13554 V I commons
DEBATES December 1, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)): In so far as the
Federal Business Development Bunk is concerned:
l. The Federal Business Development Bank or its predeces-
sor, the Industrial Development Bank, have not created any
subsidiaries during the period 1970-80. However, in the
normal course of providing its financial assistance to Canadian
businesses, it occasionally makes equity investments in
Canadian businesses. Because of the confidential nature of
these transactions, we are not in a position to divulge the
names of the corporations into which the bank has invested.
However, the annual financial statements of the Federal Busi-
ness Development Bank, which are widely distributed and
available to any Canadian, contain statistical information on
these investment activities. The bank does not seek control of
the companies in which it invests and the percentage of equity
acquired by the bank normally varies from 10 per cent to 40
per cent for an average participation of some 25-30 per cent.
The latest annual audited financial statements at March 31,
I981 indicate that the FBDB had, at that date, 152 investment
customers representing a total investment of $43,762,000 or an
average amount per customer of $288,000. The present over-
all book value of these investments is not appreciably different
from the over-all cost of acquisition. During the ten-year
period from I970 to 1980, the bank, through its equity invest-
ment activities, provided approximately $64 million of equity
funds to some 260 different companies.
2. The FBDB docs not specifically seek to increase its
ownership position in the companies in which it has invested. It
usually tries to divest as soon as the principal objectives set by
the company and the bank at the time of investment have been
met. Divestiture will most often be achieved through the
company or the shareholder buying back the bank’s position.
GOVERNMENT DOCK AT YELLOWKNIFE, N.W.T.
Question No. 3,168—Mr. Nickerson:
During recent years were government vessels, such as Canadian Coast Guard
ships, on several occasions unable to tie up at the government dock in Yellow-
knife, Northwest Territories because it was blocked by private craft and, if so,
what plans does the government have to alleviate the problem, while at the same
time allowing private vessels to use the dock when it is not required for official
use?
Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of Transport): Regional officials of Transport Canada are
aware that government vessels have been inconvenienced
because berthing space has not been available at the govern-
ment wharf in Yellowknife. This wharf has been unsupervised
for at least seven years, owing to the difficulty in attracting
wharfinger personnel to a position with such low revenue
potential. Although the city of Yellowknife was approached in
August, 1980 to determine whether they would consider leas-
ing the wharf, they showed no interest in such an arrangement.
Possible actions to alleviate problems include the posting of
signs limiting the length of time a vessel may berth at the
wharf, and designating a berth for vessels actively engaged in
loading and unloading goods and people. However, these meas-
ures require enforcement on a continuing basis. Although
Transport Canada regional officials will continue to monitor
the situation at Yellowknife, if is unlikely that significant
improvements will be seen until the services of a wharfinger
can be retained.
[English]
Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining
questions be allowed to stand.
Madam Speaker: The questions enumerated by the parlia-
mentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining
questions be allowed to stand‘?
Q (1530)
Mr. Young: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parlia-
mentary secretary when he expects to be able to give me
answers to the written questions on the Order Paper Nos.
3,380 to 3,438, which concern recommendations made in the
“Obstacles” report. At the time the question was first asked in
the House by myself on October 27, as recorded at page 1221 I
of Hansard, the minister indicated that it would be possible to
provide answers on the following day.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give me an
indication as to when I can expect answers to those questions.
Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I shall make inquiries on
behalf of the hon. member and, hopefully, we will have the
replies soon.
Madam Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[Translation]
THE CONSTITUTION
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981
The House resumed, from Monday, November 30, consider-
ation of the amended motion of Mr. Chrétien:

December l, I981 COMMONS DEBATES 13555
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain CONSIDERANT:
amendments to the Constitution of Canada que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a
have been made by the Parliament of the modifiéa plusieurs reprises la Constitution
United Kingdom at the request and with the du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-
consent of Canada; 5 tement de celui-ci; 5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the que, dc par le statut d’Etat indépendant du
status of Canada as an independent state Canada, il est légitime que les Canadiens
that Canadians be able to amend their Con- aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur
stitution in Canada in all respects; Constitution au Canada;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable tolO qu‘il est souhaitable d’inscrire dans la 1O
provide in the Constitution of Canada for the Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance
recognition of certain fundamental rights de certains droits et libertés fondamentaux
and freedoms and to make other amend- etd’y apporter d‘autres modifications,
ments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her l5il est propose que soit présentée respectueu-
Majesty the Queen in the following words: sement £1 Sa Majesté la Reine l’adresse dont I5
la teneur suit 1
T0 We Queen’s M05! Exmllenl Mafislyi A Sa Tres Excellente Majesté la Reine,
MOM Gl‘fl¢i0l1$ S0‘/efelgflf Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
We, Your Majesty‘s loyal subjects, the Nous, membres de la Chambre des com-
House of Commons of Canada in Parliament2O munes du Canada réunis en Parlcment, fideles2O
assembled, respectfully approach Your sujets de Votre Majesté, demandons respec-
Majesty, requesting that you may graciously tueusement a Votre Trés Gracieuse Majesté de
be pleased to cause to be laid before the bien vouloirfaire déposer devant le Parlement
Parliament ofthe United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projetde Ioi ainsiconcu:
containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25
set forth:

13556 COMMONS DEBATES December l 1981
(‘on.r/itntmn
/1:1. I98!
ernicied
Termination of
power lo
|egi.\’l.itc for
Cumidn
French version
Short l!liC
The Constitution
ANNEXE A—SCHEDULE A
An Act to give effect to it request by the Loi donnant suite a une demande du Sénat ct
Senate and House of Commons of
Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and con- Considéranli 5
scntcd to the enactment of an Act of the 5
Parliament of the United Kingdom to give
effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth
and the Senate and the House of Commons
of Canada in Parliament assembled have
submitted an address to Her Majesty IO
requesting that Her Majesty may graciously
be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before
the Parliament of the United Kingdom for
that purpose.
de la Chambre des communes du
Canada
Sa Tres Exceliente Majesté la Reine,
qu‘a la dcmande ct avec le conscntcment
du Canada, lc Parlement du Royaume-Uni
est invité a adopter une loi visant a donner
effet aux dispositions énoncées ci-aprés et
que le Sénat et la Chambre des communes lO
du Canada réunis en Parlement ont pre-
senté une adresse demandant a Sa Tres
Gracieuse Majesté dc bien vouloir faire
déposer devant le Parlcment du Royaume~
Uni un projet de loi a cette fin, I5
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen‘s l5sur l’avis et du conscntement des Lords spiri-
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the tuels et temporels et des Communes réunis
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual en Parlement, et par l’autorité de celui~ci,
and Temporal, and Commons, in this present édicte 1
Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows: 20
1. The Constitution Act, 198/ set out in l. La Lot constitutionnelle dc 1981, énon~ 20/\d}>P\i°”_<t¢|H Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for cée a l’annexe B, est édictée pour le Canada and shall have the force of law in Canada et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur I981 and shall come into force as provided in that conformément a ses dispositions. Act. 25 2. No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptées par le Parlement du Cessation du Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, Royaume-Uni apres l’entrée en vigueur de la 25 l§;’§}’§,’;,d,§0u,|c 198/ comes into force shall extend to Lot‘ constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas Ct\”=d=\ Canada as part of its law. partie du droit du Canada. 3. So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30 3. La partie de la version francaise de la Vwioti B, the French version of this Act is set out in présente loi qui figure a l‘annexc A a force r”’”9“”‘° Schedule A to this Act and has the same de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30 authority in Canada as the English version version anglaise correspondante. thereof. 4. This Act may be cited as the Canada 35 4. Titre abrégé de la présente loi : Lot‘ sur Tiltvtibréss’ Act. le Canada. December 1, test commons DEBATES 13557 Rights and freedoms in Canada Fttndumcntul freedoms Democratic rights of citivcns Maximum duration of legislative bodies Continuation in special circumstances SCHEDULE B CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 PART 1 CANADlAN CHARTER OF RlGl-lTS AND FREEDOMS Whereas Canada is founded upon princi~ ples that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law: Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and The Constitution A N N EX E B LOl CONSTlTUT1ONNELLE DE 1981 PARTlE l CHARTE CANADIENNE oes DROITS ET LIBERTES Attendu que lc Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit: Garantte des droits et libertés 1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Freedoms guarantees the rights and free- 5/ibertés garantit les droits et libertes qui y doms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and demo- cratic society. Fundamental Freedoms sont énonces. lls ne peuvent etre restreintg que par une regle de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre Cl’un¢ sociéte libre et démocratique. Libertésfondamenta/es 2. Everyone has the following fundamen-10 2. Chacun a les libertés fondamentales ta] freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion; (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 15 (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and (d) freedom of association. Democratic Rights suivantes : a) liberté dc conscience et de religion; b) liberté de pensee, de croyance, d’opi~ nion et d‘expression, y compris la liberte de la presse et des autres moyens de communication; c) liberte de reunion pacifique; d) liberte d‘association. Droits démocratiques Droits ct 5 libcrtés nu Canada 10 1 Libcrtés Iondtimcnttiles 5 3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote 20 Dlroits _ vote in an election of members of the House et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede- of Commons or of a legislative assembly and Z0 rales ou provinciales. to be qualified for membership therein. 4. (1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal dc la Chambre Mandat legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assemblées legislatives than five years from the date fixed for the est de cinq ans at compter de la date fixee25 i return of the writs at a general election of its 25 pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections members. generales correspondantes. (2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des C0mmu~ Prolongations invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- nes ou celui d‘une assemblee legislative peut ‘l’°°‘a’°‘ mons may be continued by Parliament and a etre prolonge respectivement par le Parle- 30 legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au- legislature beyond five years if such con- dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d’invasion tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more ou d’insurrection, réelles ou apprehendees, than one-third of the members of the House pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas 13558 COMMONS DEBATES December l, l98l Annual sitting of legislative bodies Mobility oi citizens Rights to move and gain livelihood Limitation Aifirnuitivc action programs Life. liberty and security of person Search or seizure Detention or imprisonment The Constitution of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. l‘objet d’une opposition exprimée par les voix de plus du tiers des députés de la Chambre des communes ou de l’assemblée législative. 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien~ $éM\¢==”n\wll¢ and of each legislature at least once every nent une séance au moins une fois tous les 5 twelve months. 5 douze mois. S. There shall be a sitting of Parliament Mobility Rights Liberté de circulation el d’érabl1’ssement 6. (l) Every citizen of Canada has the 6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien ale droit de l-_ib¢§1é_d¢ right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. demeurer au Canada, d’y entrer ou d’en °”°”a“°” sortir. (2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per~ lOl-_i_l>¢flé_
person who has the status of a permanent sonne ayant le statut de résident permanent dmb”5s°’“°”‘
resident of Canada has the right 10 au Canada ont le droit :
(a) to move to and take up residence in a) de se déplacer dans tout le pays et
any province; and d‘établir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b) to pursue the gaining ofa livelihood in Vince? 15
any province. b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) l5 (3) Les droits mentionnés au paragraphe Rfllriclion
are subject to (2) sont subordonnés :
(a) any laws or practices of general a) aux lois et usages d‘application gene-
application in force in a province other rale en vigueur dans une province donnée, 20
than those that discriminate among per- s’ils n’établissent entre les personnes
sons primarily on the basis of province of 20 aucune distinction fondée principalement
present or previous residence; and sur la province dc residence antérieure ou
(b) any laws providing for reasonable resi~ aaufilifi;
dency requirements as a qualification for b) aux lois prévoyant de justes conditions 25
the receipt of publicly provided social de residence en vue de l’obtention des ser-
services. 25 vices sociaux publics.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n’ont pas Prvsramvnssds
clude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d‘interdire les lois, programmes ou f£,’:f:’°”
as its object the amelioration in a province ot” activités destinés a améliorer, dans une pro- 30
conditions ofindividuals in that province who vince, la situation d’individus défavorisés
are socially or economically disadvantaged if3Osocialement ou économiquement, si le taux
the rate of employment in that province is d‘empl0i dans la province est inférieur a la
below the rate of employment in Canada. moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights Garanlies juridique:
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberté et a 35‘/Iic-lilwlécl
and security of the person and the right not la sécurité de sa personne; il ne peut étre s°°’””°
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porté atteinte a ce droit qu‘en conformité
with the principles of fundamental justice. avee les principes de justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit s la protection contre F<*”ill_<=%;_ against unreasonable search or seizure. les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 4Of§;;‘§:s”°”s°“ abusives. 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi~ 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la Déleiilivflov emprisonne- trarily detained or imprisoned. 40 détention ou Femprisonnement arbitraires. mo,” December l, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES l3559 /\”¢*’_°’ I0. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun a le droit, en cas d‘arrestation detention – , ~ detention ou de detention : Proceedings in criminal and h penal matters (a) to be informed promptly of the rea- sons therefor; (b) to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful. 10 ll. Any person charged with an offence as the right (a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence; (b) to be tried within a reasonable time; 15 (c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence; (d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 20 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal; (e) not to be denied reasonable bail with~ outjust cause; (I) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tri- bunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment; 30 (g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations; (h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and (i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the45 lesser punishment. The Constitution a) d‘étre informé dans les plus brefs délais des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa détention; 5 b) d’avoir recours sans délai a l’assistance d’un avocat et d‘étre informé de ce droit; c) de faire controler, par habeas corpus, la légalité de sa détention et d’obtenir, le cas échéant, sa liberation. 10 Arrcstulion ou détention ll. Tout inculpe a le droit 2 /\llei’°§ criminelles ct a) d’etre informé sans délai anormal de pénzles l’infraction precise qu’on lui reproche; b) d’étre jugé dans un délai raisonnable; 0) de ne pas etre contraint de témoigner l5 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentée contre lui pour l’infraction qu’0n lui reproche; d) d‘étre présumé innocent tant qu’il n‘est pas déclaré coupable, conformément at la 20 loi, par un tribunal indépendant et impar- tial a l‘issue d’un proces public et equitable; e) de ne pas etre privé sans juste cause d’une misc en Iiberté assortie d’un caution- 25 nement raisonnable; j) sauf s’il s’agit d’une infraction relevant dc la justice militairc, de bénéficier d’un procés avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prévue pour l’infraction dont il est accusé 30 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave; g) de ne pas etre déclaré coupable en raison d’une action ou d’une omission qui, au moment on elle est survenue, ne consti- 35 tuait pas une infraction d‘apres le droit interne du Canada cu le droit international et n‘avait pas de caractere criminel d’apres les principes généraux de droit reconnus par l’ensemb|e des nations; 40 h) d’une part de ne pas etre jugé de nou- veau pour une infraction dont il a été définitivement acquitté, d’autre part de ne pas etre jugé ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a été définitivement 45 declare coupable et puni; i) de bénéficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne l’in- fraction dont il est déclaré coupable est 13560 COMMONS DEBATES December l, I981 Treatment or punishment Sclf-crimina- lion Interpreter Equality before and under law and cquul protection and benefit of law Affirmative action programs Official languages of Canada Official languages of New Brunswick The Constitution 12. Everyone has the right not to be sub- jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment. 13. A witness who testifies in any proceed- ings has the right not to have any incriminat~ ing evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence. 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the lan- guage in which the proceedings are conduct- ed or who is deaf has the right to the assist- ance of an interpreter. Equality Rights 15. (l) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, nation- al or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (2) Subsection (l) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvan- modifiée entre le moment de la perpetra- tion de l’infraction et celui de la sentence. 12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Ctumé tous t_raitements ou peines cruels et inusités. 13. Chacun a droit at ce qu’aucun tem0i- 5T锑_°if!””E° Sgnage incriminant qu’il donne ne soit utilise ‘”c”mm“m pour l’incriminer dans d’autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour témoignages contradictoires. l0 14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent l0 lfllcrvréw suivre les procedures, soit parce qu‘ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employee, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de surdite, ont droit a l’assistance d’un inter- prete. l5 Droits a I’égaIiré Egalité devant la loi, égalite dc benéficc ct protection égalc dc la loi 15 15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per- sonne et s’applique egalement at tous, et tous ont droit a la meme protection ct au meme bénefice de la loi, independamment dc toute discrimination, notamment des discrimina»2O 2Oti0ns fondees sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, Page ou les déficiences mentales ou physi- ques. (2) Le paragraphe (l) n’a pas pour effet25 Ptvswmmesdc d’interdire les lois, programmes ou activites §;:i’:|‘l”°“ destines a améliorer la situation d‘individus taged individuals or groups including those 25ou de groupes défavorises, notamment du fait that are disadvantaged because of race, na- de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Official Languages of Canada 16. (1) English and French are the official ethnique, de leur couleur, dc leur religion, de 30 leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences mentales ou physiques. Langues offieielles du Canada 16. (l) Le francais et l‘anglais sont les lgrftrfcsiglslisdu languages of Canada and have equality of3Olangues officielles du Canada; ils ont un Canada status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada. (2) English and French are the official statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35 a leur usage dans les institutions du Parle- ment et du gouvernement du Canada. (2) Le francais et l’anglais sont les langues du languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un N,,u,,e,,,,_ equality of status and equal rights and privi- leges as to their use in all institutions of the statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis- December l, l98l COMMONS DEBATES 13561 Advancement of status and \.lS€ Proceedings of Parliament Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature Parliamentary statutes and records New Brunswick statutes and records Proceedings in courts established by Parliament Proceedings in New Brunswick Courts Communica- tions by public with federal institutions The Constitution legislature and government of New Bruns~ lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau- wick. Brunswick. (3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La presente charte ne limite pas le F£°§|’§>:i°” Wit
authority of Parliament or a legislature to pouvoir du Parlement ct des legislatures de 8
advance the equality of status or use of Eng- 5 favoriser la progression vers l‘egalite de 5
lish and French. statut ou d‘usage du francais et de l‘anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use Eng- 17. (I) Chacun a lc droit d’employer le ggfligagzniu
lish or French in any debates and other francais ou l’anglais dans les débats et tra-
proceedings of Parliament. vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10 (2) Chacun a le droit d‘employer le fran- l0
or French in any debates and other procccd- cats ou l‘anglais dans les debats et travaux de
ings of the legislature of New Brunswick. la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
18. (l) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes
of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les procés-verbaux du Parlement
in English and French and both languagel5sont imprimes et publies en francais et en l5
versions are equally authoritative. anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant ega-
lement force de loi et celles des autres docu-
ments ayant meme valeur.
Travnux dc lit
Legislature du
Nouvcau-
Brunswick
Documents
pnrlcmcntaircs
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes
the legislature of New Brunswick shall be rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legtsta-20,,N,,,,,,,_
printed and published in English and French ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes
and both language versions are equally 2Oet publies en francais et en anglais, les deux
authoritative. versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme
valeur, 25
19. (1) Chacun a le droit d’employer le
19. (1) Either English or French may be
francais ou l‘anglais dans toutes les affaires
used by any person in, or in any pleading in
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le
by Parliament. 25 Parlement ct dans tous les actes dc procedure
qui en découlent. 30
(2) Chacun a le droit d’employcr le fran-
cais ou l’anglais dans toutes les affaires dont
sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns-
wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui
(2) Either English or French may be used
by any person in, or in any pleading in or
process issuing from, any court of New
Brunswick.
en découlent. 35
20. (l) Any member of the public in 30 20. (l) Le public a, au Canada, droit at
Canada has the right to communicate with, l’emploi du francais ou de l‘anglais pour
and to receive available services from, any communiquer avec le siege ou l’administra-
head or central office of an institution of the tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou
Brunswtck
Procedures
devant les
tribunaux
établis par la
Parlcmem
Procedures
devant les
tribunaux du
Nouveau-
Brunswick
Communica-
tions entre les
administrés et
les institutions
federalcs
Parliament or government ofCanada in Eng- du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en4O
lish or French, and has the same right with 35 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a
respect to any other office of any such insti~ l’égard de tout autre bureau de ces institu-
tution where tions la ou, selon le cas :
(a) there is a significant demand for com- a) l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais fait
munications with and services from that l’objetd’une demandeimportante; 45
°m°° in Sud‘ language? 01′ 40 /1) 1’emploi du francais et de l’anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.

13562 COMMONS DEBATES December l, I981
Communica<
lions by public
with New
Brunswick
institutions
Continuation of
existing
constitutional
provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of
instruction
The Constitution
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is
reasonable that communications with and
services from that office be available in
both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New
Brunswick has the right to communicate
with, and to receive available services from,
any office of an institution of the legislature
or government of New Brunswick in English
or French.
21. Nothing in sections l6 to 20 abrogates
or derogatcs from any right, privilege or
obligation with respect to the English and
French languages. or either of them, that
exists or is continued by virtue of any other
provision of the Constitution of Canada.
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates
or derogates from any legal or customary
right or privilege acquired or enjoyed either
5 (2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
droit a l’emploi du francais ou de l’anglais
pour communiquer avec tout bureau des ins-
titutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-
ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
l0
21. Les articles 16 a 20 n’ont pas pour
effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue frangaise
ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter
atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations
l5qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes
d’une autre disposition de la Constitution du
Canada.
22. Les articles 16 a 20 n‘ont pas pour
effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privile-
ges, antérieurs ou postérieurs a l’entrée en
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la présente charte et découlant de
Charter with respect to any language that is la loi ou dc la coutume, des langues autres
not English or French.
Minority Language Educational Rights
que le frangais ou l’anglais.
Drafts Z1 I’instructi’0n dans la langue de la
minorité
Communica»
tions cntrc lcs
administrés ct
les institutions
du Nouvcau-
Brunswick
Mainlicn en
vigueur dc
ecriaincs
dispositions
Droits preserves
23. (l) Citizens of Canada 23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens : §‘=;””§\::m°”
(a) whose first language learned and still a) dont la premiere langue apprise et2O
understood is that of the English or French 25 encore comprise est celle de la minorité
linguistic minority population of the prov- francophone ou anglophone de la province
ince in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary b) qui ont recu leur instruction, au niveau
ou ils resident,
school instruction in Canada in English or primaire, en francais ou en anglais au 25
French and reside in a province where the 30 Canada et qui resident dans une province
language in which they received that ou la langue danslaquelleils ontrecu cette
instruction est celle de la minorité franco-
instruction is the language of the English
or French linguistic minority population of
phone ou anglophone de la province,
91¢ Pl’°vifl¢@, om, dans l‘un ou l‘autre cas, le droit d‘y faire 30
have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
primary and secondary school instruction in
that language in that province.
et secondaire, dans cette langue.
foigliflgiiy of (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant M
EH Ufl C – – < – > – ~ ‘ ‘
,,,§m,c,,,,,, has received or is receiving primary or a recu ou recoit son instruction, au niveau ianguc
secondary school instruction in English or4O primaire ou secondaire, en francais ou en 35 d‘ivi§lw¢li<>n
French in Canada, have the right to have all
their children receive primary and secondary
anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire ins-
truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux pri-
school instruction in the same language. mairc et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.

December 1, I981 COMMONS DEBATES 13563
Application
ivliere t’tumbcr5
wtirrant
Enforcement of
guaranteed
rights and
freedopis
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
ofjustice into
disrepute
Aboriginal
rights and
freedoms not
affected by
Charter
Other rights
and freedoms
not affected by
Charter
The Constitution
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under (3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana- 1″>”1ili¢=-tie”
subsections (l) and (2) to have their children diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire ““”“”°’“m
receive primary and secondary school instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
instruction in the language of the English or et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorité
French linguistic minority population of a Sfrancophone ou anglophone d’une province: 5
Province a) s‘exerce partout dans la province ou le
(a) applies wherever in the province the nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce
number of children of citizens who have droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur
such a right is sufficient to warrant the endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics,
provision to them out of public funds oflO de l’instruction dans la langue de la IO
minority language instruction; and minorité;
(b) includes, where the number of those b) comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces
children so warrants, the right to have enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire
them receive that instruction in minority instruire dans des etablissements d’ensei-
language educational facilities provided I5 gnement de la minorité linguistique finan- l5
out of public funds. ces sur les fonds publics.
Enforcement Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (l) Toute personne, victime de viola- R9¢W_m‘”¢=\>’
as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui §,’,‘f,‘,§§‘§,‘°,,?,;‘§,é_,
infringed or denied may apply to a court of lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 2Os’adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20
as the court considers appropriate and just in nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-
the circumstances. venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsec- (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visée au é{[f$=vflbi|ié§
tion (l), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (l), le tribunal a conclu que des p,Z,fv”Q°,;’,:? “
obtained in a manner that infringed or 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 ri§<i\i¢r;\i9n\d¢ denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces dclajusiicc if it is established that, having regard to all elements de preuve sont écartés s‘il est etabli, the circumstances, the admission of it in the eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa~ proceedings would bring the administration 3Otion est susceptible de déconsidérer l’admi-30 ofjustice into disrepute. nistration de la justice. General Dispositions générales 25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit Ma§””=” 48$ , tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- certains droits et libertes ne porte pas strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any atteinte aux droits ou libertes — ancestraux, aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 issus de traites ou autres — des peuples 35 that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of autochtones du Canada, notamment: Canada iflcluding a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la (a) any rights or freedoms that have been Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763; Te°°E”iZ¢d by the ROW! PY°¢lamati°n °f b) aux droits ou libertés acquis par regle- October 7, 1763; and 40 ment de revendications territoriales. 40 (b) any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement. 26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit Mfiggigfl {ifs ‘ tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- 45 certains droits et libertés ne constitue pas fi’§e’,,és’°’S° l3564 COMMONS DEBATES December l, 1981 Multicultural heritage Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes Rights respecting certuin schools preserved Application to territories and territorial uulhorities Legislative powers not extended Applictnlon of C huricr lzxccplitm Exception where express dcclurtit ion The Constitution strued as denying the existence of any other une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui rights or freedoms that exist in Canada. existent au Canada. 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation de la presente Mflifuicyldil manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avcc l’objectif de pro- enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Smouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 Canadians. patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens. 28. Notwithstanding anything in this 28. lndépendamment des autres disposi- F-sulilédc Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to tions dc la presente charte, les droits et liber- in it arc guaranteed equally to malc and tes qui y sont mentionnés sontgarantis égalc- dcuxwxcs female persons. lOment aux personnes des deux sexes. l0 29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 29. Les dispositions de la presente charte Mvinlivnw _ derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile- anteed by or under the Constitution of ges garantis en vertu dc la Constitution du Canada in respect of denominational, sepa- Canada concernant les écoles séparées ct rate or dissentient schools. 15 autres écoles confessionnelles. l5 30. A reference in this Charter to a prov~ 30. Dans la presente charte, les disposi- /\i>n!i¢5\liun=\u\
ince or to the legislative assembly or legisla< tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature ‘°””°”°‘ turc ofa province shall be deemed to include ou leur assemblée legislative visent égale~ a reference to the Yukon Territory and the ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 2()Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorités législativcs 20 legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes. be. 3l. Nothing in this Charter extends the 31. La presente charte n‘élargit pas les legislative powers ofany body or authority. competences législatives dc quelque orga- nisme ou autorite que ce soit. No|t~el.|rgi.\.\c- ment des Ct)l1lpélC|\CL‘~’ législattivox Application ofCharter Application de la charte 32. (l) This Charter applies 25 32. (1) La presente charte s‘applique: 25 I/vrniitictitiun dc (a) to the Parliament and government of a) au Parlement et au gouvernement du A “C Canada in respect of all matters within the Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant authority of Parliament including all mat- du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer- tcrs relating to the Yukon Territory and nent le territoire du Yukon ct les tcrritoi— Northwest Territories; and 30 res du Nord»Ouest; 30 (b) to the legislature and government of b) a la legislature ct au gouvcrnement dc each province in respect of all matters chaque province, pour tous les domaines within the authority of the legislature of relevant de cette législature. each province. (Z) Notwithstanding subsection (l), sec-35 (2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), l‘ar- Rcslriwufl tion l5 shall not have effect until three years ticle l5 n‘a d‘effet que trois ans apres l’en-35 after this section comes into force. trée en vigueur du present article. 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (l) Le Parlement ou la legislature (l]>;f_rlsi-lii>r\t1=~r
province may expressly declare in an Act of d‘une province peut adopter une loi oft il est c§;,1§L’°”
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressément declare que celle-ci ou une dc
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independammcnt-40
shall operate notwithstanding a provision d‘une disposition donnée dc l’article 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to l5 of articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte.
this Charter.

December l, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES
13565
The Canrtitulion
Operation of
°”°p“°” respect of which a declaration made under d’une declaration conforme au present article
this section is in effect shall have such opera- et en vigueur a l’cffet qu‘elle aurait sauf la
tion as it would have but for the provision of disposition en cause de la charte.
this Charter referred to in the declaration. 5
Five year
limitation
it comes into force or on such earlier date as ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en
may be specified in the declaration. vigueur.
RB-sflactmcfll (4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov~ l0 (4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau urie declaration visee au IO
subsection (l). paragraphe (1).
‘Five year (5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a
‘”‘”‘“’°” re-enactment made under subsection (4).
graphe (4).
Citation Titre
Ciwtion 34. This Part may be cited as the Canadi’— l5 34. Titre de la présente partie: Charla l5
an Charter of Rights and Freedoms, canadienne des droits el libertés,
PARTII PARTIE ll
RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF DROITS DES PEUPLES AUTOCHTONES DU
CANADA CANADA
R°_¢°_E””*°” <1‘ 35. (l) The existing aboriginal and treaty 35. (1) Les droits existants—ancestraux
:’Q::;;§‘a|a”d rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada ou issus de traités—des peuplesvautochtones
lwflly rights are hereby recognized and affirmed. du Canada sont reconnus et confirmes.
P¢Ti”i_1i9″ 1″ (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of2O (2) Dans la presente loi, < p::§,l,’§'(§}3 Canada” includes the Indian, lnuit and tones du Canada» s’entend notamment des
Canada” Metis peoples of Canada. Indiens, des Inuit et des Metis du Canada.
PART iii PARTIE iii
EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES PEREQUATION ET INEGALITES REGIONALES
C°m”\ilm¢”\1° 36. (l) Without altering the legislative 36. (1) Sous reserve des competences
p’°m°l°9cl“a’ authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures
opportunities
legislatures, or the rights of any of them with 25 et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement 25
respect to the exercise of their legislative et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-
authority, Parliament and the legislatures, ments federal et provinciaux, s’engagent a:
together with the government of Canada and a) pmmouvoi; yégamé d¢5 Qhanggs de
the provincial governments, are committed to mus 135 (janadiens dans [3 rgghgfchg de
(a) promoting equal opportunities for the 30 leur bien~etre; 30
W°ll’b¢l”8 0f Ca”3diflfl$; b) favoriser le developpement économique
(b) furthering economic development to pour réduirel’inegalité des chances;
1’¢d”¢°dl5Pa1’l’lY in °PP°1’1l1f1i¢i¢S; and c) fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un
(c) providing essential public services of niveau de qualite acceptable, les services
reasonable quality to all Canadians. 35 publics essentiels. 35
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in (2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l’objet
(3) A declaration made under subsection (3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) Sblyfifiv
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after cesse d’av0ir effet a la date qui y est precisee W ‘°
Nouvellc
adoption
(5) Le paragraphe (3) s‘applique a toute “!?\;_Y§_°‘}l°
declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- ‘U ‘°
Tim:
Confirmation
des droits
existanls des”
peuples
autochtones
Definition dc
‘peuples
autochtones du
Canada-
Engagements
relaiifs 5
l‘éga|iie des
chances

I3S66 COMMONS
DEBATES December I, I981
Commitment
respecting
public services
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of
territories
General
procedure for
amending
Constitution of
Canada
The Constitution
(2) Parliament and the government of
Canada are committed to the principle of
making equalization payments to ensure that
provincial governments have sufficient reve-
nues to provide reasonably comparable levels
of public services at reasonably comparable
levels of taxation.
PART IV
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
37. (I) A constitutional conference com-
posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and
(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du
Canada prennent l’engagement de principe
de faire des paiements de peréquation pro-
pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-
Sciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre
en mesure d‘assurer les services publics a un
niveau dc qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement
comparables.
PARTIE IV
CONFERENCE CONSTITUTIONNELLE
37. (I) Dans l’annee suivant l’entrée en
vigueur de la resente artie, le premier
P P
the first ministers of the provinces shall be lOministre du Canada convoque une conference
convened by the Prime Minister of Canada
within one year after this Part comes into
force.
(2) The conference convened under sub-
constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers
ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
(2) Sont placees a l’ordre du jour de la
section (I) shall have included in its agenda l5conference visee au paragraphe (I) les ques-
an item respecting constitutional matters
that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of
Canada, including the identification and
definition of the rights of those peoples to be
tions constitutionnelles qui interessent direc-
tement les peuples autochtones du Canada,
notamment la determination et la definition
des droits de ces peuples a inscrire dans la
Eng-ugenieni
relatif uux
services publies
5
Conference
‘0C0n$lituIll)rt-
nclle
Participation
‘ 5 des peuples
autochtones
included in the Constitution of Canada, and 2OConstitution du Canada. Le premier ministre 20
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite
representatives of those peoples to participate
in the discussions on that item.
du Canada invite leurs representants a parti-
ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions.
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite §;rlli¢ii1¢:li,<>n
invite elected representatives of the govern- 25 des representants elus des gouvernements du cm °”°s
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North- territoire du Yukon et des territoires du 25
west Territories to participate in the discus-
sions on any item on the agenda of the atoute question placeeal’ordre dujour dela
conference convened under subsection (I) conference visee au paragraphe (1) et qui,
Nord~Ouest a participer aux travaux relatifs
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, 3Oselon lui, interesse direetement le territoire
directly affects the Yukon Territory and the du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest, 30
Northwest Territories.
PART V
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA
PARTIE V
PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
38. (I) An amendment to the Constitution 38. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Prvsélilurg
of Canada may be made by proclamation etre modifiée par proclamation du gouver- :‘“°<§,§?F’,c°Mf,n issued by the Governor General under the 35 neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and blies of at least two-thirds of the provinces autorisée a la fois 2 a) par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes; b) par des resolutions des assemblees (b) resolutions of the legislative assem~4O legislatives d’au moins deux tiers des pro- vinces dont la population confondue repré~ 35 December i, 1981 commons DEBATES 13567 Majority of members Expression of dissent Revocation oi dissent Restriction on proclamation Idcm Compensation Arncndrnent by unanimous consent The Constitution sente, selon le recenscment general lc plus recent at l‘epoque, au moins cinquaiite pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection 5 (2) Une modification faite conformement 5 M”l”‘i\¢¥l'”Pl° (1) that derogates from the legislative au paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire at la powers, the proprietary rights or any other competence legislative, aux droits de pro- rights OI‘ privileges of the legislature or gov- priete ou a tous autres droits ou privileges ernment of a province shall require a resolu- d’une legislature ou d’un gouvernement pro- tion supported by a majority of the members lOvincial exige une resolution adoptee a la I0 of each of the Senate, the House of Com- inajorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux mons and the legislative assemblies required et des députes de chacune des assemblees under subsection (1). législatives du nombre requis de provinces. (3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visee au paragraphe l>5*=\¢@“r<1
tion (2) shall not have effect in a provinceI5(2) est sans effet dans une province dont 15
the legislative assembly of which has 1’assemb1ee legislative a, avant la prise dc la
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution proclamation, exprime son desaccord par une
supported by a majority of its members prior resolution adoptee a la majorite des deputes,
to the issue of the proclamation to which the sauf si cette assemblée, par resolution egalc-
amendment relates unless that legislative 2Oment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son 20
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup~ desaccord et autorise la modification.
ported by a majority of its members, revokes
its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the (4) La resolution de desaccord visee au 1-fyésdii
purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at 25 paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquée a tout d““c°°’d
any time before or after the issue of the moment, independamment de la date de la
proclamation to which it relates. proclamation a laquelle elle so rapporte. 25
that have, in the aggregate, according to
the then latest general census, at least fifty
per cent of the population of all the
provinces.
39. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 39. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra- Rwiislitin
under subsection 38(1) before the expiration phe 38(1) ne peut etre prise dans l‘annec
of one year from the adoption of the resolu- 30suivant l‘adoption de la resolution a l’origine
tion initiating the amendment procedure de la procedure de modification que si l’as-
thereundcr, unless the legislative assembly of semblee legislative de chaque province a 30
each province has previously adopted a reso- prealablcment adopte une resolution d’agre-
lution of assent or dissent. ment ou de desaccord
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued 35 (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe tdst“
under subsection 38(1) after the expiration 38(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l’adoption do la resolution a l’origine 35
lution initiating the amendment procedure dc la procedure de modification.
thereunder.
40. Where an amendment is made under 40 40. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Cvittncnsation
subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s‘app1ique
legislative powers relating to education or pas une modification faite conformement au
other cultural matters from provincial legis- paragraphe 38(1) et relative, en matiere4O
latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d‘education ou dans d’autres domaines cultu-
reasonable compensation to any province to 45 rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-
which the amendment does not apply. ves provinciales au Parlement.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of 41. Toute modification dc la Constitution Cgissfltflmcnl
Canada in relation to the following matters du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-45“ “””°

13568 COMMONS DEBATES December l, l98l
Amcndliwnl by
g al . . . t .
,,f§c°¢’d,,,c of Canada in relation to the following mat-2Otio‘n du Canada portant)sur les questions 20 :,°;§?fic°3,§,“
Exception
Amendment of
provisions
relating to some
but not all
provinces
The Constitution
may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of
Canada only where authorized by resolutions
of the Senate and House of Commons and of
the legislative assembly of each province:
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a
province;
(b) the right of a province to a number of
members in the House of Commons not l0
less than the number of Senators by which
the province is entitled to be represented at
the time this Part comes into force;
(c) subject to section 43, the use of the
English or the French language;
(d) the composition of the Supreme Court
of Canada; and
(e) an amendment to this Part.
42. (l) An amendment to the Constitution
ters may be made only in accordance with
subsection 38(1):
(a) the principle of proportionate
representation of the provinces in the
l5
tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur
general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-
risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la
Chambre des communes et de l‘assemblee
5 legislative de chaque province : 5
a) la charge de Reine, celle dc gouverneur
general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
b) le droit d’une province d‘avoir a la
Chambre des communes un nombre de
deputés au moins égal at celui des senateurs 10
par lesquels elle est habilitée :31 etre repre-
sentee lors de l’entree en vigueur de la
presente partie;
c) sous reserve de l’article 43, l’usage du
frangais ou de l‘anglais; I 5
d) la composition de la Cour supreme du
Canada;
e) la modification de la presente partie.
42. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu~ Piwégurs
suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-
phe 38(1) :
a) le principe de la representation propor-
tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des
House of Commons prescribed by the25 communes prévu par la Constitution du 25
Constitution of Canada;
(b) the powers of the Senate and the
method of selecting Senators;
(c) the number of members by which a
Canada;
b) les pouvoirs du Sénat et le mode de
selection des senateurs;
0) le nombre des sénateurs par lesquels
province is entitled to be represented in the 30 une province est habilitée a etre représen- 30
Senate and the residence qualifications of
Senators;
(d) subject to paragraph 4l(d), the
Supreme Court of Canada;
tee et les conditions de residence qu‘ils
doivent remplir;
d) sous reserve de l’alinéa 41d), la Cour
supreme du Canada;
(e) the extension of existing provinces into 35 e) le rattachement aux provinces existan- 35
the territories; and
(f) notwithstanding any other law or prac-
tice, the establishment of new provinces.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply
tes de tout ou partie des territoires;
j) par derogation a toute autre loi ou
usage, la creation de provinces.
(2) Les paragraphes 38(2) a (4) ne s’appli- Emvtisn
in respect of amendments in relation to mat- 4Oquent pas aux questions mentionnees au 4O
ters referred to in subsection (1).
43. An amendment to the Constitution of
Canada in relation to any provision that
applies to one or more, but not all, provinces,
paragraphe (1).
43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du “y!<><:ig<=;;'<>” 1
r
Canada applicables a certaines .provinces csfmim
seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par P|'<>Vi”¢¢$
including 45 proclamation du gouverneur general sous le 45
(a) any alteration to boundaries between
provinces, and
grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des
resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des

December l, l98l COMMONS DEBATES 13569
Amendments
by Parliament
Amendments
by provincial
legislatures
initiation of
amendment
procedures
Revocation of
authorization
Amendments
without Senate
resolution
Computation of
period
Advice to issue
proclamation
The Constitution
(b) any amendment to any provision that communes et dc l‘assemblee legislative de
relates to the use of the English or the chaque province concernee. Le present arti~
French language within a province, cle s‘applique notamment :
may be made by proclamation issued by the a) aux changements du trace des frontie-
Governor General under the Great Seal of 5 res interprovinciales; 5
Canada Only Where 5° authofiled by 1’¢$°l”‘ I2) aux modifications des dispositions rela-
tions of the Senate and House of Commons mes 5 yusage du (,-angais Cu dc 1‘ang]a1s
and of the legislative assembly of each prov- dans une pmvin¢c_
ince to which the amendment applies.
44. Sous reserve des articles 41 et 42, le lOM0d”i¢@\\i0n
Parlement a competence exclusive pour l]>“,,’,|]§,“c,,,
modifier les dispositions de la Constitution
du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif fedé~
ral, au Senat ou =1 la Chambre des
communes, l5
44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parlia- IO
ment may exclusively make laws amending
the Constitution of Canada in relation to the
executive government of Canada or the
Senate and House of Commons.
45. Subject to section 41, the legislature l5 45. Sous reserve dc l’article 41, une legis- Mmpficativn
of each province may exclusively make laws lature a competence exclusive pour modifier l’§gifl°§,um
amending the constitution of the province. la constitution dc sa province.
46. (l) The procedures for amendment 46. (l) L’initiative des procedures de lflitiélivsdfl
under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be modification visees aux articles 38, 41, 42 et2Op’°°°d“’°5
initiated either by the Senate or the House of2O 43 appartient au Senat, it la Chambre des
Commons or by the legislative assembly of a communes ou at une assemblée legislative.
province.
(2) A resolution of assent made for the (2) Unc resolution d’agrement adoptee P9§*i’>i(l_ilé<i¢
purposes of this Part may be revoked at any dans le cadre dc la presente partie peut etre ‘°V°°“ ‘°”
time before the issue of a proclamation 25revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la 25
authorized by it. proclamation qu’elle autorise.
47. (l) An amendment to the Constitution 47. (l) Dans les cas vises at Particle 38, 4i, M°<“F,’s=*li°§\
of Canada made by proclamation under scc~ 42 ou 43, il peut etre passe outre au defaut §i,”§§§ZT’“”°“
tion 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a d‘autorisation du Senat si celuieci n’a pas
resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue 3Oadopté de resolution dans un delai de cent 30
of the proclamation if, within one hundred quatre-vingts jours suivant l‘adoption dc celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the dc la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons ofa resolution authoriz- derniere, apres l‘expiration du delai, adopte
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
a resolution and if, at any time after the 35
expiration of that period, the House of Com-
mons again adopts the resolution.
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au 35C<>m;>H!a\i°”
gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (l), ne sont pas comptées les dudck“
computing the one hundred and eighty day 4Operiodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
period referred to in subsection (l). proroge ou dissous.
48. The Queen’s Privy Council for 48. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le Dcmafldcés
Canada shall advise the Governor General to Canada demande au gouverneur general de 4O”‘°da’“a”°”
issue a proclamation under this Part forth- prendre, conformement a la presente partie,
with on the adoption of the resolutions 45 une proclamation des l‘adoption des resolu-

l357O
COMMONS DEBATES December l, I98!
Constitutional
conference
Amendment to
Cormimrion
Au, I867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources.
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from
provinces of
l’¢SOU|’CCS
The Conslilulion
required for an amendment made by procla-
mation under this Part.
49. A constitutional conference composed
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the
tions prévues par cette partie pour une modi-
fication par proclamation.
49. Dans les quinze ans suivant l’entrée en Cvntéfcncc
vigueur de la présente partie, le premier f,‘;]‘,5c’ ““°”‘
first ministers of the provinces shall be con- 5 ministre du Canada convoque une conference 5
vened by the Prime Minister of Canada
within fifteen years after this Part comes into
force to review the provisions of this Part.
PART Vl
/\Ml3NDMl.-INT TO THE CONSTITUTION ACT,
1867
50. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly
constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers
ministres provinciaux ct lui-meme, en vue du
réexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
PARTIE VI
MODIFICATION DE LA LOI
CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1867
50. La L0!‘ constitutionnelle de I867 ll/l<;<“fi¢¢=1i@rHl¢
2| OI
named the British North America Act, 1867) 10 (antérieurement désignée sous le titre : Acre lO,,,,,f,,,~,,,,,-,,,,_
is amended by adding thereto, immediately
after section 92 thereof, the following head-
ing and section:
“N0n—Renewable Natural Resources,
Fore.s’!ry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (l) In each province, the legisla-
ture may exclusively make laws in relation l5
10
(:1) exploration for non-renewable natu-
ral resources in the province;
(b) development, conservation and
management of non-renewable natural 20
resources and forestry resources in the
province, including laws in relation to
the rate of primary production there-
from; and
(c) development, conservation and man~ 25
agement of sites and facilities in the
province for the generation and produc-
tion of electrical energy.
(2) ln each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the export from 30
the province to another part of Canada of
the primary production from non-renew-
able natural resources and forestry
resources in the province and the produc-
tion from facilities in the province for the 35
generation of electrical energy, but such
laws may not authorize or provide for
discrimination in prices or in supplies
exported to another part of Canada.
de 1’/tmérique du Nora’ britannique, 1867) m’I/<-(M867 est modifies par insertion, apres l‘article 92, de la rubrique ct de Particle suivants: “Resources naiurelles non renouvelables, ressourcesforestiéres er énergie éleclrique 92A. (I) La legislature dc chaque pro- Comnétcncc vince a competence exclusive pour légifé- l5 pr°V'”°””’ rer dans les domaines suivants: a) prospection des ressources naturelles non renouvelables de la province; b) exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvela- 20 bles et des ressources forestiéres de la province, y compris leur rythme de pro- duction primaire; c) aménagement, conservation ct ges- tion des emplacements et des installa-25 tions de la province destinés a la produc- tion d’énergie électrique. (2) La legislature de chaque province a EXr>}>rH\li<>”
competence pour légiférer en ce qui con-
cerne l’exportation, hors dc la province, a 30
destination d’une autre partie du Canada,
de la production primaire tirée des ressour-
ces naturelles non renouvelables et des res-
sources forestieres de la province, ainsi que
de la production d’énergie électrique de la 35
province, sous réserve de ne pas adopter dc
lois autorisant ou prévoyant des disparités
do prix on des disparités dans les exporta-
tions destinées a une autre partie du
Canada. 40

December l, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13571
/luihority of
l’nr|ii\men(
Taxation of
resources
“Primary
production”
Existing powers
or rights
Idem
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates
from the authority of Parliament to enact
laws in relation to the matters referred to
in that subsection and, where such a law of
Parliament and a law of a province con~ 5
fliet, the law of Parliament prevails to the
extent of the conflict.
(4) ln each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the raising of
money by any mode or system of taxation l0
in respect of
(a) non-renewable natural resources
and forestry resources in the province
and the primary production therefrom,
and l5
(b) sites and facilities in the province
for the generation of electrical energy
and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported
in whole or in part from the province, but 20
such laws may not authorize or provide for
taxation that differentiates between pro-
duction exported to another part of
Canada and production not exported from
the province. 25
(5) The expression “primary produc~
tion” has the meaning assigned by the
Sixth Schedule.
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5)
derogates from any powers or rights that a 30
legislature or government of a province
had immediately before the coming into
force of this section.”
51. The said Act is further amended by
The Constitution
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas l’f*””_°i”1″
atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de légifé» P“’“”‘°”‘
rer dans les domaines visés A ce paragra-
phe, les dispositions d’une loi du Parlement
adoptee dans ces domaines l’emportant sur S
les dispositions incompatibles d’une loi
provinciale.
(4) La législature de chaque province a T=\_>§Miv”f1¢*
competence pour prélever des sommes ‘°”°“’°°“
d‘argent par tout mode ou systeme deli)
taxation:
a) des ressources naturelles non renou-
velables et des ressources forestieres de
la province, ainsi que de la production
primaire qui en est tirée; l5
b) des emplacements et des installations
de la province destinés a la production
d‘énergie électrique, ainsi que de cette
production meme.
Cette compétence peut s’exercer indépen~ 20
damment du fait que la production en
cause soit ou non, en totalité ou en partie,
exportée hors de la province, mais les lois
adoptées dans ces domaines ne peuvent
autoriser ou prévoir une taxation qui éta- 25
blisse une distinction entre la production
exportée a destination d’une autre partie
du Canada et la production non exportée
hors dc la province.
(5) L’expression “production primaire» a 30~l:!r<;d’§;”°” t > ; . -t I ill n
le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme P
annexe.
(6) Les paragraphes (l) a (5) ne portent P°”_”?i“_9*f _
pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits détenus d’°’Mm“’“°
par la legislature ou le gouvernement 35
d’une province lors de l‘entrée en vigueur
du present article.»
51. Ladite loi est en outre modifiée par Wm
adding thereto the following Schedule: 35 adjonction de l’annexe suivante :
“THE SIXTH SCHEDULE
Primary Production from N0n—Renewab1e
Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this
Act,
< Production primaire tirée des ressources
naturelles non renouvelables et des
ressources forestiéres
1. Pour l’application de l’article 92A : 40

13572 COMMONS
DEBATES December l,
l98l
Primacy of
Constitution of
Canada
Constitution of
Canada
Amendments to
Constitution of
Canada
Repcnls and
“CW HZITHZS
The Constitution
(a) production from a non-renewable
natural resource is primary production
therefrom if
(i) it is in the form in which it exists
upon its recovery or severance from its
natural state, or
(ii) it is a product resulting from proc-
essing or refining the resource, and is
not a manufactured product or a prod-
uct resulting from refining crude oil,
refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refin-
ing gases or liquids derived from coal or
refining a synthetic equivalent of crude
oil; and
(b) production from a forestry resource is
primary production therefrom if it consists
of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, saw-
dust or any other primary wood product,
or wood pulp, and is not a product manu-
factured from wood.”
PART Vll
1
l5
20
a) on entend par production primaire tiree
d’une ressource naturelle non renouvela-
ble :
(i) soit le produit qui se presente sous la
meme forme que lors de son extraction 5
du milieu naturel,
(ii) soit le produit non manufacture dc
la transformation, du raffinage ou dc
l’affinage d’une ressource, a l‘cxception
du produit du raffinage du petrolc brut, lO
du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-
liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-
des derives du charbon ou du raffinage
d’un equivalent synthetique du petrole
brut; 15
b) on entend par production primaire tiree
d‘une ressource forestiere la production
constituée de billots, de poteaux, de bois
d’oeuvre, de copeaux, do sciure ou d’autre
produit primaire du bois, ou de pate dc 20
bois, a l’exception d’un produit manufac-
ture en bois.»
PARTIE Vll
GENERAL DlSPOSlTlONS GENERALES
52. (l) The Constitution of Canada is the 52. (l) La Constitution du Canada est la PYi”‘fl_”lé_d¢|=\
supreme law of Canada, and any law that is loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes E:::j:,“l’°“d”
inconsistent with the provisions of the Con- les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre 25
stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regle de droit.
25
of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a) the Canada Act, including this Act;
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule I; and
(c) any amendment to any Act or order 30
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of
(2) La Constitution du Canada comprend : ggxtétqutiofldu
a) la Lot‘ sur le Canada, y compris la
presente loi;
b) les textes législatifs et les décrets figu- 30
rant a l’annexe l;
0) les modifications des textes législatifs et
des decrets mentionnes aux alinéas a) ou
b).
(3) La Constitution du Canada ne peut35M<>t1iFi¢ati<>”
Canada shall be made only in accordance etre modifiee que conformement aux pou-
with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conferes par elle.
35
tion of Canada.
53. (l) The enactments referred to in 53. (l) Les textes legislatifs et les decrets Abrvtzaiioq =1
Column l of Schedule l are hereby repealed enumerés a la colonne I de l’annexe I sont “°“v°a“X“”°S
or amended to the extent indicated in abroges ou modifies dans la mesure indiquée 40
Column ll thereof and, unless repealed, shall a la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent
continue as law in Canada under the names 4Oen vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous
set out in Column llI thereof. les titres mentionnes a la colonne lll.

December l, l98l COMMONS DEBATES l3573_
Consequentinl
amendments
Repeal and
consequential
amendments
Frcnch version
otConsiitution
of Canada
English and
French versions
of certain
constitutional
texts
English and
French versions
of this Act
Commence-
ment
Commence-
ment of
paragraph
23( l )(a) in
respect of
Quebec
The Constitution
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Tout texte législatif ou reglementaire,
Act, that refers to an enactment referred to sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention
in Schedule l by the name in Column l d’un textelégislatif ou décretfigurantal’an-
thereof is hereby amended by substituting nexe l par le titre indique a la colonne l est
for that name the corresponding name in Smodifie par substitution a ce titre du titre 5
Column llI thereof, and any British North correspondant mentionne a la colonne Ill;
America Act not referred to in Schedule I tout Acte de l’Amerique du Nord britanni-
may be cited as the Constitution Act fol- que non mentionne a l’annexe l peut etre cite
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de
enactment. lOl’indication de l’annee de son adoption etlO
eventuellement de son numero.
Modifications
correlaiivcs
Abrogntion ct
modifications
qui en
découlcnt
54. Part lV is repealed on the day that is 54. La partie lV est abrogée un an apres
one year after this Part comes into force and l’entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le
this section may be repealed and this Act gouverneur general peut, par proclamation
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le l5
of Part lV and this section, by proclamation I5 present article et apporter en consequence de
issued by the Governor General under the cette double abrogation les amenagements
Great Seal of Canada. qui s’imposent a la presente loi.
55. A French version of the portions of the 55. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada ‘/”Wt
Constitution of Canada referred to in est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs
Schedule l shall be prepared by the Minister 20 delais, la version francaise des parties de la wflsiiwlivnnvls
of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos- Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l’an-
sible and, when any portion thereof sufficient nexe l; toute partie suffisamment importante
to warrant action being taken has been so est, des qu’elle est prete, deposee pour adop-
prepared, it shall be put forward for enact~ tion par proclamation du gouverneur general 25
ment by proclamation issued by the Gover-25 sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-
nor General under the Great Seal of Canada ment a la procedure applicable a l’époque a
pursuant to the procedure then applicable to la modification des dispositions constitution-
an amendment of the same provisions of the nelles qu’elle contient.
Constitution of Canada.
56. Where any portion of the Constitution 39 56. Les versions francaise et anglaise des 30 V¢”i<>{‘§
of Canada has been or is enacted in English parties dc la Constitution du Canada adop- {,’,“,“,§,?;,§°,,°,’
and French or where a French version of any tees dans ces deux langues ont egalement csrlainstttlss
portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de °°““’““’°““°l5
ant to section 55, the English and French loi, des l’adoption, dans le cadre de l’article
versions of that portion of the Constitution 3555, d’une partie de la version francaise dc la 35
are equally authoritative. Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.
Versions
francaise et
anglaise do la
présente loi
57. The English and French versions of 57. Les versions francaise et anglaise de la
this Act are equally authoritative. presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
58. Subject to section 59, this Act shall 58. Sous reserve de l’article 59, la presente 4OE_””¢¢@”
come into force on a day to be fixed by4Oloi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par pro- v’g“°“’
proclamation issued by the Queen or the clamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Canada.
59. (l) Paragraph 23(l)(a) shall come 59. (l) L’alinea 23(l)a) entre en vigueur S-ifltltjzrcéte
into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be 45 pour le Quebec a la date fixee par prociama- 451-,,g|;,,é,é3(,g,,)
pourle ué ec

13574
COMMONS DEBATES December l, l98l
Authorization
of Quebec
Repeal of this
section
Short title and
citations
The Constitution
fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general
the Governor General under the Great Seal sous le grand sceau du Canada.
of Canada.
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1) (2) La proclamation visée au paragraphe /\”5<;’i§’~\\i<>*\ *1“
shall be issued only where authorized by the 5(1) ne peut etre prise qu’apres autorisation Q“° cc
legislative assembly or government of de l’assemblée legislative ou du gouverne- 5
Quebec. ment du Quebec.
(3) This section may be repealed on the (3) Le present article peut etre abrogéa la /\i3r<>sMil>r!d\I
day paragraph 23(l)(a) comes into force in date d’entrée en vigueur de l‘alinéa 23(l)a) P’°““l”“°’°
respect of Quebec and this Act amended and l0pour le Quebec, et la présente loi faire l‘ob-
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et I0
of this section, by proclamation issued by the changements de numérotation qui en décou»
Queen or the Governor General under the lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du
Great Seal of Canada. gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du
Canada.
60. This Act may be cited as the C0nsti- l5 60. Titre abrégé de la présente annexe: l5Ti\r¢§
tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts Loi constitulionnelle de I981; titre commun
I867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a l975
cited together as the Constitution Acts, I867 (n° 2) et de la présente loi: Lois constitu-
to 1981. lionnelles de I867 Z1 I981.

13576 COMMONS DEBATES December 1, 1981
The Constitution
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981
MODERNIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Column I Column ll Column Ill
item Act Affected
Amendment
New Name
British North America Act, 1867,
30-31 Vict., c. 3 (U.K.)
An Act to amend and continue the
Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to
establish and provide for the Gov-
ernment of the Province of Manito-
ba, 1870, 33 Vict., c. 3 (Can)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting Rupert‘s Land and the
North-Western Territory into the
union, dated the 23rd day of June,
1870
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting British Columbia into the
Union, dated the 16th day of May,
1871
British North America Act, 1871,
34-35 Vict., c. 28 (U.K,)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting Prince Edward Island into
the Union, dated the 26th day of
June, 1873
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875,
38-39 Vict., c. 38 (U.I(.)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting all British possessions and
Territories in North America and
islands adjacent thereto into the
Union, dated the 31st day of July,
1880
(1) Section 1 is repealed and
the following substituted therefor:
“1. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1867.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
(3) Class 1 of section 91 is
repealed.
(4) Class 1 of section 92 is
repealed.
(1) The long title is repealed
and the following substituted
therefor:
“Manitoba Act, 1870.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
Section 1 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“l. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I871.”
Constitution Act, 1867
Manitoba Act, 1870
Rupert’s Land and North~West~
ern Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Constitution Act, 1871
Prince Edward Island Terms of
Union
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order

December 1, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13577
ANNEXEI
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
ACTUALISATION DE LA CONSTITUTION
The Constitution
Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III
Loi visée
Modification
Nouveau titre
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1867, 30-31 Vict., c. 3
(R.-U.)
Acte pour amender et continuer
l‘acte trente-deux et trente-trois Vic-
toria, chapitre trois, et pour établir
et constituer le gouvernement de la
province de Manitoba, 1870, 33
Vict., c. 3 (Canada)
Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant la Terre de Rupert et le
Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date
du 23juin1870
Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant la Colombie-Britannique,
en date du 16 mai 1871
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1871, 34-35 Vict., c. 28
(R.-U.)
Arrété en conseil de Sa ’Majesté
admettant l’Ile-du-Prince-Edouard,
en date du 26 juin 1873
Acte du Parlement du Canada,
1875, 38-39 Vict., c. 38 (R,-U.)
Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant dans l’Union tous les ter-
ritoires et possessions britanniques
dans l’Amérique du Nord, et les iles
adjacentcs =2 ces territoires et posses-
sions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
(1) L’article 1 est abrogé et
remplacé par ce qui suit :
tl. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I867.»
(2) L’article 20 est abrogé.
(3) La catégorie I de l’article
91 est abrogée.
(4) La catégorie 1 de l’article
92 est abrogée.
(1) Le titre complet est abrogé
et remplacé par ce qui suit :
¢L0i de 1870 sur le Mant’—
toba.»
(2) L‘artic1e 20 est abrogé.
L’artic1e 1 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
ttl. Titre abrégé 2 Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I871.»
Loi constitutionnelle de 1867
Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba
Décret en conseil sur la terre de
Rupert et le territoire du Nord-
Ouest
Conditions dc l’adhésion de la
Colombie-Britannique
Loi constitutionnelle de 1871
Conditions de 1’adhésion de
l‘I1e-du-Prince-Edouard
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du
Canada
Décret en conseil sur les territoi-
res adjacents

13578 COMMONS DEBATES December 1, 1981
The Constitution
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981-—Continued
Column I Column ll Column I11
Item Act Affected Amendment New Name
British North America Act, 1886,
49-50 Vict., c. 35 (U.K.)
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act,
1889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (U.K.)
Canadian Speaker (Appointment of
Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess,, 59
Vict., c. 3 (U.K.)
The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw.
VII, c. 3 (Can.)
The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5
Edw. V11, c. 42 (Can.)
British North America Act, 1907, 7
Edw. Vll, c. ll (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1915,
5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1930,
20-21 Geo. V, e. 26 (U.K.)
Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22
Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1940,
3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1943,
6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1886.”
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1907.“
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1915.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I930.”
In so far as they apply to
Canada,
(a) section 4 is repealed; and
(b) subsection 7(1) is
repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1940.”
The Act is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1886
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act
1889
Alberta Act
Saskatchewan Act
Constitution Act, 1907
Constitution Act, 1915
Constitution Act, 1930
Statute of Westminster, 1931
Constitution Act, 1940

December 1, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13579
ANNEXE I (suite)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
The Constitution
Colonne I Colonne ll Colonne Ill
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1886. 49-50 Vict,, c. 35
(R–U1)
Acte du Canada (limites d’Ontario)
1889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (R.-U,)
Acte concernant l‘Orateur canadien
(nomination d’un suppléant) 1895,
2° session, 59 Vict., c. 3 (R.-U.)
Acte dc 1’A1berta, 1905, 4-5 Ed.
VI1, c. 3 (Canada)
Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5
Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1907, 7 Ed. V11, c, 11 (R,-U.)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, I915, 5-6 Geo. V, c, 45
(R–U»)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26
(R.-U.)
Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22
Geo, V, c. 4 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. V1, c. 36
(R-~U-)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, 0. 30
(R.-U.)
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem~
placé par ce qui suit :
~<3. Titre abrégé 1 Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I886.»
La 1oi est abrogée.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit 2
‘<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1907.»
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ee qui suit 1
‘<3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1915.»
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem~
placé par ce qui suit I
<3, Titre abrégé 2 Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I930.»
Dans la mesure ou ils s’app1i-
quent au Canada :
a) l’article 4 est abrogé;
b) le paragraphe 7(1) est
abrogé.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par cc qui suit :
12. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I940.»
La loi est abrogée.
Loi constitutionnelle de 1886
Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron
tieres de 1’Ontario)
Loi sur 1‘Alberta
Loi sur 1a Saskatchewan
Loi constitutionnelle de 1907
Loi constitutionnelle de 1915
Loi constitutionne11e dc 1930
Statut de Westminster de 1931
Loi constitutionnelle de 1940

13580 COMMONS DEBATES
December 1, 1981
The Constitution
SCHEDULEI
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, l981—Continued
Item
Column 1
Act Affected
Column ll
Amendment
Column lll
New Name
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
British North America Act, 1946,
9-10 Geo. V1, c, 63 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1949,
12-13 Geo. V1, c. 22 (U.K.)
British North America (No. 2) Act,
1949,13 Geo. V1, c. 81 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1951,
14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1952, 1
Eliz. ll, c, 15 (Can.)
British North America Act, 1960, 9
Eliz. 11, c. 2 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1964,
12-13 Eliz. ll, c. 73 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1965,
14 Eliz. ll, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
British North America Act, 1974,
23 Eliz. ll, c, 13, Part I (Can.)
The Act is repealed.
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Newfoundland Act.”
The Act is repealed.
The Act is repealed.
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I960.”
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1964.“
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1965.”
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. ll, c. 28, s. 38(1)
(Can.), is repealed and the fol-
lowing substituted therefor:
“3. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1974.”
Newfoundland Act
Constitution Act, 1960
Constitution Act, 1964
Constitution Act, 1965
Constitution Act, 1974

December 1, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES H5“
ANNEXE I (suite)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
The Constitution
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne ll
Modification
Colonne Ill
Nouveau titre
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. V1, c. 63
(R–U-)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22
(R.-U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c.
81 (R.-U.)
‘Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32
(R.-U.)
Acte dc 1‘Amerique du Nord britan-
nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. ll, c. 15
(Canada)
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1960, 9 E112. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. ll, c. 73
(R–U-)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. I1, c. 4, Partiel
(Canada)
Acte de |’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. ll, c. 13, Partie
1 (Canada)
La loi est abrogée.
L‘article 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
13. Titre abrégé : Loi sur
Terre—Neuve.»
La loi est abrogée.
La loi est abrogée.
La loi est abrogée.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
(2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1960.»
L’artic1e 2 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
‘<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I964.»
Ijartlcle 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
12. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle de I965.»
L‘artic1e 3, modifié par le para-
graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Eli-
zabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est
abrogé et remplacé par ce qui
suit :
<3. Titre abrégé cle la pré-
sente partie 2 Loi constitution-
nelle de I974.»
Loi sur Terre-Neuve
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
Loi constitutionnelle de 1964
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
Loi constitutionnelle de 1974

13582 COMMONS DEBATES
December 1, 1981
The Constitution
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 198l—C0ncIuded
Column II
Amendment
Column I
Item Act Affected
Column 111
New Name
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. ll, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.),
is repealed and the following sub-
stituted therefor:
“3. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act (N0. 1),
1975.”
29, British North America Act, 1975,
23-24 Eliz. ll, c. 28, Part 1 (Can.)
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act (N0. 2),
I975.”
30. British North America Act (No. 2),
1975, 23-24 Eliz. l1,c. 53 (Can.)
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Miss
MacDonald,—That the proposed Constitution Act I98]
be amended by striking out Section 40 and substituting
the following therefor:
“40. In the event that a province dissents from an
amendment conferring legislative jurisdiction on Par-
liament, the Government of Canada shall provide
reasonable compensation to the government of that
province, taking into account the per capita costs to
exercise that jurisdiction in the provinces which have
approved the amendment.”
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr.
Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Deans,~-That the amend-
ment be amended by striking out, in the first line, the
words “a province” and substituting the words “the
province of Quebec“.
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

December I, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13583
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
Colon ne I Colon ne II Colonne III
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan- L‘article 3, modifié par l’article Loi constitutionnelle n“ l de I975
nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, 3] de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c.
Partie I (Canada) 28 (Canada), est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
<3. Titre abrégé de la pré-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle n” I de I975.»
Acte dc l’Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3 est abrogé ct rem— Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de I975
nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 placé par ce qui suit:
(Canada) -:3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
80106-22
tutionnelle n° 2 de I975.»
Sur Famendement de M. Epp, appuyé par M”° Mac~
DonaId,—Qu’0n modifie le projet de Loi constitution-
nelle de I981 en retranchant l’article 40 et en le rempla-
gant par ce qui suit:
<<40. Si une province n’est pas d’acc0rd sur une modification qui donne compétence législative au Par- lement, le gouvernement du Canada doit indemniser raisonnablement le gouvernement de cette province, compte tenu du cofit per capita de Pexercice de cette competence dans les provinces qui ont approuvé la modification.» Et sur le sous-amendemeni de M. Broadbent, appuyé par M. Deans,~Qu’on modifie Vamendement, a la pre- miere ligne, en retranchan! les mots “une province» et en les remplaeant par les mots ala province de Québec». 13584 COMMON S DEBATES December l, I981 The Crmsliluiion [Translation] 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 contri- bution 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-~sovcreign, 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 1 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 chau- vinistic 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 shack- les 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 unemploy- ment 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 ymterday in the I-louse, 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. Q (I540) We want it to be impossible in the future for legislators to change, the most fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadi- an 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 December I, I98l COMMONS DEBATES _V_V Mi 3585 be the basic minimum, that nothing is keeping the provinces from doing more. As for the effects of that charter on Bill I01 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 I978, including Mr. Lévesque, and I quote: That every child of the francophone or anglophonc minority has the right to receive primary and secondary school instruction in his own tongue in every province wherever numbcrsjustify it. In Quebec, Bill 101 stipulates that the language of instruc- tion 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 [Oi 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 10!. 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 I975 to the current l68,000, a 33 per cent drop over six ycars. 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 I977, Mr. Speaker—it is because corporations thinks Bill I01 is 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 I977. Mr. Speaker, I read an article on that issue in Le Devair of November I8 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 I8. 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 it‘ 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 l0I‘?“
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 101, 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 I01 are maintained, namely, those concerning the
working language, those concerning the language of advertis~
ing, the language of trades and the language of the professions.
The essential aspects of Bill IOI 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

13586 COMMONS
DEBATES December I , I981
The (.‘0n.vt1’tution
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, espe~
cially 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 islund 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
thin 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 rapproche-
ment 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 feder-
al government was not a party to this agreement. It is recog-
nized 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 relin-
quished 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.
Q (I550)
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‘? I—Ias 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 circum-
stances 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

December l, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES M_i‘.}ssv
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 Progres-
sive 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 I5 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 col-
leagues will have an opportunity to speak for other provinces,
and I wholeheartedly support the points made yesterday by my
colleague from Provenchcr. 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 fol-
lowed up.” Well, it is very difficult to bank on the good
intentions—which I am not questioning-cxpressed 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 I—Ion. 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
The Constitution
told: Move any amendments you want, they will be rejected,
even if they areiworthwhilel 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.
q (I600)
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 cer-
tainly 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 essen-
tial 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 govern-
ments 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, accept-
able 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 govern-
ment 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 govern-
ment 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 agree-
ment without the participation of Quebec. We are not dealing
here with the separatists only. Mr. Ryan speaks on behalf of

13588 COMMONS
DEBATES December l, 1981
The Constitution
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 resolu~
tion 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 com-
promise possible in our common endeavour. l 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 Quebec-
ers 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.
Q (1600)
[English]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Gr:ice—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 Robcrval (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 hejust 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 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
Robcrval has asked her questions, does the hon. member for
Joliette want to answer‘?
Mr. La Sallez 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 provin-
cial 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 Minis-
ter of Canada, but l 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.
Q (l6l0)
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.

1
December l, 198! COMMONS
DEBATES 13589
Mr. La Salle: No way!
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Notre-Damc~de-
Grace-Lachine East.
[English]
Mr. Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, it is with
very mixed emotions that I address this constitutional resolu-
tion 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. I-Ion. members can read my speech
in this House of March l2 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 aborigi<
nal 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 I5, 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 guar-
antee 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 Constitution
The question of language rights is one of the most funda-
mental and basic issues to me, my people and my electorate. I
must say that language rights are probably the most funda~
mental 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, educa~
tional 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
I-Iouse in October of I980, 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(l)(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 bal~
ance in favour of separation in any separation referendum,
especially when those same rights have been guaranteed to

13590 COMMONS
DEBATES December 1, 1981
The Constitution
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. Levesque the freedom to
return to Quebec and state that the English-speaking provinces
were gauging up on Quebec. I reject that argument. I do not
believe for one minute that the English-speaking provinces
were gauging up on Quebec. As a matter of fact, Mr. Levesque
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. Levesque 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 govern-
ment’s doing, nor the Prime Miriister’s doing–it was not
anyone’s doing but Mr. Lévesque’s—-we are making conces-
sions to Quebec. There is no use making them to Mr.
Levesque; 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.
Q (1620)
When I first heard rumours that the government might
weaken its protection for minority language rights in educa-
tion, 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 see, I put that question to the govern-
ment 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 prov-
inces or in Quebec. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minis-
ter 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. It 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. It
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 interest-
ing. 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
FrcrlCl’t~Speaking, to have their children educated in their own official language
will bc 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 come 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 most beautiful and
noblest aspect of our tradition-—said: It is up to you in the federal government to
protect in the field of minority language education.
I-Ie 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 pub-
lished in 1978, put forward the constitutional proposals which
the Prime Minister had suggested at that time. The govern-
ment, approved by the cabinet-I was in the cabinet at that
time and I can recall approving——said this at page 9:

December 1, 1921 COMMONS DEBATES “S91
The renewal of the federation must guarantee the linguistic equality of its two
major communities, the English-speaking and the French~spcaking, 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 recog»
nized 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 proposals for a Charter Q/Rigliis
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 Qucbec‘s Bill l0l.”
This document was put out by the federal cabinet on October
‘6, I977. We find in Clause l the following:
Bill 101 is of concern to the federal Government because it will adversely
affect:
(a) 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‘: 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 rcspected.
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 l977 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:
(a) 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 Offi-
cial Languages of Canada”. This document was approved and
released by cabinet on Junc 21, 1977. In it similar statements
The Constitution
– lity of language rights for
2:} lgrligilegv Qrfiigiitatfii 2-ilgglriicophones outside of Quebec.
A150 Sm have the rgpori, of the Special Joint Committee of the
Senate and House of Commons on the C0fl5ti¥\-\1i°” °f
Canada 1 was 3 member of this committee. Several members
of today’s cabinet were also mcmb@\’$- This Same PTI”°iP1e was
approved. _ _ _ t
– 1963 h Mr. Pearson was prime minis er
angigcg ¥i’ze:nioPrime viziihister was minister of J’“5I\°°1 Mb“
such docfiiments were published. One Of Q1656 d°°um°I1iS is
entitled “Federalism for the Future”. What I am trying t°
demonstrate is that what I am suPP°m“g_haS been the 1°_“g‘
Standing policy of the party and ti}athSf:tig3n§:ngoes against
that policy. It is stated at page 13 ° i 3 ° ‘
Q (1620)
– – ¢ founding linguistic groups. the
1″ 3 °.°“””y. 5?“: “S1 ?“;i’ “iu0hy\’iilS$l- hint the guarantee of the linguistic
R”g°):f;V§F’?):t:rgX::\:‘;s uéornlganguaage is at once the extension of the individual
H < . . . . . – – 1‘ ‘al organization: fail to recognize the l?°”\§’.“fi‘;’>’. T: :%:g|?§]-ilspeaking Canadians and their will to
I‘ .
iiitlssexrsvc Cifiiada will be seriously weakened. ti 11°‘ d°$”°Y°d-
‘ I969 at the constitutional
h c document came out in w ‘
Tf E (23; ‘hf 1969 and is entitled “The Constitution and the
i>(:n>ci:<>r Canada” I cannot find the exact quotation, but it
goes on to say the same thinE~
I have here Book I, the first edition of the Report of the
Royal Commission on Bilingualismgand Biculturalism, and aé
page 123, recommendation 9, Whlch was 31° begmnlng 0
much of this, states:
Th re e we “Commend that gm right of Canadian parents to have their
ere r,
child educated in the official lanEll3Z¢ vi me” °”°i°° b‘ ‘°°”g“l’°°’ I” “‘°
FBI! .
. – d d lh t a-
cducational systems, the degree of implementation to cpen on e concert r
tion of the minority population.
_ D t 5 k ; Order, please. regret to interrupt the
h0IlYIli116l1‘?1lg‘:3fybUI)el?1€ellIm€ allotted to him has cXP\Ped~ He may
continue only with the unanimous consent Of tbs House-
Some hon. Members: Agreed-
Mr Deputy Speaker, There appears to be unanimous
consent.
M,-_ A||,-“and; Mr, Speaker, the House leader was kind
enough to (611 mg that he would give me extra time if that was
necessary, but I will not abuse that P1’i”n°g°-
While I am making a strong plea today for the protection of
the angiophone minority in Quebec in matters ofeducation, I
want to make clear that I have alw?y$ WP” and 5″“ am 3 “°1’Y
st,-(mg supporter Of francophone rights in Quebec and across
Canada. I was and still am a strong Pf°P°”°m °f aPP1Y”§g
section 133 of the BNA Act in Ontario, I have spoken in
favour of that in our caucus and in 311$ Housfi 0″ $9\’°1’al
occasions.
When the problems arose with les gens 46 1145’» I $”PP°1’§ed
bilingualism for air mlffh; controllers and for_people flying
aircraft in this country. When there W35 ii ¢l’~‘¢5i1°” °I eXPa“d’
ing the French television and radio “et“’°1’k T~hr°“3h°“‘

13592 COMMONS DEBATES December l, 1981
The Conslilulion
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 support-
ed 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 franeophones 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 anglo~
phones. 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, Dukho-
bors and certain small political parties who were discriminated
against by majorities in legislation—whether they were politi~
cal 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 I01 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 majori-
ties 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 I01, is to me a contradiction. I
must say that the particular clause they are referring to in Bill
I01 does not protect minorities.
In the last week I have had many English-speaking Canadi-
ans 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 IO per
cent. That is the principle you will find in the Official Lan-
guages 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

December l, I981 COMMONS
DEBATES l3593
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 anglo-
phone minority in Quebec.
Q (I640)
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 I5 years. If it
continues to be like that tomorrow at three o’clock, unfortu-
nately 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-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-
mand) for his impassioned speech. To my mind, he 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 Consti-
tution 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, I980, 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 govcrnment’s constitutional reso-
lution 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 govern-
ment’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 governments 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
The Constitution
which the package now enjoys. In fact, we may well have
ended up with something akin to what I would call an illegiti-
mate constitution in the sense that, lacking both public and
official support, it would thus not have had the moral author~
ity required to make it workable. It is to the lasting credit of
the Leader of the Opposition that he 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 repre-
sentatives in both Houses of Parliament. The Progressive
Conservative Members of Parliament have made a very valu-
able contribution to making that possible.
Certainly the new Constitution will be much more compat-
ible 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 approxi-
mately 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 Quebcc’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 courtsipresumably 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 Qucbec’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.
Chretien) 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

l3594 COMMONS DEBATES December 1, 1931
The Constitution
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 con-
tempt 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. Levesque at this crucial stage of the constitu-
tional 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 he entered politics to prevent.
Q H650]
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 explana-
tions or their arguments; that would be redundant. Suffice it to
say that the amendment would change the constitutional reso-
lution 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 amend-
ment is a major stumbling block to the inclusion of Quebec in
the national consensus. I think it behooves us on all sides of the
l-louse and in every party to do everything reasonable, every-
thing 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 feder-
al 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 ofthe special characters ofthe 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 compensa-
tion might seem an open invitation to provinces to withdraw
from national initiatives, thus creating the checkerboard feder-
alism 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 absolute-
ly 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 constitution-
al debate last year—we are practically celebrating the anniver-
sary 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-

December l, l98l COMMONS DEBATES 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 a 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 contri-
bution 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 recog-
nize themselves in the new Constitution.
Q (1700)
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 compro-
mise 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 under-
mining 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 Constitu-
tion 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.
The Constitution
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. (e)
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, I981
The House resumed consideration of the amended motion of
Mr. Chrétien respecting the Constitution of Canada, the
amendment thereto of Mr. Epp (p. l3492) and the subamend-
ment 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 with-
out 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 he 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

13596 COMMONS
DEBATES December 1, 1981
‘I‘Im (.‘un.r1lmIion
are quick to criticize and feel that the patriation resolution
does not go fur enough in protecting the rights of all Canadi-
ans, should rend ugnin what George Brown said in 1865 before
the Parliament of Canada:
The whole grcnl 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 n 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 Constitu-
tion 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 see 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. Of 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 Chart-
er, once it is in Canadian hands.
History is, in fact, repeating itself Mr. Speaker, because in
I931, 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 indepen-
dence of the dominions, and it is high time you people in Canada, Australia and
elsewhere start to prove that you are really worthy oi’ the concessions we are
prepared to make. On the other hand, if you are afraid of some minor
consequences this might have in your o\vn provinces, you cannot expect us to
have more respect for you than you have for yourselves.
Surely, the time will come when wisdom and self-respect in the Dominion or in
the provinces will have reached a level where, with the concerted efforts of the
federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, we shall be able to formulate
measures with a view to exercising the right to amend our own Constitution.
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 this 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 disap-
pointed and saddened to see that Quebec, because of its
government, is not party to the agreement. The Quebec gov-
ernment 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 Levesque 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 Levesque government pay for it the next
time they go to the polls. How can the PQ government assume
a separatist attitude when it has been elected following pro-
mises 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 resolu-
tion 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 intro-
ducing the resolution preceding confederation in the Parlia-
ment of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald stated:

December l, i981 – COMMONS
DEBATES l 3597
The whole scheme of confederation, as propoundcd 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 we 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, not
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 ofa just and \vel|-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. ln conclusion, may l 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, an equal share ofjuslice, 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-Lanaudicre 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.
Q (mo)
[English]
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill): Mr. Speaker, this is
the last day to debate in the House of Commons, as everyone
The Constitution
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 produc-
ing higher levels of debate than the great Canadian Constitu-
tion 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. Of 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.

13598 . COMMONS DEBATES December l, 1981
The Constitution
Q (I720)
Our differences should be respected. We have quite appro-
priately 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—tl1e responsibilities of
individual Canadians one for each other and the responsibili-
ties 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 inappropri-
ate individualism, indeed atomism, in our notions of the econo-
my 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 recog-
nition 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 “I” sense—
has been the urge to assimilate and homogenize all peoples
into one big happy family of consuming and producing eco-
nomic units.
Members of all political parties, at least the old line ones,
have participated in this general vision of society. The aborigi-
nal 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 relation-
ships with the native people of Canada. Hopefully it points
toward a future which will finally see 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 lost 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 coming 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 so 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 some-
thing 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 all
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-destruc-
tive, but now it has an opportunity to become a creative and
critical resistance, with political status which calls upon non-
native 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—wc 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-indus-
trial 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

December l, I981 t COMMONS DEBATES m___V___ 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 sec 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 some-
thing 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.
Q (I730)
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 docu-
ment will not be enough. Without an independent Canadian
economy, this document will only be the shell of a yet unreal-
ized 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
The Constitution
feeling of relief that an agreement has been reached and that
we have come this far. I also hope there is a willingiiess on the
part of the Canadian people to forgive people of differing
views and also politicians for sometimes seeming lo be
obsessed with the Constitution, because constitutions are and
will be important, and this Constitution is important. l, 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 incep-
tion. 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
I867, 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

l360O – COMMONS
DEBATES December l, 1981
The Constitution
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 expansion-
ism, 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 trans-
port 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 arc, 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 ofa true economic union.
Macdonald, Cartier, Langevin and Tupper were obviously
hot soothsayers. They could not anticipate the more diverse
andextensive governmental responsibilities of our time. Mac-
donald, 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 elastici-
ty, 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. Mac-
donald’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 Macdona1d’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 embed-
ded Charter of Rights and Freedoms would do well to examine
that charter more carefully. With the recent energy agree-
ments 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.
Q (I740)
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 ser-
vices. 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 ele-
ment of our common market. Capital has also been hindered
in its efforts to seek investment opportunities by certain pro-
vincial 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 readi-
ly at hand. They limit the freedom of Canadians to work
anywhere in Canada. Certain areas of the country with unusu-
ally high unemployment should be allowed positive work~relat-
ed 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.

December 1, 198l v COMMONS DEBATES 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’ historial place within the
Canadian economic union. Many of the difficulties encoun-
tered as the national government has attempted to ensure the
success of the national economy have contributed to an atti-
tude 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 protec-
tive tariff in Macdonald’s national policy, freight rates and the
question of natural resource control all illustrate the inequit-
able nature of the economic relations that have existed be-
tween 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
The Constitution
depended in part on the capital generated by the older indus-
trial 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 met-
ropolitan 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, lt should be
emphasized, however, that, given the limited western settle-
ment and the difficulties of governing the west in the early
years, central resource control was both justifiable and effec-
tive. 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 princi-
ple, 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 econom-
ic mobility which has prevailed through most of our history.
Q (I750)
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 transforma-
tion 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. lt 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

l3602 . COMMONS DEBATES December l, I981
– The Constitution
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 charac-
ter 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 uncer-
tainties 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 pre-
serve 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 opportu-
nity to provide for and meet the needs of its people—Canadi-
ans 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 pack-
age 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 won-
derful. 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 l. 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

December 1, I981 , COMMONS
DEBATES l3603
more and more people of Canada were finding out what the
package contained.
Q (2010)
On November ll the Prime Minister said we would have it
on July l of the next year. On April l, 1981, he said he would
have it on July 1, I981. I-Ie 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, cosy 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 Indi-
ans, 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
I971 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
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 funda-
mental 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 Constitu-
tion, 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 mean-
ingless 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 leav-
ing 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.
I-Ion. members opposite talk nicely, as the Minister of Labour
(Mr. Caccia) is doing now——he is chattering away to him-
self—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 lie 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

13604 COMMONS
DEBATES December 1, 1981
The Constitution
signs cannot be put up, this in a country which is predominant-
ly English. Forcing all signs to be in French is completely
wrong.
With respect to special privileges, we introduced an amend-
ment to make compensation payable to everyone on the same
conditions. The New Democratic Party introduced a suba-
mendment 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 prov-
ince, and one province should not have special consideration.
There is too much special consideration already. I-Ion. mem-
bers 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
Ed vard Island, $1.2 million; Nova Scotia, $5.9 million; and
New Brunswick, $18.5 million. These are all have-not prov-
inces. Quebec received $70 million; Ontario, $8.9 million;
Manitoba, $3.4 million; Saskatchewan, $2.5 million; Alberta,
nothing at all; British Columbia, $1.3 million; and Yukon,
nothing at all. The total amount received over 13 years by
Newfoundland was $28 million; Prince Edward Island, $20
million; Nova Scotia, $75 million; New Brunswick, $100 mil-
lion; Quebec, $494 million; Ontario $88 million; Manitoba,
$83 million; Saskatchewan, $29 million; Alberta, $35 million;
British Columbia, $10 million; and Yukon, $.1 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 all. 1 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. Every-
one 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 lan-
guage, none at all. 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.
Q (Z020)
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 chart-
er. They were takcn 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 cosy 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 docs 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, dis-
couraging 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 Duelos (Montmorency-Orleans): Mr. Speaker, I
have been a member of this I-louse for a little over seven years,
and l 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

December l, 1981 ‘ COMMONS
DEBATES 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 disagree-
ment 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 Canadi-
an 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 govern-
ment 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.
Q (2030)
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 re-
striction 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 out-
side Quebec and to be aware of the concentration of English-
The Constitution
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 govern-
ment of Ontario to allow them to control their own institu-
tions. 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 possibleto find a satisfactory
formula to enshrine that right in the Constitution. Mr. Speak-
er, I think that by putting the Canada clause in the Constitu-
tion 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 I7 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

l3606 ‘ COMMONS
DEBATES December I, 1981
The Constitution
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 Z3 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 I01 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 pro-
vides 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 some-
what 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 Constitu-
tion 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 jurisdic~
tion over educational matters and would also have reassured
Quebec anglophones. I believe this would have been an hon-
ourable 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 2‘/2 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 prov-
inces 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 federal-
ist 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 likeli-
hood 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, ifQuebec 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 meas-
ure to enable a province such as Quebec to preserve its present
constitutional powers. It is said that it would create a balkan-
ized 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 com-
pensation, I agree that because total tax points differ from one

December 1, 1981 ~ COMMONS DEBATES
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 govern-
ment would have spent in the province availing itself of the
right to opt out, there should be no problem.
Mr. Speaker, time flies 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 Constitu-
tion 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.
Q (Z040)
[English]
Mr. Rae: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder
whether the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr.
Duelos) would accept a question‘!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The time of the hon.
member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duelos) has expired.
Accordingly I would seek the unanimous consent of the I-Iouse
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.
The Constitution
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
he 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. Duelos: 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, historyshows our degree of tolerance.
Q (2050)
[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. Duelos), 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 see many problems
which are not now obvious and many difficulties which are not

l3608 COMMONS
DEBATES December 1, 1981
The Constitution
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 para-
graph from the letter, which reads as follows:
One might have hoped that the government might have addressed itself to
economic and unemployment problems in reeent 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
HOW fl!ClCl”.
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 prov-
inces. 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, notwith-
standing 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 accom-
modating. 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 Canadi-
ans 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 modi-
fied 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 accept-
ance 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 constitu-
tional matters or those which affect the federal government as
the supreme authority.
At that point, however, l 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
Roscdale (Mt: 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, particu-
larly 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 Rosedalc
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

December 1, 1981 COMMONS
DEBATES 13609
across the country. That should also tell us something about
the intransigence, rigidity and inflexibility of the Prime Minis-
ter 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. lndeed,
anglophones 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 interest-
ing 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 he 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.
C (Z100)
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 1 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 coun-
tries. The right to own property seems quite reasonable. Prop-
erty 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 n0W 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 had 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
The Constitution
step should be taken by 11 individuals in our country because
the impact of what they were doing and the long-term conse-
quences 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.
1 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 govern-
ments 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 respon-
sibilities 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
ofits peop1e’s trust, is cynical to the point of bragging about it.
How else are we to interpret statements by the Quebec Minis-
ter of Intergovernmental Affairs as reported in Le Soleil of
Saturday, November 7, 1981, on page 13-2, where the minister
states that he created the common front of the eight provinces
in September, I980, and that since that time, the common
front had 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 had
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 he calls it, was to work
on the claims of each province, whether they concerned natu-
ral 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. ln 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 had, so
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, 1981, and at the
beginning of this month, in November, 1981, the federal

13610 COMMONS DEBATES December l, 1981
The Constitution
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 popula-
tion 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 1 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 emigra-
tion 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 ofthe
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 sys-
tematically 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 Quebec to see this. When we read the works
of Canon Groulx—and if there is someone who always faith-
fully defendcd 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-francaises déclarent” that
it is the role and the responsibility of the federal government to
entrcnch 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:
0 (Z110)
[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 govern-
ment 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 Québecois in St. Andrews. The Supreme Court
has the right to impose sanctions and under the above-men-

December 1, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13611
tioned section it will take the necessary measures to correct the
situation. There is the difference between the Quebec repre-
sentatives 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 Canadi-
ans 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 confer-
ence was officially opened, Mr. Morin, as reported in the La
Presse edition of Monday, November 2, scoffed at the sugges-
tion 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 resi-
dents the benefits of Section 133. Not content with lying and
betraying, they demonstrated the utmost duplicity by deceiv-
ing their own supporters. The House will recall that in Ottawa
on April l6 they signed a document which they were prompt
to hide. 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.
ln 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 Ira/ti” which PQ supporters are distributing in the
Province of Quebec to demonstrate that the federal govern-
ment 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 Cana-
da‘s diversity. There is no more reference to duality, Mr.
The Constitution
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 Vic-
toria, 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 ll 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 Govern-
ment 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 Saleil 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 Québccois government was very careful not to reveal that it was the
only one against eyishrining the rights of women in the constitution.

l36l2 COMMONS DEBATES December l, 1981
The Constitution
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 Quebécois!
0 (2120)
[English]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Portage-Mar
quette.
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.
Q (2130)
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 condi-
tions, 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 arrange-
ments by the proper process so that we can proceed with as
much good will as possible. We need to proceed as expeditious-
ly 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 constitu-
tional 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

December I, l98l ~ COMMONS
DEBATES 1 361 3
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 Free-
doms is not as perfect as they might hope it would be, they are
willing to accept it and get on with thejob.
The people of the constituency of Portage-Marquette
wonder why it is that provincial and federal politicians con-
tinually 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
Ijlouse are the same people who send provincial politicians to
the provincial houses. 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 provin-
cial 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.
l 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
The Constitution
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 I00 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 them-
selves and toward their government? What are the attitudes of
representatives toward the people they are elected to repre~
sent? 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 provin-
cial governments suing the federal government over the Con-
stitution, VIA Rail and the National Energy Program. That
does not help improve our attitudes in this country. It is

l3ol4 i COMMONS DEBATES December l, l98l
The Constitution
something we have further alienated as far as the process is
concerned. Our attitudes in this country have hardened.
Q (2|40)
A very legitimate question to ask the French~speaking
people in this country is how exactly they see 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 \vith 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 argu-
ment, 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 specifi-
cally 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 Com~
mission 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 see that
this process does not end here. It must be a continuing process.
We must continue to improve on the document for the better-
ment of Canadians from one end of this country to the other.
[Tr-anslationl
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 for-
ever 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 I-Ion.
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-

December l. 1981 ‘ COMMONS
DEBATES 1,3615
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 l33 or
some similar measure would apply to New Brunswick.
l 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 bilin-
gualism. lndecd, 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 expand-
ing. Thc entrenehment 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 Brunswick-
ers 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.
0 (2150)
[English]
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreci-
ate 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 amend-
ment 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 con-
sent 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 tram-
pled, 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 unwork-
able and that the definition of the aboriginal peoples is impos-
80106~23
The Constitution
sible are not sound arguments. With regard to the first argu-
ment, 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 constitu-
tional 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-renew-
able resources, a settlement ofthe 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 thc 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 Conserva-
tives 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 Territo-
ries. 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 affect-
ing the aboriginal peoples north of 60 found fair hearing, we
now introduce the necessary protection of a two-thirds majori-
ty 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 amend-
ing 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 Sec-
tion 42.

13616 7 COMMONS
DEBATES December 1. 1981
The Constitution
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 both the Liberal and the
Conservative parties, if their objections are based on reducing
the I-louse-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, both 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 both the
Parliament of the United Kingdom and various international
bodies that deal with the issues of human rights.
The international covenant on 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 both 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 old Section 34, which
achieved unanimous all-party support on January 30, 1981.
The vote on 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. Munro). For
some 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 thc 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 some provinces and not in others.
Surely no member of the House would want native organiza-
tions 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 House.
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 how 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, Novem~
ber 27, 1981, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The
Islands (Mr. Manly) is now deemed to have moved the follow-
ing amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena
(Mr. Fulton):
O (2200)
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1981 bc 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 ll may be made
by proclamation issued by the Governor General under thc Great Seal of
Canada only in accordance with the following procedure:
(a) 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;

December I, I931 ‘ COMMONS
DEBATES I 3617
(b) 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
(c) for thc purposes referred to in this section, consent of the aboriginal
peoples shall be obtained by a procedure determined by thc Government
ofCanada and the aboriginal peoples ofCanada; and
(B) by renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly,
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT
MOTION
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40
deemed to have been moved.
[English]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for Vancouver
South (Mr. Fraser).
An hon. Member: I-Ie is not here.
FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS~
EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury): Mr. Speaker, my
reading of the budget paper entitled, “Fiscal Arrangements in
the Eighties-Proposals of the Government of Canada“ leads
me to believe that over the next five years the federal govern-
ment will reduce its total contributions to the provinces, not in
absolute terms but from what they would otherwise be if the-
existing formula were continued, by about $1,947 million or
approximately $1.9 billion, with only Quebec obtaining an
increase. In my view this is the net figure after taking into
consideration additional provincial revenues of $3,743 million
or approximately $3.7 billion which arises from income tax
changes.
The new formula proposed by the federal government meas-
ures the fiscal capacity of provinces on a much more compre-
hensive basis by including municipal revenues and natural
resource revenues which have to some extent at least been
excluded in the past as capital from non-renewable resources.
The significant difference in the new formula is that payments
would be made to provinces with the capacity to raise revenue
which is less than that of Ontario, rather than the national
average as it is now. Of course this excludes Ontario from
receiving equalization payments and raises the question in my
mind that the payments will be less over all than if the
national average were used. I am convinced that this is the
case when we consider the enormous resource revenues gener-
ated in the west. I hope the minister will be able to show me
tonight where I am wrong on this point, but at this moment I
am not convinced that that is the case.
One point which is clear from the answer I received from
the minister in the House is that he intends to discontinue the
1972 revenue guarantees. Thus, no safety net is provided for
Adjournment Debate
the provinces. If Ontario moves into recession, the revenue
reductions will be very severe.
Recently we have seen 30-year record levels of unemploy-
ment and inflation, declining real wages, thc biggest tax
burden since the war, the gutting of the rail passenger system,
and, in the fiscal arrangements in the eighties paper to which l
referred earlier, proposals to reduce the financial commitment
to equalization, to health and to post-secondary education.
This is the reason I asked the question in the House. With the
headlines in the paper today indicating the worst economic
slump in 30 years, I am very much afraid that my worst fears
are on their way to being realized. I will be absolutely delight-
ed to have the minister prove that I am wrong.
My principal concern at this point is the negative effect
which a reduction in transfer payments will have on the
Atlantic provinces where a very high percentage of total
provincial revenues is obtained from this source. Just slightly
under half of the total provincial revenues come in the form of
transfer payments from Ottawa. The result would simply be a
disaster. The best way to reduce transfer payments to the
Atlantic provinces is by an increased commitment to the
principle of regional development which would, through thc
establishment of industrial plants, create more jobs and more
taxpayers and thus build an expanded revenue base for the
provinces which would eliminate their dependence on transfer
payments. In my view this is the positive way to go and the
way in which the government should proceed.
Q (Z205)
Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to
thank the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. I-lowie) on
behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) for his question. I want to
tell the hon. member that I come from a province much like
his own, and I too was very concerned and did a fair amount of
research upon hearing the terms of the new equalization
package. I can tell hon. members that upon doing my home-
work, I found out the net savings to my own province, New-
foundland, a province which is not unlike the hon. member’s,
in terms of its financial ability to provide goods and services to
its citizens. There was a net gain of $70 million in the first
year. In a moment, I will point out the net gain to the hon.
member’s province.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has put forward
a proposal for a generous new system of equalization to cover
the five-year period from I982 to I987. The proposed new
formula is intended to enable the government to continue to
carry out the historic purpose of this very important program.
This purpose is to make it possible for all provinces to provide
a reasonable level of public services at a reasonable level of
taxation. The government’s commitment to this goal remains
as strong as ever.
The proposed new formula would achieve this goal by
bringing virtually the whole range of provincial-local revenues
from their own sources into the equalization formula, thereby

Read less