
case was then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council in England who accepted the idea that women were,
indeed, persons. This now forms part of the constitutional law
of this country.
However, this should serve to remind the men of this
country that for decades, right up to the present time, women
have participated and agonized in this constitutional exercise.
We look upon the events of the past year as events which
have been controlled, to a large degree, by women themselves.
They did not let the drafters of the Constitution forget. Back
in February, 1981 many thousands of women told the federal
government that equality must be guaranteed in any charter of
Rights and Freedoms to be entrenched in the Constitution.
The government agreed to this and a special guarantee, Sec~
tion 28, was added to the charter in the general clause.
In April, 1981 this guarantee of equality for women and
men was passed by all three parties in the House of Commons.
Women thought that they had a guarantee that all laws in
Canada would have to treat men and women in Canada
equally. So there it Was. We have the charter, standing the
way we want it, clearly defined. The battle was won, we

1 3 1 24 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
thought. However, it was not. Why’? Because the provinces,
the Supreme Court and the opposition parties put this govern-
ment in the position of bargaining for consensus. The provinces
changed the charter without consulting the people within the
provincial boundaries.
We will recall, but I think it proper to remind this House
and the people of Canada that it was the federal government
that held constitutional hearings and an all-party committee
sat for months. There were 303 witnesses, including individu-
als and groups, along with almost 1,000 briefs, letters and
telegrams which were heard and received. ‘The committee
listened, responded and so developed a charter that did
respond to the hearts and minds and needs of the people of
Canada. ‘
When it was found that the charter had changed, bowing to
the pressure of the provincial premiers, the women looked up
and said “No”. Women, united as never before, said no. It was
time to tell the provinces no. Much credit is due to special
groups and dynamic individuals who I will name later on this
afternoon, but the credit for speaking out goes to the women of
Canada, women working both in and out of their homes,
mothers, grandmothers and daughters and particularly the
women of this House. I refer to the member for Kingston and
the Islands (Miss Macdonald), the hon. member for New
Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the hon. member for
Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and the hon. member for
Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney)—in fact, all the women on
the opposite side of the House.
. (I640)
It goes without saying—but I think I should mention it—
that the women on this side of the House have given tremen-
dous support, particularly my close friend and colleague, the
Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who is
leading us into another major battle for pension reform, which
is very much needed to ensure the economic security of the
women of this nation.
I must also pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Tru-
deau), who displayed his total commitment and confidence
when he appointed me as the minister responsible for the
status of women.
We have also been supported all the way by those women
members in the other place. I refer to Senators Bird, Rousseau
and Neiman who have worked tirelessly in support of these
efforts.
Who actually galvanized these women into action’! Two
groups provided the main thrust. The ad hoc committee, with
women such as Pat Hacker, Lynda Ryan Nye, Rosemary
Billings, Marylou McPhedran and countless others, and the
Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women-capably
led by its president, Lucie Pepin, I am pleased to say—have
provided an extremely powerful force in the past few weeks.
Fortuitously, the council was meeting in Vancouver at the time
of the signing of the final resolution, and it moved very quickly
and very effectively. If there was any doubt about the strength
and integrity of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status
of Women, those doubts have surely been dispelled by the
events of the past ten days.
I would like to remind this House that the president of the
advisory council, Lucie Pepin, and many of her provincial
chapter councils, met this last weekend in Saskatchewan.
These groups have managed to reach almost every Canadian
woman and, I must say, it is working. This network—and we
call it a network because that is what it is-went into action
and the premiers heard from the women. Pressure continued to
mount on each premier until, one by one, they fell. But will we
have Saskatchewan? In order to adhere to the spirit of the
accord, we must have all the provinces onside. I say to
Saskatchewan, to the Premier of Saskatchewan, to the people
of Saskatchewan: join us. I am convinced that reason and
justice will prevail.
I must also say that much credit must go to a group of
women which has worked largely behind the scenes for the
past week or two. I refer to my department, Status of Women
Canada, and its co-ordinator, Maureen O’Neil, who with a
small but highly skilled staff have kept me and my colleagues
informed of the implications of the various decisions and
options offered throughout these negotiations.
On Friday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) spoke
of his background of growing up on a farm where women were
equal. I share that background. I grew up on a farm, and I had
the added advantage of growing up next door to an Indian
reservation. This has helped me to understand the even greater
injustices which have been done to native women. These
women-—including Sandra Lovelace, Jeanette Lavell and
Mary Two Axe Early-—must share equality with men under
and before the law, a law for all Canadians.
Again I return to the Leader of the Opposition who, on
Friday and on previous occasions, indicated his sensitivity to
and understanding of this issue. This has been healthy for this
country and for this House because during the past week, as
never before, the men of this House have opened the doors and
let the views of women in. Lest we think this has been a battle
fought for and with women only, just this afternoon I received
a letter from a senior citizen, and I am compelled to quote part
of it:
I am a senior citizen war veteran who believes that l fought for a better world
and society.
It is hard to understand that a minister had to be appointed to sec that a
Canadian‘s rights have to be upheld. There should be no question in our country
ofany Canadian being slighted on their rights. As l write this I am sorry to hear
the radio news that there is a question of whether or not rights will be included
in the Constitution. All Canadians must enjoy equal rights without questions
being involved. It is a shame that any Member of Parliament should voice
anything contrary.
Thank you for trying \o make Canada equal for all citizens.
You will pardon us, Mr. Speaker, the women of Canada, if
we are optimistic and hopeful and just a little bit cocky. We
have come a long way, but there is one step to go.
I will close on that rather optimistic and perhaps light note
because I think a little humour always helps us move along the
way. I feel today very much as the quarterback of the Edmon-

November 23, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES I 3125
ton Eskimos must have felt at about this same time yesterday.
How can we lose? One final kick. We are still in the game.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
[English]
SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS T0 BE DEBATED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Order, please. It is my
duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that
the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment
are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr.
Gauthier)—The Constitution—~proposal that representatives
of minorities attend conference; the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)—Canadian Broadcasting
Corporation~——appearance of Canadian pipers at Edinburgh
International Tattoo. (b) Request that broadcast be shown in
Canada; the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr.
Tl1acker)—The Budget-—-minister’s awareness of effect.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
THE CONSTITUTION
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, I981
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr.
Chrétien respecting the Constitution of Canada, and the
amendment thereto of Mr. Clark (p. 13050).
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East): Mr. Speaker, I am
honoured and privileged to speak in this historic debate on our
Constitution. I am indeed very proud but, on the other hand, I
am a very disappointed Member of Parliament. I am one of
the most disappointed members in this House of Commons
because the priorities of this government are wrong.
When I went to my constituency this past summer I was
embarrassed because I was asked what I was doing about
interest rates, jobs and the energy crisis. I was asked when we
would come to some agreement or arrangement to get this
country working again. What do Canadians have to do to get
us to put our priorities in the proper order and to get us to
address ourselves to the problems facing Canadians‘! Canadi-
ans are losing their homes and their jobs. What are we doing?
We are talking about the Constitution rather than addressing
ourselves to our country’s needs.
Who can a person turn to when he is losing his home
because of high interest rates? The government says it cannot
The Constitution
do anything about high interest rates because our rates are
married to the rates in the United States. Are we saying that
Canadians should write to Mr. Reagan, the President of the
United States, to ask that the matter of high interest rates be
addressed so that the needs of Canadians could be met‘? Or
should we be saying that the Liberal government has com-
pletely lost control, which in fact it has’? The fact is that
bureaucrats are governing this country. Perhaps Canadians
should be talking to bureaucrats instead of Members of Parlia-
ment because Members of Parliament have certainly lost
control.
That is sad because we are living in a country of plenty. It is
indeed one of the richest countries in the world. That is one
reason my family emigrated from Poland to this country. We
came here during the depression because of the freedom of
opportunity. However, we have less freedom now than ever
before. Some countries with the best charter or bill of rights or
best constitution have less democracy and freedom than a
country like ours.
Q (I550)
The constitutional debate has not ploughed one field or
created one job. If anything, it has caused a loss of business,
jobs and opportunity for Canadians as far as revenue is
concerned. This is because the government has not been
addressing the needs of the country. It has been talking about
the Constitution rather than dealing with the needs of this
country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not staying
home but rather leaving his toy, the Constitution, for members
of Parliament to play with. The Constitution does not matter
much to a Canadian who has lost his home or job. In fact, it
does not matter at all.
This is not the end of the debate on the Constitution. It will
be coming forward again, no question about it. The Prime
Minister‘s intention with this toy, the Constitution, is to have
his name inscribed in the history books because he brought the
Constitution to Canada at all costs. Without question, it has
been “at all costs” to those Canadians who have lost their
businesses. That is the way I feel, as do those whom I
represent.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the chairman
of our Constitution committee, gave a lot of time, made many
sacrifices and put in endless hours of effort to help make this
Constitution work. It is hard to appreciate or to visualize the
sacrifices this hon. member has made towards resolving this
constitutional debate successfully.
There is more to Canada than just the French and English. I
am neither French nor English but I am very much a Canadi-
an. I have travelled in Quebec. It is beautiful. I do not have the
words to express how hospitable and honest the people of
Quebec are. I have not often missed the carnaval in Quebec
city. I attend almost every year; it is great.
It is not the French people or the Quebecers who cause the
problems. One man wants to become a Messiah and the other
a hero. Divide and conquer; that is what is now happening. It
is unfortunate because the economy of Quebec is not good.

l3l26 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, I981
The Constitution
Indeed, it is very bad. I only hope that the Prime Minister,
who is a good friend of the Premier of Quebec, will once and
for all try to resolve the problems in Quebec, get that province
rolling again and the people there working.
Thousands of Quebecers left Quebec to go to western
Canada. In fact, my neighbour across the street is from
Quebec. He is happy to be in Alberta. His English is not very
good. My French is not good either. However, we get along
very well as neighbours. We understand each other.
These people have come to western Canada for the same
reasons my family came to Canada. It was not necessarily by
choice but through necessity in the hope of being able to make
a better living. When some of us came to this country, we did
not have so much as even a good suitcase. However, those
people who came here have worked very hard. They were the
pioneers who built this country to what it is today.
The constitutional debate has divided this country more
than it ever was before. There has been no need for it. We
should have been addressing the economy of this country. I am
not against bringing the Constitution to Canada. It is a part of
growing up. There is nothing wrong with that. No Canadian is
against having the Constitution brought to Canada. However,
if it is as complex as some have expressed, why should we
bring it here‘! But this is not so.
We talk about convention, entrenchment and accord. Most
Canadians do not even understand what these terms mean. We
talk about conventions, traditions and practices. Why not
make it so people understand? I will give an example. If we
had a non-confidence motion today and the government was
defeated, even though it is not provided in the Constitution,
the government would resign and an election would be called.
This is not in the Constitution; it is a tradition, a practice that
is accepted.
As a Member of Parliament, I am very disappointed. If I
had known what I know today, it is very questionable whether
I would want to be a Member of Parliament and sit in this
House. This government is manipulative. We see how the
Constitution has been handled and how the government
addresses itself to the economy of this country and making the
country work. No wonder people are losing confidence in
governments and Members of Parliament.
I remember the Prime Minister saying “We will wrestle
inflation to the ground” and “The land is strong”. I remember
when there was hardly any separatism in Quebec or western
Canada. We have it today. I remember the day when it was
said that we should vote for Pierre Trudeau because he was the
only one who can keep this country together. He is the only
one who has divided this country and brought separatism not
only to Quebec but even to western Canada.
. moo)
I did not want to say all these things, but I think they had to
be said because the people, and speaking especially on behalf
on my constituents, ifI may express myself, are sick and tired
of this Constitution debate and this manipulation. It certainly
was not a priority and it certainly is not a priority today either.
Without question I feel this is not the end but only the
beginning, if Pierre Trudeau has his own way.
I will not take much more time but I would like to say a few
words regarding my experience with governments. I was an
alderman for about ten years in the city of Calgary. I held all
the key positions there are. I have also been a school trustee
and an educational bureaucrat at the same time. As well, I
have served as an MLA in the Alberta legislature. I have seen
people come and go in politics. I certainly do not have to read
a book about politics and what makes it work. I have been
involved with labour. At the age of 26 I was the president of
the Calgary labour council. Speaking of labour, I do not know
what the Canadian people have to do so that the Liberal
government will get the message once and for all. When
50,000 people come to Parliament to demonstrate about the
high interest rates, and they still cannot hear—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Order, please. I would
invite the IIOIL member to address his remarks to the Constitu~
tion debate, namely the amendment before the House.
Mr. Kushner: Mr. Speaker, something has to be done about
this. It is quite relevant to the Constitution. As I mentioned
before, it is quite clear that we should be talking about the
economy of the country, rather than debating the Constitution
resolution. We should not be wasting our time. We have
wasted the whole summer and all of the fall on this Constitu-
tion, rather than talking about the economy of this country.
People representing home owners from British Columbia,
Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Canadian
Labour Congress made representations to me last Friday. I
asked them, “What would you expect us to do? What should
we be doing‘? I am losing my home. I will be laid off. I have
already received notice. These are only some of the things I
was told. What do we need to do to get the government moving
or doing something about our interest rates, so we do not lose
our homes and get the construction industry moving again so
people can afford to build and borrow money, which was the
situation not that many years ago? The government is saying
that it is more concerned with the Constitution and it cannot
do anything about high interest rates. To whom should we
refer?”
As I mentioned before, this government has completely lost
control of governing. It no longer governs. The bureaucrats are
governing this country. Should we be writing to the mortgage
companies about the high interest rates? Should we be writing
to the banks‘! Should we be writing to foreign countries? To
whom do we refer? The government cannot do anything. One
begins to wonder who is governing this country.
I cannot over~cmphasize the fact that it is the bureaucrats
governing this country. The Liberals have completely lost
control and it is time they were booted out. Instead of talking
about the Constitution, we should be talking about creating
jobs and getting the economy moving again.
We have a majority government. We also have majority
unemployment, majority interest rates and majority inflation.
We have a dangerous situation in the way the government is
functioning and practising. I do not know what is the next

November 23, I981 COMMONS DEBATES l3l27
move Canadians will be forced to make in order that the
government can address itself to the needs of this country.
On Friday thousands of native people found it necessary to
demonstrate on Parliament Hill in order to be recognized.
They asked that their rights be entrenched in the Constitution,
which rightfully should be done.
In conclusion, on one hand I am proud to have had the
experience of serving as a Member of Parliament, and of doing
my best to see that the interests of my constituents are heard.
On the other hand, as I mentioned before, I am most embar-
rassed and most disappointed to be a Member of Parliament.
The way the government has been treating Canadians is
disgraceful in that it is not and has not been addressing itself
to the needs of this country, but has been fiddling around with
the Constitution. Not only has it not created one single job but
it has actually cut jobs and it has not given any incentive to
this country. Many Canadians have lost millions of dollars in
revenue because the government has not faced its responsibili~
ty in governing this country.
The Prime Minister did not even have a mandate to deal
with the Constitution. I have not received very many letters
saying that the Constitution should be a priority, nor did
Canadians ask for a change in the Constitution until the
government started fiddling with it. The Constitution has
served us very well for the last I00 years. I am not saying that
we should not bring it back to Canada. I am not saying that at
all. However, we should not be doing it in the form we are
doing it now.
I shall not take too much more time because I know other
members of the House of Commons will be speaking. But I
should like to make it quite clear and go on record on this
historical day as saying that for one thing l do support the
Constitution coming to this country. However, I certainly do
not support the way that the Prime Minister has been playing
around with it, using it as a toy and as a smoke screen, rather
than addressing himself to the economy of the country and
finding solutions for the problems we face.
Q (l7l0)
Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Communications): Mr. Speaker, I feel a great sense of pride
and history as I stand in the House today to participate in the
debate on the Constitution. I have not prepared a formal
address, but I should like to pass on some of my over-all
feelings about the necessity of addressing the Constitution at
this point in time. I only had an opportunity to hear the closing
remarks of the previous speaker, but perhaps I will use them as
the launching point for some of the things I should like to say
for the record today.
We have heard a great deal over the past year as to why we
are bothering with constitutional matters when in reality we
should be dealing with economic ones. I respectfully suggest
that now is a most appropriate time to talk about the Constitu~
tion and to talk about it in an economic sense. We are going
through a great evolution in Canada. We have come far in
such a relatively short period of time as history goes, but l
think we can go much farther as we resolve to be one Canada,
The Constitution
to be Canadians all, building an even stronger country which
we can all enjoy.
To say that to deal with the Constitution now does not really
relate to economic problems is inaccurate. We must determine
what kind of a Canada we are and what kind of a Canada we
want to be. I think Canadians through the constitutional
dialogue—and that is exactly what it has turned out to be-—~
have really asked themselves and each other some very dif-
ficult questions. They have come up with some very satisfacto-
ry answers through the period of discourse and dialogue. As
we are about to send the Constitution to Westminster, to be
returned to us, we now have a greater strength of purpose and
a greater recognition that indeed we are Canadians from coast
to coast, from sea to northern sea. It will make it much easier
to govern the country. It will make it easier for the provinces
to understand their part in building the country. Certainly it
will help us as a federal Parliament to understand what we can
and cannot do. But the prime consideration is that it reaffirms
something we already knew, that \ve are one country.
The entire process of determining the Constitution has been
remarkable. It started off in the eyes of some people as being
the dream of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his swan
song. This is not so. The Prime Minister indicated to the
country that it was time to resolve some of our fundamental
problems and thoughts about ourselves. He mobilized the
country on this subject. He did what he has done so well on
many occasions—he exhibited leadership. He had a great deal
of support, not only from the Liberal caucus which has made
what happened so far a reality, but the support of Canadian
people as well.
As we entered into this discussion, we heard a great deal of
rumbling from the provinces because it was an uncomfortable
subject. The people in some quarters really did not want to
talk about it. After all, we would like to deal with matters that
are easy to discuss and to resolve; thus we went into the
constitutional discussion with mixed feelings. Some people
were very enthusiastic because they felt a real need to resolve
the Constitution, to patriate it and to produce an amending
formula. Some people felt that at this point in time we needed
to establish a charter of rights and freedoms. Some other
people said, “I think I will have to give up something; I know it
is important, I know it will be a long and hard pull, but I do
not know if I am prepared for it”.
Initially, for whatever reason, not everyone entered into the
constitutional debate with a great deal of enthusiasm. But as it
moved along, it moved along in the most remarkable manner. I
do not know of any other constitutional experience in the
world which has had so much public input, public scrutiny and
legal scrutiny before the fact, as has the present resolution
before the House. While there are things yet to be done, which
hon. members on all sides would like to see reconciled, I have
confidence in the people of Canada that they will be done. At
least we have moved it to the point where we can say that very
soon we will have the Constitution, the amending formula and
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms—~a beginning to do even
more with the Constitution.

l3l28 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
’ I should like to return to the area of leadership. As I
mentioned earlier, despite the fact that this issue has been a
trying experience for some to put it all together, it took the
determination, vision and leadership qualities of my leader to
bring it to the point where we all take pride in it. There was
one game plan which did not quite work out. It went a
different route, the committee became involved and so on, but
all of us can feel that we have participated in one way or
another at a particularly significant point in Canada‘s history.
There was an extremely hardworking joint committee com-
prised of hon. members from both Houses, from all sides. We
listened to 97 groups of witnesses. There were some 1,280
written submissions. There were over 267 hours of debate in
committee alone. The earlier resolution had 67 amendments.
This indicated that people were now taking the matter serious-
ly. Then it went through the legal process, finally it came to
the eleventh hour meeting of the premiers of the provinces, and
the accord was reached—nine out of ten provinces agreed to
Constitution. We regret that there was not a tenth signature
on the accord, but we must remember that in essence Quebec
agreed with what was going on. The fact that there were three
unresolved items does not take away from the fact that in
round figures a 99 per cent agreement was already there.
It became a partisan, political type of subject as opposed to
one dealing with the concerns of Quebec. Quebecers have
always been good Quebecers; time and again they have proved
that they are good Canadians first. I honestly believe that the
people of Quebec, if asked the question-—and they have been
in a poll—want this to happen. We are negotiating some very
important and fundamental items which should be included in
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before the resolution
leaves the country, I sincerely hope that those‘ items will be
included.
Q (I720)
As I remarked earlier, this is a beginning, not an end. Even
if those fundamental items that concern women’s rights, that
concern aboriginal and treaty rights, are not entrenched in the
present charter as all members of the House have indicated
they would like, we will at least have the mechanism to enter
very quickly into further negotiations. In that way we can
continue to build and improve upon this process. I am proud of
a system that has allowed the Parliaments of this land, despite
the fact that we had to take a hard look at what we were doing
and how we were doing it, to come this far.
There have been many sincerely emotional moments in the
debates that have taken place. There have been some frighten-
ing moments too, such as when the Right Hon. Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Clark) said, after the Supreme Court judg-
ment was delivered, in effect, “Let’s put this whole matter on
the back burner because now we have time to think about it”. I
think he has recognized, judging from his subsequent actions
and from the way he has behaved in the House, that there
comes a moment when you either proceed with a matter of this
sort or forget about it.
It would have been a terrible crime to have gone through
that year of agony, that year of soul searching, in order to
come up with a constitution—to have come that close and then
have to say, “Let‘s forget that and repeat the process some~
where, some tirne—whenever.” That is not happening, Mr.
Speaker, I think there is a resolve on the part of members of
the House to see that the work begun over a year ago is
completed.
I said that I experienced a sense of history in being able to
participate in this debate in my own small way. When one has
a few grey hairs, one can remember an earlier time. I recall in
what was then the city of Port Arthur, in the high schools,
public schools and separate school, when we were asked to give
our citizenship, that what was meant was our land of origin.
We did not put down “Canadian citizen”. We had to put down
Italian, Scottish, English or whatever, but not “Canadian
citizen”. I remember very well my pride as a high school
student in 1947 when the Citizenship Act was passed—by a
Liberal government, I might add. I
That was another part of the evolution, Mr. Speaker, saying
“Let’s define ourselves. Let’s recognize that we are a people,
that we are not a colony, that we are Canadians. We have
fought wars and we have more than proved that we are
building a country.“
We finally adopted our own flag, not without a debate
similar to the constitutional debate; but we now have a flag
which we fly proudly and which identifies us to the world as a
sovereign nation and as Canadians.
We went on to something else, which is not such a small
thing, when we adopted the national anthem, “O Canada”.
Some day I hope that we will have a Canada Day.
Now we come to the nuts and bolts, Mr. Speaker, a Canadi-
an Constitution. I think the Canadian Constitution that is
proposed is an excellent one. It is hailed by other people
around the world as the best there is. The Charter of Rights
and Freedoms will do much to ensure our freedoms. I know
that the opposition to this charter has been to the effect that to
put something in writing does not necessarily enshrine it
forever because people can do whatever they want with such
things, but I think more highly of the Canadian people than
that, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a resolve to honour the
rights that are stated within the Charter of Rights and Free-
doms and I think that we will continue to improve upon it.
We will have patriation of the Constitution so that never
again will we have to go to another Parliament to ask permis-
sion to change it. We will have an amending formula, which
means that the work can continue without the frustration of
wondering whether what we want will ever come about. We
will have those things and, above all, there will be included in
the package the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a great country, Mr. Speaker, but we take so much
for granted. If someone writing a novel described a country
like Canada with its narrow fringe population along the border
which is comfortable to live in, with its many regions, its many
diversities, its people of two main cultures and the multicultur-

November 23, 1-981 COMMONS DEBATES 13129
alism aspect, the reader would say that it could not work, that
it is impossible to do all the things we want. Not only can it
work, Mr. Speaker, it does work.
It is going to work much better because we have taken the
time now to clear the way for the magnificent future that is
just around the corner. I believe that we have been living
better than anyone else in the world but there are greater
things in store for us. Things will work much better because
we have taken the time to look at ourselves, to define ourselves.
We have come to the conclusion that we are one Canada, that
we can work together. We will have our Constitution and our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms to back that up.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I too am grateful to have the opportunity to partici-
pate in this debate. I believe this is the third occasion on which
I have addressed myself to the question of the role of women in
Canadian society and to the future equality of women with
men in Canadian society. Therefore, like others, I am dis-
tressed to discover that what is called an “override clause” has
been put in the equality of rights clause, Section 28.
With a lot of my colleagues, I was very glad that many
features in the accord that was reached between the first
ministers of the provinces and the Prime Minister (Mr. Tru-
deau) the other day are good ones, are progressive ones, are
strong ones and are desirable ones. In that connection I was
very happy to read that the new Premier of Manitoba had said
that he will certainly not renege on francophone rights in that
province or subject them to legislative approval.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Jewett: There are good things in this resolution, but it
is almost heartbreaking to see the legislative override of some
of the most fundamental and most important parts of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the proposal was put
before the House of Commons I think we all felt that section
15, the equality of rights section outlawing discrimination on
grounds of race, colour, religion, sex and so on, and its second
component, the affirmative action provision encouraging legis-
latures to take affirmative action for disadvantaged groups,
was one of the strongest parts of that charter. Perhaps it was
because there were no women present, or perhaps it was
because there were no black people present that the first
ministers of this country crippled that section of the charter.
It is all very well to say that a specific act can discriminate
only for five years, but to me that almost destroys the intent,
the purpose, the symbolism and the substance of that section.
To then go on and apparently subject Section 28—which the
women of Canada strove so hard to get in the Constitution and
which the House unanimously passed in April-to an overrid-
ing provision that a legislature or the Parliament of Canada
could deny the very rights and freedoms referred to in this
charter guaranteed equally to male and female persons and
that the government would do this apparently as an oversight,
that it had not really thought about Section 28, the section to
The Constitution
which Parliament gave a great deal of thought, adds insult to
injury.
Q (mo)
Hon. members will remember that the very day after the
accord was signed I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
whether Section 28, the section guaranteeing wornen’s equal
rights with men, was included. I remind you, Mr. Speaker,
that the Prime Minister said:
I can only answer that my impression is that the clause would continue. I have
not been involved in the drafting which went on between provincial and federal
officials yesterday afternoon and, I believe, during the night as well.
He went on to say:
There were some deletions, and aboriginal rights was one of them. Maybe the
other clause was another. I am not sure. I will have to check that, and that is
why I say I will see whal was done on the drafting over night.
A few days later a writer for La Presse said:
[ Translation]
Questioned in that connection on the day following the constitutional confer-
ence by a NDP member, Miss Pauline Jewett. Mr. Trudeau admitted his lack of
concern.
Mr. Trudeau remembered that he had sold off native rights. However, he only
had a vague idea about women’s rights. We know that women arc rather
unimportant. A mere bunch. I tell you-
[English]
It was, of course, tragic that Section 34 affirming the rights
of the native peoples, the aboriginal peoples of Canada, was
dropped. At least they were remembered long enough to be
dropped. Women were not even remembered.
Let us take a look at what the provincial premiers have said
in the few weeks since while struggling to get back on side.
Their comments vary from that of the Premier of New Bruns-
wick saying there had been no discussion at all of Section 28,
that their intention in the accord was to have Section 28
remain intact, with no override, as a statement of the equal
rights of women with men, to that of the Premier of Alberta
saying, first, that he was not sure whether or not Section 28
had been discussed, and then saying later that he had not
intended that it be subject to the limitation that we have been
calling the override, which would take the guts right out of it.
We find Premiers Bennett and Davis saying that it certainly
was not their intention to take out that section, and we find the
officials saying that “it had been a drafting error”,
I think we might all come to the conclusion that no one
seems to know whether they discussed this section, although
the balance of the evidence seems to be that the first ministers
did not discuss it. However, if they did discuss it, the impres-
sion most of them give is that they wanted Section 28 to
remain intact, symbolically and substantively. No one has
come forth publicly and said that this section was to be
overriden as Section 15 was overriden.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow members
that we could appropriately, given this incredible confusion,
pass the section in its original form in which we saw it in April.
As I understand it, it is notpart of the accord that it should be
overriden, given what all of the premiers have said.

13130 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
But what does this tell us about the position of Canadian
women in society? Are we simply a detail, a drafting error? I
noticed that we were recently blessed with the neanderthal
wisdom on the editorial page of The Citizen of Ottawa. The
editorial was headed “Fix the details later”. The editorial
reads:
The complaints by various womcn’s and native organizations about the
constitutional resolution new before Parliament are not sufficiently persuasive—
Let me emphasize the words “the complaints”. We are
talking about our very rights as human beings, in the case of
women, the women’s human right to equality, and in the case
of the native peoples of Canada, their rights as _the original
peoples of this country. This editorial is talking about these as
complaints. That is why a great many of us are distressed by
the possibility that eviscerated Clause 28 will remain. Not a
single member of this House, barring the Prime Minister and
the Minister of Justice (Mr, Chrétien) who were the negotia-
tors, should support Section 28 if this override remains in it.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Jewett: Not a single member of this House should
support it. But if any members do support it, do you know
what they would be doing, Mr. Speaker‘? It would mean that
we would be taking an enormous backward step, we would be
denying the principle of equality of men and women. We
would not have even the status quo. We would be going farther
and farther backward.
I hope the minister responsible for the status of women
agrees, I believe she does. I hope she does. She was not part of
the negotiations. I do not know whether she asked, but she
certainly did not know what had happened to Section 28. I
hope that neither the minister responsible for the status of
women, nor any woman nor indeed any member, would sup-
port this section unless the amended version that we are
discussing today is brought in by the government itself on the
ground that the cheapening of Section 28 was not intended in
the accord.
For those who would argue that they can only accept the
quality of women conditionally, I believe that they too are
saying that they do not believe in the fundamental principle of
equality of women with men. They are denying, as I said a
moment ago, women’s human right to equality. It is a goal to
be achieved because we do not have it yet; it is a goal to be
achieved in and of itself. That is how a lot of us see the
original Section 28. We see this, as I say, symbolically as an
expression of the equality in our society of men and women,
their entitlement equally to the rights and freedoms in the
charter. We see it that way, as I say, symbolically. We also see
it as a section in its original form of enormously important
substance, because we do not in fact have equality, and when I
say “we“ I mean women. We do not in fact have equality
today. Therefore, Section 28 becomes a goal to achieve.
Q (I740)
For those who worry that affirmative action programs would
somehow be ruled out by Section 28, I can only say that as
long as an affirmative action program is a program that will
help to achieve what is in Section 28 there is no conflict
whatsoever, and Section 15(2) and Section 28 would be in
harmony.
Similarly, if there is a discriminatory act under Section
15(1), and it is a positive act which is helping to achieve
greater equality for those who do not have it now, then it too
would fall within the ambit of the broad statement of equality
in Section 28.
The fears then, it seems to me, although legitimately raised,
are not legitimately founded. As a previous speaker said, there
should be no taking of credit; every woman‘s group in Canada
had a great deal to do with getting the paramountcy clause, as
I call it, Clause 28, included in April. I personally think the
former minister responsible for the status of women had a
great deal to do with getting the clause in.
Miss MacDonald: Right on.
An hon. Member: He sure did.
Miss Jewett: Every time he spoke, he turned another million
Canadian women into feminists.
An hon. Member: The Lloyd works in strange ways.
Miss Jewett: While I am not going to single out, with that
exception, who made such enormous contributions to the whole
concept and principle of equality of the sexes, I must with
sorrow express my regret that, with the exception of the
present minister responsible for the status of women, and I am
sure, although I do not know, the present Minister of National
Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), no other woman on the
Liberal side has engaged in this battle. They were not present
at the famous February convention. They were not present at
rallies in the past two weeks through which we have been
trying to get the clause restored in its purity, and they were not
even present today, with one exception, when the minister
responsible for the status of women spoke. Have the women of
the party been speaking outside the House, holding rallies and
organizing? I am very distressed to say they have not. It seems
that they have become gagged. Even in Quebec—~
[Translation]
Three days ago, an article appeared in the newspaper La
Presser
A gentle Yvette. The organizer of the Yvettes‘ movement, Mrs. Louise Robic,
slightly worried the Liberals by insisting that the government account for its
failing to cntrench women‘s rights. Canadian women want to know what
happened to their rights and freedoms… “A lot of women will be suffering
from ulcers“, she said.
What could have become a real dispute did not last long however because
Mrs. Robic, as befits a good liberal, readily accepted. Mr. Chrétien‘s arguments.
And she added: Well, we must fight the provinces, not the women of Quebec or
Canada.
[English]
What can we do‘! I said a moment ago that the constitution~
al accord, or much of it, was worked out in the kitchen
between the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan and Ontario

November 23, 198] COMMONS
DEBATES 1 3 1 3 I
and the federal Minister of Justice~if ever there was a time
when a woman should have been in the kitchen!
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Jewett: Much of it was drawn up, as indeed the whole
accord was, without giving that kind of thought to the needs
and the rights of the native peoples, the disabled and certainly
of women, and I guess that proves once again that much as
others may sympathize——goodness knows, many men do-
when they get down to their negotiating and dealing, they do
not think of the other half of the population not represented,
and they do not think of the disadvantaged. Those thoughts
are not paramount.
Therefore, as far as women are concerned, we must once
again have our own party develop affirmative action programs,
and develop them now, with the party leaders at all levels and
the committees in every constituency saying: We must have 50
per cent of our candidates women.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Jewett: That kind of action must be taken, and not
just in the weak ridings. Since the kitchen-created Constitution
was influenced enormously by officials, federal and provincial,
only two of whom to my knowledge were women, clearly we
must have an affirmative action program now in the federal
public service of Canada to ensure that women are pulled up-
and there are lots of bright women there——and put in positions
of responsibility and authority. The federal government did it
once, and rightly so, when it discovered that francophones
constituted only 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the senior public
service. The federal government did it just by saying: That will
not do. l do not believe there was even a written edict; it was
just the Prime Minister saying: That will not do. That is the
kind of leadership women have not had from the men of
Canada in the Liberal Party and government. There has to be
affirmative action there. Clearly, it is in the senior ranks of
politics and the bureaucracy that power resides.
g (1750)
Despite the evisceration of this document, the Supreme
Court of Canada will still have a role to play, and it must also
be changed. There must be women on the Supreme Court of
Canada as well, and this has been argued before. That should
be the next fight.
The lawyers who will be working to interpret this Constitu~
tion in various cases will, I am confident, be increasingly more
balanced as more women graduate from law school. As I have
said, the fact that there are more women graduating from law
school is one of the most exciting things which has happened in
recent years.
I read an article today by Michele Landsberg of the Toronto
Star entitled “Help wage war for women‘s equality”. It is an
excellent article and I recommend it to all Members of Parlia-
ment. In that article she suggests that there be a women‘s
watchdog in Ottawa to protect our equality rights. Right now
the best watchdog in Ottawa is the ad hoc committee. I would
The Constitution
also approve of that suggestion. I believe that until we have a
strong if not equal, or perhaps for a period more than equal,
representation in this House of Commons and in provincial
legislatures, such as in Manitoba where women members
constitute I2 per cent, and in the bureaucracies both federally
and provinclally, I do not believe we will be able to ensure that
the indifference and neglect to the fundamental principle of
equality of women will be seriously addressed. As I have said,
I hope that the government will realize that since the disman-
tling of Clause 28, according to most of the premiers, was not
part of the accord, it can proceed and we can proceed in
Parliament.
It is true that it was neglect and indifference that made this
so, but it provides us with a chance to benefit from it. We must
remember, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said
a moment ago, that as important as the two orders of govern-
ment are in this country, because it is a federal system, it can
be said there is a third order. That is the people of Canada
who are represented by various groups and many organiza-
tions. During the last year, we have certainly seen that third
order in operation, as far as the women of Canada are
concerned. I wonder if the provincial premiers have ever read
the marvellous briefs that were prepared for the Joint Com-
mittee on the Constitution by women‘s groups and other
groups all across this country. I wonder if they know that there
is a third order, which is the people of Canada represented by
these diverse groups.
Finally, I submit that if we do not restore Section 28—and
all of what I have said applies to Section 34 concerning the
rights of the aboriginal people—it will go down not as an
important day in Canadian history but as a day of infamy. I do
not believe that is too strong a word to describe this.
I hope that when the women of Canada have 95 per cent of
the representation in the House instead of the 5 per cent they
now have, and when we hold 100 per cent of the premiers’
places instead of none, and if, as may well be, we are pioneer-
ing a new constitutional accord, I hope and I am indeed
confident that we will not treat the other half of the population
with the indifference, injustice and complacency which so
many of their number have inflicted upon us. That is a
promise.
[Translation]
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, as I would
like to deliver my speech at one go, could I call it six o’clock.
Consequently, I would be able to speak again when the House
resumes at eight p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Does the House agree?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): As it is six o’clock, I will
leave the chair until eight o’clock.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.

13132 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: When the House recessed at six
o’clock, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) had the
floor.
Mr. Dionne (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, the least we can say
about this debate on the patriation of the Canadian Constitu-
tion is that it has taken on a major dimension. First, I wish to
pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has
shown great determination as well as great flexibility in
obtaining the agreement of nine provincial premiers for his
plan to patriate our Constitution. It is with pride that I remind
this House that it was a Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson,
who with courage and tenacity defended the proposal that gave
our country a distinctive flag. His successor, again a Liberal
leader, is helping to make the dream of so many Canadians, to
patriate our own Constitution, come true at last.
l am convinced that history will keep this event alive in the
memory of all Canadians for generations. However, I realize
that at this stage, there is still a feeling of dissatisfaction. I am
a Quebecer, and the government of my province has refused to
agree to the plan to patriate our Constitution. I am disappoint-
ed, because during the three days when the Prime Minister of
Canada and the ten provincial Premiers were meeting, there
were a few moments when it seemed that this fifty-four
year-old struggle, this quarrel that in a year had taken on
gigantic proportions, would finally be resolved.
Like all observers, and especially as a Quebec Member of
the Parliament of Canada, I was glad to hear the news given
out Wednesday noon at the conference that there was finally
agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada,
something we had spent ten years waiting for. And like
everyone who was following the conference proceedings, I was
disappointed to hear a few hours later that the agreement has
failed. Later, we heard that there had been a flood of tele-
phone calls at Premier Lévesque’s office in Quebec City. It
seems these were from anti-Canadian elements who could not
imagine Quebec otherwise than separated from the rest of
Canada. What can you expect, Mr. Speaker, when people are
subject for six months to deceitful propaganda, under the
slogan: “Don‘t be had”? Of course people were going to think
that if there was an agreement between Quebec and the
Canadian Government, Quebec was going to get the short end
of the stick, In any case, the people who were had were the
people who believed this deceptive propaganda.
One must not forget that Quebecers have sent seventy-four
Liberal members to Ottawa to defend their interests. Quebec-
ers are represented by thirteen ministers in cabinet. Quebec’s
influence on the affairs of Canada is greater than ever before.
That is why we, the seventy-four Quebec members of the
caucus, asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to consider
the objections expressed by the delegation of the Province of
Quebec. As a Quebecer and as a Canadian, I could appreciate
the position taken by the Quebec Liberal Party in the National
Assembly. In fact, it shows that in the National Assembly in
Quebec City, there are elected representatives who will point
out to the Péquistes that contrary to what they would have
Quebecers believe, the Canadian Government is trying to get
Quebec out of its isolation.
In a speech the Prime Minister delivered held in Quebec
City on November 14, he showed that he was willing to take
into consideration each of the objections expressed by Premier
Levesque. He was asked to reconsider the matter again by us,
the members of his caucus. In fact, with hindsight, it is hard to
understand how the Quebec representatives at the conference
in Ottawa managed to isolate themselves. It was supposedly to
defend Quebec’s interests that Premier Levesque joined the
Premiers of seven other provinces, and so, if the eight prov-
inces were agreed to oppose the federal government on a
number of points, it would be normal for all eight provinces to
agree to the patriation plan if those points ceased to exist. I
was present at the Conference Centre in Ottawa on Thursday,
when Prime Minister Trudeau and the Premiers of the nine
provinces stated that they had reached an agreement. Witness-
ing this historical moment, I could hardly conceal my disap-
pointment when Premier Lévesque annonunced that he refused
to sign the agreement, explaining that three major objections
prevented him from giving his approval to the accord.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to review each of
the objections formulated by Mr. Levesque. The first one
concerned the withdrawal of the compensation clause. Well,
the next day, Quebecers were assured that Quebec would be
able to benefit from the compensation clause in certain cases.
The Quebec members asked the Prime Minister to be flexible,
and he was. In fact, the Right Hon. Prime Minister clearly
indicated on November 14 that he would agree to Quebec
receiving fiscal compensation if they refused to participate in a
federal program on grounds that it affected the French lan-
guage or the French culture in Quebec. The Prime Minister of
Canada agreed that if the nine English-speaking provinces
were to decide to waive their jurisdiction with respect to
post-secondary education, it would be normal for Quebec to
refuse to agree to this measure and that it would receive fiscal
compensation. Can Mr. Levesque be against that? On the
other hand, if the federal government decides to set up a
program which would benefit all Canadians and which would
be financed by the richer provinces, the latter would have no
right to refuse. At the present time, Quebec is certainly not a
rich province, and if we were to develop a pension transfer
program applicable throughout Canada, for instance, I believe
that it would be in the interest of Quebecers for the rich
provinces not to be able to opt out of this program. Since
Quebecers would benefit from this program, how could they be
against it?

November 23, l98l COMMONS DEBATES 13133
Q (Z010)
Mr. Lévesquc’s second objection concerns the mobility
clause. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will assert the
principle of the‘ free movement of goods and individuals all
across Canada. This is the basis of what could be called a
Canadian common market. This principle is essential to the
economic development of Quebec and the other provinces.
Some have pointed out that workers from the other provinces
could come and work in Quebec, but is it not a fact that
thousands of workers from Quebec, Ontario and the Mari-
times travel to Alberta to look for work? Experience has
shown that whenever a province puts up barriers to protect its
workers, its trade and its industry, the other provinces
reciprocate.
We will recall the dispute between Ontario ‘and Quebec in
connection with the building industry. Yet, the Prime Minister
has told the Quebcc government that he was willing to seek for
other formulas to accommodate the legitimate concerns of a
province. He has recognized that Newfoundland may take
special steps in this regard as long as the unemployment rate
remains higher in that province than in the rest of the country.
The Prime Minister of Canada has thrown the ball into Mr.
Lévesque‘s court by saying that Quebec could take special
action if it were literally invaded by English-speaking workers
from other provinces. Can the Quebec premier reject this
proposal? In case there remains a doubt in his mind, I am
putting this question to the Quebec premier. He wants to
replace Canadian federalism by some type of common market.
Yet, Mr. Levesque should know that measures to restrict the
free movement of goods and individuals are forbidden in the
European market. There is neither relaxation nor special
regime for anyone. All Canadians are equal. Our Canadian
charter to which Mr. Levesque has so many objections is
therefore finally more flexible in its application than the
Treaty of Rome on which it is based. You will note that he
does not refer to this example now as much as he used to.
I would like to know what he would reply to those Quebec
workers who could get a job in Alberta but would not be able
to do so because of provincial barriers. A worker of Ville de la
Baie said to me that the Quebec government was holding
Quebecers as hostages, but I told him that if the proposed
charter is adopted, he can invoke the clause guaranteeing the
mobility rights of workers.
Mr. Speaker, once the principle of the free movement of
goods and individuals is no longer accepted in a country, then
it no longer is a country. Finally, the last objection raised by
Premier Levesque concerns the clause on education in the
language of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the charter will put an
end to the iniquities of which French-speaking Canadians in
other provinces are victims. Because of the economic slowdown
in Quebec, which is actually the responsibility of the Quebec
government, thousands of Quebecers have had to leave Quebec
The Constitution
to find work in Alberta, for instance, as well as in other richer
and more prosperous provinces.
That Quebecer will have the entrenched right to send his
children to a French school. French~speaking citizens in New
Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will finally have the
right to send their children to French schools. is the Quebec
Premier opposed to that? Would it be that we, Quebecers, did
not fight long enough to obtain that for francophones in
English-speaking provinces? Admittedly, Quebec has no les-
sons to learn on how to treat language minorities. However,
the Prime Minister feels that Quebec could implement the
Canada clause to ensure that schools do not become an
anglicizing factor in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportu-
nity, mainly for the benefit of the people in my area, to quote
the Canada clause, which entitles to education in the minority
language. I shall give a textual quote, so that people realize
what actually is in that clause.
Section 23 deals with the language of instruction and is
often said to be unfair to the people in Quebec:
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a) whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or
French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or
French and residc in a province whcre the language in which they received
that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority
population of the province.
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school
instruction in that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary
or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to
have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the
same language.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their
children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the
English or French linguistic minority population ofa province
(n) applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who
have such a right is sufficient to Warrant the provision to them out of public
funds of minority language instruction; and
(I2) includes, where the numbcr ofthose children so warrants. the right to have
them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities
provided out of public funds.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the contents of Section 23 that is so
controversial in areas such as mine. Mr. Speaker, how can Mr.
Rene Levesque oppose such a proposal? As may be seen, Mr.
Speaker, we were successful in the representations we, as
members from Quebec, made to Prime Minister Trudeau that
Quebec’s goals be taken into account. The Prime Minister
accommodated the PQ government and he yielded on every
point. And we finally told ourselves that the PQ government
could no more withhold their consent, since every obstacle had
been put aside. But Premier Levesque answered with new
demands in the form of an ultimatum. I think the leader of the
Parti Québécois finally will be seen by the people as he really
is. He said he supported sovereignty-association, we learned
this week he would drop the hyphenated association. In other

13134 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
words, he is a separatist. The only surprising thing is that he
took so long to admit it himself.
Mr. Speaker, there are other questions I would like to raise.
I would like to stress that Quebec isolated itself at the Quebec
conference, when it proposed the Vancouver formula as
opposed to the Victoria formula. I also suggest, Mr. Speaker,
that Mr. Morin himself proposed that formula in the names of
the eight Canadian Premiers, and, of course, that formula
today deprived Quebec of the right of veto that had always
been recognized. As a member from Quebec, I am deeply
disappointed at such an attitude because Quebec has been
pursuing a course that isolates it more and more from the
other provinces, and deliberately refuses to negotiate with the
Canadian government. On the other hand, the people of
Quebec cannot but realize that the Right Hon. Prime Minister
has been very openminded and quite accommodating. Unfortu-
nately we cannot say the same thing about the Premier of
Quebec. What happened, in my opinion, is that the Parti
Québécois was taken over by the separatists who want Quebec
to separate from Canada. That is why they will try to say that
the others manoeuvred and plotted against them whereas they
are the ones who isolated Quebec because that is what they
want in the first place.
This is where we find the first tactical error of the PQ
government. It was sure that the Ottawa conference would end
in failure, it so grossly underestimated the pressure of public
opinion on the seven premiers to reach an agreement with the
government of Canada that from the outset it joined forces
with anybody who was against the resolution. Watching them
from Ottawa it was almost funny to see Premier Levesque
plotting with Mr. Lyon, the former Manitoba premier who has
never had much use for French Canadians. Had they been
given the chance, I think that the PQ supporters would have
enlisted Leonard Jones, the former mayor of Moncton. And
yet, French culture and language had meant so much to PQ
supporters they should have sided with Mr. Trudeau, Mr. De
Bane, Mr. Joyal, Mr. Chretien and the 74 Quebec members.
The position of our party on the question of upholding the
rights of francophones in all provinces is clear. The electors of
Quebec know where we stand and that is why they have given
us their massive support since 1968.
No, the PQ strategists preferred to make a common front
with people who had been very lukewarm about the rights of
francophones in their own provinces. Indeed, perhaps this was
right up their alley since Premier Levesque never did propose
anything to improve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Did
the premier of Quebec try to better the lot of francophones
outside Quebec, at least those who reside in the provinces of
his seven former allies? It seems to me ‘that Premier Levesque
should have insisted that Mr. Lyon, Mr. Peckford and Mr.
Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta where so many Quebecers
are going, agree to grant more rights to the francophones in
their provinces. Did Premier Levesque insist that Ontario
recognize Section 133 so that province would acknowledge the
rights of francophones? No, he was not even interested. For
the first time in our history the government of Quebec, which
prides itself for being the most nationalist, utterly disregarded
French~speaking minorities outside Quebec. The Arabs, the
Moslems and the Jews fight for their minorities, but not the
PQ government. Well, the government of Canada will do just
that.
In addition to that, we are going to fight for the interests of
Quebecers. Of course there are nationalists who ask how and
by what right the 74 Quebec members can fight for the
interests of Quebecers. They are not asking by what right is
the PQ government sulking by its lonesome self. They are not
asking by what right does the culture minister refuse to attend
a conference with his provincial counterparts. The PQ govern~
ment has decided that it will boycott everything other than
finance ministers‘ conferences. Up until now, the PQ has
refused to take part in negotiations to improve upon the
patriation proposal or the proposed Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. Well, Mr. Speaker, the 74 members from Quebec,
under our leader, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau have
decided to defend the interests of Quebecers and give them a
better deal. The PQ refuses to stand up for the rights of
Quebec. But, the opposition leader and his party in the Na-
tional Assembly are prepared to do so. Editorials in Le Devoir
and La Presse have urged Premier Levesque to defend the
rights of his province and have even indicated that he has no
other choice. Finally, we the 74 members from Quebec, have
played our part in our party caucus. We continue to defend the
interests of Quebec by formulating Canada’s position with
regard to the ten other provinces and by taking part in this
phase of the debate.
I take exception to the PQ and its claim that it has the sole
God-given right to defend the interests of Quebecers. Follow-
ing a few scandals, people now realize that what comes from
the Parti Québécois does not necessarily come from heaven.
The electorate is becoming aware that its interests with respect
to constitutional matters were not well defended by the PQ
and that they only have themselves to blame. We must remem-
ber that it was Premier Levesque, the leader of the Parti
Québécois, who gave up, on behalf of Quebecers, Quebec’s
traditional right to veto. It is not Prime Minister Trudeau nor
the 74 Quebec Liberal MPs who deprived Quebec of its right to
veto. No, it is the PQ who was quite happy to relinquish that
right in order to please Messrs. Lyon, Bennett and Lougheed.
They gave up Quebec’s right of veto in order to join the gang.
Quebec’s image as an important province and one of the
oldest provinces has become a thing of the past, no thanks to
the Pequistes.
Looking at these facts, one \vonders whether the Péquistes
are sulkingfll think they are so ashamed of their stupid
mistakes that they are afraid to come out into the open.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13135
And meanwhile, the people in Quebec are Starting to feel
the adverse effects of the Parti Québécois’ poor administration.
Taxes are too high in Quebec, and the provincial government
is to blame. The separatist government has caused companies
and their staff, which means big taxpayers, to leave the
province. There are increasingly fewer businesses that are
interested in settling in Quebec, and it might well be said, if it
were not for the presence of Quebec members and Quebec
ministers in the Parliament of Canada, things would be even
worse than they already are.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel that Quebecers are going to
realize that the separatist government has no valid reason for
refusing to agree to the plan to patriate the Constitution. If the
separatists feel that the accord is unacceptable, they will have
to prove it. They will find out that the people in Quebec are
not willing to be separated from Canada. They will also find
out that Canada is more important than the separatist party.
. (2020)
[English]
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North): I am proud to be able to
participate in this historic debate not only because our Consti-
tution is the embodiment of our laws but because each one of
us should be on record as to our true feelings related to this
resolution. First, l should like to congratulate all members of
the joint constitutional committee not only for their contribu-
tions but for the personal sacrifices they made. The committee
sat for over 300 hours, held 106 meetings and heard 314
witnesses, and to add to this, spent countless hours of reading
to which every member of the committee was committed. I
would also like to pay special thanks to our committee mem-
bers, headed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)
who worked diligently to present our case.
I would like to review some of the things which led up to the
present dilemma we are facing. In Canada, the Canadian
Constitution consists of the British North America Act, the
Statute of Westminster 1931, numerous other acts, conven-
tions, customs and traditions and rulings from the Supreme
Court of Canada. The British North America Act, 1867,
among other things set out the division of powers between the
provinces and the federal government. Previous meetings
which drafted this act set out the alternatives with which the
Fathers of Confederation were confronted when they attempt-
ed to draft an act that would create a new nation. They had a
choice of creating a nation which was legislative in form or a
nation which was federal in form. By “legislative in form”, l
mean a nation which is run from one central government, with
all other elected bodies subservient to the federal government.
The other form is the federal system where the power is
divided between the provinces and the federal government.
The Fathers of Confederation chose the federal system. This
federal union recognized equality of all provinces irrespective
of population and size. At the meetings drafting the report
which would be presented to the British Parliament, each
founding province—Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Bruns\vick—all had one vote. Also it is significant that the
80106-8
The Constitution
British North America Act, as enacted by the British Parlia-
ment, upon the direction of Canadian provinces did not confer
upon the federal government any power to amend the Consti-
tution of Canada, even though each province was given power
to amend its own constitution within its own sphere, except as
regards the office of lieutenant-governor.
Q (2030)
Down through the years many changes have been made to
the British North America Act. At no time has the British
Government ever refused a request by the Canadian Parlia-
ment to change the Constitution, although from time to time
the British Parliament has made small changes in the presen-
tation. The federal government indicated that the British
Parliament has never passed an act submitted by one or more
of the provinces, but on the other hand never have any
provinces submitted changes to the British North America Act
to the British Government. Also the Canadian government
argued that it does not have to consult the provinces in order
to present a resolution to the British Parliament, but in fact
the Canadian government has never presented a resolution to
the British government without the agreement of the provinces
which would be affected, and history tells us that on numerous
occasions the provinces have intervened to change or withhold
proposed resolutions.
The obligation of the British Parliament is not only to deal
with the resolution but to determine whether it is a proper
resolution. It is not its intention to interfere with the meaning
or thrust of what the resolution would do to Canadian people.
However, its obligation is to consider whether it can properly
accept the resolution. Also it is within the sphere of the British
Parliament to vote against this resolution because in effect the
resolution asks the British Parliament to enact an act of its
own, within its own Parliament, on which only it can make a
decision. We must understand clearly that only the British
Parliament can decide whether it will pass a bill which affects
its relationship with another sovereign nation.
Let me deal briefly with the events leading up to the
dilemma we are in today. In other words, can we amend our
Constitution and, if not, why not’! It should be clearly under-
stood that Canada is a sovereign nation, able to pass laws and
to deal both internally and globally with other nations and
other people. However, the British North America Act did not
make any provision for amendment to the BNA Act other
than that all amendments would be presented to the British
Parliament and all amendments would, in turn, be considered
by the British Parliament and voted upon in both House of
Commons and the House of Lords. The Statute of Westmin-
ster, 1931, was a bill passed by the United Kingdom govern-
ment to remove the last vestiges of colonialism. The Statute of
Westminster, 1931, was an act of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom which formally acknowledged the sovereign and
co-equal constitutional status of the United Kingdom, Canada,
Union of South Africa, Irish Free State, Newfoundland, Aus-
tralia and New Zealand. The statute indicated in Section 2
that no future legislation introduced by the United Kingdom
government would be enacted without the express request and

l3136 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
consent of one of the previously mentioned nations. But in
reality the prime purpose of the Statute of Westminster was to
nullify the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which in itself
prevented any of the dominions from enacting any changes to
the constitutions which would be redundant to the Parliament
of the United Kingdom.
It is interesting to look at events leading up to this statute.
The first step toward the enactment of the Statute of West-
minster dates from the imperial conference of 1926 when
special consideration was given to various legislation of the
dominions. A number of general principles were laid down,
and it was agreed that a Commonwealth committee should be
set up to inquire fully into these matters and to make recom-
mendations to a subsequent conference of Commonwealth
nations. In the autumn of 1929, the proposed committee met
at a conference to discuss the Colonial Laws Validity Act,
Dominion legislation, merchant shipping legislation and other
minor items. lt drafted a report which would in future contain
many of the sections of the Statute of Westminster. The
conference recalled that Canada alone among the Dominions
had no power to amend its Constitution Act without legislation
being passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
Following the conference, the report was considered fully in
many parts of the Commonwealth. In Ottawa a debate took
place in May 1930, when the federal government asked the
I-louse of Commons for approval of the report. The document
was subjected to careful scrutiny, and the Conservative opposi-
tion objected to it on the grounds that formal consent should
be obtained from the provinces.
There were a number of items which were wrong with the
report, such as its suggestion that provincial legislation should
continue to be subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and
to the legislative supremacy of the Parliament of the United
Kingdom, while federal legislation was to be freed from the
act. In the following September, shortly before the opening of
the imperial conference called to consider the report of 1929,
Howard Ferguson, the Premier of Ontario, forwarded to the
then prime minister of Canada a letter accompanied by an
elaborate memorandum. I should like to read the record of
that letter and refer interested readers to the memorandum
which dealt with the powers of the provinces vis-a-vis the
federal government. By this time, however, a new federal
Conservative government had been elected, so the letter and
the memorandum were addressed to Prime Minister R. B.
Bennett. It read:
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
You will recall that in some discussions we have had with reference to the
report of the imperial conference, and, in particular, the recommendations made
in the report of 1929, l have endeavoured to make clcar to you the attitude of the
Province of Ontario.
The conference appears to have ignored the fact that the confederation of the
provinces of Canada was brought about by the action of the provinces. Our
Constitution is really the crystallization into law by an imperial statute of an
agreement made by the provinces after full consultation and discussion. The
province of Ontario holds strongly to the view that this agreement should not be
altered without the consent of the parties to it.
On behalf of this province 1 desire to protest most vigorously against any steps
being taken by the dominion government, or the imperial conference, to dcal
with the provincial treaty until the matter has been submitted to the provinces
and they have had ample time to give this subject propcr consideration.
To pursue the course indicated by the report of 1929 will not only greatly
disturb the present harmonious operation of our Constitution but I fear may
seriously disrupt the whole structure of our confederation. Ontario is genuinely
alarmed by the situation and 1 urgently urge upon you, representing the
Dominion, and through you upon the imperial conference, that this wholc matter
be left in abcyance until it can be dealt with in a propcr manner, and to the
satisfaction of the parties to the original compact.
l am enclosing to you, herewith, a memorandum which embodies a brief from
the story of Confederation, together with the views of a number of public men
who are leaders in the movement; interpretation of the courts upon the status of
the province; and the recent trend of the Dominion authorities upon the question.
Q (Z040)
With the story as a background 1 am sure that a perusal of the reports of ihc
last two conferences will convince you that the provinces have ample ground for
serious alarm.
Yours very truly
Cr. H. Ferguson,
Premier of Ontario
I submit that all school children should read that letter, Mr.
Speaker, so that they may understand what the Prime Minis-
ter (Mr. Trudeau) has been trying to do for the last eight or
ten months—in fact, for the last year.
Soon after the Premier of Ontario had written that letter,
Quebec and a number of other provinces requested the federal
government to refrain from any constitutional changes without
consultation. A federal-provincial conference was held in April
1931 and it agreed unanimously to a draft report of a Statute
of Westminster and agreed to a special Canadian clause which
became Section 7 of that document. It reads as follows, in
three parts:
1. Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or
alteration of the BNA Acts, 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation made
thereunder.
2. The provisions of Section 2 of this act shall extend to la\vs made by any of
the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
3. The powers conferred by this act upon the Parliament of Canada or upon
the legislatures of the provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in
relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or any of
the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
Later, Prime Minister Bennett explained to the House of
Commons why this conference was held. He said:
It is not necessary at this time to relate fully the attitude of the provinces, but
they agreed that inasmuch as their constitutional rights as defined by the
original act might be amended, in the opinion of the governments of those
provinces, by this Parliament by a majority vote, they should have an opportu-
nity before any such action was taken to present their views and make known
their decisions.
In other words, the opinion of the provincial governments
that their rights might be affected was therefore considered by
the federal government of the day as sufficient grounds for
provincial-federal consultations.
In June 1931 Prime Minister Bennett introduced a joint
address to the U.K. government. It is interesting to note that
at that time the Liberal opposition asked to make an amend-
ment to have paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of Section 7
reversed, but the Prime Minister stated that since the repre-

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13137
sentatives of the provinces had initialled the various sections,
the federal government was honour-bound not to change a
single letter.
In considering my case further, I refer to the Employment
and Social Insurance Act of I935. The first change in the
Constitution, which affected the division of powers, took place
in 1935 when the Conservative government passed the
Employment and Social Insurance Act. The Liberal opposition
opposed the bill because it thought the bill should have been
made by an amendment to the Constitution and after consulta-
tion with the provinces.
Shortly after the new legislation was enacted, a general
election was hcld and the Liberal Party came to power. One of
its first actions in the fall of 1935 was to refer the bill to the
Supreme Court of Canada for an advisory opinion. By a
judgment on June I7, 1936 the act was declared to be ultra
vires of the federal Parliament. At the opening of the session in
1938 the Speech from the Throne announced that the pr0v~
inces were being consulted to make the Employment and
Social Insurance Act an amendment to the British North
America Act.
On June 25, 1940, Prime Minister Mackenzie King
announced in the House that all nine provinces had assented to
the proposed constitutional amendment. In speaking to the
resolution, Prime Minister Mackenzie King, as reported at
pages 1117 and 1118 of Hansard, 1940, said:
The difficult but most necessary part of the whole business was to get the
consent of the several provinces. That has not been an easy matter.
He said further:
—wc have avoided the raising of a very constitutional question, namely whether
or not in amending the British North America Act it is absolutely necessary to
secure the consent of all the provinces, or whether the consent of a certain
number of the provinces would of itself be sufficient.
There have been other changes to the BNA Act, namely,
changes to the Canadian Pension Plan, which the federal
government was able to achieve with the consent of the
provinces. Quebec was given the opportunity to opt out. This
brings rne up to the present time, Mr. Speaker. This resolution
was originally brought forward on October 2, 1980. Since then
the role of the opposition has been clearly identified.
What has been the role of the official opposition? First, it
has been to ensure that there would be a full and objective
debate in the House of Commons. We attempted to have that
full debate, until the government brought in closure.
Second, we ensured that all Canadians would be aware of
this event by having it televised. Hon. members will remember
how the Liberals tried to prevent that.
Third, we ensured that interested citizens were allowed to
appear before the Joint Committee on the Constitution. The
committee hearing lasted for three months, and hon. members
arc well aware of the number of groups that were turned away
by the Liberal members of the committee who were afraid of
some of the things that were coming out. They wanted to close
off debate so they stopped these groups from appearing before
the joint committee.
The Constitution
Fourth, we attempted to ensure that the provinces would be
consulted on the resolution. Everyone in the House remembers
how the Prime Minister attempted to get the resolution
through Parliament by December I980, because he did not
want the provinces to be consulted.
Fifth, it was the Conservative Party that ensured that the
Supreme Court of Canada was allowed to pass judgment. It
was not the Liberal Party nor the Liberal experts on the
Constitution who sit on the other side who knew better but
were prepared to sit quietly by. They did not do anything to
bring this about. They did not care.
Sixth, the official opposition ensured that the federal gov-
ernment would reach agreement again with the provinces
before bringing the revised resolution back to Parliament. We
all remember how the Liberals squirmed and tried to get out
of that. It is disgraceful how the Liberal members behaved
during this significant event.
We on this side are prepared to vote for the resolution Mr.
Speaker but Ijust want to mention a couple of problems with
it.
An hon. Member: Shame.
Mrs. Mitchell: What about women?
Mr. Wright: I hear the NDP rattling away down there. Will
Canadians forget about the budget that the NDP are at least
indirectly responsible for bringing about?
At present, if the government wishes to restrict our rights, it
must enact legislation. Section 24 of the new resolution reads
as follows:
Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this charter, have been
infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such
remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
I always thought our rights were guaranteed, Mr. Speaker,
but now it seems they are to be turned over to a court. The
government is giving us those rights, and the courts can only
interpret them. In other words, if the government takes those
rights away, the courts are bound to interpret that, not to
guarantee our rights.
Q (Z050)
My second point relates to property rights. All of us in the
House know that the Liberal Party in order to get the New
Democratic Party on its side voted against property rights. I
would like to see how the NDP members will answer to their
constituents at the next election, because that point will be
brought before every New Democratic Party member across
Canada. We can go back to 1933 when the NDP, then the
CCF Party, through the Regina manifesto left out property
rights. The Liberals also will have to pay for that in the next
election.
I am concerned about Section 46. We know how people in
the other place have waffled around. I-low they can go along
with this provision when the Senate was set up to protect
provincial rights puzzles me. Individuals in the Senate are
supposed to represent the provinces. Once again this is an

l3l38 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, I981
The Constitution
illustration of how members from the other place are nothing
but lackeys for the Liberal government. It is a place where the
Liberal government puts political hacks. In reality, people in
the other place should be representing their regions. The
Liberal government has failed once again.
The majority of Canadians must be relieved that the Prime
Minister has stopped beating them over the head with his
concept of a revised Constitution. We in the official opposition
agree with patriation. We have been consistent about that. We
have not changed. We have not been all over the place, as have
the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. We have
consistently said that the Vancouver formula, which was pro-
posed by representatives of the Alberta government, was the
proper formula. We did not say that it was cast in stone. But
compared to the Victoria formula, the Vancouver formula was
the best that had come forward, and we supported it.
We support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I
question some of the provisions of the charter of Rights and
Freedoms in which a government is left with words such as
“promptness” and “reasonableness” to indicate whether or n
we can be put in jail and at what time we can be freed from
jail. These words will decide whether a government is prompt
and whether it is reasonable. We no longer have the rights; the
government has those rights.
We are committed, all of us, to equalization in Canada no
matter from which province we come. We are committed to
sharing. No one had to tell us that before.
We are committed to the provincial ownership of resources.
Heaven knows what this Liberal government would do if it
could get hold of this country’s resources. We need go look no
further than the Post Office to see what the government does.
The timing of this resolution was not to our party’s liking.
We, along with most Canadians, would have preferred to have
dealt with unemployment, inflation, high interest rates, better
housing and other economic problems that are facing the
country today. However, since we have had to deal with this
resolution, it has been our party’s determination to protect the
Canadian federal system. We knew our responsibilities to the
Canadian people, and they have been realized.
Mr. Robert Daurllin (Essex-Kent): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
participate in this debate, humbled by the importance and
magnitude of the project that we are undertaking but filled
with joy at participating in the final act of the attainment of
majority for Canada and the law permitting the amendment of
our constitutional document at home.
I wish that the official opposition had earlier been more
concerned with substance than with the process which, in my
view, might well have strengthened the negotiating stance
taken by the federal government on behalf of all Canadians
and might, in the end, have produced an even more positive
result with regard to those concerns which are now being
universally expressed as they pertain to certain absences from
the resolution.
Even this evening, my friend, the hon. member for Calgary
North (Mr. Wright), has once again returned to the old sop of
concerning himself with the process. I-Ie spoke of the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) having banged heads in Canada to
achieve his concept of the nation while, at the same time, he
seemed somehow able to escape the inevitable logic of the fact
that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his term
must obviously have been attempting to do the same thing with
respect to his concept of what this nation is all about.
I think that rather than pointing fingers at each other this
evening, we would be taking this debate a step further by
suggesting that positions were very strongly held on both sides
of this House which, I hope as this debate draws to a close, will
produce a resolution that does nothing but win a victory for
Canada and for Canadians.
Notwithstanding the past, however, I wish to express my
pleasure at the support now being shown for the substance of
the resolution agreed upon by the Prime Minister and the
Premiers which, with some reservations, is enjoying almost
universal support.
Like many others, had I had my preference, I would have
preferred a charter of rights and freedoms without the
override, without the safety valve as it has been called. Never-
theless, I can accept the position of the I-Ion. Minister of
Justice (Mr. Chrétien) that the override is a safety valve, that
it is required to prevent absurdities and, indeed, will undoubt-
edly rarely be used. But I must at least remind hon. members
that the effect of the override is once again to entrust the
rights of our minorities to the benevolence and good will of
parliaments and legislatures elected by the majorities which
have, unfortunately, in the past been found wanting in the
measure of compassion and caring necessary to treat our
minorities with justice and equity.
The fact is, however, that the Canadian compromise which
we now have before us and upon which the loyal opposition
insisted, has resulted in the negotiation of a safety valve. I
trust that we can count on ourselves and on future parliamen-
tarians to be guardians of minority rights and to ensure that
those clauses are so infrequently used that future amend-
ments-—and I am sure there will be some—will include the
removal of non obstante clauses, or safety valves as they have
been characterized.
But lest my comments be regarded by some as being too
negative, let me say again that I am jubilant, personally and
on behalf of my constituents that the Thirty-second Parlia-
ment is coming to grips with this last vestige of colonialism,
and is bringing Canada of age.
Let me say as well that if I am jubilant at the event, I am
ecstatic at the content and the substance. I suppose it would be
correct to say that I am high on Canada this evening. I can
stand here proudly and say that as a Canadian I have come of
age, that I am a citizen of a country that has had enough faith
in itself, its political system and its institutions to require that
it have the right and obligation to amend its own basic
governing legislation at home. In addition to that, the bringing
home process has been accompanied by the creation of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms envisaged by my colleagues
and by the government, perfected and forged by the parlia-

November 23, I981 COMMONS DEBATES l3l39
mentary committee to which we all owe a debt of gratitude,
and kept through much trial and heat, thanks to the persever-
ence, vision and shared conviction that what was right should
and must remain, all of which was shown by my colleagues on
this side of the House. History will show, I am convinced, that
when others would have abandoned principle for process, this
party stood steadfast, resolute in its determination to provide a
charter of rights and freedoms from which every Canadian
present and future can benefit.
O (2100)
An hon. Member: And they changed it.
Mr. Daudlin: History will show that while some preached
division, discord and failure, this party and those who support
it held faithfully to the principle that the people themselves
had expressed throughout, that is that patriation with an
amending formula go together with a charter of rights and
freedoms.
You will remember that there were many in this House who
were prepared to throw that charter of rights and freedoms
out with the bath water, who were prepared, as the debate
continued, to deal only with patriation and, if necessary, to put
in an amending formula but, if that was impossible, to deal
only with patriation even without the amending formula.
Throughout that debate we continued to say no, we must have
the amending formula together with patriation; we must have
the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I agree with my hon.
friend who says we changed it, but I ask him very sincerely,
who required the change?
Mr. Gamble: Everybody.
Mr. Daudlin: He says that he speaks on behalf of everyone.
Mr. Gamble: I didn‘t say that.
Mr. Daudlin: I presume to speak on behalf of those people
who sent me here, and I tell you that he does not speak for the
people in Essex-Kent.
I need not enumerate the content and provisions of the
Charter of Rights and Freedoms as others have done that
already, but suffice it to say that bold new steps have been
taken, new frontiers have been envisaged, and the course
toward a new Canadian future has been set.
Speaking parochially for a moment, let me say that Essex-
Kent, if any place in Canada, can claim to be as truly
multicultural as the concept itself implies. A mixture of Eng-
lish, Scottish and Irish, later added to by French, and still more
recently by German, Russian, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Leba-
nese, Japanese, Dutch, and even more recently by the Viet~
namese and Laotian migration has created a mix that cried for
recognition beyond the original concept of the founding races.
I take great joy on behalf of my constituents who have for
many years lived the principle now embodied in the words
expressing the multicultural nature of our society, and I thank
the drafters for those words.
The Constitution
May I say that I share the disappointment of all members of
this House, and I trust it is all members, that as yet we have
not settled the issue of sexual equality which I, as others, had
hoped would also have been entrenched. It cannot be too often
said that it is not this government that has stood in the past or
that now stands in the way of an accord on this issue, and I
join my voice with all others in this country in calling upon the
remaining premier to recognize the necessity of joining his
brother premiers in rectifying this unfortunate deletion to the
charter.
An hon. Member: How are you going to vote on it’!
Mr. Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the member asks how I am
going to vote on it. I suggest to him that there is too much
good in this resolution to be thrown out just because the
agreement unfortunately leaves out certain portions that
should be there. I agree with him, it should be there, but I am
not one of those who feel that because something is absent the
rest should be thrown out. I do not believe the rest of Canada
feels that way either.
It is my hope and desire that a settlement will be achieved
on the issue of native rights and on the question of Quebec’s
absence from the accord as well. Surely all members wish that.
But again the same reasoning, in my view, applies. The
difficulty we have is, having achieved so much, can we legiti-
mately say that, because we have not achieved in these areas,
all else must fail, all else be thrown out‘? I find it difficult to
understand how someone can stand and suggest that because
there is a certain portion missing we must lose everything else.
This puts me in mind of the child who goes out to play
football, does not like the rules and says he is going to take his
football home and the game must end. All should not be lost.
We have gained so much and there is more to be gained,
unquestionably. Surely we have provided the mechanism
whereby more can be gained in the immediate, the short-term
and the long-term future. Certainly it would be good to have
perfection, but I suspect that even what we perceive as perfec-
tion, were we able to achieve it tonight, might not be perceived
as that perfection a year, five years or ten years from now.
So to argue that I and others should not vote for the
resolution as it stands or as it may be modified over the next
few days, or even the next few hours as the discussion goes on,
would be ridiculous in the extreme, and could surely be likened
to the ostrich putting its head in the sand. I do not think that is
what we are here for. I think we are here as practical
politicians to achieve what can be achieved now and for the
future, and to ensure that in fact the mechanisms we put in
place are sufficiently flexible to allow more to be achieved if
and when we can.
I think that my constituents can accept the offers that have
been made to Quebec in an effort to induce that government to
surmount its avowed separatist aims and to help forge a new
Canada. As an aside I must say that I arn proud to see the
entrenchment of minority education rights across Canada
since, as a member of a linguistic minority in my province, I
know what pressures have been present that, but for this step,

I 3 140 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, I981
The Constitution
must ultimately result in the eradication of the French lan-
guage outside of Quebec.
This momentous accord is a giant step toward equality of
our two founding races, and I urge upon my fellow Canadians
in Quebec to support our actions to entrench what they have so
willingly given without legislation for the past 100 years. I
hope that even at this late hour that accord can be reached on
the final obstacles and that the whole of the country will
march to the sound of a new Canadian drummer; a new accord
as we are trying to forge it this evening and in the next few
days.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say, without partisanship
intended but with a great deal of pride in my party, that I as a
Liberal have always held my head high in the recognition of
the fact that I am a member of the party that brought to this
nation such great social legislation as the Canada Pension
Plan, family allowances, universal medicare, and I have been
prouder still to see across this land a flag made Canada’s by a
great Liberal Prime Minister.
You will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I confess that with the
resolution now before us I and those who support me will stand
just a little taller, not only as Liberals, but as Canadians proud
of our heritage, confident in our future and thankful today for
the men and women of this government who have, on behalf of
all Canadians, provided the tools for present and future
Canadians to get on with and complete the job begun so well
in I867.
As I have said, there are those who have suggested that in
fact the document is incomplete. In terms ofa personal view, I
would indicate that I wish we had been able to do something in
respect of the unborn. I recognize the undertakings which have
been given and I recognize the neutrality of the resolution so
far as the unborn are concerned. I share the concern expressed
by the hon, member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) in relation to
what this and other legislatures will do regarding the unborn,
those least able to protect themselves in our society. I would
hope that that solid support for the unborn which comes from
all sides of this House will emerge in a resolution dealing with
another piece of legislation.
Q (2l I0)
An hon. Member: We had a resolution. You rejected it.
Mr. Daudlin: I hope that there will be continuing support
for what the member across the way says he had, and I hope it
will come from all parties, particularly the members of the
New Democratic Party who will see the wisdom of coming
forward with recommendations to the Minister of Justice to
amend the Criminal Code to allow us, in fact, to protect the
unborn.
An hon. Member: It’s a deal!
Mr. Daudlin: I will hold him to that. I believe it is one of the
most fundamental and important things we have to do in this
Parliament. It is not something we can do with this resolution
but, in my view, it is something which has to be done. I believe
that this was the wrong document with which to do it. I believe
that if the good will that, in fact, is beginning to show through
in this debate can be continued with respect to this issue, we
can resolve that as well. I am particularly pleased that we are
able to achieve what we have done this evening. What we are
working toward this evening»-
An hon. Member: Talk about the resolution and the unborn.
An hon. Member: Keep going. You have five minutes.
Mr. Daudlin: When you find that members have such
tremendous interest in hearing what you have to say, it is
particularly gratifying, Mr. Speaker.
I have travelled through my constituency and across
Canada, as I hope many of my colleagues have done, to find
out what it is that Canadians want. I believe tlnit what we are
achieving is what was being sought. I am satisfied that the
resolution, and particularly the charter of Rights and Frec-
doms, gives us the guarantees that Canadians were looking for.
An hon. Member: You were unhappy a moment ago.
Mr. Daudlin: The hon. member does not seem to understand
how one can be unhappy but at the same time pleased with
what is achieved. It is very difficult to explain, but I will try
again.
An hon. Member: Tell us about the resolution and the
unborn.
Mr. Daudlin: Perhaps it would be easier, Mr. Speaker, if the
member were in his own seat so we could have a question and
answer period. Perhaps he would prefer to remain anonymous,
I suggest that notwithstanding his attempt to make light of
this issue, a thinking member of this House could not accept
this resolution as the be-all and end-all, could accept it as a
finality of what we embarked upon a year ago, and knows that
we as imperfect persons could not not have come up with
perfection. We have come close, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that
over the years, dealing with the foundation we have been able
to achieve, historians will say that this Parliament has
achieved something spectacular and that this was a moment in
history of which Canadians can be very proud.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to be able to inform the House that I have obtained
from all provinces which are parties to the accord their
agreement that Section 28 on the equality of men and women
should apply without the override clause. In addition, I am
happy to report to the House that all provinces have agreed to
enshrine aboriginal rights in the Constitution.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): As the hon. memberlfor
Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) just said, what has _|ust
occurred does not constitute a point of order. Therefore, I

November 23, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13141
would suggest, that the courtesy be extended to the spokesmen
for the opposition parties of allowing them to make a com-
ment, and I will seek the unanimous consent of the House to
permit representatives from each party who may wish to do so
to make a comment. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Chrétien) for that announcement. I want to say
on behalf of our party that we are pleased that the amendment
before us, namely, to restore Section 28 as we had developed
that section in the constitutional committee has now received
agreement from the nine provinces which signed the accord. I
take it that it was the nine provinces that had signed the
accord to which the minister if referring. With regard to
aboriginal rights, I take it from the minister as well that it is a
restoration of what we have come to know as Section 34. That
is how I have understood the minister‘s comments.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we are
pleased that that is now fact. We always thought these provi-
sions should have been restored. Obviously some changes will
be needed in terms of technical changes in the resolution.
Those can be worked out, Mr. Speaker, and I believe these two
amendments should help to speed up passage of the resolution.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, as are most members in the
House, I am always happy to hear good news. We trust that
the news we have heard is, indeed, good news. I hope that the
minor amendment which the minister has indicated to me
might be included in one of the two sections is an amendment
we can find acceptable.
For the moment, I would like to reserve a definite position
until such time as I have read the actual wording of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The Chair would nor-
mally expect to recognize those members who stand for the
purpose of continuing the debate.
Mr. lttinuar: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon.
member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I also would
like to reserve my position on this amendment. I must con-
gratulate, however, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chréti-
en) for all the effort he has made on our behalf, the people of
the north. I am also grateful to the Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the leader of my
party, and certainly the hon. Leader of the official opposition
(Mr. Clark) for his kind words the other day.
I hope the wording that the Minister of Justice has arrived
at will do justice to the efforts made by all the parties in the
House as well as the efforts of many people in the country.
This applies to the women’s equality section as well as to the
rights of the aboriginal people. I understand that the wording
is very new but that, for the most part, the meaning of the
The Constitution
original section is there, and I congratulate the hon. Minister
of Justice.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown): Mr. Speak-
er, when I saw the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) come
into the House tonight, I thought he was coming to hear my
speech, which might be a little anti-climactic after the wel-
come announcement he made tonight. I would like to con-
gratulate him and my good friend from Nunatsiaq (Mr.
Ittinuar) for the work which I know he spent on this program,
as well as members of my party who are very concerned and
involved in the discussions. It is certainly most welcome news.
Tonight, I welcome the opportunity to speak during this
important historical debate.
Q (2120)
It is an exciting and challenging time in which we are
Members of Parliament, and I consider it a privilege to be here
at this time. As the Member of Parliament for an Ontario
riding, Brampton-Georgetown, I must admit that the subject
of the Constitution has been a difficult one for me to deal with.
I represent federally the riding represented provincially by the
Premier of Ontario. It was of great concern to me and many of
my constituents that the Premier gave such absolute and
unconditional support to the constitutional package initially set
forth by the federal government, not so much because of the
content of the resolution but because of the procedure which
was proposed by the federal government, a procedure which
was considered un-Canadian by the Progressive Conservative
Party of Canada, a position upheld by the Supreme Court of
Canada. I am very proud, however, that the premier initiated
the compromise process by relinquishing the Ontario right of
veto. I wish to thank him personally for starting the process
that allowed consensus to be achieved.
I would also like to thank and congratulate all the first
ministers for upholding the Canadian way. Although the con-
sensus achieved left out one of the most vital partners of our
confederation, the province of Quebec, I believe many Canadi-
ans are relieved that the consensus was achieved.
The dialogue on a new Constitution has, as we are often
reminded by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau),
been going on for many years. He would have us believe that
in the last 54 years Canadians have done nothing but argue
about constitutional matters. Any intelligent, thinking person
knows that is just not the case. Sporadic attempts have been
made during that period to arrive at an acceptable amending
formula to permit patriation. I would, however, congratulate
the Prime Minister for, it seems, having achieved his dream,
albeit an amended version of that dream.
Let us look for a moment at the procedures used to achieve
that dream. The Prime Minister was willing to do anything,
including alienating the provinces and suffering the possibility
of separation, in order, reportedly, to end his political career
with Canada’s formal declaration of independence. The possi~

l3l42 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, 1981
The Constitution
bility of his unilateral move was intolerable in a co-operative
federalism.
When the original resolution was tabled, the Leader of the
Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) saw immediately the dangers
of unilateral action and that there was more to the resolution
than met the eye. It was a knowing and a courageous stand to
admit that changes in constitutions change the relationships
between people and their governments, and that unless these
changes are agreed to, the very basis of our economic, social
and cultural stability is jeopardized.
During discussions with many of my constituents it became
very clear that they, like most Canadians, did not feel that the
Prime Minister should restructure our Constitution and our
federal system without the approval of the provinces. In the
riding of Brampton-Georgetown, 83 per cent of constituents
who were polled felt that provincial consent must be
obtained—the consent of a significant majority of the prov-
inces—and this feeling was very evident across the country.
This feeling legitimized all attempts of the official opposition
to block unilateral action. The fight to ensure Canadians were
heard, the formation of a constitutional committee, the televis-
ing of proceedings, and the delaying of House proceedings on
the question were due to the efforts of the official opposition.
We fought long and hard to arouse public opinion, and I am
proud of what we accomplished.
Our leader and our party fought for the Canadian way
under a great deal of criticism and ridicule from the Liberals,
but not for a minute do I apologize for our actions. I am
reminded of something the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker once
said: “God forbid that in this country we should apologize for
standing for those things which made this nation great”. If any
of my colleagues across the floor feel that these measures were
a waste of time, they had better, as some of the Liberals have
done, reconsider why they were elected—to represent their
constituents or to be unthinking sheep led by a master into
whatever pasture he decides to take them, with no consider-
ation for the effects on the people who put their trust in them‘!
The all-party agreement reached on April 8 in this House to
defer final debate on the resolution until after a decision had
been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on the appeals
before it from the lower courts was, I think, welcomed by all.
In its wisdom, the court affirmed what we as a party had been
saying all along, and that is that the conventions, the customs
and the practices making up part of our existing Constitution
should not be overlooked.
I am sure that during the past year many Canadians have
regarded the constitutional debate with a good deal of indiffer-
ence, and I can appreciate that reaction. Unemployment,
inflation, high interest rates and other bread and butter issues
have had a more immediate impact on people’s daily lives. Just
last Saturday I marched with a group of concerned Bramp-
tonians headed by two very courageous women, Kathy Dinley
and Marlene Grant. Here on Parliament Hill they urged that
the present constitutional matters be completed as quickly as
possible and that work on economic matters take precedence.
Two bus loads carrying a group of people independent of any
organization came to Ottawa. They also expressed how pleased
they were that a consensus had been achieved and that the
Canadian way prevailed.
The agreement to wait for the Supreme Court decision was
reached because of an ever increasing awareness on the part of
the Liberal Party that Canadians across the country were
beginning to see through the attempts to change the funda-
mental nature of our country, and they were not in favour. For
Canada’s sake I am very happy that the Prime Minister saw fit
to take another long, hard look at the precedent he was setting
by forging ahead with a plan not condoned by the majority of
provinces and not agreed to by a large majority of the people
of Canada.
Confederation was arrived at by great statesmen setting
aside their individual views and arriving at a consensus. Frus-
tration and separatist sentiments have been widespread
throughout our history, but no attempt at division has ever had
the potential for breaking up this entire country in the same
way that forging ahead without significant consensus would
have had. In the words of Lord Acton, “The co-existence of
several nations under the same state is the test, as well as the
best security, of its freedoms.” When Canada adopted its
federal system of government, it did so with good reason. It
was seen then, as it continues to be now, as the best way of
reflecting our national duality and the need for regional local
autonomy.
I would like to consider the position of Quebec for a
moment. I said earlier that a very vital province has not seen
fit to consent to the constitutional accord. The Quebec situa-
tion has been an overriding constitutional question for many
years. It has, to my mind, been the chief factor in constitution-
al discussions which have occurred since 1963. Quebec’s con-
stitutional position has been deferred many times and, once
again, the question has been left unanswered. This may be
because of the unwillingness of the federal government or
other provincial Premiers to negotiate further, or it may be due
to the fact that the Quebec government involved in these
constitutional negotiations is committed solely to separation. I
do not really know, but it saddens me that Quebec is not a part
of the consensus reached. It is a tragedy which I hope can be
averted.
Q (Zl30)
The Prime Minister has for years argued that there was an
urgent need for constitutional change. The general feeling of
the provinces other than Quebec was that there really was not
an urgency; important but not urgent. Only after the Quebec
referendum last year did most Canadians realize the frustra-
tion and the seriousness of Quebec’s outlook on its role in
Confederation. In May 1971, Claude Ryan urged that:
English Canada would be much wiser to look to the government of Quebec as
the real interpreter of the French Canadian will,-
Keep in mind this was at the time of a Liberal government
in Quebec.
—a government seen not through some temporary vacillation of Robert Bourassa
but through a constant threat expressed in the major constitutional documents

November 23, I981 COMMONS DEBATES 13143
since I966. There will be found the essential elements, not necessarily of a
solution, but for real negotiation. Until thcsc are examined and accepted, no
solution will be possible.
The official opposition party has put forward a proposition
giving Quebec another opportunity to reconsider its position. If
the availability of compensation to provinces which opt out is
not accepted by the present Quebec government, it will be
clear that the present representation of the province of Quebec
is committed solely to separation. Whether or not the provin-
cial government of Quebec actually represents the political will
of Quebecers remains to be seen.
In April the Quebec government signed an accord with
seven other premiers which included this provision. Did the
Premier of Quebec sign the accord at that time because he
believed this is what Quebecers want, or did he sign it just to
embarrass the federal government, assuming that the accord
would not be accepted‘! I can only hope that all sides of the
negotiations bargain in good faith and continue to act in the
best interests of Canadian unity. I ask all Quebecers to
examine our position, and if they approve, if they want to take
their rightful place in the federation, then let Premier
Lévesque and the Prime Minister of Canada know, act to-
gether to remain partners. I cannot envision a Canada without
Quebec.
One major disappointment for me is to see a Canadian
Constitution before us that does not contain property rights.
To my way of thinking, the cornerstone of democracy is the
right to own property. An investment in a piece of property
gives one a feeling of security, “a piece of the rock” as one
famous advertisement says, at owning a small part of this
great country. Why not protect that right, a basic right of any
democracy? The late President of the United States of Ameri-
ca, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, said:
When some people declare that we care more for property rights than human
rights I say that a property right is one of the human rights and if it is not
sustained then all others will disappear.
I say amen to that and ask that this be on the top priority
list when next the matter of constitutional amendments are
discussed by the first ministers.
I would like for a moment to discuss a section of the charter
which is of great concern to many of our legal and enforce-
ment bodies. That section is 24(2), known as the exclusionary
rule. The government has been accused of trying to American-
ize Canadian rules of evidence and placing Canada in a
constitutional straitjacket in terms of the evolution of our
criminal law and procedures by entrenching a form of the
American exclusionary rule of evidence.
The government, after a compromise was reached with the
provinces in the summer of 1980, reversed its position, as it has
been known to do sometimes, and in January, I981, decided to
adopt the exclusionary rule. Because of this decision and the
concern expressed by many, the official opposition offered a
compromise wording which was adopted by the joint
committee.
However, this section continues to represent a concern, and I
feel these concerns must be expressed and put on the record.
The Constitution
The possible problems with entrenchment of this rule were
brought to my attention by many, including Chief Ackroyd of
the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and by Chief Doug
Burrows of the Peel Regional Police.
Section 24(2) sets a subjective standard for our courts.
There is no jurisprudence in this area to guide our judiciary. It
is interesting to note that although it is an American rule of
evidence, it is not entrenched in the American Constitution.
This rule can be changed by United States courts or Congress
at any time. Why then is Canada heading in a direction which
will involve a constitutional amendment if a change in this
area becomes necessary?
Law reform commissions, both federal and provincial, have
recommended that an exclusionary rule, or the type of clause
that is present in the charter, be included in provincial and
federal evidence acts. I know that some Crown attorneys and
attorneys general, including the Ontario attorney general, feel
that section 24(2) should not be entrenched but should poss-
ibly be adopted as an amendment to our evidence acts. In a
letter dated March 20, l98l, the attorney general of Ontario
wrote this to all Members of Parliament:
l would urge you to avoid the introduction into our criminal justice system of
American concepts which have substantially undermined effective law enforce-
ment in the United States while failing to enhance the rights of individual
citizens.
When the government reversed its position in January and
decided to adopt the exclusionary rule, there were no consulta-
tions by the federal government with the provinces. lt is an
area that civil libertarians feel must be included in the charter,
but as put forth by the Canadian Police Association and many
others, serious consideration must be given to the changes
which this rule will cause in our criminal law system. They
have asked each of us to consider a series of questions. I quote
a few:
Do l want to change to a United States rule consistently rejected by the courts
of Canada and England for 300 years and which has recently come under serious
question in the United States and has been firmly rejected as unsound by three
distinguished English Royal Commissions, the last as recent as December
1980?…
Does the exclusionary rule really control police and thereby protect civil
liberties? Or, is it inferior to strong before-the-fact accountability Coupled with
prosecution and discipline of police after-the-fact. when deserved’! . . .
Do the women of Canada want to protect sexual attackers to the extent that
even the slightest mistake by police in following the proper investigatory and
arrest procedures will exclude relevant evidence and lead to an acquittal, even if
the evidence of guilt is overwhelming?
A gory, not pleasant but true story of an incident which took
place in California vividly demonstrates what could happen. A
highway patrol in California pulled a car over and started to
question the driver. He became very suspicious and asked the
driver to open his trunk. The driver refused, the police patrol
insisted, and the driver finally opened his trunk. In the trunk
the policeman found a dismembered body, a member of the
driver’s family. The driver pleaded guilty to the charge of
murder and was convicted in a lower court. In an appeal court
he was declared innocent and let go because the patrol officer
did not have a proper search warrant to look in the trunk. That
was because of the exclusionary rules of evidence that they

l3l44 COMMONS
DEBATES November 23, I981
The Consfitution
have in the United States. We do not want that here in this
country.
¢ (mo)
I feel the public should be aware of these concerns being
expressed by some Canadians. These concerns should be care-
fully examined once the Constitution returns to Canada, its
final resting place.
I would like to comment briefly and commend the first
ministers on the formal recognition of Canada’s multicultural
heritage, a heritage that has been a continuing and undisputed
fibre of our history.
Canada has benefited from the diversity of its people.
Because of this diversity, we are a richer nation, committed to
living together in understanding and mutual appreciation.
In the early 1960s the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker from
Prince Albert likened Canada to a garden. He said:
A garden… into which has been transplanted the hardiest and brightest
flowers from many lands, each retaining in its new environment the best of the
qualities for which it was loved and prized in its native land.
In my new responsibility as immigration spokesman, I have
become in the past few months very aware of the fact that our
attitudes towards immigrants and immigration are an impor-
tant part of our multicultural ideology. Mr. Speaker, I hope
my education in this area broadens my horizons even further.
In this regard the charter does reflect the reality that is
Canada,
In the past year and a half I have travelled extensively in
Canada. The employment opportunities contained in the Com~
mittee of Employment Opportunities for the 80s gave me the
chance to see in depth the Canada I did not know. I was very
familiar with Ontario; but the rest of Canada was not well
known to me. I had travelled to some extent in Canada but I
never took the time to see it, and to really look at it.
I have walked on the stone beach at Stephcnville, New-
foundland; amazed at the sight of the harbour of St. John’s;
driven and walked along the most beautiful Cabot Trail;
slipped on the rocks at Peggy’s Cove just trying to get that
perfect picture; stood in the famous legislature in New Bruns~
wick; visited with city council in Chicoutimi, Quebec; sang, ate
and drank shoulder to shoulder with my fellow French-speak-
ing Canadians in a wine cellar in old Montreal. Mr. Speaker
smiles because he knows what I am talking about, I travelled
Ontario from Fort Francis to Pelee Island; watched a flock of
geese heading south with trees a brilliant yellow, the black
storm ahead and the sun glistening off the frost somewhere
between Brandon and Winnipeg; visited the little towns in
Saskatchewan, such as Biggar, Perdue and even Lennie where
my mother came from; travelled through breathtakingly
beautiful Alberta to the tar sands in the north. I heard a native
Canadian couple tell their story, the most articulate presenta-
tion I think I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. I watched
the world junior softball championships in Edmonton. I flew a
twin Otter from Fort McMurray to Yellowknife, walked the
streets at midnight in broad daylight, skied the Rockies, got
wet in Vancouver, and marvelled at the diversity of British
Columbia. From coast to coast and to the north it is Canada.
Its beauty, its people, its resources make it the greatest nation
in the world, and I, along with millions of Canadians, want to
maintain its greatness. God help those who would attempt to
destroy this greatness.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that there were
many who said that a Constitutional accord would not be
possible. God willing, Canada will have its Constitution. My
prayer as a proud Canadian is that we will all be guided in the
next few weeks and in future constitutional change to uphold
the human and political freedoms that we tend to take for
granted. I love this country. My dedication is to keep it strong
economically and socially, and united from coast to coast.
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil): I rise tonight near the end of
this great constitutional debate that has been causing so much
difficulty in this country. With the news that has been given to
us of the agreement reached on the two outstanding and most
controversial subjects, there is very little that one could say.
However, I feel I should take a few minutes to put on the
record some thoughts with regard to a couple of matters on
which I have personally been questioned on the effect of the
constitutional resolution when it is passed.
First I should say, Mr. Speaker, as someone who came to
this country some 40 years ago now, I liked what I saw. I spent
some 15 months training in this country during the war. I liked
it so much that when the war was over I wanted to come back.
I did come back with my family. Although I travelled fairly
extensively in Canada, I liked what I saw in Quebec. I settled
in Quebec, and I have lived there ever since. I did not choose
Quebec because I thought that I would be able to continue to
speak the English language; in fact, quite the contrary. I
assumed that I would probably be obliged to brush up on my
French. However, that was not so. If I can interject here,
somewhat to my disappointment that was not so. I continued
to operate for some I0 or 15 years in the English language,
even though I was in the construction industry, building from
Trois-Rivieres, what we used to call Three Rivers, to Chicouti-
ini and throughout the province, and even in the capital city of
Quebec. That was to change.
I think the big change came with Bill 22. Mr. Speaker,
because you were a part of that action at that time, you will
know that I as an individual did not speak against Bill 22, even
though I felt there were some parts of that bill that I did not
particularly like. However, over all I felt it was necessary that
some action be taken to redress what was certainly an unac-
ceptable situation in the province of Quebec.
I was somewhat unhappy when Bill 22 was replaced with
Bill 1Ol. However, even today we have learned to live with Bill
101. Life for the Anglos in the province of Quebec is not really
all that bad.
Q (2150)
However, as I said at the outset, I want to make a couple of
comments on parts of the resolution on which I have been
questioned. First I should like to comment upon the non

November 23, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES 13145
obstante override clause as it applies to the charter of Rights
and Freedoms. The entire charter of Rights and Freedoms will
be entrenched in the Constitution and no province will be able
to opt out of any provision of the charter. The agreement
signed by the Prime Minister and the nine Premiers does not
emasculate the charter. Democratic rights, fundamental free-
doms, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights and 1an~
guage rights are enshrined in the Constitution and apply
across the country. What the premiers and the Prime Minister
agreed to is a safety valve which is unlikely ever to be used
except in non~controversial circumstances by Parliament or
legislatures to override certain sections of the charter.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms adopted in
1975 contained an override clause which has been used several
times. However, its use has been non-controversial and is
instructive in looking at how the override may be applied in
terms of the new constitutional charter. For example, despite
the provision in the Quebec charter guaranteeing that every-
one is equal before the law, the juries act indicates that a
lawyer cannot be a member of a jury. Despite the guarantee of
open trials in the Quebec charter, the youth protection act
provides for circumstances where juvenile court may hold
closed sessions. Despite the protection in the Quebec charter
for the privileged doctor-patient relationship, the highway
safety act requires a doctor to inform the license bureau of the
name of the patient who is medically incapable of driving a
motor vehicle. It is because of the history of the use of the
override clause and because of the need for a safety valve to
correct absurd situations without going through the difficulty
of obtaining constitutional amendments that leading civil liber~
tarians have welcomed its inclusion in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms.
I should like to make a few comments on the subject of
indirect taxation. The British North America Act gives the
federal government the power to raise taxes by any means,
including indirect taxation, but does not give the same power
to the provinces. The provincial authority is contained in
Section 92(2) of the BNA Act which indicates direct taxation
within the provinces. Thus, under our present Constitution,
provincial taxation powers are limited to the raising of a direct
tax within the province for provincial purposes. In order to
decide whether a tax was direct or indirect, the courts have
adopted the John Stuart Mill definition of direct and indirect
taxes. This means that a tax is held to be a direct tax when it is
demanded from the very person who is intended to pay it. On
the other hand, a tax is held to be an indirect tax when it is
demanded from one person in the expectation and with the
intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of
another. Whenever a court has had to decide whether a tax
was direct or indirect, it examined the tax in order to find out
whether it met that definition. The purpose of the proposal is
to free the provinces from the obligation to meet the direct tax
test when they levy a tax on non-renewable resources.
In giving provinces the power to levy indirect taxes on
non-renewable resources, we are giving provinces the power to
levy a tax whose burden does not fall on the very person on
The Constitution
whom the tax is levied. This could mean that a tax levied on a
non-renewable resource in a province might be paid by resi-
dents of another province, if the resource subject to tax were
exported to the other province. However, an indirect tax in
non-renewable resources should not discriminate between the
province and other parts of Canada. Federal taxing powers
would not be affected by the proposal. The federal government
would retain the power to raise money by any mode or system
of taxation on resources, as well as on any other goods or
activities.
During all the constitutional discussions of the past several
years, there was full agreement that, apart from resources,
provinces should not be permitted to apply indirect taxes, the
effects of which would be felt by persons outside the province
imposing the tax. For example, it would not be fair for a
province in which automobiles are manufactured to impose an
indirect tax on such automobiles which would then have to be
paid, not only by the residents of that province but by the
residents of all provinces to which the automobiles were
shipped. On the other hand, it was also agreed that non-renew-
able natural resources presented a special case. It was general-
ly accepted by the provinces and by the federal government
that provincial governments through any mode of taxation
should be able to ensure that a fair return was received by the
residents of the province which was disposing of the resource.
It was agreed that provinces should be given indirect taxing
powers, with the proviso that their tax laws could not discrimi-
nate between resources used in the province and those export-
ed. In other words, an indirect tax by Saskatchewan on, say,
potash would have to be the same, whether the potash was
used by residents of Saskatchewan or shipped outside.
Another subject of considerable interest in the province of
Quebec at the present time is the subject of denominational
schools. I should like to make a few comments on the subject.
Concerning religious guarantees in the Constitution, Section
93 of the British North America Act, 1867, is the only
provision in the act which refers to such guarantees. Section
93(1) provides that no province may prejudicially affect rights
or privileges with respect to denominational schools which
existed at law in the provinces at the time of Confederation.
However, the section does not make any reference to freedom
of choice respecting language of education. Jurisprudence
indicates that the rights and privileges guaranteed by Section
93(1) are those relating to the establishment of denomination-
al schools and religious teaching therein. But the section does
not prevent provinces from regulating the curriculum generally
of such schools or prescribing the language of instruction to be
used. A decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council
in 1916, in the case of Trustees of the Roman Catholic
Separate Schoolsfor the City of Ottawa v. MacKeI1, held that
Ontario legislation which restricted the use of French as a
language of instpuetion in the schools of that province was
valid provincial legislation relating to education and not con-
trary to the provisions of Section 93. However, this does not
mean that the provinces are free to prevent the establishment
and operation of denominational schools and the teaching of

13146 COMMONS DEBATES November 23, 1981
Adjournment Debate
denominational tenets, doctrines and practices in those schools.
Quebec’s charter of the French language, Bill 101, regulates
the language of instruction in the schools of the province, but
it does not address itself to the broader issue and, indeed, it
could not constitutionally abrogate Section 93 guarantees.
Obviously I would have liked to have seen a lot more
freedom in the language provisions in the constitutional resolu-
tion. I also fully agree that it is much better to arrive at a
consensus, to arrive at a compromise. In that respect, perhaps
unwillingly, but nevertheless I accept that the inclusion of the
Canada clause is the best we can expect in the circumstances.
May I call it ten o’c1oek?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I thank the hon. member
for calling it ten o’clock.
Q (2200)
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the I-louse under Standing Order 40
deemed to have been moved.
TI-IE CONSTlTUTION—-PROPOSAL THAT REPRESENTATIVES OF
MINORITIES ATTEND CONFERENCE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier): Mr. Speaker,
on November 9, I asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr.
Trudeau) concerning the Constitution, Since the beginning of
the constitutional debate in this House, and certainly since the
historical agreement between the federal government and the
nine consenting provinces was signed, the contents of the
charter of rights has continued to be the focus of political
debate. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I heard this
evening that the issues of equal rights for women and native
rights had been settled, at least from what we heard in this
House earlier.
One very important issue, however, remains to be settled, that
of the francophone minority outside Quebec. During this brief
debate this evening, I should like to deal with the situation
where we, francophones, living in provinces with an English
majority, find ourselves in this federation, which is becoming
for us a real maze of interpretations. Of course, I refer to the
charter of rights, a charter which should be universally
applied, but which, in this case, relinquishes the universality
principle to the provincial legislatures by letting them deter-
mine how it will be implemented. Because of all these optional
or “nothwithstanding” clauses, especially as concerns the
provisions on basic freedom, legal guarantees and equal rights,
this charter is probably the only federal document which will
take its meaning from provincial jurisdictions and legislation.
In other words, the federal government proposed but the
provinces dispose.
This means that the Canadian who wishes to travel in his
own country will have to check carefully and practically every
day how the various provinces interpret the Constitution
before leaving his province for another. The legal guarantees
of this Canadian, if arrested, for instance, could vary when he
steps across a provincial border. At the limit, in view of this
potential multitude of rights which apply or do not apply, we
may wonder if we are still in the same country or in a
federation of many countries.
A more detailed examination of the contents of this charter
reveals that the clauses concerning linguistic rights and the
right to education in the language of the minority are firm and
universal clauses which are not subject to the opting-out
principle. This means that the members of a linguistic minori-
ty of either official language may have their children educated
in their own language at the elementary and secondary levels
only where numbers warrant. As concerns the principles
involved, while several premiers, such as Mr. Bennett and Mr.
Davis, do not agree and say that Clause 23 will not change
anything, I believe that this clause still provides guarantees
which seem adequate at first glance. However, as one looks a
bit further, one finds that in actual practice the reality is
somewhat strange. Let us take an example. A group of
French-language parents residing in one of the seven provinces
not subject to Section 133, which gives access to legal and
legislative institutions, file an application for a French school
in their community. The school authorities, the school board
answer that the application is turned down because the
number of children does not warrant a French school in the
area. The parents will then have to find the money, energy and
support to go to court and pursue their rights at their own
expense. The case will be heard in the provincial Supreme
Court. And there lies the irony. Since the charter of rights
does not recognize in that Canadian province the access to
legal and legislative institutions in the minority language,
these parents will have to fight in English for the recognition
of the minimum constitutional rights granted them as French-
speaking citizens.
So this is in the charter of rights, a serious flaw that makes
it in my view both unacceptable and utterly incomplete.
Minorities are granted certain rights but not the tools needed
to have them enforced. Even the Ontario Premier has no
hesitation in recognizing that the charter of rights gives noth-
ing more to French speaking residents in his province, and I
refer you to a report published no later than today in the
Montreal Paper Ia Presse, where Mr. Davis is quoted as
making the statement utterly shocking to us Franco-Ontarians
that there was nothing new there, the charter did not change
much in the Ontario situation.

November 23, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES l 3 l 47
Q (Z205)
When he replied to a question I directed to him in the
House on November 9, the Prime Minister recognized that the
linguistic rights applied only to elementary and secondary
schools. He stated that he was prepared to convene a federal-
provincial conference of the type I had suggested to review the
whole question following patriation. This is indeed a com-
mendable and significant response. Yet, because I know a
number of premiers, I am very much concerned about the
outcome of such Ia meeting, but I remain optimistic about the
possibility of it being held.
According to the information I have checked today, Mr.
Speaker, of the nine provincial premiers-I should perhaps
exclude Mr. Hatfield who is the only one who recognized fully
the linguistic rights of both anglophones and francophones»-
two have replied: Mr. Hatfield, of course, and Mr. Blakeney,
of Saskatchewan, who said: “If the others go, I will certainly
go too”. Naturally, there was no reply from Bill Davis, and I
must say that I am very disappointed with the Ontario Premi-
er’s refusal. In Ontario, the province with the greatest minority
of franc0phones—some 500,000 of them—~I do not understand
his refusal to take part in a federal-provincial conference
which could be the perfect forum to consider and discuss in
depth the last problem which remains to be settled in this
country, that is, the treatment of francophone minorities out-
side Quebec. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Minister of State for Social Development): Mr.
Speaker, all members of this House congratulate the hon.
member for Ottawa-Vanier for his unremitting efforts to
protect the rights of francophones outside of Quebec, for his
tenacity and his eagerness to standup for the rights of franco~
phones throughout Canada.
The hon. member has suggested a federal-provincial confer-
ence to enable francophone groups outside Quebec to state
their grievances. He worked hard to get the provinces to agree
to that meeting but in spite of his efforts, only two are in
favour of such a meeting. Such a conference could only bring
results if the provinces would agree to attend. Once again our
efforts should be channelled towards that end. This being said,
we have to recognize at the same time that the new constitu~
tion will do much for francophones outside Quebec. First
bilingualism is made official at the federal level. Second both
language groups are considered equal in every area: executive,
legislative and legal. Third the right of linguistic minorities to
education is recognized. I know well that in spite of all that,
the hon. member as well as many others would rather see the
rights of francophones outside Quebec given greater recogni-
tion. It must be recognized as well, however, that we have
proved that with good will and co-operation between the
Adjournment Debate
federal and provincial governments, much can be accom-
plished. To wit, Mr. Speaker, the historial agreement the
Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) announced to the House 45
minutes ago, the agreement on w0men’s rights and aboriginal
rights. We all congratulate him. We are very proud to be
Canadians.
q (2210)
[English]
CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPOR/\Tl0N—APPEARANCE OF
CANADIAN PIPERS AT EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL TATTOO.
(B) REQUEST THAT BROADCAST BE SHOWN IN CANADA
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Mr. Speaker,
on November 2, I asked the Minister of Communications
(Mr. Fox), as minister responsible for reporting to this House
for the CBC, if he would inquire why the CBC had refused to
carry the TV program which had been made by the British
Broadcasting Corporation of this year’s Edinburgh Tattoo.
The reason I asked that was that I wanted Canadians to see
this year’s tattoo because Canadians on that occasion were
doubly honoured; first of all, by including_a separate section
dedicated to Canada entitled “Canadiana”, a section which
featured a team of about 100 Canadians drawn from across
the country including pipers, drummers, Scottish and habitant
dancers from all parts of Canada, and second, honoured by
inviting a Canadian service officer, General Lewis, Command~
ing Officer Air Command, to take the salute in Edinburgh.
This year’s Tattoo, therefore, was a great event in Canadian
terms. It was broadcast broadly in Britain and across Europe.
Canada got a great boost in this particular event.
I was subsequently told by the minister that the CBC had
not been offered the BBC videotape. I can now assure him, or
the parliamentary secretary who will be replying, that this
oversight has been remedied and a 75-minute version of the
90-minute Tattoo has been offered to the Canadian Broadcast-
ing Corporation, and I and many more Canadians hope the
deal will be closed and Canadians will have a chance to see
this outstanding event; the way Canadians did their country
proud by their performances.
I am told that the CBC is looking at a five-minute version of
the Tattoo, but my view is that even to put on such an
abbreviated version of a more than ten-minute participation in
the tattoo would be an insult to those Canadians from all parts
of Canada who were seen by about 250,000 who attended the
Tattoo in Edinburgh, about six million British television view-
ers, and 50 million to 60 million viewers in Europe and
Australia.
Canada‘s participation this year in this international festival
has been in the works for about five years. It was treated by
the BBC as a feature item. The show was designed to portray
Canadian unity by featuring dancers from all across this
land-—Scottish pipers, Scottish dancers as well as folk dancers
from Quebec. It was, I am told, a moving experience. Having
paid for much of the Canadian group‘s expenses to go to
Edinburgh, I contend that Canadians should now have the
opportunity to see how well this team which they sponsored
performed on their behalf.

Read less

Leave a Reply