Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Resolution Respecting Constitution Act”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (24 November 1981)

Document Information

Date: 1981-11-24
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 13164-13226.
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 Your help will make 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

13164 ‘ COMMONS
DEBATES November 24, l9tiNl
Order Paper Questions
subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d)
book value of the acquisition?
2. Does The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority have a plan to change the
present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, ii so. what is the
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of Transport): The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority advises
as follows: 1. Yes.
(8) (It) (0) (ti)
Great Lakes Pilotage
Authority, Ltd. I00 per cent $1,500 $1,500
The Jacques Cartier and
Champlain Bridges. Inc. I00 per cent S 100 S I00
2. No.
Question No. 3,1 19—Mr. Clarke:
1, During the period 1970-80 did The Seaway International Bridge Corpora-
tion Ltd. acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation,
limited liability company or unincorporated company and. ii‘ so, what was the
(a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated oom-
pany and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of
acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2. Does The Seaway International Bridge Corporation Ltd. have a plan to
change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so,
what is the plan?
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of Transport): The Seaway International Bridge Corpora-
tion, Ltd., a subsidiary of The St. Lawrence Seaway Author-
ity, advises as follows: l. No. 2. Not applicable.
Question No. 3,l20——Mr. Clarke:
1. During the period [970-80 did VIA Rail Canada Inc. aequire shares or
other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or
unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation,
limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries
thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value
of the acquisition?
2. Does VIA Rail Canada Inc. have a plan to change the prescnt portion of
ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan’!
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of Transport): The management of VIA Rail Canada Inc.
advises as follows: I. No. 2. Not applicable.
Question No. 3,12l—Mr. Clarke:
l. During the period 1970-80 did Teleglobe Canada acquire shares or other
ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unin-
corporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation,
limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries
thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value
of the acquisition?
2. Does Teleglobe Canada have a plan to change the present portion of
ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan’!
Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Communications): I am informed by Teleglobe Canada as
follows: 1. No. 2. Not applicable.
Question No. 3,256—Mr. Beatty:
l. Was the Canadian Media Corporation hired to serve as agency of record for
the government and, if so, since the corporation was hired, how many invoices
were received for time or space purchased on behalfof the government and how
many were left unpaid for more than (a) 30 (b) 60 (c) 90 (d) l2O days after the
date of billing’!
2. (a) ls the corporation aware that many media outlets provide discounts for
prompt payment of bills (b) since the corporation was hired, have such discounts
been lost and, if so, how many and what was the total amount lost because of
slow payment?
3. (a) Do the benefits go to the corporation or to the government when prompt
payment discounts are received (b) does the corporation compensate the govern-
ment for foregone prompt payment discounts‘?
Hon. J.-J. Blais (Minister of Supply and Services): 1. Yes,
12,934 invoices have been received for time or space purchased
on behalf of the government to October 31, 1981. (a) 2,137,
(b), (c), (d) the records being kept do not distinguish between
60, 90, I20 day invoices.
2. (a) Yes, (b) yes; 2,137 invoices with a value of
3. (a) The benefits go to the government. (b) This matter is
under negotiation.
Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Madam Speaker: The questions enumerated by the parlia-
mentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
The House resumed, from Monday, November 23, 1981,
consideration of the motion of Mr. Chrétien:

November 24, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13165
The Constitution
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 5 la demande 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 to 10 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- et d’y apporter d’autres modifications,
ments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her l5il est propose que soit présentée respectueu-
Majesty the Queen in the following words: sement at Sa Majesté la Reine l’adresse dont 15
la teneur suit :
T0 Ih¢ QU¢@”’5 Most EX°ell°m Maieslyi A Sa Trés Excellente Majesté la Reine,
M081 GraCi0llS Sovereign: Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
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 tueusementa Votre Trés Gracieuse Majesté de
be pleased to cause to be laid before the bien vouloir faire déposer devant le Parlement
Parliament ofthe United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi ainsi concu:
containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25
set forth:

COMMONS DEBATES November 24, l98l
Act, I98!
Termination of
power to
legislate for
French version
Short lillc
The Constitution
An Act to give effect to a request by the Loi donnant suitea une demande du Sénat et
Senate and House of Commons of de la Chambre des communes du
Canada Canada
Sa Tres Excellente Majesté la Reine,
Whereas Canada has requested and con- ¢°”§ldél’a”¢1 5
sented to the enactment of an Act of the 5 qu‘a la demande et avec le consentement
Parliament of the United Kingdom to give du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni
effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth est invité a adopter une loi visant a donner
and the Senate and the House of Commons effet aux dispositions énoncécs ci-apres et
of Canada in Parliament assembled have que le Sénat et la Chambre des communes l0
submitted an address to Her Majesty l0 du Canada réunis en Parlement ont pré-
requesting that Her Majesty may graciously senté une adresse dcmandunt ti Sa Trés
be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before Gracieuse Majcsté dc bien vouloir fairc
the Parliament of the United Kingdom for déposer devant lc Parlcmcnt du Royaume~
that purpose. Uni un projet de loi a cctte fin, I5
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s l5sur l‘avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the tuels et temporels et des Communes réunis
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual en Parlement, et par l’autorité de celui-ci,
and Temporal, and Commons, in this present édicte :
Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows: 29
1. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in 1. La Loi constitutionnelle de I 981 , énon~ 20 /\<1_<>t>\i<>r-_d¢h\
Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for cée a l’annexe B, est édictée pour le Canada
and shall have the force of law in Canada et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur 1°81
and shall come into force as provided in that conformément a ses dispositions.
Act. 25
2. No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptées par le Parlement du Ccsjaiivgcdv
Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, Royaume-_Uni apres l’entrée en vigueur de la 25f’,§;r,_§’,’;,p°u,|c
I981 comes into force shall extend to Lot‘ constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas ¢aMd=\
Canada as part of its law. partie du droit du Canada.
3. So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30 3. La partie de la version francaise de la Version
B, the French version of this Act is set out in présente loi qui figure a l’annexe A a force m”“7°’S°
Schedule A to this Act and has the same de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30
authority in Canada as the English version version anglaise correspondante.
4. This Act may be cited as the Canada 35 4. Titre abrégé de la présente loi : Lot‘ sur Titwabrésé
Act. Ie Canada.

November 24, I981 . COMMONS DEBATES l3l67
Rights and
freedoms in
rights of
duration of
Continuation in
Whereas Canada is founded upon princi-
ples that recognize the supremacy of God
and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees the rights and free- Sliberlés garantit les droits etrvlibertés qui y
doms set out in it subject only to such
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and demo-
cratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamen~ 10 2. Chacun a les libertés fondamentales
tal freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(I7) freedom of thought, belief, opinion
and expression, including freedom of the
press and other media of communication; l5
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Democratic Rights
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to
vote in an election of members of the House
The Constitution
Attendu que le Canada est fondé sur des
principes qui reconnaissent la suprématie de
Dieu et la primauté du droit :
Garantie des droits et libertés
Droits ct
5 libertés au
Ca nada
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et
sont énoncés. Ils ne peuvent etre res_t\reints
que par une regle de droit, dans des limites
qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification
puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une
société libre et démocratique. IO
Suivantes I fondamcntalcs
a) liberté de conscience et de religion;
b) liberté de pensée, de croyance, d’opi-
nion et d’expression, y_compris la liberté I5
de la presse et des autres moyens de
c) liberté de reunion pacifique;
d) liberté d’association.
Droits démocratiques
3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote 20 Dram
et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede- ,,§§”°‘
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
legislative assembly shall continue for longer
than five years from the date fixed for the
maximal des
4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre
des communes et des assemblées législatives
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. ‘ r *-
(2) In time of real or apprehended war,
invasion or insurrection, a House of Com-
mons may be continued by Parliament and a
générales correspondantes.
(2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- :”‘r9£1|t§:1i<>”§
nes ou celui d’une assemblée legislative peut 1”
étre prolortgé respectivement par le Parle— 30
legislative assembly may be continued by the 30ment ou par la législature en question au-
legislature beyond five years if such con-
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more
than one-third of the members of the House
dela de einq ans en cas de guerre, d’invasion
ou d’insurrection, réelles ou apprehendees,
pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas

13168 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 12%:
The Constitution
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as l’objet d’une opposition exprimee par les voix
the case may be. de plus du tiers des deputés de la Chambre
des communes ou de l’assemblee legislative.
flnuallsiizgis 5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien~ Séaflw-\I\|\\1~il|<‘
;;,§§;‘“‘ and of each legislature at least once every nent une séance au moins une fois tous les 5
twelve months. 5 douze mois.
Mobility Rights Liberté de circulation et d’étabIissement
Mobility of 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the 6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien ale droit de I-_ib¢r\é_d=
°'”Z°”§ right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. demeurer au Canada, d’y entrer ou d‘en °”°“l“’““
Rish\§}<>r”<>v¢ (2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per-1OL_iP=”é_
T;’l:|;g,f;Qd person who has the status of a permanent sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent d°‘abl’S5°”‘°”‘
resident of Canada has the right lOau Canada ont le droit :
(a) to move to and take up residence in a) de se deplacer dans tout le pays et
any province; and d‘etablir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in Vince; 15
any province. b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
Limitation (3) The rights specified in subsection (2)15 (3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Reslricliofl
are subject to (2) sont subordonnes :
(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 donnee, 20
than those that discriminate among per- s’ils n‘etablissent entre les personnes
sons primarily on the basis of province of 20 aucune distinction fondée principalement
present or previous residence; and sur la province de residence anterieure ou
(b) any laws providing for reasonable resi- a°ll1Bll¢;
dency requirements as a qualification for b) aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25
the receipt of publicly provided social de residence en vue de l’obtention des ser-
services. 25 vices sociaux publics.
Affirmative (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n’ont pas Prosrammtsdv
action I d I . . h h b. d,. d. 1 I . promotion
p,0g,ams c u_ e any aw, program or activity t at as pour o Jet i_nter ire es ‘O18, programmes ou mm
as its Ob]€Cl. the amelioration in a province of activités destines a ameliorer, dans une pre- 30
conditions of individuals in that province who vince, la situation d’individus defavorises
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 inferieur a la
below the rate of employment in Canada. moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights Garanties juridiques
Lifwlibflw r 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberté et a 35 Vi¢»1ib@”é el
. a. ‘ . = ~ . , . , . A ‘ ” ‘
:,:,;,$,°”‘“y° and security of thesperson and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre mum‘
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a ce droit qu’en conformite
with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
Scam” or 8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit at la protection contre Fwilles»
seizure – – – – – – – – perquisitionsou
against unreasonable search or seizure. les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 403m“
Dmnlivflvi 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit at la protection contre la D¢l@*\1i0″°”
‘m riscnmciit – – cmprisonnc-
‘ P trarily detained or imprisoned. 40 detention ou Femprisonnement arbitraires. mm

November 24, l98.l COMMONS DEBATES
The Constitution
/\”¢*\,<>’ 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun ale droit, en cas d’arrestation
detention 4 , .
detention ou de detention :
Proceedings in
criminal and h
(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. lO
ll. Any person charged with an offence
penal matters 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
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail with-
out just cause;
(/) except in the case 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 g’uilty ofthe 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 the45
lesser punishment.
a) d’etre informe dans les plus brefs délais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa
detention; 5
b) d’av0ir recours sans delai a l’assistance
d’un avocat et d‘etre informe de ce droit;
c) de faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la légalite de sa detention et d’obtenir, le _
cas echéant, sa liberation. 10
11. Tout inculpe a le droit :
a) d‘etre informe sans delai anormal de
l’infraction precise qu’on lui reproche;
b) d‘etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c) de ne pas etre contraint de témoigner 15
contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite
intentee contre lui pour l‘infraction qu’on
lui reproche;
d) d’étre presume innocent tant qu’il n’est
pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20
loi, par un tribunal independant et impar-
tiai a l’issue d’un proces public et
e) de ne pas étre privé sans juste cause
d’une mise en liberte assortie d’un caution- 25
nement raisonnable;
f) sauf s’il s’agit d’une infraction relevant
de la justice militaire, de beneficier d‘un
proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale
prévue pour l’infraction dont il est accuse 30
est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une
peine plus grave;
g) de ne pas étre declare coupable en
raison d’une action ou d’une omission qui,
au moment oii 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 l‘ensemble des nations; 40
h) d’une part de ne pas étre juge de nou-
veau pour une infraction dont il a été
definitivement aequitté, d’autre part de ne
pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une
infraction dont il a éte definitivement45
declare coupable et puni;
i) de bénéficier de la peine la moins
severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne l’in-
fraction dont il est declare coupable est
An-estzilion on
crimincllcs et

_ COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
Treatment or
Equality before
and under law
and equal
protection and
benefit of law
languages of
languages of
New Brunswick
The Constitution
12. Everyone has the right not to be sub-
jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or
13. A witness who testifies in any proceed-
ings has the right not to have any incriminat-
ing evidence so given used to incriminate
that witness in any other proceedings, except
in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving
of contradictory evidence.
14. A party or witness in any proceedings
who does not understand or speak the lan-
guage in which thc proceedings are conduct-
ed or who is deaf has the right to the assist-
ance of an interpreter.
Equality Rights
15. (1) Every individual is equal before
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-
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetra-
tion de l’infraction et celui de la sentence.
12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Criiaiilé
tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.
13. Chacun a droit a ce qu‘aucun temoi- 5_Tt”!@isws¢
5 gnage incriminant qu’il donne ne soit utilise ‘”°”‘“”“““
pour l’incriminer dans d’autres procedures,
sauf lors dc poursuites pour parjure ou pour
temoignages contradictoires.
lO 14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent 10l”i¢YP”3i¢
suivre les procedures, soit parce qu’ils ne
comprennent pas ou no parlcnt pas la langue
employee, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de
surdite, ont droit a l’assistance d’un inter-
prete. 1 5
Droits Z1 l’éga1ité
l5 15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per- Esal_il§d¢Ya,”i
sonne et s‘applique egalement a tous, et tous lfé,’,‘2’§i§f“c’,”°d°
ont droit a la meme protection ct au meme rimiwipnésalv
benefice de la loi, independamment de toute d“ la 1°‘
discrimination, notamment des discrimina-20
al or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age 2Otions fondees 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-
taged individuals or groups including those
that are disadvantaged because of race, na-
tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,
age or mental or physical disability.
Oflicial Languages of Canada
ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
Page ou les deficiences mentales ou physi-
(2) Le paragraphe (l) n’a pas pour effet25 Prosramirwsde
d’interdire les lois, programmes ou activités f(§§{;‘,‘Z”°”
destines a ameliorer la situation d’individus
25ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait
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 deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Langues officielles du Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le francais et l’anglais sont les Lfariisifs d
languages ‘of Canada and have equality of3Olangues officielles du Canada; ils ont un §;a’,f;§a°s U
status and equal rights and privileges as to
their use in all institutions of the Parliament
and government of Canada.
(2) English and French are the official
languages of New Brunswick and have
equality of status and equal rights and privi-
leges as to their use in all institutions of the
statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35
a leur usage dans les institutions du Parle-
ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) Le frangais et l’anglais sont les langues I-ansiws
35 officielles du Nouveau—Brunswick; ils ont un
statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant4O Brunswick
a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-

November 24, 1981 . COMMONS DEBATES 13171
ul status and
Proceedings of
Proceedings oi‘
New Brunswick
statutes and
New Brunswick
statutes and
Proceedings in
established by
Proceedings in
New Brunswick
tions by public
with federal
The Conrzizulion
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature ct du gouvernement du Nouveau-
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the
(3) La présente charte ne limite pas le |Ff§<>s{,¢‘$§i<>”v¢r§
C 31¢
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’égalité de 5
lish and French.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use Eng
lish or French in any debates and other
statut ou d’usage du francais et de l’anglais.
– 17. (1) Chacun a le droit d‘emp1oyer le ggimznfv
francais ou l‘anglais dans les débats et tra~
proceedings of Parliament. vaux du Parlement.
h 10 Ch 1 d it d‘ l l fran- 1OT[KY=”><<i¢la
(2) Everyone has the right to use Englis (2) acun a e ro emp oyer e
or French in any debates and other proceed-
ings of the legislature of New Brunswick.
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals
of Parliament shall be printed and published
Legislature du
cais ou I’anglais dans les débats et travaux dc
la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes _
rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement
in English and French and both languagel5sont imprimés et publiés en francais et en 15
versions are equally authoritative.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of
the legislature of New Brunswick shall be
printed and published in English and French
anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant ega-
lement force de loi et celles des autres docu-
ments ayant meme valeur.
(2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes gvfiymciafds
\ 1 – E I53 UH}
rendus et les proces~verbaux de la Legisla-20,,“ NEW”.
ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimés Brvrwvisk
and both language versions are equally 20et publiés en frangais et en anglais, les deux
I9. (1) Either English or French may be
used by any person in, or in any pleading in
or process issuing from, any court established
by Parliament. 25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure
(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
20. (1) Any member of the public in 30 20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a
Canada has the right to communicate with,
and to receive available services from, any
head or central office of an institution of the
versions des lois ayant également force cle loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme
valeur. 25
devant les
établis par le
I9. (1) Chacun a le droit d’employer le
francais ou l’ang1ais dans toutes les affaires
dont sont saisis les tribunaux établis par le
qui en découlent. 30
devant les
tribunaux du
(2) Chacun a le droit d’employer le fran-
cais ou l’ang1ais dans toutes les affaires dont
sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns-
wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui
en déeoulent. 35
tions entre les
administrés et
les institutions
l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais pour
communiquer avec le siege ou l’administra-
tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou
Parliament orfgovernment 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-
tution where
(a) there is a significant demand for com-
munications with and services from that
l’égard de tout autre bureau de ces institu-
tions la ou, selon le cas :
a) l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais fait
l‘objet d’une demande importante; 45
°m¢¢ in such l3″gl138¢§°1′ 40 b) l’emp1oi du francais et de l‘anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.

13172 _ COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
tions by public
with Ncw
Continuation of
Rights and
Language of
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 5 (2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
Brunswick has the right to communicate droit a l’emploi du frangais ou de 1’anglais
with, and to receive available services from, pour communiquer avec tout bureau des ins-
any office of an institution of the legislature titutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-
or government of New Brunswick in English ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
or French. 10
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 2]. Les articles 16 a 20 n’ont pas pour
or derogates from any right, privilege or effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue francaise
obligation with respect to the English and ou anglaise ou s ces deux langues, de porter
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 ofthe Constitution of Canada. d’une autre disposition de la Constitution du
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n’ont pas pour
or derogates from any legal or customary effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privile-
right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either ges, anterieurs ou postérieurs a l’entree en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la présente 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 franeais ou l‘anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights Droils Z1 I ‘instruction dans la langue de Ia
23. (1) Citizens of Canada 23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :
(a) whose first language learned and still a) dont la premiere langue apprise et2O
understood is that ofthe English or French 25 encore comprise est celle de la minorite
linguistic minority population of the ptov- francophone ou anglophone de la province
ince in which they reside, or on ils resident,
(b) who have received their primary b) qui ont recu leur instruction, au niveau
school instruction in Canada in English or primaire, en francais ou en anglais au 25
French and reside in a province where the 30 Canada et 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 minorite franco-
or French linguistic minority population of phone ou anglophone de la province,
the P\’°”l”°°» 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 i‘n that province.
tions entre lei
administrés ct
les institution»
du Nouveau-
Maintien en
vigueur dc
Droits préservét
Continuity of (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant gwtlitwilé I
. . . . . . . . . i I ‘d
has received or is receiving primary or a reeu ou recoit son instruction, au niveau mf,§,,’Z°’ ° a
secondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en francais ou en 35
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

November 24,, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13173
where numbers
En lorcentent of
rights and
Exclusion of
ofjustico into
rights and
freedoms not
affected by
(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
(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- Justification
diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire p“i°”°’“b’°
instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
et secondairc, dans la langue de la minorite
5 francophone ou anglophone d’une province :
a) s’exerce partout dans la province oii le
nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce
droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur
endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics,
provision to them out of public funds of1O 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 15 gnement de la minorite linguistique finan- 15
out of public funds.
b) comprend, lorsque le nombre dc ces
enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire
instruire dans des etablissements d’ensei-
ces sur les fonds publics.
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola- §_°¢<>\!’§°” C“
as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui d,1ii§’:fi,Z:§,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 égard aux circonstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsec- (2) Lorsquc, dans une instance visée au éffyrvatiiliéé
tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (l), le tribunal a conclu que des p,§§§’,‘,e:u§ °
obtained in a manner that infringed or Z5 éléments de preuve ont eté obtenus dans des 25 gi§q\wr_adi9nld¢
I ~ – ‘ ‘ CCOHS1 C161’
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 deconsiderer l’admi-30
ofjustice into disrepute.
conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou
libertes garantis par la présente charte, ces
elements de preuve sont ecartes s’il est etabli,
eu égard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa-
nistration de la justice.
Dispositions générales
de la justice
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la présente charte garantit ;~4ai‘”li¢l”|_*;¢a§l,s
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- certains droits et libertes ne porte pas d:,:‘:,,foCi,,,,:,:5
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
atteinte aux droits ou libertes — ancestraux,
that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of autochtones du Canada, notamment:
Canada including
(o) any rights or freedoms that have been
a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
\’e¢°8″lZ@d bl’ lhe R93/31 Pl”°°lamall°” °f I2) aux droits ou libertes acquis par regle-
O<1i0bB1′ 7, 1763; and 40 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.
Other rishls 26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la présente charte garantit Mmtisfl <1“
and freedoms – ~ – . – , » autres droits et
,,,,,,mc,cd by tam rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas mmés

13174 ~ COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Consiimiion
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.
M“_|\i¢“|l””*’ 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation de la presente Maiitlisyi du
hcmasc manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l’objectif de pro-
enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Smouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5
Canadians. patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
Rishtsl d 28. Notwithstanding anything in this 28. Indépendamment des autres disp0si- E8i=\lilé_d:
UQYII1 €€ o . – , a – Bfflflllfi CS
§qu,,,y.., both Charter except section 33, the rights and tions de la presente charte, exception faite de §,o;lsp(,,,,|cs
sexei freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed l’article 33, les droits et libertes qui y sont <!ev><§=><¢§
equally to male and female persons. lOmentionnes sont garantis également aux per- lO
S0fll’l€S (168 Cl€llX SBX€S.
Ris'”=_ 29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 29. Les dispositions de la présente charte Mainlis” <!_¢$
respecting d 1 f – ht – -l t . t d -t u – -l~_ droitsrclutifsil
cc,,,,,,,sc,,<,<,,5 eroga es rom any rig s or privi eges guar- ne por ent _pas attein e aux roi s o privi e ¢¢,m,,cm.,,“
P”¢§¢”°d 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. l5 autres écoles confessionnelles.
APP_1i¢=_li°” \° 30. A reference in this Charter to a prov- 30. Dans la présente charte, les disposi- APRll°_*”i°”a“X
t¢rr|(0r|Q5 and . . . . . . . . , – ierntoires
m,i,o,i,,| ince or to the legislative assembly or legisla- tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature
aulhvritics ture of a province shall be deemed to include ou leur assemblee legislative visent egale—
a reference to the Yukon Territory and the ment le territoire du Yukon. les territoires du 20
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20 Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives
legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes.
L=si:::\:éf 31. Nothing in this Charter extends the 31. La présente charte n‘elargit pas les ::::1|:;si§§¢~
ffwnded legislative powers of any body or authority. competences legislatives de quelque orga- Co,,,Pé.,,m5
nisme ou autorite que ce soit. 25 lésislativcs
Application of Charter Application dz la charte
éggligtifln “T 32. (l) This Charter applies 25 32. _(l) La présente charte s’applique : QPcl:é°::l°” d=
(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;
(b) to the legislature and government of b) 51 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.
Exwvlivii (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec- 35 (2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), l‘ar- 35 Rwtisiivfl
tion 15 shall‘nor have effect until three years ticle 15 n’a d’effet que trois ans apres l’en-
after this section comes into force. trée en vigueur du present article.
E;<‘¢°Pll°” 33. (l) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement oii la legislature géaosaiion var
W CYC CX T€5S ¢ – . – \ – C031’?! ION
dcc,m,i§,, province may expressly declare in an Act of d’une province peut adopter uneloi ou il est m,,,,m
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de 40
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet indépendamment
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 a l5 de la présente charte. ou de

November 24, 1981 i COMMONS DEBATES 13175
Operation of
Five year
Five year
Commitment to
promote equal
public services
The C0nsIiIu!i0n
this Charter, or section 28 of this Charter in l’article 28 de cette charte dans son applica-
its application to discrimination based on sex tion a la discrimination fondee sur le sexe et
referred to in section 15. mentionnee a l’article 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in (2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l’objet Eff“ =19 Ia
respect of which a declaration made under 5d‘une declaration conforme au present article 5 ‘lc’°ga“°”
this section is in effect shall have such opera~ et en vigueur a l’effet qu‘elle aurait sauf la
tion as it would have but for the provision of disposition en cause de la charte.
this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) Dflyésgis
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after l0cesse d’avoir effet a la date qui y est précisee “’l’d“°
it comes into force or on such earlier date as ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en 10
may be specified in the declaration. vigueur.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov- . (4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut Nd<>\1‘/lqllc
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au a °” ‘°”
subsection (1). 15 paragraphe (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a (5) Le paragraphe (3) s’applique a toute l5D\;_r‘f_¢,<1¢
re-enactment made under subsection (4). declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- “3′ “°
graphe (4).
Citation Titre
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadi— 34. Titre de la présente partie: Charte Tit”
an Charter of Rights and Freedoms. canadienne des droits et Iibertés.
35. (1) Without altering the legislative20 35. (I) Sous reserve des competences 20 Engagements
authority of Parliament or of the provincial législatives du Parlement et des legislatures ,’-“鑧;’,[f;.,..
legislatures, or the rights of any of them with et de leurdroit de les exercer, le Parlement shims
respect to the exercise of their legislative et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-
authority, Parliament and the legislatures, ments federal et provinciaux, s’engagent a:
together with the government of Canada and 25 ,1) pl-omouvog, itégamé des chances dc 25
the provincial governments, are committed to tous les Canadiens dans la rechcfchg dc
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the leur bien-etre;
Welbbeing 0f Canadians; I2) favoriser le developpement economique
(b) furthering economic development to pour réduirel’inegalité des chances;
Fedme di$Pal’li)’ in °PP°”l1″1ll°$i and 30 c) fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un 30
(c) providing essential public services of niveau de qualite acceptable, les services
reasonable quality to all Canadians. publics essentiels.
(2) Parliament and the government of (2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Ensqscmcnl
. . . , . – relaufaux
Canada are committed to the principle of Canada prennent lengagement de principe s¢n,mpub|ic§
making equalization payments to ensure that 35 de faire des paiements de perequation pro- 35
provincial governments have sufficient reve- pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-
nues to provide reasonably comparable levels ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre
of public services at reasonably comparable en mesiire d‘assurer les services publics a un
levels of taxation. niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement
comparables. 40

13176 – COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
Pa rtieipation of
Participation of
procedure for
Constitution of
Majority of
“‘°’“b°’S (1) that derogates from the legislative4Oau
The Constitution
36. (1) A constitutional conference com- 36. (1) Dans l‘annee 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 reunissant les premiers
within one year after this Part comes into Sministres provinciaux etlui-meme.
(2) The conference convened under sub- (2) Sont placees 5 l’ordre du jour de la
section (1) shall have included in its agenda conference visee au paragraphe (I) les ques-
an item respecting constitutional matters tions constitutionnelles qui interessent direc~
that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of l0tement 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 a inscrire dans Ia
included in the Constitution of Canada, and Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite du Canada invite leurs representants a parti-
representatives of those peoples to participate 15ciper aux travaux relatifs 5 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 elus 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 a participer aux travaux relatifs
sions on any item on the agenda of the a toute question placeea l’ordre du jour de la
des peuples
15 Participation
des tcrritoires
conference convened under subsection (1) conference visee au paragraphe (1) et qui,2O
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, selon lui, interesse directement le territoire
directly affects the Yukon Territory and the du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest.
Northwest Territories. 25
cowsrrrurrow nu CANADA
37. (l) La Constitution du Canada peut
etre modifiée par proclamation du gouver-
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
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of
Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assem-
blies of at leastgttwo-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
(2) An amendment made under subsection
powers, the proprietary rights or any other
rights or privileges of the legislature or gov~
neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
autorisee a la fois :
a) par des resolutions du Senat et de la
Chambre des communes;
b) par des resolutions des assemblées
Iegislatives d’au moins deux tiers des pro-
vinces dont la population confondue repre-
sente, selon le recensement general le plus
recent a l’epoque, au moins cinquante pour
cent de la population de toutes les
(2) Une modification faite conformement
paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire a la
competence legislative, aux droits de pro-
priete ou a tous autres droits ou privileges
normale do
Majorité simple

November 24, 1981 ~ COMMONS DEBATES 13177
Expression of
Revocation of
Restriction on
Amendment by
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 (1).
(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.
38. (I) A proclamation shall not be issued 20 38. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra— R¢S”i¢li°”
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-
tion initiating the amendment procedure
thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of
each province has previously adopted a reso-
lution of assent or dissent.
The Constitution
d’une legislature ou d’un gouvernement pro-
vincial exige une resolution adoptée a la
majorite des senateurs, des députés federaux
et des deputes de chacune des assemblées
5 législatives du nombre requis de provinces.
(3) La modification visee au paragraphe
(2) est sans effet dans une province dont
Fassemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la
proclamation, exprime son desaccord par une
l0résolution adoptee a la majorite des députes, 10
sauf si cette assemblee, par resolution égale-
ment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son
desaccord et autorise la modification.
(4) La resolution de desaccord visee au ‘5_°Yé¢g”d
paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquee a tout 15 cm“ ‘
moment, independamment de la date de la
proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
phe 37(1) ne peut etre prise dans l’annee
suivant l‘adoption de la resolution 5 l’origine 20
de la procedure de modification que si l’as-
semblée legislative dc chaque province a
25 prealablement adopte une resolution d’agre-
ment ou de desaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 25ld~=m
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
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation
3Ode la procedure de modification.
subsection 37(1) that transfers provincial sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s’applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or
other cultural matters from provincial legis-
latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide
reasonable compensation to any province to
which the amendment does not apply.
40. An amendment to the Constitution of 40. Toute modification de la Constitution Cv11§_¢r\\=m=”l
pas une modification faite conformement au
35paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiére
d‘éducation ou dans d’autres domaines cultu-
rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-
ves provinciales au Parlement.
Canada in relation to the following matters 40 du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-
may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of
Canada only where authorized by resolutions
of the Senate and House of Commons and of
the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a
tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur
general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-
risée par des resolutions du Sénat, de la 40
Chambre des communes et de Fassemblee
45 legislative dc chaque province 2
a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur
general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;

13173 – COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Consiiiuiion
(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;
(0) subject to section 42, the use of the
English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court
of Canada; and
(e) an amendment to this Part.
/tmstgmeflt by 41. (1) An amendment to the Constitution
gm ‘ of Canada in relation to the following mat- ti
b) le droit d’une province d‘avoir a la
Chambre des communes un nombre de
députes au moins égal a celui des senateurs
par lesquels elle est habilitée <1 etre repre-
sentée lors de l’entrée en vigueur de la
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
e) la modification de la présente partie.
41. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu~
on du Canada portant sur les questions
ters may be made only in accordance with suivantes se fait conformément au paragra-
subsection 37(1): phe 37(1) :
(a) the principle of proportionatelS
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
(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
EX¢°P”°” (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
b) les pouvoirs du Sénat et le mode de 20
selection des senateurs;
c) le nombre des senatcurs par lesquels
une province est habilitée a etre represen-
tée et les conditions de residence qu’ils
doivent remplir;
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;
_/) par derogation a toute autre loi ou 30
usage, la creation de provinces.
(2) Les paragraphes 37(2) a (4) ne s’appli-
in respect oi” amendments in relation to mat~ quent pas aux questions mentionnées au
ters referred to in subsection (1). paragraphe (1).
normulc dc
*’\”*=”d”*°”‘°1 42. An amendment to the Constitution of 42. Les dispositions dc la Constitution du 351§’!°*‘1″1¢=”@”i*
pf0VlSl0flS C d , l . . . h C d 1. . – – lcgard dc
,c,a;,,,g mama ana a in re ation to any provision t at ana a app ica es a certaines provinces wmm
but rwta” applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, seulement ne peuvent etre modifiées que par l”°Vi”°¢$
1”°”‘“°“ including proclamation du gouverneur general sous le
(a) any alteration to boundaries between gfand $63″ <1″ 9311343» 3l”°1’i5é¢ Par des
r0vjn¢¢s_gnd,e resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des 40
P – , . .
– – communes et de Fassemblée legislative de
(I1) any amendment to any provision that/40
1 1 t th of the En “Sh or the chaque province concernée. Le present arti-
reaes 0 euse g , 1. _
French language within a province, dc S app ‘que notammgng ‘ d f
‘ ii‘-
ma be made by roclamation issued by the a) {aux °ha“.gc[T‘em§ u “am es run B 45
Governor Generalpundcr the Great Seal of res lmerprovmcmies’
Canada only where so authorized by resolu- 45 17) 3″} Y,”°d11~1°311°”5 <1e5f115P°$1t1°,l15 Tel?‘
tions of the Senate and House of Commons Y1‘/95 3 1’-‘Sag? <1″ ffamials 0“ <16 13981315 dans une province. November 24, 1981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES 13179 Amendments by Parliament Amendments by provincial legislatures lnitiation of amendment procedures Revocation of B\.\l.ll0\‘i7ati0n Amendments without Senate resolution Computation of period Advice to issue proclamation Constitutional conference The Constitution and of the legislative assembly of each prov- ince to which the amendment applies. Modification par lc Parlcmcnt 43. Subject to sections 40 and 41, Parlia- 43. Sous reserve des articles 40 et 41, le. ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour the Constitution of Canada in relation to the 5 modifier les dispositions de la Constitution executive government of Canada or the du Canada relatives au pouvoir executiffede- 5 Senate and House of Commons. ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des communes. 44. Subject to section 40, the legislature 44. Sous reserve de l’article 40, une légis- Modifiwiv” of each province may exclusively make laws lature a competence exclusive pour modifier l’éag’;$1|°;,,,,, amending the constitution of the province. 101a constitution de sa province. 10 45. (1) The procedures for amendment 45. (1) L‘initiative des procedures de 1″”i=jti’/B des under sections 37, 40, 41 and 42 may be modification visees aux articles 37, 40, 41 et pr°“d”“s initiated either by the Senate or the House of 42 appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des Commons or by the legislative assembly of a communes ou a une assemblée legislative. province. 15 (2) A resolution of assent made for the (2) Une resolution d‘agrement adoptée l5l’9§§il>i1_”éd=
purposes of this Part may be revoked at any dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre mocauo”
time before the issue of a proclamation revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la
authorized by it. proclamation qu’elle autorise.
46. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 20 46. (1) Dans les cas vises a l’article 37, 40, Modification
of Canada made by proclamation under sec- 41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut2O§:“§§§;Y’“”°“
tion 37, 40, 41 or 42 may be made without a d‘autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n‘a pas
resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue adopte dc resolution dans un délai de cent
of the proclamation if, within one hundred quatre-vingts jours suivant l‘adoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the 25 de la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons of a resolution authori2~ derniere, apres 1‘expiration du delai, adopte 25
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
a resolution and if, at any time after the
expiration of that period, the House of Com-
mons again adopts the resolution. 30
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au C°'”,P”!@\i°”
gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les d“dm’
computing the one hundred and eighty day periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
period referred to in subsection (1). proroge ou dissoiis. 30
47. The Queen’s Privy Council for 35 47. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le D””=*”d¢51¢
Canada shall advise the Governor General to Canada demande au gouverneur general de p’°C”’ma“°“
issue a proclamation under this Part forth- prendre, conformement a la présente partie,
with on the V adoption of the resolutions une proclamation des l‘adoption des resolu-
required for an afriendment made by procla- tions prévues par cette partie pour une modi- 35
mation under this Part. 40 fication par proclamation.
48. A constitutional conference composed 48. Dans les quinze ans suivant l’entree en C<>”l§’¢“F¢
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the vigueur de la présente partie, le premier §,‘l’;|i,”‘“”°”‘
first ministers of the provinces shall be con- ministre du Canada convoque une conference
vened by the Prime Minister of Canada constitutionnelle réunissant 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. réexamen des dispositions de cette partie.

. COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
Amendment to
Ari. I867
Laws respecting
resources and
Export 1’ rom
provinces of
Authority of
The Constitution
49. The Constitution Act, I867 (formerly 49. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 lM°di_li¢~1\i°”t1=
named the British North America Act, I867) (anterieurement designee sous le titre: Acre :,,f§j~,,,,,-,,,,.
is amended by adding thereto, immediately de I’/tmérique du Nord britannique, 1867) Smile d-H867
after section 92 thereof, the following head- est modifiée par insertion, apres l’article 92,
ing and section: 5 dc la rubrique et dc l’article suivants 2
“Non-Renewable Natural Resources, ~Ress0urces naturelles non renouvelables,
Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy ressourcesforestieres et énergie électrique
92.4. (1) in each province, the legisla-
ture may exclusively make laws in relation
(a) exploration for non-renewable natu-
ral resources in the province; 10
(b) 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-
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 dc chaque pro- Cvmvpéwlics
vince a competence exclusive pour légifé- “‘°””°’ °
rer dans les domaines suivants : IO
a) prospection des ressources naturelles
non renouvelables de la province;
b) exploitation, conservation et gestion
des ressources naturelles non renouve1a-
bles et des ressources forestieres de la 15
province, y compris leur rythme de pro-
duction primaire;
c) amenagement, conservation et ges-
tion des emplacements et des installa-
tions de la province destines a la produc- 20
tion d’energie electrique.
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exiwglation
competence pour legiferer en ce qui con-
cerne 1’exportation, hors de la province, a
destination d’une autre partie du Canada, 25
de la production primaire tiree des ressour-
ces naturelles non renouvelables et des res-
sources forestieres de la province, ainsi que
de la production d‘energie electrique de la
province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de 30
lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites
de prix ou des disparites dans les exporta-
tions destinees at une autre partie du
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas 35 Pvvvvirdu
atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- Pa’1cme“’
rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragra-
phe, les dispositions d’une loi du Parlement
adoptee dans ces domaines l’emportant sur
les dispositions incompatibles d’une loi 40

November 24, l98l COMMONS DEBATES
Taxation of
Existing powers
or rights
(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
and forestry resources in the province
and the primary production therefrom,
(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 the 20
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 into 25
force of this section.”
50. The said Act is further amended by
The Corlslilulion
(4) La legislature de chaque province a
competence pour prelever des sommes
d’argent par tout mode ou systeme de
a) des ressources naturelles non renou- 5
velables et des ressources forestieres de
la province, ainsi que de la production
primaire qui en est tiree;
b) des emplacements et des installations
de la province destines a la production 10
d’energie électrique, ainsi que de cette
production meme.
Cette competence peut s’exercer indepen-
damment du fait que la production en
cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, l5
exportée hors de la province, mais les lois
adoptees dans ces domaines ne peuvent
autoriser ou prevoir une taxation qui eta-
blisse une distinction entre la production
exportee a destination d’une autre partie 20
du Canada et la production non exportee
hors de la province.
Taxation des
(5) L’expression “production primaire» a *P_Y°d’§¢”°”
le sens qui llll est donne dans la sixteme P ‘mam
annexe. 25
(6) Les paragraphes (1) s (5) ne portent P°”_”°i’>”_°”
pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus d’°”s cmmm
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 ldfl”
adding thereto the following Schedule: adjonction de l’annexe suivante :
Primary Production from Non-Renewable
Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
l. For the purposes of section 92A of this
Act,‘ -i
(a) production from a non-renewable
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
natural state, or
~ Production primaire tirée des ressources
naturelles non renouvelables er des
ressources forestiéres
1. Pour Papplication de l’article 92A :
a) on entend par production primaire tirée
d’une ressource naturelle non renouvela-35
(i) soit le produit qui se présente sous la
meme forme que lors de son extraction
du milieu naturel,
(ii) soit le produit non manufacture de 40
la transformation, du raffinage ou de

13132 – COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
Primacy of
Constitution of
Constitution of
Amendments to
Constitution of
Repeats and
new names
The Constitution
(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-
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.”
l’affinage d’une ressource, a l’exception
du produit du raffinage du petrole brut,
du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-
liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-
des derives du charbon ou du raffinage
d‘un equivalent synthétique du petrole
b) on entcnd par production primaire tiree
d’une ressource forestiére la production
constituee de billots, dc potcaux, de bois IO
d’oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d’autre
produit primaire du bois, ou de ptite de
bois, a l’exception d’un produit manufac-
ture en bois.»
51. (I) The Constitution of Canada is the I5 SI. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la l5€rim==i\i\éd¢Iw
supreme law of Canada, and any law that is loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inopérantes C:::‘,§:“’°“ d“
inconsistent with the provisions of the Con- les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre
stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regle de 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 1; and
(2) La Constitution du Canada comprend : gvflstétuiivii ii“
a) la Lot” sur Ie Canada, y compris la 20 ana 3
présente loi;
b) les textes législatifs et les décrets figu-
rant s l’annexe I;
25 c) les modifications des textes legislatifs et
des decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou 25
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of (3) La Constitution du Canada ne peut Mvdiiicuiisn
Canada shall be made only in accordance etre modifiée que conformement aux pou-
with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conferes par elle.
tion of Canada.
(c) any amendment to any Act or order
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
52. (I) The enactments referred to in 30 52. (I) Les textes législatifs et les décrets 30 /“”°B“‘i°”.°‘
Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed énumerés a la colonne I de l‘annexe l sont “ouwaumm
or amended to the extent indicated in abrogés ou modifies dansla 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 Col‘umn;III thereof. 35titres mentionnes a la colonne Ill. 35
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Tout texte législatif ou réglementaire, Mo<i/iiiqiiiions
Act, that refers to an enactment referred to sauf la L01‘ sur Ie Canada, qui fait mention °°”°’““’°‘
in Schedule I by the name in Column I d’un texte legislatif ou decretfiguranta l‘an-
thereof is hereby amended by substituting nexe I par le titre indique a la colonne l est
for that name the corresponding name in 40m0difié par substitution a ce titre du titre4O
Column III thereof, and any British North corrcspondant mentionné a la colonne Ill;
America Act not referred to in Schedule I tout Acte dc l’Amérique du Nord britanni-
may be cited as the Constitution Act fol- que non mentionne at l‘annexe l peut etre cite
sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de

November 24, 1981 t COMMONS DEBATES
Repeal and
French version
of Constitution
of Canada
English and
French versions
of certain
English and
French versions
of this Act
ment of
23( l )(u) in
rcspcct of
of Quebec
The Constitution
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its l‘indication de l’annee de son adoption et
enactment. eventuellement de son numéro.
53. Part III is repealed on the day that is 53. La partie III est abrogee un an apres
one year after this Part comes into force and l’entree en vigueur de la présente partie et le
this section may be repealed and this Act Sgouverneur general peut, par proclamation
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le
of Part III and this section, by proclamation present article et apporter en consequence de
issued by the Governor General under the cette double abrogation les amenagements
Great Seal of Canada. qui s’imposent a la présente loi.
Abrogation et
qui en
54. A French version of the portions of the 10 54. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada lO’§:::‘=;::1w dc
Constitution of Canada referred to in est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs cma;,,S,c,,c,
Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister délais, la version francaise des parties de la wnsiitiiiiviiiwis
of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos- Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l’an-
sible and, when any portion thereof sufficient nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante
to warrant action being taken has been so l5est, des qu’elle est prete, déposée pour adop-
prepared, it shall be put forward for enact- tion par proclamation du gouverneur general
ment by proclamation issued by the Gover- sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-
nor General under the Great Seal of Canada ment a la procedure applicable a l’époque s
pursuant to the procedure then applicable to la modification des dispositions constitution-
an amendment of the same provisions of the 20nelles qu’elle contient.
Constitution of Canada.
55. Where any portion of the Constitution 55. Les versions francaise et anglaise des
of Canada has been or is enacted in English parties de la Constitution du Canada adop-
and French or where a French version of any tees dans ces deux langues ont également
portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- 25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de
ant to section 54, the English and French loi, des l’adoption, dans le cadre de l’article
versions of that portion of the Constitution 54, d’une partie de la version frangaise de la
are equally authoritative. Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.
francaise ct
anglaisc dc
ccrtains textcs
56. The English and French versions of 56. Les versions francaise etanglaise dela A
this Act are equally authoritative. 30 présente loi ont egalement force de loi. 3O,ng,a;sc dc 1,
présente loi
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall 57. Sous reserve del’article 58, la présente Eiiiréccii
come into force on a day to be fixed by loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par pro- Wgueur
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. (I) Paragraph 23(l)(a) shall come
into force in respect bf Quebec on a day to be
fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or
the Governor General under the Great Seal
of Canada. 40
sous le grand sceau du Canada.
58. (I) L’alinea 23(1)a) entre en vigueur35§i”Lr§§r¢£c
pour le Quebec s la date fixee par procIarna- |-jim 230),)
tion dc la Reine ou du gouverneur general P°”I’l¢Qi1él1¢C
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe Saggrciiaiion it“
shall be issued only where authorized by the (1) ne peut etre prise qu‘apres autorisatton 40
legislative assembly or government of de l’assemblée legislative ou du gouverne-
Quebcc. ment du Quebec.

DEBATES November 24, 198 l
Repeal of this
Short title and
The Constitution
(3) This section may be repealed on the
day paragraph 23(l)(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
(3) Le present article peut etre abrogé a la
date d’entree en vigueur de l‘alinea 23(l)a)
pour le Quebec, et la présente loi faire l‘ob-
jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et
Schangements de numerotation qui en decou-
lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du
gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du
59. Titre abrége de la présente annexe:
L01″ constitutiormelle de 1981; titre commun
1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be10des lois constitutionnelles cle 1867 a 1975
cited together as the Constitution Acts, I867
to 1981.
(n° 2) et de ln présente loi: Lois constitu-
tionnelles de1867 Z1 1981.
Abrogalion du
préscnt article

13186 – COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
to the
Column I Column II Column III
Item Act Affected
New Name
1 British North America Act, 1867,
30-3l 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,
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting British Columbia into the
Union, dated the 16th day of May,
British North America Act, I871,
34-35 Vict., c. 28 (U.K.)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting Prince Edwar,d_Island into
the Union, dated the 26th day of
June, I873
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,
(I) Section l is repealed and
the following substituted therefor:
“1. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1867.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
(3) Class l of section 91 is
(4) Class l of section 92 is
(1) The long title is repealed
and the following substituted
“Manitoba Act, I870.”
(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 North-West~
ern Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Constitution Act, 187]
Prince Edward Island Terms of
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order

November 24, 1981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES 13187
The Constitution
Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III
Loi visee
Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1867, 3O~31 Vict., c. 3
Acte pour amender et continuer
l‘acte trente-deux et trente—trois Vic-
toria, chapitre trois, ct pour etablir
et constituer le gouvernement de la
province de Manitoba, 1870, 33
Vict., c. 3 (Canada)
Arreté en conseil de Sa Majeste
admettant la Terre de Rupert et le
Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date
du 23 juin 1870
Arreté en conseil de Sa Majeste
admettant la Colombie—Britannique,
en date du 16 mai 1871
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1871, 34-35 Vict., c. Z8
Arreté en conseil de Sa ’Majeste
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 l’Union tous les ter-
ritoires et possessions britanniques
dans l’Amerique du Nord, et les iles
adjacentes a ces territoires et posses-
sions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
‘(l) L’article 1 est abroge et
remplace par ce qui suit :
11. Titre abregé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I867.»
(2) L‘article 20 est abrogé.
(3) La catégorie 1 de l’article
9l est abrogee.
(4) La catégorie 1 de l’article
92 est abrogee.
(l) Le titre complet est abroge
et remplace par ce qui suit :
4Loi de 1870 sur Ie Mani-
(2) L’article 20 est abrogé.
L’article 1 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
<1. Titre abrege : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1871.»
Loi constitutionnelle de 1867
Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba
Décret en conseil sur la terrc de
Rupert et le territoire du Nord-
Conditions de l’adhesion dc la
Loi constitutionnelle dc l871
Conditions de l’adhésion de
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du
Décret en conseil sur les territoi-
res adjacents

13188 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 198l—Continued
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, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (U.K.)
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. VII, 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,,l_93l, 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
(a) section 4 is repealed; and
(b) subsection 7(1) is
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I940.”
The Act is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1886
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act
Alberta Act
Saskatchewan Act
Constitution Act, 1907
Constitution Act, 1915
Constitution Act, 1930
Statute of Westminster,
Constitution Act, 1940

November 24, 1981 ‘
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)
Colonne I
Loi visee
Colonne 11 Colonne I11
Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1886, 49-50 Vict., c. 35
Acte du Canada (limites d’Ontario)
I889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (R.-U.)
Acte concernant 1’Orateur canadien
(nomination d’un suppleant) 1895,
2° session, 59 Vict., c. 3 (R.-U.)
Acte de l’Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed.
VII, c. 3 (Canada)
Acte de 1a Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5
Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1’Amerique du Nord britan-
nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26
Statut de Westminster, “1931, 22
Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.) 7
Acte de l”Amerique du Nord britan-
nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36
Acte dc 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30
L’artic1e 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1886
place par ce qui suit :
(3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I886.»
Loi dc 1889 sur le Canada (fron
tieres de 1’Ontario)
La loi est abrogee.
Loi sur 1‘Alberta
Loi sur la Saskatchewan
L’article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1907
place par ce qui suit :
x2. Titre abregé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1907.»
L’artic1e 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1915
place par ce qui suit :
13. Titre abrége : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I915.»
L’artic1e 3 est abroge et rem- Loiconstitutionnellede1930
place par ce qui suit :
<3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I930.»
Dans la mesure oi‘; ils s’appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931
quent au Canada :
a) l’article 4 est abrogé;
b) le paragraphe 7(1) est
L’artic1e 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1940
place par ce qui suit 1
<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I940.»
La loi est abrogée.

13190 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981—Continued
Column I Column ll Column 111
Item Act Affected Amendment New Name
British North America Act, 1946,
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1949,
12-13 Geo. Vl, c. 22 (U.K.)
British North America (No. 2) Act,
1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1951,
14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1952, 1
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. ll, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
British North America Act, 1974,
23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part 1 (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, I960.”
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:
“Z. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I 965.”
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, I974.”
Constitution Act, 1960
Constitution Act, 1964
Constitution Act, 1965
Constitution Act, 1974

November 24, 1981 – COMMONS DEBATES 13191
ANNEXE I (suite)
The Constitution
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne ll
Colonne III
Nouveau titre
Acte dc 1’Amér1que du Nord britan~
nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63
Acte dc 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo, VI, ct 22
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. V1, c.
81 (R.~U.)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. V1, c. 32
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1960, 9 EH24 II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1964, 12-13 E1iz. II, c. 73
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I
(Canada) –
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie
I (Canada)
La loi est abrogée.
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
<3. Titre abrégé : Loi sur
La loi est abrogée.
La 1oi est abrogée.
La loi est abrogée.
L’artic1e 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
~12. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I960.»
L’artic1e 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ee qui suit :
42. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I964.»
L‘artic1e 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
:2. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle de I965,»
L’artic1e 3, modifié par 1e para-
graphe 38(1) de la loi 25—26 Eli-
zabeth I1, c. 28 (Canada), est
abrogé et remplacé par cc qui
suit :
<3. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie 1 Loi constitution-
nelle de 1974.»
Loi sur Terre-Neuve
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
Loi constitutionnelle dc 1964
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
Loi constitutionnelle dc 1974

13192 s COMMONS DEBATES N0V@m1J@F 24, 1931
The Constitution
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981—C0ncluded
to the
Column I Column 11 Column III
Item Act Affected
New Name
29. British‘ North America Act, 1975,
23~24 Eliz. ll, 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. 1I,c. 28. s, 31 (Can.)
is repcnlcd und the following sub~
stitutccl therefor:
“3. This Pnrt may be cited as
the Conrvtttutlon Act (N04 I),
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act (N0. 2).
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

November 24, 1981 . COMMONS DEBATES 13193
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)
Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3, modifié par l’article Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975
nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c.
Partie I (Canada) 28 (Canada), est abrogé ct rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
t3. 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 de 1975
nique 11° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 place par ce qui suit :
(Canada) <3. Titre abrégé : Lot’ consti-
tutionnelle n” 2 de I975,»

13194 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil): Madam Speaker, when my
remarks were interrupted by the adjournment motion last
evening, I had said that I accept that the inclusion of the
Canada clause is the best we can expect in the circumstances.
Obviously 1 am acknowledging that I would have liked some-
thing better. In the next few minutes 1 will try to explain why I
am prepared to accept a compromise.
I should say, first, as 1 said last evening, that as an immi-
grant who has enjoyed almost 40 years in Canada, maybe
longer than most people who are presently Canadians who are
living in Canada, 1 have always felt that the immigrant coming
to this country must try to accept conditions as they are and
not try to change the inherent culture, nature and character of
the people. Of course, I cannot hide the fact that I am an
anglophone. With an accent such as mine, I am unable to hide
the fact that I am an immigrant. As a result, I have been part
of what I might term a sort of minority caucus in my party,
and my good friend who sits beside me, the hon. member for
Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), has been fighting—even today
in question period–~for the rights of Lesfrzmcophones hors
Qttébec. My job today is to explain why l feel that the
anglophones in this country, and specifically the anglophones
in the province of Quebec. should accept as the best possible
compromise the insertion of what is commonly termed the
Canada clause in the constitutional proposition.
O (1510)
Section 23 will apply to Quebec with the exception of
$UbS6Cl10n 23(1)(a). The minority language of education
rights which will go into effect immediately are the Canada
clause—Section 23(l)(b)-—and the continuation of education
right~Section 23(2). These two sections provide the minimum
of reciprocity between Quebec and the other provinces, which
the PQ government itself acknowledged as desirable in the
1977 St. Andrews and the 1978 Montreal agreements with the
other provinces and for which provision was made in Quebec‘s
Bill 101. In fact, the resolution does little more than give effect
to section 86 of that law, something Quebec was unable to do,
because the consent of the other provinces was a prior require-
ment. That consent has now been achieved through the Chart-
er of Rights and Freedoms.
The charter also gives Quebec the right to opt in to constitu-
tional provisions protecting the language of education rights of
citizens according to their mother tongue. Section 23(l)(a)
will not apply in Quebec until the National Assembly has
given its approval. In the meantime, however, its protection
will be available to French-speaking Canadians in other prov-
inces, a matter of great importance for them.
Subsection 23(1)(a), the mother tongue test, permits immi-
grants who become citizens and whose first language is Eng-
lish or French to have their children educated in English or
French. In Quebec this right will not be extended to new
citizens, to meet the concerns of Quebec that the majority of
new citizens will assimilate with the minority language group
when the desire is to have them identify with the majority
language population.
Subsection 23(l)(a) also gives the right to parents who are
Canadian citizens and received their primary school education
in Canada, but not in their mother tongue, to have their
children receive their education in the mother tongue. This
right is important to francophones residing in many provinces
where facilities for French language education have not been
generally available until very recently. The right is also impor-
tant in Quebec. However, anglophones in Quebec have always
had access to English language instruction.
Put in concrete terms, in Quebec a citizen who received his
primary school instruction in Canada in English-—Secti0n
23(l)(b)-—or a citizen whose child was educated or is being
educated in English in Canada—Section 23(2)——will have a
right to have all his children educated in English at the
primary and secondary level. On the other hand, a new citizen
who did not attend primary school in English in Canada would
not have the right to send his children to English schools even
though his mother tongue was English, unless he had previous-
ly lived in another province and his children had already begun
their education in English.
However, there is an opt-in provision for Quebec, and we are
going to have to hope that we can eventually change the
government in the province of Quebec so that we can exercise
that option. Section 58, which has been added to this resolu-
tion, will provide a mechanism for Quebec to opt in the
Section 23(1)(a) once the National Assembly signifies its
approval of this section in respect of Quebec.
Because my children have been educated in both English
and French schools in the province of Quebec, I feel that I am
in somewhat of a privileged position. I am concerned, however,
and will continue to be concerned that there will be other
Canadian immigrants like myself whose children have not yet
entered the educational system in this country who will not
have that same choice or right. However, I am also well aware
that there are many francophones in the province of Quebec
who would like to be able to exercise their right to send their
children to English schools and who at the present time do not
have that right.
Life is a compromise. To live with each other in peace and
harmony we must try not only to respect the opinions of others
but also attempt to understand the reasons for their concerns.

November 24, 198i COMMONS DEBATES l3l95
It is my belief that the constitutional proposal we are debating
is the best compromise that could have been compiled in a
country as diverse as our country, Canada.
In conclusion, I congratulate all those who have participated
in making this agreement possible. I would like to express
particular gratitude to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and
the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) who, by their courage
and determination, have achieved the seemingly impossible,
We are all very proud to be Canadian.
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate today in a mood
vastly different from that which would have characterized my
approach had I spoken yesterday. My remarks then would
have conveyed my anger that once again the fundamental
principle of the equality of women and men was under siege
and my despair that an 8O~year-old struggle for the basic
rights of women in this country had brought us but such a
short distance and, finally, I would have expressed my fervent
hope that right and reason would yet prevail.
I am glad to say that hope has won the day. I feel a deep
and overwhelming sense of relief—and then of _iubilation—
that the amendment before us is to be accepted and Section 28
entrenched without qualification and without any override
provision in the charter. That section merits repeating:
Notwithstarldlng anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to
in it are guaranteed equally to rnale and female persons.
But as we accept this amendment before us, let us not forget
the hurdles that had to be overcome to achieve it nor the hard
work and effort of thousands of Canadian women and men
who made it possible.
Section 28, as hon. members will remember, was not in the
original constitutional proposals introduced into the House in
October of 1980. Neither was it a product of the weeks and
months of the hearings of the joint parliamentary committee
on the Constitution. That hard-working committee produced
many amendments, but Section 28 was not among them. No,
that section was the creation of hundreds—indeed, thou-
sands~—of Canadian women who converged on Ottawa last
spring to speak their minds about what they considered their
fundamental rights.
Who were those women and what did they represent? They
were of all political affiliations and no political affiliation.
They came from all parts of Canada and all backgrounds.
They were housewives and students, professional women and
store clerks, grandmothers and their children and their chil-
dren’s children bound togethen by one great common bond, to
see thatjustice prevailed.
Q (I520)
The lobby that ensued in the weeks following the women’s
ad hoc committee on the Constitution was one of the most
successful and resourceful that Parliament Hill has ever wit-
nessed. They convinced party member individually and collec~
tively that a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be worthy of
The Constitution
its name, must declare forthrightly and nobly the true equality
of women and men.
On a historic day last April, April 2i, Section 28, which I
read a little earlier, was accepted unanimously by all members
of the House of Commons. That is the way it remained until
earlier this month when the first ministers met in one last
effort to make federalism work. They met to see if they could
come up jointly with an agreed~upon constitutional resolution.
At that time Section 28 was left untouched, either through
neglect or oversight or because it was considered to be of no
great importance.
At that conference earlier this month Section 28 was not
even discussed, as various first ministers have admitted. But
bureaucrats, who have a way of dealing with what they
consider technical details, soon put an end to that. They
persuaded their political masters to emasculate Section 28 by
subjecting it to a legislative override. Women, once again
denied full equality in law, by their thousands took up anew
the battlecry of equal rights.
During these past two weeks we have witnessed their tre~
mendous effort with admiration and have been proud to be a
part of it. The results are as we see them today—full restora-
tion of the guarantee of equality in law to women and men, I
am almost tempted to say, Mr. Speaker, “Let us hurryvand get
this resolution off to Westminster before somebody changes
his mind”.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss MacDonald: What has for me been one of the most
rewarding aspects of this year-long battle has been the politi-
cal awakening and mobilization of thousands of Canadian
women, women who never before had taken part in a political
campaign but who now recognize the virtue of that word
In all the battles that lie ahead, and there will be many,
women know that they have forged bonds which will stand
them in good stead whenever the need arises, and the need will
arise. What has been achieved today is not an end but a
You will notice that I have used the phrase on several
occasions “equality in law” because it is still sadly true that
there is no equality in fact. I look at this little pamphlet put
out by the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of
Women entitled “Women and Poverty: What are your
Chances?“ There is a section headed “Poverty: More likely if
you’re a woman”. These are some of the points it makes:
There are 1.4 times the number of poor women as poor men in Canada.
Two-thirds of all minimum-wage workers are women.
Single mothers are especially at risk:
-83 per cent of all single parent families are headed by women.
-44 per cent of these families are living below the poverty line.

13196 – COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
It goes on:
And your chances of being poor increase if you are old and alone:
-6 out of ll) single, divorced or widowed women over 65 have annual incomes
under $5,000.
—Less than l in 4 widows can expect to get a widow’s pension from a private
pension plan.
-One-half of all unattached women over 55 depend entirely on government
pensions for their support…
Getting a job does not necessarily insure women against poverty.
One out of six women employed full-time earns less than 86,000 pcr year.
Women employed full-time earn only 62 per cent of what men earn.
The Canada/Quebec Pension Plan . . . the average income for a woman . . . is
S99 per month while fora man it is $l4l.
Women did not choose to be in this position of deprivation
and poverty, but society, attitudes and laws have combined to
relegate hundreds of thousands of women to a life bereft of
self-dignity and hope. We can ask, are women guaranteed
equal treatment under the Criminal Code with respect to
sexual assault‘! Do women receive equal pay for work of equal
value? Should Indian women who marry non-Indians lose their
status whereas Indian men do not?
The reinstatement of Section 28 in the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms is a great step forward, but we have to recog-
nize that it will not materially or magically change the status
of women overnight. Attitudes are deep~rooted and hard to
dislodge. Decision-making in most fields will continue to be
dominated by men. The provisions of this charter itself must
undergo a three-year time lag before it can be used by
individual Canadians to challenge discriminatory practices.
That three-year period can be used by both Parliament and the
provincial legislatures to change existing laws that deny the
equality of women in fact, or to introduce new legislation
advancing the status of women.
But why wait the three~year period? Why not undertake a
crash program now to bring all other legislation into accord
with Section 28′? The Government of Canada can set the
example. It can do so by eliminating immediately the most
glaring inequity in the country, the one for which we are
internationally renowned. I refer to the lot of Indian women,
condemned by Section l2(l)(b) of the Indian Act to lose their
Indian status if they marry a non-Indian. Indian men,» as we all
know, do not lose their status if they marry a non-Indian.
When Sandra Lovelace, an Indian woman from New Bruns-
wick who had lost her status, took her case to the United
Nations Human Rights Commission, the federal government
in its defence stated, and I quote from United Nations Human
Rights Commission Communication R6/24 dated July 30,
Legislative proposals are being considered which would ensure that no Indian
person, male or Female, would lose his or her status under any circumstances
other than his or her own personal desire to renounce it . ..
Legislative recommendations are being prepared for presentation to cabinet
for approval and placement on the parliamentary calendar for introduction
before the House by mid—l98l.
That promise has already been overtaken by time. Let the
government now come forward with legislation to correct this
IIIJUSUC6 and I am certain it will receive speedy passage, It will
also be an earnest indication of the govcrnment’s firm resolve
to accord the highest priority, both symbolically and substan-
tively, to the full equality of women and men.
The battle for equality takes many forms and it will go on in
many arenas, but in this past year the women of Canada have
shown that they are more than up to it. They have won a
signal victory and the country is the better for it. So, too, our
system of federalism has been reaffirmed and the country is
the stronger for it. Unilateralism has been rejected.
Q (I530)
Canadian women have kept faith with those great pioneers
of the feminist movement who, in their day, had to overcome
much greater obstacles. In the early years of this century, it
was Agnes McPhail, Emily Murphy, Nellie McClung and
others who blazed the path. And more recently, Therese
Casgrain, Ellen Fairclough and Judy LaMarsh.
Yes, the women’s movement of I981 has indeed kept faith.
Parliament and legislatures have responded to their efforts
and, as a result, we can take pride in the fact that our
Constitution will be a nobler, a loftier document. Women’s
rights have been confirmed.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that these women of 1981,
worthy successors of the early suffragette movement, had and
will continue to have as their rallying cry Nellie McClung‘s
fighting words of the 1920s:
Never retreat, never apologize, ncver explain. Get the job done and lei them
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East): Mr. Speaker, it
gives me great pleasure to rise today in the House, a very
important day for all of us in this House and indeed for the
people of Canada. As we all know, last night the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Chrétien) announced that the nine provinces
which signed this provincial accord agreed that Section 28 of
the equality of men and women would apply in the new
Constitution, and would apply without the provinces being
able to override this section.
The minister also announced that the provinces had now
agreed to enshrine existing aboriginal rights in our new Consti-
tution, the word “existing” being added to the former Section
34 which will be reinstated. I need not say once again how
delighted we in the New Democratic Party are, after all the
struggles of so many people in our party and in other parties
and indeed citizen organizations across this country, that these
new developments have taken place and are now approved
across our land.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: As a member of the New Democratic Party
and caucus, I am very proud that Section 28 was introduced
by the New Democratic Party last spring. It was done in
conjunction with many advocates from women’s groups who
had legal advice among their own members and worked very
hard to make sure that there were provisions in this Constitu-
tion that would make absolutely certain that equal rights for
men and women would be entrenched.

November 24, 1981 _ COMMONS DEBATES 13197
I am also very proud that it was my leader and my party
that over the past three or four years have made this a major
issue in our campaigns and indeed in our performance in this
House. There is certainly no issue more important than the
whole question of the rights of aboriginal peoples and women
of Canada.
Some hon. Members: I-Iear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: We in the New Democratic Party rejoice
that equal rights for men and women once again will have
paramountcy as a national goal which no province can ignore
and, indeed, which the federal government also cannot ignore.
Women of Canada can take great pride in their very suc-
cessful lobby which they organized over the past two-week
period and previously last spring. They were able to protest the
federal-provincial accord which had overridden equal rights
for men and women in Section 28.
We should not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the first ministers
of our provinces did not see this as a national right and
priority. They did not consult with Canadian women. They
had no Canadian women in their ranks sitting at the table
making decisions. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) himself
was willing to trade off protection of women’s rights for an
accord that protected other rights but not the rights of women
in Canada.
These attitudes, I must say made by male politicians who
control decisions in this country, will not soon be forgotten by
Canadian women, even though we are rejoicing that the
changes have been made. I want to quote one woman lobbyist
who said:
Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.
This proves once again with dramatic clarity that it will be
absolutely essential in the future to have women politicians in
local, provincial and federal governments.
Another point which makes me very proud to have been
associated with women’s groups who have lobbied so hard for
equal rights and who have worked along with their parliamen-
tarians in this regard is the solidarity which they showed
toward the rights and efforts of native people, and the commit-
ment which they still have to try to remove the provincial
override from all sections which affect people’s rights
This morning a member of the ad hoc women‘s committee
said to me, and I quote:
Last night’s announcement is a good beginning, but we have only won half the
battlc. We must get rid of the overr_lde completely regarding fundamental
freedoms in Section 2 and also’the”Sections 7 to 15 regarding rights and
freedoms which must be universally applied across Canada with no override
clause for provinces.
This will be an effort to be continued not only by women’s
groups but by all of us who are concerned about equality in
our country that applies equally from sea to sea, regardless of
which province we may live in.
For example, in British Columbia it happens that we have a
very weak Human Rights Commission. The permanent mem-
The Constitution
bers to this commission have not yet been appointed by the
government. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that recently mem-
bers of this commission were chastised because of their atti-
tude and their language toward women. It is very reminiscent,
incidentally, of Senator Hays, our famous representative on
the Constitution committee. Is this the kind of body, in a
province such as British Columbia, that we want to protect
people’s rights and put pressure on the government?
Also in British Columbia we have a government which
recently has forced women on welfare who have a young child
to go to work. It uses very punitive measures to do this by
depriving them of a certain amount of their welfare cheques.
This is the kind of thing, again, that makes women fearful,
especially if they think provinces may have undue authority
with regard to certain rights, particularly as they apply to
On the other side of the continent, I want to say that I was
told this morning by a woman from St. John‘s that their
premier worked very hard to keep offshore resources under
provincial jurisdiction. We agree with that decision, but it is
ironical, Mr. Speaker, that women who are applying for these
very jobs in offshore resources have been refused work and
have appealed to the Human Rights Commission.
I mention these examples to reinforce the importance of this
change and the importance of having a national policy, not a
policy that can be changed from province to province.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: I agree with the ad hoc women’s commit-
tee—I am quoting them rather frequently because I have seen
them on many occasions in my office—that we have a long
way to go and that there will be many cases to test these
constitutional provisions. But we are pleased that such a good
start has been made. By including Section 28 with no override,
we expect, for example, that the Supreme Court of Canada
will never again be able to rule against women as it did in the
Lavell, Bédard and Bliss cases, as well as in other instances
mentioned by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands
(Miss MacDonald) and yesterday by the hon. member for
New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett).
Q (I540)
Some concerns have been expressed that guaranteeing equal
rights for male and female persons may undermine affirmative
action programs designed to open opportunities for women and
for other minorities, such as the handicapped and ethnic
groups. Of course, this will be tested in the courts. However, it
is our clear understanding that equality is a constitutional
goal, a goal which will apply to all provinces as a result of the
change. Provincial affirmative action programs are the means
of achieving equality through equal treatment of women and
other minorities. This means the goal of equality will be
entrenched and that affirmative action will be constitutionally
protected as a means to achieve equality. We now have a
federal principle, Hopefully this will be an impetus to encour-
age affirmative action programs within federal jurisdictions,

13198 » COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
provincial jurisdictions and also in the municipal levels of
Before I move on to other aspects of discrimination and
constitutional rights upon which I should like to touch today, I
want to place in the record a summary of the evolution and
development that has occurred in the Canadian women’s
movement as a resultof their fight for equality over the past
few months. Never have Canadian women organized so quick-
ly, realized their potential and lobbied so effectively for so just
a cause.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: This is a summary of how they did it and
what they gained through mass action and organization. It is
important for women across Canada to know this and to learn
from experiences so that they can go on to further actions of
this kind. It reflects an awakening and the involvement of a
whole new generation of women, along with many concerned
men and many of us who are in older generations.
The ad hoc committee, for example, is connected with
hundreds of organizations across the country. In January,
I981, women found out that the second promised conference
on issues relating to the Constitution was cancelled. An ad hoc
committee was formed to work with women in Parliament
because there were so few of us in the House of Commons.
The ad hoc conference was held on February l4. Hundreds of
women attended on very short notice. There were no funds
available from the government to help them get here or even to
pay for telephone calls and stamps. They met, they lobbied,
they learned, and they took many actions which caused many
of us to become much more actively concerned about the
Constitution, as it did not cover the rights of women at that
time. They met with each caucus, with party leaders and with
powerful people at all levels of government.
Of course, the committee was also connected with many
groups across the country, such as the National Association of
Women and the Law, provincial advisory councils, the Canadi-
an Teachers’ Federation, the YWCA, the Ottawa women‘s
lobby, business and professional women, women in trade
unions and women concerned with political action. It was a
very democratic process and a very enlightening one. I know
my colleagues will agree when I say that this was the major
reason for having an expanded Constitution today, with the
removal of the provincial override on women’s rights in Section
Some hon. Members: I-Iear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: Why is Section 28 so important’! I should
like to mention quickly some examples of discrimination which
were perhaps mentioned in questions posed in the I-louse.
These are examples of which I have been personally aware in
my short experience of three years since becoming a member
of Parliament. First, immigrant women. We know that the
Immigration Act in some ways discriminates against women.
Certainly the settlement services of the federal government do
not provide adequate coverage for individual women who want
to come into our country with rights equal to those of their
male partners. For example, settlement services apply equally
to women and their children, They do not allow them equally
to take courses, to go to work and to learn English or French.
Also we know that domestic workers, most of whom are
women, experience difficulties when they come to Canada.
Will the Constitution now help to protect their rights and
move them toward citizenship more quickly?
There are many examples of women who are trying to get
into the whole field of non-traditional jobs. Today I met with
some of our brothers from the fishermen‘s union in British
Columbia. I was reminded of a case there where fisherwomen
who were working as partners with their husbands were
refused unemployment insurance benefits on an equal basis.
Of course, they took their case to the Human Rights Commis-
sion and after a long struggle they won, I hope this discrimina-
tion will no longer be possible under the new Constitution.
I am reminded of women in Stelco, the women in the steel
industry in Hamilton. I visited groups last year and discovered
that Rosie the Riveter was welcomed in the steel industry
during the war; in fact there was day care provided in the
workplace. As soon as the war was over, there were no jobs for
women in the steel industry. The Minister of Indian Affairs
and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) should take note of
this instance. The women in steel are certainly not putting up
with this. Many have now regained their right to work in the
industry. There are others fighting for equal opportunities to
work in CNR, Douglas Aircraft and many other industries.
In my own riding I talked with members of the painters‘
union and of the International Woodworkers of America. I am
pleased that the labour movement and many unions which are
dominated largely by male trade union members are now
much more aware of the rights of women in this area. For
example, members of the painters‘ union are saying to their
employers, “Look, if you are going to employ us, you are going
to make jobs open equally to any person who can qualify for
them, regardless of sex”. They have found that women can
carry ladders and paint cans just as well as men.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: Last week I attended a meeting in Ottawa
concerned with women in trades. I was told that there were
many women with interests in mechanical, electrical and other
trades traditionally considered as being in the field of male
employment who want very much to get into these trades. One
thing which happened in our society was that women in their
education have been forced into sex roles and perhaps do not
have the background or training for such skills. They find that
there has been a cutback in the federal government of training
programs and.pre-employment upgrading programs to assist
women to get into trades on an equal basis. The same thing
applies to women wishing to enter high technology fields of the
future, particularly in this area of the country, and to other
areas where women must have equal rights and opportunities
for employment with no question of sex involved. We hope the
Constitution will now support the whole movement in which

November Z4, I981 COMMONS
we believe very strongly, as do our trade union friends—equal
pay for work of equal value.
Last year in my riding there was a Kenworth Industries,
CAIMAW strike, and women eventually won equal pay. They
won that after a six-month strike. They should not have had to
wait six months or to go on strike for equal pay, Mr. Speaker.
This is another inequity which I hope they will challenge as the
result of the constitutional changes.
Q (I550)
There are many examples that have been raised in the
House in the past year of women clerks in the public service,
general service workers, research technicians doing jobs equal
to those done by many male employees but who are being paid
on a higher basis. This we will no longer tolerate, Mr. Speaker.
I cannot go on without mentioning bank workers, nurses and
hospital workers who traditionally work at lower rates of pay
than they should. Daycare workers are another important
Not only is this protection now in our Constitution, which
will allow all people concerned with human rights to go before
the courts, but I suspect it is the beginning of a change in
attitude in the country—a change in the attitude of employers
and workers themselves who will demand their rights.
Women in the home must also be recognized as workers who
do an extremely important job in raising the children. They
have the right to pensions, benefits and an income as well as
the recognition that they are doing just as important a job at
home as they would in the work force. We hope there will be
changes and that the government will support this.
I have two more points to deal with before my time expires,
Mr. Speaker. I am speaking primarily to Section 28 of the
constitutional amendment dealing with women’s rights but I
should like hon. members to know that this party is equally
concerned with the whole question of aboriginal rights. The
women of Canada have gone on record as showing solidarity
with the native people in their struggle for the changes that
will benefit them and protect their present rights but most
important, perhaps, will protect their rights in the future.
When we speak of the future of the aboriginal people, I
think the best way to make the point clearly is to speak about
the necessity for federal action on behalf of native children.
Last spring I was a member of.the Standing Committee on
Health, Welfare and Social Affairs subcommittee on children,
whose report has not yet gone to cabinet and certainly has not
yet been mentioned in the House. In a minority report which I
presented on behalf of the NDP we recognized the rights of
Indian children and their desperate situation as being a first
priority. We recommended that Indian, Inuit, Metis and non-
status Indians in all regions be protected by constitutional
provisions. We also felt that it was essential that, based on this
recognition, adequate funding be provided for economic and
educational programs that would ensure that native children
would be proud to be Indian, Métis or Inuit.
The Constitution
We recommended that there be changes in the whole health
care service and that, in consultation with native people,
children of Indian and native background have the opportunity
to grow up in the native environment. I hope this new Consti~
tution will mean that native children will no longer be taken
from their homes or native communities and put in foster
homes of non~native people.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: Finally, Mr, Speaker, I want to refer briefly
to Section 15 which deals with equality rights and states as
Every individual is equal before 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, national or ethnic origin,
colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
I am saddened that this position, which is so important and
should be so universal, still has the provincial override. I
should like to illustrate the importance of this by citing the
example of what happened to the Chinese and Asian people of
Canada. This demands that there must be full protection of
their rights. In my riding as in other parts of western Canada,
many Chinese were brought to Canada to work on the CPR.
There was a head tax imposed by the federal government of
$50 per person. It was raised to $100 in 1900 and to $500 in
I903. In I907 a riot occurred in Vancouvcr‘s Chinatown,
instigated by the Asiatic Exclusion League, which was formed
in 1907 in response to the increased Japanese, Chinese and
East Indian immigration. These people were being excluded
because they were Asian. Splinter mobs went through China-
town breaking windows, then they moved to Powell Street in
the Japanese quarter for more of the same. Some Chinese
domestic and kitchen workers tried to oppose this but, of
course, they were subjected to all kinds of discrimination.
The exclusion act was not repealed until 1947, when immi-
gration was permitted but with increased restrictions on Asian
groups. Finally, in I967 the federal government adopted the
universal merit system which ended discrimination. However,
it was not until 1947 that Canadians of Asian origin finally
won the right to vote.
We are also very familiar with the internment of Japanese
Canadians and the shame and nightmares that continue for all
Canadians who think of this situation.
I should like to draw to the attention of the Minister of
Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) the present
concern of East Indians in our country. We have expressed our
view in questions. We must be sure that under the Immigra-
tion Act there is equal treatment for all people, regardless of
their country of origin, their race and ethnicity.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Mitchell: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say
once again that we are very proud that we are reaching the
conclusion of this very historic process. I am particularly proud
that it was this party that fought so hard for inclusion of both

November 24, 1981
The Constitution
the aboriginal rights section and Section 28 which protects the
rights male and female persons.
I want to congratulate all members of the House and all
people across Canada who worked so hard for this great day
for Canadians.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Deputy Speaker: ls the House ready for the question‘?
Some hon. Members: Question.
0 (moo)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is on the amendment. Is
it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Carried.
Mr. Nielsen: No, no, noi
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the amendment
will please say yea.
Some hon. Members: Yea.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Mr. Nielsen: No.
And more than five members having risen:
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Call in the members.
The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Clark), which
was agreed to on the following division:
Q (I610)
(Division No. I25)
(Qu‘Appelle»Mo<)sc Mountain) Hargrave Harquail Hawkes Heap Herbert Hcrvieux—Payctte (Mrs) Hnatyshyn Hopkins Howie Huntington Irwin Jarvis Jelinek Jewel: (Miss) Johnston loyal Kaplan Keeper Kelly Kilgour Killens (Mrs) King Kushner Messrs. Lnchancc Lajoie Lambert Lamonlagnc Lenders Lang Laniel Lapierrc Lapointe (Cliarlevoix) Lapoirite (Beauoe) La Salli‘. Lawrence LeBlanc Lefehvrc Lewis Lonsdale Lumlcy Maflflnin MacDonald ( Miss) Ma¢Guigan Mackascy Mat:Laren Malone Maltais Manly Marceau Masse Masters Mayer McCaulcy McCuish McDermid Mcfiraih McKin non McLean McRae Miller M iichell ( Mrs.) Munro (Hamilton East) Murphy N iclsnn Nowlan N ystrom Oberle Olivier Orlikow Paproski Parker Patterson Fclleiier NAYS Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard Portelance Prud‘h0n’|me Regan Reid (S1.Catharinus) Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) Riis Roberts Robinson (Burnaby) Robinson (Etobicokeiakcshore) Roche Rompkey Rose Rossi Roy Sargeant Savard Schellenberger Schroder Scott (Hamilton-Wenlworth) Soon (Victoria-Haliburton) Shields Siddon Simmons Skelly Smith Stevens Tardif Taylor Tcssicr Thackcr Tobin Tousignant Turner Vzflknughrlcl Vcillellc Waddell Watson Wcatherhead Wenman Wlielan Wilson Wise Wright Yanakis Young Yurko—2Z2. Allmnnd Allhouse Andre Anguish Appolloni (Mrs.) Axworlhy Bachand Baker (Gondcr—Twillingatr-) Bnker (Nepean»Carlcton) Hearty Bmuchamp-Niquct (Mrs.) Begin (Miss) Benjamin Berger Blackburn Elaikie Blake! Blenkarn Bocltstael Bosley Bradley Breau Broadbent Bujold Burghardt Cnccia Campbell (Miss) (South West Nova) Campbell (Cardigan) Cardiff Carney (Miss) Chreiien Clark (Yellowhead) Clarke . . (Vane0uv¢r’Quadr§) Colleneiie Corntois Cook Cooper Corbin Corriveau Cosgrove cote (Mrs) Cousineau Crosbit: (St. John‘: West) Crosby (Halifax West) Crousc Cyr Dantzer Daudlin Dawson Deans De Bane do Corncille dc Jong Dnmers Deniger Desmarais Dick Dingwoll Dion Dionne (Chicoutimi) Domm Dubois Duclos Dupont Dupras Ellis Elzinga EPP Eroln (Mrs.) Ethier Evans Fcnnell Messrs. Nil Q (I640) [Translation] Madam Speaker: I declare the motion carried. [English] I-Ion. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Madam Speaker, this moment gives me the greatest pleasure I have experienced as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The opportunity to move the motion put before the House is the highlight not only of myself as minister, but of any minister who could occupy this portfolio. I might also add that it is a welcome and dramatic conclusion to one of the most intensive periods of November 24, I981 _ COMMONS DEBATES 13201 agonizing discussion that I have experienced in all my days and years as a member of this House. Members of the House, I cannot overemphasize the signifie canoe that I place on the events of the last couple of days in view of the outcome. The distance that native people have come in those few short days, by gaining recognition for their aboriginal and treaty rights in what is soon to become the highest expression of the law of this land, is immeasurable at this time. However, I predict that history will prove it to be a giant step. Let it be said now that the disappointment that I and others felt earlier this month on the eve of the accord, when it became evident that some provinces declined to endorse the concept of aboriginal rights, was second only to that of the native people themselves. Let it be said now for the record that many of us share a high degree of elation today. I recall, moving out of the Convention Centre with native leaders, what I and some of my colleagues had to face when Section 34 was dropped. One cannot measure the terrible grief, disappointment and utter frustration that they expressed on that particular day. I want the Indian people especially to understand why I feel as I do. To be sure, the contrast between my disappointment of a few days ago and my mood today is uplifting, But that is not the only reason. Hon. members, we are here today in the House of Commons with a motion that proposes to accord to native peoples a unique status in the highest law of the land. Not only are we as Members of Parliament about to consider this historic amendment; we are here to do so with the specific endorsement of the nine provincial governments which were parties to the November 5 accord on patriation of the Constitution. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): It is the involvement of those provinces that is most significant to me. It is the fact that they are in this resolution that makes me so encouraged today. The people of Canada and their leaders have concentrated on this question with an intensity such as has been seldom experienced. What they have decided irrefutably is that an expression of this country‘s highest principles is simply not acceptable without due recognition for native people, the first Canadians. To be sure, the constitutional resolution with this amend- ment will not resolve all the outstanding issues. It will not put to rest all the questions about the future relationship of native people to the rest of the country. If the motion before the House is passed, it will set the stage for a whole new series of issues yet to be raised. It represents, however, an enormous gain over where we were after the signing of the November 5 Accord. In the depressing moments of reflection which followed that initial jubilation of reaching agreement on patriation, who would have thought in these few short days that this was possible’! Aside from the gentle pressure which my colleague The Constitution the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) referred to last week, it took some considerable sou1—searching and accommodation on the part of certain provinces to get us where we are today. Let us trust that, as the process unfolds and as we begin to address, in preparation for a constitutional conference, those outstand~ ing issues I have already mentioned, this new spirit of co-oper- ation will be sustained. Q (I650) I would like to review the critical provisions in this package that refer to natives. First, under the proposed amendment to the resolution the most critical section recognizes and affirms aboriginal and treaty rights of all aboriginal peoples in the highest law of the land. While the clause differs in one minor respect from the previous Section 34, it has the identical effect as the previous section. This is borne out by the legal opinions afforded the government. Second, I would like to emphasize that the resolution also contains other important provisions respecting native people. Specifically Section 25 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms states: The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including (a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and (b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement. This section, then, is purposely open-ended and protects those rights which may flow to natives from future land claims settlements. Third, the resolution also provides for the establishment of a constitutional conference at which there will be an item on the agenda respecting matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada. Representatives of aboriginal peoples will be invited to participate in this conference. This agenda item will include the identification and definition of the specific rights of native peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada. I hope that all parties, including the provincial gov- ernments and the federal government and the native people, will do all they can to ensure that that conference is a success. Considerable effort will be needed to find common ground among Indian peoples, other native peoples and Canadians in general before understanding and acceptance is reached on all issues. But I am sure this can be achieved. It is a great accomplishment today. I should like to pay my respects to all the work and effort of so many members of this House, not the least of which is the colleague sitting beside me, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien), who has worked tirelessly for many months and who has certainly been on the telephone during the weekend and the last two days to bring about this most beneficial result that we have before us today. Some hon. Members: I-Iear, hear! Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): To the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), who led the fight for the Charter of 13202 . COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1931 The Constitution Rights and Freedoms from the beginning, l think all of us owe a debt of gratitude. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): To the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), I think we agree, and so will many of my friends in the New Democratic Party, that he has worked under very difficult circumstances, night and day, with his people to be as constructive as possible to bring this result before us today. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear! Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): With some minor deviations, these congratulations would apply to the entire New Demo- cratic Party and their leader who fought during the months for the entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights. The North- west Territories government people, the executive committee and the assembly, have all been most supportive during the past week, and I think they should also take some real credit in this unique achievement. Perhaps I should now refer to my predecessor minister of Indian affairs who worked so hard all during the constitutional conference to attain this result. I hope that makes the member from Edmonton feel better. An hon. Member: And the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): And, of course, the hon. member for the Yukon. Perhaps I should now refer to my responsibilities for nothern affairs, what this resolution does and what impact it has in that very important area. I want to stress what the earlier and the present version of the resolution has to say about the participation by the territorial government in future constitu- tional discussions. Territorial representatives will be invited to participate in discussions on any item of the agenda of the conference that directly affects the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I-Ion. members will also recall that the resolution has gener- ated some discussion in connection with the application of the Constitution Act to the potential creation of new provinces in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, or the extension of existing provinces into the two territories. As hon. members are aware, this issue is not a new one. For example, the issue concerns the appropriate role of provincial governments in the consideration of the creation 0f>~i5ew provinces and/or in the
extension of existing provinces.
The principal question being asked about the Constitution
Act by many of the people north of 60 is how it applies to
Canada’s territories. The question they are asking is why it
should be necessary to make the federal power to create new
provinces subject to the amending formula. There is also a
concern about the mention in the amending formula of the
power to extend provincial boundaries northward.
The entire assembly of the Northwest Territories came to
Ottawa to express to the Prime Minister, to the Minister of
Justice and to myself their serious concern about this matter
and other matters. We have had extensive meetings to discuss
this matter. The depth of their concern at having provinces
involved in the creation of a province to the north, formerly a
purely federal responsibility, is well understood. It should be
noted, however, that the government leader in the Yukon has
indicated a certain degree of approval of the new provision in
the belief that it is beneficial to have the provinces take the
role in a decision to create provinces in the north.
An hon. Member: Rubbish.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): It was a direct quote and I
shall be pleased to show my hon. friend what he had to say.
Moreover, it has been the federal government’s recent practice
to consult the provinces when considering the creation of new
provinces, in any case. It should be noted that the manner in
which the resolution deals with the possible extension of
existing provinces to the north provides northerners with extra
protection against the eventuality that only the consent of
those provinces that extend their boundaries will be necessary.
In any event, in concluding my remarks I should like to note
especially that native Canadians are gaining mightily from this
recent turn of events. Through their eloquence and their
steadfast insistence they have built on a historical federal
pledge that goes back to the Royal Proclamation of 1763. In
fact, they have turned a legalistic federal obligation for native
people into a national confirmation of their special place in the
consciousness and fabric of Canada
Quite the contrary to what some would suggest, this is not
an erosion of federal obligation. It is an additional confirma-
tion, not once but nine times, that provinces do share in that
Therefore, with great pleasure, Mr. Speaker, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras):
Q (1700)
That the proposed Constitution Act, I981 contained in the motion in the name
of the Minister of Justice (Government Business. Government Motion No. 56),
as primed in the Order Paper of Monday, November 23, 1981, be amended
(a) by adding, immediately after line l9 on page 24 of the Order Paper, the
Recognition 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty
of vxjslms rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are
hereby recognized and affirmed.

November 24, I981 , COMMONS DEBATES 13203
Definition (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of
°l”‘*‘*’°”B‘“a’ Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis
%°;’:!§;.?[ peoples of Canada.
(b) by rcnumbcring the subsequent parts and clauses accordingly.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr.
Munro). Due to some confusion, I should like to ask the
minister for clarification with respect to the word “existing”
which has been added to the original Section 34. Does the
addition of the word “existing” eliminate the aboriginal rights
of Indians or Inuit whose rights at one time were unilaterally
extinguished by legislation of a provincial legislature or of the
federal Parliament? In other words, if a provincial legislature
or the federal Parliament extinguished in a unilateral manner
in years past the aboriginal rights of an Indian band or an
lnuit community, does it mean that those rights no longer exist
and consequently are eliminated from the charter by the
addition of that word?
My second question is a related one. Would the Indian
bands who were not able to exercise their rights because the
white man’s world grew up around them—their cities, facto~
ries and so on——for example, the Musqueam near Vancouver,
lose their rights? Was it considered that the word “existing”
takes away those rights because they have not been able to
exercise them and cannot exercise them today’!
I-Ion. Jean Chrétien (Minister of Justice and Minister of
State for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, I think I should
answer the hon. member‘s question. In fact he is asking for a
legal opinion at this time, and I am not about to give one.
Today the House of Commons is affirming and recognizing
the rights of aboriginal people as they exist. It will be up to the
courts to make a legal interpretation of the facts. The rights of
natives, in the mind of the government, are the rights which
flow from the Royal Proclamation of 1763. It will apply in
Canada because in fact we are recognizing the obligation
which was vested on the Crown at that time by King George ll
or III. It is now recognized as such for the first time in the
Canadian Constitution. It is an affirmation of the rights of
What the courts will decide later on is how they will
implement it in the case where, as the hon. member said, a
town or city was constructed on land which would have
belonged at one time to the natives. Of course this cannot be
redressed by returning that land; in my own judgment I think
the Crown will be obliged to offer other lands or financial
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. I sense
that there may be other hon. members who wish to rise on
points of order or possibly to continue to ask questions. The
House will recognize the custom that hon. members, unless
there is objection, can be recognized under the expression
“point of order” for that purpose, as long as there is time
The Constitution
remaining to the hon. member or minister who had the floor at
the time the points of order or questions began.
Mr. Nielsen: Or by unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Or by unanimous con-
sent. In the circumstances, therefore, until I hear otherwise
from hon. members I will recognize points of order. The time
allotted to the hon. minister was such that his time will expire
at approximately 5.15 o‘clock. If the Chair hears no objection,
points of order in that regard will be recognized.
The hon. member from Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East
on a fresh point of order.
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary ques~
tion. The minister answered the second part of my question
concerning whether the word “existing” would take away
rights which could not be exercised because the white man‘s
community grew up around Indian bands. What about the
first part of my question‘? Would those Indians and Inuit lose
their rights. Would they be considered non-existent if a provin-
cial legislature or the federal Parliament unilaterally extin-
guished their rights by legislation? Would it mean that they do
not exist in terms of the new addition to Section 34? While I
congratulate the minister for bringing back this section we
want to make sure what it says before we give our agreement
to it.
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, l would inform the hon.
member that I have checked with the legal adviser of the
Crown and with some outside counsel yesterday and this
morning. The addition of the word “existing” is absolutely not
changing the substance of what was proposed to the House
previously. Section 35 or the new resolution has the same
meaning, according to the legal advice I received, as the
previous Section 34.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
should like to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development (Mr. Munro) or the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Chrétien) a question. If the inclusion of the word “existing”
really does not change the meaning of Section 35(1) of the
resolution, why was it included?
I should also like to follow up on the question asked by the
hon. member for Notre~Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr.
Allmand) but in a more practical sense. Both gentlemen are
very much aware of this matter, both having been ministers of
Indian affairs. I am referring to the question of the British
Columbia cut-off lands where the legislature, with the consent
of the people of the province and following the recommenda-
tion of a commission, took away certain lands from Indian
people. If we are looking at existing rights, these rights no
longer exist. Would the minister agree with me on that?
Finally, when we go to former acts of 1763 which mainly
dealt with lands, what about native people who aspired to
certain cultural rights or rights to selfldetermination which
would require in some sense self-government? These rights do
not now exist. Will it rule out any opportunity for native

13204 _ COMMONS DEBATES November 24, l98l
The Constitution
people to negotiate certain rights such as cultural rights,
education and self~g0vernment’Z These are the concerns. As we
all know, we are dealing with a very, very serious matter. If so
many rights for native people exist now, why are they in the
position they are in? Why are they so deprived, if they had so
many rights and the government was so compassionate with
them in the past? These questions must be answered.
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is entering
into debate. I should like to answer the first question as to why
it is there. It is because some provinces did not want Section
34 at all. I negotiated with them and on Friday some new
words were proposed by the Alberta government. I talked with
the premier on Sunday and with his ministers on Monday
morning. They asked to make what was implicit explicit, the
word “existing”. If there are rights they must have existed
before, so they asked us to make what was implicit explicit. I
have checked with lawyers and they said it does not change the
substance of what we were doing, In order to have an agree-
ment and not to break the accord, I made that concession
being satisfied, as the Minister of Justice, that we were not
changing the substance of the proposition.
We are back now and what is great is that nine provinces
are part of the accord. They have accepted these words and
they are accepted by the House of Commons. It is a great
achievement because before we were planning to impose it
upon the provinces. Now it is very significant that we have
nine provinces which virtually have exactly the same wording
in the Canadian Constitution.
In terms of the British Columbia land question, I think the
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr.
Munro) could reply, but I could as well because I have been
involved in that matter. We have already settled cases involv-
ing land which had been cut off from Indians in the past. If the
rights were irregularly taken away from the natives, the
recognition that their rights flow from the Royal Proclamation
will give them a stronger case in court than they had before.
Q (1710)
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien). Both he
and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(Mr, Munro) have said quite clearly that the addition of the
word “existing” in Section 34 does not change its impact. They
have said that they make that assertion based on legal advice.
I should like to know whether the minister is going to table
those legal opinions so that the native people of this country
may know the true meaning of Sgction 34 as it is now before
the House. ‘
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the custom of this House is that
when the Minister of Justice stands up in his seat and
expresses an opinion like that, he speaks on behalf of the
government and the legal advisers of the Crown. I do not have
to table a written legal opinion. Most of those legal opinions
have been researched over the weekend by different counsel to
the government. They were all unanimous.
If the hon. member does not want to vote for aboriginal
rights he can vote against the amendment.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, referring to the
question put by my hon. friend on the cut-off claims, as he
may know, there is a sound body of legal opinion that would
cast some very real doubt on the legal validity of the action
taken by the province at that particular time. The province has
met with the federal government and is prepared to make
adjustments in terms of settlements combined with this gov-
ernment, putting in its own resources to rectify what is clearly
felt to be an injustice of the past.
That situation is based on legal views as to improprieties and
disorders in terms of powers exercised by the province in the
past. The manner in which that has been settled stands on its
own merit and, I believe, has been settled to some degree to
the satisfaction of the Indian peoples involved.
As far as the latter part of the hon. member’s question is
concerned, Mr. Speaker, many of the cultural rights, the rights
to self~government and all these matters, have already been
assured to the Indian people. They will be the first items on
the agenda when we discuss matters at the constitutional
I think the hon. member was privy to the many legal
opinions expressed on this historical occasion in this House on
what “aboriginal rights” precisely means now that it is
entrenched. Suffice to say that the opinion is afforded to the
native peoples themselves that it greatly strengthens the basis
of their claims to unique status in Canada and strengthens
them in their desire and aspirations along the lines the hon.
member just referred to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. BIaker): In this rather unofficial
question period, perhaps hon. members might agree if I try to
limit the pointsof order, which is what we are calling them, to
a main point of order and a supplementary. I will recognize
the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James.
Mr. Keeper: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for
the Minister of Justice. He indicated that it is not customary
to table such legal opinions. I would remind him that the
action being taken in this House is unprecedented and that
what we are really dealing with is a question of trust between
peoples. If he were to table those legal opinions on the
meaning of Section 34, it would create a climate of trust.
People would understand clearly what is proposed for
entrenchment in the Constitution. I wonder if the Minister of
Justice would not consider this unprecedented action in light of
the fact that we are dealing with a historically unique
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said that I have received this
legal opinion. The hon. member has to take my word. We
never table legal opinions. In fact, I never received lengthy
legal opinions on that; it was just a word that was added at the
request of the provinces. I asked my legal advisers if it was
changing the meaning of what we were doing and they said it

November 24, 1981 _ COMMONS
was not. I did not have piles of documents. It was just one
word that was implicit and became explicit.
I have checked that with other legal advisers outside the
government in order to satisfy myself. Some were in Toronto
and some were in the west. They indicated they came to the
same conclusion.
This does not call for great research. We are voting a law of
Parliament. It will be for the court to decide if that changes
something. I am satisfied that it does not. I am entrenching in
the Constitution the concept of aboriginal rights. No one is
questioning the wording that we used in the first instance.
In committee we tried to improve many of the words that we
are legislating at this time. The wish of this Parliament is to
entrench in the Constitution the concept of aboriginal rights.
That is clearly stated in the speeches. In the judgment of my
legal advisers the words are satisfactory, and I accept that
legal opinion which has been sustained by others.
I do not have a document to table. I discussed this with my
legal advisers and we even discussed with some lawyers the
possibility of what the court might decide on this and that.
Regarding the charter, the courts may take some decisions
that we will not be completely happy with but we will have the
remedy to change that in this House through the amending
formula. We will have an amending formula in Canada that
will permit this Parliament and the provinces to correct things
if eventually the court decides something contrary to the
wishes of Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Algoma (Mr. Foster) on a point of order, followed by the hon.
member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma): Mr. Speaker. I have a
question for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) which
relates to the operative effectiveness of the amendment relat-
ing to aboriginal rights when it comes into effect, assuming it
is passed by this House and the British House. I ask this
question because a number of court cases have been postponed
since last July or August, awaiting the outcome of the debate
and passage of this constitutional amendment. Could the
minister explain if it is just a case of the House adopting the
resolution here, it being adopted in the U.I(. and then being
proclaimed? Does it become effective at that moment or are
there other delays which would further postpone these pending
court cases?
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speakefi it is up to the parties to a case
to decide to proceed. I presume we will vote in this House very
quickly. The resolution will be passed eventually by England
and when it comes back to Canada it will be proclaimed. The
aboriginal rights of Canada’s first citizens will be in the
Canadian Constitution. It will then be for the parties to decide
how to use it in front of the court. It will strengthen the case of
the natives in front of the Canadian court. We should all be
proud of it.
The Constitution
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) followed by the hon. member for
Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon): Before proceeding to debate, I
presume I would need consent, since we have now gone past
5.15 p.m., Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I should explain to the
hon. member that I was in error earlier. The minister’s time
will expire at 5.25 p.m. If the House wishes to continue with
these so-called points of order, it can do so until 5.25 at which
time I will put to the House the question whether there is
unanimous consent to proceed.
Mr. Nielsen: I have one brief question which should elicit a
very brief answer. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) has
consulted the nine premiers in order to bring this amendment
back into the resolution. That is commendable; that is the way
it should be in our system. He has also consulted with the
elected representatives of the Northwest Territories legislative
assembly. Could I ask if he was thoughtful enough to consult
with the elected representatives of the Yukon legislative
assembly in order to get their input and their approval of what
he is doing today’!
Mr. Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the accord, it
was signed with the nine provinces and the federal govern-
ment. We have not had to consult anybody else in terms of
governments. The Northwest Territories expressed their views
to us and we received them. I have not received any request
personally. I do not know if the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development received some representations from the
Yukon council, but I have not received any communication
from them.
The accord which I am respecting at this time is an accord
signed and agreed upon by the nine provinces and the federal
government on November 5. The agreement of yesterday was
made by me with either the premiers or the attorneys general
of the different provinces on the phone. That was the only
formal communication there was. Their words were good
enough for me, and I guess my words were good enough for
Q (I720)
Mr. Nielsen: Since I did not get a simple answer, may Ijust
put the question abundantly simply and directly in the hope
that I will get a “yes” or “no”. Did the minister consult with
the elected assembly-
Mr. Chrétien: No. I said, “no”.
Mr. Nielsen: —in the Yukon’?
Mr. Chrétien: I said, no, not personally. They did not call
me and I did not call them.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, just to get the
record straight, I think the hon. member should be aware that

13206 . COMMONS DEBATES November 24, I981
The C0nstiluti0n
my office did get advice from the Yukon. I will check as to its
accuracy, but it was advice that was much appreciated and
was that, yes, the leaders of the government of the Yukon were
concerned about and supportive of the entrenchment of
aboriginal rights since these were dropped from the accord.
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East): Mr. Speaker, I have a
short question for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien). I
know he will not be around to answer it, but I want to pose it
so that it is on the record.
First of all, I want to indicate how pleased I am that, indeed,
a new accord has been arrived at concerning this matter. My
question is this: does the insertion or the inclusion of the word
“existing” impose, suggest or include any distinction between
surface land rights and mineral rights, which are generally
well below the surface, particularly on provincial lands involv-
ing the Metis people? Again, I do not expect an answer. Ijust
want to leave the question standing.
Mr. Nielsen: The answer is “no”.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Do you want an answer?
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River): Mr. Speaker, my
question on this particular matter would arise from remarks
made that the possibility of extinguishing or not recognizing
rights which have been extinguished by the legislature, I am
sure, would be an advantage to the province of British
Columbia facing the cut-off problem. The minister said that
negotiations were going on between the Government of
Canada and the government of the province of British
Columbia concerning those cut-off claims. Can the minister
clarify whether those have taken a more progressive turn than
the discussions which have been dragging on for aeons and
whether there is, in fact, some real progress there? If so, could
he tell us what it would be’!
The second question is, what role did the province of British
Columbia play in inserting the word “existing”? I presume
that it would benefit more than any other province in terms of
the present prernier’s attitude toward dealing with cut-offs and
native people.
Mr. Munro (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, with reference
to the latter question the hon. member asked, let me tell him
what the Minister of Justice has already said. The Minister of
Justice was the one who, in his role as the minister responsible
for constitutional discussions, was negotiating on the phone
and talking to all the provinces with respect to trying to find
wording to get the entrenchment of treaty and aboriginal
rights back in the package. Therefore, the question as to what
role B.C. or any particular province played would have to be
directed to him.
Suffice it to say that the legal advice that the Minister of
Justice and I have received states that the insertion of “exist-
ing” in this particular amendment has an identical effect.
There is no change with respect to the effect of this clause with
“existing” in it and the old Section 34 which did not have it. I
am just saying that I am gratified to have been assured on
several occasions during the course of today and late last night
that this, indeed, was the legal view that the Minister of
Justice received and relayed to me.
Concerning the previous question asked by the hon.
member, I can just tell him that where there was past action
taken by provincial legislatures of the type he described in
terms of extinguishing certain rights, and where this was felt
to be improper, either as a result of court action taken or
because of legal views which ministers previous to myself
obtained from the justice department, as a result of discussions
the provinces themselves have come forward with this govern-
ment to endeavour to set in process a means by which we could
receive and obtain a settlement. This, in itself, is indicative of
legal views casting some doubt on the propriety of what was
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. I see that
a considerable number of hon. members are still rising.
I believe the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) is
rising to be recognized by the Speaker, either to take part in
the debate or perhaps on a point of order.
Mr. La Salle: I am rising to take part in the debate, Mr.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): So it is to take part in
the debate—
It is 5.25 p.m. I now have to ask whether there is unanimous
consent that questions be permitted of the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). One pre-
sumes that the time limit on it would be left to the discretion
of the Chair, if that is agreeable.
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Therefore, the question
is whether or not there is unanimous consent to continue a
form of questions and answers with the minister.
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Nielsen: No. We have now had 25 minutes of questions
and answers, and the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle)
would like to have his entire speech on the record before we
break for dinner.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): There is not unanimous
An hon. Member: The Tories said no.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The Chair has been
handed a motion put forth by the hon. Minister for Indian
Affairs and Northern Development. That motion is under
consideration at the moment, but, subject to the caveat of a
later decision respecting its admissibility, the Chair will indi-
cate that debate is acceptable on the motion. Therefore, I do

November 24, 1981 ‘ COMMONS
not think it is necessary to read it at the moment, and I will
recognize the hon. member for Joiiette (Mr. La Salle) once I
have given notice of the questions to be raised tonight on the
adjournment motion at ten o’clock.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): 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 Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)—Actions
of Czechoslovak government affecting Canadian citizens. (b)
Procedures surrounding issuance of Czechoslovakian pass-
ports; the hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher)~—
Airports—-Contract to operate duty free stores at Toronto
International Airport; and the hon. member for Saskatoon
West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Western Development Fund-—Com~
pensation payments to grain growers for embargo on ship~
ments to Russia. (b) Consultation with provincial govern-
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr.
Chrétien on the Constitution of Canada, as amended.
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, the last time I
had the privilege of speaking on this very important subject in
the House was last March. I remember clearly that I asked
Parliament to be careful, to take its time, and I see that today
we are still discussing the same subject———n0t for long, prob-
ably-but I feel that once more I shall have to caution the
members of this House to*b‘eware and take the time to make
sure that all Canadians agree to these so very important
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to speak about a
matter that is very dear to my heart. I am both happy and sad
to talk about the constitutional draft. I am happy because, like
most Quebecers, I thought that at last we would succeed in
achieving constitutional renewal in a way that would be satis-
factory to all Canadians and Qucbecers, and I am sad because
The Constitution
the resolution ignores the eminently relevant recommendations
made by the Pepin-Robarts commission on what has been
commonly called the Canadian reality. In doing so, I feel the
resolution has betrayed the history of Canada and has refused
to recognize the Canadian duality and Quebec’s distinctive
position among the other provinces. A reality that has in fact
been recognized and endorsed by federalists who want fedcral~
ism to have respect for the partners concerned. I have no
intention of giving government members a course in political
science, but I think a country’s basic laws, in other words, its
constitution, should truly and accurately reflect every aspect of
that country, while respecting and entrenching in its clauses
the inalienable rights and freedoms of all citizens. When the
Fathers of Confederation after much pondering gave us the
British North America Act in 1867, they had broadly defined
the basic principles that were to lay the foundation of our
country, namely, duality and the sharing of powers between
two levels of government. That is what has always been
referred to as Canadian federalism. A few years ago, a famous
Canadian said, and I quote:
Federalism is by its very essence a compromise and a pact. It is a compromise
in the sense that when national consensus on all things is not desirable or cannot
readily obtain, the area of consensus is reduced in order that consensus on some
things be reached. it is a pact or quasi-treaty in the sense that the terms of that
compromise cannot be changed unilaterally.
That famous Canadian was none other than the Prime
Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). In his book “Federalism
and the French Canadians”, the same Prime Minister wrote,
and I quote:
The centralists are the ones who should be in a hurry to change the
Q (I730)
In any case, in his book on federalism, the Prime Minister did
not seem to have boundless confidence in constitutional
reforms that are hastily construed in order to solve our prob-
lems. In my opinion, he wrote, it would be an illusion to look
for (a solution) in sweeping constitutional changes.
As for the Charter of Rights, Mr. Speaker, which the present
Prime Minister sees as having exceptional merits, at the time
he did not look on it as a panacea. Legal guarantees by
themselves are far too fragile to ensure the survival of the
French language and culture. And he added the following
sentence which today both he and the members of his party
could usefully ponder over.
People who think such guarantees arc enough may be the most dangerous
enemies of the traditions we wish to safeguard and perpetuate.
Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we are discussing today,
some 114 years after our first Constitution Act. Can the terms
of an agreement be changed without the consent of one of the
parties that was already recognized at the time as one of the
two founding peoples of this country’! It is important that all
Canadians know that Quebecers, as much as the government
they freely elected on April 13 last, object to a breach of

13208 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, I981
The Constitution
agreement that by a stroke of the pen deprives them of any
possibility of a compensating formula, that would allow the
federal government to impinge on a jurisdiction that hereto-
fore had been the exclusive domain of the provinces ever since
We, members from Quebec—and I say we because we sit on
both sides of this House, although not many on this sidevmay
have something in common all the same. And I would like to
remind the Quebecers opposite that under the governments of
Maurice Duplessis, Jean Lesage, Daniel Johnson, Jean-
Jacques Bertrand as well as Robert Bourassa, which was not
so long ago, we all supported those Quebec premiers in dif-
ficult periods and for different reasons, those premiers who
steadfastly defended the educational rights of Quebecers
against any invasion by the federal government. All those
premiers, Mr. Speaker, swore that never would the federal
government infringe on that basic right of Quebecers. As
much for historical and geographical as for linguistic and
cultural reasons, those premiers realized they represented the
people in Quebec. All members from Quebec who sit opposite
today supported, encouraged and applauded as much as I did,
those federalist governments of the province of Quebec, what~
ever their political affiliations. Those Union Nationale and
Liberal governments in Quebec always had a strong sense of
belonging to the Quebec identity, and they never strayed from
I believed, and probably all those hon. members believed in
such a philosophy, and I still do. How can we now betray what
we so steadfastly defended all our lives, Mr. Speaker? I, for
one, have not changed, I have respected and still respect my
Quebec origin and that philosophy that was not incompatible
with the national objective pursued by every federal
How can one imagine today, Mr. Speaker, that the objec-
tions of the present Quebec government are sacrilegious, since
we supported the previous premiers for identical reasons, and
we even commended them for their courage in defending
steadfastly the future and the emancipation of the people in
If I may, I would like to recall that when I first came to
Ottawa in I968, I was warned that I would first have to meet
the challenge of convincing my English~speaking colleagues in
the House. I accepted the responsibility to defend my province
honestly and to convince my colleagues that they should
ensure the fundamental rights of my province. I believed then
and I still believe in a federalism respectful of its partners.
What I find embarrassing today, Mr. Speaker, is that, to meet
my basic responsibilities, I have to plead with my French-
speaking colleagues about the issue now before the House in
front of my colleagues from the other provinces. I had never
imagined that this could be possible, especially since the 74
Liberal members from Quebec could have avoided putting
their province in this strait-jacket. Where are they now, these
proud representatives of the people of Quebec in Ottawa? This
is the question now being asked by thousands of Quebecers.
If I may, I would like to take this opportunity to congratu-
late my leader who showed his open-mindedness and his
statesmanship during this debate last Friday when he made an
original and positive contribution in his capacity as Leader of
the Progressive Conservative Party. All the government mem-
bers should read and re-read this speech and many of them
should reflect on their own position instead of trying to ridicule
the comments made by my leader last Friday in this House,
The speech made by the leader of our party is a model of
clarity and understanding during this troubled period of our
history, Mr. Speaker. The Progressive Conservative Party has
moved three amendments of which two have already been
accepted unanimously, and I have every reason to believe that
the Canadian people will be grateful for the leadership shown
not only by my leader, but also by my party concerning the
rights of women and the native people.
I believe that the third amendment will be agreeable to both
the government and the people of Quebec. Last April, the
Quebec government relinquished its veto right in exchange for
a reasonable guarantee of financial compensation if ever they
decided to opt out of a constitutional amendment. We want to
grant this full financial compensation. The day after the
conference, Mr. Ryan, the leader of the Liberal Party in
Quebec, also stated that he would not have signed the accord.
Even Mr. Bourassa, the former premier of Quebec, stated a
few days ago during an open-line program that he would not
have signed the accord either given the conditions that pre-
vailed then. Most of the responsible political observers in
Quebec have come to the same conclusion. They say that the
government’s resolution proposal is even worse than the status
quo. It is clearly a step backwards for Quebec generally. The
federal government cannot claim the right to rewrite our
Constitution without the consent of one of the two founding
peoples, This situation is highly explosive, Mr. Speaker. This
government should relinquish its arrogant and cynical position.
Unfortunately, for several members of this House, Canada is
simply Ottawa. They have forgotten that negotiating in good
faith is the basis of federalism. I very much fear that their
centralizing approach to federalism and narrow view of the
future have made them so blind that they cannot see that they
are dividing rather than uniting Canadians. They are so blind
that they refuse to respect the Canadian fact. I also want to
take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to appeal to the premiers
to ponder a little over the implication of the isolation of
Quebec. And since any appeal to the Prime Minister of
Canada would fall on deaf ears, I wonder if they could not
convince the Prime Minister of Canada to shift his position,
explore possible solutions and try to find one that would be
acceptable for the people of Quebec so that Quebec would
agree to sign this resolution before it is sent to LOnCl0l1.

November 24, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13209
Q (I740)
I seldom have the opportunity to urge the members of
another party to reconsider what they are doing, Mr. Speaker,
but I urge them just the same to dare state the views of
hundreds of thousands of their fellow-citizens who elected
them to represent them with dignity rather than betray them.
They can imagine what they will find to say to justify them-
selves when they face a swarm of furious electors blaming
them for their irresponsibility, their utter lack of respectability
and dignity. It is completely shocking and distressing, Mr.
Speaker, to find that their sense of belonging is no longer
consistent with that of their electors. They are the only ones in
great enough numbers to prevent something irrevocable from
happening. Instead of forcing on Quebec a plan whose terms it
cannot decently accept at present, why does the federal gov-
ernment not allow tempers to cool off, why does it not calm
down and make a final attempt to conclude an honourable
agreement with and for Quebec instead of driving the present
government to something irrevocable and running the risk—
Mr. Tousignant: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Témiscamingue (Mr. Tousignant) on a point of order.
Mr. Tousignant: Could the hon. member for Joliette (Mr.
La Salle) tell us what Mr. Levesque would be ready to accept?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I am sorry, but without
the consent of the hon. member for Joliette, the Chair cannot
accept that intervention as a point of order. The hon. member
for Joliette.
Mr. La Salle: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister
of Canada, in the speech he made in Quebec City, said that
even if his proposal were passed without Quebec’s consent, it
will remain on the table for a future federalist government in
Quebec. If he is consistent, Mr. Speaker, why not wait for that
future federalist government in Quebec, since he has pointed
out that the federal government will maintain its position until
a government agrees to it? We would then see whether or not
a federalist government in Quebec would accept the current
proposal. A little more time will not matter much in the
history of Canada but, at least in the meantime, Quebecers,
even the most nationalist amongst them. will have time to
reflect on such constitutional compromise as might prevent
breaking the federal tie. If thezfederal government persists in
its present approach, I fear it may lead the country headlong
toward a catastrophe of such magnitude that the word “Cana-
da” might within a generation or two become a mere historical
The Quebec government is being blamed for having given up
its traditional veto right as provided for in the amending
formula contained in the April agreement; if, in the eyes of the
Minister of Justice, giving it up is such an infamy, why then,
The Constitution
on his own authority, does he not reinstate it on behalf of
Quebec which he claims to represent even better than the
government of that province itself’? The minister knows that
the loss of the veto right was conditional upon fiscal compensa-
tion. Everyone knows that the notorious veto right is a cause of
tension and disagreement, that it is bound to disappear sooner
or later. In fact, if the veto right is so essential to Quebec, as
the Minister of Justice maintains, why then did he not use it
during the night of November 5 and demand that the approval
of Quebec be an essential condition of the agreement? How
could I possibly support the present resolution when it grants
one province the right to opt out of a constitutional amend-
ment without financial compensation, except in the case of
linguistic and cultural programs’? To begin with, where do the
boundaries lie between cultural, social and economic matters?
In fact, do they not overlap? Where are the limits of each to be
drawn? Those are some of the problems the courts will eventu-
ally have to solve, But one point is more important still. Since
when can one be penalized for exercising a right the Constitu-
tion has recognized for I14 years? The right to opt out with
financial compensation, the terms of which would be agreed
upon by the parties, must not be weakened. Otherwise, no
province, and not only Quebec, would ever be able to develop
integrated policies either in the area of social security or even
its own economy planning. The Prime Minister acts as though
he were afraid some rich province might, at the expense of the
poorer ones, opt out of a new federal program and use the
accrued funds to serve its own selfish ends. The Prime Minsit-
er does not seem to trust the fair play and common sense of his
provincial counterparts. Why does he not think of the unfair
burden he would impose on a poor province which, for what-
ever reason, could not accept the new constitutional
The right to opt out without full financial compensation and
non obstante clauses is an illusion which may lead us into
centralization and deny the provinces their right to act in their
own jurisdiction in their people‘s best interests. When, on the
morning of November 5, the Prime Minister simply removed
the compensatory clause, his intention was clearly to put
Quebec in chains. The time may come, before long, when other
provinces may find it difficult to bear the iron collar they have
themselves agreed to wear. As to the manpower mobility
clause, it does not take into sufficient account Quebec’s social
and cultural structure. It seems to me that it should be possible
to carry out a more in-depth analysis of its potential effects on
provincial economies, and find ways to give local workers
better protection against a possible massive invasion from
other provinces. I suggest that the provinces’ manpower train-
ing programs and local manpower preference policies should
not be jeopardized, as this would prevent local workers from
finding employment or developing new skills while workers
from other provinces would take over their jobs.

13210 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES November 24, I981
The Constitution
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) rises on a point of order.
Mr. Maltais: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the statements by
the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) concerning mobil—
ity, perhaps I should again mention Mr. Brian Mulroney who
took advantage of a mobility program to help the Iron Ore
Company workers he had laid off.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. BIaker): Order, please. I have the
same difficulty I experienced a moment earlier. This is not a
point of order. If the hon. member for Manicouagan wants to
debate a point with the hon. member, that is something
different, but certainly not a point of order. Is the hon.
member rising on a point of order?
Mr. Maltais: When the hon. member for Joliette states that
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. I can quite
understand that the hon. member for Manicouagan would like
to ask a question. The hon. member for Joliette has the floor.
Mr. La Sallez If the hon. member for Manicouagan (Mr.
Maltais) has anything to say, he will have an opportunity to do
so. We still have two or three days left for this debate. When
he talks about lost jobs, I would say that I recall when I
arrived here in I968 there were 300,000 people unemployed
but we now have 1,300,000 of them and the Liberal govern-
ment was in office during all that time except for eight
months. I therefore leave the hon. member for Manicouagan
to reflect upon the administration of the last 14 years. Here
again, Mr. Speaker, any hurrying up can only be dangerous
for the unity of the country and the legitimate aspirations of
Quebecers who are anxious to find a job in their own province.
Knowing their openmindedness, I do not believe that the
people‘s protest-—because as we all know in Quebec the gov-
ernment is not the only one who has voiced objections—-stems
from the fear of being invaded by English-speaking workers.
There has to be a limit to what you can try to get people to
Mr. Speaker, I have said how I feel about the government’s
constitutional project. I do not like the fact that it was hastily
thrown together over Quebec’s objections and without due
regard for the basic duality of our country. Nor do I like the
haste with which the government wants to force it upon us,
and I strongly urge the government to continue negotiations
with Quebec which might lead to’a satisfactory arrangement
for both governments. Today, of course, the Liberal majority
may very well flash a smile of victory, and insult and deride
the Quebec government, but the people of Quebec will have
the final say. This government’s moment of triumph might be
very short indeed. Let’s not forget that Canada cannot exist
without Quebec, the worthy representative of the French~
speaking founders of this country. Hastily sending a document
to London over the head of Quebec may very well cause a
ground swell which is likely to destroy any hope for a renewal
of Canadian federalism, as envisaged by the Pepin-Robarts
Task Force.
Q (I750)
I find it rather strange in fact that we never hear of that
report now that one of the co-chairmen of that commission sits
in the House. I-Ias he forgotten about it? That is impossible.
Would the members from Quebec have forgotten this near
masterpiece of understanding and the seeds of harmony that it
contained? I think it would have been wise to fouder somewhat
longer upon the very important recommendations of that
report. I believe that study reflected, like no other study before
it, a Canadian entity and contained recommendations relevant
to any constitutional reform. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the
Quebec membership, especially those who sit in cabinet–and
I clearly remember that some cabinet members proudly spoke
up for the right, for instance, of air traffic controllers to use
French—in particular of the minister now responsible for
Quebec and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion
(Mr, De Bané)—-
Miss Begin: Bravo!
Mr. La Salle: who would wave the Canadian flag while
speaking up for the air traffic controllers’ right to use French.
So perhaps I could call on those two members of cabinet today
and ask them to pressure the government into continuing and
increasing its efforts—
Mr. Rossi: What about Stewart!
Mr. La Salle: —so that Quebec can be party to this
consensus and can sign this accord. And I warn all those who
are listening to us today not to think that we are going to solve
the problem and achieve unity or national harmony without
Quebec. Those who wish to ignore Quebec’s importance and
special status within Canada can expect rough times ahead. I
do trust that all hon. members from Quebec will seriously
consider the matter. Not only can I speak to other members
from Quebec, but I can do so in great seriousness because I
know that they realize the big gap which results from Quebec’s
exclusion from this accord.
An hon. Member: What about Stewart!
Mr. La Sallez I know that they realize how big this gap is
and I hope that as a result of these comments and speeches-
and I call upon them to try to speed up the process—~Quebec
can be party to this accord. I also hope that no resolution will
be sent to London without Quebec because otherwise the
problem will remain unsolved. That is why I am urging
French-speaking members to make their English-speaking col~
leagues truly aware of the situation. We know that opinions
are split. Quebecers, like many other Canadians, are sick and
tired of hearing about constitutional reform, yet this remains

November 24, l98l ‘ COMMONS
an important and crucial matter. I do hope that my appeal will
not be in vain, because I do so with the best intentions in the
world, Mr. Speaker, despite the rumbles from the other side. It
is not the first time I have heard that. But I do think that I can
convince members opposite and I am doing so with the best
intentions and the best will in the world. And I would be the
happiest man in the world, Mr. Speaker, if Quebec succeeded
in presenting valid arguments and in having sufficiently suc-
cessful negotiations to sign this agreement so that we could
speak ofa true federalism which respects now, and will respect
in the future, the ten provinces which make up this country.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution was to be approved without
including the rights which would show respect for the identity
of the Quebec people. I suggest that our children and their
children remembering the heritage we have left them, which
was wanting in so many ways, will perhaps be ashamed to be
Canadian. However there is still time to go back to the basic
principles of federalism. There is still time to do so, Mr.
Speaker! I have heard such stupid statements for the past l4
years in this regard, Mr. Speaker. However, I am patient and I
still believe that most members of this House are responsible
people, that there is still time to go back to basic principles and
to find solutions which will make anyone proud to sing: “O
Canada, terre dc nos aieux. .. Ta valeur, de foi trempée,
protégera nosfoyers er nos droits”, including those of Quebec!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Manicouagan (Mr. Maltais) on a point of order.
Mr. Maltais: Would the hon. member for Joliette accept a
few questions following the statements he just made?
Mr. La Salle: No! My colleague has more interesting things
to say.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The Chair will recognize
the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in
a moment. Earlier I indicated that the admissibility of the
motion put by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development (Mr. Munro) would be considered. That has
been done, and it is the decision of the Chair that his motion is
admissible. The motion having been found to be in order,
debate is accordingly in order.
The Chair has recognized the Minister of National Health
and Welfare who, with the cprisent of hon. members, may wish
to call it six o’clock. ‘
Hon. Monique Bégin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Mr. Speaker, indeed I would like to do like several
short-sighted members and not see the time on the clock, but I
want first to address the hon. member for Joliette who has just
spoken some rather cutting words in the House, and who said
hardly five minutes ago, and I will quote him to the best of my
The Constitution
ability: “Let’s not forget that Canada cannot exist without
I think this is indeed true. As a Quebecer, I know full well,
like all my colleagues in this House, that it is true. However, I
would rather he had added the other part of the premise
without which the country cannot exist. He took great care to
omit other part of the premise, but it would have been more
honest to say that, on the other hand, Quebec has no future
outside Canada. This is the great difference that throws a new
light on this debate.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
Joliette on a point of order.
Mr. La Salle: I would like to remind the hon. minister that I
indeed said in my speech that I still believe in a federalism
respectful of its partners, that is the provinces. This is what I
actually said, as will be seen in tomorrow’s Hansard. I still
believe in a federalism respectful of its provincial partners.
Miss Bégin: I call it six o’clock Mr. Speaker, and will
proceed when the sitting resumes at eight o‘clock,
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): It being six o’clock, I do
now leave the chair until eight o’clock this evening.
At 5.58 p.m. the House took recess. –
The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. BIaker): Order, please. When the
House rose at six o’clock, the Minister of National Health and
Welfare (Miss Begin) had the floor.
Miss Bégin: Mr. Speaker, Saturday morning when I was
preparing my speech for the House, some Jehovah’s Witnesses
rang my doorbell, to talk about their faith and leave some
religious pamphlets. It made me think of Duplessis and the
unfair lawsuits he brought against them, at a time when I was
a young teacher in one of the provinces, my own province
which was then Catholic, monolithic and intolerant of the
beliefs of others. I was reminded of the padlock law, the
Roncarelli case and also the landmark decision handed down
by Justice Ivan Rand. All this was only 25 years ago, In
looking back on this arduous struggle for basic freedoms,
freedom of expression and freedom of religion, my intention is
not to pass judgment on my own province, certainly not.
Everywhere in Canada, in small communities and in large
cities, and even in big government, we have been guilty of

DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
attacking or limiting freedoms and rights. History is full of
May I be ‘permitted, in lieu of illustrations, simply to read
the chapter headings in Mr. Justice Thomas Berger’s newly
released book “Fragile Freedoms: Human Rights and Dissent
in Canada”. They read like this: The Acadians: Expulsion and
Return; Louis Riel and the New Nation; Laurier and the
Separate Schools; The Banished Canadians: Mackenzie King
and the Japanese Canadians; The Communist Party and the
Limits of Dissent; Jehovah’s Witnesses: Church, State and
Religious Dissent; October 1970; the Nishga Indians and
Aboriginal Rights.
We can all remember many other cases where society as a
whole would not leave any space for a weaker group or
individual that became threatening just because he or she was
Nothing illustrates better the deeply rooted intolerance that
all of us must keep fighting than the childhood souvenir in
NDG Montreal where we landed at the end of the war when
my family immigrated to Canada in the heart of the winter.
We used to wear knee high heavy wool stockings sent to us by
my Belgian grandmother instead of the long, ugly, drab
Canadian stockings of the little Canadian girls. During the
night charitable societies, which I will not name, used to leave
boxes of Canadian clothes, and insulting letters to my parents
because allegedly they were not raising us properly, That was
done simply because we were different.
That is only a minuscule example. I could give numerous
examples of the discrimination, often subtle, suffered by all
those who came from elsewhere or who were born of families
who had been here for centuries but were different. We were
threatening to the surrounding milieu, its values, beliefs and
lifestyles. However, because there have always been voices to
raise doubts and push for safeguards, slowly but constantly our
institutions have adapted to protect the members of the very
distinct societies which form Canada today.
All these events involving minorities may seem very remote
from us, from the majority of Quebecers and Canadians.
These people may look to us as society’s dropouts and they
may irritate us because they are different. However, it is
exactly because they are not like most of us that we must
protect their rights, and paradoxically, by being able to protect
their rights we are guaranteeing our integrity and democracy.
Some day, somewhere, we shall be the ones who are different
and who want to see our rights and freedoms protected. I
would like to end with these words by John F. Kennedy:
“When the rights of one man are diminished, the rights of
every man are threatened“.
Q (2010)
In the view of many the Canadian people actually enjoy a
good many rights and all those constitutional conferences are a
waste of time. You often hear people saying that the charter is
no use at all. It is true that in Canada, we have enjoyed basic
freedoms and equal rights in varying degrees for decades now.
It is a fact that the charter cannot “give” us our rights: these
are granted by society. But by entrenching them in the consti~
tution, the charter will protect them forever, because nothing
is more fragile than a right and nothing is more vulnerable
than freedom. In the section of the newspapers dealing with
international news, numerous are the cases of intolerance and
oppression. For instance, the problem of refugees and migrants
which has now become worldwide, should make us appreciate
how lucky we are in Canada. Therefore, ‘Mr. Speaker, I can
say that I am truly happy today to see our rights as citizens,
rights that are new and not so new, that were more or less
guaranteed and familiar and not so familiar, entrenched in the
Constitution of Canada.
In endless discussions on the Constitution which we have
with one another, at least in Quebec at the present time, there
is always some relative, friend or neighbour who will come out
with the statement that it was unnecessary to go to all this
trouble because at any rate we have had these rights for a long
time, and we are not getting anything more. I would like to say
to these people who usually, in the same breath, accuse the
federal government of not preserving symbols that are dear to
us Quebecers that the most important aspect of the rights now
entrenched in the Constitution is their importance as symbols
and how they are perceived by people. I would say, walk down
Jean-Talon in little Italy in the east end of Montreal or go to
the Haitian fruit or fish market in St. Leonard or attend a
meeting of Moroccan Jews at Cote-des-Neiges or talk to
Ukrainian senior citizens in Rosemont, there you will sense the
immense pride and the feeling of security the Charter of
Rights has given these new Canadians, the fact that these
rights apply to them and to their family forever, and that
discrimination against them, in any form, because they speak
Creole, because they are black or because they came from
another country and are different from the majority, will no
longer be tolerated.
Of course everything is not perfect, and it is with perhaps a
broken heart the other night that I had to say to a group of
Canadians of Italian descent in my constituency that we could
not give them back the right to choose the language in which
their children will be educated. And I attempted once more to
explain the point of view of one group to another group, the
feelings of Quebecers who see their survival threatened by
immigrants who have no difficulty speaking French anyway,
but cannot get to learn English without schools, and who do
not want to deprive their children from opportunities in the
continent they chose. Of course, the provincial government

November 24, I981 COMMONS
DEBATES l 3213
could easily decide to make excellent English courses compul-
sory in every school, but that is another matter. Once more I
tried to explain to them that even though we are culturally
very healthy even though Quebec society has reached a critical
point where its survival has not been endangered for quite
some time, the feeling of insecurity still remains. That is why
the entire population in Quebec wanted to give themselves the
tools to ensure that the main centre of French culture in
America will have all the odds in its favour. And this is indeed
recognized by our new Constitution.
People in Quebec are often concerned right now. They ask
us: “Did you deprive us of our Bill 101? “No, we decided to
respect Bill I01 in order to maintain social peace in Quebec.
All the provisions of the existing Bill l0l—the predominantly
French schools, French as a working language, posting in
French, business in French, etc., all this remains. We propose
one amendment only, in fact we change one single word, and
anyway all Quebecers recognize this as simple justice. We
have the Canada clause instead of the Quebec clause. But
what does this mean’! It means that we want to give English-
speaking Canadians from other provinces the right to go on
sending their children to English schools in Quebec. Will the
opposite be possible? Yes, French-speaking Quebecers who go
and work outside Quebec where there is a sufficient number of
people to warrant French schools will be given that right
throughout Canada by the Constitution.
All nine provinces signed that agreement and they cannot
even temporarily opt out, because by passing Bill 101, Quebec
chose a kind of community, likewise the Canada clause means
a choice of community. As long as Quebecers have decided to
be part of a larger unit, as long as their country is Canada, it
logically follows that they can enjoy every benefit such as
mobility anywhere in Canada. Being part of Canada means,
for example, that their young people can go and look for a job
in any province, gain some experience for a few years and
return to Quebec without being penalized.
If we take, for example, the Common Market, which the
péquistes like to refer to, we see that the mobility of goods and
individuals is totally unhampered among member countries
and is benefical to everyone. The Canada clause merely consti-
tutionalizes the benefits Quebecers can enjoy as Canadians.
For example, no thought has been given during the four or five
past years to some 300,000 Quebecers, many of them French-
speaking, who went to work outside their native province, most
likely in Alberta.
Are we to infer from the temporary migration of Quebecers
to areas of economic growth that Canadians from other prov-
inces, mostly English-speaking Canadians, will come and steal
our jobs in James Bay, in construction projects, in the Bom-
bardier plants or the F-18 program? However weird that
assumption, the fact is that the Parti Québécois has deluded
some people into believing that the Constitution would invali-
date all proficiency cards delivered by corporations and trades
The Constitution
and that Quebec would be invaded by outsiders. This is false.
All provincial regulations, all established procedures will still
be enforced by the same people. It is spelled out in the
Constitution. Any Canadian can earn his living in the province
of his choice, provided that he abide by its laws and customs.
For example, if that province is suffering from too high a level
of unemployment, it will be entitled, Quebec included, to carry
out special programs to protect and encourage its own under-
privileged groups.
Now, what about the million francophones outside Quebec,
to whom we attach so little importance, amongst Quebecers‘?
Where do they fit into all this? Our brothers and sisters, from
Acadia, Ontario, British Columbia, which we were the ones to
discover? Those francophones outside Quebec, those million
francophones are the very foundation of the communities
scattered about in English Canada that will enable families
from Quebec who are transferred by their companies to Van-
couver, Edmonton, Calgary, or Toronto to get the benefit of
French schooling for their children. In fact, for the very first
time, those francophones see their right to French education
becoming an inalienable right: thus, they will no longer be
treated as hostages by their politicians. Of course, this is just a
beginning, but I hope that in the very near future Ontario will
recognize the rights of its French minority in its legislative
assembly, its courts, its administrative agencies, rights which
are already beginning to be recognized in practice.
Q (2020)
Let me note how gauche and damaging to understanding
and respect for us all, French-speaking and English~speaking
Canadians, were the letters and statements released by
Premier Davis this weekend. It is unacceptable for political
leaders to speak out of both sides of their mouths on such
sensitive issues.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Bégin: I believe that the final issue which concerns
Quebecers is whether their future will be protected when other
amendments are made to the Constitution. Speaking about the
new rules of the game to amend the Constitution leads us of
course to talk about the issue of the veto right. The Quebec
Premier himself, Mr. Levesque, had agreed to an amending
formula without any veto right for Quebec when he signed the
St. Andrews declaration on April l6, 1981. As a Quebecer, I
believe that Mr. Levesque should never have relinquished
Quebec’s veto right as proposed by Prime Minister Trudeau in
the Victoria Formula in 1971. However, if we look at this issue
soberly and ask ourselves when the veto right is essential, we
have to conclude that it is critical when it concerns the special
position of Quebec, what makes Quebec different, namely, its
language and its culture. However, with the amendment wrest-
ed by the 74 members of the Quebec caucus in Ottawa on

DEBATES November 24, I981
The Constitution
behalf of those who elected them, Quebec will now be able to
receive if it so desires full fiscal or financial compensation for
any future constitutional amendment concerning educational
or cultural affairs it is not interested in implementing, which
means that Quebec would remain autonomous in these key
Up to this point, I have spoken at length about the Constitu-
tion as a whole. I have spoken about the Constitution as it
concerns Quebecers, and in this regard, I can assure my
fellow-Quebecers who four times in a row have elected me to
this House that, like dozens of us, I shall always be able to
confirm that the Constitution is something good and that it
takes away none of Quebec‘s powers while guaranteeing
enough rights for any one of us to say out loud and without
any hesitation: “Yes, it was worth it!”
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Miss Bégin: Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I also believe that
it may be just as important to ask ourselves this question: Why
should Mrs. Langelier or Mr. Desir or Mr. Vaccaro be inter-
ested in the Constitution‘? Is there a reasonable chance that
some aspect of the Constitution will affect them directly at
some time in their life? The answer is yes. In the long list of
individual equal rights now being entrenched in the Constitu-
tion and which it is of course impossible to summarize here,
the following examples may be mentioned: women will be able
to claim not only equal pay for equal work, but also equal
rights to pension and fringe benefits anywhere in Canada and
whoever their employer is.
A handicapped person will never again be denied employ-
ment simply because he or she is in a wheelchair, walks with
difficulty or does not communicate the way most people do.
That reminds me of someone who came to see my colleague,
the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal),
someone who was slightly mentally retarded and who wanted a
daycare job with a school board. She has just been told: Don‘t
try to get a job, go on welfare instead. That is the kind of
situation which will no longer be tolerated because that is
outright discrimination.
Or again take the case of a man or a woman, say Sl years of
age, who will no longer be legally turned down for employment
when applying for employment with a company or at our own
manpower centres anywhere in Canada simply because he or
she is too old. That type of discrimination on the part of
employers will henceforth be banned under the Constitution,
That provision goes even further because any employer,
including the federal or provincial governments, may imple-
ment special employmcnt programs giving priority to such
people over other applicants so as to redress past injustices.
Similarly, wherever he or she may work, an employee will no
longer be subject to be laid off simply because he or she is 58,
60 or 65 years old. Age discrimination at the time of retire-
ment will no longcr be allowed in Canada. Of course, I have
not mentioned the case of native women who will be able to
recover their Indian status they had forsaken by marrying a
non—Indian and return to the reserve with their children.
I have directed most of my comments to the people of the
Montreal riding of Saint-Leonard-Anjou who elected me to
represent them in the House of Commons. But I think the
House will agree that the people of Saint-Léonard-Anjou have
many characteristics in common with Canadians from coast to
coast. They or their ancestors came from Italy, Greece, Portu-
gal, France and England, to name only a few of their countries
of origin. Some came 300 years ago, some came three years
ago. Today they are Canadians and Quebecers, they are proud
to be both. No one has asked them to choose between one or
the other; both belong to them. They are proud, just as those
from other provinces in this country are proud of their prov-
inces and of the Canada we all share. In a sense, my constit-
uency is a little Canada. But there are those in my constituen-
cy, as there are in all parts of Canada, who are asking, “Why
all this fuss over the Constitution?” A constitution is the very
fibre which holds the nation together.
I should like to borrow from my colleague the hon. member
for Laurier (Mr. Berger) a wonderful thought which I have
found in a text he has just devoted to the Canadian Constitu-
tion. I quote:
Each time the rights of a Canadian are infringed upon, the social fiber of the
whole nation deteriorates a little.
A constitution defines the responsibilities of governments, it
guarantees the rights of individuals, and it establishes the
ground rules for nationhood. By having our own Constitution
after 114 years, Canadians together will be able to define the
kind of Canada we want. We will become masters of our own
We owe this to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Tru-
deau) and to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) who have
put all their heart, intelligence and determination into some-
thing which I dare call an act of civilization. We owe this also
to their officials, to the new Minister of State who is sitting
beside me this evening, and to a number of provincial repre-
sentatives who had faith in something. Now we owe this
directly to the Canadian people and especially to the Indians
and Inuit. We owe this finally to the Canadian women, and I
know that I will not surprise anyone when I say that there are
now Mothers of Confederation. The hon. minister from Nickel
Belt (Mrs. Erola) is one of them. Our children will appreciate
But there remains a sour note, and it is Mr. Lévesque’s
refusal to negotiate, when Quebecers insist the discussions be
resumed and a possible agreement be sought. I could not
conclude, therefore, other than by saying that as a native
Quebecer and a Quebecer for ever, I hope the Quebec govern-
ment will agree to represent our interests and reopen the
dialogue. And as they are currently saying in their own
advertising campaign: “Now is the time to talkl”.

November 24, 1981 COMMONS
Q (2030)
Hon. Ray I-Inatyshyn (Saskatoon West): Mr. Speaker, I
welcome the opportunity to participate in this historic debate
this evening on a resolution that will have a profound effect on
shaping this nation’s written Constitution. It is a resolution
which will affect the very nature of confederation as we have
known it.
By way of preface to my remarks I want to hark back to the
proceedings this afternoon in order to underline some of the
points that I want to make tonight, The Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) rose in his
place and presented an amendment to the resolution which will
now include the so-called existing rights of the aboriginal
peoples of this country. Following the introduction of the
amendment, a number of questions were posed in a sort of
mini-question period by members on both sides of the House
with respect to the meaning and the full extent of the motion.
To put the response of the Minister of Indian Affairs and
Northern Development and the Minister of Justice (Mr.
Chrétien) in simple terms, it was to the effect that this would
give full protection to the aboriginal peoples of our country;
that we were not to be concerned with the terminology because
the Minister of Justice had telephoned a number of lawyers on
the weekend and had received legal opinions to the effect that
the rights of the aboriginal peoples would be protected by the
wording of the amendment.
When the minister was not prepared to explain the legal
basis upon which he was proceeding but simply said that he
had advice to that effect, I asked myself if this was not a crazy
way to build a constitution.
I am one who has been disturbed by the nature of the
so-called constitutional renewal process undertaken by this
government. The entire country has been ordered out on a
forced march designed to achieve the Prime Minister’s (Mr.
Trudeau) personal objectives. It is a march that has to date
imposed great costs on the country, and the journey is by no
means over.
The Prime Minister’s obsession with deadlines and with
hasty progress in this whole matter, concerns me greatly. Lord
Randolph Churchill once described Gladstone as “an old man
in a hurry” in relation to his tactics in trying to ram through a
proposal for home rule for Ireland. We have our own “old man
in a hurry” in this country——the right hon. gentleman who now
occupies the chair of Prime Minister.
A constitution or a constitutional document is not just any
other statute. It is the embodiment ofa fundamental consensus
on the rules under which a country should govern itself. That
consensus cannot be created by a decreee from on high or by
the stroke of a pen; it must be developed through long and
careful debate at all levels of the national community. It is
The Constitution
certainly not something that magically appears at the appro-
priate spot in a script written in the Prime Minister’s office.
Senator Forsey, with his characteristic flair, has said that a
constitution is:
Like a marriage—in the words of the Anglican prayer book, “Not by any to
be cnterprised, nor taken in hand, inadvertently, lightly or wantonly… but
rcvcrently, discreetly, advisedly, soberly and in the fear of God.”
This government has clearly not given credence to Prime
Minister Pearson’s advice that “the most delicate of all ques~
tion” should be the way in which the balance within a federal
system is altered. Rather than attempt to encourage a full and
wide-ranging debate on the proposals before us, the govern-
ment and the Prime Minister have systematically attempted to
minimize public debate and ram their proposals through Par-
liament as quickly as possible.
The litany of their sins is well known to us all—a $6 million
advertising campaign to set the stage; the use of closure to
force the resolution to committee; a refusal to allow the
committee to travel; fierce opposition to television and radio
coverage of the committee proceedings; an initial reporting
deadline that would have effectively made a complete farce of
the hearings; an extended reporting date that still obliged the
committee to work at a back-breaking pace and that gave little
time for sober reflection; severe limitation on the number of
expert witnesses who were allowed to speak to the committee;
a series of “less than candid” representations as to the nature
of the British commitments, and, after the historic Supreme
Court decision, a first ministers’ conference that was faced
with too much haste and too many deadlines, designing a
document that will shape the lives of Canadians for years to
We have seen the same government that so self-righteously
refused to barter fish for rights, demonstrating an incredible
capacity to play politics with the basic values of our society. In
order to gain support for its initiative, the government initially
refused to consider extending institutional bilingualism to
Ontario. It did a cynical flip~flop on the entrenchment of
property rights in an attempt to keep Premier Blakeney onside.
It bought federal NDP support with promises of expanded
resource jurisdiction for the provinces. It has played politics
with the women’s rights and aboriginal issues as well. The
government negligently refused to take the time to hammer
together a full resolution on these issues—so basic and so
important to those involved—but is quick to point the finger at
the provinces when critics of the accord of November 5 point
out that these aspects are missing. Rather than put it together
through reasonable negotiation with time for sober reflection,
the government deals in timetables measured in hours and in
accusation against any province or individual who fails to
understand or agree completely.
The same can be said for the handling of negotiations with
Quebec. That is a worrisome matter to all in the House, or it
should be. A hasty negotiation purportedly leaves the Quebec
government in isolation. Whether that is in fact the case is not
as important as how the government’s handling of Quebec is
perceived by the people of that province. The Prime Minister,

DEBATES November 24, l98l
The Constitution
in order to placate Quebec, begins to make his piecemeal
compromise~a-day offerings. Negotiations with a province that
has such complex concerns and problems could surely have
been handled on a different timetable, rather than through the
overnight cloak and dagger one-upmanship, engaged in by this
government. The Prime Minister is in such a great hurry that
he is prepared to do anything to speed his mission.
The government’s approach to constitutional revision and
the strategies and tactics it is using to gain its objective carry
with them a number of serious consequences and repercus-
sions. I am afraid that they will be around to plague and haunt
Canadians long after this government and this Prime Minister
have passed from the scene.
First of all, the govcrnment’s initiative has, without ques-
tion, caused very, very serious divisions in our country. These
can only be partially healed by the Accord of November 5 and
the subsequent revision. The lingering suspicions and concerns
of the federal government will remain in the hearts and minds
of Canadians long after this document returns from London.
The government especially runs the risk of providing to the
Party Québécois’ ammunition it could never have assembled
History may view this period_ as a critical turning point in
our search for unity-let us hope people are able to view it as a
time when unity was renewed and not irreparably fractured.
A second consequence of the government’s strategy is simply
this: I am afraid that we will discover that the Charter of
Rights and Freedoms is something less than flawless. In its
frantic work, the joint committee adopted 67 amendmen’ts—an
incredible number for such a relatively short resolution.
We have not had time to fully explore all of the ramifica-
tions of the words before us or to investigate alternative
phrasing and modifications in the content. The committee
heard from few experts and there has simply not been a
wide-ranging or sophisticated public debate about the nuts and
bolts of the package. This is doubly true now that the accord is
to be pushed through the House without committee
Q (2040)
What is the full consequence and effect of the revised
accord, now arrived at, with respect to aboriginal rights? How
will the provisions of Clauses 4l(l)(e) and (f), dealing with
the extension of provincial boundaries into the territories and
the establishment of new provinces, affect that enormous and
important part of our country north of the 60th parallel?
These and many other questions cry out for answers. Many
have commented on the increasingly complex nature of the
document and, in particular, the application of the notwith-
standing or opting-out clause. In my submission, such a mas-
sive change, be it good or bad, needs the thorough consider-
ation of the House, and indeed consideration in committee.
It is not possible to write constitutions to fit a predetermined
deadline. I am prepared to wager that one day the government,
and indeed all of us, will wish that we had heeded the words of
Thomas Jefferson, a truly great constitutional draftsman,
when he said to George Washington that delay is preferable to
There is a third point I wish to make concerning the
govcrnment‘s approach to this matter. I am concerned that, in
its passion to sell a charter of rights and freedoms to Canadi-
ans, the government has created misapprehensions and misun-
derstandings about the effect of an entrenched charter. Much
as I favour an entrenched bill of rights, l do not see it as a
great and shining panacea for the problems of civil rights and
freedoms in this or any other country. I was interested in
listening to the Minister of National Health and Welfare
(Miss Bégin) when she listed the great and glorious things
which would automatically flow by the mere passage of this
particular resolution. We must be careful that we do not lull
the public into a state of complacency by speaking of the
concept of a charter in terms that are too glorifying or too
There are several factors which must be kept in mind. We
must not delude oursleves concerning the power of the courts
to act contrary to the sentiments of the general public. At
some point, a decree from the courts will be simply nullified by
the force of public opposition. For example, in the United
States, there was a violent reaction to the bussing orders which
followed Brown v. the Board of Education. Some American
jurisdictions have flatly refused to comply with the school
prayer decision. The courts simply cannot move too far from
the general views and values of the public.
Even though the Prime Minister appears not to like it, at
least the notwithstanding clause in the resolution recognizes
the reality that the courts are not necessarily more in tune with
public opinion and morals than are legislative bodies. At least
in this country we will have a mechanism for adjusting court
decisions which fall out of step with public opinion. Some may
view this as the chartcr’s downfall; but the argument is that,
particularly in the early years of a charter and because of our
federal nature, we need a route which will allow Parliament
and the provinces to deal with judicial pronouncements with-
out having to resort to a constitutional amendment.
My point is that, important as the entrenched bill of rights
is, let us not woo the Canadian people into believing that it is
the final solution. The price of freedom is vigilance by
individual citizens. We do our country a great disservice by
failing to stress that particular responsibility.
My fourth concern is one relating to the role of the judiciary
in interpreting the new charter. We have a charter which will
affect the lives of all Canadians. A good deal of authority has
now been handed to the courts, authority to determine the
application and parameter of our rights. It will take several
years of litigation before the words of the charter will have full
discussion and are given a certain meaning. We have, however,
a bench that is trained in the common law practice of relying
on precedent to reach a decision. Now, however, judges will be
called upon to rule on every aspect of social and political life in
a sweeping fashion. They will be called upon to make these
vast pronouncements with major sociological and political

November 24, 1981 COMMONS
Canadians will be faced with a judiciary which will be
obliged to exercise a quasi-legislative role in interpreting the
new Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We will soon realize
that the composition of the courts and the political and social
beliefs of our judges will be an extremely important factor in
the determination of the rights and prerogatives of citizens and
institutions in the country. Indeed, the power of appointment
of judges from time to time will be of immense importance in
the ultimate determination and interpretation of fundamental
rights in Canada.
My final concern is of a technical nature. I would ask the
government to consider for a moment an argument put for-
ward by several legal scholars concerning the possible legisla-
tive frailty of the resolution. It is argued that this legislation
could still be challenged in the Supreme Court of Canada as it
is not truly an amendment to the British North America Acts,
1867 to 1930 but, rather, a brand new act. As we are aware,
the original British North America Act contained no provision
for amendment. Convention after I895 dictated that change to
the Constitution would be made by the British parliament to
Her Majesty on a joint resolution of the Canadian House of
Commons and the Senate. In 1931, the British parliament, by
the Statute of Westminster, relinquished its power to legislate
for Canada, with certain specific exceptions. First of all, under
Section 7(1) it could legislate with respect to the repeal,
amendment or alteration of the British North America Acts,
I867 to 1930; second, by Section 4, the British parliament
could legislate for Canada if requested and consented to by
The first problem is that this may not be an amendment or
alteration required by the Statute of Westminster. When one
looks at the form which the resolution takes, it is clear that
this is a brand new enactment. It is not styled as an amend-
ment to the specific acts of 1867 to I930 but, rather, styled as
a new act with incidental amendments to those acts. The
Supreme Court of Canada could conceivably strike most of the
legislation on this basis. The government would then say, if
this be the case, that it could still rely on Section 4, which
allows Britain to legislate for Canada if the legislation is
requested and consented to by the Canadian Parliament.
The problem here is that if the legislation falls under
Section 4 rather than Section 7(1), it could be repealed by
Parliament or the legislatures in those areas where it has
legislative competence. Therefore, depending on the interpre-
tation given to those sections, portions of the Constitution
could conceivably be struck out as being outside the legislative
competence of the British parliament as it affects Canada or,
if saved by Section 4, be then subject to repeal by Parliament
or the legislatures. Without doubt, this would be just the tool
Mr. Levesque is seeking. Therefore, in all seriousness, I cau-
tion the govcrnment and ask it to give serious consideration to
this question of the form of the resolution.
I have listened to many hon. members speak on the govern-
ment side, and particularly the Minister of National Health
and Welfare. I have listened to a long list of wrongs which
will, in fact, be cured by this new Constitution and this new
The Constitution
charter. I note that in each of these instances, reference was
made to many of the contraventions of human rights and civil
liberties which have taken place in governments other than the
federal government. However, I now wish to deal with another
aspect of the way in which the government has conducted itself
during the past few months.
Miss Begin: You didn‘t listen.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: I listened and I heard——
Miss Bégin: Read the speech tomorrow.
Mr. Hnatyshyn: —only the most casual reference to govern-
ment in a general sense. I listened with great interest and I will
read with great interest the minister’s remarks.
During these past few months and years, we have seen the
government championing civil rights and personal freedoms. I
have sat in the House and watched hon. members on the other
side, particularly the Prime Minister, label opponents of this
particular resolution as people who hate Liberals more than
they love freedom. The imposition of a charter of rights on the
provinces has somehow become a crusade against infidels who
cannot be trusted to protect freedom within their own bound-
aries and within their own spheres or jurisdictions.
Q (2050)
However, it must be pointed out that while the government
may paint itself lily white, we on this side of the House know,
as do many, many Canadians, that its closets are crammed
with skeletons. The government is guilty of both non-feasance
and malfeasance in dealing with the issue of human rights.
Although the government and the Prime Minister have been in
a position for years to do a great many of the things they now
push so urgently and so righteously, they have done nothing.
Let me point out some examples of what I mean. The
Liberals have been in a position for over a decade to strength-
en Mr. Diefenbaker’s Bill of Rights. A few simple amend-
ments by ordinary statute could have given it some real teeth
and done much to halt the retreat from the Drybones decision.
The government has done absolutely nothing in that regard.
We should note too that the greatest violation of civil
liberties in recent times took place at the instigation of the
Liberal government during the October crisis of I970. The
same Prime Minister who invoked the War Measures Act, now
styles himself as a white knight, duty bound to impose a
charter on the provinces. The governments own backyard is
not a very happy sight.
The provisions of the Indian Act, which discriminate bla-
tantly on the basis of sex by providing that an Indian woman
who marries a white man loses her Indian status, has been
allowed to stand by the government. A simple amendment by
ordinary statute could have corrected this great injustice, but
nothing was done. Indeed, the government sent its own lawyers
to the Supreme Court in 1973 to argue that this outrageous
provision should not be struck down by the court.

13218 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
The list of similar situations is a long one. Let me just point
out a couple of examples. In a decision called Hogan v. the
Queen in 1974 the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of a
breathalyser test obtained in violation of an accused’s right to
counsel was admissible at trial. In a similar vein, Canadian
courts have consistently held that illegally obtained evidence is
admissible. Although the government has for many years been
able to provide that such evidence should be inadmissible, it
has done nothing. Although a simple amendment to the Crimi-
nal Code or the Canada Evidence Act could have given judges
the power to exclude illegally obtained evidence, and although
such changes have been called for from many quarters, it has
only been in the last few months that our government has
become the champion of that concept.
The government has been neglectful of the needs of the
handicapped. Amendments should be introduced by the gov-
ernment to the human rights code in keeping with the recom-
mendations of the special committee on the disabled and the
handicapped. Such legislation would be met with enormous
goodwill on this side of the House. Some provisions with
respect to the Canadian Human Rights Act were promised in
the Speech from the Throne some two years ago. The govern-
ment House leader has been advised of the willingness on our
part to let this legislation be brought forward and dealt with
expeditiously, yet no legislation has been brought forward, and
the ones to suffer for it are the thousands of mentally and
physically handicapped Canadians. In this international year
of the handicapped person, the government sits mute with
regard to this particular legislation, legislation which would be
tangible evidence of its commitment to human rights.
Another example, one that is currently in the -news, and one
which I find particularly difficult to understand, is that of the
current Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) day in and day out
advocating the lifting of the moratorium on the issuance of
writs of assistance. How can a government minister who
advocates this drastic measure stand behind a resolution call-
ing for the right of everyone to be secure from unreasonable
search or seizure?
These writs have been banned in Britain and they have been
prohibited in the United States of America by the bill of
rights. An officer having such a writ in his possession may
barge into any home he believes may contain prohibited goods.
No justification is required by any judge, and no special
permission is required under this writ. It is an ongoing writ
without any time limitation. I have submitted to this House
and to the government on different occasions that this is
totally undesirable, and the practice should be banned.
Another example of current government thinking with
respect to fundamental principles of justice in this country is
that the government has now issued an emergency planning
order providing the various ministries with authority to plan
for the placing of virtually every facet of the public and private
sector at their disposal should an emergency occur. l-Iowever,
the ministers make all their plans without one piece of en-
abling legislation. They make these plans not for a situation in
which war may be declared but, indeed, in cases of environ-
mental tragedies, disasters or situations where there may be
civil disobedience in certain areas of our country, something
short of an actual declaration of war. The powers they are
giving themselves under this order are far-reaching, and there
is no legislation which in fact allows them to bring forward
this particular order.
The government will say it will not do anything without
legislation. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, if you believe that, you
should read the remarks of the government House leader, the
President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), in the .Iune-Sep-
tember Emergency Planning Digest where he suggests that the
government could and would act extra-legally; that is, outside
the law, should Parliament be dissolved and an emergency
arise. This is a very telling comment on the government’s
understanding of the rule of law.
One might also comment on the government’s management
of the RCMP. A significant amount of evidence exists that
would suggest the government was aware of illegal acts
engaged in by the RCMP for a decade and chose to do nothing
about it. The public of this country is proud of the RCMP, and
with just reason, but if this had occurred in the United States,
I suggest it would be tantamount to a Watergate scandal. Not
only has the government participated in the clear violation of
the law in this respect, it has made every effort to roadblock
any investigation of the part it played, and this from the
self-righteous Prime Minister and a succession of solicitors
general making their contributions as they went through a
revolving door.
I would like to make a comment on my party’s contribution
to this constitutional process. We stand as a party firmly
committed to the entrenchment of rights and freedoms in a
Constitution made in Canada, arrived at through consensus by
Canada and the provinces. The Prime Minister enjoys accus-
ing this party of failing to support the substantive aspects of
the former resolution. We in fact worked as hard as any party
to see that the resolution was as beneficial and as workable as
possible. We have, however, steadfastly opposed the unilateral
actions of the Prime Minister and his associates in the New
Democratic Party. We have opposed the process, and it gives
me a great deal of pride to look at what has been accomplished
because of our efforts to have the Supreme Courts of Canada
rule on the constitutionality of the resolution before final
We now have a made-in-Canada Constitution, albeit with-
out the support, as I mentioned before, of the Parti Québecois
government. This has been a negotiated settlement, and we in
this country have been relieved of watching the spectacle of
provinces having to go to the parliament in London on their
knees begging for relief.
The absence of the government of Quebec from the accord
is a matter that is worrisome, as I have mentioned, to all
Canadians. There is still much work to be done. My party’s
amendment to this resolution is indicative of our determination
to address the concerns of the people of Quebec.

November 24, I981 COMMONS
Q (2100)
This historic compromise would never have taken place
without pressure being put on the government by this party,
particularly through the leadership of the Leader of the Oppo-
sition (Mr. Clark) and of my seatmate, the hon. member for
Provencher (Mr. Epp). It gave to the Supreme Court as well
the opportunity to instruct the government in its responsibili-
ties and gave the provinces a solid foot in the door to force the
government to compromise, to slow down our Prime Minister
in his determination to push this matter through according to
his own personal timetable.
It will be viewed historically as a turning point in this
constitutional debate. I am confident that we will view the new
amending formula as more in keeping with the federal nature
of the country.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the proposal for the referendum con-
tained in the original resolution is not included. That proposal
was received with great resentment in the part of Canada from
which I come, namely, western Canada. The veto powers given
to certain provinces have been removed. I suggest that this is
an advance and an improvement on our constitutional amend-
ing process. These improvements would never have seen the
light of day were it not for the persistence and effective action
of my party.
In short, let me say that when the provinces were finally
given an opportunity to be heard and when the Supreme Court
finally told the Prime Minister and the federal government
that they must now listen, an agreement was reached. Our
party has been the party of compromise. We now invite the
Prime Minister to finish the job properly-—not necessarily by
moving with undue haste. We have accomplished very much
by the delay we have been able to bring about but let us not
now spoil the great effort. Let us move carefully and deliber-
ately to ensure that this charter, this revised Constitution,
truly reflects the aspirations of all Canadians. Let us be able to
stand up with our colleagues from coast to coast with a
Constitution in which we will all feel great pride in saying in
our own language, “I am Canadian”.
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena): As I begin, Mr. Speaker, I would
like to say how puzzled I am at the members who have spoken
since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-
ment (Mr. Munro) made his speech. In fact, at this point we
are debating an amendment that affects about one in 20
I would like to start my speech by moving an amendment. I
That thc amendment of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop»
ment be amended by deleting the word “existing“.
Before submitting that amendment, I want to mention a
second C0nCe1’n. I would like to read the formal motion in
English and in French. I believe the law officers and the Clerk
at the Table will confirm my understanding from a brief
reading of the amendment put forward today by the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, that there has
The Constitution
been a serious deletion in the French version. The formal
Notice of Motion read:
Moved that the motion of the Minister of Justice of November I8, 198i, that
an address to be presented to Her Majesty the Queen be amended in schedule B
of the measure to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom by
deleting the Word “existing” from the amendment now before the House so the
clause would read:
“Part l.l. Rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. 34.l(l) The aborigi»
nal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recog-
nized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes
the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada”.
My concern, Mr. Speaker—and I am sure the Clerk will be
able to check this in terms of the translation, which was not
done by the minister today is that it should read as follows,
and I will dispose of the first part. It says in French;
Parlie II Droils des peuples aulorli/one: du Canada. 34(1); Les droits
aborigene: on issus de rrailés (les peuples nulachlones du Canada ram par les
présente: reconnu: 21 can/irmés.
It is in that section, I believe, that the amendment tabled in
French by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern De-
velopment was incorrect.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) deserves our warm-
est congratulations for this last effort, as well as for his leading
role in the initial agreement concluded with the nine provinces.
Before getting into the main text of my speech, I would like
to give the history of Section 34. I do not think that too many
of us remember that in October of last year, when the resolu-
tion was put before the House, there was no positive statement
in the resolution in relation to aboriginal and treaty rights, and
no amendments were proposed by the Tories at the committee
stage. In fact, the precise Section 34 that is before the House
was drafted by this party in direct consultation with the native
people of Canada. This was after a fierce battle by the
aboriginal peoples, a battle that found a firm ally in this party,
and a firm and trustworthy spokesman during those negotia-
tions in the leader of this party. After unanimous all-party
support on January 30 for inclusion of the motion moved by
my colleague for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), it remained in
place until November 5, when it was ditched by the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by some of the first ministers at
that famous meeting. In the following days, this party made it
clear where we stood on aboriginal and treaty rights. We made
it clear that we would not support the Constitution if there
were not inclusion and entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty
Various comments have been made since the statement
made by the Minister of Justice in the House last night. The
addition of that word has been described by one famous
Canadian as “quintessentially a Liberal compromise. The
changes to Section 34 add unnecessary ambiguity to it. It
symbolically impairs the section.” I think that is most crucial
because the native people have been treacherously dealt with,

13220 COMMONS DEBATES November 24, l98l
The Constitution
not only in terms of the original resolution with no positive
statement, but on November 5 when the first ministers never
said publicly, either in their own provinces or when they came
to Ottawa, that it was their intention to dump it. Nor was it
ever indicated by the government or any of its officials before
the consensus was signed that that treacherous deal had been
Much praise should be directed at the aboriginal people of
Canada tonight for their continued fight as a result of which
Section 34 is back in its present state. I am hopeful that in the
coming days all members of the House will reflect on the
original January 30 all-party unanimous agreement to the
wording and will agree to delete a word that is, at best,
Another important point, Mr. Speaker, is that the addition
of that word affects the mind set of government and bureau-
crats about the need to move in good faith to settle land
claims, not only in British Columbia and north of 60 in the
Yukon and the Northwest Territories but throughout the
Another famous Canadian described the addition of that
word as “a clever attempt to fight the groundswell support that
native Canadians were finding in every household across the
This section introduces weasel words. One weasel word, to
be exact, is that word “existing”. There could have been a
resounding affirmation in the House, supported across thc
country, because nine months had passed and native people in
every village and town, urban and rural area of the country
had had an opportunity to look at it and think about it. To add
this word now is extremely unfair.
A few days ago six provinces~and if one is to include
British Columbia, seven provinces—-supported thc old wording
of Section 34. Again, that is something we need to think about
in the House. We had unanimous all-party support here and in
the Senate and we had seven provinces on side just a few days
ago. It is the insistence of Alberta, and possibly that of some
other provinces, along with the federal Liberals, that moved
that small opposing opinion against the growing tide of public,
aboriginal and provincial support.
The agreement struck last night to force the word “existing”
into Section 34 was done without consultation with the
aboriginal peoples of Canada, despite the fact that ever since
unanimous all-party acceptance on January 30 of this year it
has been the wording considered and studied by those people
all over Canada.
My colleagues and I deeply wish to see the principle of
consent included but have found no support for the principle
from any member on the government side and from few
members of the Conservative Party. If they are ready to
support it now, let us hear from them.
I have consulted 20 lawyers in Canada over the past 18
hours since the Minister of Justice included the word “exist-
ing” in Section 34. The majority of those lawyers feel that the
word does not damage the legal thrust of the section but that it
taints it. However, all agree that the section is better without
the word.
The Minister of Justice said this afternoon that it makes
absolutely no difference to the legal meaning. Well, Mr.
Speaker, this is a Constitution. If concerns are raiscd~—and we
all know that a principle of law is that the word speaks when it
is written in the law-how can “existing” be implicit in the
original and then, on addition, be no more than explicit‘!
Q (2Il0)
Never in my life have I heard weaker constitutional argu-
ments than thosc I heard today from the Minister of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Justice
(Mr. Chrétien). IfI cannot find a lawyer who thinks the word
“existing” improves the section, where has the government
found these mastcrminds who say that adding words to a
constitution has no effect? Common sense and a sense of
decency requires removal of the word “existing”. It is at once
superfluous and ambiguous.
I would like to move briefly into the history of how the
resolution came to be here and my concerns about it, and also
I should like to give some direct, factual information which I
think all members of the House should consider in the next
few days before we vote on the subamendment and the amend-
ment itself so that we do find unanimity again on removing
that word. The process which has brought us to this final stage
of debate can at best be described as inappropriate. In its rush
to meet some unknown deadline, the government has forced
upon the House and the nation a resolution which will forever
bear the savage tatters of first ministers’ consensus. I must say
that the presence of a native or a woman at the final phase of
negotiation might have saved this debate. Better yet, if Parlia-
ment had truly been a leader, consensus would have been built
at the family, community and regional levels. No Supreme
Court ruling would have been required, no late night bargain-
ing over non obstante clause, no last minute ditching of
equality rights for male and female persons and no last minute
treachery by ll men whose smiling, outward reassurance put
the knife to over one million aboriginal Canadians.
Rather than a process of nation building in which all
political parties played a role of listening, understanding and
developing a document in the Canadian spirit, we have before
us a much watered down charter, but we have consensus; we
have an amending formula with provincial equality, but with-
out Quebec; and somehow we have a government still champ-
ing at the bit to get it through and to take all the credit while
passing all the blame and then blasting the Canadian public
with a multimillion dollar advertising campaign to prove it was
all worth while, I must say that if time, care and more love for
this nation, this land and all its occupants had been the
operating principles rather than political expediency, we would
have before us a social blueprint for the future. Instead, we
have a debt list of the showdown at the Conference Centre
So much for the problems of process. Let me deal with
substance. We recognize, as do all members of the House, that

November 24, 1981 COMMONS
the search of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for support
from the premiers went too far in arriving at an accord that
denied rights to the majority of Canadians, to women, rights
returned with the Section 28 paramountcy a few hours earlier
today, and to Indian, Inuit and Metis people, soon to be
entrenched, minus one single word, I trust, with the unanimous
all-party support that we witnessed on January 30 of this year,
and I would dearly like to sec that repeated in a couple of
Previous speakers have dwelt on the contents, ranging from
patriation, the amending formula and the charter to equaliza-
tion and provincial control of resources, but let me deal with
the need to entrench the recognition and affirmation of
aboriginal and treaty rights. My colleagues, the hon. member
for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and the hon.
member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), among others,
have dealt very well with the issue of equality.
It is now some 500 years since Columbus set foot in North
America, heralding the voluntary flood of Europeans to this
land. It is my intention in the next few minutes to put on the
record a brief glimpse of the events which have brought us to
As Mr. Justice Thomas Berger said in his recent book,
“Fragile Freedoms”, the issue of aboriginal rights is the oldest
question of human rights in Canada. It may be hard for some
members of the House to understand-—perhaps impossible for
some premiers—nevertheless, some of us in this debate are not
promoting a radically new idea, a changed idea or a partisan
formulation. We are addressing the living and historical reality
of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The thrust of the amend-
ment to recognize and affirm aboriginal rights goes far beyond
any political ideology presently in existence in Canada or, I
might say, in most areas of the House. The time has come for
their view of their laws, land title and tradition to be
entrenched in the foundation laws of this nation. The cultural,
social and economic expression of aboriginal rights through
self-determination, through cultural activities and so forth will
surpass, in my view, what we can even imagine today. The
northwest coast Indians’ culture, for example, is often com-
pared with the cultures of ancient Greece and Rome. The
robust art and tradition of the plains and northern and eastern
Canadian native people are similarly renowned around the
world in history and at present. We shall not forget, in our
support for this historic move to entrench, that the develop-
ment and re-emergence of native culture and institutions
through the affirmation of rights to renewable and non-renew-
able resources will simultaneously bring about the decline and
extinction of such bureaucratic institutions as the Department
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Such institu~
tions, which were created to manage native people for the
convenience of the French, then for the convenience of the
English and now of Canadian systems, will no longer be
Let me now take the House on a speedy but important tour
of the legal history which has delivered to Parliament historic
propriety in entrenching aboriginal rights forever into the
The Constitution
Constitution. The Europeans, who voluntarily came to
Canada, asserted their sovereignty over the land based on the
principle of discovery. lt was not a principle of law but one of
supposed moral and cultural superiority, which is something
we should bear in mind in this debate. This “moral superiori-
ty” was consolidated in European minds solely by superior
arms. However, Europeans did acknowledge throughout the
past four centuries that Canada’s Indians retained a legal
interest in the land because they had been the original occu~
pants. The interest was and is known as aboriginal or Indian
I think we should reflect in this debate on the fact that
many of our forefathers—many of my forefathers—recognized
the rights of aboriginal people, recognized their title to the
land and recognized their rights to all kinds of traditions in
various areas of Canada, and it is only in this last century that
we have seen the terror and terrible repression which has been
used against the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
In setting the record straight I think it is important that
there be unanimity on the exclusion of the word “existing”
because on January 30 there was all-party support. The Minis~
ter of Justice does not have a single argument that holds water
as to why it should be there, and I think all members of the
House should think about it carefully and not vote like a
bunch of seals because some deal was made over the telephone.
We should make it clear to the native people of Canada that
they can trust, not just a few members of the House, but
Parliament, and that they can trust and be part of Canadian
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Fulton: So, in most of North America title was acquired
from the Indian people by way of treaties or, in the United
States where negotiations did not work or broke down, by war.
The legal question of aboriginal property rights was not faced
by the United States Supreme Court until 1955. The policy of
treaties was established in Canada and enshrined by our
forefathers in the Royal Proclamation of 1763.
By 1850, treaties had brought about the surrender of almost
the whole of eastern Canada and were fast being made across
the prairies. By 1885, Canada had its first major legal battle of
aboriginal title, the now famous St. Catharines milling case. In
that case the counsel for the province of Ontario argued: “We
say that there is no Indian title at law or in equity. The claim
of the Indians is simply moral and no more.”
The St. Catharines milling case dealt with Treaty 3, the
Lake of the Woods area in Ontario and, although related to
aboriginal title, lndian people were never directly represented
in the litigation. The real conflicting parties in the case were
the interests sought by the governments of Canada and
Ontario. Strangely enough, it was the logging company that
argued that Canadian policy had always recognized Indian
land rights. That is something we in the House should remem~
ber in this historic debate to set Section 34 as it should be. It
was a logging company I00 years ago that fought for the

DEBATES November 24, 1981
The Constitution
rights of the aboriginal people, not Parliament and not the
government of Ontario.
This strange Supreme Court of Canada case was followed,
in 1888, by a ruling of the Judicial Committee of the Privy
Council, the then highest court of appeal in Canada, that
Indians had property rights in their lands prior to the signing
of Treaty 3 in I873. This affirmed, for the first time in
Canadian law the legal, real property character of the Indian
usufructuary title.
Judicial opinion has wandered somewhat since then. For
example, in I934 the Ontario Supreme Court said that the
Crown could do whatever it wished, even with reserve land,
whereas the exchequer court, as recently as in I964, said in
essence that Indian band land is the same as title in fee simple.
The great Metis leader, Louis Riel, twice elected to the
Parliament of Canada, was hanged in I885 for his views on
aboriginal rights in western Canada.
Q (2l20)
By the turn of the century, politicians were fast moving to
remove the rights of native people through abuses of human
rights. In British Columbia, for example, my home province, in
1895 the right to vote was taken away from every Indian
person in the province and was not returned until 1949. In the
same year, I895, the federal Department of Fisheries restrict-
ed the Indian food fishery. By I915, Indian hunting and
trapping was brought under strict provincial regulation, these
actions at that time being taken against the population which
was reduced from 50,000 in I850 to 10,000 in I900.
Ravaged by smallpox, forced on to small reserves and
excluded from wage labour, it was illegal for Indian people in
British Columbia to work and be paid for it. They were
excluded from the fishery. They were excluded from their
traditional hunting and guiding territories. They were exclud-
ed from forest activities and then they were put on reserves.
Members of the House in the past had, and even today have,
the audacity and pomposity to stand in the House and say that
native people should not have land and both renewable and
non-renewable resources returned to them. It is an atrocity.
It was not until 1960, in fact the 1963 federal election, less
than 20 years ago, that native Canadians could first vote. We
are just at the threshold of leaving the darkest of dark ages in
the history of human rights violations by the Government of
Canada done upon the indigenous people of this land. The big
breakthrough came in 1969 when the Nishga people of the
Nass Valley in British Columbia finally forced the government
of British Columbia into court to have the question of aborigi-
nal title adjudicated.
By this time it had been 50 years since the federal govern-
ment had moved to help the Indian people in any way on the
question of aboriginal claims in British Columbia. The first
stage of the famous Nishga case was presided over by Mr.
Justice Gould who held that if there was aboriginal title, it had
been extinguished before the colonies had entered confedera-
The case next went to the B.C. Court of Appeal where it
was held that the law had never acknowledged any such
concept as aboriginal title. The court seemed stuck on the
prejudices that native people could have one, a sophisticated
legal system, two, with communal property but no recorded
system of title deeds, three, because there was no written
language. It is unbelievable.
As Mr. Justice Thomas Berger said recently about the
assumptions “white society” placed upon native culture, “they
are not locked into the past: we are exlcuding them from the
present”. It is something we all need to reflect on. We should
take ourselves outside of the petty politics that has damaged
and tainted Section 34. We as members of the House should
reflect on the history of the native people and the need, after
the treachery of November 5 and the treacherous acts we have
seen since then, to demonstrate to the native people that they
can in fact trust the institution of Parliament.
During I969 while the Nishga case was proceeding through
the courts, the Prime Minister spoke on the subject in Vancou~
ver. On August 8 he said the following:
Our answer is no. We can‘t recognize aboriginal rights because no society can
be built on historical might-have-beans.
That statement may well have been in the Prime Minister’s
mind on November 5, 1981, and prejudiced his ability to stand
firm on the unanimous view of this Parliament.
It was at this point, only 12 years ago, that the issue came to
a temporary standstill in Canadian history. Neither the courts
nor the federal government would acknowledge aboriginal
claims. There was no one 12 years ago in this nation standing
by the native people of this country.
An argument that was used at that time has been used in
the House and by various premiers. Why should there be
special status for native people, they say. Why should they not
be assimilated like the Irish, Poles or Swedes? Section 91(24)
of the British North America Act, written 114 years ago by
our forefathers, gave exclusive legislative jurisdiction over the
affairs of native people to Parliament to be safeguarded. They
never were. Far more important, those who came to Canada
by choice set up to a largely parallel culture, not an assimilat-
ed culture of the Indian people, something that was not true of
the Indian, Inuit and Metis people. Until very recent times
they remained primarily a people outside of the general system
and general institutions of Canada.
In 1969 the then minister of lndian affairs, now Minister of
Justice, refused to intervene in the Nishga case because of the
federal policy at that time to refuse recognition of aboriginal
In November, 1971, the historic Nishga case was heard here
in Ottawa for fivc days before seven judges of the Supreme
Court of Canada. It was a split decision, with Mr. Justice
Emmett Hall speaking for the three judges in favour. He
found that the Nishgas had aboriginal title, that it had never
been lawfully extinguished and that this title could still be
asserted. That was probably one of the most important legal
decisions ever made in Canadian history.

November 24, I981 COMMONS
The crucial point, however, is that all six judges who
participated in the ruling and addressed the question supported
the view that English law in force in British Columbia when
colonizations began had recognized lndian title to the land.
That is a very important point. A long time ago our forefathers
recognized aboriginal title to the land, yet here we sit in this
quagmire with provincial and federal politicians idly jerking at
the levers.
It is important that we start to move in settling the question
of aboriginal rights in this country, not only on tradition,
culture and adoption and so on, but to give to the native people
a resource base so that they can be equal with all Canadians.
That is my intention in speaking here tonight.
Canada’s highest court unequivocally affirmed the concept
of aboriginal title in February, 1973. Parliament at last began
to move after 100 years. On August 8, 1973, the federal
government announced the intention to settle native land
claims in all parts of Canada where no treaties had yet been
made. Thus the federal government has agreed to settle
aboriginal claims. The crucial context in which we are about to
act as Parliament is to obligate the provinces, by the constitu-
tional entrenchment of recognition and affirmation of aborigi-
nal rights, to negotiate a settlement of native claims. To all of
those people who work for the federal and provincial govern-
ments, and to all of those elected members, the message that
Parliament is giving is that it is time to settle aboriginal
claims. It is not time to quibble about little bits of wording
here and there. The message that the native people have
passed to this chamber and that this chamber is passing to the
Canadian public is that Parliament is going to move and, if
necessary, we will help to move those provinces that are
intransigent on this issue and get a settlement of aboriginal
claims in Canada.
The crucial context in which we are about to act as Parlia~
ment is, as I said earlier, by way of the constitutional
entrenchment of recognition and affirmation of aboroginal
rights to negotiate in good faith a settlement of native claims.
It is a sad reflection of the events of November 5, 1981, when
the first ministers met privately to dump treacherously
entrenchment of Section 34, never having said a word publicly
of their opposition or any reasons for such opposition. Only
Saskatchewan put forward Section 34 for inclusion.
Bill Bennett and Peter Lougheed were the last of the
Premiers to be bickering about wording and cost. It is shame-
ful for legislators to be publicly crying about the costs of
enacting human rights. When were they last without a vote
federally and provincially, forced out of work by law, forced to
live on a reserve‘! Need I go on? I would like to see Bill
Bennett and Peter Lougheed live under those sorts of
On January 30, 1981, the NDP put forward an amendment
to the Constitution for the entrenchment of aboriginal rights
that carried unanimously with the committee. The original
Liberal resolution had nothing, the Conservative Party pro-
posed nothing, yet we all agreed on Section 34, and I am
thankful for it.
The Constitution
We have general support now of the aboriginal people of
Canada, the firm support in law of the Supreme Court of
Canada, the British North America Act, Section 9l(24), the
overwhelming majority of the provinces, and now their
premiers, the churches of Canada and all parties in the House.
Is it not time that Canada’s history was set straight, even ifa
province or two might continue to object’!
Q (2130)
l urge all members of the House to reject the ambiguity
created by the proposed inclusion of the word “existing”,
primarily for symbolic reasons. I think we need to think of that
when we vote on the subamendment, Mr. Speaker. It is the
symbolism, the treachery of 500 years of white supremacy in
this land. It is time the record was set straight and we set
straight what the premiers did on November 5. They commit-
ted a treacherous act. ln order to regain that fragile faith of
the native people, we must put Clause 34 back in in its original
wording. This is the second time in three weeks that the
aboriginal people have been excluded from the process without
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, let me say that it is their rights,
not the rights or views of any premiers or bureaucrats or
ministers of the Crown, that are being tampered with. I urge
all members of the House to support the subamendment for
the sake of the Indian, Inuit and Metis people and all the
people of Canada.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It has been moved by
Mr. Fulton, seconded by Mr. Broadbent that the amendment
be amended by deleting the word “existing”. The question is
now on the amendment to the amendment.
Mr. Ian Watson (Chiteauguay): Mr. Speaker, I am particu-
larly happy to be participating in this debate on the constitu-
tional resolution at this point, now that most of the controversy
and animosity have subsided.
Last night, thanks to the efforts of all three parties in the
House, Mr. Chrétien was able to announce that both the
aboriginal rights and the womens rights clauses would be
reinstated with the consent of the provinces. I would like to
pay tribute to those members of both the Conservative and
NDP parties who leaned on their provincial counterparts and
thus assisted Mr. Chrétien and his colleague Mr. Munro,
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is the practice in the
House, and I note the previous speaker also fell into the same
habit, of referring to hon. members by their constituencies or
ministers by their functions, not by personal names.
Mr. Watson: The other colleague who was so invaluable in
her assistance to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General
(Mr. Chrétien) was the minister of state responsible for the
status of women. The result that was achieved by these efforts
has been welcomed by all members of the House. The Minister
of Justice deserves our most heartfelt congratulations for this

DEBATES November 24, l98l
The Constitution
latest effort on his part as well as for the leading role he played
in the initial agreement with the nine provinces.
The Minister of Justice and Attorney General obviously
subscribes to the axiom that politics is the art of the possible
and he possesses the fairness, the flexibility, the give and take
and the openness which are the basic ground rules for achiev-
ing political objectives in a democratic society. As an example
of effective politics, I hope it would both impress and influence
some of our other ministers, Mr. Speaker.
I should now like to broach subjects of concern to some of
my francophone and anglophone constituents. The franco-
phones are concerned with the conflict that opposes Quebec
and Ottawa with regard to the three points on which they
failed to agree. Concerning the right to mobility and to gain
livelihood, the Government of Canada proposes to guarantee,
and I quote:
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a
permanent resident ofCanada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(12) to pursue the gaining ofa livelihood in any province.
Those rights, Mr. Speaker, would prevent the provinces
from imposing unfair restrictions to the hiring of workers from
Quebec or Newfoundland. Yet, this section offers some protec-
tion when unemployment is particularly severe. The Right
Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) offered to add special
terms in order to meet the objections of the Quebec govern-
ment. In view of the provisions of Bill 101 concerning the
working language, the danger of a massive migration of work-
ers from the other provinces to Quebec is minimal.
Section 6 will protect mostly Quebecers. As for Section 23,
which recognizes for the first time the right of every franco-
phone in the country to education in his mother tongue, let us
keep in mind Mr. Speaker, that our society is becoming
increasingly mobile. Enormous energy projects will cause tem-
porary movements of population throughout the country. Que-
becers will now be able to move with their whole family and be
assured that their children may pursue their education in
French. As for the objections of Quebec to the Canadian
proposal, it should be noted that Mr. Levesque himself pro-
posed a reciprocal agreement on education in both official
languages in St. Andrew’s two or three years ago. The third
point in dispute between Quebec and Ottawa concerns the lack
of compensation for a province which decides to opt out of an
amendment affecting its powers. The resolution now before the
House make an additional concession to Quebec in Section 39.
Section 39 reads as follows:
39, Where an amendment is made under subsection 37(1) that transfers
provincial legislative powers relating to education or other cultural matters from
provincial legislatures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensa-
tion to any province to which the amendment does not apply.
Quebec will therefore have a veto in matters of education
and culture.
Another element of this resolution should be of interest to
all Quebecers. I am referring to Section 35:
Equalization and regional disparities
The equalization system is of great benefit to all Canadians
since it promotes equal opportunities throughout the country,
but it is of special benefit to the provinces receiving money,
including Quebec. Section 35 of the charter guarantees this
principle of sharing and makes it a cornerstone of our
What does equalization mean for Quebecers? It means that
the wealth produced by the natural resources of western
Canada will be shared with Quebecers and maritimers. When
the west is prosperous, all Canadians benefit from new job
opportunities, economic spin-offs for industry and the sharing
of tax revenues guaranteed by equalization.
Q (Z140)
The concerns of my English~speaking fellow Quebecers
relate particularly to the optional applicability of the maternal
language clause, Section 23(1)(a). They are asking why the
maternal language clause is being applied in the other nine
provinces but not in Quebec. Apart from the political argu-
ments, with which I will deal in a moment, the practical
argument which the government employs is that the absence of
French schooling facilities in most parts of English Canada
means that many French Canadian families would be ineli-
gible under the other subsections of Section 23 to send their
children to French schools. They would not have benefited
from French schooling facilities since none exist. That hand-
icap does not affect the English-speaking inhabitants of
Quebec who have long had excellent school facilities provided
by the government of Quebec and supported by all taxpayers
of Quebec.
The number of people affected by the non-applicability of
Section 23(l)(a) is fairly small. Perhaps we are talking about
2,000 to 3,000 naturalized Canadian citizens, couples who
came to Quebec from elsewhere in Canada after the passage of
Bill 101. They had not started families or did not have children
in school prior to moving to Quebec. They are families with at
least one parent whose maternal language is English. Bill I01
allows all inhabitants of Quebec whose maternal language is
English, domiciled there at the time of the passage of the bill,
to send their children to English language schools. We are
faced with a situation where admittedly the 2,000 to 3,000-
and I do not know if my figures are accurate——couples who
moved to Quebec since Bill I01 from other parts of Canada
will not have rights which are available to other Canadians
anywhere else in the country. We are also talking about
another group of a few thousand or more naturalized Canadi-
ans who came to Quebec since the passage of Bill l0l from
outside Canada and whose mother tongue is English. In this
case the people who came knew what they were facing when

November 24, 1981 COMMONS
they came; the bill had been passed, and they are not stuck
with a situation which was thrust upon them after the fact,
The reason I am quoting these statistics is to underline that
the numbers are insignificant from a demographic viewpoint
or from the viewpoint ofa threat to Quebec’s French majority.
There is a third group which is potentially affected by the
section, that is the English language immigrant group that
could be expected to total perhaps 2,000 to 4,000 per year over
the next few years, if the statistics of the last several years hold
accurate. This group is of particular importance. These people
usually come from the United States or Great Britain because
their skills are particularly in demand by sectors of the Quebec
Whether we like it or not, we in Canada suffer from a
shortage of skilled workers in various fields, including geolo-
gists and geophysicists in western Canada as well as aerospace
technicians in Quebec. The blame rests squarely on the federal
and provincial governments as well as on industry. Neverthe-
less, if we fail to improve our technical training programs,
Canada will continue to import those skilled workers from
other countries. It is precisely those skilled technicians and
their availability to develop Quebec’s aerospace industry which
will be affected by our lack of courage with respect to Section
23(l)(a). Mr, Speaker, we are not talking about waves of
English-speaking immigrants who will severely upset the
demographic balance in Quebec but instead just a few thou-
sand couples.
The statistics of the last decade demonstrate that Quebec’s
native English-speaking population, young people in particu~
lar, educated at the expense of Quebec taxpayers, has been
moving westward to take advantage of greater opportunities in
far larger numbers than they have been replaced by English-
speaking immigrants. The English—speaking percentage of
Quebec’s population has been diminishing rapidly over the
years. We are not talking about any threat to the French-lan~
guagc majority in Quebec. Even the Parti Québécois now
admits that the demographic views, which were a major factor
behind the growth of the separatist movement, are no longer
justified by statistics.
As I have already alluded, if the absence of the maternal
language clause in Section 23(l)(a) will be bad for Quebec‘s
economy, in particular the aerospace industry, and if there is
no demographic threat, why are we showing such lack of
q (2150)
It is the political judgment of my colleagues in the House of
Commons from Quebec, that imposing Section 23(l)(a), the
maternal language clause now, would provide the Parti Quebe-
cois separatists with a rallying cry, to the detriment of the
acceptance of the entire package by the Quebec population, It
is more important, they argue, to win the larger war against
separatism than to jeopardize popular Quebec, as distinct from
The Constitution
the Quebec government, acceptance of the present constitu-
tional package.
While I accept that argument, I frankly do not believe the
battle for the minds and loyalties of Quebecers will be greatly
affected by this issue. Wisdom dictates a quick, clearcut
decision, rather than to leave it a festering cause of future
discussion and perhaps controversy.
I believe that the Quebec public is far better informed and
better able to judge the facts than they are given credit for by
both federal and provincial politicians.
By leaving out Section 23(l)(a) now and allowing Quebec to
opt in later, we arc, in effect, surrendering to the threat of
Parti Québécois demagoguery. I do not think we should suc-
cumb to that threat.
Quebec members are in a strong position to handle Parti
Québécois arguments regarding the application of Section
23(l)(b) which allows Canadians who have received their
education in English or French anywhere in Canada to pass on
that right to English or French language education to their
children. We can also handle the argument relating to Section
23(2) which allows the family of any child of a Canadian
citizen who has started his education in English or French to
continue the education of all the children of the family in that
same language anywhere in Canada, because Mr. Lévesque
himself proposed such a formula based on reciprocity at a
pren1ier’s conference in St. Andrews a few years ago.
Why not have Section 23(l)(a) as well or, I would urge the
Prime Minister, at least have an exception to the non-applica~
bility of Section 23(l)(a) to allow Canadians who moved to
Quebec since passage of Bill I01, the choice of language?
Maternal English language immigrants who came to the coun-
try after that time were clearly aware what they were coming
to as were Canadians who moved to Quebec. To me it seems
that a distinction can and should be made in favour of
Canadians, perhaps without families, who moved to Quebec
for a year or two, then decided to stay and raise families, that
they be allowed to make the choice that their English~speaking
co-inhabitants of Quebec have under the existing Quebec law
and should have as a result of the changes proposed in the
Constitution. To do otherwise, I would argue, is not in keeping
with the contents and spirit of the resolution we are debating
A moment ago I expressed some reservations about the
wisdom of excluding Quebec at this time from the application
of section 23(l)(a). Except for those reservations, I must say
that I am proud to support the endeavour of the Prime
Minister who has been anxious to guarantee full sovereignty
for Canada. His initiative, his perseverance and, in recent
weeks, his flexibility have now brought us to the point where
patriating the Constitution has almost become a mere formal~
ity. It is indeed thanks to the courage and tenacity of the Right
Hon. Prime Minister at each stage of the long process that his
efforts will be successful. The charter will establish the princi~
ple of sharing our wealth among all regions of our country. It

DEBATES November 24, l98l
Adjournment Debate
will give Quebecers the assurance that they will enjoy the right
to go anywhere without restrictions and to work in all parts of
The charter will guarantee that workers from Quebec will
enjoy the right to have their children educated in French
anywhere in Canada.
Canadians can be proud of the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. They can be proud too that the political leadership
of the country, both federal and provincial, has shown a new
maturity in achieving consensus on the resolution we are
debating tonight. The process has been a victory for the
Canadian federal system, and all Canadians are the winners.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, rather than trying to crowd all
my remarks in the time remaining between now and ten
o‘clock, perhaps hon. members might be disposed to allow me
to call it ten o’clock.
Some hon. Members: Go ahead.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There does not appear to be unani~
mous agreement.
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that we call it ten o’clock’Z
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40
deemed to have been moved.
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, a
few days ago I raised a very grave issue with the Secretary of
State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) which amounts
to the invasion of Canadian jurisdiction by a foreign power in
the absence of any appropriate Canadian citizenship legisla-
tion to protect the citizens from Czechoslovakia, in this case,
from the blaridishments and coercion of that country.
This is a very serious matter. The minister’s response to my
question indicated that he really did not have very much
knowledge of the issues involved at that time. In fairness,
however, I suppose he has now been briefed.
In contrast, his colleague, the Solicitor General (Mr.
Kaplan), who is more concerned with matters of security, in
response to questions from my colleague, the hon. member for
Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), indicated that he was aware
of the gravity of what has been going on. Since 1977 a very
sincere and erudite columnist, Lubor Zink, has been bringing
this particular matter to the attention of the Canadian people.
Indeed, he has grilled the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
about it and brought it to the attention of a former minister of
external affairs, the Hon. Don Jamieson.
For anyone who is interested in dog dancing and evasiveness
on the part of the Prime Minister on the very important issue
on rights and sovereignty, Mr. Zink’s column is most instruc-
tive, particularly now when the House is concerned with a
Charter of Rights and Freedoms for our people.
Lest anyone be misled that this is only an academic prob-
lem, I want to refer to a current letter which illustrates the
problem very well. It came from a Canadian citizen who asked
for my advice, although he is not one of my constituents. I-Ie
said that he and his family had escaped from Czechoslovakia
soon after the Russian invasion in 1968, when he was a child.
He is now a Canadian citizen and he is proud of it. He applied
at the Czechoslovakian embassy to have his former citizenship
formally revoked, and his application was finally approved.
Now, however, it appears that the Communists have raised
a new demand. He is asked to pay $215 for the document
which repudiates his former Czech citizenship. He is quite
prepared to pay that amount provided the whole matter is not
simply a Communist hoax designed to gain worthy currency.
He asked whether he would really be free, with no strings
attached, from his former association with the governing
clique in Prague. He wondered, for example, whether he could
visit Czechoslovakia in the future without fear of detention,
arrest or disappearance. He wrote, “You have been helping
Canadians of Czech origin for many years. Surely, you have
some information regarding this policy of revoking citizenship
for payment”.
Q (2200)
It was not to me that this letter was written but to one of my
colleagues. What is my colleague to advise this Canadian
citizen? Obviously, he cannot in all good conscience say that if
this citizen goes down to the Czech embassy he will not, in
fact, be grilled and will not be asked to fill in some very, very
personal information, including information on all of his con-
nections in the old country, his relatives, and what he has been
doing ever since he got here. It would be very instructive for all
hon. members to read the kind of questions that Czech émigrés
are forced to answer in order to deal with their people back in
One cannot really attribute this kind of reprehensible
behaviour to just one particular country. However, Czech-
slovakia seems to be particularly good at it. However, other
Iron Curtain countries are using this kind of tactic on their

Read less

Leave a Reply