Document Information

Date: 1981-11-27
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 13389-13442.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

13389

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[English]

THE CONSTITUTION

RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981

The House resumed, from Thursday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien:

[…]

13418

Madam Speaker: Before resuming debate, may I point out to the House that because of the amendment to the resolution adopted yesterday, a renumbering of the sections was necessary. Therefore a technical change will have to be made to the amendment now before the House in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The amendment should amend Section 42 instead of 41.

[Translation]

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle): Madam Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was about to ask your permission to quote from a speech Henri Bourassa, the then member for Labelle, made in 1931 upon his return from a conference in London, in which he reported some comments by a member of the British House of Commons on the desire of Canadians to have their own Canadian constitution. Here is the account given by Henri Bourassa:

To be perfectly frank, we are rather tired of all this talk about the independence of the dominions, and it is high time you people in Canada, Australia and elsewhere start to prove that you are really worthy of the concessions we are prepared to make. On the other hand, if you are afraid of some minor consequences this might have in your own provinces, you cannot expect us to have more respect for you than you have for yourselves.

That speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. Henri Bourassa added in the same speech:

Surely, the time will come when wisdom and self-respect in the Dominion or in the provinces will have reached a level where, with the concerted efforts of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, we shall be able to formulate measures with a view to exercising the right to amend our own constitution.

And that is exactly what happened when the accord was signed by the vast majority of the provincial premiers.

[English]

It will surprise no one, I am sure, when I say that I favour the early passage of the resolution. I do so, not simply because I am a Liberal and a supporter of the government; I do so because I am a Canadian with pride in this land, the most generous country in the world, with the potential for global greatness.

Some members of this House have come to this country from other lands and know from personal experience the immense value of the liberty we enjoy. Others, like myself, were born here and have developed their love for, and pride in, Canada through experience in wartime and the opportunity to look at their native land from overseas.

In my own case, I was born and brought up in the area of Quebec that I represent today in this House, in an almost totally French-speaking region. I was 18 and joined the Royal Canadian Air Force before I could speak English. Like many young men and women of my generation I was impatient with our leaders. I found it incomprehensible that Canada had no flag of its own and that we had to wear uniforms that were not identifiably Canadian in any way. I found it curious, and deeply disturbing, that I could not even risk my life for my country in my own language. I had to learn another language.

In this respect I share some of the background and experience of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) for whom I hold a high regard. We are Canadians of the same generation, he from Alberta and I from Quebec. He served, as I did, with the RCAF overseas and we entered politics-he as a Conservative, I as a Liberal-at about the same time and for the same reasons. I therefore identify myself closely with the moving remarks he made in this House on March IO last and I share with him the view that bringing our Constitution to Canada after 114 years of nationhood is, for many of us, the fulfilment of a dream to make this nation whole, to give it a distinctiveness, a true Canadianism that is wholly our own.

Like the hon. member I, too, regard myself as a Canadian before first being a partisan politician, and a citizen of this country rather than of one of its regions.

[Translation]

I want to ask my fellow Canadians to make a commitment to this country to stand up and be counted as proud Canadians. Mr. Speaker, unlike what has happened in Europe during the last 50 years, we have not often been called upon to fight and risk our lives for our country. And although more than a million of us joined up during World War II to stop Nazi tyranny, those Canadians who did not want to go, simply stayed behind.

In the 35 years since the war, we have been able to count our blessings in one of the richest and most generous countries on earth, without pausing to consider our responsibility in turn. What have we done to deserve what we enjoy in Canada today? What can we do for Canada in return? You know, Madam Speaker, it is often said, and accurately, that to see your own country best, you must look at it through the eyes of an outsider. Try to imagine how Canada looks today to people of South and Central America, of Africa and the Middle East, of the crowded lands of Asia and the regimented societies of Eastern Europe. They must regard us with a mixture of envy and wonder-wonder that we accept our affluence and freedom so casually, as though they were our God-given right. In our selfish self-contemplation, we have neglected our wider responsibilities on the global scene by failing to respond adequately to the needs of other less fortunate people.

The world is calling on Canada today to show its greatness and generosity, to give leadership at the international level,

[Page 13419]

and to share its good fortune with others. To meet those high expectations, we must first demonstrate our national unity and sense of purpose. This constitutional debate provides the opportunity to do just that. Since we started seriously discussing the question of having our own constitution, observers throughout the world have been wondering whether we have that quality of greatness we must have if we are to meet the constitutional challenge and the aspirations of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recalled a few days ago in Vancouver that the major problem in Canada was perhaps that too many Canadians find this country too big for them. We now have the opportunity to show the entire world that we Canadians are worthy of Canada and able to meet the greatest challenges. We did so in the past when we had to build a railroad from one end of this vast continent to the other. The Canadians who came before us succeeded magnificently in this endeavour. Other projects which Canada alone has tried have succeeded, and the last challenge that remains, Mr. Speaker, is for us Canadians to have a truly Canadian constitution, and this is an urgent task. The Canadian people are becoming increasingly impatient with their legislators. The day before yesterday, the Right Hon. Prime Minister transmitted an invitation to the people of Vancouver which I now repeat to all my colleagues and to every Canadian. If we are worthy of Canada, let us face and meet this challenge.

[English]

Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, we are debating an amendment which would remove an insulting and degrading inequity in the resolution before this House which seeks to provide us with a made-in-Canada constitution. That inequity is inherent in the provisions of the amending formula for the proposed Constitution which would allow the extension of existing provinces into the two northern territories without their consent. It is degrading because it would enshrine in the Constitution of our country the revolting concept of a perpetual colonial status for the north.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: It is insulting because it would entrench in the Constitution the repugnant idea that there could be two different classes of Canadians with different political rights, depending upon whether they live in Canada north or Canada south. These two offensive clauses represent the threat of a possible grab by some of the provinces for northern resources which more properly belong to northerners and to Canadians as a whole. If retained in our Constitution, they virtually eliminate any hope that the two northern territories could evolve as a province, as did the rest of the country, and as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has explained. Thus, this resolution, in its present form, is offensive, repugnant and also ludicrous.

The resolution suggests that one Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and nine southern premiers could carve up the north in their so evident self-interest. It would create a Constitution drafted by southern Canadians which gives them rights denied to northern Canadians. I hope the premier of my province, Premier Bennett of British Columbia, can see the unfairness of this resolution.

Imagine the anger, the fury and the rage of those Canadians who live north of 60 who, by an act of this Parliament, would be condemned to perpetual serfdom and to perpetual colonial status unless these offensive clauses are withdrawn. I can relate to this anger because I experienced it while I was a resident of the Northwest Territories. I can relate to it because it is an anger similar to that felt in the west when the provisions of the original resolution laid before this House would have created different classes of provinces.

I can remember the rage British Columbians felt under the old resolution that British Columbia could be excluded from participating in any future constitutional change. I can remember the fury we felt about a resolution which placed the west under the shadow of submission to other regions of Canada, a shadow which this resolution casts over the 40 per cent of the country which represents our north. I cannot believe that hon. members of this House feel no shame in reserving for themselves and for provincial legislatures powers they are unwilling to grant the two legislative assemblies of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, either now or in the future.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: It is the hope of my party that this unfair situation does not reflect the spirit of this House of Commons. It is certainly the hope of the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and the hon. member for Yukon that this House will ensure that their constituents have the rights which southern Canadians enjoy under a new Canadian Constitution.

The original resolution has now been amended to provide equal rights for women, partial rights for natives, and less rights for northerners. We now have the opportunity to correct this wrong. We can unanimously vote to drop these offensive clauses from the resolution. We are not simply talking about clauses; we are also talking about people. We are talking about the Pudluk family in Resolute, John and Vince Steen in Tuk, Terry Ryan at Cape Dorset, and the Amagoalik families in Frobisher Bay, Bill and Jessie Lyall and their four children at Cambridge Bay, and Ernie Lyall at Spence Bay. We are talking about Dick Hill, the first mayor of Inuvik, and his wife, Cynthia Hill, the current mayor of Inuvik. We are talking about Inuvik town councillors, Susan Husky and Alex Foreman, and the one-woman chamber of commerce at Teslin on the Alaska Highway, and Archie Lang, who operates the Watson Lake Hotel. We are talking about the chief at Old Crow, Charlie Able, whose wife told me about a tragedy in her family and said, “People don’t think how I feel”.

We are not thinking about how people feel in Coppermine, Fort Good Hope, Fort Franklin, Fort McPherson and Yellow

[Page 13420]

knife. We are not thinking about how they feel if we permit this document to proceed in its existing form.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: We are talking about Canadians. If members of this House are prepared to declare that these Canadians are to be enshrined as second-class citizens under our Constitution, we should be ashamed of ourselves.

We must act now to restore to the north the rights that we have reserved for the south if the concept of Canada as a nation is to endure. We in the House have the power to do this. We know how this inequity could be corrected. Twenty-two members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, all fully elected, the majority of them native northerners, came to Ottawa to tell us to remove the clauses which are such an assault on their own legislative powers.

The Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories seeks a deletion of Section 41(1)(e) of the amending formula in the proposed constitution which provides for the extension of existing provinces into the territories. The Legislative Assembly sees this authority as an affront to its own legislative authority and an infringement of the democratic rights of the people of the Northwest Territories. Thus, the Legislative Assembly has requested that the power to alter boundaries be exercised as currently provided under the British North America Act of 1871. The Legislative Assembly also seeks the deletion of Section 41(1)(f) from the amending formula in the proposed Constitution, because this clause provides that, not­ withstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces can only be achieved with the consent of Canada and at least two thirds of the provinces, the total population of which exceeds 50 per cent of the population of Canada.

The position of the Legislative Assembly is that the right to establish new provinces out of existing territories is vested in the federal Parliament by virtue of the British North America Act of 1871 and that this power should continue to reside in the Parliament of Canada. The Legislative Assembly of the Yukon has unanimously endorsed the principle set out by their colleagues in the Northwest Territories.

The 22 members of the Legislative Assembly from the Northwest Territories and their colleagues in Yukon under­ stand very well that these clauses would encourage a grab for northern resources by the southern provinces. They understand very well that this is a real threat because it has happened in the past. Unless these clauses are removed, it could happen in the future.

Last month in the House I described how the Northwest Territories have been defined entirely by the needs of southern Canada. I outlined how the original Northwest Territories was once composed of the area which now represents Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and the present Yukon and Northwest Territories. I described how the Northwest Territories, as we know it, is the residual area left after the creation of the prairie provinces, and after Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec had extended their boundaries north. Therefore, one can understand the very real concern of our northern territories.

I suggest that if we sell out the north we will sell out our self-respect as Canadians. We should never be a party to a document which would permit the extension of the provinces into the Yukon or the Northwest Territories without territorial consent.

Some may argue that amending the resolution at this stage might threaten the spirit of the accord reached by the Prime Minister and the Premiers. We can only ask ourselves why the Prime Minister and the nine provincial premiers would feel that discriminatory measures that were so unacceptable to them would be acceptable to people in the north.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Miss Carney: If this resolution passes in its present form, it will lead to a psychological and emotional isolation of northerners in their own country. If this resolution passes in its present form, I would say to the MLAs who came here from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and to my former colleagues George Braden, Nellie Cournoyea, Nick Sibbeston, Mr. Pudluk, Don Stewart, Arnold McCallum and all the others, that we have failed to protect the rights of our fellow Canadians in the north.

If we fail them, they would be justified in putting up the barriers on the Mackenzie highway keeping southern Canadians out. If we fail them, I would tell our northern colleagues to turn off the heat in the federal building in Inuvik, to turn off the lights in the federal offices and homes in Frobisher Bay and to send all federal employees from southern Canada back home. If we fail them, I would tell them to take over the airports at Resolute and Yellowknife and divert southern based traffic back there, sever the telecommunications link with the south and shut down satellite-delivered television. I say give the north back to northerners and put it beyond reach of the greedy grasp of the south.

If we pass a resolution which gives certain rights to some Canadians and denies them to others, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of this Parliament, this federal institution of a country which stretches from sea to sea to northern sea. If we pass this resolution unamended as an act of Parliament, it will be an act of contempt toward Canadians north of 60.

I urge members to right this wrong, remove this self-serving insult and ensure our self-respect as Canadians. I implore them to support our position that these degrading clauses must be removed.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Some hon. Members: Question.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): May I ask whether the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is in his seat? In order for the Chair to recognize him, he should be.

[Page 13421]

Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I apologize to the hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair as to the order of speakers to be recognized in this debate at this time? Can you tell me who is to be recognized next? Is it someone from the government side or are we to vote on the motion now?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I will try to assist the hon. member. A fiction has been maintained over the centuries that the Chair does not keep a list of speakers. I will recognize an hon. member who stands and wishes to contribute to the debate. If no hon. member stands, I will put the question to the House.

Some hon. Members: Question.

Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North): Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken on this matter. I think there are some things that should be put on the record, especially when we are discussing the very important matter of whether or not the provinces are to be allowed to extend their boundaries north and take over the area that we know as the Northwest Territories.

I think we all realize that this is an area of the country that is in its developmental stages. We want to treat the northerners fairly and we want to protect their right to govern them­ selves. For that reason, I speak in favour of the amendment. It is not something which this House should countenance by putting forward the resolution as it now stands to give the potential to the House of Commons or the provinces to extend their territories northward by the simple drawing of a line. That would then take away from the northerners, the people about which my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney}, has spoken. They are the people who live in the north now and feel very strongly about their connections to Canada. These are the people in the north who want some day to have the right to attain provincial status. I think we are all agreed here that Canada is an emerging nation. Canada has been a nation for 114 years. We look forward to many, many more centuries as a nation. It would be wrong at this time for us to shut off prematurely any opportunity which the people in the Northwest Territories may have to form a province.

Ten provinces are involved in this exercise. Ten provinces felt very strongly about the amending formula. The provinces felt that the formula of regionalization of this country was wrong. We saw something very dramatic when the provincial premiers decided to take away that unfair amending formula in the original resolution, the unfair amending formula which gave a perpetual veto to Quebec and to Ontario, and I say that as a member from the province of Ontario. The perpetual veto given to Ontario was wrong.

For that reason, I think we should deal very carefully with this amendment. We should examine it closely and ask our­ selves whether we want to be in a position to prevent the Yukon and the Northwest Territories from ever becoming provinces. I think it very important that we consider where we stand on this issue.

I want to touch on two other areas. As Canadians, what fair deal do we want for our children? Where are we going with respect to mineral rights? To speak about those issues more fully, I would like a little more time to prepare myself. Therefore, at this time I will relinquish the floor to another hon. member.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask a question of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis)? We understood yesterday that the proposer of the amendment, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), had been consulting with provincial representatives to deter­ mine whether they would agree to his amendment. Someone from that side told me late yesterday that seven of the nine provinces involved in the accord were ready to go along with the amendment. Could the hon. member or one of his col­ leagues inform the House what the present status is of the consultations? In other words, how many provinces agree with the amendment?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in preparing my remarks to speak on this question, I did not have an opportunity to get involved in the many negotiations as to whether or not the provinces would agree to this amendment. I understand that the proposer of the amendment is now involved in a House leaders’ meeting and it would not be fair or correct for me even to venture a suggestion at this time.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Has the hon. member for Simcoe North now completed his remarks?

Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for Edmonton-

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Is the hon. member for Simcoe North rising on a point of order?

Mr. Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not tell you that I had completed my remarks. I have in fact completed them, and I believe another one of my colleagues is ready to speak.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).

Mr. Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I distinctly saw you recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). I find it somewhat strange that you recognized him and although a point of order intervened, you are now recognizing another member.

Mr. Paproski: Are you challenging the Chair?

[Page 13422]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I will try to ease any problems that may have been created. I do not understand the expression that the Chair was seen to recognize an hon. member.

Mr. Lewis: Are you challenging the Chair?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. If the hon. member for York East is indicating that he had heard the Chair recognize the hon. member, there might be a point. In point of fact I did not verbally recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) at all; I quite clearly recognized the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), whom I recognize again.

Mr. Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I used the wrong words, but before the point of order by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), the only member standing in this chamber to speak was the member for Edmon­ ton East, who was shuffling his papers preparing to speak. You said the words “the hon. member for Edmonton-uh”, and perhaps the word “East” was truncated. I just wonder whether or not you should be—

An hon. Member: He never said “Edmonton”.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

An hon. Member: He has rights too.

Mr. Collenette: Yes, the hon. member for Edmonton East should at least have his right to be recognized reserved.

Mr. Paproski: He can speak for himself.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. Perhaps the Chair can once again make a contribution to this matter. There really is not a point of order that I know of, but I will dispose of the matter very simply. It must have been perfectly evident to all members present that on several occasions in the• last few minutes I have looked to my right in the expectation that there might be an hon. member there who wished to take part in the debate; and in the absence of an hon. member rising to my right I have looked to my left. The Chair is in no way involved in any conscious selection of one member as opposed to another, or in any plan to approve of the recognition of one member or another.

I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): In summarizing, and in answer to the hon. member for York East, I would state that “I call ’em as I see ’em”.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West): Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Paproski: You pick your own member and we will pick ours.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

An hon. Member: You look after your side and we will look after our side.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to note the attention being paid by certain people who have not the slightest idea of what is happening or should be happening.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lambert: It is simply a matter of their wanting to show that they are here, possibly mischief-making.

Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Lambert: In so far as this present debate is concerned, I would think the two members who have been participating would go and hide their heads in shame. As I recall, just a little over a year ago when the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) was trying to be the busybody as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, he was the man who was hustling us as well as his minister to get this resolution through the House. According to him, this was the best possible resolution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was there, I suppose, as the spokesman for his superior, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and they were imposing their original resolution and their will. Apparently they had been anointed by God, or touched by that wand of wisdom that had touched Moses. The resolution as it then stood was the best possible resolution to be given to man by their fellow man.

We have seen what has happened. I do not want to dwell upon this because the record will show a sorry, sad performance of backing, filling and trading of rights which has been declared to be sacrosanct, but when the chips were down the participants became as cynical in their haggling and trading of rights as a rug merchant in a bazaar.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lambert: What have we been doing? We have been considering amendments that are almost precisely the same as what was contained in Sections 28 and 34 of the original resolution-part and parcel in the beginning. Those rights were included at the time of public hearings. The Minister of Justice then had the gall subsequently to say “we gave you”. How grandiloquent of them; how generous of them!

An hon. Member: Right on.

Mr. Lambert: The parliamentary secretary says “right”. He has not, nor has any minister of this government, an ounce of power or right to grant a right to a fellow citizen. The citizen has his or her rights, and it is not for the state or a representative of the state to grant those rights. That is the difference

[Page 13423]

between the philosophy of this government and ours. The Liberals are “states rightists”.

[Translation]

They are states rightists, obsessed with the theory that the individual exists for the benefit of the state.

[English]

We can expect that from the socialists because that is their morning porridge, and of course the two have been getting together. The socialist leader has been clasping the original resolution and charter to his bosom and saying “me too, me too!” That is what he said at the beginning, indicating clearly the philosophy that the state gives the individual his or her rights.

A constitution is that body of law given by the constituent peoples to the state for their governance, not some sort of body of law devised by a man or those in power granting rights to individuals.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lambert: That is what has been happening, and what has happened since October 1980 has shown the corrupt thinking of the whole process. We have reached this point, lurching this way and that way, where members of this House and colleagues from the Senate have heard from the people who appeared before the joint committee. The people were not supposed to be heard from, not at all. That was the doctrine of the NDP to start with. In the original instance they supported the timetable through the mouth of their leader who did everything but genuflect before the Prime Minister in his self-serving subservience to achieve, I do not know what.

This resolution and charter, which is not recognizable as the resolution in its original form, was supposed to be over in Britain by the first of July. Look at all the imperfections. I am glad the NDP did finally wake up and did put forward proposed changes, with a good deal of ab1hty. Their chief representative was so sickened by the process that he broke from them and resigned from his position. During that time we did witness, through statements from the mouth of the Minister of Justice or the representative of the government in the Senate, the grudging granting or the inscribing into the charter the expression of a further right, here and there.

That was not a good performance on the part of Canadian legislators. There was a question of whether it was legal for the Government of Canada unilaterally to push through whatever they wanted, to turn black into white just because they said so. Our party said no, Canadians said no and the courts said no. I believe that the British Parliament would have given a resounding no. But that does not have to happen now.

Mr. Peterson: Vote against the charter if you do not like it.

Mr. Lambert: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) has always got a cheap contribution to make from his seat. I have not talked of the charter as it now stands. The charter now expresses certain rights. Because there was a compromise, it does not meet everybody’s satisfaction. I believe people are entitled to say whether the charter expresses their rights properly. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have not been heard from. Few of their provincial legislatures ever held a debate or proposed a resolution in support of their premier for the views he put forward during the negotiations. Some legislatures, to their credit, were exceptions to that. During the last several weeks there seems to have been some sort of grand poker game going on, wheeling and dealing between ten people.

An hon. Member: That is your process.

Mr. Lambert: Again, this was what the hon. members on the socialist side of the House had been quite prepared to accept beforehand. We must remember that they protested very loudly once they saw the light, but their leader committed their party to a quick passage of the original resolution in which there were no aboriginal rights, no equality of the sexes, hardly any rights for the handicapped, and all the way down the line. The NDP was ready to go, grosso mode right out.

An hon. Member: Not true.

Mr. Lambert: With regard to the present amendment, it is again manifestation of that centralist thinking bureaucracy. It appears to the public eye as though the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are granting rights in a colonial way, as my friend, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) so ably pointed out a moment ago.

I visited the Northwest Territories in 1940 and the Yukon in 1957 and have done so certainly many times since. The feeling of those people and their resentment, which was so ably described by my colleague, is similar to the feeling felt in Alberta and Saskatchewan against the bureaucratic, centralist thinking in Ottawa, represented by ministers from central Canada. The bureaucrats and the members from central Canada cannot see that there is this violent objection to this patronizing colonialism which permeates government policy. It is a clear example of how the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon can have their territories emasculated without their consent. We saw it in Bill C-48, the oil and gas legislation.

An hon. Member: What about it?

Mr. Lambert: The parliamentary secretary says, “What about it?” I will tell him that Bill C-48 permits an outright plunder of the resources of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon before they are turned over to the people to whom they rightfully should be given in due course.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Lambert: I have been told by Liberal members in all seriousness-

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please.

[Page 13424]

[Translation]

Mr. Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) allow a question?

Mr. Lambert: At the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to continue my comments.

[English]

Those resources which should rightfully belong to the people of the Northwest Territories today and in the future should not be stripped and spoiled by a money-hungry central government which would attach if it could as many milk bags on one cow and hook on to every teat in order to get all the possible milk it can. If the government could put pipelines into the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, they would do it. Those Liberals have told me that under a Liberal government those territories will never achieve provincial statehood. That is the view today. Those Liberal members may be speaking for the government and it is a philosophy that they portray and, naturally, they come from central Canada.

Mr. Lanie!: The people of Canada voted for it.

Mr. Lambert: I suggest that there is nothing more tyrannical where people’s rights are concerned than when there is a temporary majority.

We have seen a great deal happen here in the past year, generally to the credit of the system, notwithstanding the efforts of individuals who were representing the federal government and some of the provinces who wanted to rush along with this resolution. Canada would have been much poorer if we had not taken the time to make the amendments in the joint committee, at the Premiers’ conferences and through bargaining with the federal government in this chamber. I hope that we will be able to make more amendments in uniquely federal jurisdictions where the consent of the premiers is not required, because this is the way Parliament should function.

This House and the Senate should not be rubber stamps to federal-provincial first ministers’ conferences. That is growing into a convention in this country. I hope that we will see an end to it so that this chamber will be responsible for itself and arrive at decisions with a government that is responsible to it.

The parliamentary secretary wanted to ask a question. Perhaps we can get it in now.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): No, we cannot. It being one o’clock I do leave the chair until 2 p.m.

At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. When the House rose at one o’clock, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had the floor, and I think he had completed his remarks.

Mr. Lambert: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): In that case I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West for approximately two minutes.

Mr. Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, never shall it be said that I have completed my remarks! However, in closing I wish to reiterate all the sentiments which were contained in that most tremendous speech last night by my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I commend it to all members of the House and to whomever is within hearing range of my voice, because I think it represents a true sentiment.

In dealing with this question this House should be inspired by confidence in the new beginning, and there is even a glimmer of light-there may be a number of glimmers-for holding within the framework of Canada the province of Quebec. I am satisfied that the people of Quebec are within the whole federation. The people are, yes; but the government, no, because it had its principle of independence to begin with.

I want to pay particular tribute to all those who participated in getting the Constitution this far. There are some parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I do not like. I do not like turning my life over to the courts and to interpretation by the courts. That is alien to our form of government and our social consciousness. That is something that is American.

Mr. Smith: Vote against the charter then.

Mr. Lambert: There is the other spirit now. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) says that if we do not agree with him 100 per cent and if we disagree with the Prime Minister even by 5 per cent or 10 per cent, we should vote against the charter. That is our alternative, but that is nonsense. That is the most foolish philosophy which could ever be adopted by any government in this country.

I trust that with some more amendments which the House will support and the amendments that are before it presently­ and there may be one or two others which I would commend to the attention of the House-we could then accept this resolution and see it on its way, so that ultimately in due course we will have a made-in-Canada or resident-in-Canada Constitution. We have done pretty well for 114 years. Another few days, weeks or months will not make any difference.

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Mr. Speaker, in the radiant glow of constitutional euphoria in which the Liberal government is at present basking because of the apparent success of the constitutional resolution and process so far, the comments I am about to make are not likely to be well received-about as welcome, I suggest, as a storm cloud about

[Page 13425]

to obliterate the sun and drench the sun bathers in a lashing gale and hailstorm.

For openers, however, I wish to pay tribute briefly to the Progressive Conservative Party and our leader for the out­ standing work we managed to accomplish since October 2, 1980 when the original resolution was revealed to the Canadian public. Time will not permit me to list all these accomplishments. I propose to summarize them, nonetheless, and to say that had it not been for the perspicacity and foresight of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and for the determined and unified opposition against that earlier proposal, ably led in this House and in committee by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), Canada would by now be strait-jacketed into a completely unworkable Constitution-if the British Parliament could have been persuaded to approve it in that earlier form, that is, having gone through the first intended process, namely, unilateral imposition through arbitrary decision.

Our leader and our party can take a great deal of credit for the following: first, alerting the Canadian people through insisting on open television coverage, of what exactly what was taking place in the committee; second, the appearance of expert witnesses; third, the inclusion of amendments which were at first refused; fourth, the extension of time which was at first circumscribed; fifth, the reference to the Supreme Court; and sixth, the meeting of the first ministers. That is not a bad record. It is one of which we can be proud.

However, as already indicated, we still have a defective document which will not accomplish what this government claims it will; that is, it will not provide Canada with a purely Canadian Constitution. To that matter I shall return, as I will to some other defects, shortcomings and false expectations, not to mention the illusory benefits which the government’s advocacy advertising has either promoted or glossed over and made a number of Canadians believe.

I am having difficulty with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is riddled with defects. There are drafting defects as well as shortcomings. The charter gives rise, furthermore, to false expectations. It is a document which was hastily thrown together. What we are witnessing is amendment even as we debate.

However, one of my arguments is, given the nature of the three main elements this document contains—namely, a patriation formula in Schedule A, Section I, an amending formula in Schedule B, Part IV, and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Schedule B, Part I—and given that the amending formula is so drastically changed and improved over the rigid one included in the original proposal, I am wondering now if we could not proceed with the patriation formula and the amending formula as a package for the British Parliament to approve and leave the charter, as it should be, a document which will be fashioned and approved in Canada in accordance with the approved Canadian amending formula. Why not? That is my first suggestion.

Mr. Waddell: What do you think we have been doing for the last year?

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): Let us go about this properly and in a Canadian way now that at last we have found a formula that can be accepted by “a substantial majority,” as we were directed to do by the Supreme Court. Even the decision as to whether or not we really require a Charter of Rights and Freedoms—and I am not sure that is so—ought to be dealt with through the amending formula.

One of the reasons I make the suggestion is that, however you look at it, Schedule B of the resolution, once approved in Westminster, will be and will remain a British statute. Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be a British statute—it cannot be anything else—just as is the BNA Act. It is drafted in Canada, but the British Parliament is asked to approve it. There is no way out of that impasse. If one were to insist that the Charter be submitted to Westminster for approval, it will emerge from that Parliament as a British statute. That is not what I consider patriation.

I shall cite one example, Mr. Speaker. Do we know what we are doing when we in the Canadian Parliament, presumably supreme within our own domain, ask the British Parliament, I repeat the British Parliament, to provide in a British statute that this Parliament shall sit and each legislature of this country shall sit at least once every twelve months? We ask the British Parliament to tell us when to sit. Is that not something we should do in Canada?

Personally, I resent the very suggestion that now, with all the talk of being maitres chez nous, masters in our own house, we should be bound by a British statute as to how, and how often, we conduct Canada’s business. Should we ask the British Parliament to legislate in respect to provincial equalization and regional disparities, as Part II, of Schedule B suggests they are being asked to do? Have we no pride? Are we unable to stand on our own feet? Is the British Parliament being asked to do these things? I suggest it is, Mr. Speaker, and they are things we should be doing ourselves. Also on the matter of whether or not we should hold constitutional conferences, which is in Part III? We must all be out for lunch, and not at Mr. MacEachen’s lunch either. In this respect as in so many others, this Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the promises made to the Canadian people about it are an utter sham.

It comes down to this: charters as such have me worried. I do not believe that freedoms, liberties and rights are advanced, much less guaranteed, merely by itemizing them. Most freedoms, most liberties and many rights, I contend, are inherent in us as human beings. They are ours from birth and remain ours unless we are deprived of them.

An hon. Member: By governments.

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): It is not within the power of the state to grant them or to confer them because the state

[Page 13426]

has no such storehouse of rights on which to draw, not a single one.

Mr. Smith: Then vote against it.

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): However, the state, having sovereign power, can deprive us of our freedoms, our liberties and our rights and in doing so become tyrannical. That is the problem.

When we put these two notions together, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that rights can only be real and have lasting meaning when we consider them as limitations on the sovereign power of the state to protect individuals from the unfettered exercise of the power of the state. Or perhaps more simply put, as protection against unwarranted invasion by the state.

Blackstone, that great eighteenth century legalist, put it in this way: “…the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature”.

More contemporary expressions of that same attitude are to be found in the writings of Mr. E. A. Driedger, Q.C., a former deputy minister of justice of Canada, whom I have para­ phrased somewhat in the foregoing.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms before us in this House, Mr. Speaker, is not drafted from this perspective. This Charter of Rights and Freedoms offends that approach to rights in that it reverses the relative place in the order of things as between man and the state. Blackstone and Driedger-and, if I may be so bold as to place myself in that company, I too-place the individual first and the state second. This charter has put things the other way. It was put together by people who believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual. Had it been otherwise, instead of saying what they do in Section 2, that “Everyone has the … funda­ mental freedoms…”, and then it proceeds to list them, it would have been drafted in this way: “No act of Parliament, or of a legislature, as the case may be, shall derogate from the following fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, unless the case is made that to do so is in the general or public interest”. That is a hasty redraft of that Section 2. That puts the priorities in their proper place.

My proviso is a concession that is necessary to recognize that freedoms, liberties and rights are not unlimited-and I have never said they were-but must be subject to societal demands.

The Chair might think I have made more of a case than I needed to demonstrate a different approach to rights. I consider the difference fundamental. I fear the results of subscribing thoughtlessly to provisions drafted by those whose ideas, concepts and driving forces differ so radically and fundamentally from that concept that rights belong to the individual and should be protected from invasion by the state.

I have other concerns with the substance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is before us, Mr. Speaker. Some relate to the wording but most relate to the risk that we are running in handing over to the courts the task of interpreting this document and, in consequence, of making the laws that Parliament should be making. In our tradition, Parliaments are our legislators. In this particular document we are about to hand over a large portion of that legislative responsibility to our courts. That worries me, Mr. Speaker, as it should worry not only parliamentarians but all Canadians.

Judicial interpretations of entrenched items in this charter will be, if I understand matters correctly, alterable only through the application of the amending formula. That will not be easy. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will hand over to the courts much that was once within the power of Parliament to consider. This I consider regressive, Mr. Speaker.

I have spoken about what the British Parliament is being asked to do, and I consider it improper that it be asked to tell this Parliament when it should meet. On the other hand, Part IV, the amending formula, is properly a matter on which the British Parliament can decide, along with the passing of Section 2 of Schedule A by which the British Parliament formally and finally renounces any power it has to pass laws having effect in Canada. In other words, to remove itself from that role that it has played in the past. This is the essence of patriation with an amending formula.

I can see no other way of making Canada’s Constitution a truly Canadian document, patriated, along with an amending formula that has a substantial measure of support, as the Supreme Court of Canada ruled was desirable; all the rest is for Canada to decide-by the Canadian Parliament and Canadian legislatures.

If we were to proceed in any other way we will still be governed by a statute-as I previously said, and it needs underlining because some people cannot see this-which is not fully and properly of Canadian make and has the full force of Canadian law behind it.

If I may be permitted a further comment, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a rather slipshod bit of drafting in the bill; it is one of its defects. Despite the fact that the clause in question has been before us for approximately 14 months, this defect has remained unchanged. I refer to Section 3 which provides that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote. I have a neighbour with two children, one eight years of age and the other six years of age. Both these children were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens under the Citizen­ ship Act. The Canada Elections Act may well indicate that in order to vote, Canadians must have attained that age of 18 years by election day.

However, I submit that under Section 15 of the charter, legislation which discriminates on the basis of age could be contested. I consider this somewhat farcical. While the intent of the right to vote is clear, the method of expressing it is distinctly faulty and makes a laughing stock of the particular clause. I do not think the Constitution should be the laughing stock of the people who are supposed to accept it. If faulty

[Page 13427]

drafting can be identified here in such an obvious context, how many other perhaps even more serious flaws may lie undetected in the 57-odd sections of the bill? I am not a lawyer; I just happened upon this particular defect. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) detected two defects concerning the extension of the provinces into the territories.

I have serious misgivings about charters and codes of right. They stem from my intellectual upbringing, relying on precedent, practice, convention and common law to determine the four corners at any given time within which I may exercise the rights I believe I possess.

Mr. Chenier: Oh, oh!

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): I cannot understand why the hon. member is giggling. The hon. member for Surrey­ White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) intervened on the original resolution. He expressed much the same thoughts, particularly as they referred to the inherent nature of our rights. I commend his speech to all within hearing distance of my voice. It can be found on page 7497 of the February 19 edition of Hansard.

As I have already said, it will be impossible to escape from the strait-jacket of entrenchment without recourse to the amending formula. This is a frightening concept. Perhaps I am repeating myself, but I think it is worth doing so. By my understanding of this term and its application, judicial interpretations are just as entrenched as the sections that are being interpreted. This gives judges the role of legislators which they were never intended to be.

I notice Mr. Speaker is becoming somewhat jittery; perhaps he is suggesting that I should sit down soon. I should like to refer to Section 24(2) which deals with the enforcement provisions. It rules out evidence in a proceeding for remedy against an infringement of an entrenched right or freedom, if it is established that “having regard to all the circumstances”, which is a phrase that is surely open to judicial interpretation and appealable beyond the court where such a ruling was given, the admission of that evidence would “bring the administration of justice into disrepute”. Again this is an open-ended phrase. What do those words mean? What will the judges say about them?

In the few minutes remaining I should like to examine the preamble because I think it is defective as well. There are three whereas clauses. Between the second and the third there is need for amendment. It overlooks the fact that there was an agreement in conformity with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest that the following two additions be made:

And whereas it is constitutionally required that this resolution have a substantial measure of provincial consent.

An hon. Member: Are these amendments?

Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): I am suggesting that there are defects. I am not proposing amendments, but I think the entire document is a sham. The second addition would read:

And whereas provincial consent to this resolution has been signified by the governments of the provinces of-

And the provinces ought to be listed. It would fulfil the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada. We cannot rely on the British Parliament or on Her Majesty the Queen to follow our newspapers. It should be part of the document which is going to them. It should indicate that substantial consent is required and has been obtained.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway): Mr. Speaker, indeed this is a surprise. I followed closely the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), but I could not quite understand whether he finds the Constitution so fatally flawed that he will vote against it. I almost gathered this from his speech.

I should like to say something generally about the Constitution and something precisely about the particular amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). A constitution is more than a mechanical set of ground rules: it is a mirror reflecting the national soul. I agree with the last speaker that we must take time to make this the best document possible.

We in the New Democratic Party have consistently argued for three historic goals: patriation of the British North Ameri­ ca Act, 1867, hitherto Canada’s main constitutional document; an amending formula which would do justice to the regional diversity of Canada; and a charter of fundamental freedoms and rights. Today I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). On the basis of my experience as a westerner and partly as a northerner, and his experience from travelling around the country with the inquiry into the Constitution for years, we both agree that Canada is a difficult and regional country. But this is part of the greatness of the country. We wanted to see an amending formula which would do justice to the regional diversity that is Canada.

This is not new for us. It is consistent with the history of our movement, the movement of the CCF and the NDP. For example, in 1927 J. S. Woodsworth introduced a motion to patriate the Constitution. The same motion prompted the calling of the first constitutional conference which really began the entire process we now see culminating.

The New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, have a record in civil liberties unsurpassed by any political party. One need only mention our fight for the vote for Chinese Canadians, against the shabby treatment of the Japanese Canadians, as well as our opposition to the War Measures Act. On a provincial level, T. C. Douglas introduced Canada’s first bill of rights in Saskatchewan in 1947. We have consistently fought against Canada’s political colonialism to the United Kingdom. Today, every day in the House and in every committee, we fight against Canada’s present economic colonialism to the United States. It is a consistent history. One would expect that we would welcome, support and advocate the government’s thrust toward a new constitution.

I should like to put one matter to rest. The Constitution was made in Canada. It was made by 900 individuals who

[Page 13428]

appeared before the committee, the presentation of 300 briefs and the work of approximately a hundred members. I should like to pay tribute in my speech today to the excellent work of the hon. Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), as able co-chairman of the committee, as well as that of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) as members of the committee.

This Constitution was made in Canada and at every stage of the process Canadians wanted to make it a better and more contemporary constitution. That was always the resolve.

Some doubts were raised in the country about the legality of the process, so it was proper that the finished package be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. When the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal but not constitutional in the conventional sense, it was proper for this party to hold out for another first ministers’ conference. That is history, Mr. Speak­ er. We had that first ministers’ conference and in the end we had a document.

That document contains some improvements. For example, the Senate veto was deleted and that is an improvement. But it also had some fundamental flaws, Mr. Speaker. There were four-and perhaps a fifth one is this amendment dealing with the north.

The first fundamental flaw was the removal of the principle of equality between men and women. That was restored, however. The second flaw was that it removed an explicit and positive affirmation about native rights. That was restored, but only partly, because the word “existing” was added to Section 34. I want to speak further about that in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. That amendment was very symbolic for the native people and it is something upon which we can build. The third flaw is that the accord does not include Quebec.

The fourth flaw is that the charter has been somewhat emasculated. The principal concession that the premiers won from the federal government in the November 5 accord was the provincial override on fundamental freedom, legal rights and equality rights in the charter.

The purpose of an entrenched charter is to give the courts, in an open and direct manner, the authority they need to protect our basic freedoms if legislative and government restraint should fail. If legislatures are given the power to cancel that judicial authority, as they now have been, they are most likely to use it when there is a failure of restraint. Canadian history shows that it has been, by and large, the provincial legislatures and their creatures, the municipalities, that have most often violated fundamental rights.

I am a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and I have appeared in every level of court in Canada on civil liberties cases and I have seen this pattern emerge very clearly. It is in our history, from Mr. Roncarelli’s liquor licence to the Alberta press laws, most recently to the anti-parade by-laws in some of our cities which affect freedom of assembly. It is a sorry picture.

There have been violations of civil liberties in this country and if the legislatures are given an override, they may use it some time when restraint is called for.

A great lady who once represented my riding of Vancouver­ Kingsway in this House, Grace Macinnis, told me that her husband, Angus Macinnis, stood up against a tidal wave of public opinion when it was proposed to confiscate the homes and property of Japanese Canadians and move the people away from the west coast during the war. I am afraid that could happen again and that is why I think it is unfortunate that we do not have an entrenched charter. We will have to live with that, however. We expected that some concession would be made to the premiers and this is it. I just want to express my disappointment about that, Mr. Speaker.

This is not the kind of charter that we, as socialists, believe in, Mr. Speaker. We believe that the hungry must be fed; the ailing must be helped; the old must be looked after and the young must be allowed to go as far as possible in school. These ideals are almost universally accepted. They belong in a twentieth century constitution but what we have here is a nineteenth century charter.

Socialists are concerned with the growth of the human spirit. This charter talks of freedom but we know that no one is really free if unemployed, if poor or if unable to send his or her children as far as possible in school.

Last weekend 100,000 people demonstrated on Parliament Hill. I think they were demonstrating for economic freedom in the interests of working people, students and pensioners.

[Translation]

Mr. Speaker, if it is true, as it has often been said, that the Prime Minister and his liberal caucus are the most legitimate representatives of Quebec and that we can ignore the designs of the Quebec premier, Mr. Rene Levesque, I ask myself a few questions. Why do the same principles and reasoning not apply to the other provinces? Have the aspirations of the premiers of anglophone provinces been brushed aside when they were inconsistent with those of the federal members from those provinces? Surely not Mr. Speaker. The Parti quebecois may fail to reach its goal of Quebec independence but it will remain a political power in Quebec for several years to come. This is why it must be taken seriously, this is why we cannot allow ourselves to ignore the legitimate aspirations of Quebec merely because the Parti quebecois is in power.

As federal Members of Parliament, it is our duty to be prudent. What should we do? I think that the federal Parliament should do its utmost to respect the traditional position of Quebec in constitutional matters. In April, 1981, Quebec agreed to a patriation project with seven other provinces. I think that this constitutional resolution should contain the basic principles of the agreement reached among those eight provinces. How could Mr. Levesque reasonably object to such a resolution? To maintain the principle of two majorities in Canada, I would even be willing to consider the right for Quebec and for Quebec only to opt out of federal programs

[Page 13429]

coming under its own jurisdiction and to receive a fair financial compensation.

[English]

We cannot say that the federal Liberals necessarily represent Quebec. It is not said of me that I represent the provincial interests of British Columbia; I represent national interests. If we are to take provincial interests into consideration, then we must carefully consider the government of Quebec. The Parti Quebecois will not just go away. I suggest that in this regard we should examine the April accords and try to implement them. I have gone so far as to say that we may have to consider giving Quebec, but only Quebec, the right to opt out of programs with financial compensation.

The reason that I will vote for this package is that it embodies, not in a perfect way but in a general way, the picture that I have of Canada. I see Canada as two founding societies, the English and the French, built on the foundation of the aboriginal people. That is why we fought so hard to get Section 34 included.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Waddell: That is what Canada is about. We have the native people included, and they can continue their fight; and we also have the French and the English. We recognize that it is important not to educate a bunch of old bureaucrats in the French language, but that we go to the kids, to the schools and to educational rights. That is where we should be going. Then we have added on the multicultural provision. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner), from the Conservative Party, spoke eloquently about how he came as an immigrant, as I did. We add that aspect and that is Canada, is it not? We put that foundation in place.

Before I conclude, I want to say a couple of things about this particular amendment. In the Rupert’s Land Act of 1867, Parliament was clearly given jurisdiction over the Northwest Territories. Now, in light of that act, it is clear that the inclusion of Section 41(I )(e) and (f) is a violation of trust and an abdication of the federal government’s responsibilities to the territories. By taking the power for themselves, the provinces have made an incursion into federal jurisdiction. Besides, when did we ever agree to grant provinces extraterritorial jurisdiction? That is what we are doing here. Why should the provinces of Canada be able to expand into the north? Why should they have a veto as to what happens in the northern territories?

I lived in Yellowknife for two years, I am a member of the bar of the Northwest Territories and I had an opportunity to travel throughout the north.

An hon. Member: Canadian bar?

Mr. Waddell: Not some of the bars which my hon. friends think of, there are legal bars there as well!

Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Is there an illegal bar?

Mr. Waddell: In the north we have a unique opportunity to create different kinds of provinces. The Yukon has its own culture. I would like to see the Yukon as a province. I would like to see the Dene area of the Mackenzie Valley a province some day. I would like to see an Eskimo province in this country. Just think what that would mean to the world! Just think what it would mean to have Nunavut a province. I might say that I see the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) in front of me. In my chance to speak concerning the constitutional resolution, I want to pay sincere tribute to the hon. member. Sometimes he and I do not agree on everything, but I want to pay tribute to the hon. member because he has consistently fought for his constituency, his people, against long odds and he has been very successful.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Waddell: In his speech on this very topic the other night, he continued to fight against these proposals in Section 41 of the Constitution. People wonder, what are the interests of most Canadians in the north? Most people live in the south or on the American border. They stretch five thousand miles across the country. They do not really live in the north. Yet even though most Canadians have not been to the north, they feel that they are northerners. We are a northern land, a northern country.

An hon. Member: The true north, strong and free.

Mr. Waddell: That is part of the Canadian culture. That is why there is always consistent public support in protecting the people of the north from the encroaching development which prevents them from getting a fair break. I ask the government to consider that when it votes on this particular amendment.

I notice my time is drawing to a close, but I want to back up what I said with the fact that Canadian culture and Canadian literature has always referred to us as northern people. We should not allow the possibility of expanding our existing provinces into the north; rather, we should work to create new provinces of the north—

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Waddell: —just as we will work to create new ideas of aboriginal claims and rights in the north and other parts of the country.

I want to end by a quote from my favourite poet, F. R. Scott. In a poem entitled “Laurentian Shield”, he wrote the following:

Hidden in wonder and snow or sudden with summer

This land stares at the sun in a huge silence

Endlessly repeating something we cannot hear

Inarticulate, Arctic

Not written on by history, empty as paper.

The Canadian dream of which I have spoken may still be elusive and undefined. However, in our own way, in this House of Commons, in this Parliament, with the premiers and in meetings, and with the good will of the people of this country

[Page 13430]

who have tried to make this constitutional resolution better—let us remember the word “better”—we can find a little part of that Canadian dream and define it a little bit. We can add to that empty paper. We can articulate in the huge silence which is Canada, and that is what we are trying to do.

That is why I am supporting this constitutional document. That is why I am encouraging hon. members opposite to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon, as spoken to the other night by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, and, the other day, by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and to let our northern territories develop into new and unique provinces to further continue the Canadian dream.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West): Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my thanks to my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus for giving me another opportunity to speak to the constitutional resolution as this parliamentary debate draws to a close. We began with the introduction of the constitutional resolution in September of 1980. We have travelled some perilous waters in coming to the position in which we find ourselves today; that is, our constitutional accord which may, in the end, result in giving the people of Canada a new Constitution, made in Canada, with provisions governing rights of Canadians.

I realize that we have yet to vote in this House of Commons on the ultimate provisions of the constitutional proposal. How­ ever, the establishment of the accord between nine of the provinces of Canada and the Government of Canada gives hon. members in this House the opportunity to consider the constitutional provisions in the light of a consensus and agreement among the great majority of the Canadian people. That is something we did not have in September of 1980 when this constitutional proposal was first brought before the House of Commons.

For that reason, let me pay my respects to the work done by the right hon. member for Yellowhead and Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). From the time the constitutional resolution was introduced in this House, the Leader of the Official Opposition made his position clear. That position was that the constitutional resolution did not result from a process of consent and concurrence.

The process followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in bringing this resolution to the House of Commons did not involve, and was not the product of, agreement with the heads of the provinces with whom he had dealt in a first minister’s conference. It was the lack of the following of that process which was raised in the House by the Progressive Conservative Party as being the major objection to the constitutional resolution.

Today we stand here with our leader, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, completely vindicated in the position which he took with the support of the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crosby: If the people of Canada are not already aware, they should be made aware of the disaster which would have taken place in this country had this Parliament simply stood mute and not fought the Prime Minister and his party on their insistence in bringing forward a constitutional proposal which did not have the consent and concurrence of the provinces.

It should be repeated again and again across this country that it was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who stood up to be counted in the face of the apparent popularity of the constitutional provision. The Prime Minister said time and time again that the people of Canada were behind him; but in spite of that bravado on the part of the Prime Minister, the opposition on this side of the House stood firmly behind its leader. Now we have the constitutional accord which will give real meaning to constitutional change.

The process of consent and concurrence must continue. The Government of Canada cannot expect to bring about substantial changes in the traditions, culture and heritage of Canadians without the consent and the involvement of the provincial governments. That is very much a part of our federal system. I hope the Prime Minister and his supporters in this House of Commons have learned a lesson over the last months and years in that the federal nature of Canada must be honoured in any constitutional change.

There has been a fight in Parliament. The position taken by those who fought that battle has been vindicated. I hope that we can now proceed in a common sense fashion to bring about a sensible conclusion to this constitutional process.

I must remind you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of this house that part of that fight was the stand which this Progressive Conservative Party took on the matter of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Again the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) stood both inside the House and outside of it and said that the Supreme Court of Canada had no role to play in the constitutional process. The Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice said that the constitutional proposals should go forward without any reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine its legality, notwithstanding the fact that in the past the government’s proposal with respect to Senate reform had been pronounced unconstitutional.

Other legislative measures introduced by the government have been declared unconstitutional in the past and yet the Prime Minister failed to yield to those who cried caution and asked and begged that the matter be referred to the courts for resolution by the highest court of this land. It was only under pressure, again from the opposition and under the leadership of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we were able to convince the Prime Minister that the matter ought to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Of course, everybody knows what happened once the constitutional proposal was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada said quite clearly that the proposal violated constitutional conventions. But what did

[Page 13431]

the Prime Minister do? Did he respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada? No, the Prime Minister then commenced an argument as to the meaning, extent and involvement of constitutional conventions in the process of change. The Prime Minister was again proved wrong, I suspect not because of action in this House, but because he must have known that the United Kingdom Parliament would force him to act on the basis of constitutional convention, that the United Kingdom Parliament would not allow him to have passed in Westminster the constitutional proposal unless the constitutional conventions established by the Supreme Court of Canada were observed.

We then had the process before us which led to the accord between the Government of Canada and the provinces. It is that accord that we must follow and keep in mind as we consider the constitutional proposal now before this House. The Prime Minister himself in the past has indicated quite clearly that the constitutional proposal had two main parts. The first part was to bring the Constitution to Canada and make it subject to an amending formula which could be implemented within Canada and without reference to the United Kingdom Parliament. The second part was the establishment of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I want to deal principally with the matter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enacted in the constitutional resolution. The legislative provision on human rights and fundamental freedoms is not new to the Parliament of Canada. In fact, the Canadian Bill of Rights was introduced in this House by the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker many years ago. As a result of the efforts of Mr. Diefenbaker, the Canadian Bill of Rights was enacted and became law. If you review that Canadian Bill of Rights today, Mr. Speaker, you will see provisions not much different from those provisions included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

But, Mr. Speaker, you must ask yourself, what effect do those provisions have? Since the enactment of the Canadian Bill of Rights and over the years since then, when brought before the courts in attempts by persons to apply those provisions to situations which arose from time to time, the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, have not championed the cause of human rights as enacted by the Canadian Bill of Rights. Time and time again the courts in their decisions have limited the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights.

When people talk about emasculating constitutional provisions and emasculating the charters of rights, that is indeed what has taken place over the years with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights. That is my first and foremost concern. Will the provisions now contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be given full force and will they be implemented across Canada if and when the charter becomes law. That will happen only if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the real support of the Canadian people. It is only today, as a result of the accord reached among the provinces and the Government of Canada, that I think there will be the kind of acceptance on the part of the Canadian people that is necessary to give real meaning to the provisions of this charter.

I would like to review some of the provisions of the charter which I think are of real importance and could bring about just results in situations where in the past injustice has occurred. I have particularly in mind the provisions relating to handicapped persons. Anyone who has followed the plight of handicapped persons in Canada will know that in many practical and theoretical ways they have been deprived of their rights. Our charter now contains a provision which will guarantee handicapped persons equality with all citizens of Canada. I wonder if the people of Canada and indeed even members of this House, realize and recognize what that means. It means in one way the simple provision of access to buildings so that a person in a wheelchair can go into the same places as a person who has the full use of his or her legs. That physical access can be easily provided.

But what about the other problems facing the handicapped? Will our schools across Canada be willing to admit children with handicaps? It will be very difficult to bring handicapped children into the classroom in which other children, are taught-those who might be said to be normal children. If handicapped children cannot be brought in and integrated into the educational system and have exactly the same privileges and treatment as children without handicaps, this provision will be meaningless.

I can say from past personal experience that the implementation of those provisions will cost thousands and thousands of dollars, perhaps millions and millions, in the provinces of Canada. I hope that when we rise to vote on this constitutional resolution and endorse the rights which we are now giving handicapped persons, we will do so in the full realization that in order effectively to implement those rights millions of dollars of public funds will have to be expended.

I can say the same thing about native persons. In this Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if it is enacted by this House, we have given special rights to native persons. To implement those rights we are now giving to native persons will mean a massive, expenditure of public funds, so as to equate the position of native persons with that achieved by other Canadians. I hope we are ready for that.

We are giving special rights to women by way of a provision that will ensure that women have equal rights with men. I am sure all Canadian women can tell you of many instances during their lifetime when they have been deprived of rights. Again we must face the fact that in order to implement any special rights, such as the right of equality we will be giving women, we have to face the challenge of implementing those rights.

Members of this House from the province of Nova Scotia, particularly my good friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), were surprised to learn a few weeks ago that the government of Nova Scotia had some concerns about giving full rights to women. We have come to

[Page 13432]

learn that this involved a technical matter and the legal drafting of the measure, and that there was never any intent on the part of the government of Nova Scotia to refuse to give women across Canada equality of rights.

However, I do want to go a step further. I have said publicly, and I repeat now, that the challenge to the government of Nova Scotia and, indeed, the challenge to all provincial governments and the Government of Canada, is not to stop at merely enacting a provision that gives equality to women, but to proceed to implement that right and ensure that women receive their just and fair treatment in Canada in all phases of life. I cannot repeat too often the need to challenge governments, having given rights to the people of Canada, to ensure that those rights are implemented and given real meaning.

There is an area not expressly a part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is very important to persons in Eastern Canada, and that is the question of equalization and regional disparity. The constitutional resolution contains a provision in Section 35 guaranteeing the removal of problems which have in the past created regional disparities. The same provision indicates that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada will promote equal opportunity for the wellbeing of Canadians, and will further economic development to reduce disparity in opportunity and provide essential services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. The area of Atlantic Canada has suffered in the past in this regard. Again the challenge to the Government of Canada is to implement this provision which is about to be enshrined in a constitutional resolution.

I have to say that it does not look to me at this point in time that the government takes that challenge seriously. The government is willing to bring forward a provision and include it in a constitutional resolution, but is it ready to go forward with the economic measures and initiatives required to bring about real equality among the regions of Canada?

I look across the House and see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and I am reminded of the record of the Canadian National Railway Company. In 1867 the national railway line was very much a part of the confederation proposal. Confederation was built around a transportation system that would give to all areas of the confederation equal access and equal opportunity to trade goods and otherwise deal with various parts of the confederation. Some 115 years later that transportation system is in jeopardy.

At the port of Halifax, for example, as the minister knows, we are suffering from the inability to transport goods, particularly in containers and in other forms of cargo containers, from the port of Halifax to Central Canada. The only practical link is the Canadian National Railway Company. What does the railway company do? It places rates on that freight transportation which make it impossible for many marine transporters to compete effectively. How can we take seriously a constitution­ al provision intended to develop equal treatment and remove regional disparities when right this very day we have allowed our national transportation company to fall to the position where it cannot create at least that level of equality of transportation services?

We have before us at the present time, at the initiative of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), a proposal to remove from the constitutional resolution those provisions which would give to all the provinces and the Government of Canada the right to decide whether the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories can become provinces of Canada. If that amendment succeeds in passing through the House, then the right to create new provinces will belong solely to the Government and the Parliament of Canada, as has been the case in the past. I support that proposal, and I support it because—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to say in conclusion that I support the proposal the hon. member for Yukon has initiated because we have a similar problem in the province of Nova Scotia. We want to expand our boundaries in order to include within our province the submarine lands, which we believe are rich in natural resources and which we believe are rightfully claimed by the province of Nova Scotia. This goes to the right of self-determination among the regions and provinces of Canada, and is very much an important feature of any constitutional change; that is, giving the people of an area the right to determine their future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House this afternoon to speak about the Constitution of Canada. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the right hon. leader of the Conservative Party and to my colleagues in this party on this side of the House. I think that tribute is warranted because we would not be here in the month of November 1981, dealing with this basic resolution, which is so very different from the one we first saw in October 1980, had it not been for the leadership given by that former Prime Minister of Canada who sits in this chamber on this side of the House. He has had that experience and that awesome responsibility as head of the Government of Canada. It was that experience as well as his experience from the years before that perhaps provided him with the wisdom and common sense needed to recognize what was wrong with the original package.

May I suggest that it was not just the content of the original package which was at fault but, and this is perhaps clear to most Canadians, that unilateral process which ran against the very nature of this country and which has run as a thread throughout our discussions on the Constitution both in this House and in the committee. I am pleased to be able to stand this afternoon and indicate to Canadians that this unilateral process was stopped and we returned to the Canadian way of

[Page 13433]

resolving conflicts. As a result, we were able to reach an agreement among the nine provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). Once that initial barrier was overcome, we subsequently found in the House of Com­ mons a remarkable degree of agreement on some very basic issues. This would indicate that the charter and the resolution itself were still flawed. We are engaged here this afternoon in the process of trying to correct it further.

For me, the word Canada suggests something clearly greater and more significant than the sum of its parts. I think we should acknowledge, especially in the House of Commons of Canada, that our nation is truly blessed, both in the quality of the people who live within it and in the resources which are available to every Canadian. I believe it is equally true, as our leader often says on public platforms to Canadians, that we are a community of communities. What he is reflecting is the basic reality of this nation. What he is speaking to is our vast distances, the different political choices in many of our provinces and regions. What he is trying to communicate to Canadians is the necessity for every member in the House, and hopefully every Canadian, whatever their origin, to be sensitive and never forget how large this country is and how varied those of us who live in different parts of Canada are.

When we cease to be sensitive and try to move unilaterally, when decisions which are binding on all parts of Canada are made from the centre, and as the distance from Ottawa increases, the sensitivity to those decisions decreases. The rhythms which result are frequently dangerous and run counter to the essential nature of Canada and, I believe, counter to the reality of Canada in the future.

If we are not sensitive to each and every part of this nation, we run the risk of putting intolerable pressure on parts of this nation. We run the risk of giving cause to those who would separate us in this nation. That is true of Quebec today and that is true of the people in my province because of the tensions we have experienced over the last 12 months. Those tensions were real and were caused by nothing more and nothing less than the public perception of a lack of sensitivity to those parts of Canada which are somewhat different than the centre.

I suggest to members of the House that it takes a long time for public perception to grow and for the public to understand accurately what it is that we sometimes debate in the House for too little time.

The major feat which this party accomplished on behalf of the Canadian people was really nothing more and nothing less than time for the Canadian people to begin to understand what the constitutional resolution was all about and time for Canadians to mobilize and bring pressure to bear on the people whom they elect and give them, if you will, a sense of public’s will and a sense of the need for change. That is what the filibuster brought on behalf of the Canadian people.

I believe that this week has been an important one in the history of this nation, and the common ingredient again is time. People who care, who are knowledgeable and who live in all parts of this country have used that time to put pressure on their provincially and federally elected members to continue to change and try to improve this resolution before it becomes the basic law of our country.

If it was true in October, 1980, that we needed time, I stand in the House this afternoon to say that I do not think we need much more time, but we do need some. I wonder how future members of this chamber will feel ten years from now if they look back on what we are doing here today and wonder if a few hours or a few days would have given a little more time for the Canadian system to work, more time for the people of Quebec, for instance, to find out exactly what this constitutional resolution is about and to bring pressure on the people elected from the province of Quebec to improve it so they could be signatories of the resolution.

Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I may be so discourteous as to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), I believe the government House leader has a proposal that he wishes to advance, if that is acceptable to the hon. member for Calgary West.

Mr. Hawkes: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Is that agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that there is unanimous consent to allowing me to move the following motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Is that agreed and so ordered?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, following a proposal made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and following the House leaders’ meetings which followed this proposal made on the floor of the House this morning, I am happy to report that we have come to an agreement on the following motion. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):

That the motion of the Minister of Justice for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen concerning the Constitution of Canada (Government Orders, Government Business, No. 56), notwithstanding any Standing or other Order, be disposed with as follows:

1. The first member to be recognized after the amendment to the said motion proposed by the honourable member for Yukon has been disposed of shall be the honourable member for Rosedale who shall propose an amendment.
2. All questions necessary for the disposal of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Rosedale shall be put without further debate no later than 4.30 p.m. this day.
3. After the disposal of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Rosedale the first member to be recognized shall be a member of the Progressive Conservative Party who shall propose an amendment relating to fiscal compensation of provinces and the next member to be recognized shall

[Page 13434]

be a member of the New Democratic Party who may propose a subamendment.

4. Not later than 8.00 p.m. on Tuesday, December I, 1981, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party may propose an amendment relating to section 23 of the resolution.
5. Notwithstanding any Standing Order or ruling or practice, at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, December I, 1981 an amendment that is the same as the subamendment proposed by the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat­ The Islands on November 26, 1981, but found to be out of order, shall be deemed to have been moved and to be in order.
6. Except as provided in this Order, no other amendments may be proposed, provided that this shall not be interpreted as preventing the proposal of sub-amendments.
7. At 3 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2, 1981, the Speaker shall interrupt whatever proceedings are under consideration and shall put, forthwith and successively all questions necessary to dispose oft he aforementioned Government Order without further debate or amendment.

Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely as agreed.

Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to add that I too find this motion in order, and I am happy to see the end in sight.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to the House leader. I had made it known that I insisted on having the right to speak in this debate because I have a special position on certain sections, and the House leader did guarantee me that right to speak. However, I must say that by merely listening in the House to the whole motion which is a long, complicated motion, it is hard to grasp, and I wonder if it is necessary that we agree to it immediately. Could we not circulate it so that we could read it, and then agree to it perhaps in five or ten minutes? I do not suggest for one minute that the House leader is trying to mislead me in any way, but I feel I have an obligation to read the motion to make sure my rights are protected.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): This places the Chair in and awkward position. Either we have a motion or we do not have a motion before the House. However, for the benefit of the hon. member, I will read the motion through again.

It is very difficult to entertain a motion and then not to entertain a motion. There is a motion before the House, and I think it should be accepted or disposed of now.

[Translation]

Mr. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). What he says is correct. I promised that he would have an opportunity to speak before the end of the debate. I even told him-and I have no hesitation in saying so publicly-that there is a possibility, not a guarantee because that kind of guarantee cannot be given to any member, and as far as I am concerned I will not raise any objection, a possibility for him to move a subamendment to Section 23 of the constitutional resolution, keeping in mind Section 4 of the agreement. In these circumstances, whether we need five or ten minutes to vote on the resolution, I have only one word and again I say to the hon. member that I cannot guarantee that he will be given an opportunity to move a subamendment, it is possible he may have that opportunity, but one thing for sure is that he will be entitled to make a speech before the end of the debate on the constitution.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask of course for a guarantee that I be allowed to propose an amendment. I merely asked about the possibility to do so. To ask for a guarantee I would have to sit here every hour of every day the House is sitting. It is my responsibility to be here and to take advantage of the opportunities open to me, but as long as I have the possibility and the guarantee to speak in the debate, I will agree to the motion.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): I think that, according to the motion, that possibility does exist. Before putting the motion to the House-

[Translation]

Mr. Duclos: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): The hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) on a point of order.

Mr. Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I had told the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that I would agree to any motion that would require unanimous consent if I were allowed to move in the House an amendment concerning Section 37. I am not saying I suspect the intentions of my colleague the Presi­ dent of the Privy Council, I simply want to be enlightened because I did not quite understand the full consequences of the motion.

Mr. Pinard: I can clear this up by saying that the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) was kind enough to give me his word that he would never refuse to accept any agreement whatsoever in this House. I took his word for it and I accept it. If he wants further clarification I will be very pleased to sit down with him in a few minutes, after the motion has been adopted, to explain it to him. If he wants to speak in the debate I will ask the chair to give him an opportunity to speak.

Mr. Duclos: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a matter of having the guarantee to speak in this debate. I had also indicated my intention of moving an amendment to Section 37 on the amending formula. In any event, I shall respond to the invitation extended to me by the President of the Privy Council and I am sure that we can come to a gentleman’s agreement.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Before putting the motion there would have to be unanimous consent to dispose of the private members’ hour, since this motion calls for a vote at 4.30. Is that agreed?

[Page 13435]

Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on that, and we do not want in any way to impinge on private members’ hours. So I think we are all agreed that whatever time this matter takes, the private members’ hour shall continue this evening for a full hour. Its commencement is dependent upon the disposition of the first parts of this House order.

[Translation]

Mr. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that, no matter when the vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) would take place, there would be a full hour for private members’ business, and although the motion says 4.30, I am sure that out of courtesy, if we need a few extra minutes to end the speeches, we could have them by unanimous consent.

[English]

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Order, please. Is it agreed that the Chair will not see the clock at four o’clock?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Some hon. Members: Agreed. Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): It is so ordered.

Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, now we put the question on my amendment now before the House.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning I asked one of the speakers from the opposite side of the House if there would be a report on the discussions with the provinces. I understand that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was seeking agreement to his amendment from provincial governments, and I would like to know what sort of consensus or agreement he has from the provinces. Is he suggesting that we break the accord, or does he have agreement to do that?

[Translation]

Mr. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to answer for the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but as far as the business of the House in concerned, I want to indicate that by order of the House you must now put the amendment moved by the hon. member for the Yukon. I have no objection if he wants to reply to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace­ Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).

[English]

Mr. Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We should hear the answer to that particular question. It is very relevant to this vote, and we should not cut it off. I suggest that we seek the unanimous consent of the House so that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can answer the very relevant question posed by the hon. member for Notre­ Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Some hon. Members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. Members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. Members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Call in the members.

The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Nielsen) which was negatived on the following division:

(Division No. 128)

YEAS […] 85

NAYS […] 117

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose and speak to the following motion:

That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended by adding after Clause 31 of Part I the following new clause:

“32. Nothing in this charter affects the authority of Parliament to legislate in respect of abortion.”

The other day, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question with respect to this matter. The Prime Minister responded in this fashion:

If the essence of the question is whether this House continues to have the right to deal with abortion, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. It will be the Parliament of Canada which will still be writing the Criminal Code, and members of this House will have the responsibility, and I wish them well. in dealing with the problem of abortion.

In my view, all sides of the House and, indeed, Canadians across the country, want to ensure that Parliament has the right to legislate if any changes are deemed necessary with respect to the law on abortion. The difficulty for a great number of Canadians is that conflicting legal difficulties throw that matter into doubt. We want to make it clear that Parliament’s freedom to legislate on this matter is unimpaired.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: That is the purpose of the amendment, and there is no other. Abortion is not merely a legal matter, and it is not only a medical matter; it is both. For many people it is also a moral question. Those who believe in, and call them­ selves Pro-Life, have a strong moral conviction that life begins at conception. They hold a deep and abiding reverence for the sanctity of human life. They even have difficulty with the existing legislation. Those who believe in, and call themselves Pro-Choice, believe, as stated in I Corinthians, that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore, they believe that abortion and the question of abortion is a personal and individual responsibility. They hold that conviction so strongly that they have difficulty with the existing legislation.

Many of us on all sides of this House and throughout the country represent constituents who understand and agree with at least some parts of both of those positions. Indeed, it has been my experience that when Canadians themselves deal with the matter of abortion in specific situations, they approach the matter with soul-wrenching honesty. They try to do the right thing and they try to choose the good. They try to do what they ought to do.

If Your Honour has ever been involved in any specific circumstance, you know that there is a desperation concerning the question of abortion as people strive to get a moral perspective in dealing with the onslaught of circumstance. That is why the vast majority of Canadians approach the matter with a feeling of individual responsibility to themselves, to their families, to their communities, and to their God, taking into consideration their reverence for life. That has been my experience; but it may not be the same for all at all times.

There are some people who think that abortion is only a medical matter and that it is devoid of any moral context. There are others who think that there are no moral, theological or compassionate grounds for the act of abortion. It is not my purpose, in this amendment, to evaluate or judge any of those perspectives. I want to ensure that these perspectives will be heard when the question is raised in the Parliament of Canada.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: It took 350 years to establish the parliamentary system where legislation governing our actions with respect to life and death would be determined not by those appointed by the state but, rather, by those elected by the people themselves.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: None of us disagree on that: not the Liberals, not the New Democrats, not the Conservatives, not Pro-Life, not Pro-Choice, and not anyone in the middle. We all agree that Parliament must have the freedom to decide. The purpose of this amendment is simply to make sure and make clear to all that that is, indeed, our intention.

[Page 13437]

For those who have doubts about the matter being in the Constitution, this will lay to rest their fears. For those who do not have any doubts, it should give them no problem because this motion does not alter the substance of the charter one whit.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: Through this amendment, I am simply making explicit what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister made implicit yesterday.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: Moreover, I should add that since the amendment deals only with the Parliament of Canada, it should not have any effect on the accord between the federal government and the provincial governments.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: I would also like to say that in my view this amendment strengthens the charter. It will remove doubt from those who would like to be able to support the charter, just as we removed doubt in Section 28 when Parliament restored equality to full guarantee, as no override is contained in that section. Finally it agreed with the ancient Chinese philosopher that women hold up half the sky, therefore confirming that in this country there should be clear equality between women and men.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: We have also removed the doubt concerning Section 34 and native rights, as many people in on both sides of the House are attempting to do with respect to the doubts raised in the Province of Quebec.

When I was asked if I might speak on this motion, I prepared some notes. I do not mind saying that a number of people got in touch with me. Although they agreed with the substance, they asked why I was doing it since I was not directly involved with the issue and had not participated on behalf of my party on the issue. I make these comments today and, in a sense, put my neck on the line because I believe in this Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Chretien: What about the accord? Mr. Crombie: I believe in the accord. Mr. Chretien: You believe in the accord?

Mr. Crombie: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very important, not because it will deliver immediate realities tomorrow, but because it contains articles of faith and testimonies of hope for the people whom this Constitution governs.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: This charter not only sets down the rights, the freedoms and the privileges for which generations of Canadians have fought and died, its provisions also extend to Canadians who until now have had great difficulty understanding that in this country they had an equal stake in the future. This charter allows those people to come into the Canadian home. What I want to do through this amendment is to allow the doubters to come home. I want to allow the doubters to come home and support this charter.

The story of Thomas is an old story, but it was Jesus of Nazareth who told us that it was necessary to go with the doubters one more time, to go with the doubters that one extra mile. That is the purpose of this amendment.

This charter was built by all of us. It is not the product of the Liberal Party of Canada, it is not the product of the Conservative Party and it is not the product of the New Democratic Party alone. I served on the constitutional committee and I know that this charter is the product of all of us. It is not a triumph of one group over another. It is not a triumph of one view over another. This charter moves us one giant step closer to the goal of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker in 1961 when he stated that his reason for having an entrenched charter of rights was as follows:

I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country.

Therefore, I can decide the questions that are vital to me.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this motion causes difficulty, and it was not my purpose to cause difficulty. I ask the government to consider my motion. It is a simple one. It allows those who want to support this Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be able to support it once they have been assured that the Parliament of Canada, not the courts alone, will deal with the question of abortion.

I want to emphasize that all of the groups, no matter on which side of the question they are, want Parliament to decide.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): I see the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) rising on a point of order.

Mr. Robinson (Burnaby): Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a brief question?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Is there unanimous con­ sent for the hon. member to ask a question?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Some hon. Members: No.

[Page 13438]

[Translation]

Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, in addition to the comments I am about to make regarding this particular amendment, including various reasons why I feel the amendment is redundant, I should also like to take this opportunity to explain the government’s general position with respect to amendments that are presented to the House at this stage, undoubtedly for perfectly good reasons, with a view to further improving the charter. Of course there is room for improvement in the charter like everything else that is made by man, and we admit as much. However, I would like to suggest to the House that at this stage, any further amendment such as the one presented by the hon. member opposite and the one that has just been defeated and which was moved by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), is actually a threat to the accord concluded on November 5 which finally gave us our own constitution amendable in Canada with a charter of rights, of which a member of the opposition has just said that it was very good in its present form.

I shall first address the substance of the amendment. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has explained several times in this House, in point and verbally on other occasions, that in his view, which is supported by his own Department of Justice, the charter is at this point in time neutral with respect to abortion. In other words, the charter does not say whether abortions will be easier or more difficult to practise in the future. The charter is absolutely neutral on this matter, and according to the interpretation of senior officials and agents of the Department of Justice and according to the minister himself, under the constitution the House retains the right to amend the Criminal Code, which is the statute affecting the issue of abortion. So, as I said yesterday, I believe, in answer to a question by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), the House will probably have to decide in the weeks, months or years ahead, depending on the wishes of its members, whether the Criminal Code should be amended to make abortion less readily or more readily available. The onus will be on us. This, Mr. Speaker, is to reassure those who feel that under the charter we are losing some of our rights with respect to abortion. However, as I said yesterday to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, should a judge conclude that on the contrary, the charter does, to a certain extent, affect certain provisions of the Criminal Code, under the override clause we reserve the right to say: Notwithstanding this decision, notwithstanding the charter of rights as interpreted by this judge, the House legislates in such and such a manner on the abortion issue.

Mr. Speaker, that is our general argument. Moreover, towards the end of his speech I heard the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) say that there were still people who had some doubts about this, and he said, and I hope I am quoting him correctly:

[English]

“We want the doubters to come home. “We want the doubters to feel reassured as a result of this charter, and, therefore, I am proposing an amendment relating to abortion”.

Once again I think what the hon. member is doing is being done with the utmost of good faith. But I wonder why he does not also attempt to satisfy doubters with regard to the question of capital punishment. Maybe the right to life, which is guaranteed in the charter, in some way affects the possibility of restoring or abolishing capital punishment. There are certainly some doubters on that point. I see some hon. members in the backbenches behind the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) nodding in assent.

What about the question of euthanasia? It also affects the right to life. Why do we not say that nothing in this charter prevents us legislating on that? What about genetic engineering? What about all the doubts that will arise on every other subject? We have the right to have conscription, maybe; the right to send men to war to kill other people or be killed themselves. All these things may cause doubt in some people’s minds.

This is to say, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot expect in advance, in the short time we have, without the test of the application of this charter in the courts and without some experimentation with its effects, to bring all the doubters home, as the hon. member would like to see us do.

I will go on to another argument which once again affects not particularly this amendment but others. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has handed me several pages of argument to the effect that this amendment is not only unnecessary but could, indeed, be harmful because, by excluding from the charter the right to do something as regards abortion, lawyers and judges might be inclined to conclude that since we made that exclusion for abortion and did not make it for euthanasia, capital punishment and so on, therefore the charter itself precludes the Parliament of Canada from legislating in those areas.

That is just one of the many arguments the Minister of Justice has just handed me. I will not go into them at this stage. They are all good, but it seems to me we have another reason which does not affect only this amendment, but which affects the amendment moved earlier by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and no doubt will affect other amendments which will be moved in the course of today, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I want to explain the attitude this party has as regards those amendments.

When I was meeting with the ten provincial first ministers on November 3, 4 and 5 I was meeting them not only with the desire of this party but with that of others to seek one final compromise, which I must say in my own heart I was not very optimistic about reaching, though I was very determined, as was the Minister of Justice who was assisting me, that we would ago as far as was conceivably possible to try to make an accord possible. Not only was that argued on this side of the

[Page 13439]

House, it was a very firm enjoinder of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who made strong, I would say almost vociferous, statements to the effect that if we went there and did not negotiate in good faith, they would fight us tooth and nail all the way. They would not let us go to London.

I must say this was not surprising coming from the Leader of the Opposition. This has always been his position, and I respect it. But the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who has been a supporter of the previous resolution before the House, made it very clear to me too that if there was not some compromise, if there was not a genuine attempt to reach an agreement, he would not be able to guarantee that he or his caucus would support this party in the resolution which was then before the House.

The Government of Canada went to that meeting of first ministers intent on compromise, intent on reaching agreement even if that meant giving up some parts of the charter or, indeed, some formula for amending which we thought, and, as I indicated in answer to questions earlier today, probably still think, is better than the one with which we are now going to proceed to Westminster. But we compromised. We were asked to compromise and we did compromise.

The result is that we reached an accord which is historic not only in content but in bringing into effect the will of the Canadian people and of successive governments since they began the attempt in 1927, to give a constitution to Canada, the only sovereign country in the world which until now, and it is still true today, did not have its own constitution amendable in its own country-a constitution as a result of an accord which would have these historic, momentous dimensions.

This did mean on this side giving up quite a bit. It meant telling the premiers: We will give in to you when you want a non obstante clause; we will give in to you when you do not want the Victoria formula but prefer the Vancouver formula­ which was also the preferred formula of the Leader of the Opposition-but at least we will sign this accord in good faith and will undertake as a government to see it through the House of Commons. I think we have lived up to the spirit of that accord until now.

It is true that with regard to the two amendments, one concerning women and equality between the sexes, and the other concerning aboriginal rights and the entrenchment thereof in the Constitution, the Minister of Justice did support changes. He did so after consulting with the nine signatories to the accord who gave their consent in circumstances which are known.

It is true also that in an effort to reach out to the government of Quebec we also brought in other amendments, one on the Canada clause and the other on some form of compensation when there is opting out of constitutional change in areas concerning culture and language, two subjects which, of course, are very important to the preservation of the identity of the French-speaking Canadians who are largely citizens of Canada residing in Quebec. It is true that the Minister of Justice did this. He did this in the case of the first two amendments because I think the results showed that if the equality of sexes amendment and the aboriginal rights amendment were left out of the accord, it was not the result of a wilful desire of the ten signatories to take out of it what had been before the House and the country for a year. In that sense I think the Minister of Justice, though I know he felt he was walking on eggs, treading gingerly, knew every time he picked up a phone to speak to the premier or attorney general of a province he was risking their saying: “Look, what are you people doing in Ottawa? You are trying to force us, blackmail us or threaten us into recognizing such and such a pressure from such and such a lobby group. You are end-running the accord.” I must say the provinces have shown a great deal of forbearance and the Minister of Justice a great deal of patience in getting the improvements we already have.

I say, as regards the two amendments relating to the particular situation of Quebec, that they were not only brought before the House with the consent of the nine signatory provinces, but with the support, I believe it is fair to say, of at least a majority of the official opposition and of the NDP because they, as we on this side, feel it was and is important to bring the province of Quebec, through its legal government—I say “legal”, but is it legitimate; I am not sure—into signing this accord.

That is the story of the amendments we had until now. That is why, from now on, when it comes to improving the charter in ways that had not been put before the House or had not been accepted in the previous resolution, improving the charter to bring doubters home as the present amendment suggests, or improving the charter to give satisfaction to the requests of the Council of the Northwest Territories or Yukon, as the amendment brought in by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) does, we say those improvements should be made in the charter when it is in Canada and when we have an amending formula to improve that charter.

I think that was the point of view expressed ad nauseam by the official opposition last year when we were trying to—

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): I regret to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister. There was a House order earlier this day that at 4.30 the question would be put. However, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Trudeau: I am sorry I did not realize that the vote was for 4.30, Mr. Speaker. I beg the indulgence of the House to permit me to at least terminate this last argument I was in the process of making.

Any amendment now which is brought before the House and which does not have support of the nine premiers, we will vote against. We will vote against it because we are holding our word to them. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) telephoned them during these past days, the premiers said that if that was the last time we would go to them, it was all right. But we are also keeping our word that

[Page 13440]

we gave them when we signed that accord, that imperfect as it was, we would be bound by that accord and we would not try to make end runs in order to improve it in some way that had not been done through the accord.

Once again, for a year the official opposition has been telling us that it wants a charter written in Canada, that it does not want it to be done in London and does not want Westminster to tell Canadians what their rights are. For the past ten days they have been trying to change this resolution so as to tell Westminster to tell us what this charter should be. Surely a minimum of consistency should be required. We had a charter. We have one now. It is not perfect, nor was it in the previous resolution, but now that we have an accord, now that we are proceeding to Westminster at least in a way in which the courts indicated was not only legal but constitutional, let the accord and the resolution go to Westminster. Let it come back and let us use the amending formula not only to bring other doubters on board if we have to, but even then to continue trying to bring the government of Quebec on side and hopefully as well the government of Ontario when it comes to entrenching Section 133.

These are the tasks ahead of us, Mr. Speaker. We should now turn our efforts in these last days to making sure that we do not destroy the historic accord of November 5. My caucus, my cabinet and I have reached this conclusion in past discussions, including one which we had this morning amongst several ministers in which we said that from now on we cannot risk accepting any amendments, no matter how desirable, because they do risk endangering the accord.

I think the first precept of ethics is to make sure that the aim for the better does not destroy the good.

We had made this decision and I told the leader of the House that I intended to speak in this way on this amendment, but just 15 minutes ago I was handed the text of a telex sent to me by the premier of British Columbia who, as we know, is the chairman of the premiers’ conference for this year.

It is a telegram that was not solicited by me or my government and of which I had no knowledge until after we had made the decision that I have just announced.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read this tele­ gram which has reached my office by telephone. I am told the telex is on its way. The telegram reads:

I am writing to you on behalf of the nine provinces that signed the November 5 constitutional accord. The agreement reached in Ottawa is a significant achievement in the affairs of our nation and was only possible through compromise on the part of all of us. I have been asked by my colleagues to inform you that additional constitutional change should only be considered in Canada following the patriation of our Constitution. My colleagues and I believe that further negotiation must not put at risk the accord and that the package should be approved by Parliament as it now stands and proceeded with without further delay.

That is the position of the nine provinces which signed the accord. That is the position of this government and, regardless of the merits or demerits of any amendment put forth between now and the adoption of this measure, this government, and I hope members of this caucus, will respect the word we gave when we signed that accord and will agree to be bound by a compromise agreement ·which was constantly described as the Canadian way, by a compromise agreement which we signed in good faith and which we will defend in this House with utmost vigour.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is seeking the floor. Again, that can only be done with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House take most seriously the telegram that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just read. I hope the House will still take the time and the courage to consider some of the amendments that are to come before the House yet, such as the one in relation to the consent of the aboriginal peoples of this country.

I would like to speak to the amendment put before the House by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and to inform him and all members of the House that it is our opinion and that of the Department of Justice that the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, and intentionally so.

Despite this, if what the member says is true, there is definitely a flexible amending formula, of which all members of the House are aware, and also the fact that seven of the consenting provinces are led by premiers of the same party as the hon. member.

I would like to deal for a moment with the last-minute amendment put forward without notice that is now before us. It is something that the Conservative House leader and the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) took offence to our party doing yesterday when we introduced the consent clause in relation to aboriginal rights. They condemned us for not giving the House time to see the text and to consider it, to perhaps have caucus meetings and an opportunity to prepare speech notes before coming into the House. For that reason it is somewhat regrettable that they have suddenly moved this amendment.

It is the view of our party, Mr. Speaker, that it is clearly a redundant amendment, explicitly so, to use the same words as those used by the hon. member. It is an attempt to inflame the argument on both sides of this issue. For what purpose? I have listened to the Conservatives-the member for Nepean-Carle­ ton (Mr. Baker), the previous House leader of that party, just yesterday, calling for support for the resolution, and he certainly was not alone in that party. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to spell out the proposed amendment in the Chart­ er of Rights and Freedoms.

There is the danger in the constitutional sense that by specifically preserving Parliament’s power in this area, the courts could draw the implication that Parliament’s power is somehow diminished in other areas which are not named in

[Page 13441]

just such a clause. This is a very potent argument and one carefully avoided-in fact, perhaps purposely absent-in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Rosedale in the hope of drawing attention away from the issue of constitution­ al law to one of morality, to various possible court decisions and the very function of this House.

Why is the Conservative Party singling out abortion but not capital punishment, for example, and what is the signal they intend to send out, first to the Canadian public and, more specifically, to the courts? The answer is clear. This is an attempt by the Conservative Party to play the most devious kind of politics, and I say that without intending any slur or touching in any way on the honestly-held beliefs of the hon. member for Rosedale.

Where is the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald)? I know that just a few hours ago she was unaware of this Tory action, this Conservative amendment. She was in Kingston today and is now hoping to get back, and I am confident she would fight against this kind of action taken, no doubt, to rally the Conservative caucus around an idea—a deeply felt issue, I admit, on the broader scale of human life—but it is certainly not specified here or in the amendment or in any of the legal arguments we have heard in the House or in the committee.

It has been made to seem that, through some sleight of hand, this was not previously dealt with in the committee or here in the House. The moral, legal and medical arguments on the issue of abortion are only to be dealt with by Parliament, and always will be. This sleight of hand—this trick–was twice lost this year already and is resurrected—for what reason I can only wonder.

I ask all hon. members of this House to refer to Votes and Proceedings of April 23, 1981, to look at the clause put forward by the Conservative Party at that time and to reflect on the fact that it was lost by a vote of 175 to 93. When this was under very intense scrutiny before the joint House of Commons and Senate committee on January 30 of this year, a very similar clause was put forward. However, it included capital punishment, and it also was sufficiently lost during the committee stage.

Where is the capital punishment part of that clause in this amendment, or is it to be the next amendment of the Conservative Party? And where are the other social questions which could also have serious constitutional and legal implications for the interpretation of the charter? I will deal with capital punishment in a moment.

As I said earlier, this is a redundant amendment. The Conservatives say it is to make explicit what they say is, somehow shadily, implicitly taken away from Parliament. That is a crude political portrayal of months of legal argument on this issue. Even though twice lost, the Conservatives have again sought the spotlight, not to settle this issue as they claim but to ask Canadians perhaps to gaze askance at the charter and to set the mood out there that perhaps some of them are going to vote against the package or against some part of it and that somehow the Parliament of Canada is giving over something very vital to the courts.

As I have said earlier, if what they say comes true, there will be ways very early in the future to deal with it. This issue is vested, just as is capital punishment, with the House and with the collective moral conscience of all the men and women elected to this place.

The issue of capital punishment is perhaps not here, as it was on both previous votes, because the Conservative leader himself is opposed to it in principle. Also the attempt is to force the issue of abortion in a new way through the courts through the Constitution. I urge all those listening to this debate in the House to see this for what it is. It is not an attempt by members of the official opposition to clarify what they now call a glaring error in the Constitution but a dangerous play to fire up the Canadian public by calling a concern a shadow, a shadow a vagary and a vagary a reality, and thus a constitutional flaw. History will prove me correct that this staged debate is no more than a fabrication.

I have my views on the issue of abortion, and I have stood firmly by those views through two consecutive elections. Many Conservatives have their views as well, but to use this forum and this debate to put forward their views, veiled in the artificial shroud of fact, is a sad way to respond to this issue and to the fabric of this nation.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Some hon. Members: No.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

Some hon. Members: Yea.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): All those opposed will please say nay.

Some hon. Members: Nay.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): Call in the members.

The House divided on the amendment (Mr. Crombie) which was negatived on the following division:

[Page 13442]

(Division No. 129)

YEAS […] 61.

NAYS […] 129.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members’ business, as listed on today’s Order Paper, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.