Document Information

Date: 1981-12-01
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 13554-13617.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Translation]

THE CONSTITUTION

RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981

The House resumed, from Monday, November 30, consideration of the amended motion of Mr. Chrétien:

[…]

13584

Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin): Madam Speaker, although it may seem that all has been said that could be said about the Constitution and the draft resolution before the House, I feel it is important at this stage in the debate to recall the context of our representation and to analyse again some of the aspects of the decision we are about to make. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall go back to the objectives that guided the government in its decision to proceed with the patriation of the Constitution, because I feel it is of the utmost importance that Canadians should remember what those objectives were.

I shall also touch on some aspects of the contents of our resolution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, more specifically, on how they affect the quality of life of Canadians. However, I should not wish to continue my speech without mentioning the significant contribution made by some 300 people who, on behalf of their groups, told the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada about their vision of our country. And how could I forget the excellent work done by the members of this committee and especially by the co-chairmen, Senator Harry Hayes and the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Each in their own way, they have put their mark on one of the most decisive changes that has taken place in this country during the past 100 years.

Mr. Speaker, I should now like to express in this House some thoughts I have had following our consideration of the draft resolution and the speeches we have heard in the House and in various areas in the country. During the past months we have seen at least two schools of thought regarding the manner in which Government in Canada is defined and structured. There are those who would like to have this country consist of independent units-sovereign, to all intents and purposes-and that is the position taken by the government of the province of Quebec. Our country would then be no more and no less than the sum of its parts. That is more or less the view taken by the leaders of that province.

Fortunately, there are also those, and I am sure they are more numerous, who sincerely believe that Canada is not, and should never be, merely the sum of its parts. We belong to those who refuse to let this country become a fortuitous juxtaposition of regions, linked only by the opportunistic needs of the moment. To us, Canada is an entity with regional particularities which are to be considered, certainly, but Canada is, above all, a nation. And a nation must be able to exist as such, notwithstanding its different units, and to exist, a nation must have a national government. That, is the concept of Canada our draft resolution wishes to express, and it is supported by nine provincial premiers and by the vast majority of Canadians, notwithstanding the electoral or patently chauvinistic considerations of the Premier of Quebec.

Mr. Speaker, these two positions are confronting each other in this country today. And these are the forces that for 54 years have prevented our country from throwing off the shackles of the British North America Act. And it is because we had to rid ourselves of this anachronism which has frustrated our efforts for 54 years, and because no agreement existed and no agreement could be found, that we decided to proceed with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. Some will say we are doing this unilaterally, but since the last federal-provincial conference in Ottawa, Canadians have been able to witness the flexibility of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who instead of forcing the provincial premiers to accept the Victoria amending formula, which he preferred, bowed to the demands of the provincial consensus which opted for the Vancouver formula, but without the fiscal compensation demanded by the provinces, a decision that was made for perfectly acceptable reasons. As a consequence, rich provinces were allowed to opt out of a federal program requested by most provinces and, in addition to opting out, which is allowed under the Vancouver formula, they demanded fiscal compensation and, as several of my colleagues have already pointed out, it would probably mean the end of our social programs such as medicare, old age security or unemployment insurance. Let us take unemployment insurance, for example. Can you imagine what would have happened if compensation had been paid under that agreement supposing that provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario had opted out of the program and had been compensated besides, under the so-called Vancouver amending formula? Quebec or the maritimes would never had been able to pay for a similar program, an unemployment insurance scheme as we know it today, and provide benefits as generous as those paid at present.

It is to retain those advantages that before agreeing to some of the proposals put forward by the parties opposite, we have to accept what the Minister of State said yesterday in the House, namely, that extensive studies should be carried out so that in future negotiations or at future federal-provincial meetings, such matters might be considered. Therefore, we intend to patriate our Constitution and take that opportunity to make some amendments, the most important of which are undoubtedly the clauses dealing with natural resources, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the amending formula. Let us see first how a Charter of Rights and Freedoms is entrenched in the Constitution. It seems to me that by doing so, we are only complying with the wishes of most Canadians and following the example of some Canadian provinces. In that regard, it seems strange that, though all the premiers agreed on the principles the charter is meant to protect, several of them opposed their being enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.

We want it to be impossible in the future for legislators to change, the most fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens according to political circumstances. And to those who tell us, especially in Quebec, that our charter is too general in nature, we say that it embodies what we consider to

[Page 13585]

be the basic minimum, that nothing is keeping the provinces from doing more. As for the effects of that charter on Bill 101 in Quebec, which have brought bitter complaints from some of the top brass in the Parti Québécois, let us see what they really are. First, the real purpose of the charter is to protect a principle on which all provincial premiers agreed in Montreal in 1978, including Mr. Lévesque, and I quote:

That every child of the francophone or anglophone minority has the right to receive primary and secondary school instruction in his own tongue in every province wherever numbers justify it.

In Quebec, Bill 101 stipulates that the language of instruction for the children of that province is French, except for children one of whose parents went to an English primary school in Quebec. So, Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms alters Bill 101 slightly in that it gives a parent who is a Canadian citizen and whose first language is English the right to send his children to English schools. Immigrants, even those whose mother tongue is English, can no longer avail themselves of that clause which applies, as I said, to Canadian citizens only.

Those, Mr. Speaker, are a few changes which the charter will bring to Quebec Bill 101. As the elected representative of a Quebec constituency, I am delighted with these changes basically for two reasons. First of all, I am sure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not in any way affect the thoroughly French character of Quebec society, but on the contrary will to a certain extent ensure the continued existence and development of the French language in North America. That is a consideration of the utmost importance for me as well as for the other members of the Quebec caucus, in spite of what the PQ representatives would like Quebecers to believe. I should like to quote part of what the Minister of State stated yesterday in the House:

The Quebec challenge is not to ensure that the French language and culture will prevail in Quebec. That goal has already been reached. According to official figures, 86.2 per cent of young Quebecers are now in the French education system; the number of students in English schools declined from 250,000 before 1975 to the current 168,000, a 33 per cent drop over six years. Even with the “Canada clause”. the invasion of Quebec by English-speaking Canadians from other provinces is not to be feared any more. Indeed, the opposite will happen.

So, I fully agree with this position of the Minister of State. I sincerely believe that the fear some are trying to instil into us as Quebecers is unfounded. The other reason I am delighted with the terms of the charter is that Section 23, among others, will certainly restore the economic situation in Montreal to a certain extent and here is why. If head offices have been leaving Montreal-and as everybody is aware, they have since 1977, Mr. Speaker-it is because corporations thinks Bill 101 ss unduly restrictive to Canadians who are moving to Quebec. As their English-speaking officials realized they could no longer send their children to English schools, following their transfer to Montreal or elsewhere in Quebec, many would

The Constitution refuse any transfer to Quebec and still do. The situation was unpleasant for some companies. That is why they decided to move their head offices out of Quebec. So I am confident that the charter will help counter this job drain resulting from companies which have been relocating outside Quebec since 1977. Mr. Speaker, I read an article on that issue in Le Devoir of November 18 where the concerns of the minister responsible in Quebec, Mr. Laurin, were expressed with respect to the help given to immigrants or at least to those who may come from the U.S. to set up companies here. Allow me to quote from an editorial by Jean-Pierre Proulx published in Le Devoir of November 18. I quote:

How can one explain this unbelievable arrangement? it is fairly easy to imagine how things went. The Department of Trade and Commerce naturally wants to attract new business to Quebec. In our U.S. representations, officers; from T. & C.

—the Department of Trade and Commerce—

—and the trade commissioners who go down there occasionally. try to persuade companies that their managers are better off in Quebec if they apply for permanent resident status, since many benefits would be provided for them such as: social security. free schooling for their children, low university tuition fees, opportunity for sitting on the company’s board, etc.

But then they are asked:

“What about the language of education?”… “What about Bill 101?”

That is the question government officers would rather avoid. They have no choice but to say:

French schools. They try to show the benefits of the system, but they are not always very convincing.

Exceptions can be made. And that is what Mr. Laurin tries to do, he tries to make exceptions so that those executives can come to Quebec and send their children to English schools, he tries to get around Bill 101. Now, with the Constitution, residents from outside Quebec but who are Canadian will not have to try to get around Bill 10i, and once and for all they will have access to English schools.

In addition, we must keep in mind that the constitutional proposal confirms once and for all the equality of English and French within every institution under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament. In other words, all the other provisions of Bill 101 are maintained, namely, those concerning the working language, those concerning the language of advertising, the language of trades and the language of the professions. The essential aspects of Bill 101 are not only maintained but indeed confirmed by the Canadian constitutional project.

The agreement on the new Constitution which the Parti Québécois government refuses to endorse would certainly be quite an advantage for all men and women in Quebec. But the PQ government, whose option is still the independence of Quebec, has absolutely no interest in compromising with its partners in the Canadian federation. But Quebecers do know where their interests lie because, whether we like it or not, we

[Page 13586]

have every reason to believe that once and for all our project will put an end to all those 54 years of sterile rifts and constitutional status quo. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have shown enough patience and they are congratulating us.

Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette): Mr. Speaker, I should like to add some comments on this very important resolution, especially now that we have an opportunity to seriously consider an amendment that, in my view at least, would enable us to initiate or to continue, or, depending on the parties concerned, simply to reopen or to pursue, absolutely essential negotiations with the government of my province.

I was listening just now to comments made by a member from the island of Montreal. It is true that most members in the House always wonder why the member for Joliette does not hold the same views as the members on the other side of this House. I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker, to report comments and remarks that I, too, have heard in the province of Quebec. I am not going to discuss the arguments put forward by the previous speaker, but I would simply like to say that it is pretty far-fetched to claim that this resolution is going to achieve what we have all been trying to achieve, namely, national unity and national harmony. This problem is not going to be settled, considering what is happening, what has happened and what can be expected to happen. We must persevere, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am speaking today to this amendment, and I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues from Quebec to think about the impact of an agreement without Quebec. It was mentioned, and the House leader (Mr. Pinard) also mentioned, that we would have a historic vote tomorrow. Well, today, for Canadians and all my colleagues and my friends in Quebec, there will also be a historic vote, because the vote we are going to have today may help us to get out of this impasse and to achieve a rapprochement with Quebec on this agreement. In any case, the outcome will depend on the good will of the members in this House.

On April 16 of this year, and I think everyone will agree, an agreement was reached by eight provinces. Granted, the federal government was not a party to this agreement. It is recognized that the province of Quebec exchanged or, in the view of some people, abandoned, its veto right for the clause on compensation. It was on that condition that Quebec relinquished a tradition, according to some, a veto right, according to others. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) has been making fun of most Quebecers who thought that we had a veto right. In a speech he made not long ago, the minister himself accused Quebec of making the mistake of giving up its veto right, and now he turns around and says that Quebec never had a veto right or that the provinces never had a veto right. If nonsense were a fatal disease, Mr. Speaker, the minister would not have made it to the House this week. And so, on Friday, I think, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) hastily told us that he was not taking any chances, and that if hon. members continued to propose amendments or try to make certain changes, this would jeopardize the agreement.

In this case, Mr. Speaker, everyone admits that there is no danger that the agreement will be broken, particularly with respect to that proposal. That was the wish of the premiers in April, as I have said. The two provinces not represented did not have any objection to all that. To my mind, there is no possibility that the agreement signed by the ten governments will be broken. It would be enough if the Right Hon. the Prime Minister were to show good will as well. On November 5 last, the Prime Minister of Canada, quite distressed, stated that he regretted the disagreement on the part of Quebec. But he also said, and I remember that very well, Mr. Speaker, that he hoped he would find solutions so that Quebec would be party to this agreement before sending it to London. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I dream, I believe and I still wish that Quebec will sign the agreement. Perhaps both sides have expressed doubts about the good faith of the government of Quebec, but who could prove it in fact? Has Quebec shown enough good faith? I do not know whether it has or not but I do know that the government here in the House and the Primer Minister whose responsibility it is to prove it has, have not done so.

I believe that if one side made a mistake, it was made in Ottawa and it was quite obvious. During the evening of November 5, the Prime Minister of Canada tried to convince Canadians and Quebecers alike by telling them, I think, that there may be room for closer ties and agreements. But as far as I know, never did the Prime Minister of Canada make a special effort to contact the Premier of Quebec. It would have been interesting to see the reaction of the Premier of Quebec, it would have been interesting to see Quebecers at least, to allow Quebecers to judge the good or bad faith of their own government. Of course the officials had lengthy exchanges, there was dialogue through the mass media, but I do not think there was any personal contact, and that is what I regret on behalf of all Canadians and all Quebecers. Under the circumstances I remember very well that, the same day, I think, our leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Clark) made a speech and took that opportunity to urge the Prime Minister of Canada to show his good faith, pointing out to him his responsibilities as Prime Minister of Canada. He asked him to do whatever was necessary to get Quebec back into the fold and to find those solutions to convince Quebec that it should sign the agreement, because we are indeed talking about a very important agreement for the future of the Canadian people. As my leader said, and I remember that very well, it would have been quite interesting to see the reaction of the Quebec government.

I am quite prepared to take an objective approach to the resolution, but I certainly disagree with the charge that the government of Quebec has acted in bad faith because I know that the necessary steps were not taken here in Ottawa. And I am wondering how it is that, out of 70-odd members, there were not at least a few to decide to go the extra mile than just be content with making accusations. If the government of Quebec showed a negative attitude, it is unforgivable that the federal government should have done the same because the

[Page 13587]

central government has a role to play, namely to establish closer ties among the provinces. As a Quebecer, I cannot be satisfied with nor can I accept that agreement among nine provinces. No, I think that the historical vote we are going to have today might be more important than the one slated for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.

Under the circumstances, thanks to the initiatives taken by our leader that were noticed and understood by our other colleagues, we put forward proposals and amendments to bring about a breakthrough and an understanding and, hopefully, an agreement with the Quebec government. I submit the Progressive Conservative Party acted responsibly on behalf of the nation. This is what responsibility is all about in a political party. Our committee on the Constitution did some hard work, and I am most happy to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). It is in line with the equity touted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budget a few days ago. It reflects a sense of justice, it would go along the lines of that just society that this government never envisaged over the last 15 years.

For very different reasons referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Provencher, the provinces could give unanimous support to the amendment we are moving today. My colleagues will have an opportunity to speak for other provinces, and I wholeheartedly support the points made yesterday by my colleague from Provencher. But as far as Quebec is concerned this is vital, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleagues from Quebec are also aware of this. I realize the Prime Minister is not in total agreement, indeed he does not agree at all. But to what extent should they attempt in these final moments to bring the Prime Minister to his senses and to make him realize the importance of Quebec’s participation in that accord before the London expedition is launched? The Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) made some comments on that yesterday, and I was pleased that he did not oppose the principle of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Provencher. Subject to certain constraints, as I can well imagine, he attempted to reassure us when he said: “Well now, maybe not in the first stage, but this could happen in the second stage, when this Constitution comes back and those amendments are all followed up.” Well, it is very difficult to bank on the good intentions-which I am not questioning-expressed by the hon. member for Rosemont, the Minister of State. However, that is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker, all the members from Quebec are aware of this. The problem will not be solved by rejecting it outright, as did the Right Hon. Prime Minister on Friday when he said: “I will accept no amendment until the final vote!” Is that the just society he was talking about when he became Prime Minister in 1968? How can we stand idly by when we are allowed no discussion, no amendments? He said so in so many words! But government members should feel much more outraged than myself about that. None of these members would have cause or would have the right to move an amendment, even if it eventually allowed us to throw some light on our discussions. That is the height of arrogance, Mr. Speaker! We are being told: Move any amendments you want, they will be rejected, even if they are worthwhile! That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, not good enough indeed! We object to this procedure as parliamentarians, and I hope some people in my province will seize this last opportunity today to at least meet the first condition which the Quebec Premier considered essential when he refused to sign the agreement.

The Prime Minister of Canada said recently in Quebec City about the decision of the Supreme Court: We are now acting within the law; we are acting within the Constitution. It remains to be seen whether or not we are acting equitably. The rejection of all the amendments tabled since last Friday certainly does not reflect the just society nor the equity that should be shown by any government respectful of its people. Of course, as concerns this amendment which is especially important to the Quebec government and constitutes an essential condition for the Quebec government, I must repeat to my colleagues from Quebec what I said last Tuesday. Every one of us has always supported our governments in Quebec, at least since I have had the right to vote and as long as I can recall, every one of us in Quebec, whether Liberal or Conservative, whether Grit or Tory, has always congratulated our governments on opposing any federal intrusion in areas as vital as those which we are now discussing.

It is interesting to note that on these specific points, as my colleagues from Quebec are well aware, people like Lesage, Johnson, Duplessis, Bourassa and so on would have reacted in the same manner to the amendment now before us, for the same reasons and regardless of the philosophy or the program of their political party. No Quebec Premier, whether Tory or Liberal, would have tolerated the attitude and the decision facing us today. He would have congratulated the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the hon. member for Provencher on suggesting a solution which is proper, acceptable and necessary when all risks are considered and it is our firm intention to build a just society and a country where everyone may live well and comfortably. All these former premiers would have done exactly what the Quebec government is doing now. And if this Parliament was to react positively to this amendment and if, as a result, the Quebec government was likely to be embarrassed, I believe that a great majority of Quebecers would endorse this proposal. Those who deliberately show ill will in any case would be placed in an even more embarrassing situation if they did not respond to that.

We are already getting indications from the Quebec government that this proposal is vital, essential and, at the very least, a first step in the right direction. How futile, that my party should have proposed it instead of the government which should have assumed its responsibilities. In any event, the government did nothing to help us on this side of the House to draw Quebec closer and induce it to sign this agreement which, according to Mr. Ryan, cannot be a Canadian agreement without the participation of Quebec. We are not dealing here with the separatists only. Mr. Ryan speaks on behalf of

[Page 3588]

thousands of Liberals. He does not agree either with the resolution as a whole. I would not say that he is as adamant as Mr. Lévesque but he certainly does not agree with the resolution as it now stands.

Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I shall take this opportunity, once more today, to ask those 70 or so hon. members from my province to view this amendment as a positive step, a partial solution to the problem Canada and the government are facing at this time. I am sure Quebecers will be watching the vote very closely today on this amendment, which is of special value and significance to me as a Quebecer, as well as to others. And the generosity of this amendment, which responds to the concern of all the provinces is, in my opinion, consistent with this justice and equity of all the provinces. I could even think in terms of my own home town and say, well, I do not want the others to get this benefit too. I suggest that we are demonstrating equity and justice-not charity-when we ask that this amendment apply to all the provinces, and we rely also on our provincial premiers. To those who might be concerned about possible abuse, I say that they have a very poor idea of these premiers’ fair play.

We rely on the other provinces concerning this amendment, and I hope that the hon. members from Quebec especially will help us compel the government to accept this amendment, because it provides an element of solution and makes a compromise possible in our common endeavour. I know that the hon. members from Quebec would be delighted to see the Quebec government sign this accord. Is it possible that one of the provinces which signed this document some 114 years ago be absent from such an important resolution? I hope Quebecers will not permit anybody to call them traitors on this amendment because it is of utmost importance to the future of Quebec, to the future of Canada, and if this amendment is lost, I wonder why we would continue this debate which is essential to the future of Canada. This resolution is quite imperfect, but without this amendment, I do not think that a Quebecer worthy of the name could continue saying anything good about this resolution.

[English]

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine East): Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed emotions that I address the resolution before the House this afternoon. On one hand—

[Translation]

Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet) on a point of order.

Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I had a question of privilege and I do not think you heard me. I want to ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle), through you Mr. Speaker, if he would accept two questions on the points he just raised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Unfortunately, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has used up all his time. Such questions may be asked with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet: The hon. member for Joliette has referred to the good faith of the PQ government and to the more or less bad faith of the Canadian government. I wonder whether he could point out to me one instance where the PQ has shown good faith during the constitutional negotiations? That is my first question.

Second, when he suggests that the government refuses to assume its responsibilities with respect to new amendments at this point, I wonder whether the hon. member for Joliette is aware of the telegram which Mr. Bennett, the spokesman for the provinces, forwarded last week on potential amendments to the Charter. Accordingly, I would like thim [sic] to be aware of the fact that it is not the Canadian government which is rejecting new amendments—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval has asked her questions, does the hon. member for Joliette want to answer?

Mr. La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to prove that the government of Quebec was showing any good faith, I merely said that there are people who are questioning its good faith. I did not condemn that, nor am I saying that they should not, besides, that is something I could not do.

As I said, I know that in Ottawa there has been no evidence of good will, since it was up to the Prime Minister of Canada to contact the Quebec Premier, but he failed to do so and the Minister of Justice merely ridiculed, criticized and laughed at the Quebec government. He has shown disrespect to a provincial government, whatever may be its political stance.

With regard to amendments, Mr. Bennett from British Columbia stated that a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, but I have a feeling that the Prime Minister of Canada tried to warn us before receiving that telegram and that anyhow the British Columbia Premier was agreeable to the compensation formula. I think that it would have been easy for him to answer affirmatively if the Prime Minister of Canada had then seriously considered the amendment now before us.

Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has made some entirely false statements which I would like him to withdraw.

[Page 13589]

Mr. La Salle: No way!

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine East.

[English]

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, it is with very mixed emotions that I address this constitutional resolution this afternoon. On the one hand, I am pleased that we have an agreement to proceed with patriation, an amending formula and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are many good clauses in the resolution which I support. As hon. members know, I have been a strong proponent of patriation, a Canadian Constitution and a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a long time. Hon. members can read my speech in this House of March 12 this year, when I gave full-hearted support to the resolution which was then before us.

On the other hand, I am not happy at all with the revised charter, with the new amending formula, the new wording which applies to the charter, and the new wording on aboriginal rights. In particular, I am not pleased with the introduction of the “notwithstanding” clause into the charter, a so-called override clause, and, in particular, as it would apply to Section 2, fundamental freedoms, and Section 15, the equality clause. For me, these two clauses were key ones which I think would have helped protect Canadians on many issues which are not foreseen today.

Second, I was opposed to the introduction of the word “existing” in the aboriginal rights clause. I voted for the amendment to eliminate that word from that particular guarantee clause for our aboriginal people. It is my opinion that the addition of the word “existing” will lead to confusion and ambiguity and cannot help but limit the application of those protections for our native peoples.

I am also concerned that there is no veto power for the province of Quebec. In our original resolution, we did have such a power. We do not have it now. I think we have always recognized that Quebec, as the only province with a French-speaking majority, should have that protection in dealing with amendments put forward by other provinces. It seems to me that the amendment put forward by the NDP in this debate would go a long way to getting support among the people in the province of Quebec, if not from the Quebec government.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Allmand: Nevertheless, if it was only for those clauses, despite their tainted nature, I could probably have voted for the resolution, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), holding my nose, because although imperfect, that type of Constitution is better than none at all. I say “if only for those clauses”, because there is another clause which is so offensive to me and so unacceptable that I cannot vote for the resolution; that is, Section 59. I maintain that Section 59 is a discriminatory clause in a resolution which is supposed to do away with discrimination. That clause states that some of the protections contained in the minority language education provisions in Section 23 should not apply to the anglophones in Quebec.

The question of language rights is one of the most fundamental and basic issues to me, my people and my electorate. I must say that language rights are probably the most fundamental questions for both anglophones and francophones in this country. It is the issue on which most emotions are expressed. It is the issue on which most Canadians, when those rights are being attacked, will go to the battlements.

It is interesting to note that, of all the rights which are purported to be protected in this Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the constitutional proposal, the only ones which are under attack at the present time by the people I represent are their language rights. This type of discriminatory clause comes about at a time when the signs of the people of my province are being taken down, when their social, educational and business institutions are under attack, when they are being squeezed, when they cannot get answers from the Quebec government in their own language, and so on. I say that those measures are the responsibility of the provincial government; but this backward step on behalf of the federal government comes at the same time these other things are happening.

Before the accord of November 5, the Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, the entire Liberal Party and our Liberal caucus, were prepared to go to England for patriation with Section 23 applying to all provinces, with the support of only two provinces behind them, Ontario and New Brunswick. At that time we stood firm that Section 23 and the other articles would apply, in their untainted form, to all provinces. I can recall the Prime Minister, other ministers, members of my caucus and myself saying that we would not compromise on principle as the Supreme Court had stated that we had the legal right to do what we were doing, and that while we were willing to improve the charter, we would not compromise and move backwards.

However, now, with nine provinces supporting, we have compromised and we are moving backwards. I want to remind the House that when the resolution was first introduced in this House in October of 1980, the very basis of the protections for minority language rights in education was mother tongue. It was not where one received one’s education; it was mother tongue. The so-called Canada clause, Clause 23(1)(b), was only added later on, during the hearings at the committee stage, and was accepted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) in late January, last winter. I forget the exact date. However, the original basis that this government put forward for protecting language rights in education was mother tongue, the language first learned and still understood.

The reasons given for this concession by my caucus, which I have not been able to convince them to abandon, are that this concession is necessary if we are to avoid tipping the balance in Quebec in favour of separatism. I simply cannot accept the argument that guaranteeing access to English schools for anglophones, based on their mother tongue, will tip the balance in favour of separation in any separation referendum, especially when those same rights have been guaranteed to

[Page 13590]

francophones outside of Quebec. I simply cannot buy that argument.

That is the stated argument in favour of the concession, but it seems to me that there is an unstated argument which is the real reason for the concession; that is, that as an unfortunate result of the accord of November 5, we ended up with nine anglophone provinces supporting the accord and only Quebec in disagreement, which gave Mr. Lévesque the freedom to return to Quebec and state that the English-speaking provinces were ganging up on Quebec. I reject that argument. I do not believe for one minute that the English-speaking provinces were ganging up on Quebec. As a matter of fact, Mr. Lévesque was the first to abandon his allies by almost going along with the Prime Minister on a referendum formula the day before.

However, in any case, the real reason is that that sort of result in the constitutional conference was very convenient for Mr. Lévesque in fuelling the political storm that he wanted to press for his independence option. Nothing could have been better for him, from his political point of view, than to end up with a situation where nine English provinces, or so-called English majority provinces, were on one side with Quebec on the other. I do not know how he manipulated it, but he ended up with that, to his advantage.

Now, because of that situation, which was not this government’s doing, nor the Prime Minister’s doing-it was not anyone’s doing but Mr. Lévesque’s-we are making concessions to Quebec. There is no use making them to Mr. Lévesque; he would not accept anything but the right to separate. However, we are making those concessions on the backs of my constituents, which I think is unreasonable and unnecessary.

When I first heard rumours that the government might weaken its protection for minority language rights in education, on October 23 before the federal-provincial conference I put a question in this House. This matter was headlined in the Montreal Gazette and in the Ottawa paper, The Citizen, stating that the government might weaken its provisions for minority language rights. I asked the Minister of Justice on October 23, 1981 if that was correct. The Minister of Justice replied, as reported in Hansard at page 12115, as follows:

Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister said was that if there is any suggestion to improve on the charter, it will be welcome.

He went on to say:

The goals are well known. We think it is about time that we had equality in schooling across the land for Canadians who speak English in Quebec and for Canadians who, speak French in the rest of Canada.

That is what the Minister of Justice said on October 23 but which he does not stand for now. Because I was not satisfied and because I thought there might be implications to the answer that I did not se, I put that question to the government in the adjournment debate and I pursued it again after the constitutional conference on November 9. I elaborated on the question, stating firmly that we should not retreat on minority language rights, either in the English-speaking provinces or in Quebec. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) replied, as reported in Hansard for November 9, 1981 at page 12682:

The federal government has always supported, and continues to support, the principle of granting minority language education rights equally throughout this country. This is not the time that we intend to back off from that principle.

The government backed off a few days afterwards.

I want to make it clear that what I am going to support in this House is what this party has supported for the past year. I am not supporting some new radical idea by insisting on the full application of Section 23 to all provinces in Canada. That is what we all supported before November 5. It was supported by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the caucus and the party. Lt is a position that we have supported for over 16 years, ever since I have been here, both under the present Prime Minister and under the Right Hon. Lester Pearson. Lt goes back to the recommendations made in the bilingualism and biculturalism commission report in the early years of Mr. Pearson’s mandate.

I want to quote a few other things which are very interesting. When the Prime Minister introduced the resolution on October 2, 1980, here is what he said:

Every Canadian will be guaranteed the right to move freely to any part of Canada—

He went on to say:

And, inseparable from that, the right of parents, be they English-speaking or French-speaking, to have their children educated in their own official language will be assured. Each and every premier, in Montreal in 1978, committed himself to the principle that “each child of the French-speaking or English-speaking minority is entitled to an education in his or her language in the primary or secondary school in each province wherever numbers warrant”. We will put that agreement of the provinces, the agreement of the premiers into the Constitution.

When the Prime Minister entered the debate on the original resolution on March 21, 1981, he said this in speaking about Section 23:

I now came to the language issue.

He went on to say:

—under our original Constitution in 1867, the federal government…not only had the right but also the obligation to protect minorities in the area of education.

Referring to the British North America Act, he said:

Under subsections 93(3) and 93(4), we now have the right to legislate in educational matters so as to protect minorities. Indeed. those minorities were then defined in terms of religion, whereas we now tend to define them in terms of language, and we know the historical reasons for that change. But the principle was there; the Fathers of Confederation—and that is the moat beautiful and noblest aspect of aur tradition-said: It is up to you in the federal government to protect in the field of minority language education.

He went on to say that in effect that was what he was doing by putting Section 23 in the Constitution.

A document entitled “A Time for Action” which was published in 1978, put forward the constitutional proposals which the Prime Minister had suggested at that time. The government, approved by the cabinet—I was in the cabinet at that time and I can recall approving—said this at page 9:

[Page 13591]

The renewal of the federation must guarantee the linguistic equality of its two major communities, the English-speaking and the French-speaking. and assure that Canadian institutions exist to help each group to prosper.

Further down page 9 we find these words:

–it does mean that the equality of our two official languages must be recognized and guaranteed, and that the practical implications of the equality must be accepted.

On page 22 of “A Time for Action” we find: The government will be putting forward its proposal for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Further on in the same paragraph we find:

—would provide new protection for minority language rights. The government has expressed on many occasions its profound conviction that the citizens of Canada, whether they speak English or French, should be able, in those situations where numbers warrant, to receive basic government services and schooling for their children in their language. The Charter would be intended to provide a permanent constitutional guarantee that fair and reasonable treatment will always prevail.

I could go on quoting the Prime Minister on this particular subject. When we introduced Bill C-60 in 1978, the Prime Minister intervened in the debate and said words similar to those I have just quoted. Those who are interested can look at Hansard for June 27, 1978, at page 6785.

Another interesting document is one entitled “Position of the Federal Government with Regard to Quebec’s Bill 101.” This document was put out by the federal cabinet on October 6, 1977. We find in Clause I the following:

Bill 101 is of concern to the federal Government because it will adversely affect:

• the unity of Canada and the development of equal rights for the two official languages;

In Clause 2 we find the following:

The federal government considers that Bill 101 is inconsistent with the federal government’s concept of a Canada in which the rights of all official language minorities in the country, whether anglophones in Quebec or francophones in other provinces, would be fully respected.

In Clause 3 we find:

The federal government is committed to the maintenance in Quebec of a society which is primarily French-speaking in character.

The clause goes on to say:

However, it believes this can be done by positive steps without coercion and without restrictions on the rights of the English minority in the province.

That is what the cabinet said in 1977 with respect to Bill 101. On the second page of this document, Clause 6 reads:

More specifically, the federal government totally opposes those provisions of Bill 101 which:

• deny the equal official status of French and English in that part of Canada formed by Quebec;—

In Clause 6(c) we read:

(c) deprive all Quebecers, except certain anglophones, of the right to choose freely the language of education of their children.

Again I will not have time to quote the government and the Prime Minister on every occasion they backed the principle that I am backing today. But I refer you as well, Mr. Speaker, to a document called “A National Understanding-The Official Languages of Canada”. This document was approved and released by cabinet on June 21, 1977. In it similar statements are made with respect to equality of language rights for anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec. Also we have the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. I was a member of this committee. Several members of today’s cabinet were also members. This same principle was approved.

Going back to 1968 when Mr. Pearson was prime minister and the present Prime Minister was minister of justice, other such documents were published. One of these documents is entitled “Federalism for the Future”. What I am trying to demonstrate is that what I am supporting has been the longstanding policy of the party and that Section 59 goes against that policy. It is stated at page 18 of that document:

In a country such as ours, with its two founding linguistic groups, the preservation of individual rights also must mean the guarantee of the linguistic rights of both groups. For language is at once the extension of the individual personality and an indispensable tool of social organization: fail to recognize the linguistic rights of cither French or English-speaking Canadians and their will to preserve Canada will be seriously weakened, if not destroyed.

The other document came out in 1969 at the constitutional conference of 1969 and is entitled “The Constitution and the People of Canada”. I cannot find the exact quotation, but it goes on to say the same thing.

I have here Book I, the first edition of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and at page 123, recommendation 9, which was the beginning of much of this, states:

Therefore, we recommend that the right of Canadian parents to have their children educated in the official language of their choice be recognized in the educational systems, the degree of implementation to depend on the concentration of the minority population.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: There appears to be unanimous consent.

Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the House leader was kind enough to tell me that he would give me extra time if that was necessary, but I will not abuse that privilege.

While I am making a strong plea today for the protection of the anglophone minority in Quebec in matters of education, I want to make clear that I have always been and still am a very strong supporter of francophone rights in Quebec and across Canada. I was and still am a strong proponent of applying Section 133 of the BNA Act in Ontario. I have spoken in favour of that in our caucus and in this House on several occasions.

When the problems arose with les gens de l’air, I supported bilingualism for air traffic controllers and for people flying aircraft in this country. When there was a question of expanding the French television and radio network throughout

[Page 13592]

Canada and there were difficulties in the west in certain cities, I spoke in the west in favour of granting channels and stations to our French Canadian populations in those areas. I supported bilingual labelling and other measures of bilingualism all over this country.

I believe, and I think most English-speaking Quebecers believe, that every reasonable step must be taken to assure the individual and collective rights of French-speaking Canadians, not only to survive but to prosper and grow; but as the Prime Minister has said, and I have just quoted him, you do not do this by restricting the right of others. That is what I think is being done in this resolution.

I want to remind hon. members, and I realize that my time is up and I do not really have time to pursue this argument in its fullness, that anglophones in Quebec are not a small group and we are not recently in Quebec. We have been there for over 200 years, and in many parts of Quebec we were the first Europeans to settle in places such as the eastern townships, in certain counties and in northern or new Quebec. We are not all of British origin. We are of many origins, we are of many religions and we are of many colours. We are Catholics, Protestants, Jewish, we are white, yellow and black, we are not all bosses and we do not all live in Westmount. We come from many, many places and from many, many backgrounds.

I have to state that because some people will say to me: “You know, you have had it too good for so long”. Many of us, I think two thirds, who are anglophones in Quebec never had it that good. Some of my colleagues with whom I have discussed this privately have said: “We had to give up Section 23(l)(a) for the province of Quebec and for Quebec anglophones because it is too difficult to administer and would entail tests”. All I can say to that argument is that we had it there before November 5 and I never heard that argument once. We still have it for all the other provinces in Canada and I have not heard the argument once with respect to them.

I have also heard it stated in response to my argument that francophones in Quebec, because of Bill 101, cannot send their children to English schools and we are not protecting that right in the Constitution. The rights that are being protected in the Constitution are minority rights. The francophones in Quebec are in the majority. They elect the governments there, including the government that is there now and which put into place that provision that they cannot go to English schools; but majorities can take care of themselves while minorities cannot. They are continually in a position of being outvoted by majorities.

Another argument which has been made to me is: “Warren, you are only concerned about a very small group of anglophones. We are only leaving out maybe three thousand or four thousand people; they are the only ones who might suffer as a result of this.” I thought we had an entrenched bill of rights to deal with small groups of people.

I can recall the Minister of Justice saying in the committee that we needed this entrenched bill of rights to deal with small groups like Japanese Canadians, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Dukhobors and certain small political parties who were discriminated against by majorities in legislation-whether they were political parties, religious groups, linguistic groups, ethnic groups or whatever small groups. Even though there are only three or four thousand, that is enough for me. I thought that was the basis for a charter of rights, to guarantee those minority rights.

Finally, some are saying: “Well, you know, we are really only affecting your grandchildren, and so on; the present law in Quebec will protect you. Bill 101 protects you because you can get a certificate under Bill 101 that will allow you to send your children to French schools and then to English schools, and so on.”

Once again, we said a charter of rights entrenched in the Constitution was necessary because provincial legislatures and Parliaments can vary ordinary laws from day to day and from month to month and nothing will stop them except the majorities which they have in their Houses. To say on the one hand that we need a charter of rights to protect minorities against ordinary legislative measures, and on the other hand that we can rely on a clause in Bill 101, is to me a contradiction. I must say that the particular clause they are referring to in Bill 101 does not protect minorities.

In the last week I have had many English-speaking Canadians in Montreal telephone me to tell me they were sent to French-speaking schools in Montreal when they were children, some for only two or three years, and now want to send their children to English schools but cannot do so. They even put them into English schools and they were forced out. That is the kind of thing I want to do away with, and that is the kind of thing the full protection of Section 23 would help.

I tried to convince my colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, of certain amendments. My first choice for an amendment would be to strike out Section 59 altogether and allow Section 23 to apply to all provinces in Canada, as it was going to do before November 5. That was not agreeable to anyone, or to very few people.

Secondly, I was willing to compromise. I said: Okay, let us have an amendment that will protect all those Canadians residing in Quebec now, giving them the full protection of Section 23. At least they are there now and have had those rights to protect them. That was not acceptable.

Then I said: Okay, let us use the principle that is in the Official Languages Act. Let us apply the full protection of Section 23 to all those Canadians residing in Quebec who live in counties with a minority anglophone population of 10 per cent. That is the principle you will find in the Official Languages Act. That was not acceptable.

Then I said: Look, I am willing to sit down with anybody to discuss other formulas for amendment, or mechanisms that would guarantee and assure the francophone majority of Quebec but at the same time protect the anglophone minority. I want to protect both. Obviously I got nowhere and I am now left with a situation in which tomorrow we are going to vote on a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which originally was to do away with discrimination and protect

[Page 13593]

minorities, but which has in it Section 59 which discriminates against the anglophone minority in Quebec with respect to education. Section 59 is a discriminatory provision in that it provides that parts of Section 23 will not apply to the anglophone minority in Quebec.

For me and my electors, Section 59 is a betrayal of all that I have ever supported and stood for in this House, and I have quoted passages supporting that going back 15 years. If it continues to be like that tomorrow at three o’clock, unfortunately I will have to vote against it.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough): Mr. Speaker, may I begin by heartily congratulating the previous speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) for his impassioned speech. To my mind, be spoke with considerable eloquence, reason and force. It is refreshing to see someone on that side of the House speak with an element of independence and openmindedness.

For my part, I am pleased to participate in this, the final stage of debate in Parliament on the patriation of the Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Today is the second occasion on which I have spoken in the House of Commons on this subject. The first occasion was on October 20, 1980, just after the government introduced its resolution. I also felt privileged to participate in the work of the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate on the Constitution, in particular when the then premier of my province, the Hon. Angus MacLean, presented a brief on behalf of Prince Edward Island.

Much has happened to the government’s constitutional resolution since it was forced through Parliament by closure about a year ago. I think most of the changes have been for the better. Indeed, the package has been transformed-I do not think the word “transformed” is too strong to use in this context-from an odious document which would have violated the principles on which our system of government is based, into an instrument of constitutional reform that is a credit to the country.

If I may say so, the Progressive Conservative Party deserves a lot of the credit for that transformation. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is especially deserving of praise because it was his constructive opposition to the government’s course that prevented the country from being saddled with a new Constitution which would have done irreparable damage to both parliamentary supremacy in this country and to our federal system of government.

Let it not be forgotten that had the Supreme Court been denied the time it needed to render its landmark decision on the constitutionality of the government’s original resolution before Parliament passed it, not after, the matter would have been disposed of many weeks ago. The final product would have reflected neither widespread support across the country nor a consensus among the 11 governments of the land, both of which the package now enjoys. In fact, we may well have ended up with something akin to what I would call an illegitimate constitution in the sense that, lacking both public and official support, it would thus not have had the moral authority required to make it workable. It is to the lasting credit of the Leader of the Opposition that be provided the creative and constructive leadership necessary to stall the government long enough to allow the emergence of a genuine consensus in the country, triggered by the Supreme Court decision.

I would be the first to agree that the final package will be flawed in many respects. But whatever flaws may remain in the resolution at the end of the debate tomorrow, the package will nevertheless carry with it the backing of most Canadians through their provincial governments and through their representatives in both Houses of Parliament. The Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament have made a very valuable contribution to making that possible.

Certainly the new Constitution will be much more compatible with the nature of our country and with the nature of our parliamentary institutions because the PC party in Parliament and across the country took certain steps. It mobilized public opinion against the government’s ill-conceived constitutional proposals. It ensured that there would be a full and fair and reasoned debate in Parliament. It fought to avoid having the constitutional proposals rammed through Parliament and rushed to Westminster last December before they could be considered in Canada. Finally, it encouraged all Canadians in every province of Canada to return to the bargaining table to seek a truly Canadian compromise.

In the same spirit, the PC party is proposing the amendment on provincial fiscal compensation now before Parliament in an effort to enlarge and broaden the national consensus on the Constitution so as to embrace the one province-Quebec-not yet reconciled to the package. Quebec’s population of approximately 6,340,000 constitutes about 25 per cent of the total population of Canada. In terms of sheer numbers, that fact alone should cause Canadians to be concerned about Quebec’s absence from the national consensus. Given that Quebec is the homeland of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, our concern should border on alarm.

I will leave it to the lawyers among us-and there are many in the House-and perhaps also to the courts-presumably the Supreme Court-to decide whether or not Quebec actually has a constitutional veto, a veto over future constitutional changes including the ones which we are now contemplating.

However that question may be answered, no matter what the Supreme Court or anyone else decides on that question, none of us can ignore that Quebec’s opposition to what we are doing threatens the very survival of our country. It helps not a whit, in my opinion, to say, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) has said in the House and outside Parliament, that the Premier of Quebec is acting insanely and without the support of his own people within the province of Quebec. Clearly Mr. Lévesque’s position is not outrageously out of whack with majority opinion in Quebec, and in my view may

[Page 13594]

well be closer to majority opinion in Quebec than the Minister of Justice is in his own stance.

In any event, one cannot easily distinguish between contempt for the concern of a provincial premier, and contempt for the people who elected him to be their spokesman. Due respect for the opinions of the people of a province requires respect also for the views of their premier and his government which was freely and democratically chosen. By ignoring, even snubbing, Mr. Lévesque at this crucial stage of the constitutional renewal process, the federal government may be driving yet another wedge between the people of Quebec and their national government here in Ottawa, as well as between one group of Canadians, Quebecers, and all other Canadians. In so doing, the federal government may be forcing Quebec into exactly the kind of enclave the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at least pretends be entered politics to prevent.

Several previous speakers from my party have already dealt in some detail with the amendment on fiscal compensation which we are proposing. I do not wish to repeat their explanations or their arguments; that would be redundant. Suffice it to say that the amendment would change the constitutional resolution so as to guarantee the right of any province—not just Quebec but any province—to be fully compensated should it decide not to participate in a constitutional amendment which would undermine, through the aggrandizement of federal power, the authority or rights it has traditionally exercised and enjoyed. The fact that the constitutional resolution does not now contain the provision we are contemplating in our amendment is a major stumbling block to the inclusion of Quebec in the national consensus. I think it behooves us on all sides of the House and in every party to do everything reasonable, everything practical and everything possible to accommodate the legitimate concern of Quebec on this vital matter.

However, though the amendment may well stem from the desire of my colleagues and me to respond in a meaningful way to Quebec’s concern, other provinces cherish their special circumstances every bit as much as Quebec does. The fiscal compensation proposal would therefore be equally important to them. In the case of my own province, Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in the country, I can envision many circumstances under which the government of Prince Edward Island might consider it imperative to preserve its integrity and its autonomy as a separate province of Canada by opting out of an amendment which would transfer a given authority from the provincial level of government to the federal Parliament. An amendment affecting the province’s right to regulate non-resident ownership of land is a case in point which comes immediately to mind. In circumstances like that it would be the smallest provinces-the poorest provinces such as Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-which could least afford to exercise their right to opt out if fiscal compensation were not guaranteed in the Constitution. If compensation were not provided or not guaranteed, the right to opt out would be academic. It would be theoretical in the absence of the fiscal capacity to exercise it. The right would exist purely on paper.

Certainly it would be prohibitively expensive for Prince Edward Island—and I use that only as an example-and, I expect, for all other Atlantic provinces, to opt out of a national program and then not only have to contribute its share of the cost of that national program but also have to pay the full cost of its own program in the same area.

The fiscal compensation guarantee called for in my party’s amendment would effectively eliminate that double jeopardy. To my mind, the amendment adds an element of flexibility to the constitutional resolution which respects the manifold heterogeneity and diversity of the country. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) stated eloquently in the House yesterday-and I am glad to see him here for the debate today:

Opting out and financial compensation provide a protection for the unique character of every province, a uniqueness which was recognized by the founding Fathers of Confederation, not only because of the special character of the province of Quebec…but also because of the special character of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario; and…the special conditions prevailing in the provinces which entered confederation after the original four.

I think it is notable that that sentiment, which means so much to the provinces on the Atlantic sea coast, should be uttered by a member of this House from the west.

I can appreciate the concerns of those hon. members who fear that giving every province the right to opt out of certain types of constitutional amendments with full fiscal compensation might seem an open invitation to provinces to withdraw from national initiatives, thus creating the checkerboard federalism against which the Prime Minister frequently rails. But I believe, and I think this is supported by history, that the practice of opting out-and we in Canada have been living with it for some time now, certainly throughout the sixties and since then-demonstrates that the potential for abuse is much less than is feared. the federal government’s powers of moral suasion, especially through its unlimited spending authority and spending power, are strong enough to encourage provinces not to take advantage of the system any more than is absolutely essential to their respective legitimate interests.

I urge the federal government and those on the Liberal benches opposite who are not in the cabinet to be openminded about this amendment. From the beginning of the constitutional debate last year—we are practically celebrating the anniversary now—the government’s major failure has been to be too dogmatic and even downright bullheaded. It has approached the whole constitutional exercise as though it were a Cartesian exercise; everything had to conform to legal and mathematical concepts and schedules removed from the real world of people, problems and traditions. Only when the government was forced by circumstances, especially the Supreme Court ruling, did it bend, did it give, and did it demonstrate an element of flexibility. the government argued and believe strongly, almost a priori—and I credit the government for this—that the provinces could never agree on a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, and it acted accordingly, with predictably disastrous results. The government was proved wrong by cir-

[Page 13595]

cumstances. The provinces demonstrated the flexibility that the federal government said was not possible.

The government also said the Vancouver formula was unworkable and could not be contemplated. It was proved wrong again in that instance. Now that same formula, the Vancouver formula, has turned out to be the creative proposal which made possible the federal-provincial accord which is the basis of the constitutional resolution we are now about to pass.

Let us not close our minds in the same fashion to this other proposal, this amendment my party is putting forward now. It is proposal intended to reconcile all Canadians not yet reconciled to the new Constitution at this, the final stage in the patriation process.

The constitutional amendment we have before us is not a complex one, but it is one which begs an element of flexibility to pass. All of us would gain a great deal by exercising now the required degree of flexibility which made possible so much progress to date. The Progressive Conservative Party’s contribution to the debate all along has been to bring to bear on the constitutional question flexibility, reason and an understanding of the workings of modern federalism. Our amendment is presented in the same spirit. The final product will be much more compatible with the spirit of federalism and with our parliamentary institutions because all of us achieved a real measure of success by that standard. I remain convinced that Quebec could yet be won over; if not now, then before long. It is vital that all Canadians, Quebec included, feel they recognize themselves in the new Constitution.

In conclusion, may I say that everyone involved in the constitutional exercise this past year can take pride in what has been crafted. Although not perfect, it is far superior to the package originally proposed. We have struck a happy compromise between the fashionable desire for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is intellectually satisfying but badly flawed in terms of workability, on the one hand, and, on the other, the goal of ensuring that our political system avoids the rigidities that all too often go hand in hand with entrenched rights. I think we now have a constitutional package that will help protect people’s basic rights without at the same time undermining the importance of conventions which in some cases are even more important than anything we might write into laws, let alone entrench.

Consistent with the Canadian practice of flexibility and compromise and consistent with doing what is possible, let us reach out this one last time on the eve of our historic vote tomorrow to bring Quebec with us as we forge a new Constitution for us and for future generations of Canadians.

Passage of the amendment before us may not in itself achieve the goal I have mentioned, but it would signal our common desire to at least try. Even if we should fail, our attempt would constitute a most fitting way to bring our historic debate to a conclusion.

PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Translation]

SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)—Fisheries—Condition of Atlantic fishing industry. (b) Reported proposal to reduce number for exporters. (c) Pre-budget discussions; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Federal-provincial fiscal arrangements—Equalization payments to provinces; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)—The budget—Provisions affecting income averaging annuities. (b) Request for postponement of provisions.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to Minister of Labour (Mr. Yanakis) has the floor.

GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Translation]

THE CONSTITUTION

RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981

The House resumed consideration of the amended motion of Mr. Chrétien respecting the Constitution of Canada, the amendment thereto of Mr. Epp (p. 13492) and the subamendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 13497).

Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be taking part in this debate at a historic moment in the existence of this country. I was in the House Friday, November 20 of this year, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) presented the amended patriation resolution. I, too, felt that there was in this House a consensus that I have never seen before on such a fundamental issue. I could not continue these comments without some words of praise for the major architect of the plan to patriate the Constitution, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) who, through his insight, his sense of history, his love for justice and his perseverance and patience has made it possible for us to have a constitutional resolution with the scope of the motion being considered in the House today.

The Minister of Justice should also be congratulated on his perseverance during the lengthy negotiations he conducted with the leaders of our ten provinces. His objective was to do what no one had done before since the Act of Confederation, namely, to obtain the consensus of nine provinces. Those who

[Page 13596]

are quick to criticize and feel that the patriation resolution does not go far enough in protecting the rights of all Canadians, should read again what George Brown said in 1865 before the Parliament of Canada:

The whole great ends of this confederation may not be realized in the lifetime of many who now hear me. We imagine not that such a structure can be built in a month or in a year. What we propose now is but to lay the foundations of the structure, to set in motion the governmental machinery that will one day, we trust, extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

Today, Mr. Speaker, history is repeating itself. We now have an opportunity to make that structure a reality, according to the resolution now before the House. After 114 years, Canada will at last become fully independent. And we shall subsequently be able to make improvements to our Constitution without having to go through the British Parliament. This week, in two unanimous votes in this House. we succeeded in entrenching in this resolution the equality of men and women and the recognition of aboriginal rights.

That recognition, Mr. Speaker, had been deleted from the original resolution at the last federal-provincial conference which resulted in the accord signed by nine provinces, and it was deleted supposedly because the premiers wanted to clarify the situation. Fortunately, as a result of incessant lobbying of the provincial governments by these two groups, the Minister of Justice managed to get a consensus among nine provinces, demonstrating once more the maturity of our country.

I would have liked to sec included in the draft resolution a number of other amendments that would have an impact on the daily life of various groups in our society, such as the handicapped, the disadvantaged and others, and especially an amendment to our legislation on abortion in order to protect the unborn child against any attempts to infringe on its right to life. 0f course, there is no end to the debate on such controversial subjects, nor is it easy to reach a consensus among the members on both sides of the House and to obtain the agreement of the provinces that signed the patriation plan. Unfortunately, we shall have to leave it up to the legislators and the provincial authorities to gradually improve the Charter, once it is in Canadian hands.

History is, in fact, repeating itself Mr. Speaker, because in 1931, Henri Bourassa, the then member for Labelle, gave upon his return from a conference in London, an account of some comments made by a member of the British House of Commons, and I quote:

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

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

The time is today, Mr. Speaker, or within the next 24 hours, when we shall vote on this resolution after over a year of debate. During this debate, the Tories have shown as much fatalism and created as much fear and as much discussion throughout the country as they did in 1964 during the debate on the Canadian flag which now identifies Canadians and Canada throughout the world. According to them, this flag would divide Canadians, but it has now created more unity among Canadians and it is the symbol of our pride.

The patriation of our Constitution will give us another opportunity to be proud and to celebrate on Canada Day next July 1. However, Mr. Speaker, even though the Parliament will vote in a few hours on the resolution to patriate our Constitution with an amending formula and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I must admit that as a federal Member of Parliament representing a Quebec constituency, I am disappointed and saddened to see that Quebec, because of its government, is not party to the agreement. The Quebec government has chosen to isolate itself from the rest of Canada, but not because the Quebecers wished it, considering that they clearly showed during the referendum of 1980 that they wanted to remain a part of Canada. The Lévesque government has chosen to ignore the views of Quebecers. Quebecers have been betrayed, and I know that the responsible citizens of Quebec will make the Lévesque government pay for it the next time they go to the polis. How can the PQ government assume a separatist attitude when it has been elected following promises not to seek separation during its term of office?

After five years of a Parti Québécois government, we in Quebec have the most unstable economy since the beginning of the Canadian federation. If we look at the latest figures we find a deficit of nearly $3.5 billion, an unemployment rate reaching 10.8 per cent, the highest in Canada, especially among younger people, and an alarming number of plant shut-downs. Such is the price we have to pay for a government which is deluding itself. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional resolution now before us is the fruit of constant efforts by the Prime Minister and the premiers and by all the social groups which had a chance to appear before the Constitution committee which sat for many weeks to listen to the representations that all these people wanted to make to members on both sides of the House, who gave these matters their constant attention. Mr. Speaker, we have a charter which we should be proud of because it guarantees the rights and the freedoms of all Canadians.

Democratic rights, fundamental freedoms, mobility rights, legal rights and linguistic rights are all enshrined in the Constitution and apply from one end of the country to the other. This charter is not perfect, but it is a compromise which will need improvements over the years. Mr. Speaker, in introducing the resolution preceding confederation in the Parliament of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald stated:

[Page 13597]

The whole scheme of confederation, as propounded by the conference, as agreed to and sanctioned by the Canadian government, and as now presented for the consideration of the people and the legislature, bears upon its face the marks of compromise.

Of necessity there must have been a great deal of mutual concession. If we had not felt that vie were bound to set aside our private opinions on matters of detail, if we had not felt ourselves bound to look at what was practicable. sot obstinately rejecting the opinions of others nor adhering to our own; if we had not met in a spirit of conciliation, we never would have succeeded.

This resolution reflects the values, the aspirations, the hopes and the dreams of the majority of Canadians. Aristotle, the famous Greek tribune and philosopher, said this, and I quote:

A good constitution must express the identity of the nation and promote as well the validity and stability of a just and well-ordered society.

I believe we are very lucky to have as Prime Minister a man who is a worthy successor to the great Canadian Liberals who led this country, among others Laurier, King, St. Laurent and Pearson. Ever since he became Prime Minister in 1968 he has been working relentlessly to achieve something which no other prime minister had managed to do in 54 years of endless failures. The easy way out would have been to give up on the constitutional reform or put if off to a later date, and only a leader who truly understands Canada, our country with all its differences and needs, could see why we had to make progress if we believe in Canada.

If the Parti Québécois government still refuses to endorse the proposal to patriate the Constitution it is because it does not have the vision of the great Canadians who led this country. In conclusion, may I be allowed to quote Laurier:

“We are French Canadians, but our country is not confined to the territory over-shadowed by the Citadel of Quebec; our country is Canada; it is the fertile lands bordered by the Bay of Fundy, the valley of the St. Lawrence, the regions of the Great Lakes, the prairies of the west, the Rocky Mountains, the lands washed by the famous ocean where breezes are said to be as sweet as the breezes of the Mediterranean, our fellow-countrymen are not only those in whose veins runs the blood of France.

They are all those, whatever their race or whatever their language, whom the fortunes of war, the chances of fate, or their own choice have brought among us. As far as I am concerned, those are my fellow-countrymen. I am a Canadian. The rights of my fellow-countrymen of different origins are as dear to me, as sacred to me, as the rights of my own race. What I claim for us is an equal place in the sun. as equal share of justice. of liberty; that share we have it: we have it amply, and what we claim for ourselves, we are anxious to grant to others.

Mr. Speaker, that is our role here as Liberal members. That place in the sun we want as well for the people of Quebec who, for all practical purposes, are now isolated and all alone. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all the electors of the riding of Berthier-Maskinongé-Lanaudière that in the future I will do everything along with my colleagues so that Quebecers will choose a government which will join the other provinces with a view to benefiting from the advantages and the wealth that this great country has in store for all Canadians.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill): Mr. Speaker, this is the last day to debate in the House of Commons, as everyone knows, the proposal to patriate the Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an amending formula. We are approaching the moment when Canada will become a constitutionally independent country. I want to say now how historically privileged I feel to have been able to take part in this process and how equally privileged I feel today to be able to comment in these final stages of the debate.

Since October, 1980, when this long and difficult process began following the proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for unilateral action, I have learned a lot about Canadian politics, about Canadian federalism, about my own party and about my colleagues and their parties. I think it has been a tremendous learning experience for every hon. member, although exceedingly painful at times, as is often the case with human growth.

If I might be allowed a comment at this point, the debate was not often what it could have been, in my view. The strongly held views of people with differing opinions were often held up to ridicule and made out to be something other than they really were. People who opposed a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at least those who opposed it out of the long and legitimate tradition of parliamentary supremacy and common law, were often falsely caricatured, I believe, as enemies of freedom. People who supported unilateral action or unilateral patriation out of a genuine sense of urgency that this be done were often made out to be arrogant and uncaring conspirators who somehow were trying to foist a unitary state on Canada. One issue was played off against another. If one did not like the amending formula, one was against independence. Or if one thought it was as good as any other formula that had ever been presented, one was selling out certain regions of the country.

I say this by way of collective self-criticism, something we Members of Parliament should do more of, it would seem to me. In the final analysis, I do not think that we generally conducted ourselves in such a way as to help Canadians as much as we could have to understand what was really going on, what was really at stake and what significant changes were being contemplated in the life of our country.

Perhaps this is just the nature of politics, but I hope not. I fervently hope that the political process is capable of producing higher levels of debate than the great Canadian Constitution debate would have sometimes indicated, although there were high moments.

The problem, it seems to me, is one of respecting differences among us. Canada is a land of many linguistic and many cultural traditions. We have often heard this said. It is also a land of many different political traditions. It is just not the case that some Canadians are right and other Canadians are wrong. There is a range of perceptions in this country which must be given full respect. 0f course, there are others which do not deserve such respect.

I am not saying that all views are equal to one another, but rather that there is a core of differing ideas about, and images of, this country which, if possible, should be reflected in the Constitution of Canada.

[Page 13598]

Our differences should be respected. We have quite appropriately done a lot of talking about respecting rights in this debate, while showing little or no respect for the differences among us. We have had precious little to say about other concepts which, in my view, are necessary to the existence of an authentic human community. I am referring to concepts such as responsibilities and obligations—the responsibilities of individual Canadians one for each other and the responsibilities of individual Canadians for the community, through their governments and other institutions, for the well-being of people socially, environmentally and politically.

But this was all outside the parameters of the debate to begin with. In a sense, what we have always had before us in this debate is a proposal finally to entrench the best political ideas of the now waning liberal era—that is, the rights of individuals versus the state and the rights of minorities. We do not make light of these victories. They are victories that people in my party and those involved in the political tradition in which I stand have long fought for. But they will not suffice by themselves to carry us into the post-industrial society of the twenty-first century, because an appropriate individualism in the liberal era has been accompanied always by an inappropriate individualism, indeed atomism, in our notions of the economy and of society as a whole. Because this is the case, we are in desperate need of recovering and recreating a sense of the whole, of the common good, and of society as an organic reality in which certain values as well as rights are respected.

In this respect I should like to say something about the significance of the public support demonstrated for the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. This public support exceeds the limited wording and limited support found in the resolution as a result of the inclusion of the adjective “existing” in front of the concept of aboriginal rights. This public support is significant because a significant thrust of the now waning great industrial liberal era-and I am always using “liberal” in the small “l” sense—has been the urge to assimilate and homogenize all peoples into one big happy family of consuming and producing economic units.

Members of all political parties, at least the old line ones, have participated in this general vision of society. the aboriginal rights clause is one of the few places in the act before us where liberalism is transcended and a way is pointed into the future and away from the past, a past full of wrong relationships with the native people of Canada. Hopefully it points toward a future which will finally sec a right relationship grow up between native and non-native Canadians.

To a great extent our historic approach to native people was conditioned by the absolutism of western Christianity and its missionary zeal for conforming everyone to its way of life. But like the Christian Jews in the Book of Acts who thought that Greeks would have to be circumcised in order to become Christians, western Christianity thought that the gospel meant that the Indians, and indeed everyone else, would have to become something other than themselves. Coupled with a not unrelated economic and military expansionism, we get the recipe for the type of attitude with which native people were met when confronted with traders, settlers and finally industrialists.

The situation in which we find ourselves today is quite different. In my view, it is one full of potential. Native people are beginning to recover a lest sense of self-esteem after having their culture looked down upon for many years. White people are no longer so confident that their ways are all that great. As the meaningless violence, pollution and shattered economic dreams become worse and worse, many non-native Canadians are corning to doubt whether the way of life they wanted to impose upon everyone, in the name of Christianity or in the name of its secular synonym, “progress” is not something which is fatally flawed, something from which we need to be freed.

We can obtain that help, in se far as we recognize the need for it, in a number of ways. One way to obtain it is from people who are not identical to us and can, therefore, tell us something about ourselves that we need to hear. Native people are such people, in so far as they have roots in a culture which was and is quite different from. ours. This is not to say that al native people are eloquent critics of modern society. Indeed, some would mistakenly like to be like us, but many have resisted and rebelled against that in our industrialized and mechanical way of life which they found to be inhuman and harmful to mother earth and indeed to human life.

This resistance has often been despairing and self-destructive, but now it has an opportunity to become a creative and critical resistance, with political status which calls upon nonnative Canadians to listen for our own good as well as the good of native people. As we move into the post-industrial era, whatever that might mean—and there is great debate about its meaning-we will need the advice of futurists, of philosophers and, we in the New Democratic Party contend, of democratic socialists. Also we will need the help of people with pre-industrial perspectives, something which, unlike Europe, non-native Canadians lack.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Blaikie: We in this party look to the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights as a step in this important direction.

In the same way I think what has been happening in Quebec must be understood in this light. The Québécois are reaching out for a way to be a community, to be an identifiable people, and to have a chance to do and to be something unique by getting off the slippery slope leading to the North American melting pot. They want their uniqueness as not just another province recognized; they want to use their uniqueness in the service of the larger human community.

We in this party want them to do this. We believe they can do this within the larger context of Canadian federalism. It is to that end that we have moved an amendment to the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which

[Page 13599]

recognizes the uniqueness of Quebec within Canada and allows it to contribute to, and be a part of, the Canadian future.

I, like many other English-speaking Canadians, have felt somewhat like a spectator to the great battle raging within the hearts and souls of our French-speaking fellow Canadians. But if it be okay for the Prime Minister to come out and lecture those of us in the west, perhaps my humble advice will be heeded.

There are growing numbers of Canadians who see in the aspirations of Quebec people not the stubborn obstinacy of people who will not give in to the inevitable and who make life miserable for everyone else, to put it most negatively, but they see in those aspirations a local example or instance of something happening all over the globe, where people are trying to ground themselves and their sense of community in something more meaningful than the global consumer society, whether metropolis or hinterland. People seeking this renewed sense of community will be a regressive step only if we do not see it for what it is and affirm it. Particularity must find its place in the universality that must also come if the planet is to survive. The problem is falsely put, I believe, if it is put in such a way that we must choose between tribalism and uniformity. In this respect, Canada has a sombre responsibility. If we fail in dealing with this human problem, with all the good will and abundance that we have at our disposal, then who, I ask, can succeed? We must succeed.

In so far as the constitutional accord of November 5, as amended in the House to reinclude stronger protections for the equality of men and women, and the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Métis does this, it deserves our support. It is not the divisive document that it once might have been. Although we will never know, because it never went ahead. But this new document does not represent a victory for one side and a loss for the other. It is imperfect. However, it is worth voting for, in my opinion.

Only time will tell if it will live up to its expectations. However, without constitutional political reform, that is to say, without reform of the Senate and the House of Commons giving the regions more power at the centre, without economic reform, and without social and economic justice, this document will not be enough. Without an independent Canadian economy, this document will only be the shell of a yet unrealized independence.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Blaikie: Canada has a long way to go. We in this party will continue to work for these and other things that remain undone, like seeing that aboriginal rights are defined in a profound way, as opposed to a narrow, legalistic way. This we will be doing when we have the opportunity to move an amendment relating to the consent of aboriginal peoples to constitutional amendments affecting their rights.

Nevertheless, I think many hon. members would agree with me that there is a need to share with the Canadian people the feeling of relief that an agreement has been reached and that we have come this far. I also hope there is a willingness on the part of the Canadian people to forgive people of differing views and also politicians for sometimes seeming to be obsessed with the Constitution, because constitutions are and will be important, and this Constitution is important. I, for one, am glad that, all things considered, we took the time that we did.

I am confident that history will record that the contribution of my party, the New Democratic Party and its members, was a constructive and a helpful one, that our hearts were in the right place and thus we, along with others, can once again lay claim to a formative role in the future of Canada.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources): During the course of this debate we have heard, quite rightly, of the vital social and cultural forces which have shaped our country since its inception. In contemplating a new Constitution, we have heard of the moral and legal responsibilities which we in this House must accept regarding, for example, the status of linguistic minorities, women and aboriginal peoples. Moreover, we have been eloquently reminded of our responsibility to the larger concept of our nationhood, to the very scheme which created a nation of two founding peoples. That concept expressed the kind of Canada that we not only wish to have, but which we must have if we are to face the future both united and strong. For over a century hon. members of the House in realizing this have attempted to create a nation based on cultural and linguistic justice. However, from the beginning they went further and also recognized the economic necessity behind the movement to union.

Confederation was, of course, achieved in the midst of a particular set of circumstances. Social, political and economic conditions of the mid-nineteenth century naturally constituted the starting point for the architects of confederation. As one might expect, their historic efforts bear the mark of their own time. The strengths and weaknesses of the federal structure which they created cannot be explained without considering the circumstances of its birth.

As hindsight demonstrates, some of those circumstances were peculiar to the turbulent era of the 1860s; but, in several ways, they have something in common with those of today. In 1867, Canada was in a period of great transformation, much as it is today. At the time of the confederation agreement, we were moving from water transport to the railway, from frontier self-sufficiency to the greater mutual dependence of industrial diversification, from colonialism to the nation-state. Economic factors in the movement toward confederation were rooted in the new economy of steam and railways. The British North American colonies were strung out across a huge continent divided by mountains, rivers, lakes and prairies. The union, it seemed, would really be possible only once the railway had been built. Intercolonial railways were the necessary physical basis of confederation; but at the same time confederation

[13600]

appeared to be the necessary political basis for. intercolonial railways. Those who wanted either one or the other were inclined to a plan by which both could be achieved.

In every colony of British North America, the construction of railways inspired hopes for economic prosperity; but the debts incurred in the process, in turn, created new burdens. Moreover, the imminent abrogation of the reciprocity trade agreement with the United States underlined the need for greater internal trade within British North America. Our predecessors looked to the south and saw territorial expansionism, profound political upheaval and an aggressive economic competitor. They looked across the Atlantic and saw the weakening of the imperial connection. Those forces hastened confederation in spite of all colonial rivalries, differences and ambitions. The necessity for economic union had become clear.

Today, the movement to renew our Constitution also has economic roots. Today, we are linked by a sophisticated transport system, an increasingly innovative and complex economy, an economy of high technology and massive industrial and resource projects requiring the collective ingenuity and effort of all Canadians. We are, however, still divided by mountains of sorts, those artificial barriers which we have created amongst ourselves, barriers which can limit the realization of the full benefits of a true economic union.

Macdonald, Cartier, Langevin and Tupper were obviously not soothsayers. They could not anticipate the more diverse and extensive governmental responsibilities of our time. Macdonald, however, had no pretensions about the immutability of the original confederation agreement. He saw it as a skeleton, a framework which would not bind us down. Yet that elasticity, which was one of the most valuable characteristics of the agreement, has been eroded over the years, a victim of federal-provincial, social, political and economic divisions. Macdonald’s concept of Canada was of a strong, united economic entity, a common market, one where all citizens could benefit equally from the free flow of goods, services, capital and labour.

We now have the opportunity to consolidate Macdonald’s vision by meeting the demands of new economic challenges, challenges of telecommunications, industrial diversification, resource management and environmental protection within a renewed Canadian common market for the benefit of all of our citizens.

While the social ramifications of our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms are evident and have been much discussed, what has not been equally recognized is its economic importance. Those who have recently argued that they would prefer to concentrate wholly upon the current economic concerns rather than bringing the Canadian Constitution home with an embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms would do well to examine that charter more carefully. With the recent energy agreements with the western provinces, Canada stands on the threshold of the greatest wave of capital investment in its history. If Canada is to have full meaning, all Canadians must have the opportunity to share in the material benefits of our future economic growth. The mobility rights in the charter can do much to provide that necessary equality of opportunity. Equally, the pending surge of investment will be greater if it can be carried forward against a background of a clearly understood Constitution. Uncertainty, whether commercial or governmental, is not an easy bedfellow of investment.

The realization of our full economic potential can only be achieved if large capital investment is matched with greater productivity and more Canadian sourcing of goods and services. But achieving the maximum benefits will be possible only to the degree that the Canadian federation is a true common market. In several important respects, it has become less so over time.

John A. Macdonald was quite certain about the right of Canadians to live and work anywhere. “We are one country”, he said, “and we go from one province to another as we do from one town to another”.

Today one half of all Canadians move every five years, one in 20 moving to another province. But this fundamental need of Canadians, living in a vast and, in many respects, undeveloped territory has been neglected by some provincial governments. In their eagerness to secure the benefits of local industrial development for the people of their provinces, they have, with notable ingenuity, erected arbitrary barriers to the flow of manpower, capital, goods and services within our country.

The British North America Act appears to rule out any obstacles to the free movement of goods within Canada, yet provincial contrivance and past judicial interpretation, largely in London, has succeeded in limiting even that essential element of our common market. Capital has also been hindered in its efforts to seek investment opportunities by certain provincial regulations of particularly myopic character. The result of all this is that many provincial regulations now weaken our common market, reducing the gains that could otherwise be made by, for example, greater industrial specialization. In short, we are ourselves hindering the realization of our true economic potential by restrictions which, paradoxically, would be impossible in the European Community today.

Labour and capital are not being used as efficiently as possible. Examples of provincial barriers to mobility are readily at hand. They limit the freedom of Canadians to work anywhere in Canada. Certain areas of the country with unusually high unemployment should be allowed positive work-related programs for their citizens, but without inhibiting equal access of all Canadians to employment.

Elimination of these barriers under our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms will provide Canadian industry with longer production runs, greater opportunity to supply the world-scale markets of megaprojects and to compete more effectively abroad. Canadian industry has typically been at an international disadvantage in terms of size, partly as a result of the high degree of foreign control. Its development is only further stunted by the internal distortions and barriers which we have erected among ourselves.

[Page 13601]

It becomes quite clear that John A. Macdonald’s hopes for an economic union, providing for the unrestricted movement of capital, goods and labour, have fallen victim to the vagaries of time. The integration of the Canadian economic union remains to be completed. The free circulation of goods, services, capital and workers has not yet been assured. The Constitution of 1867 has been unable to accommodate economic programs necessitated by consequent progress in virtually every field of economic endeavour.

Thus, Mr. Speaker, history has repeated itself. Several forces associated with economic transition that led to the union of the British North American colonies are in some respects similar to the ones confronting us today. Clearly, economic changes inherent in our age demand the strengthening of our economic union.

But before we can strengthen the fibre of our economic union, we must ask why provincial governments have created these defensive barriers? The answer, it seems, lies in their notion of their respective provinces’ historical place within the Canadian economic union. Many of the difficulties encountered as the national government has attempted to ensure the success of the national economy have contributed to an attitude of grievance and, in time, to a particular interpretation of our history. This sense of grievance has been evident in both the maritimes and the west where I was born and raised.

Some westerners, for example, have argued that the protective tariff in Macdonald’s national policy, freight rates and the question of natural resource control all illustrate the inequitable nature of the economic relations that have existed between the western hinterland and the central Canadian region. Some who embrace that view of our history have contended that the policies which formed the backbone of our original economic union have been deliberately used to retard western development to the benefit of the more densely populated and economically diversified central region. This situation, in turn, they have argued, has historically kept the western region dependent upon central Canada. Partly as a response to this belief, some provincial premiers have recently erected the barriers already mentioned.

Indeed, the west, like the maritimes, has had to face the realities of an imperfect union, as in some sense have all regions of Canada. While complaints about the historic nature of the union and consequent responses are understandable, they are not entirely fair for they see just one side of history. I agree with Professor Careless when he suggests that “Western problems have to be judged in the light of the fuller Canadian record; regions are not closed entities, embattled armies of us against them, but interlinked communities in broad national and international frames.”

The regional view of the west within confederation expresses one-sided judgments. The protective tariff, for example, was one part of an over-all national policy aimed at creating a Canadian union, including the west, by fostering a more diversified economy with a broader home market, an economy that would not be absorbed by an expansionist United States. Moreover, the development of the western region clearly depended in part on the capital generated by the older industrial central Canadian region. Undoubtedly, Macdonald and his contemporaries considered the west an area to be developed under the direction of the national government, but could the Fathers of Confederation think otherwise when a western regional community had yet to be created? Moreover, the regional view of economic union fails to consider the fact that industrial progress in central Canada was well under way before an important western market existed. Western metropolitan centres, not unlike those of the east, have in fact greatly benefited by protection of past Canadian economic policy.

The early federal control over the natural resources of the western provinces have left unhappy memories in the minds of some, memories which have resurfaced recently. It should be emphasized, however, that, given the limited western settlement and the difficulties of governing the west in the early years, central resource control was both justifiable and effective. Today, that control lies largely within the legislature of each province. The recent agreements between the producing provinces and the Government of Canada affirm that principle, but do so in a way which will not only greatly benefit the west but all regions of Canada.

It is simply a truism to state that the building of our economic union has been made possible largely by the economic mobility which has prevailed through most of our history.

Our constitutional task facing us today is to ensure that Canada is a country without internal barriers. Accordingly, a guarantee of mobility that is included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the only way that we can assure ourselves of the prosperity and sustained economic growth that we all seek.

Many of the historical impediments to regional economic development seem ‘to be eroding with new technology, the accumulation of capital and the realization of the importance of research and development. In Western Canada, natural resources have made possible the more rapid establishment of a diversified industrial base. Many decades ago, the transition from sail to steam retarded the economic development of the Atlantic region. Today, that region benefits from the advances of technology associated with the exploitation of its various maritime resources. Quebec too is witnessing the transformation of its economy through technological innovation. In Ontario, research and development are creating new products and industries which benefit all Canadians and which can compete in the international marketplace.

In our over-all economic possibilities, nature is on the side of Canada. It would indeed be an irrecoverable loss for both the regions and the larger Canadian union if the benefits of these great developments were to be confined merely to the province of their birth. The national economy, so important to the thinking of the Fathers of Confederation, would have realized far less than its original promise.

To accept the view that a true economic common market is unrealistic or irrelevant to Canada’s future is to question one

[Page 13602]

essence of the initial move toward confederation. It is not the extent of a country, Alexander Galt claimed, but the diversity of its economic interests which is the real guarantor of greater prosperity. We in this House must now provide the necessary unity to allow those diversities to interact and to achieve their full potential.

The constitutional guarantee of our economic union, to be embodied to a substantial degree in our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, must suit the Canada of today and tomorrow. It is also essential in a more symbolic way. To both foreign and domestic investors, reassurance about the fundamental character of the Canadian economic union will help to provide the impetus to the next stage of our economic growth, which in turn will do much to resolve the economic and social uncertainties before us.

The constitutional proposal which we are now considering, motivated by the social, political and economic circumstances of our own time, will set the building blocks for a new Canada, the Canada of the twenty-first century. “Whatever you do” said John Macdonald, “adhere to the union. We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest … if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken.” Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to call it six o’clock.

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Is there consent to call it six o’clock as requested by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): I think I understand clearly the hon. member’s intention, and that is that he calls attention to the fact he has been recognized. He will have the floor at eight o’clock, barring points of order or questions of privilege.

It being six o’clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o’clock this evening.

At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.

AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Order, please. When the House rose at six o’clock, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had the floor.

Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River): Mr. Speaker, Canada is a wonderful country. It has tremendous potential, tremendous natural resources and a robust, working people. There is every reason for Canada to be one of the great nations of the world.

When a country changes its constitution it has the opportunity to provide for and meet the needs of its people—Canadians in this case—in the modern world. It presents a further challenge to effect greater achievements.

The changing of a constitution could present a grave danger if it is done in the wrong manner. It could result in the country breaking up.

Tonight I would like to deal with a short review of what has happened in regard to constitutional change in Canada. I want to start by saying that the people of Canada should, and I say this reverently, thank God for men like the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) as well as the Progressive Conservative Party. Without our party the Constitution would have been brought home a long time ago and by now the country would probably be separated into three segments. That is what was happening when this constitutional resolution was first brought in. So divisive was the approach to constitutional change taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that millions feared we would never again be a united Canada, if indeed we continued to have a Canada at all.

The Trudeau package would have broken the country up or created a unitary state. In clear language, it would have created a socialist republic.

The struggle that ensued in the House and throughout Canada proved the worth of the British parliamentary system. When the Prime Minister announced his constitutional package on October 2, it was a unilateral package in a country which had never been used to unilateral policies. It had an amending formula which had been secured ten years before without support from many parts of the provinces, even though some premiers had signed it. It also contained a charter of rights. When the Prime Minister announced his constitutional proposal, there appeared to be a feeling among many people that this was the package which was to go to Westminster. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) jumped on the bandwagon and supported it. He thought it was wonderful. However, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party stood up and said it was a dangerous and divisive package, and that message went across the nation and was talked about in our homes and at our work.

The Prime Minister wanted to get to Westminster as quickly as possible to have his constitutional package signed before the people of Canada really knew what was in it. But the leader of our party stopped him in his tracks at every turn before the Prime Minister was able to get to the airport.

The Prime Minister set many deadlines, and I will deal with a few of those deadlines now to illustrate what actually happened. The Prime Minister was going to send the package to England in May and have it back before the summer recess. In June of 1980 he indicated he was going to have it back by July 1. The Leader of the New Democratic Party was urging him to move it faster. The Prime Minister was going to go as fast as he could. Had it not been for the official opposition in the House, the resolution would have been over there and back. However, he had to keep changing his deadlines because

[Page 13603]

more and more people of Canada were finding out what the package contained.

On November 11 the Prime Minister said we would have it on July I of the next year. On April 1, 1981, he said he would have it on July 1, 1981. He kept setting deadlines. Instead of trying to get input from the people of Canada, he endeavoured to push the package through.

A committee was set up, and closure was imposed. I was astounded by one part of a speech made by a parliamentary secretary yesterday when he said his sister or some other relative was in the gallery on the night of the closure and that she felt terrible. We all felt terrible because we were dealing with a document which offered this country freedom of speech, yet the government was closing off debate and refusing scores of our members an opportunity to speak by saying we could not talk about the Constitution of Canada. It was a very sad picture.

I say again that I am glad there were men who were ready to stand up to that, and the Progressive Conservative Party stood up to it.

I want to deal with a few of the items that were in the package at that time. The committee was going to have some nice, cozy little chats but, because of the force of the combined opposition, the government had to permit television, had to hear groups from across the country—the disabled, the Indians, the women and many others—and had to allow them to come and make representations. We stopped hon. members opposite in their tracks in that respect too.

Gradually people started to find out what was in that package. They knew about the unilateral action. The Prime Minister was proceeding without the consent of the provinces and without any consensus. He used the excuse that he was frustrated after 54 years-and that reference to 54 years was a misstatement too. Much progress had been made in those 54 years. The charter had never been mentioned until very recent years. It was an addendum.

Unilateral action was bad enough, but then the Victoria amending formula was suddenly presented to the premiers in 1971 in Victoria. Like the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers were convinced that they should sign on the spot without reference to their legislatures or their cabinets. That was how the federal government obtained their signatures. It was no wonder that when the Premier of Quebec got home and talked to his cabinet, he immediately said, “Take my signature off’. We owe Quebec a great deal for that act because this country was saved from being divided. With it, the people of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would have been second-class citizens. The people of the maritimes would have been second-class citizens. Only Quebec and Ontario would have had the power of veto for all time regardless of what their populations would be. That was the formula which would have gone to England in 1971, as if it had the support of the people. It had the support of a few men who were talked DEBATES 6 The Constitution into it, without reference to their cabinets or their legislatures. That could never happen again.

Freedom of the press was included in the charter of fundamental rights and freedoms but, oh, no, we cannot include property rights because they are under provincial jurisdiction pursuant to the BNA Act. Well, so is education a provincial responsibility under the BNA Act, but there was no hesitation whatsoever in putting language of instruction in the charter. Mobility rights were also included. It would almost make me laugh if it were not so sad. For years hundreds of people from the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have been coming to Alberta and working. I do not know of any who were driven out. Even those who could not speak the language came, and they have jobs. I spoke to many of them at Fort McMurray, and they were glad to get jobs out there. There is no discrimination because they came from other provinces. There might have been some in Ontario and Quebec or there might have been some problem in the maritimes, but there certainly was not in western Canada.

Hon. members opposite talk about what a wonderful thing it will be that mobility rights will be included in the Constitution, but I look at Quebec and see that one cannot hold a job if one does not speak French. What good are mobility rights to people in western Canada who speak only English? They are no good at all. This is a backhanded way of saying we are doing something in the charter. Mobility rights will be meaningless unless we can speak French when we go to Quebec, at least under the present laws, which are illegal.

Mr. Caccia: Shame on you.

Mr. Taylor: Just try to get a job there today. Many people are leaving there, many Canadians of French origin are leaving there because they object to what is going on. I talked to one in Calgary just the other day. He became fed up. If this government wants to promote unity across the country, why does it allow favouritism in one province?

Mr. Caccia: What favouritism?

Mr. Taylor: The Quebec government is stopping people from putting up English signs and stopping them from working if they speak English, and the government here does nothing. Hon. members opposite talk nicely, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is doing now—he is chattering away to himself—but it did not take the Liberal government long a few years ago to declare the policies of the Alberta government ultra vires. Oh, no, it did that almost overnight, but the policies of Quebec which are ultra vires the BNA Act go on and on. This is not right at all. Hon. members opposite should not try to tell me it is.

I do not believe people should have special privileges. The section on the language of instruction will not make any difference in the province of Alberta. In Alberta a student can progress from grade one to university in the French language if he wants to do so. We do not stop people from putting up French signs. We do not stop them from putting up Ukrainian signs or Polish signs, but in Quebec there is a rule that English

[Page 13604]

signs cannot be put up, this in a country which is predominantly English. Forcing all signs to be in French is completely wrong.

With respect to special privileges, we introduced an amendment to make compensation payable to everyone on the same conditions. The New Democratic Party introduced a subamendment proposing that we pay only Quebec. That is special status. That was what the original charter did, too. It provided for special status for one or two provinces and did not worry about the rest because their populations were not large enough. The people of Canada did not go for that. Hundreds of people in Ontario and Quebec do not go for it either.

I do not agree at all with the New Democratic Party subamendment respecting compensation on the basis of special privilege. We have fought for the equal status of every province, and one province should not have special consideration. There is too much special consideration already. Hon. members in the Liberal Party have been buying their continued power. No wonder the people vote Liberal time after time.

Let us look at what the Liberal Party does with DREE grants. In 1981 Newfoundland received $3.5 million; Prince Edward Island, $1.2 million; Nova Scotia, $5.9 million; and New Brunswick, $18.5 million. These are all have-not provinces. Quebec received $70 million; Ontario, $8.9 million; Manitoba, $3.4 million; Saskatchewan, $2.5 million; Alberta, nothing at ail; British Columbia, $1.3 million; and Yukon, nothing at ail. The total amount received over 13 years by Newfoundland was $28 million; Prince Edward Island, $20 million; Nova Scotia, $75 million; New Brunswick, $100 million; Quebec, $494 million; Ontario $88 million; Manitoba, $83 million; Saskatchewan, $29 million; Alberta, $35 million; British Columbia, $10 million; and Yukon, $.l million.

It is clear that hon. members opposite keep buying their way back into Parliament. There has been favouritism and special status. I do not go for that at ail. I did not like favouritism when I was in school, and I do not like it in the nation, either.

The government refused to include property rights. Everyone in this land wants to own property. I know the British North America Act says that. It also says that education is a provincial responsibility. There is no difficulty putting in language, none at ail. There are other items in the charter. What was it like then? There was unilateral action. What is it like now after the struggle in Parliament and throughout the country? Now we have consensus.

The Prime Minister did not want this to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. He said many times that would not be done. However, he was forced to do it by the will of the people. The opposition put up a fight and insisted on it. We had to carry out a filibuster to do so, but we did it for the good of this country. Now we have consensus. The Liberal members are now trying to take credit for the consensus. We would not have had it had this resolution not gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.

We now have an amending formula, not the Victoria one with its veto but one with equality for the provinces, one with consensus. At least seven provinces must consent in order to change the Constitution. There was to be no reference to the Supreme Court, but it was referred. There was no equality for women. There is now equality for men and women in the charter. There were no aboriginal rights in the original charter. They were taken out. They are now back in, albeit with no definition. I hope the government is not trying to fool our aboriginal people by holding out a carrot: aboriginal rights without definition. We have asked the government to define these rights and to be fair to our native people. The Indian people in particular have suffered for a long time in this country. They should not be fooled. I hope they will not be.

There was no opting out before. Now there is. There was a nice cozy deal between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the New Democratic Party with regard to natural resources. Now the provinces are not getting what they already had under the British North America Act. However, the premiers did not fall for that. In the new package, provincial ownership is confirmed. There is a “notwithstanding” clause as well.

I said that this is a wonderful country. I am going to support this charter. However, it does not deal with abortion. I wish that protection were given to unborn children. It does not do anything with regard to capital punishment. This country is rampant with criminals. The police are not able to do their jobs.

Yes, Canada is a wonderful country, but it is going down the tube. We are killing incentive, driving out investment, discouraging savings for retirement or building a house. Farmers cannot even get a mortgage. Millions are unemployed. Our new Constitution will not solve any of these problems. What we need is a fresh government with new policies that will let free enterprise work in this country.

The Constitution is a different package now. I intend to support it. When it comes back with a new amending formula, we will be able to make changes in order to prevent abortion on demand, killing of unborn children, and murderers being let off scot-free or put in prison for only ten years or so. I am going to support the package on the strength of the idea that with the new amending formula we will be able to make changes when it comes to this country.

I again want to pay tribute to the leader of this party, the hon. member for Provencher and other members, particularly at the committee stage. I pay tribute to all those in this party who stood behind our leaders who carried out such a valiant fight. It was worth while. We now have a package we can send to Westminster.

[Translation]

Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for a little over seven years, and I have never heard anything as stupid as the comments just made by my colleague from Bow River who, to a degree most unusual in this House, has been making a spectacle of his ignorance. I suggest he take the figures he was quoting for

[Page 13605]

DREE grants and divide them by the population of each province, a very simple mathematical operation, and he will see that Quebec is not getting more than its fair share.

Mr. Speaker, at the end of the constitutional conference at the beginning of November this year, the Premier of Quebec gave three reasons why he felt that Quebec could not sign the accord entered into by the federal government and the nine other provinces of Canada. First, he mentioned his disagreement with Section 6 of the draft resolution which dealt with mobility rights. Second, he indicated his disagreement with Section 23 which, he felt, would seriously restrict Quebec’s constitutional powers with respect to education. Third, he did not agree with the absence of fiscal compensation from the amending formula.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think the issue of mobility rights warrants a lengthy discourse. I fail to understand why anyone would object to the entrenchment of such a clause in the Charter of Rights. Why, in the Common Market, workers can move freely from one sovereign state to another sovereign state, while here in Canada, there are any number of barriers that prevent Canadian citizens from moving from one Canadian province to another, all within the same country. I feel that this objection is not well founded and is basically an expression of the separatist leanings of the Quebec government. I do not intend to dwell further on Section 6. Personally, if this were the only problem, I would unreservedly support the resolution which is now before the House.

Now, regarding the second objection made by the government of Quebec and which concerns the minority language educational rights guaranteed under Section 23, that is an entirely different matter. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what we must ask ourselves if we want to consider this issue seriously is: Does Section 23 truly guarantee that francophones outside Quebec and anglophones living in Quebec will have the same rights? Curiously enough, if one merely reads the wording of Section 23, it would seem that the section is more favourable to francophones outside Quebec, because under Section 23, any person with French as his mother tongue, whether that person was educated in Canada or outside Canada, would be able to go to French schools outside Quebec. While in the case of anglophones in Quebec, because of the restriction included in Section 59, it would be necessary to have been educated in English in Canada.

But in practice, Mr. Speaker, what are the real facts? In practice, I think that true equality will not stem from that section, if only because the where-the-number-so-warrants restriction will cause a lot more problems to French-speaking people outside Quebec than to English-speaking Quebecers. It is simply a matter of being somewhat familiar with the geographical distribution of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and to be aware of the concentration of English-speaking Canadians in the western part of Quebec to realize that in the case of English-speaking residents of Quebec, the where-the-number-so-warrants restriction will not be a source of major problems since, in any event, even outside the greater Montreal area, the entire structure is already in place. One of my colleagues told me that in a certain village of the Gaspé area they have one English school for 15 families. With respect to French-speaking people outside Quebec, everything will be left to the discretion or interpretation of the courts, and we have no guarantee that their interpretation will meet the needs of French-speaking Canadians. I will come back to that later on, Mr. Speaker.

Second, Section 23 does not give French-speaking people outside Quebec the possibility of getting organized or of setting up their own structures which they will be able to control themselves, namely, school boards. We are all fully aware of the 35 per cent of French-speaking Ottawans who, for years now, have been complaining and urging the government of Ontario to allow them to control their own institutions. The answer has always been the same—no. Compare that with the situation prevailing in Quebec, and I would suggest that nobody can argue the contrary.

Besides, Mr. Speaker, the French-Canadian Association of Ontario sent a letter to the members and the senators of the Canadian Parliament. I will not read it because I may run out of time. In it they stated just how essential it was to guarantee their future in Ontario, more particularly in the Ottawa area, and to what extent it was also possible to find a satisfactory formula to enshrine that right in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I think that by putting the Canada clause in the Constitution we are asking Quebec to take a certain risk. Well, the province could take that risk or pay the extra costs to the extent that they would be offset by equivalent benefits for French-speaking people outside Quebec. It was with that in mind that I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on November 17 to propose a draft of Section 23 whose result would have been to use the treatment reserved for the English minority in Quebec as a standard to define the rights of French-speaking people outside Quebec.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, our French-speaking brothers outside Quebec have good reasons to be concerned. Indeed, whether it is the Federation of Francophones Outside Quebec, the French-Canadian Association of Ontario, the Association of French Canadians of Alberta or the Association of French Canadians of Saskatchewan, they are the people who have to live in those conditions every day, and I think they are in an ideal position to assess the situation and the kind of life they lead in Canada. And all those people tirelessly repeated again last week that they had come to Ottawa to let us know that Section 23 does not do them justice.

Other statements are also of course a cause for concern. For instance, after the ratification of the agreement by the ten, Premier Bill Bennett went back to British Columbia and

[Page 13606]

replied to someone who mentioned that the school rights of francophones had been entrenched in the Constitution: you know, what we have done basically is simply to entrench what we are already doing. And what are they doing in British Columbia? In about ten schools, there are French, classes, not French schools, but simply French classes. This means that when the children go out in the schoolyard, they must speak English. Of course, in such conditions, the school becomes a marvellous assimilation tool. But the last straw, Mr. Speaker, was the publication of a letter written by the Ontario Premier to a woman voter in which he said that, basically, the inclusion of Section 23 in this resolution was not designed to change anything at all in Ontario-Heaven forbid-but rather to counter what was being done in Quebec both under Bill 22 of Mr. Bourassa’s Liberal government and under Bill 101 of the Parti Québécois government.

In the face of such statements, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have every reason to be at the very least sceptical and to have serious doubts about the equality which is supposedly reflected in this Section 23. Of course, paragraph 23.(1)(a) now provides for an opting-in alternative, which in a sense is a step in the right direction, but I realize the potential unfairness to our anglophones who have shown their good will. What is somewhat paradoxical, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it will finally be the anglophones who have shown good will by sending their children to French schools who will have to pay the price of this section. Personally, this makes me sad.

Mr. Speaker, I suggested two solutions to this problem in a letter to the Prime Minister. Since it was agreed to let the notwithstanding clause apply to the provisions of the Constitution which concern the basic freedoms, the legal guarantees and equal rights in order to alleviate the concerns of some provinces, I suggested to the Prime Minister that this also apply to linguistic rights. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if this clause can apply to such important issues as the right to life, the right to security and all the basic freedoms that are traditionally included in charters of rights throughout the western world-the notwithstanding clause applies to all these issues; the only matters to which it does not apply are Section 23, Section 6 and the democratic rights-it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the same could be done for linguistic rights. Or does this mean that in this country, we have linguistic rights, or first-class rights, and certain other rights, or second-class rights?

We have serious cause for reflection on this matter. It seems to me that in return, Quebec could have promised to amend Bill 101 and replace the Quebec clause by the Canada clause. This would have put linguistic rights on the same footing as the other rights, it would have maintained Quebec’s jurisdiction over educational matters and would also have reassured Quebec anglophones. I believe this would have been an honourable compromise because, at the moment, the Canada clause does not pose any problem for the francophone majority in Quebec. There might be 5,000 more anglophones in the English school system in Quebec out of a population of 185,000, which represents from 2½ per cent to 3 per cent more anglophones students in the English school system. This would have caused no problem. In the long run, it would have been an insurance policy for Quebec because the supremacy of the Quebec National Assembly would have been maintained in case, which is most unlikely, present conditions should change in Quebec for any reason and this province should become, which is not impossible, the Alberta of the year 2000 with the immigration of a great number of workers from other provinces in Canada. In such a case, the Quebec government would have all the flexibility and all the powers required to remedy the situation.

Anyhow, even if the Péquiste government had refused to make such a commitment, the coming into power of a federalist party at the next election, the Quebec Liberal party, would have allowed us to do that and I can assure you that under the present political circumstances in Quebec, there is every likelihood that the Parti Québécois will be defeated. Mr. Speaker, the time allotted to me is running short so that I will now deal with the amending formula. Such as we know it, the amending formula gives a veto right which is theoretical with a financial compensation restricted to educational and cultural matters. In all other areas, it would be difficult for a province such as Quebec to resist centralization if ever the other provinces, seven, eight or nine of them, wanted it. For example, it could happen that seven, eight or nine provinces decide that from now on housing would strictly come under federal jurisdiction. In such a case, the Quebec government could choose to keep its jurisdiction or take the risk of financially penalizing its taxpayers who, if Quebec decided to stick to its principles and jurisdictions, would have to keep paying their taxes to the federal government to finance programs in seven or eight other provinces and, moreover, if Quebec wanted to provide the same services in the province, then additional taxes would have to be paid.

Mr. Speaker, is that an amending formula with financial compensation, what is so often called shortsighted separatism? I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that with the financial compensation or the opting out, there was never any question of removing federal powers to give them to the provinces. On the contrary, it is essentially a defensive measure to enable a province such as Quebec to preserve its present constitutional powers. It is said that it would create a balkanized Canada. We should never forget, Mr. Speaker, that anyhow, in extreme cases, the federal government has a veto right and that under the amending formula, it could always object.

Mr. Speaker, are the poorer provinces threatened in any way? At this point, a distinction must be made between financial and fiscal compensation. In the case of fiscal compensation, I agree that because total tax points differ from one

[Page 13607]

province to another, there might be some danger, but in the case of financial compensation which is based essentially on the following criterion, that is, the amount the federal government would have spent in the province availing itself of the right to opt out, there should be no problem.

Mr. Speaker, time flues and I should like to speak of the negotiations per se. I feel that the time is almost up, as we say, that down deep in the heart of all Quebecers, there lies a secret wish. They dream of the day when their two great political idols, the two bright stars of Quebec’s political sky, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Quebec Premier, make peace, shake hands and start solving the problems of concern to Quebecers. I appeal to all, Mr. Speaker. Some will say I am being naive, I know, but I think history will have more to say about the contribution of those two men if they settle their differences because, as you know, the storm is gathering over the horizon. Even more serious problems will have to be resolved. The time has come to solve those constitutional problems because, whether it be the international or the economic situation, tomorrow we will have to concentrate exclusively on bread and butter issues. And, Mr. Speaker, there will be much disappointment. I am afraid Quebecers have lost this war through attrition. What I mean is that Quebecers are so bored with all these talks about the Constitution that they are ready to let us do whatever we feel like doing. And that is the reason Quebecers have not opposed this resolution the way they should have. People truly believe that once the constitutional issue is settled—if I may really use the word “settled” in this context, for a great many things could be said about this—we will be able to quickly solve the other problems which concern them.

I should like to conclude by saying that during the few remaining hours—we can no longer say weeks or days-we must do everything possible. I think that there is a strong possibility that reason will prevail in this country, and that Canadians and Quebecers would be extremely grateful to their elected representatives who could finally shake hands and who would direct the action of their respective governments more toward bread and butter issues.

[English]

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Montmorency-Orléans (Mr. Duclos) would accept a question?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The time of the hon. member for Montmorency-Orléans (Mr. Duclos) has expired. Accordingly I would seek the unanimous consent of the House for there to be an exchange of questions and answers. Is it agreed that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) may ask a question?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member’s speech and with a great deal of sympathy for what he had to say. It struck me that there was a fundamental contradiction in what he was suggesting. In the first half of his speech he emphasized the importance of the minority rights of francophones outside the province of Quebec, with which I am in complete agreement. Therefore, if is so much concerned with the rights of francophones outside the province of Quebec—

[Translation]

—why is he willing to let the rights to education in the minority language be subject to the notwithstanding clause, since that would not actually protect the rights of the French minority groups which is one on the things we gained and achieved with Section 23?

Mr. Duclos: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. I gave the interpretation which the Premier of British Columbia, for instance, lends to Section 23, and we know what the Premier of Ontario thinks of that section, so that actually if Section 23 is subjected to a notwithstanding clause the results will be about the same with regard to the minorities outside Quebec. I would very much appreciate it if the hon. member were to personally intervene and use his influence as future leader of the Ontario NDP at Queen’s Park to get the Premier of Ontario to finally provide justice to Ontario’s French-speaking minority, especially in the Ottawa area where they represent 35 per cent of the population. We cannot say that it is a very small minority. In Quebec’s case, a notwithstanding clause would allow the National Assembly to maintain its legislative authority and as you know, you do not have to worry about Quebec, history shows our degree of tolerance.

[English]

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey): Mr. Speaker, I join the debate in its concluding moments with the hope, which I am sure all hon. members have, for a successful constitutional future for Canada.

I would like to start by suggesting to the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos), who spoke previously, that he should interpret the comments made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) in the context of the effort that the hon. member for Bow River had made to bring forward to the House, a point of view which is indeed shared by many people in Canada for historic reasons. His effort was honest, and he made an attempt to bring those issues forward to the House.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gurbin: In coming to these concluding moments, I think that most of us will agree that the resolution as it stands before us now asks as many questions as it answers. As time goes on and as history views us, we may indeed sec many problems which are not now obvious and many difficulties which are not

[Page 13608]

now apparent. In spite of that, I think most of us would like to offer congratulations at this time to all those who have taken part in this debate, with particular reference to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)—

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gurbin: —and with particular reference and best wishes to the hon. member for Hochelega-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal).

While we have in the House a certain sense of having done our part, having participated in this. debate, the country at large undoubtedly feels a sense of relief. That sense of relief is best illustrated in a letter sent to me by one of my constituents. It expresses a peculiar kind of relief and contains a slight contradiction. However, I would like to quote a short paragraph from the letter, which reads as follows:

One might have hoped that the government might have addressed itself to economic and unemployment problems in recent years rather than to the Constitution except that, to have done so, on its dreary track record might have led us over the brink of economic disaster instead of simply up to it where we now teeter.

In a way, that is kind of a backhanded comment; but it is a comment which I think really illustrates the mood of the people, certainly the mood among my constituents and, I suggest, the mood of the people in Ontario and other provinces. It is the kind of thing which suggests that there has been a “notwithstanding” clause which is far more important in the country at large than the “notwithstanding” clause that the premiers have put in the Constitution, a clause which relates to the charter. In other words, the country has a genuine hope and an honest desire to see a constitution for Canadians that is made in Canada, one that is our very own. However, notwithstanding that, many people in Canada have identified their feeling that other issues are also very important and could have been dealt with in the long period of time we have taken to deal with the Constitution.

As others have said repeatedly, the original resolution was brought forward to the House last October. We had two basic problems with that resolution. We had a problem in terms of the process, and we had a problem in terms of the substance of the charter which was presented to us in the first instance. The original resolution suggested a unilateral federal action. It was a process which, over the past year or more has been modified and on which the government has been seen to be accommodating. We have indeed had a process which most of us would see as fairly complete, one which started first with the extension of the parliamentary committee which dealt with the substance of the charter and which allowed numerous Canadians from all across the country to present their cases, concerns and hopes to the government.

We also saw a parliamentary debate which was difficult for most Members of Parliament. It took a long period of time, and finally it ended in an additional process being added, that is, consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether or not the actions we were taking and the position which had been established by the official opposition was indeed accurate. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that the government itself did not have the right to take unilateral action and that consensus was required if not legally, at least in terms of our constitutional conventions. Following that judgment by the Supreme Court, we were taken into the next phase so that the cadence and the rhythm of the process was maintained. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) made the additional effort of bringing the whole constitutional issue before the premiers.

During that conference, it was stated on numerous occasions that it was not possible to achieve this kind of consensus, that it was not worth while engaging the premiers in additional discussions, and that no fruitful benefits would flow from that activity. However, as a result of that additional process, we reached an accord which brought back to Parliament a modified resolution which included many aspects of the discussions in Parliament of the many concerns which had been brought forward. The resolution was then presented to the House of Commons and was then subjected to an additional review. As we all know, that review resulted in two major amendments which accepted the fact that there was an equality of rights for women, which was not subject to the “notwithstanding” clause that had been introduced. Also, there was a modified acceptance of aboriginal rights and treaties. I think this must be considered to have been a due process of law, a part of the procedure that was worth while, and that it was indeed a part of the tradition of the Parliament of Canada to act on constitutional matters or those which affect the federal government as the supreme authority.

At that point, however, I think that one of the basic flaws in the whole issue became apparent. It became most apparent on Friday of last week, four days ago, when the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and then the Prime Minister spoke. The case was well put by the hon. member for Rosedale in terms of the need for additional adjustments to the resolution in order to establish some of the things which would, particularly in the future, relate to federal government actions. These actions and the kind of proposal which was made and brought forward by this party through the hon. member for Rosedale suggested, particularly in the areas of moral concerns, that Parliament would be supreme. It was not intended to change the amendment. This had nothing to do with the substance of the charter or the accord on which the provincial premiers had reached consensus. It had nothing to do with denying any of the contributions by other groups and agreements during the development of the charter and the resolution. It dealt with an additional affirmation that Parliament was supreme in matters which were under federal jurisdiction.

The Prime Minister quite properly pointed out that these matters not only related to the area of abortion, but also related to matters such as capital punishment and, in the future, could relate to issues such as euthanasia or conscription in times of war. However, in this instance the Prime Minister came up with a major inconsistency when he denied the opportunity to include that affirmation in the charter and in the constitutional resolution before it left our House. I think that that in itself should register on the minds of Canadians

[Page 13609]

across the country. That should also tell us something about the intransigence, rigidity and inflexibility of the Prime Minister in dealing with this whole matter. There have been a number of times when he has dug in his heels and has, in fact, caused more problems than he has solved by not dealing, in an open and forthright manner, with the problems; which have originally been created on matters of specific substance which were introduced in the resolution last October.

The other major area of concern involves the matter of Quebec. the hon. member who spoke previously spent some time dealing with his concerns regarding language rights and other issues within the province of Quebec. I think that in keeping with what the hon. member for Bow River has said, all of us should share equally his concern that the province of Quebec be treated as part of the Canadian family. Indeed, anglophone within Quebec should have the same rights and privileges as Canadians across the country and should have the same rights as francophones in other provinces. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who was on an open-line show this morning, discussing this matter in some detail. It appears be is taking up the banner and will spend a good deal of his considerable energy to make sure those rights are protected within that province.

The fact that the Prime Minister at this important point in time will not make that extra effort and take that final step or whatever gesture is required to allow Quebec the opportunity to be incorporated in the first instance in this charter is just another major inconsistency and flaw in the approach that the Prime Minister has taken.

I believe the charter is imperfect. There is no question that there are and that there will be many matters within the charter about which all of us will have concerns and provisions which we will come to regret. There is no question that in the area I represent, and I think in many areas across the nation, the question of property rights, which has been described by many other members before me, is an important matter. It is a matter that many of us would like to have seen included in this charter and seen affirmed for the rights of future Canadians.

Property rights seem to have been possible in other countries. The right to own property seems quite reasonable. Property rights have a major impact on individuals across the country who feel increasingly that provincial or federal actions seem to threaten their right to own property. The right to own property seems to be one of the basic tenets of a democracy. This is only one example of many of the inadequacies that are within the charter.

I believe as time goes on that many of these matters can be dealt with. We have a situation now where many of the pundits and critics of this whole constitutional discussion, although new things are happening quickly from day to day, are changing their minds about certain parts of the resolution. After the provinces bad reached an accord and after the premiers had met with the Prime Minister, some people found very good reason to be concerned about the fact that the final step should be taken by 11 individuals in our country because the impact of what they were doing and the long-term consequences affected all Canadians. The reactions of the critics and the people who are looking at the constitutional resolution in the context of today are only momentary. History itself will be the only measure of whether or not this is a good or a bad resolution.

I think it is important that we go forward from the time of the vote on this resolution as it passes from Parliament. We should go forward in the spirit of hope that successive governments will have the good judgment and patience to deal with the inadequacies within the charter and that Members of Parliament will maintain the faith and the confidence of their constituents and will exercise their authority and their responsibilities in such a way that this charter, whether or not it is inadequate now, will serve the purpose of all Canadians.

[Translation]

Hon. Pierre De Bané (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion): Mr. Speaker, there is a basic principle in politics that a government may be free to make any decision it wants, but it will have to live with the consequences. Or to put it another way, history always presents the bill, one way or another. However, it seldom happens that a government which has shirked its responsibilities and shown itself to be unworthy of its people’s trust, is cynical to the point of bragging about it. How else are we to interpret statements by the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as reported in Le Soleil of Saturday, November 7, 1981, on page B-2, where the minister states that he created the common front of the eight provinces in September, 1980, and that since that time, the common front bad always been artificial, so much so that it would have collapsed had not Quebec kept it going. This means that Quebec made the ultimate concessions. Finally, Quebec bad set up the gang of eight for the sole purpose, says Mr. Morin, of using it as a political weapon to sway public opinion in Quebec. And Mr. Morin adds that one of the means used to create this artificial common front, as be calls it, was to work on the claims of each province, whether they concerned natural resources, fishing rights or even, admits Mr. Morin, some provinces’ obsessive hatred of Mr. Trudeau.

And these are the people, Mr. Speaker, who got themselves elected on April 13 by telling Quebecers that they would be the trusted defenders of Quebec’s traditional rights. And what have they done? They have tried to permanently weaken Quebec. In fact, when our government offered them and the government of Ontario a veto right, they joined forces with seven provinces who did not have a veto right and the first price they had to pay was to drop the veto right they bad, s0 that they could proudly say: We are just as good as Prince Edward Island. They refused to join the two governments that did have a veto right. At least five times, in January, 1977, in October, 1978, in October, 1980, in February, 198 I, and at the beginning of this month, in November, 1981, the federal

[Page 13610]

government offered the government of Quebec a veto right. As I said before, a government may be free to do as it likes, but it cannot escape the consequences of its actions. It would be a lesser evil if this weakening of the province had occurred only in terms of such fundamental statements or constitutional provisions, Mr. Speaker. But when a government weakens its most precious resource, namely, its men, women and children, then it is no longer worthy of the trust it has received.

I shall recall, if I may, how Quebec’s population has evolved. In the 1960s, the population of Quebec increased by more than 100,000 per year. I shall also give figures for the last three years, when the population growth was almost nil. The population dropped by 3,000 inhabitants in 1978, increased by not quite 11,000 in 1979 and by 20,000 in 1980. It is true that the rate of growth throughout Canada also dropped during the same period, but certainly not as much. During the 1960s, the growth rate of the population in Quebec represented 30 per cent of the growth rate throughout Canada.

From 1976 to 1980, Quebec’s share in the population increase of Canada went down to 10 per cent! A contrast between these two periods could not be more striking and it is certainly dramatic, to say the least. Of course, the Quebec government could pretend that it is due to a lower birthrate; unfortunately, it is due to a phenomenon which is the direct and the immediate consequence of its own policies, and I am speaking about international and interprovincial migrations. On a net global basis, outgoing movements of population amounted to about 5,000 people between 1961 and 1976, except for the years 1970 and 1971, and we all know why. On the other hand, these movements reached an average of over 33,000 people a year during the period 1977 to 1980. The worst year was 1977-78 when there was a record net emigration of 54,122 people. And since the immigration figures in Quebec are quite high, the gross numbers of immigrants are even more revealing. The net outflow in 1977-78 represents the difference between 32,345 immigrants and 96,467 emigrants. In other words, nearly 100,000 people left Quebec in 1977-78. This means that both constitutionally and as far as our most precious resource, our people, are concerned, the policies of the Quebec government have been extremely harmful.

Not only have they weakened this province of which they were the trustees, but they have even betrayed the traditional positions of Quebec governments. History will show, Mr. Speaker, that they have systematically refused to support our fight for French schools throughout Canada. They have systematically rejected the appeal of francophones outside Quebec who were asking that their rights be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Everyone will remember what they stated in the document which they tabled in Montreal on July 8, 1980, during the last months of their mandate, where they alleged that the entrenchment of the rights of francophones outside Quebec in the Constitution would freeze their rights for the future. What hypocrisy! While we were trying to give them eternal protection, they had the audacity to pretend that this was a means to freeze rights which do not exist today. We have only to read the brief submitted by the L’Association des francophones hors Québec to see this. When we read the works of Canon Groulx-and if there is someone who always faithfully defended the traditional position of Quebec, which as a province, has always recognized its responsibility, as the focus of French-speaking Canadians, to work for the extension of their rights, it was Canon Groulx-we can find in his book entitled “Les minorités canadiennes-françaises déclarent” that it is the role and the responsibility of the federal government to entrench the rights of francophones in all Canadian provinces in the Canadian Constitution.

History will show, Mr. Speaker, that these rights which tomorrow will belong to the French Canadians in all Canadian provinces can never be taken away from them because we are giving a veto to Quebec, which does not even request it in this sense, by entrenching in the new Constitution for the first time the equal status of French and English in all the institutions of the central government. If ever someone wanted to remove this provision, Quebec has been given a veto, and all I hope is that separatists will not be in power in Quebec if ever, in a moment of aberration, certain provinces were to try to take away these French schools which are finally guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution. And to further illustrate, Mr. Speaker, how hypocritical they were, let us record in Hansard the following agreement signed on August 18, 1977, in St. Andrews, New Brunswick:

[English]

The premiers agree that they will make their best efforts to provide instruction in education in English and French wherever numbers warrant.

[Translation]

We merely have to read that clause, Mr. Speaker, to realize how they betrayed the French Canadian minorities outside Quebec. And the best way to understand it is to read again Section 23 of the constitutional resolution and more especially Section 24(1) which reads as follows and I quote:

Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.

Consequently, if it ever happened that a provincial government did not comply with the Charter which provides for French-speaking schools, French Canadians could appeal to the Supreme Court and the latter would find that in my constituency of Matane fewer than 20 anglophone families have a school at Métis Beach, the smallest town in the constituency, a school from grades one to eleven, and even if one has no legal training one knows that a constitutional provision must apply consistently throughout the country and since in Métis-sur-mer in my constituency, there are hardly fifteen English-speaking families who have a school for fewer than 40 children, it is the best guarantee that the Supreme Court will enforce the same standard in all the other Canadian provinces. It is no longer a matter of the best effort, as signed by the Parti Québécois in St. Andrews. The Supreme Court has the right to impose sanctions and under the above-men-

[Page 13611]

-tioned section it will take the necessary measures to correct the situation. There is the difference between the Quebec representatives who sit in Ottawa and those who betrayed them in Quebec City. As I said, Mr. Speaker, history will show that everything that was put in that resolution for French Canadians at the national level, either for schools in all the provinces or with respect to full bilingualism in New Brunswick, can be ascribed to the francophone representatives sitting in this Parliament.

Mr. Rae: Not only the francophones!

Mr. De Bané: What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that not satisfied with betraying French Canadians and refusing to support their claims, they dared ridicule the claims of Franco-Ontarians. History will note that on the day before the conference was officially opened, Mr. Morin, as reported in the La Presse edition of Monday, November 2, scoffed at the suggestion that Ontario might offer Franco-Ontarians the benefits of Section 133. Not only did they shamefully refuse to support Franco-Ontarians, but added insult to injury by deriding the suggestion that Ontario might grant its French-speaking residents the benefits of Section 133. Not content with lying and betraying, they demonstrated the utmost duplicity by deceiving their own supporters. The House will recall that in Ottawa on April 16 they signed a document which they were prompt to bide. They signed this document only three days after telling Quebecers: Re-elect us and we shall be strong enough to fight for your rights. In this agreement they secretly signed in Ottawa on April 16, there is a Section 4 where they recognize once and for all and forever the limits of Labrador which will belong from now on to Newfoundland.

In the meantime, what are they saying to their supporters? That the federal government is trying to deprive Quebec of its rights on Labrador, as they claim in a document entitled “Le Québec est trahi” which PQ supporters are distributing in the Province of Quebec to demonstrate that the federal government is trying to take Labrador away from Quebec. Yet, they are the very people who came joyfully to Ottawa to sign this document. I think that there ought to be a limit to a party which boasts of its openness and yet betrays the traditional rights and legitimate claims of French Canadians, and its own supporters as well. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of a political party which carries duplicity that far? And when they return to their supporters, they say that Canada is a country with two founding nations and that this dimension must be respected, I am anxious to quote from the agreement they signed on April 16. What does it say? With your permission, I should like to read it for the edification of hon. members and future records:

The amending formula we have just signed recognizes the constitutional equality of provinces as equal partners within confederation, and that formula is aimed at protecting Canada’s diversity. There is no more reference to duality, Mr. Speaker. “Such a formula enshrines legal equality between all provinces”. Quebec wants to emphasize, to stress it is equal to Prince Edward Island. And he added: Being rational, that amending formula is obviously preferable to ours from Victoria, which gave forever a right of veto to Quebec, “because it recognized the equality of provinces within Canada”. They do not want to let go of that ten. Hold Canada and equality with Prince Edward Island!

They state in the accord signed April 16 that in certain areas there must still be 11 rights of veto. Examples given are monarchy and the office of lieutenant-governor. This is what Quebec under the Parti Québécois insisted on signing. They wanted to ensure that as long as Prince Edward Island wants to keep monarchy in Canada, monarchy we are going to have, because this is one of the few questions on which they insisted all provinces should have a right of veto! The function of lieutenant governor and monarchy!

As far as compensation is concerned, Mr. Speaker, which they make such a case of now, it is worth reading what they signed in the April 16 Accord. Here is what is provided on the matter of compensation: “If a province opts out, the Government of Canada must provide reasonable compensation to the government of that province, taking into account the per capita cost of exercising that responsibility in provinces which approved the change” which means that if Quebec opted out of the unemployment insurance program, under the formula signed by the Parti Québécois, it should be offered only the per capita cost of unemployment insurance in provinces where there is no unemployment insurance. But we can see, Mr. Speaker, in our compensation formula, that it does not use a formula that would be so detrimental to Quebec. It refers to fair compensation. We do not have a formula such as that one that would be an empty phrase, because if the Vancouver compensation formula that is provided for here were possible in the case of unemployment insurance, clearly Quebec could not even afford to opt out. Since the unemployment rate in Alberta, for instance, would the unemployment insurance per capita cost in Alberta be the standard? Mr. Speaker, those are the people who touted themselves as big negotiators before the people of Quebec. I appreciate why Mr. Claude Morin in that article I just quoted from, admitted, and I quote Mr. Morin from page B-2 of Le Soleil of November 7:

English-speaking provinces, says Claude Morin, prepared the April 15 accord—

—and I would add that he had no hesitation signing it. This he did three days after obtaining a mandate from Quebecers under the assurance they would stand up and defend Quebec’s interests. This he could do, Mr. Speaker, under the guise of nationalism. As Mr. Louis Falardeau wrote in La Presse of November 25, and I quote:

The Parti Québécois government was very careful not to reveal that it was the only one against enshrining the rights of women in the constitution.

[Page 13612]

Mr. Speaker, how many crimes can be perpetrated while wrapping themselves in the flag of nationalism. That flag belongs to all Quebecers but they are now trying to rob it so as to make it their own. They have appropriated for their own party that name which belongs to all Quebecers. Does anyone know of a democracy in the world where a party has tried to take the name which belongs to the entire nation? In France, is there a party called the French party, in Italy, the Italian party, in the United States, the American party? Well, the PQ party had the nerve to try to steal the flag which belongs to everybody and the name which belongs to everybody as well, in an attempt to weaken us. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have here spokesmen for Quebec who are doing their utmost to foil, counteract, work and fight against that attempt to weaken their province. And I can say that we will not stop because what we are doing today is only the first step. And the conclusion we have just drawn is that the province of Quebec is much greater than the Parti Québécois, and French Canada a thousand times greater than the Parti Québécois!

[English]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Portage-Marquette.

Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette): Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Yurko: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Chair to look at Standing Order 29 which indicates that the Speaker should have recognized the first person who stood. But in saying this, I offer the floor to my hon. friend.

Mr. Mayer: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I listened as best I could to the hon. minister who just spoke. I would hope that members opposite would do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. It is very important that we all take part in the process which has been going on here and has been going on in this country for the last 14 months. It is important that we all make an effort to understand the process because what we see and what is recorded in the press all too often is not really what the process is all about. It is about the complications that are brought about by the process.

It is unfortunate, because the people who elect us to this House of Commons, whether they like it or not, will be affected for many years to come by the very important debates we are engaged in here.

With those remarks, I hope to get some attention from the hon. members from Quebec. I come from western Canada where we also have problems in terms of how we envisage ourselves in confederation. I believe it is in somewhat the same fashion that the people of Quebec think of themselves in confederation. I firmly believe that if we are going to have the kind of dialogue which is needed in this country, to achieve good will between ourselves we must pay attention to each other and genuinely understand what we are trying to say to one another. Without that common courtesy or that extra effort to understand each other’s point of view, it becomes very, very difficult to maintain any dialogue or understanding of what our points of view are.

In order to look at this process in terms of the way I would look at it or the way the constituents I represent would look at it I have to ask some questions on their behalf. Rightly or wrongly, the perception among many people is not necessarily about what the process entails but about some of the conflicts and some of the things which come out of the process that the press picks up. The perception is that much of the problem we have and much of the wrangling which has been going on have to do with the personality conflict between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of the province of Quebec. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perception many people from my part of the country have, and that is something which needs to be taken into consideration. It needs to be taken into consideration by the Prime Minister, not only as it affects the people of Quebec but also as it affects the perception of what is going on and the way the rest of the country looks at the process in which we are engaged.

Most people feel—and I agree-that there is no place for personality conflicts or ego trips when we get to rewriting our Constitution. I concur in that point of view very strongly. It becomes even more of a question which needs to be addressed when we ask ourselves why we got into what many people think of as this constitutional wrangle in the first place. We did not get into it because there was a great necessity to get into it. We got into it by choice. If we were to ask most people on the street, they would say the threat we are facing is not that our constitutional negotiations will break down but that our economy will break down. They wonder, and rightly so, why we have spent so much time and why there has been so much disagreement on the Constitution when things which really affect people, such as interest rates, economic conditions, inflation and their ability to feed and clothe their families, are so very important. As I said, this is not the case with the Constitution.

If we are going to rearrange the Constitution with which we have lived for over 100 years, we need to get into the arrangements by the proper process so that we can proceed with as much good will as possible. We need to proceed as expeditiously as possible so that we can address what most people think is the main threat to their immediate future, and that is the economic threat.

I find the situation we are in to be very unfortunate; nevertheless, we must proceed. We have to address constitutional questions.

Mr. Crosby: What are we going to do about it?

Mr. Mayer: My colleague asks, “What are we going to do about it?” I have said this before, and I think it needs to be said again: in many ways writing a constitution is like planning something. In many ways the planning part of any exercise can be the most exhilarating and the most exciting because it

[Page 13613]

involves many possibilities. When a person plans a trip, he sits down and decides where he is going. He might be planning to build a house or buy a car. Anything we plan can have a very exhilarating effect. That is really what we are doing in this country. We are planning the future, and this should have had an exhilarating effect on us. Many people have come to the point where they do not feel the exhilaration. We have missed out on an opportunity to harness the energies Canadians have to work together. I think that is unfortunate, and many people in this country look on that as being unfortunate. That is reflected in the position which most people take: they are tired of the wrangling which goes on between politicians, and they want to get on with the job and get it finished. Even though many people understand that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not as perfect as they might hope it would be, they are willing to accept it and get on with the job.

The people of the constituency of Portage-Marquette wonder why it is that provincial and federal politicians continually fight with each other. Let us suppose some objective person came here from a foreign land or from another planet. That person might think that the people whom federal and provincial politicians represent were two entirely different sets of people. However, the people who send us here to the federal House are the same people who send provincial politicians to the provincial bouses. It should be much easier for us to agree than it is, yet in the past it has seemed that that has not been so at all in determining what should be done. Instead of thinking about the common good and solving problems which is the wish of the people who send us to the federal Parliament and who send representatives to the various provincial legislatures across the country-all too often we have engaged in petty political rhetoric for some very questionable short-term brownie points.

The people I talk to at home keep asking about this over and over again, and I have to say that I really do not have a good, honest answer for them, except to say that the only way to solve problems is to send better people to represent them in Parliament and the various legislatures across the country.

We in western Canada feel very strongly about certain parts of the Constitution and about certain matters contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of them is property rights. My area of the country was settled by people who settled there wanting economic freedom, economic equality and a chance to own some property of their own. They wanted a stake in their communities, their provinces and their country. When we are talking about certain basic rights being included in the charter, it is perfectly natural that those of us who are far removed from the problems of language rights which Quebecers have want to be accorded the same kind of courtesy and willingness to understand why we feel as strongly about property rights as some people in other parts of the country feel about rights that are near and dear to them.

I find it very disturbing to come here as a relatively new member-I have been here two and a half years-and to see unwillingness to listen to another man’s point of view. it is difficult to understand why an hon. member says the kinds of things he says on behalf of his constituents and does not realize that other people have concerns about which they feel very strongly. However, some people show an unwillingness to listen, and that is something all of us feel badly about. The process we have gone through to get to where we are with respect to the Constitution has not lent itself to that kind of understanding. The process has not been correct.

I do not want to dwell on the past because in many ways this document is not a document of the past. It is a document of the future, and the only way we should be looking at it in terms of a document of the past is to ensure that we can learn from the process we have gone through. It has been far from a perfect process. If we could do it again, we would have found a better system by which to arrive at where we are today. If we go ahead the way we plan to go ahead tomorrow, it will be unfortunate if we do not realize what we are doing. We are looking at a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an amending formula and a Canadian Constitution. We are looking at a prescription for how this country will live and work together in the future. We should not be looking back and making recriminations; we should look back and try to learn from the mistakes we made in relation to process.

From the point of view of the Conservative Party it is perfectly legitimate to say that our leader quite rightly pointed out almost 14 months ago to the day, on October 2, 1980, that we should learn from these kinds of things. If we are going to be changing the Constitution again in the future—which we will because, as I said, it is a document of the future, and it will have to adapt to future circumstances—we should be able to learn from our mistakes.

One of the mistakes we will have to live with for some time to come is the mistake we have made with respect to attitude. The most valuable resource any country has is its people, and the attitudes of those people reflect the ways in which the country works and lives together.

I do not think a bill of rights will make much difference in attitude. If we were able to come back to this country 50 years or 100 years from now to see how we are doing in terms of civil liberties and basic human rights, I think the most important question we would have to ask in order to determine the situation would be: what are people’s attitudes toward themselves and toward their government? What are the attitudes of representatives toward the people they are elected to represent? Unless we have the proper attitude and are willing to live and work together and, in the process, understand someone else’s point of view, it seems to me that a bill of rights will not be very important.

I have found this constitutional process to be unfortunate. I make that observation to underscore the point that the process of this constitutional renewal, as I said previously, has not been exhilarating and exciting for the country. The process has degenerated. We therefore have more problems in terms of the various levels of government than ever before. We had provincial governments suing the federal government over the Constitution, VIA Rail and the National Energy Program. That does not help improve our attitudes in this country. It is

[Page 13614]

something we have further alienated as far as the process is concerned. Our attitudes in this country have hardened.

A very legitimate question to ask the French-speaking people in this country is how exactly they sec the role that the English-speaking components of confederation should play in this process. We have a French-speaking Prime Minister from the province of Quebec very much at war with the Premier of Quebec. We in western Canada feel very much left out of that argument. It is not that we want to be included in it. However, if we are going to be affected by the outcome of that argument, it would be very nice for us to at least understand what the argument is about. There is not that kind of understanding in the country of the process that we are going through to renew the Constitution. That is a very unfortunate effect of the process we have gone through to get to where we are tonight.

Let me take one further point. Once the Constitution is passed and we have a bill of rights, that is not the end. People will have to be elected to this Parliament and to provincial legislatures. The people in the country who elect us will have to be very vigilant and concerned about what goes on in the House. This entails a large measure of dependence on the press and requires a sense of responsibility from it. Too often the productive things that go on in this place are not judged as being newsworthy. Too often it is only the sensational news that is reported, and that is unfortunate.

I suggest very strongly that it is a continual process in terms of the institutions in this country. It is very difficult to bring in a bill of rights the way we have done without doing something about the way the Supreme Court is appointed and the way it functions. That is something that should be looked at.

We need to look at the way the Senate operates. When this country was first put together over 100 years ago, and we had an Upper and Lower chamber, the government was not as involved in our daily lives as it is now. Now the average Canadian in this country works for a government of one form or another from the beginning of the year until some time in June. There should be more accountability to the taxpayers than there is at present. An excellent way of achieving that would be some form of elected Senate. I do not know specifically how it should be done. However, that is something to which we should address ourselves.

We do not need constitutional renewal to fix up some of what goes on in one part of the country versus another. The western section of the Canadian Transport Commission should be given much more authority. The International Joint Commission which functions in this country has never had a member from western Canada, yet over half the boundary between Canada and the United States is in western Canada. Those are some of the things we need to do institutionally in this country so that we have the determination and good will to be able to work together.

What I am asking in terms of the continuation of this process is that we look for ways to bring ourselves together. The question we should continually ask is how do we bring ourselves together? Unless we learn from the mistakes we made in the process that we are concluding here this evening and will vote on tomorrow, we will be continually asking those questions without learning from our mistakes. We will not learn through reference to our own past actions.

I repeat, we have to be very concerned about attitudes in this country. We must realize that we do not change attitudes by a simple piece of paper. That has to come about by good will and understanding on all sides of the House and in all parts of the country. I feel very strongly that this document should not be used to recriminate against past positions or mistakes. Instead, we should learn from the process we have gone through. The new Constitution should be very much a viable and living document of the future. We should be able to adapt and use it in our changing circumstances. This is a rapidly changing world in so far as technology is concerned, whether we like it or not.

What we are seeing this evening is an end to this part of the process. It is up to all of us, those who are elected, those who sent us here, in fact all who care about this country, to sec that this process does not end here. It must be a continuing process. We must continue to improve on the document for the betterment of Canadians from one end of this country to the other.

[Translation]

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester): Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end an important debate. In fact, I am next to the last participant in this House of Commons debate. My speech will be quite a bit shorter than I had originally planned because the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) would like to rise for a few minutes in order to move an amendment, and I have agreed to allow him the time to do so.

I want to say that although I had reservations about it almost exactly 14 months ago when the constitutional reform was introduced by the government, I agreed to support it after having given the matter considerable thought. First of all, this resolution allows for further reforms in the future. Something just had to be done in the face of the inertia of the provincial forces that were blocking patriation of the Constitution, the adoption of an amending formula and the entrenchment of a charter of rights in the Constitution. Second, Mr. Speaker, I simply could not but support a measure that entrenches forever the right to the French language, the equality of the French and English language in all federal institutions in this country, from sea to sea. This resolution also guarantees the educational rights of the French minorities in the English-speaking provinces. Third, I decided to support this measure because our party, under its present leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has fought for years to achieve progress in the constitutional debate, to effect a rejuvenation of this very important aspect of Canadian politics. That is why I decided to support this measure. At first, there were several people in my province who had reservations, much as the Franco-Ontarians now have reservations because Section 133 does not apply to Ontario. Initially, many Acadians enter-

[Page 13615]

-tained the same reservations with regard to New Brunswick. Pressure was exerted from the very beginning to try to get the government to amend the resolution so that Section 133 or some similar measure would apply to New Brunswick.

I did not like that procedure, Mr. Speaker. I preferred the one which was used afterwards, that the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly move to present a motion first to the Joint House and Senate Committee on the Constitution, a motion carried by the Legislative Assembly, which is mostly English-speaking, a motion to entrench the equality of both languages in New Brunswick, to agree to institutional bilingualism. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights will not necessarily ensure that the French language will progress, expand and be protected in the future. They are a form of insurance, an additional guarantee, but what will ensure the development and expansion of the French language is the importance and the concern that Acadians themselves will have for this issue.

So long as francophones in New Brunswick, Acadians and others, strive to preserve the French language, nothing will prevent this language from being preserved and from expanding. The entrenchment process is an important one. What I like about this resolution is that it allowed my province to act first in its own Legislative Assembly, where, as I say, most members are English-speaking because most New Brunswickers are anglophones, and it is this process, the very fact that we have the political maturity to provide for this equality which history did not bestow upon us that I applaud. But my guiding philosophy in this regard, Mr. Speaker, has always been based on a thorough knowledge of history; one has to know what has occurred in the past, yet at some point-one has to come out of it and start looking toward the future.

[English]

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) allowing me to rise to my feet for a few minutes before the NDP amendment regarding consent is moved at ten o’clock.

I would like to deal briefly with the much misunderstood and maligned concept of consent as it appears in the amendment now before the House. The intent is to set up a process whereby constitutional change that would affect the rights of aboriginal peoples would require the simple democratic consent of the same people who would be affected. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is both an intellectually and historically correct mechanism to protect the fragile rights that have been trampled, abused and overlooked since confederation and before.

The arguments that have been put forward both inside and outside of the House to the effect that the process is unworkable and that the definition of the aboriginal peoples is impossible are not sound arguments. With regard to the first argument, history shows that a democratic vote is taken not only in municipal, provincial and federal elections but in relation to many other electoral bodies in this nation on a regular basis. The second argument about defining participants in such votes is a challenge in some areas but is not unworkable. In fact, it is a task that must be quickly addressed for use at the constitutional conference next year. A vote by members of this House against the concept of consent should be seen for what it is: a claim to the right of Parliament and of the provinces to continue to ride roughshod over the interests of our first citizens and first nations.

Let us not forget too quickly or shy away from the task that is now before us, which is to set our minds and increase our efforts to negotiate a settlement of renewable and non-renewable resources, a settlement of the traditional uses of resources, and a settlement in an evolutionary way of the cultural matters of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.

It may prove at times to be a costly process, it may prove to be difficult and in some cases unpopular, but it is a task that our generation must finally take seriously and respond to.

Questions were raised by the Conservatives earlier about the absence of a role for the territorial governments in amending Section 35. I wholly support such involvement, and if this is a concern, let us have such an amendment from the Conservatives and they will find unanimous support for it from this party. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The eight premiers of Conservative persuasion are the very ones who brought the provinces into the forum and excluded the Territories. The Conservatives have become experts during this debate in speaking not only with a forked tongue but in talking out of both sides of their mouths.

Since the accord and the amending formula historically preclude the involvement of the territorial governments, it was the open intention of this party to avoid the arguments put forward by the Liberal-Tory coalition that such involvement would bring a new and unsupportable element into the Part V amendment procedures. To ensure that future changes affecting the aboriginal peoples north of 60 found fair hearing, we now introduce the necessary protection of a two-thirds majority vote resolution of the House and Senate. This is a new concept but is one found agreeable to the process which ended on November 5 when it was agreed that two-thirds of the provinces must put forward resolutions for the general amending procedure.

In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, I have covered all the objections raised by the Conservative spokesman on the Constitution, the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and I look forward to hearing the real reasons why the Conservatives object to the consent provision, which is an act of democracy and protection for the future amendments of aboriginal rights through Section 42.

[Page 13616]

I make a plea to the common sense of the government members, Mr. Speaker, to their collective sense of morality for adherence to the principle of protecting the rights of Canada’s first peoples, the most abused and underprivileged minority in Canada.

Should we end this debate without a clear sense of direction and a clear legislative mandate, the ifs and maybes will haunt Parliament. Parliament will be haunted if the highly paid corporate and provincial legal muscle is left the elbow room to send the rights and the aspirations of the aboriginal peoples the way of the buffalo, passenger pigeon and Dawson caribou.

As I said earlier to members from bath the Liberal and the Conservative parties, if their objections are based an reducing the House-Senate vote to a simple majority and to require resolutions of the territorial governments, then they have our support, and we urge them to introduce such a subamendment. Hon. members have ample opportunity to do so, bath in time and through the House order.

I would point out that refusal by the House to move seriously on this issue will come to the attention of bath the Parliament of the United Kingdom and various international bodies that deal with the issues of human rights.

The international covenant an civil and political rights was entered into by Canada on March 23, 1976. Part II, Article 2 reads as follows:

Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each state party to the present covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present covenant to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.

Support for the amendment on consent now before the House will go a long way toward achieving the principles of the covenant.

In concluding, I am pleased to again enter into this debate on behalf of the NDP and the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I think it is an important note on which to end the debate. There still exists a number of serious flaws in the resolution, flaws that detract in bath a symbolic and legal sense from the direction I feel this Parliament has taken on the substantive issues of recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights.

First, of course, was the unnecessary addition of the word “existing” to the positive affirmation of aid Section 34, which achieved unanimous all-party support an January 30, 198 1. The vote an that issue has now been taken. Although three Conservatives and two Liberals voted with the NDP to have the word removed, the Liberal-Tory coalition succeeded in keeping the word “existing” in the resolution. That is a flip-flop from their position of only nine months ago, but it is nothing new to this House nor to the native people of this country.

However, a more serious problem has been created by the removal of what was subsection (c) of the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada set out in Part II and Section 55 of the resolution which was passed by committee and filed with the Supreme Court of Canada on April 24, 1981.

Following the November 5 first ministers accord, the rights of aboriginal peoples as well as the protection of the amending formula were dropped.

As we now know, with the vote of November 26 on Section 35 which recognizes and affirms the rights of aboriginal peoples, this House has taken half a step back toward the position held by Parliament prior to November 5.

Part of that step was taken in response to a question of privilege that I raised regarding the tragic flaw found in the French text of the amendment tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munra). For same reason, the legal concept of recognition did not appear in the French text. Under pressure from the NDP, and not the Liberal-Tory coalition, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Chrétien) conceded there was a flaw and found unanimous consent in the House to amend the constitutional resolution and include the word “reconnu”.

Let me now return to the need in the resolution before the House to have the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada protected by Section 42, amended by the general amending procedure. Surely no member of the House, after voting unanimously to entrench a positive affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights, would want those rights to apply in a checkerboard fashion in same provinces and not in others. Surely no member of the House would want native organizations to participate in the constitutional conference set out in Part IV, Section 37, Subsection (2) with the prospect of up to three provinces opting out of the agreement achieved at such a meeting. Surely this is tantamount to political blackmail and is at great variance from the good-faith negotiations intended by the Hause.

On Friday, the Prime Minister indicated that no further changes to the resolution would be accepted, and he indicated that such a position is supported by the participating premiers. That is easy to say and to do, but haw does the Prime Minister explain the additions to the resolution that have occurred since November 5?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Before entering into the adjournment proceedings, may I bring to the attention of the House that, pursuant to the order adopted on Friday, November 27, 1981, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is now deemed to have moved the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):

That the proposed Constitution Act, 1981 be amended

(A) by adding immediately after Section 47 the following new section:

“48. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada set out in Part II may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only in accordance with the following procedure:

• in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, when so authorized by resolution of a two thirds majority vote in the Senate and House of Commons and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected;
• in the provinces, when so authorized in accordance with Section 42 and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected; and
• for the purposes referred to in this section, consent of the aboriginal peoples shall be obtained by a procedure determined by the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of Canada; and

(B) by renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly.