Canada, House of Commons Debates, “Resolution Respecting Constitution Act”, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess (27 November 1981)

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).

The HTML Text Below Has Not Yet Been Edited

This document has not yet been edited for mistakes. Help us out by correcting the text and mailing it as a text file to Your help will make the most complete word-searchable electronic repository of documents relating to the Canadian constitution. For more information consult our Be a Contributor page.

Read the unedited text

November 27, 1981 ‘ COMMONS
Province Vehicles Total cost
New Brunswick Q 10 sss,
Nova Scotia ‘ _‘_“TI’ $33_347_g0
P.E.1. Norm
Question No. 3,328—Mr. Herbert:
__ How many tourists entered (a) Quebec (b) Ontario from (i) the United States
(ii) other countries In 1980 and in 1981 and what percentage of the tourists are
belicvod to have spent most of their slay in the two provinces?
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)): In so far as the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, it
should be noted that Statistics Canada in its monthly tabula-
tion of International Travellers Entering or Returning to
Canada differentiates between total travellers (visitors) and
long~term travellers (tourists). The distinction between these
terms is important as the following numbers reveal. The total
number of travellers (excursionists with less than 24-hour visit
and visitors of more than 24-hour visit) coming into Canada
for the period January through September, 1981 amounted to
35,197,473; the number of long-term visitors (plus 24 hours)
comprised only about one third of the foregoing total, namely
11,430,720 in the same period. In responding to the inquiry
made, use has been made oi Statistics Canada’s Long-Term
Traveller which most closely relates to the term tourist.
Having stated the above, some arbitrary decisions are made
by Statistics Canada in determining who might be plus/minus
24-hour visitors on a monthly basis.
Long-term travellers (tourists) from U.S. are classified as
total plane, auto and bus, one or more nights; and total train
and boat flows. The foregoing method is accurate for auto and
bus, and quite accurate for plane and train, in that most plane
and train arrivals have a stop overnight; however, it possibly
tends to inflate boat entries as it indicates those persons who
take ferry excursions between the U.S. and.Canada but may
not stay overnight. Given the foregoing caution, the attached
statistics are relevant.
A. From U.S. to Quebec and Ontario
Long-term travellers, residents of the U.S. entering into
Canada through Quebec;
(a) First eight months of 1980: 1,067,263
(b) First eight months of 1981: 1,023,674
Percentage: – 4.1 per cent.
Long-term travellers, residents of the U.S. entering into
Canada through Ontario;
(a) First eight months of 1980: 5,158,450
(b) First eight months of 1981: 5,317,651
Percentage: 3.1 per cent
B. From Overseas to Quebec and Ontario
The Constitution
Defining 1ong~term travel from countries other than the
U.S. as overnight or longer land entries via the U.S,, total air
entries, total boat entries (includes same day travel by plane
and boat), the undcrnoted figures are provided;
Long-term travellers, residents of countries other than the
US. entering into Canada through Quebec;
(a) First eight months of 1980: 269,881
(b) First eight months of 1981: 263,906
Percentage: – 2.2 per cent
Long~term travellers, residents of countries other than the
U.S. entering into Canada through Ontario;
(a) First eight months of 1980: 729,574
(b) First eight months of 1981: 729.993
Percentage: 0.1 per cent
C. Tourists spending most of their stay in Quebec and
The international travel survey measures, on an annual
basis, provinces visited and each person is credited for each
province visited. The data, however, cannot be desegregated to
answer the question on the percentage of tourists spending
most of their stay in the two provinces.
Defining tourists as those travellers staying one or more
night only in Canada, the following statistics may be of use:
2.6 million U.S. tourists visited Quebec in 1980; 6.4 million
U.S. tourists visited Ontario in 1980; 0.5 million tourists from
countries other than the U.S. visited Quebec in 1980; 1.1
million tourists from countries other than the U.S. visited
Ontario in 1980.
Mr. Smith: l ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Madam Speaker: The questions enumerated by the Parlia-
mentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 26, con-
sideration of the motion of Mr. Chrétien:

l3390 . COMMONS DEBATES November 27, l98l
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain CONSIDERANT:
amendments to the Constitution of Canada que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a
have been made by the Parliament of the modifiéa plusieurs reprises la Constitution
United Kingdom at the request and with the du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-
consent of Canada; 5 tement de celuiaci;
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the que, de par le statut d‘Etat indépendant du
status of Canada as an independent state Canada, il est légitime que les Canadiens
that Canadians be able to amend their Con- aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur
stitution in Canada in all respects; Constitution au Canada;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to l0 qu’il est souhaitable d‘inscrire dans la 10
provide in the Constitution of Canada for the Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance
recognition of certain fundamental rights de certains droits etlibertés fondamentaux
and freedoms and to make other amend- et d’y apporter d’autres modifications,
ments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her l5il est propose que soit présentée respectueu-
Majesty the Queen in the following words: sement a Sa Majesté la Reine l’adresse dont l5
la teneur suit :
To the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty! A Sa Trés Excellente Majesté la Reine,
Most Gracious Sovereign: Trés Gracieuse Souveraine :
We, Your Majesty‘s loyal subjects, the Nous, membres de la Chambre des com-
House of Commons of Canada in Parliament 20 munes du Canada réunis en Parlement, t”ideles20
assembled, respectfully approach Your sujets dc Votre Majesté, demandons respec-
Majcsty, requesting that you may graciously tueusementa Votre TresGracieuse Majesté de
be pleased to cause to be laid before the bien vouloirfairedéposerdevantle Parlement
Parliament ofthe United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projet de loiainsicongu:
containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter25
set forth:

November 27, l98l , COMMONS DEBATES l339l
Act, I 98/
An Act to give effect to a request by the
Senate and House of Commons of
Whereas Canada has requested and con-
sented to the enactment of an Act of the
Parliament of the United Kingdom to give
effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth
and the Senate and the House of Commons
of Canada in Parliament assembled have
submitted an address to Her Majestyl0
requesting that Her Majesty may graciously
be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before
the Parliament of the United Kingdom for
that purpose.
The Constitution
Loi donnant suite a une demande du Sénat et
de la Chambre des communes du
Sa Tres Excellente Majesté la Reine,
considérant :
qu‘a la demande et avec le consentement
du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni
est invité 5 adopter une loi visant a donner
effet aux dispositions énoncées ci-apres et
que le Sénat et la Chambre des communes
du Canada réunis en Parlement ont pre-
senté une adresse demandant a Sa Tres
Gracieuse Majesté de bien vouloir faire
déposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-
Uni un projet de loi a cette fin,
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s 15 sur l’avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual
and Temporal, and Commons, in this present
Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows:
l. The Constitution Act, I 981 set out in
Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for
and shall have the force of law in Canada
and shall come into force as provided in that
Act. 2 5
tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis
en Parlement, et par l’autorité de celui-ct,
l. La Loi constitutionnelle de I981, énon~ 20 Ia
cée a l’annexe B, est édictée pour le Canada ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur 1°81
conformément a ses dispositions.
Termination of
power to
legislate for
French version
Short title
2. No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptées par le Parlement du Cvssetivfl <1“
Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, Royaume~Uni apres l’entrée en vlgueur de la Z5{§2§¥§.:,d;°u, k
I981 comes into force shall extend to Loi constitulionnelle de 1981 ne font pas Canada
Canada as part of its law. partie du droit du Canada.
3. So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30 3. La partie de la version francaise de la }/”sis?
B, the French version of this Act is set out in présente loi qui figure a l‘annexe A a force ‘“”“’“
Schedule A to this Act and has the same de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30
authority in Canada as the English version version anglaise correspondante.
4. This Act may be cited as the Canada 35 4. Titre abrégé de la présente loi : Loi sur Titmbtési
Act. 12 Canada.

– COMMONS DEBATES November 27. 1931
Rights and
freedoms in
rights of
duration of
Continuation in
The Constitution
cmnomw CHARTER or atoms AND cu/uzre CANADIENNE oes DROITS ET
Whereas Canada is founded upon princi- Attendu que le Canada est fondé sur des
ples that recognize the supremacy of God principes qui reconnaissent la suprématie de
and the rule of law: Dieu et la primauté du droit 1
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms Garantie des droits er libertés
l. The Canadian Charter of Rights and 1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Pr°”§¢1
Freedoms guarantees the rights and free- Slibertés garantit les droits et llbertés qui y
doms set out in it subject only to such sont énoncés. lls ne peuvent étre restreints
reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be que par une regle de droit, dans des limites
demonstrably justified in a free and demo- qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification
cratic society. puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d’une
société libre et démocratique. 10
Fundamental Freedoms Libertés fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- l0 2. Chacun a les libertés fondamentales k}i’l:§;l;§cma|6
tal freedoms: suivantes : ‘
(a) freedom of conscience and religion; a) liberté de conscience et de religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion b) liberté de pensée, de croyance, d’opi-
and expression, including freedom of the nion et d’expression, y compris la liberté l5
press and other media of communication; 15 de la presse et des autres moyens de
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and °°mm””i°all°”¥
(4) freedom of a5so¢ia¢i°n_ c) liberté de réunion pacifique;
d) liberté d‘association.
Democratic Rights Droits démocratiques
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoycn canadien a le droit de vote 20§;°it§ _
vote in an election of members of the House et est eligible aux elections législatives fédé- BS
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciales.
to be qualified for membership therein.
4. (1) No House of Commons and no 4. (l) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre Mandel
legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assemblées législatives
than five years from the date fixed for the est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixée 25
return of the writs at a general election of its 25 pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members. générales correspondantes.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- PY9’9″B=1i<>”§
invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- nes ou celui d‘une assemblée legislative peut “’°°’“’°s
mons may be continued by Parliament and a etre prolongé respectivement par le Parle- 30
legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au-
legislature beyond five years if such con~ dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d‘invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more ou d‘insurrection, réelles ou appréhendées,
than one-third of the members of the House pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas

November 27, I981 . COMMONS DEBATES l3393
Annual sitting
ill legislative
Mobility of
Rights to move
and gain
1-i'””=”i°” (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) l5
Life, liberty
and security of
Search or
Detention or
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as
the case may be.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament
and of each legislature at least once every
twelve months.
Mobility Rights
6. (I) Every citizen of Canada has the
right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every
person who has the status of a permanent
The Conslilulion
l‘objet d’une opposition exprimee par les voix
de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre
des communes ou de l’assemblée legislative.
5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien-
nent une seance au moins une fois tous les
douze mois.
Liberté de circulation et d ‘établi.rsement
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de
demeurer au Canada, d‘y entrer ou d’en
(2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per-
sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent
resident of Canada has the right 10 au Canada ont le droit :
(a) to move to and take up residence in
any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in
any province.
a) de se déplacer dans tout le pays et
d’établir leur residence dans toute pro-
b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe
are subject to (2) sont subordonnés :
(a) any laws or practices of general a) aux lois et usages d’application gene-
application in force in a province other rale en vigueur dans une province donnée,2O
than those that discriminate among per< s’ils n’établissent entre les personnes
sons primarily on the basis of province of 20 aucune distinction fondée principalement
present or previous residence; and sur la province de residence anterieure ou
(b) any laws providing for reasonable resi’
Seance annuellc
Liberté de
]() Liberté
1 5
dency requirements as a qualification for b) aux lois prevoyant dc justes conditions 25
the receipt of publicly provided social de residence en vue de l’obtention des ser-
services. 25 vices sociaux publics.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre-
clude any law, program or activity that has
as its object the amelioration in a province of
conditions of individuals in that province who
(4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n’ont pas
pour objet d‘interdire les lois, programmes ou
activités destinés a ameliorer, dans une pro-
vince, la situation d’individus défavorises
are socially or economically disadvantaged it’30socialement ou economiquement, si le taux
the rate of employment in that province is d‘emploi dans la province est inferieur a la
below the rate of employment in Canada. moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights Garanties juridiques
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberté et a35:’éic=‘;rl§lb;§r\é¢l
and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porté atteinte 5 ce droit qu’en conformite
with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principes de Justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Fvvigaionsou
against unreasonable search or seizure. les fouilles, les perquisittons ou les sars1es4Of§§},s
Programmes de
30 social:
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la it
trarily detained or imprisoned. 40 detention ou Femprisonnement arbitraires. ,,,,’,’,l

IJ394 . COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 198]
The Constitution
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun ale droit, en cas d’arrestation
detention ou de detention :
Proceedings in
criminal and h
(a) to be informed promptly of the rea-
sons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without 5
delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and
to be released if the detention is not
lawful. 10
ll. Any person charged with an offence
penal matters 35 the rigm
(a) to be informed without unreasonable
delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in
proceedings against that person in respect
of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to law in a fair and public 20
hearing by an independent and impartial
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail with-
out just cause;
(I) except in the case of an offence under 25
military law tried before a military tri-
bunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where
the maximum punishment for the offence
is imprisonment for five years or a more
severe punishment; 30
(g) not to be found guilty on account of
any act or omission unless, at the time of
the act or omission, it constituted an
offence under Canadian or international
law or was criminal according to the gen-35
eral principles of law recognized by the
community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not
to be tried for it again and, if finally found
guilty and punished for the offence, not to4O
be tried or punished for it again; and
(1′) if found guilty ofthe offence and ifthe
punishment for the offence has been varied
between the time of commission and the
time of sentencing, to the benefit of the45
lesser punishment.
a) d‘etre informe dans les plus brefs délais
des motifs de son arrestation ou dc sa
b) d‘avoir recours sans delai a l’assistance
d’un avocat et d’etre informe de ce droit;
c) de faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la légalité de sa detention et d‘obtenir, le
cas echéant, sa liberation. 10
ll. Tout inculpe a le droit:
a) d’etre informe sans delai anormal de
l’infraction precise qu’on lui reproche;
b) d’etre juge dans un délai raisonnable;
c) de ne pas étre contraint dc témoignerl5
contre lui—meme dans toute poursuitc
intentee contre lui pour l‘infraction qu’on
lui reproche;
d) d’etre presume innocent tant qu’il n’est
pas declare coupable, conformément a la 20
loi, par un tribunal indépendant et impar-
tial a l’issue d’un proces public et
e) de ne pas étre privé sans justc cause
d’une misc en liberte assortie d’un caution- 25
nement raisonnable;
f) sauf s‘il s’agit d’une infraction relevant
de la justice militaire, de beneficier d’un
proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale
prévue pour Pinfraction dont il est accuse 30
est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une
peine plus grave;
g) de ne pas étre declare coupable en
raison d’une action ou d’une omission qui,
au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 35
tuait pas une infraction d’apres le droit
interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n’avait pas de caractere criminel d’apres
les principes generaux de droit reconnus
par l‘ensemble des nations; 40
h) d’une part de ne pas etre jugé de nou-
veau pour une infraction dont il a ete
definitivement acquitte, d‘autre part de ne
pas étre jugé ni puni de nouveau pour une
infraction dont i1 a été définitivement45
declare coupable et puni;
i) de beneficier de Ia peine la moins
severe. lorsque la peine qui sanctionne l’in-
fraction dont il est declare coupable est
Arrestatioi ou

Novcmbcr 27, 1981 – COMMONS DEBATES 13395
‘I’reulmcnt or
Equality before
and under law
and equal
protection and
benefit of law
languages of
languages of
New Brunswick
The Constitution
modifiée entre le moment de la perpetra-
tion de l’infraction et celui de la sentence.
I2. Chacun a droit at la protection contre CHM“-lé
I2. Everyone has the right not to be sub-
tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusités.
jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or
I3. Chacun a droit 5 ce qu’aucun témoi- STim<>isnus=
5 gnage incriminant qu‘il donne ne soit utilise ‘”°””“”““‘
pour l’incriminer dans d’autres procedures,
sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour
témoignages oontradictoires.
13. A witness who testifies in any proceed-
ings has the right not to have any incriminat-
ing evidence so given used to incriminate
that witness in any other proceedings, except
in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving
of contradictory evidence.
14. A party or witness in any proceedings 10 14. La partie ou le témoin qui ne peuvent lO1″l¢rvr@w
who does not understand or speak the lan- suivre les procedures, soit parce qu’ils ne
guage in which the proceedings are conduct- comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue
ed or who is deaf has the right to the assist- employee, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de
ance of an interpreter. surdité, ont droit :1 l’assistance d’un inter-
prete. 15
Equality Rights Drafts Z: !’égalité
15. (l) Every individual is equal bet”orel5 15. (l) La loi ne fait acception de per-
and under the law and has the right to the sonne et s‘applique également a tous, et tous
equal protection and equal benefit of the law ont droit a la meme protection et au meme
without discrimination and, in particular, bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute
without discrimination based on race, nation- discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20
al or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age 20 tions fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale
or mental or physical disability. ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
Page ou les déficiences mentales ou physi-
Egalité dcvanl
la loi, égalité dc
hénéficc ct
protection égalc
de la loi
(2) Subsection (l) does not preclude any (2) Le paragraphe (1) n’a pas pour effet 25 P;§§:a‘n;m¢sd¢
l l ‘ rammes ou activités P ‘Z’ “
law, program or activity that has as its object d‘interdire es ois, prog sock,
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan- destinés a améliorer la situation d’individus
taged individuals or groups including those 25 ou de groupes défavorisés, notamment du fait
that are disadvantaged because of race, na- de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou
lional or ethnic origin colour, religion, sex, ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30
age or mental or physical disability. leur sexe, dc leur age cu de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Oflicial Languages of Canada Langues officielles du Canada
l6. (l) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le francais et l’anglais sont les L=!\s}=¢§
languages of Canada and have equality ol’30langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un ‘g‘§’,f;f,’§°“‘”
status and equal rights and privileges as to statut et des droits et privileges égaux quant35
their use in all institutions of the Parliament s leur usage dans les institutions du Parle-
and government of Canada. ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le francais et l’anglais sontles langues kfgcsigfildu
languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles dn Nouveau-Brunswick, ils ont un N,,,,,,ea,,_
‘ ‘l‘ é aux uant4OBr-Inswivk
equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et pnvi eges g q
leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-

COMMONS DEBATES November 27, I981
of status and
Proceedings cl‘
Proceedings of
New Brunswick
statutes and
New Brunswick
statutes and
Proceedings in
established by
Proceedings in
New Brunswick
tions by public
with federal
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-
Wick Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La présente charte ne limite pas le Fgggfisionvsn
authority of Parliament or a legislature to pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de
advance the equality of status or use of Eng- 5 iavoriser la progression vers l’égalité de
lish and French. statut ou d‘usage du franoais et de l’anglais.
l7. (l) Everyone has the right to use Eng- 17. (1) Chacun a le droit d’employer le gralva-X <1“
r Hf emcnt
lish or ‘French in any debates and other francais ou l‘anglais dans les debats et tra-
proceedmgs of Parliament. vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10 (2) Chacun a le droit d‘employcr le l’ran- lOI;Zy;::“=::§\u
or French in any debates and other proceed- cais ou l’anglais dans les debats et travaux de
tngs of the legislature of New Brunswick. la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes
of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement
in English and French and both language l5sont imprimés et publiés en francais et en
versions are equally authoritative. anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant ega-
lement force de loi et celles des autres docu-
ments ayant meme valeur.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of
the legislature of New Brunswick shall be
printed and published in English and French ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimés
and both language versions are equally 2Oet publies en francais et en anglais, les deux
authoritative. versions des lois ayant également force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme
19 1) Chacun a le droit d‘employer le
19. (l) Either English or French may be . (
francais ou l‘anglais dans toutes les affaires
used by any person in, or in any pleading in
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux établis par le
by Parliament. 25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure
(2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes lifiigrtyelnt-<-*¢
. , . = I53 urc
rendus ct les proces-verbaux de la Legtsla- 20,,“ NEW“.
dcvant les
eta blis par le
qui en découlent. 30
(2) Chacun a le droit d‘employer le fran-
cais ou l’anglais dans toutes les affaires dont
sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns-
wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui
en découlent.
20. (I) Any member of the public in 30 20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a
Canada has the right to communicate with, l’emploi du francais ou de l’angIais pour
and to receive available services from, any communiquer avec le siege ou l’administra-
head or central office of an institution of the tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou
(2) Either English or French may be used
by any person in, or in any pleading in or
process issuing from, any court of New
devartt les
tribttnaux du
tions entre les
administrés ct
les institutions
Parliament or government of Canada in Eng- du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40
lish or French, and has the same right with 35 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a
respect to any other office of any such insti- l’egard de tout autre bureau de ces institu-
tution where tions la ou, selon le cas :
(a) there is a significant demand for com- a) l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais fait
munications with and services from that l’objetd’une demandeimportante;
°m°° i” 5“°h language; °T 40 b) l’emploi du francais et de l’anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.

27, 198] , COMMONS DEBATES 13397
tions by public
with New
Continuation of
Rights and
Language of
Continuity ol‘
The Cortstirution
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is
reasonable that communications with and
services from that office be available in
both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New 5 (2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
Brunswick has the right to communicate droit a l’emploi du francais ou de l‘anglais
with, and to receive available services from, pour communiquer avec tout bureau des ins-
any office of an institution of the legislature titutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-
or government of New Brunswick in English ment cu pour en recevoir les services. 5
or French. l0
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 21. Les articles 16 a 20 n‘ont pas pour
or derogates from any right, privilege or effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue frangaise
obligation with respect to the English and ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter
French languages, or either of them, that atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations
exists or is continued by virtue of any other l5qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes l0
provision of the Constitution of Canada. d‘une autre disposition de la Constitution du
tions cntrc les
administres et
les institutions
du N0uvt:au-
Maintien en
vigucur dc
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n’ont pas pour Dtoitsrréwvés
or derogates from any legal or customary effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privile-
right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either ges, antérieurs ou postérieurs a l‘entrée en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur do la présente charte et découlant de
Charter with respect to any language that is la loi cu de la coutume, des langues autres
not English or French. que le francais cu l’anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights Droits Z1 1’instruction dans Ia langue de la
23. (1) Citizens of Canada 23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens: “1-‘?r”\;I”::cm
(:1) whose first language learned and still a) dont la premiere langue apprise et2O
understood is that of the English or French 25 encore comprise est celle de la minorité
linguistic minority population of the prov- francophone ou anglophone de la province
ince in which they reside, or ou ils résident,
(b) who have received their primary b) qui ont recu leur instruction, au niveau
school instruction in Canada in English or primaire, en francais ou en anglais au 25
French and reside in a province where the 30 Canada et qui résident dans une province
language in which they received that ou la langue danslaquelleils ontrecu cette
instruction is the language of the English instruction est celle de la minorité franco-
or French linguistic minority population of phone ou anglophone de la province,
the PF°”i”¢°- ont, dans l‘un ou l’autre cas, le droit d’y faire 30
have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue.
that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant gettlittuité I
has received or is receiving primary or a recu ou recoit son instruction, au niveau |;,g‘,f’e°’ ° a
secondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en francais ou en 35 Witt-¢ti<=n
French in Canada, have the right to have all anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire ins-
their children receive primary and secondary truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux pri~
school instruction in the same language. maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette

– COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 1981
where numbers
Enforcement of
rights and
Exclusion of
orjustice into
rights and
freedoms not
affcctcd by
Other rights
The Constitution
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under (3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana- J“§l‘i”=a”°;’
subsections (1) and (2) to have their children diens par les paragraphes (l) et (2) de faire pa’ °“°’“ ‘°
receive primary and secondary school instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
instruction in the language of the English or et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorité
French linguistic minority population of a Sfrancophone ou anglophone d’une province: 5
PF°V”1°° a) s’exerce partout dans la province ou le
(a) applies wherever in the province the nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce
number of children of citizens who have droit est suffisant pour justifier it leur
such a right is sufficient to warrant the endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publies,
provision to them out of public funds of 10 de l’instruction dans la langue de la 10
minority language instruction; and minorité;
(b) includes, where the number of those b) comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces
children so warrants, the right to have enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire
them receive that instruction in minority instruire dans des établissements d’ensei-
language educational facilities provided l5 gnement de la minorité linguistique finan-15
out of public funds. cés sur les fonds publics.
Enforcement Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola- §<_¢¢°'{‘§°” “5
as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de négation des droits ou libertés qui d,?,i‘.§’Z’,‘i;i,L’f,¢,
infringed or denied may apply to a court of lui sont garantis par la présente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 2Os’adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20
as the court considers appropriate and just in nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-
the circumstances. venable et juste eu égard aux circonstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under suhsec- (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visée au é{2f9=”-“fli(\f
tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des p,,§v’:°.;’u§ °
obtained in a manner that infringed or 25 éléments de preuve ont été obtenus dans des 25ri§<1-1==_adi9″1’1¢
denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by conditions qui portent atteintc aux droits ou d°°°”” °’°’
this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded libertés garantis par la présente charte, ces
if it is established that, having regard to all éléments de preuve sont écartés s’il est établi,
the circumstances, the admission of it in the eu égard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa-
proceedings would bring the administration 3Otion est susceptible de déconsidérer l’admi-
ofjustice into disrepute. nistration de la justice.
dc la justice
General Dispositions générales
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la présente charte garantit :4fl_i:\tiertI_d;s g
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- certains droits et libertés ne porte pas 4;§’;.,f<‘,¢§,r<,:,‘§§
strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any atteinte aux droits ou libertés — ancestraux,
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 issus de traités ou autres – des peuples 35
that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of autochtones du Canada, notamment:
Camda including a) aux droits ou libertés reconnus par la
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
F¢°°E”iZ=d by the R°)’al P”°¢l3maii°” °f b) aux droits ou libertés acquis par regle-
O°*°b°\’ 7‘ 17633 a”d 40 ment de revendications territoriaies. 40
(11) any rights or freedoms that may be
acquired by the aboriginal peoples of
Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la présente charte garantit
at d . . . . . .
§Q,2}fjc,‘§Q“§,y tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- 45 certatns droits et ltbertes ne constttue pas ribmés

N°V°mb°l’ 27, 1931 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES 13399
equally to both
certain schools
Application to
territories and
powers not
Application of
mm express
The Constitution
strued as denying the existence of any other une negation des autres droits ou libertés qui
rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. existent au Canada.
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation de la présente Mainticn du
manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l’objectif de pro- ::}[LT§‘”°
enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Smouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5
Canadians. patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28. Notwithstanding anything in this 28. lndependamment des autres disposi- Esalilédc
Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to tions de la présente charte, les droits et liber- §f§f{;‘;:fj:S
in it are guaranteed equally to male and tes quiysontmentionnes sontgarantis egale- deux sexes
female persons. l0ment aux personnes des deux sexes. l0
29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 29. Les dispositions de la presente charte §a_ir\\i=r|id9rs‘
derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile-
anteed by or under the Constitution of ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du
Canada in respect of denominational, sepa- Canada concernant les ecoles separees et
rate or dissentient schools. 15 autres ecoles confessionnelles. 15
30. A reference in this Charter to a prov- 30. Dans la présente charte, les disposi- Apqliqntionw
ince or to the legislative assembly or legisla- tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature ‘°””°”°‘
ture ofa province shall be deemed to include ou leur assemblée legislative visent egale-
a reference to the Yukon Territory and the ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20 Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorités législatives 20
legislative authority thereof, as the case may compétentes.
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the 31. La présente charte n’élargit pas les
legislative powers of any body or authority. competences législatives de quelque orga-
nisme ou autorite que ce soit.
ment dcs
Application of Charter Application de la charte
32. (l) This Charter applies 25 32. (1) La presente charte s’applique: 25 Ql»ll?1|g¢*:g°” dc
(a) to the Parliament and government of a) aui Parlement et au gouvernement du ’
Canada in respect of all matters within the Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant
authority of Parliament including all mat~ du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-
ters relating to the Yukon Territory and nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoi-
Northwest Territories; and 30 res du Nord-Ouest; 30
(b) to the legislature and government of b) a la legislature et au gouvernemcnt dc
each province in respect of all matters chaque province, pour tous les domaines
within the authority of the legislature of relevant de cette legislature.
each province.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec- 35 (2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), l‘ar- Rcfltiflicfl
tion 15 shall not have effect until three years ticle l5 n’a d’e1’fet que trois ans apres l’en~35
after this section comes into force, trée en vigueur du present article.
33. (l) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (I) Le Parlement ou la legislature gfrlvsalévavflt
province may expressly declare in an Act of d’une province peut adopter une loi ou il est ¢§f,,1§:L’°“
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case40expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independamment4O
shall operate notwithstanding a provision d‘une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 a l5 de la présente charte.
this Charter,

l34O0 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES November 27, l98l
The Constitution
Operational (2) An Act or a provision of an Act in (2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l‘objet Elfvtdqlu
°‘°’p“°“ respect of which a declaration made under d’une declaration conforme au present article dé’°E°“°”
this section is in effect shall have such opera- et en vigueur a l’effet qu’elle aurait sauf la
tion as it would have but for the provision of disposition en cause de la charte.
this Charter referred to in the declaration. 5
(3) A declaration made under subsection (3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (l) 5g\;§=l§e
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after cesse d‘avoir effet a la date qui y est precisée ‘°
it comes into force or on such earlier date as ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en
may be specified in the declaration. vigueur.
R=-=”=°””=”‘ (4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov-10 (4) Le Parlement on une legislature peut Ntwvsllv
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au lO”d°””°“
subsection (I). paragraphe (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a ’(5) Le paragraphe (3) s’applique a toute
re-enactment made under subsection (4). declaration adoptée sous le regime du para-
graphe (4).
Citation Titre
Ci“*”°” 34. This Part may be cited as the Canadi- 15 34. Titre dc la presente partie: Charte 15
an Charter of Rights and Freedoms. canadienne des droits et Iiberlés.
:‘,‘=i§f‘”“*°” °‘ 35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty 35. (1) Les droits existants —-ancestraux (“3e‘:“‘§‘r’;““‘:“°”
‘Z rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada ou issus de traités—des peuples autochtones ,,,;,,,,,,,,d,,
aboriginal and _ I
treaty Flshts are hereby recognized and affirmed. du Canada sont reconnus et confirmes. P¢\4l’l|;§
P°g)”i2?” ff (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of20 (2) Dans la presente loi, up€Upl€S QUIOCI1-20Définili0ndt:
3 Tl Illa . . . q
Wopiesgr Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit and tones du Canada» s‘entend‘notamment des a‘|’jf)fL“:mdu
<I=”e<1= Metis peoples of Canada. Indiens, des Inuit et des Metis du Canada. Canada»
¢°'”‘”l“”1=”‘|l° 36. (1) Without altering the legislative 36. (I) Sous reserve des competences Erlislagcrncnis
§;‘;’,‘:,,°,,f§:§ authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures 1′-eésaliféades
legislatures, or the rights of any of them with 25 et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement 25 chances
respect to the exercise of their legislative et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-
authority, Parliament and the legislatures, ments federal et provinciaux, s’engagenta:
together with the government of Canada and 4) pl-omouyqjr régaiité des chances de
the provincial governments, are committed to mus les Canadigns dans la fgchgfche d¢
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the 30 leur bien-etrc; 30
w¢“’b5l”E ‘if Canadians; b) favoriser le développement economique
(b) furthering economic development to pour reduirel’inegalité des chances;
l’°d”°°dl§P3\’ll)’i” °PP°l’l””ili¢5lafld c) fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un
(c) providing essential public services of niveau de qualité acceptable, les services
reasonable quality to all Canadians. 35 publics essentiels. 35

November 27, I981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES I340!
public services
Participation of
Participation of
procedure for
Constitution of
(2) Parliament and the government of
Canada are committed to the principle of
making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient reve-
nues to provide reasonably comparable levels
of public services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation.
37. (1) A constitutional conference com-
posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and
the first ministers of the provinces shall be
convened by the Prime Minister of Canada
within one year after this Part comes into
(2) The conference convened under sub-
section (1) shall have included in its agenda
an item respecting constitutional matters
that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of
Canada, including the identification and
definition of the rights of those peoples to be
included in the Constitution of Canada, and
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite
representatives of those peoples to participate
in the discussions on that item.
The Constitution
(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Eggjefmefll
Canada prennent l’engagement dc principe §e,,,;L,:’;,’\‘,b“c5
de faire des paiements de péréquation pro-
pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-
Sciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre 5
en mesure d’assurer les services publics a un
niveau de qualité et de fiscalité sensiblement
37. (I) Dans l’année suivant l‘entrée en C<>”(§:¢:\_¢¢
– , – ~ COIIS I \l IO”-
vigueur de la presente partie, le premierlO,,e”e
I0 ministre du Canada convoque une conference
constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers
ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
(2) Sont placées a l‘ordre du jour de la §=r\i=ir>a|\iM
Iiconférence visée au paragraphs (1) les ques- I5 a:f°If,°,,‘}§n°§s
tions constitutionnelles qui intéressent direc-
tement les peuples autochtones du_ Canada,
notamment la determination et la definition
des droits de ces peuples it inscrire dans la
20 Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre 20
du Canada invite leurs représentants a parti-
ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions.
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite
invite elected representatives of the govern-25 des représentants élus des gouvernements du
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-
west Territories to participate in the discus-
sions on any item on the agenda of the
conference convened under subsection (1)
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister,
directly affects the Yukon Territory and the
Northwest Territories.
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution
of Canada may be made by proclamation
issued by the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada where so authorized
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of
Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assem-
blies of at least two-thirds of the provinces
territoire du Yu_kon et des terntoires du25
Nord-Ouestaparticiper aux travaux relatifs
a toute question placée a l’ordre du jour de la
conference visée au paragraphe (1) et qui,
selon lui, intéresse directement le territoire
du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest. 30
38. (I) La Constitution du Canada peut
étre modifiée par proclamation du gouver-
35 neur général sous le grand sceau du Canada,
autorisée a la fois :
a) par des resolutions du Sénat et de la 35
Chambre des communes;
b) par des resolutions des assemblées
40 législatives d’au moins deux tiers des pro-
vinces dont Ia population confondue repre-
normal: de

t COMMONS DEBATES November 27, I981
Majority of
sipmttutt of
Revocation of
Restriction on
Amendment by
The Conrtftution
that have, in the aggregate, according to sente, selon le recensement general le plus
the then latest general census, at least fifty recent a l‘époque, au moins cinquante pour
per cent of the population of all the cent. de la population de toutes les
provinces. provinces.
(2) An amendment made under subsection 5 (2) Une modification faite conformément 5 MflJ’°rilé§imP|=
(l) that derogates from the legislative au paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire a la
powers, the proprietary rights or any other competence legislative, aux droits de pro-
rights or privileges of the legislature or gov- priété ou a tous autres droits ou privileges
ernment of a province shall require a resolu- d’une legislature ou d’un gouvernement pro-
tion supported by a majority of the members l0vincial exige une resolution adoptée a la IO
of each of the Senate, the I-louse of Com- majorité des sénateurs, des députés fédéraux
mons and the legislative assemblies required ct des députés de chacune des assemblécs
under subsection (I). législatives du nombre requis de provinces.
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visée au paragraphe Démwrd
tion (2) shall not have effect in a pr0vincel5(2) est sans effet dans une province dont I5
the legislative assembly of which has l’assemblée legislative a, avant la prise de la
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution proclamation, exprimé son désaccord par une
supported by a majority of its members prior résolution adoptée a la majorité des députés,
to the issue of the proclamation to which the sauf si cette assemblée, par resolution égale-
amendment relates unless that legislative 20 ment adoptée a la majorité, revient sur son 20
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup- désaccord etautorisela modification.
ported by a majority of its members, revokes
its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the (4) La resolution de désaccord visée au I-F‘/§¢dv
purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at 25 paragraphe (3) peut étre révoquée a tout dm°”°’d
any time before or after the issue of the moment, indépendamment de la date de la
proclamation to which it relates. proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte. 25
39. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 39. (1) La proclamation viséc au paragra- Rwristivn
under subsection 38(1) before the expiration phe 38(1) ne peut étre prise dans l’année
of one year from the adoption of the resolu- 3Osuivant I’adoption de la resolution a l’origine
tion initiating the amendment procedure de la procedure de modification que si l’as-
thercunder, unless the legislative assembly of semblée legislative de chaque province a 30
each province has previously adopted a reso- préalablement adopté une résolution d’agré-
lution of assent or dissent. ment ou de désaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued 35 (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe
under subsection 38(1) after the expiration 38(1) ne peut étre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l‘adoption de la resolution at l’origine 35
lution initiating the amendment procedure dela procédure de modification.
40. Where an amendment is made under 40 40. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Cvmvwsativn
subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s’applique
legislative powers relating to education or pas une modification faite conformément au
other cultural matters from provincial legis- paragraphe 38(1) et relative, en matiere 40
latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d’éducation ou dans d‘autres domaines cultu-
reasonable compensation to any province to 45 rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-
which the amendment does not apply. ves provinciales au Parlement.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of 41. Toute modification de la Constitution Espjicficrmcnt
‘ ‘ – 45
Canada in relation to the following matters du Canada portant sur les questions sutvan

November 27. I981 – COMMONS DEBATES
Amendment by
Amendment of
relating I0 some
but not all
may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of
Canada only where authorized by resolutions
of the Senate and House of Commons and of
the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a
(b) the right of a province to a number or”
members in the House of Commons not
less than the number of Senators by which
the province is entitled to be represented at
the time this Part comes into force;
(0) subject to section 43, the use of the
English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court
of Canada; and
(e) an amendment to this Part.
42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution
(a) the principle of proportionate
representation of the provinces in the
House of Commons prescribed by the
Constitution of Canada;
(I2) the powers of the Senate and the
method of selecting Senators;
(0) the number of members by which a
province is entitled to be represented in the
Senate and the residence qualifications of
(:1) subject to paragraph 4l(d), the
Supreme Court of Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into
the territories; and
(/) notwithstanding any other law or prac-
tice, the establishment of new provinces.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply
in respect of amendments in relation to mat-4Oquent pas aux qu
The Conszimzion
tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur
général sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto»
risée par des resolutions du Sénat, de la
Chambre des communes et de Fassemblée
législative de chaque province :
a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur
general et celle de lieutenant~gouveriieur;
b) le droit d’une province d’avoir a la
Cliambre des communes un nombre de
deputés au moins egal a celui des sénateurs l0
par lesquels elle est habilitée a étre repre-
sentée lors de l’entrée en vigueur de la
présente partie;
c) sous réserve do Particle 43, l’usage du
francais ou de l’anglais;
d) la composition de la Cour supreme du
e) la “modification de la présente partie.
42. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu- zgffifiiliérge
p,md,,,c of Canada in relation to the following mat» tion du Canada portant sur les questions 20 modmmion
ters may be made only in accordance with suivantes se fait conformément au paragra-
subsection 38(1): phe 38(1):
a) le principe de la representation propor-
tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des
communes prévu par la Constitution du 25
b) les pouvoirs du Sénat et le mode de
sélection des sénateurs;
c) le nombre des sénateurs par lesquels
une province est habilitée a étre représen- 30
tée et les conditions de résidence qu’ils
d) sous réserve dc l’alinéa 41d), la Cour
supreme du Canada;
e) le rattachement aux provinces existan-35
tes de tout ou partie des territoires;
f) par derogation a toute autre loi ou
usage, la création de provinces.
(2) Les paragraphes 38(2) a (4) ne s’appli-
ters referred to in subsection (1). paragraphe (1).
estions mentionnées au 40
Modification é
43. An amendment to the Constitution of 43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du F, d
Canada in relation to any provision that Canada applicables a certaines provinces C5511;
applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, seulement ne peuvent étre modifiées que par i>r<=viM=s
including 45 proclamation du gouverneur general sous le 45
(a) any alteration to boundaries between 3, _ ,
pi-ovin¢¢5,and resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des
rand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des

‘ COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 1931
by Parliament
by provincial
lnitialion of
Revocation of
without Senate
Computation of
Advice to issue
The Constitution
(b) any amendment to any provision that communes et de l’assemblée legislative de
relates to the use of the English or the chaque province concernée. Le present arti-
French language within a province, cle s‘applique notamment :
may be made by proclamation issued by the a) aux changements du tracé des frontie-
Governor General under the Great Seal of 5 res interprovinciales; 5
Canada °“lY Where 5° 3″lh°\’lZ¢d by l’°3“l“” b) aux modifications des dispositions rela-
tions of the Senate and House of Commons rive; 5 pusage du fl-ajwais Qu d¢ Panglais
and of the legislative assembly of each prov- dans une provinm
ince to which the amendment applies.
44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parlia- l0 44. Sous reserve des articles 4l et 42, le lOMw”fi=¢\liv”
ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour *;;’;’,,’;m,
the Constitution of Canada in relation to the modifier les dispositions de la Constitution
executive government of Canada or the du Canada relatives au pouvoir exécutif fede-
, . d
Senateand House ofCommons. ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre es
communes. 15
45. Subject to section 41, the legislature l5 45. Sous reserve de l’article 41, une légis- hgfiiigsalivfl
of each province may exclusively make laws lature a competence exclusive pour modifier f§giS,m,,,¢s
amending the constitution of the province. la constitution de sa province.
46. (1) The procedures for amendment 46. (1) L’initiative des procedures de Initiative M
under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be modification visées aux articles 38, 4!, 42 et2Op’°°°d”‘°‘
initiated either by the Senate or the House of20 43 appartient au Sénat, a la Chambre des
Commons or by the legislative assembly of a communes ou a une assemblée legislative.
(2) A resolution of assent made for the (2) Une resolution d’agrément adoptée PP$§ibil,”¢d=
purposes of this Part may be revoked at any dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre ‘“°°a“°”
time before the issue of a proclamation 25 révoquée a tout moment avant la date de la 25
authorized by it. proclamation qu’elle autorise.
47. (l) An amendment to the Constitution 47. (l) Dans les cas visés it Particle 38, 41, Mfldtfisativyi
of Canada made by proclamation under sec- 42 ou 43, il peut étre passé outre au défaut f,f,”§é’,f§‘I’“”°”
tion 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a d’autorisation du Sénat si celui-ci n’a pas
resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue 30adopté de resolution dans un delai de cent3O
of the proclamation if, within one hundred quatre-vingtsjours suivant l’adoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the de la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons of a resolution authoriz- derniere, apres l’expiration du délai, adopte
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
a resolution and if, at any time after the35
expiration of that period, the House of Com-
mons again adopts the resolution.
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du délai vise au 35§:I;\ér’:§aii0n
gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptées les
computing the one hundred and eighty day 4Opériodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
period referred to in subsection (1). prorogé ou dissous.
48. The Queen’s Privy Council for 48. Le Conseil privé de la Reine pour le D=”wr\d=5l=
Canada shall advise the Governor General to Canada demande an gouverneur general de 4O”‘°°”’””“’°”
issue a proclamation under this Part forth- prendre, conformément a la presente partie,
with on the adoption of the resolutions 45 une proclamation des I’adoption des resolu-

November 27, l98l’ COMMONS DEBATES 13495
A mend ment to
Au, I86 7
Laws rcspecling
resources and
EXp0l’I from
provinces of
required for an amendment made by procla-
mation under this Part.
49. A constitutional conference composed
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the
first ministers of the provinces shall be con-
vened by the Prime Minister of Canada
within fifteen years after this Part comes into
force to review the provisions of this Part.
50. The Constitution Act, I867 (formerly
named the British North America Act, I867) IO
is amended by adding thereto, immediately
after section 92 thereof, the following head-
ing and section:
“Non-Renewable Natural Resources,
Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (l) In each province, the legisla-
ture may exclusively make laws in relation l5
(a) exploration for non~renewable natu-
ral resources in the province;
(b) development, conservation and
management of non-renewable natural 20
resources and forestry resources in the
province, including laws in relation to
the rate of primary production there-
from; and
(c) development, conservation and man- 25
agement of sites and facilities in the
province for the generation and produc-
tion of electrical energy.
(2) In each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the export from 30
the province to another part of Canada of
the primary production from non-renew-
able natural resources and forestry
resources in the province and the produc-
tion from facilities in the province for the 35
generation of electrical energy, but such
laws may not authorize or provide for
discrimination in prices or in supplies
exported to another part of Canada.
The Constitution
tions prévues par cette partie pour une modi-
fication par proclamation.
49. Dans les quinze ans suivant l’entrée en Cflnlérsqcv
vigueur de la présente partie, Ie premier ‘;:’|’,Scl”“”°”‘
ministre du Canada convoque une conference 5
constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers
ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du
réexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
S0. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 M<><1i_fi¢a\iMd¢ (antérieurement désignée sous le titre : Acte IO:,,f,‘§f-,,,,,-,,,,. de I’/lmérique du Nord britannique, I867) “Flint!-I867 est modifiée par insertion, apres I’article 92, de la rubrique et de Particle suivants : ttRessourees naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestiéres et énergie électrique 92A. (I) La legislature de chaque pro- C°I\\_t>él_¢Il1¢¢
. , . , ., r0Vl I
vince a competence exclusive pour Iegife- 15p “°“°
rer dans les domaines suivants :
a) prospection des ressources naturelles
non renouvelables do Ia province;
b) exploitation, conservation ct gestion
des ressources naturelles non renouveIa- 20
bles et des ressources forestieres de Ia
province, y compris leur rythme de pro-
duction primaire;
c) aménagement, conservation et ges-
tion des emplacements et des installa- 25
tions de la province destinés a Ia produc-
tion d’énergie électrique.
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Extwflalivn
competence pour légiférer en ce qui con- gféjiiiis
cerne l’exportation, hors de la province, ta 30
destination d’une autre partie du Canada,
de la production primaire tirée des ressour-
ces naturelles non renouvelables et des res-
sources forestieres de la province, ainsi que
de la production d’énergie électrique de Ia 35
province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de
lois autorisant ou prévoyant des disparités
de prix ou des disparités dans les exporta-
tions destinées a une autre partie du
Canada. 40

‘ COMMONS DEBATES November 27, I98]
Authority of
Taxation of
Existing powers
or rights
The Consiiru/ion
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates
from the authority of Parliament to enact
laws in relation to the matters referred to
in that subsection and, where such a law of
Parliament and a law of a province con- 5
flict, the law of Parliament prevails to the
extent of the conflict,
(4) In each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the raising of
money by any mode or system of taxation
in respect of
(n) non-renewable natural resources
and forestry resources in the province
and the primary production therefrom,
(b) sites and facilities in the province
for the generation of electrical energy
and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported
in whole or in part from the province, but 20
such laws may not authorize or provide for
taxation that differentiates between pro-
duction exported to another part of
Canada and production not exported from
the province.
(5) The expression “primary produc~
tion” has the meaning assigned by the
Sixth Schedule.
(6) Nothing in subsections (I) to (5)
derogates from any powers or rights that a 30
legislature or government of a province
had immediately before the coming into
force of this section.”
51. The said Act is further amended by
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas l;°”l”°i’d”
atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de Iégifé- “’e’“°’“
rer dans les domaines visés a ce paragra-
phe, les dispositions d’une loi du Parlement
adoptée dans ces domaines l’emportant sur 5
les dispositions incompatibles d’une loi
(4) La legislature de chaque province a Tmtion do
competence pour prélever des sommes ‘°“°“’°“
d’argent par tout mode ou systeme del0
taxation :
:1) des ressources naturelles non renou-
velables et dcs ressources forestieres de
la province, ainsi que de la production
primaire qui en est tirée; I5
b) des emplacements et des installations
de la province destinés a la production
d’énergie électrique, ainsi que de cette
production meme.
Cette competence peut s‘exercer indépen- 20
damment du fait que la production en
cause soit ou non, en totalité ou en partie,
exportée hors de la province, mais les lois
adoptées dans ces domaines ne peuvcnt
autoriser ou prévoir une taxation qui éta- 25
blisse une distinction entre la production
exportée a destination d‘une autre partie
du Canada et la production non exportée
hors de la province,
(5) L’expression qpl’0dUCll0l’l primaire» a 30-Production
le sens qui lui est donné dans Ia sixicme ”””‘“”°’
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent §°”_”°i’5_°”
pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits détenus ‘°’“°x’s“”“
par la législature ou le gouvernement 35
d’une province lors dc I’entrée en vigueur
du present article.»
51. Ladite loi est en outre modifiée par Wm
adding thereto the following Schedule: 35 adjonction de l’annexc suivante 2
Primary Production from Non-Renewable
Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this
< Production primaire tirée des ressources
naturelles non renouvelables et des
ressources forestiéres
l. Pour l’appIication dc Particle 92A: 40

November 27, 1981 . COMMONS DEBATES
(a) production from a non-renewable
natural resource is primary production
therefrom if
(i) it is in the form in which it exists
upon its recovery or severance from its 5
natural state, or
(ii) it is a product resulting from proc-
essing or refining the resource, and is
not a manufactured product or a prod-
uct resulting from refining crude oil,1O
refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refin-
ing gases or liquids derived from coal or
refining a synthetic equivalent of crude
oil; and
(b) production from a forestry resource is l5
primary production therefrom if it consists
of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, saw-‘
dust or any other primary wood product,
or wood pulp, and is not a product manu-
factured from wood.” 20
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule I; and
(0) any amendment to any Act or order 30
referred to in paragraph (11) or (b).
</§;”::’:$|=:’:§O‘[_” (3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada Canada shall be made only in accordance é with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conférés par elle. tion of Canada. 35 Repealwfld 53. (l) The enactments referred to in 53. (l) Les textes législatifs et les décrets »\\>wsa1i<>n_¢1
“°w”“”‘“ Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed énuméres a la colonne I de l‘annexe I sont “°'”°°“”“”°5
or amended to the extent indicated in abrogés ou modifies dans la mesure indiquée4O
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall a la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent
continue as law in Canada under the names 40en vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous
set out in Column III thereof. les titres mentionnés a la colonne III.
The Cvnszimzion
a) on entend par production primaire tirée
d’une ressource naturelle non renouvela-
(i) soit le produit qui se presente sous la
meme forme que lors de son extraction 5
du milieu naturel,
(ii) soit le produit non manufacture de
la transformation, du raffinage ou de
l‘affinage d‘une ressource, a l’exception
du produit du raffinage du pétrole brut, 10
du raffinage du pétrole brut lourd ame-
lioré, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-
des dérivés du charbon ou du raffinage
d’un equivalent synthétique du petrole
brut; l5
b) on entend par production primaire tirée
d’une ressource forestiere la production
constltuée de billots, dc poteaux, de bois
d‘oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d‘autre
produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de 20
bois, a l‘exception d’un produit manufac-
turé en bois.»
gnmacy vi r 52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 52. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la grimfivlé dcla
on ltuuono . . ,_ . , 1’1 ‘ d
canjja supreme law of Canada, and any law that IS lOl supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes C§:f“§a“”°” ”
inconsistent with the provisions of the Con- les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre 25
stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regle de droit.
of no force or effect. 25
‘é::;1;;“”°” °’ (2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act, including this Act;
(2) La Constitution du Canada comprend : ggmévlisn du
a) la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la
présente‘ loi;
b) les textes législatifs et les décrets figu- 30
rant a l’annexe I;
c) les modifications des textes législatifs et
des décrets mentionnes aux alinéas a) ou
(3) La Constitution du Canada nc peut 35 Mvdifiwivn
tre modifiée que conformément aux pou-

l 3408
‘ COMMONS DEBATES November Z7, l98l
Repeal and
French version
of Constitution
of Canada
English and
French versions
or certain
English and
French versions
of this Act
ment of
23(l )(11) in
respect bf
Quebec \
The Constitution
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Tout texte législatif ou reglementaire,
Act, that refers to an enactment referred to sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention
in Schedule I by the name in Column I d‘un textelégislatifou decret figurant a l’an-
thereof is hereby amended by substituting nexe I par le titre indiqué at la colonne I est
for that name the corresponding name in Smodifié par substitution a ce titre du titre 5
Column III thereof, and any British North correspondant mentionné a la colonne III;
America Act not referred to in Schedule I tout Acte de l’Amerique du Nord britanni-
may be cited as the Constitution Act fol~ que non mentionne a l’annexe I peut etre cite
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its sous le titre dc L01‘ constitutionnelle suivi de
enactment. l0l‘indication dc l‘annee de son adoption et IO
éventuellement de son numéro.
Abrogntion ct
qui en
54. Part IV is repealed on the day that is 54. La partie IV est abrogée un an aprés
one year after this Part comes into force and l’entrée en vigucur de la presente partie et le
this section may be repealed and this Act gouverneur general peut, par proclamation
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger lc 15
of Part IV and this section, by proclamation I5 present article et apporter en consequence dc
issued by the Governor General under the cette double abrogation les amenagements
Great Seal of Canada. qui s’imposent a la presente loi.
55. A French version of the portions of the 55. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada Version
Constitution of Canada referred to in est charge dc rédiger, dans les meilleurs
Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister 20 délais, la version francaise des parties dc la wnstilutivnncl-<
of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos- Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l‘an-
sible and, when any portion thereof sufficient nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante
to Warrant action being taken has been so est, des qu’elle est prete, deposée pour adop-
prepared, it shall be put forward for enact- tion par proclamation du gouverneur general 25
ment by proclamation issued by the Gover-25 sous lo grand sceau du Canada, conforme-
nor General under the Great Seal of Canada ment a la procedure applicable a l’epoquc a
pursuant to the procedure then applicable to la modification des dispositions constitution-
an amendment of the same provisions of the nelles qu’elle contientt
Constitution of Canada.
56. Where any portion of the Constitution 30 56. Les versions francaise et anglaise des 30 ‘/¢I’$i<>!\§
of Canada has been or is enacted in English parties de la Constitution du Canada adop- §§,“;’|§‘,~’$‘i”d§‘
and French or where a French version of any tees dans ces deux langues ont également ¢¢rtai_nst=Xtc-< portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- force de loi. En outre, ont également force cle °°“‘””“‘°””°” ant to section 55, the English and French loi, des l‘adoption, dans le cadre de Particle versions of that portion of the Constitution 3555, d’une partie de la version francaise de la 35 are equally authoritative. Constitution, cette partie et la version anglaise correspondante. Versions francaisc ct anglaise de Ia préscntc loi 57. The English and French versions of 57. Les versions francaise et anglaise de la this Act are equally authoritative. presente loi ont egalement force de loi. 58. Subject to section 59, this Act shall 58. Sous réserve de Particle 59, la presente 40 bfiflévvn come into force on a day to be fixed by 4Ol0i entre en vigueur a la date fixée par pro- “gm” proclamation issued by the Queen or the clamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada. Canada. 59 (I) Paragraph 23(l)(a) shall come 59. (I) Ifialinea 23(l)a) entre en vigueur EigLrcé==; , V HI e int force in res cct of Quebec on a day to be 45 pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclama- 45 1-annéa 23(1)”, 0 P pour le Quebec November 27, l98l ‘ COMMONS DEBATES l3409 Authorization of Quebec Repeal of this section Short title and citations The Constitution fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or tion dc la Reine ou du gouverneur general the Governor General under the Great Seal sous le grand sceau du Canadat of Canada. (2) A proclamation under subsection (1) (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe gutzrisflliflfl 11“ shall be issued only where authorized by the 5(1) ne peut étre prise qu’apres autorisation ““ °° legislative assembly or government of de Passemblée legislative cu du gcuverne- 5 Quebec. ment du Quebec. (3) This section may be repealed on the (3) Le present article peut etre abrogé at la *\l}I’°&ali\”! 1“ day paragraph 23(l)(a) comes into force in date d’entrée en vigueur de Palinéa 23(l)a) “‘°s°’“a”‘°° respect of Quebec and this Act amended and l0pour le Quebec, et la présertte loi faire l’ob~ renumbered, consequential upon the repeal jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et IO of this section, by proclamation issued by the changements de numérotation qui en decou- Queen or the Governor General under the lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du Great Seal ot”Canada. gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada. 60. This Act may be cited as the Consti- I5 60. Titre abrégé dc la presente annexe: l5Ti”¢§ tution Act, I981, and the Constitution Acts Loi constitutionnelle de 1981; titre commun 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a i975 cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 (n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constitu- 101981. tionnelles dz I867 471/981. l34l0 COMMONS DEBATES November 27, l98l The Constitution MODERNIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION SCHEDULE I to the CONSTITUTION ACT, I981 Column I Item Act Affected Column II Amendment Column Ill New Name 7. 8 I. British North America Act, I867, 30-3l Vict., c. 3 (U.l(.) 2. An Act to amend and continue the Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Gov- ernment ol” the Province of Manito- ba, I870, 33 Vict., c. 3 (Can.) 3. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June, I870 4. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May, I871 5. British North America Act, l87l, 34-35 Vict., c. 28 (U.K.) 6. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, I873 38-39 Vict., c. 38 (U.K.) I880 Parliament of Canada Act, I875, . Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July, (I) Section I is repealed and the following substituted therefor: “I. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867.” (2) Section 20 is repealed. (3) Class I of section 91 is repealed. (4) Class I of section 92 is repealed. (I) The long title is repealed and the following substituted therefor: “Manitoba Act, I870.” (2) Section 20 is repealed. Section l is repealed and the following substituted therefor: “I. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, I871.” Constitution Act, I867 Manitoba Act, I 870 Rupert’s Land and North-Wesb ern Territory Order British Columbia Terms of Union Constitution Act, 1871 Prince Edward Island Terms of Union Parliament of Canada Act, I875 Adjacent Territories Order November 27, I981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES I341] ANNEXE I LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE I981 ACTUALISATION DE LA CONSTITUTION The Constitution Colonne I Loi visée Colonne II Modification Colonne III Nouveau titre Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan- nique, I867, 30~3I Vict., c. 3 (R.-U.) Acte pour amender et continuer I’acte trente-deux et trente-trois Vic- toria, chapitre trois, et pour établir et constituer Ie gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Vict., c. 3 (Canada) Arrété en conseil dc Sa Majesté admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin I870 Arreté en conseil de Sa Majesté admettant la Colombie-Britannique, en date du16 mai I871 Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan- nique, I871, 34-35 Vict., c. 28 (R–U-I Arrété en conseil de Sa ‘Ma_iesté admettant l’Ile-du-Prince—Edouard, en date du 26 juin I873 Acte du Parlement du Canada, I875, 38~39 Vict., c. 38 (R.-U.) Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté admettant dans l’Union tous les ter- ritoires ct possessions britanniques dans I’Amérique du Nord, et les iles adjacentes a ces territoires et posses- sions, en date du 31 juillet I880 (I) L’article I est abrogé et remplacé par ce qui suit : cl. Titre abrégé 2 Loi consti- tutionnelle de I867.» (2) L‘articIe 20 est abrogé. (3) La catégorie 1 de l‘article 91 est abrogée. (4) La catégorie I de l’article 92 est abrogée. (I) Le titre complet est abrogé et remplacé par ce qui suit 1 aLoi de I870 sur Ie Mani- toba.» (2) L‘article 20 est abrogé. L’articIe I est abrogé et rem- placé par ce qui suit: 11. Titre abrégé : Loi consti- tutionnelle de I871.» Loi constitutionnelle de I867 Loi de I870 sur le Manitoba Décret en conseil sur la terre de Rupert ct le territoire du Nord- Ouest Conditions de l’adhésion de la Colombie-Britanniquc Loi constitutionnelle de I871 Conditions dei l’adhésion de l’Ile-du-Prince-Edouard Loi de I875 sur le Parlement du Canada Décrct en conseil sur les territoi- res adjacents 13412 ‘ commons DEBATES November 27, I98 I The Constitution SCHEDULE I to the CONSTITUTION ACT, I981-—-Continued Column I Column II Column III Item Act Affected Amendment New Name British North America Act, I886, 49-50 Vict., c. 35 (U.K.) Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, I889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (U.I(.) Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, I895, 2nd Sess., 59 Vict., C. 3 (U.K.) The Alberta Act, I905, 4-5 Edw. VII. 0- 3 (Can.) The Saskatchewan Act, I905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.) British North America Act, I907, 7 Edw. VII, c. II (U.K.) British North America Act, I915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.) British North America Act, 1930, 20-2I Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.) Statute of Westminster, I931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.I(.) British North America Act, I940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.I(.) >-
British North America Act, 1943,
6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.I(.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, I886
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I886.”
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I907.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I915.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I930.”
In so far as they apply to
(a) section 4 is repealed; and
(b) subsection 7(I) is
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I940.”
The Act is‘-‘repealed.
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act
Alberta Act
Saskatchewan Act
Constitution Act, I907
Constitution Act, I915
Constitution Act, I930
Statute of Westminster, I931
Constitution Act, I940

November 27, I981 ‘
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne II Colonne III
Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de I‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I886, 49-50 Vict., c. 35
Acte du Canada (Iimites d’Ontario)
1889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (R.-U.)
Acte concernant I’Orateur canadien
(nomination d’un suppiéant) I895,
2= session, 59 Vict., c. 3 (R.-U.)
Acte de I’Alberta, I905, 4-5 Ed.
VII, c. 3 (Canada)
Acte de Ia Saskatchewan, I905, 4-5
Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I907, 7 Ed. VII, c. II (R.-U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26
Statut de Westminster, I931, 22
Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)
Acte dc I’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30
L’articIe 3 est abrogé et rem- Loiconstitutionnelle de I886
placé par ce qui suit :
K3. Titre abrégé : L01‘ consti-
tutionnelle de I886.»
Loi de I889 sur Ie Canada (fron
tiéres de I’Ontario)
La loi est abrogée.
Loi sur I‘AIberta
Loi sur Ia Saskatchewan
L’artic|e 2 est abrogé et rem- Loiconstitutionnellede1907
place par ce qui suit :
=2. Titre abrégé 1 Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I907,»
L’article 3 est abrogé et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de I915
place par ce qui suit :
(3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I915.»
L’article 3 est abrogé et rem- Loiconstitutionnelle de I930
placé par ce qui suit :
‘SA Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I930.»
Dans Ia mesure oz‘: ils s’appli- Statut de Westminster de I931
quent au Canada :
a) Particle 4 est abrogé;
b) Ie paragraphe 7(I) est
L’article 2 est abrogé ct rem- Loi constitutionnelle dc 1940
placé par ce qui suit :
:2. Titre abrégé 1 Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1940.»
La loi estkabrogée.

November 27, I981
The Constitution
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1’ 981—Continued
Column I
Item Act Affected
Column ll
Column III
New Name
British North America Act, I946,
9-I0 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1949,
I2-I3 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
British North America (No. 2) Act,
1949, I3 Geo. VI, c. 8I (U.I(.)
British North America Act, I951,
I4-I5 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
British North America Act, I952, I
Eliz, II, c. I5 (Can.)
British North America Act, I960, 9
Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.l(.)
British North America Act, I964,
I2-I3 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
British North America Act, I965,
I4 EEZA II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
British North America Act, I974,
23 Eliz. II, c. I3, Part I (Can.)
The Act is repealed.
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Newfoundland Act.”
The Act is repealed.
The Act is repealed.
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I960.“
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I964.”
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I965.”
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1)
(Can.), is repealed and the fol-
lowing substituted therefor:
“3. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I974.”
Newfoundland Act
Constitution Act, I960
Constitution Act, I964
Constitution Act, I965
Constitution Act, I974

November 27. 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13415
ANNEXE I (suite)
The Constitution
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne II
Colonne III
Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I946, 9-I0 Geo. VI, c. 63
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I949, I2-I3 Geo. VI, c. 22
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique (N° 2), I949, I3 Geo. VI, c.
8l (R.-U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1951, 14-I5 Geo. VI, c. 32
Acte de I’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I952, I Eliz. II, c. I5
Acte de I‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I964, 12-I3 Eliz. II, c. 73
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I965, I4 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I974, 23 Eliz. II, c. I3, Partie
I (Canada)
La loi est abrogée.
L’article 3 est abrogé et rem»
placé par ce qui suit :
13. Titre abrégé : Loi sur
La loi est abrogée.
La loi est abrogée.
La loi est abrogée.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1960.»
L‘article 2 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
-<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I964.»
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
t2. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle de 1965.»
L’articIe 3, modifié par le para-
graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Eli-
zabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est
abrogé et remplacé par ce qui
suit :
<3. Titre abrégé de Ia pre- sente partie 1 Loi constitution- nelle de 1974.» Loi sur Terre-Neuve Loi constitutionnelle de 1960 Loi constitutionnelle de I964 Loi constitutionnelle de I965 Loi constitutionnelle de I974 13416 . (;()MM01\1s DEBATES November 27, 1981 The Constitution CONSTITUTION ACT, l98l—Conc!uded SCHEDULE I to the Column I Column II Column III Item Act Affected Amendment New Name 29. British‘ North America Act, I975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.) 30. British North America Act (No. 2), I975, 23-24 Eliz. II, C. 53 (Can.) Section 3, as amended by 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.), is repealed and the following sub- stituted therefor: “3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. I), 1975.” Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor: “3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2). I975.” And on the motion of Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean—Carleton), in amendment thereto,—That the pro- posed Constitution Art I981 be amended by striking out paragraphs (e) and (/) of subsection 42(1). Constitution Act (No. I), I975 Constitution Act (No. 2), I975 November 27, I981 _ COMMONS DEBATES 13417 The Constitution ANNEXE I (/in) LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE I981 Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3, modifié par l‘article Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975 nique, I975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. Partie I (Canada) 28 (Canada), est abrogé et rem- placé par ce qui suit: K3. Titre abrégé de la pre- sente partie : Loi constitution- nelle n°l de 1975.: Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3 est abrogé et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975 nique n° 2, I975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 placé par ce qui suit: (Canada) :3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti- tutionnelle n” 2 de I 975.» Et sur Pamendement dc M. Nielsen, appuyé par M. Baker (Nepean—Carleton),-Qu‘on modifie le projet de Loi consti- tutionnelle de I981 en supprimant les alinéas e) et /) du paragraphe (1) de I‘artic1e 42. ~ 13418 COMMONS DEBATES November 27, I981 ‘l’/tt’ (‘0/tstltution Madam Speaker: lIcl’o|”c resuming debate, may I point out to the House thnl l>t:c:\t|.\‘c of the amendment to the resolution
adopted yesterday, at rcnumbering of the sections was neces-
sary. Therefore n technical change will have to be made to the
amendment now before the House in thc name of the hon.
member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The amendment should
amend Section 42 instead of 41.
Mr. Maurice Dupratt (Labelle): Madam Speaker, when the
House adjourned Inst night, I was about to ask your permis-
sion to quote l’|’on\ :1 speech Henri Bourassa, the then member
for lahcllu, mtule in I931 upon his return from a conference in
London, in which he reported some comments by a member of
lhc llritislt llousc of Commons on the desire of Canadians to
hnvc their own Canadian constitution. Here is the account
givcn by Henri Bourassa:
To he perfectly frank, we are rather tired of all this talk about the indepen-
dcncl: ofthe 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 sclfwespcct in the Dominion or in
the provinces will have reached a level where, with the concerted efforts of the
fcdcrnl 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.
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
Some mcmbcrs 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
Qucbcc that I represent today in this House, in an almost
totally French-speaking region. I was I8 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 experi-
ence 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 I0 last and I
share with him the view that bringing our Constitution to
Canada after II4 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 ofits regions.
[ Translation]
I want to ask my fellow Canadians to make a commitment
to this country to stand up and be counted as proud Canadi-
ans. 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 free-
dom 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 ade-
quately 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,

November 27, l98l . COMMONS DEBATES 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 op-
portunity 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
I-lon. Prime Minister transmitted an invitation to the people of
Vancouver which I now repeat to all my colleagues and to
every Canadian. lf we are worthy of Canada, let us face and
meet this challenge.
. (IZZD)
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 perpetu-
al 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 differ-
ent classes of Canadians with different political rights, depend-
ing 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
The Constitution
The resolution suggests that one Prime Minister (Mr. Tru-
deau) and nine southern premiers could carve up the north in
their so evident self-interest. lt 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 l was a
resident of the Northwest Territories. l 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 undcr 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 lnuvik. 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 Coppcrmine,
Fort Good Hope, Fort Franklin, Fort McPherson and Yellow-

13420 ~ COMMONS DEBATES November 27. 1981
The Constitution
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 Terri-
tories, all fully elected, the majority of them native northern-
ers, 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(l)(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 4l(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
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.
Q (I230)
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
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 north-
erners 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 Canadi-
ans out. If we fail them, I would tell our northern colleagues to
turn oft” 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 givc 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 sclf-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.

November 27, I981 _ COMMONS
Mr. Lewis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I apologize to the hon.
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
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 northern-
ers fairly and we \vant 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 I-louse 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 \vhich 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 ll4 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 opportu-
nity which the pcople 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

The Constitution
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 provincw
would agree to this amendment. I understand that the propos-
er 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): I-Ias the hon. member for
Simcoe North now completed his remarks?
Mr. Lewis: Yes, I have.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The hon. member for
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
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). l find it somewhat strange that you recog-
nized him and although a point of order intervened, you are
now recognizing another member.
Mr. Paproski: Are you challenging the Chair?

13422 . COMMONS
DEBATES November 27, I981
The Constitution
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.
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.
I U140)
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. Ijust 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: I-Iear, hear!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. BIaker): 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 oi‘ 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 recogni-
tion of one member or another.
I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr.
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
“l 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
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 arc 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. Collonette) was trying to be the busybody as Parliamen-
tary 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. Chreti-
en) 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 perform~
ance 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: I-Iear, 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 representav
tive of the state to grant those rights. That is the difference

November 27, 1981 . COMMONS
between the philosophy of this government and ours. The
Liberals are “states rightists”.
They are states rightists, obsessed with the theory that the
individual exists for the benefit of the state.
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
A constitution is that body oi 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
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Lambert: That is what has been happening, and what
has happened since October i980 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 gonuflect 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. lam
glad the NDP did finally wake up and did put forward
proposed changes, with a good deal of ability. 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 Minis-
ter of Justice or the representative of the government in the
Senate, the grudging granting or the inscribing into the chart-
er the expression of a further right, here and there.
Q (1250) .
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 chartcr if you do not like it.
Mr. Lambert: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peter-
son) has always got a cheap contribution to make from his
seat. I have not talked of the charter as it now stands. The
The Conslilulion
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 resolu-
tion 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, grosro made 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. memberfor Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney) so
ably pointed out a moment ago.
I visited the Northwest Territories in I940 and the Yukon in
l957 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
Canadacannot 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 Territo-
ries and the Yukon can have their territories emasculated
without their consent. We saw it in Bill C-48, the oil and gas
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
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please.

13424 , COMMONS
DEBATES November 27, 1981
The C0n.s’li/uliori
Mr. Laniel: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would
the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) allow a
Mr. Lambert: At the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I
would simply like to continue my comments.
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. Laniel: The people of Canada voted for it.
Mr. Lambert: I suggest that there is nothing more tyranni-
cal 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 gov~
ernment 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
_|Olfll 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 l.02 p.m. the House took recess.
The House resumed at 2 pm.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. When the
I-louse 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 appr0xi~
mately 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
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 Parliamen-
tary 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 I-Iouse—we could then accept this resolu-
tion and see it on its way, so that ultimately in due course we
will have a made-in-Canada or resident-in-Canada Constitu-
tion. We have done pretty well for ll4 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 appar-
ent 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

November 27. I931 , COMMONS
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,
I980 when the original resolution was revealed to the Canadi-
an public. Time will not permit me to list all these accomplish-
ments. 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 pro-
posal, 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 Constituti0n—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 arbi-
trary 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 ofwhich 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
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 l, 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,
The Conslilulion
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.
Q (I410)
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. Cana-
da’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be a British stat-
ute—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 maftres 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 equali-
zation 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 confer-
ences, 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
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 iternizing them. Most free-
doms, 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

DEBATES November 27, 1981
771? Constitution
has no such storehouse of rights on which to draw, not a single
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 limita-
tions 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 Driedg~
er—and, if I may be so bold as to place myself in that
company, I t0o—-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
The Chair might think I have made more of a case than I
needed to 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.
l 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.
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.
q (ma)
If I may be permitted a further comment, I should like to
draw the attention of the I-Iouse 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 l4
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 l8
years by election day.
However, I submit that under Section l5 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

November Z7, I981 COMMONS DEBATES l3427
drafting can be identified here in such an obvious context, how
many other perhaps even more serious flaws may lie undetect-
ed in the 57-odd St’:Cti0nS of the bill? I am not a lawyer; Ijust
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 prece-
dent, 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. Chénier: 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 I9
edition of Hanrurd.
As I have already said, it will be impossible to escape from
the strait-jacket of cntrenchment 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 inter-
pretations 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 substan-
tial 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
thedentirc document is a sham. The second addition would
rea :
The Conslilulirm
And whcrcas provincial consent to this rcsnlulion 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 Icould
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 Constitu-
tion 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, I867, 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 experi-
ence as a westerncr 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.
.’I‘his 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 I927 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 Japa-
nese 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 I947. We have consist-
ently fought against Canada‘s political colonialism to the
United Kingdom. Today, every day in the I-louse and in every
committee, we fight against Canada‘s present economic coloni-
alism to the United States. It is a consistent history. One
would expect that we would welcome, support and advocate
the govcrnment’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

;% . _‘.T‘.’.”‘!.’.‘.’l.$?,”‘§
1714′ (‘0/1.\’l!’lu//on
appeared before the committco, llw pronmrtullmi of J00 briefs
and the work of approxinuuely it lillIlilI’\‘.tl mombcrs. l should
like to pay tribute in my spoccli toilny to tho oxcollcnr work of
the hon. Minister of Stutc (Mr. Joyul), us nblc co-chairman of
the committee, as well mt llllll of the hon. member for Burnaby
(Mr. Robinson) tlflll the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville
(Mr. Nystrom) an momhcrn of tho committee.
Q (I430)
This Constitution was made in Canada and at every stage of
the proccss Cnnndizins wanted to make it a better and more
contemporury constitution. That was always the resolve.
Somc doubts were raised in the country about the legality of
the process, so it was proper that the finished package be
rcfcrrcd 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 womcn. 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.
R0ncarclli’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.
Dill!/\‘l’llS November 27, 1981
There havc 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 grcat lady who once represented my riding of Vancouver~
Kingsway in this House, Grace Maclnnis, told me that her
husband, Angus Maclnnis, stood up against a tidal wavc 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. l am afraid that
could happen again and that is why l 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. l 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 bclicve 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 twen-
tieth century constitution but what we have here is a nine-
teenth century charter.
Socialists arc concerned with the growth of the human
spirit. This charter talks of frccdom 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 pcopic demonstrated on Parliament
Hill. I think they were demonstrating for economic freedom in
the interests of working people, studcnts and pensioners.
Mr. Speaker, if it is true, as it has oftcn 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. Rcné Levesque, I ask mysclfa 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 québécois 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 mercly
because the Parti québécois is in power.
As federal Members of Parliament, it is our duty to be
prudent. What should we do’? I think that the federal Parlia-
ment 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. Lévesque 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

November 27. l93I COMMONS
DEBATES j M 13429
coming under its own jurisdiction and to receive a fair finan~
cial compensation.
We cannot say that the federal Liberals necessarily repre-
sent 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
Québécois 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.
0 (mo)
Some hon. Members: I-Iear, 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. I(_ushner), from the Conserva-
tive Party, spoke eloquently about how he came as an immi-
grant, 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 4l(l)(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 prov-
inces 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
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‘?
The Constitution
Mr. Weddell: In the north we have a unique opportunity to
create different kinds of provinces. The Yukon hull lln 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 ln tlilu
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 constitl1~
tional 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. Weddell: 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. Weddell: –just as we will work to create new ideas of
aboriginal claims and rights in the north and other parts of the
I want to end by a quote from my favourite poet, F. R.
Scott. In a poem entitled “Laurentian Shield”, he wrote the
Hidden in wonder and snow or sudden with summer
This land stares at the sun in a huge silence
Endlcssly repeating something we cannot hear
lnartidulatc, 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 ofthe people ofthis country

13430 – COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 1981
The Conrrizu/ion
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,
Bud, 31¢ 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 oppor-
tunity to speak to the constitutional resolution as this parlia-
mentary debate draws to a close. We began with the introduc-
tion 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 agree-
ment 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
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 constitu-
tional 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
Today we stand here with our leader, the right hon. member
for Yellowhead, completely vindicated in the position which hc
took with the Support of the Progressive Conservative Party,
the official opposition.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Crosby: If the people of Canada arc not already awarc,
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 ol‘ 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.
Q (1450)
The process of consent and concurrence must continue. The
Government of Canada cannot expect to bring about substan-
tial changes in the traditions, culture and heritage of Canadi-
ans 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.
l must remind you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of this
house that part of that fight was the stand which this Progres-
sive Conservativc Party took on the matter of the reference to
the Supreme Court of Canada. Again the Prime Minister and
his Minister of Justice (Mr. Chréticn) stood both inside the
House and outside of i.t 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 refer-
ence 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
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 consti-
tutional 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

November 27, 1981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES 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 constitu-
tional 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 estab~
lishment ofa 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 constitu-
tional 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 Canadi-
an 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 provi-
sions 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 provi-
sions 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 con-
cern. 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
Yhe Cunslizurion
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 practi-
cal and theoretical ways they have been deprived of their
rights. Our charter now contains a provision which will guar~
antee 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 implemen-
tation 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 Canadi-
ans. 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
0 0500) ‘
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

13432 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES November 27, 1931
The Consriiu/ion
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 l repeat now, that the challenge to the govern-
ment of Nova Scotia and, indeed, the challenge to all provin-
cial 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 govern-
ments, 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 equali-
zation 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 gov-
ernment 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. Confed~
eration 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 1 l5 years later that transpor~
tation system is in jeopardy.
At the port of Halifax, for example, as the minister knows,
we are suffering from the inability to transport goods, particu-
larly 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 transporta-
tion 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 Govern-
ment 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
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Mr. Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. l merely wish to say
in conclusion that I support the proposal the hon. rncmbcr 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.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Jim I-Iawkes (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, it is a
pleasure to stand in_the House this afternoon to_speak about
the Constitution of Canada. l 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. Illhlllk
that tribute is warranted because we would not be here in the
month of November I981. 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 I-louse. 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

November 27, I981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES 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.
Q (I510)
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 prov~
inces 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 coun-
ter to the essential nature of Canada and, I believe, counter to
the reality of Canada in the future.
lf 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 I2 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
The Cvnslilulion
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 constitu-
tional rcsolution 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, l think I can say that there is
unanimous consent to allowing me to move the following
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): ls that agreed and so
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‘ meet-
ings 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, Govern-
ment 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
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 membcr
for Rosedalc the first member to bc recognized shall be a member of the
Progressive Conservative Party who shall propose an amendment relating lo
fiscal compensation of provinces and the next member to be recognized shall

DEBATES November 27, I981
The Constitution
be a mcmbcr of the New Democratic Party who may propose a
4. Not later than 8.00 p.m. on Tuesday, December l, I981, a mcmber 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 ll) p.m.
on Tuesday, December l, l98l an amendment that is the same as the
subamendmcnt proposed by the honourable member for Cowichan-Malabar
The Islands on November 26, 1981, but found to be out of order, shnll 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
7. At 3 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2, I981, the Speaker shall interrupt
whatever proceeding; are under consideration and shall put, forthwith and
successively all questions necessary to dispose ofthe aforementioned Government
Order without furthcr debate or amendment.
Q (I520)
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
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
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 I-louse. 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. membcr for Notre~Dame-de~Grfice-Lachihe East (Mr. All-
mand). 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 subamendrncnt 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
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask of course for a
guarantee that l 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 mc, 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»-
Mr. Duclosz On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier): The hon. member for
Montmorency-Orléans (Mr. Duclos) on a point of order.
Mr. Duclosz 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
Mr. Pinard: I can clear this up by saying that the hon.
member for Montmorency—Orléans (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 dcbatc. 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 invita~
tion extended to me by the President of tho Privy Council and
I am sure that we can come to a gentleman‘s agreement.
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?

November 27, 1981 COMMONS
Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on that,
and we do not want in any way to impinge on private mem-
bers’ 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.
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.
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 agree-
ment to do that?
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-Crrace-
Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).
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
The Cvn.i-riruliim
relevant question posed by the hon. member for Notm
Dame-dc-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:
Allhouse _
Carney (Miss)
Clo rk
(Vancouver Qundra)
(Hfllifil West)
dc rm
(Division No. I 28)
Gusla fscn
(Swift Curr=nl»Maple
Jewell (M iss)
R he
(Vicl0ria- Hlliburlnrl)

DEBATES November 27, i981
Begin (M iii)
(South Wzst Nova)
‘ Campbell
Cdtfi (Mm)
dc Corneille
The Conslirulion
Eraln (Mm)
Killcns (M|s.)
Malta is
(Hamilton East)
Yunaltis—l l7.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: l declare the amendment lost.
. (l600)
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale): Mr. Speaker, l would like
to propose and speak to the following motion:
That the proposed Constitution Act l9Bl be amended by adding after Clause
31 of Part l the following new clause:
“32. Nothing in this charter affects the authority of Parliament to lcgislate
in respect ofabortiun.”
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:
lithe essence of the question is whcthcr this Housc continues to have the right
to deal with abortion, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. lt will be the
Parliament of Canada which will still be writing thc Criminal Code, and
members of this House will have the responsibility, and I wish them well, in
dealing with the problem ofabortion.
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 Parlia-
ment’s freedom to legislate on this matter is unimpaired.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Cromhie: 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 lifc. They even have difficulty with the
existing legislation. Those who belicvc 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 thc 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 cvcr been involvcd 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
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, theologi-
cal or compassionate grounds for the act of abortion. It is not
my purpose, in this amendment, to evaluate or judge any of
those perspectives. l want to ensure that these perspectives will
be heard when the question is raised in the Parliament of
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Crombie: It took 350 years to establish the parliamen~
tary 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.

November 27, I981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES 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
thfis motion does not alter the substance of the charter one
w it.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Crombie: Through this amendment, I am simply
making explicit what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien)
and the Prime Minister made implicit yesterday.
Some hon. Members: I-Iear, hear!
Mr. Crombie: Moreover, I should add that since the amend-
ment 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: I-Iear, hear!
Mr. Crornbie: 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. Chrétien: What about the accord?
Mr. Crombie: I believe in the accord.
Mr. Chrétien: 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 testimo-
nies of hope for the people whom this Constitution governs.
The Constitution
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
I (lélol
Mr. Cromhie: This charter not only sets down the rights, the
freedoms and the privileges for which generations of Canadi~
ans have fought and died, its provisions also extend to Canadi-
ans 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 com-
mittee 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 I961 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 l think right, free to oppose what I
believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my oountry.
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: N0.

13438 – COMMONS
DEBATES November 27, I981
The Conrlizurion
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 amend-
ment 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. Chréticn) 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-Lakcshorc, 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 inter-
preted 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:
“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 cer-
tainly 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 engineer-
ing‘? 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
Q (I620)
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 Ministcr of
Justice (Mr. Chrétien) has handed me several pages of argu-
ment 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
That is just onc 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 amend-
ments 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 sidc of the

November 27, l98l – COMMONS
l-louse, it was a very firm enjoinder of the Leader of the
Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democrat-
ic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who made strong, I would say
nlmost 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.
l 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 \vhich 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 pwn 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
0pposition—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 there-
of 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
It is true also that in an effort to reach out to the govern-
ment of Quebec we also brought in other amendments, one on
the Canada clause and the other on some form of compensa-
tion 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
The Constitution
amendments because I think the results showed that if the
equality of sexes amendment and the aboriginal rights amend-
ment 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
forcbearance 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 par-
ticular 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 amend~
ment 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 I-Ion. 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. ls it
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 I-Iouse 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 I-Iouse
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.
Chrétien) 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

13440 I COMMONS DEBATES November 27, l98l
The Constitution
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. lt 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 mucus,
my cabinet and I have reached this conclusion in past dlscus~
sions, 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.
l 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 l 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 ofa 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 govern-
ment 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:
l 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 compro-
mise on the part of all of us. l 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
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’whieh 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 truc, there is
definitely a flexible amending formula, of which all men~bers
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
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-Carlc-
ton (Mr. Baker), the previous I-louse leader of that party, just
yesterday, calling for support for the resolution, and he cer~
tainly 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.
Q (mo)
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 l)arl1ament’s power is
somehow diminished in other areas which are not named in

November 27, 1981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES l344l
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.
l ask all hon. members of this House to refer to Votes and
Proceedings of April 23, I981, 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. I-Iowever, 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 Con-
servative Party’? And where are the other social questions
which could also have serious constitutional and legal implica-
tions 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 Conservativm 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
The Constitution
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. lt is not an
attempt by members of the official opposition to clarify what
they now call a glaring error in the Constitution but a danger-
ous 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 proceed-
ings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of
the amendment now before the House. ls 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. I
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:

DEBATES November 27. l98 l
Q (i650)
(Vancouver Qttadra)
Begin (Miss)
Bla ker
Cote (Mrs)
De an-t
de Cornzille
at Jung
Erolfl (Mrs)
The Constitution
(Division N0. I 29
Gusts lsott
(Swill Curren\- Maple
t< ilgour Lambert Lang Lawrence Lewis Lcwycky Lnnsdn le Malone NAYS Messrs. Garant Gauthier Gimalel Ginglas Gourd (Argenteuil-Pupineau) Gourde (Levis) Gray Guilhault Herbert Hervieux-Fayette (Mrs-) Hovdcbo Irwin lttinuar Jewell (Mist) Johnston Joyul Keeper Kelly Killens (Mrs) Kristinnsett Lnchunce Lajoie Lnmentagne Lander: Laniel Lapierrz Lttpaintr. (Charlevoix) lapainte (Bcauce) Lelilane Letebvte Lumley Maclisin Maciiaehen MacGuigln Mackasey MacLarcn MstcLellan Mulepurt Maltais Mnnly Marceau Masse ) McCuish McDermid McGruth M¢Ken2ie McKnight Mcilae Munro (F;quimalt-Sunnich) Mum Nielsen Oberle Ogle topmtt Patterson Roche Scott (Hamilton-Wentworlh) Scott (Victoria-Halihurton) Siddon Taylor Thricker WcI’tman Wilsott>—-6| .
(Hamilton East]
Ya nnkis
Ynung-——l 29.
Q (I700)
Mr. Deputy Speaker: l 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.
Motion No. 43 allowed to stand by unanimous C0l’tSent.
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House. the government should include the
follwoittg question in the I981 census:
“Do you favour the reinstatement of capital punishment for deliberately
planned murder?”
He said: Mr. Speaker, I placed this motion on the Order
Paper on April 30, I980, with a view to having it debated prior
to the 1981 census. It has just now been called, more than a
year and a half later,.and the census has already been taken.
Whether there is any purpose in debating the motion is
questionable, but since it has been ordained by the House that
private members’ hour must go ahead, I suppose I have no
My view of a representative of the people is that he or she,
to the greatest possible degree, should reflect the thinking of
the people who sent the member to a legislature or to Parlia-
ment. My view of a government is that it should reflect the
thinking, to the greatest possible degree, of the majority of the
people they endeavour to govern.
This is the premise upon which I endeavour to act as the
representative of the people of Bow River. I am sure many
other hon. members follow the same premise. if a member
feels that way, he or she has a responsibility to find out how
his or her people feel about various issues and questions. ln my
own riding l have no doubt because the matters were discussed
very definitely at fora. From knocking on some 8,000 to
l0,000 doors, l know that a great majority of the people
indicated that they wanted capital punishment for carefully
planned murders reinstated. Consequently, that is what l
believe I should present to the House of Commons. In addition
it is my own conviction.
In order to find out how Canadians feel about this matter, l
thought there was no better way than doing it through a
consensus where practically every Canadian family is c0ntact~
ed, so that they would have an opportunity to say how they felt

Read less

Leave a Reply