November 25, 1981 V COMMONS DEBATES 13245
secretary tell us when I will be told who in the Canadian
Transport Commission is getting free gravy from Air Canada,
and why?
Mr. Smith: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member
that this qumion was on the Order Paper during the entire
length of the Clark government and was not answered at that
time. In response to the hon. rnember’s inquiry, I would say
soon.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
The Constitution
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English] _
THE CONSTITUTION
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, I981
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 24, consider
ation of the motion of Mr. Chrétien:

13246 . COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The Conslilulion
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, de par le statut d’Etat indépendant du
status of Canada as an independent state Canada, il est légitime que les Canadiens
that Canadians be able to amend their Con- aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur
stitution in Canada in all respects; Constitution au Canada;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 qu’il est souhaitable d’inscrire dans la 10
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 a Sa Majesté la Reine l’adresse dont 15
la teneur suit :
To the Queens Most Excellent Maiwyr A Sa Tres Excellente Majesté la Reine,
M051 G!’fi¢i0l-15 S0‘/effiigni Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
We, Your Majesty’s loyal subjects, the Nous, mcmbres de la Chambre des com~
House of Commons of Canada in Parliament 20 muncs du Canada réunis en Parlemcnt, fideles2O
assembled, respectfully approach Your sujcts de Votre Majesté, demandons respec-
Majesty, requesting that you may graciously tueusementa Votre Tres Gracieuse Majesté de
be pleased to cause to be laid before the bien vouloirfairc déposer devant le Parlement
Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi ainsi concu:
containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25
set forth:

November 25, I981 . COMMONS DEBATES
13247
Conrlimzivn
Ari. I98!
enacted
Termination of
power to
legislate for
Canada
French version
Short title
The Comzimzion
ANNEXE A—SCHEDULE A
An Act to give effect to a request by the Loi donnant suitea une demande du Sénatet
Senate and House of Commons of de la Chambre des communes du
Canada Canada g
Sa Trés Excellente Majesté la Reine,
Whereas Canada has requested and con- °°”5idél’amI
sented to the enactment of an Act of the 5 qu’a la demande et avec le consentement
Parliament of the United Kingdom to give du Canada, le Parlementdu Royaume-Uni
effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth est invité a adopter une loi visant a donner
and the Senate and the House of Commons effet aux dispositions énoncées ci-aprés et
of Canada in Parliament assembled have que le Sénat et la Chambre des communes 10
submitted an address to Her Majesty l0 du Canada réunis en Parlement ont pre-
requesting that Her Majesty may graciously senté une adresse demandant a Sa Tres
be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before Gracieuse Majesté de bien vouloir faire
the Parliament of the United Kingdom for déposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-
that purpose. Uni un projet de loi a cette fin, l5
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen’s l5 sur l’avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-
Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the tuels et temporels et des Communes réunis
advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual en Parlement, et par l‘autorité de celui-ci,
and Temporal, and Commons, in this present édicte:
Parliament assembled, and by the authority
of the same, as follows: 2()
l. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in l. La Loi consrirutionnelle de 1981,énon- 20/\d_<>Pliw\,d¢l=\
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 IW
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 Cwvtisn *1″
Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, Royaume-Uni apres l’entrée en vigueur dc la 25 fg’f}’§,’£,d;(,,,,,,,
I981 comes into force shall extend to Loi constitutionnelle tie I981 ne font pas Canada
Canada as part of its law. partie du droit du Canada.
5
3. So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30 3. La partie de la version francaise de la V”§i<>!’
B, the French version of this Act is set out in présente loi qui figure a l’annexe A a force r’“”°““°
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 1 Loi sur Tit” Wéeé
Act. le Canada.

13248 , COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
Rigllls and
lrccilouu” in
(.’iinntl,’i
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic
rights of
cit izcns
Mziximum
<|ur:|lion of
legislative
brnl|c.t
Continuation tll
spocizll
circuiiislainccs
The Constitution
SCHEDULE B
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981
PART I
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS 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
ANNEXE B
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
PARTIE 1
CHARTE CANADIENNE DES DROITS ET
LIBERTES
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des
principcs qui reconnaissent la suprématie de
Dieu ct la primaute du droit:
Garantie des droits er Iiberlés
1. La Charte canadienne des droits er
Freedoms guarantees the rights and frec- Slibertés garantit les droits et libcrtés 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 énoncés. lls ne peuvcnt étre restrcints
que par une reglc do droit, dans des limitcs
qui soicnt raisonnables et dont la justification
puisse se demontrer dans lc cadre d’une
société libre et démocratique. l
Libertésfondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- IO 2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales
tal 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
(0) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Democratic Rights
suivantes 1
tr) liberte de conscience et de religion;
b) liberté de pensee, de croyance, d’opi-
nion et d‘expression, y compris la libertél
de la presse et des autres moyens de
communication;
c) liberté de reunion pacifique;
d) liberté d’ass0ciation.
Drafts démocratiques
Droils ct
5 libcrtés nu
Cnnzitia
0
Libcrlés
fondamcntalcs
5
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote 201)/Hits
vote in an election of members of the House
et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede-
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciales.
to be qualified for membership therein.
4. (1) No House of Commons and no
legislative assembly shall continue for longer
4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre
des communes et des assemblées législatives
dcmocratiqucs
des citoycns
Mandat
maximal des
asscmblecs
than five years from the date fixed for the est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixée 25
return of the writs at a general election of its 25 pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members. ‘ –
génerales correspondantes.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- Pr9|9I1s=Hi<m§
invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- nes ou celui d‘une assemblee legislative peut Sp°°’a’°s
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-
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more
than one-third of the members of the House
dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d’invasion
ou d’insurrection, reelles ou appréhendées,
pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas

November 25, 1981 r COMMONS DEBATES 13249
Annual sitting
0|‘ legislative
bodies
Mobility of
citizens
Rights to move
nnd gain
livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
acfion
programs
Life, liberty
and security of
person
Search or
seizure
Detention or
imprisonment
The Con:/iIuli0n
l’objet d’une opposition exprimee par les voix
de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre
des communes ou de Passemblee legislative.
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as
the case may be.
5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- 56?-“¢H”rw¢l|¢
and of each legislature at least once every nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5
twelve months. 5 douze mois.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament
Mobility Rights Liberté de circulation et d’établissement
6. (l) Every citizen of Canada has the 6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien ale droit de Libcrlféfic
right to enter, remain in and leave Canada. demeurer au Canada, d’y entrer ou d’en C’rC“““°“
sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per-10′-;i}=¢r\é_
person who has the status of a permanent sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent dmbl’ss°m°”‘
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 ct
any province; and d’etab1ir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b) to pursue the gaining ofa livelihood in Vince; 15
any province. b) dc gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2)15 (3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe R¢=”i¢”<m
are subject to (2) sont subordonnés :
(a) any laws or practices of general a) aux lois et usages d’application gene-
application in force in a province other rale en vigueur dans une province donnée,2O
than those that discriminate among per- s’ils n’etabIissent entre les personnes
sons primarily on the basis of province of 20 aucune distinction fondée principalement
present or previous residence; and sur la province de residence antérieure ou
(b) any laws providing for reasonable resi- awleueé
dency requirements as a qualification for b) aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25
the receipt of publicly provided social de residence en vue de l’obtention des ser-
services. 25 vices sociaux publics.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n’ont pas Pr<>ewr_mrw§d<>
elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d’interdire les lois, programmes ou §;§;Z’|‘:’°“
as its object the amelioration in a province of activites destinés a améliorer, dans une pro- 30
conditions of individuals in that province who vince, la situation d’individus défavorises
are socially or economically disadvantaged if 3Osocialement ou economiquement, si le taux
the rate of employment in that province is d’emploi dans la province est inférieur a la
below the rate of employment in Canada. moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights Garanties juridiques
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 \/list libyflé C1
and security of the person and the right not la securité de sa personne; il ne peut etre s°°“’“°
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a cc droit qu‘en conformite
with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principcs de justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre F°“il|_¢§_-l_
4 t 4 ~ 4 > ~ – C
against unreasonable search or seizure. les fouilles, les perquisttions ou les sais1es4Ofa§fS’S’ ‘°”5°”
abusives.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la Dél”!§i<>” 0″
trarily detained or imprisoned. 40 detention ou Femprisonnement arbitraires. f,:’l’,:I’”°““°’

13250 COMMONS DEBATES November 25 1981
/\”°*1°’ 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun ale droit, en cas d’arrestation grreslflttvn flu
Clflfllflll
The Constitution
d ‘ . , .
mm’°” detention ou de detention :
Proceedings in
criminal and
(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 habeus corpus and
to be released if the detention is not
lawful. l0
ll. Any person charged with an offence
penal matters has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable
delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(0) not to be compelled to be a witness in
proceedings against that person in respect
of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to law in a fair and public 20
hearing by an independent and impartial
tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail with-
out just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 25
military law tried before a military tri-
bunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where
the maximum punishment for the offence
is imprisonment for five years or a more
severe punishment; 30
(g) not to be found guilty on account of
any act or omission unless, at the time of
the act or omission, it constituted an
offence under Canadian or international
law or was criminal according to the gen- 35
eral principles of law recognized by the
community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not
to be tried for it again and, if finally found
guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40
be tried oi; punished for it again; and
(1′) 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 the 45
lesser punishment.
a) d’etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa
detention; 5 5
b) d’av0ir recours sans delai a l’assistance
d’un avocat et d’étre informe de ce droit;
c) dc faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la legalite de sa detention et d’obtenir, le
cas echeant, sa liberation. 10
ll. Tout inculpe a le droit : /Walres
A criminellcsei
a) d‘etre informé sans delai anormal dc pcnales
l’infraction precise qu’on lui reproche;
b) d‘etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c) de ne pas etre contraint de témoigncr I5
contre lui-meme dans toute poursuitc
intentee contre lui pour l’infraction qu’on
lui reproche;
d) d‘etre presume innocent tant qu’il n’est
pas declare coupable, conformement =1 la 20
loi, par un tribunal independant et impar-
tial a l‘issue d’un proces public et
equitable;
e) de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause
d’une mise en liberte assortie d’un caution- 25
nement raisonnable;
/) sauf s’il s’agit d’une infraction relevant
de la justice rnilitaire, de benéficier d’un
proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale
prevue pour l’infraction dont il est accuse 30
est uii emprisonneinent dc cinq ans ou une
peine plus grave;
g) de ne pas etrc declare coupable en
raison d’une action ou d’une omission qui,
au moment ou clle est survcnue, ne consti- 35
tuait pas une infraction d’apres le droit
interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n’avait pas dc caractere criminel d’apres
les principes géneraux de droit reconnus
par l’ensemble des nations; 40
h) d’une part de ne pas etre juge de nou-
veau pour une infraction dont il a ete
definitivement acquitte, d’autre part de ne
pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une
infraction dont il a éte definitivement45
declare coupable et puni;
1′) de béneficier de la peine la moins
severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne l’in~
fraction dont il est declare coupable est

November 25,1981 COMMONS DEBATES W ,r
Treatment or
punishment
Sc|f~crimirta~
lion
interpreter
Equality before
and under law
and equal
protection and
benefit of law
Affirmativc
action
programs
Official
languages of
Canada
Official
languages of
New Brunswick
The Constitution
modifiée entre le moment de la perpétra~
tion de l’infraction et celui de la sentence.
12. Everyone has the right not to be sub- 12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Kiuwitlé
jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusités.
punishment.
13. A witness who testifies in any proceed- 13. Chacun a droit a ce qu’aucun témoi- 5T¢n1vi_ew\i¢
ings has the right not to have any incriminat- 5 gnage incriminant qu’il donne ne soit utilise ‘“°””“”“’“
ing evidence so given used to incriminate pour l‘incriminer dans d’autres procedures,
that witness in any other proceedings, except sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour
in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving témoignages contradictoires.
of contradictory evidence.
14. A party or witness in any proceedings I0 14. La partie ou le témoin qui ne peuvent 10 tnwrprfiw
who does not understand or speak the lan- suivre les procedures, soit parce qu’ils ne
guage in which the proceedings are conduct~ comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la languc
ed or who is deaf has the right to the assist- employee, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de
ance of an interpreter. surdité, ont droit a Fassistance d’un inter-
prete. l5
Equality Rights Droits E1 l’égalz’té
Egalité devant
la loi, égnlité dc
bénéficc ct
protection égalc
dc la loi
15. (1) Every individual is equal before l5 15. (1) La loi no fait acception dc per-
and under the law and has the right to the sonne et s’applique égalemenl a tous, ct tous
equal protection and equal benefit of the law ont droit a la meme protection et au méme
without discrimination and, in particular, bénéfice do la loi, indépendamment de toute
without discrimination based on race, nation- discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20
al or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age 2Otions fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale
or mental or physical disability. ou cthnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
Page ou les déficiences mentales ou physi-
ques.
(2) Le paragraphe (1) n’a pas pour effet25Pr@era{ni\1¢§d¢
d’interdire les lois, programmes ou activités §;§;;‘,‘f,“°“
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan- destinés a améliorer la situation d’individus
taged individuals or groups including those 250u de groupes défavorisés, 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, ethnique, dc leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30
age or mental or physical disability. leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs déficiences
mentales ou physiques.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any
law, program or activity that has as its object
0_/fficial Languages of Canada Langues officielles du Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le francais et l’anglais sont les Layiem
languages of ‘Canada and have equality of30langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un ‘g’,f‘,°;f,‘,1“““
status and equal rights and privileges as to statut et des droits et privileges égaux quant 35
their use in all institutions of the Parliament a leur usage dans les institutions du Parle-
and government of Canada. merit et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le francais et l’anglais sont les langues Lapsues
languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un ‘|1f,[,’,f:,?a’f,S_d“
equality of status and equal rights and privi~ statut et des droits et privileges égaux quant4O Brunswick
leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Légis~

13252 _ COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
Advnnccment
of status nntl
use
Procucdiiigx til
Pit rliutiietil
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-
tious by public
with federal
institutions
The Coniziruzion
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature ct du gouvernement du Nouveau-
wick. Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La présente chartc ne limite pas le lfroslrpiflivflvtrs
authority of Parliament or a legislature to pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures dc °g”‘“°
advance the equality of status or use of Eng- 5 favoriser la progression vers l‘égalité dc 5
lish and French. statut ou d’usage du francais ct dc l’anglais.
17. (l) Everyone has the right to use Eng- 17. (1) Chacun a le droit d’employer le ’15;-tyfiiznttu
lish or French in any debates and other fraucais ou l’anglais dans les débats et tra-
proceedings of Parliament. vaux du Parlement.
r n
(2) Everyone has the right to use English l0 (2) Chacun a le droit d’employer le fran- lOI[¢’Y~1|\1:d¢l1u
egisa ure u
or French in any debates and other proceed» cais ou l’anglais dans les débats et travaux de
ings of the legislature of New Brunswick. la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
18. (I) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes
of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlemcnt
in English and French and both language l5sont imprimés et publiés en francais ct en
versions are equally authoritative. anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant ega-
lement force dc loi ct celles des autres docu-
ments ayant meme valeur.
N0uveau-
Brunswick
Documents
pnrlcrnentaircs
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes Pafitmiutsdc
the legislature of New Brunswick shall be rendus et les proces—verbaux de la Législa-20$“ ,,‘f§§V‘;:,’:,’_°
printed and published in English and French ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimés
and both language versions are equally 2Oet publies en frangais et en anglais, les deux
authoritative. versions des lois ayant égalemcnt force dc loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme
valeur.
19. (1) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d’employer le
used by any person in, or in any pleading in francais ou l’anglais dans toutes les affaires
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le
by Parliament. 25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure
qui en decoulent.
(2) Either English or French may be used (2) Chacun a lc droit d’employer le fran-
by any person in, or in any pleading in or cais ou l‘anglz1is dans toutes les affaires dont
process issuing from, any court of New sont saisis lcs tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns-
Brunswick. wick ct dans tous les actes de procedure qui
en découlent.
20. (l) Any member of the public in 30 20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a
Canada has the right to communicate with, l’emploi du francais ou de l’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
Parliament drgtfvernment 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 s
respect to any other office of any such insti- l’egard do 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 franeais ou de l’anglais fait
munications with and services from that l’ob_ietd’unc demandeimportante;
Omce in Sud‘ languagfi; 01′ 40 b) l’emploi du frangais ct de l’anglais se
justific par la vocation du bureau.
Brunstvick
Procedures
devnnl les
lribu n£lUX
étnblis pnr lc
Pzrrlcment
Procedures
devzmt lcs
tribunaux du
N – –
ouvcuu
Brunswick
Communica-
tions entre les
adnnnistrés ct
les institutions
federnlus

November 25, 1981 COMMONS DEBATES 13253
Communica-
tions by public
with New
Brunswick
inslilulions
Continuation of
exisiing
constitutional
provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of
instruction
(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 16 to 20 abrogates
or derogates 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
The Constitution
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-
merit ou pour en recevoir les services.
10
21. Les articles 16 a 20 n‘ont pas pour
effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue francaise
ou anglaise ou it ces deux langues, de porter
atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations
15qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes
d’une autre disposition de la Constitution du
Canada.
22. Les articles 16 £1 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 dc la présente charte et découlant de
Charter with respect to any language that is
not English or French.
Minority Language Educational Rights
la loi ou dc la coutume, des langues autres
que le francais ou l‘anglais.
Droits £1 l’i’nstructi’on dans la langue de Ia
minarité
Communica-
tions cnirc les
adminisirés ct
les institutions
du Nouvcau-
Brunswick
Mainiicn cn
vigueur dc
ccrlaines
dispositions
Droiis préservés
23. (1) Citizens of Canada 23. (1) Les citoyens canadieris : §_’-Eifliusciion
(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-
ince in which they reside, or
(b) who have received their primary
school instruction in Canada in English or primaire, en francais ou en anglais au 25
francophone ou anglophone de la province
oii ils resident,
b) qui ont recu leur instruction, au niveau
French and reside in a province where the 30 Canada et qui résident dans une province
language in which they received that
instruction is the language of the English
ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont recu cette
instruction est celle de la minorité franco-
or French linguistic minority population of phone ou anglophone de la province,
ms Pmvince» ont, dans l’un ou l’autre cas, le droit d’y faire 30
have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
primarytandi secondary school instruction in
that language in that province.
et secondaire, dans cette langue.
Cofllinuily DY (2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant Cviiliiwité
language . . . . . . . . . d‘cmploi dc la
;,,5m,c,i°,, has received or is receiving primary or a recu ou recoit son_ instruction, au niveau langue
secondary school instruction in English or4Oprimaire ou secondaire, en francais ou en 35d’ir\s\w¢\i<>n
French in Canada, have the right to have all
their children receive primary and secondary
school instruction in the same language.
anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire ins-
truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux pri-
maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.

13254 , COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
Appllciiiioii
where numlm|~
Wtlffillll
Enforcement of
guaranteed
rights and
freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
ofjustice into
disrepute
Aboriginal
rights and
freedoms not
affected by
Ciniricr
Other rights
and freedoms
not affected by
Charter
The Constitulimi
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under
subsections (1) and (2) to have their children
receive primiiry and secondary school
instruction in the language of the English or
French linguistic minority population of a
province
(rt) iipplics wherever in the province the
iiunibcr of children of citizens who have
imcli ii right is sufficient to warrant the
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana- Justification
diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire p‘”‘c”°’“b’°
instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire
et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorité
5 francophone ou anglophone d’une province :
a) s’exerce partout dans la province ou le
nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce
droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur
endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics,
provision to them out of public funds ofl0 dc l’instructi0n dans la langue de la
minority language instruction; and
(b) includes, where the number of those
children so warrants, the right to have
them receive that instruction in minority
language educational facilities provided l5 gnement de la minorité linguistique finan~ l5
out of public funds.
Enforcement
minoritc;
b) comprend, lorsque le nombrc de ces
enfants le justifie, le droit dc les faire
instruire dans des établissements d’ensei-
cés sur les fonds publics.
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola- Rmiiisviitiii”
– – , . . . 0 t d‘ailcinte aux
as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de negation des droits cu libertes qui dmhse, m,mé§
infringed or denied may apply to a court of
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 20s’adresser a un tribunal compétent pour obte- 20
as the court considers appropriate and just in
the circumstances.
lui sont garantis par la présente charte, peut
nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-
venable ct juste eu égard aux circonstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsec- (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visée au !ii{{f9¢v==ibiiié¢
tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des ‘
obtained in a manner that infringed or 25 éléments de preuve ont été obtenus dans des 25 aisquvradignidc
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ CCOHSI €l’Cf
denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by
this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded
if it is established that, having regard to all
the circumstances, the admission of it in the
proceedings would bring the administration 3Otion est susceptible de déconsidérer l‘admi- 30
ofjustice into disrepute.
General
conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou
libertes garantis par la présente charte, ces
élémcnts dc preuve sont écartés s’il est établi,
eu égard aux circonstanccs, que leur utilisa-
nistration dc la justice.
Dispositions générales
|‘adrninistraiiu|i
de la justice
25. The guarantee in this Charter of ccr- 25. Le fait que la présente charte garantit giaifliisiiriss é_
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con~ certains droits et libertés ne porte pas ,,;§’:,f,§cl,,§l,‘c:
strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any atteinte aux droits ou libertes — ancestraux,
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 issus dc traités ou autres —— des peuples 35
that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of autochtones du Canada, notamment 2
Canada including a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
Tecngniled by inc ROW‘ PF°°lnn1a1i°n Of b) aux droits ou libertes acquis par regle~
Ocwber 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 présente charte garantit Miiiiiligii {ifs ‘
1 – GU H35 l’Ol SB
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas ubcnés

November 25, 1981 – COMMONS DEBATES 13255
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.
Multicultural
_ 27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a
heritage
27. Toute interpretation de la présente Mflintiendu
manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l’objectif de pro- §:i{QT§'”°
enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Smouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5
Canadians. patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
Rights
guaranteed
equally to both
sexes
28. Notwithstanding anything in this 28. Indépendamment des autres disposi- iisalilédc
Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to tions de la presente charte, les droits et liber— §:?,’;‘;§,:f§es
in it are guaranteed equally to male and tes qui y sont mentionnés sont garantis egale- dwxsexes
female persons. _ lOment aux personnes des deux sexes. l0
Rights
respecting
certain schools
preserved
29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or
29. Les dispositions de la présente charte yaimiw des
P
rate or dissentient schools. l5 autres ecoles confessionnelles. l5
Application to
territories and
territorial
authorities
30. A reference in this Charter to a prov-
ince or to the legislative assembly or legisla- tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature
ture of a province shall be deemed to include ou leur assemblee legislative visent ega|e-
30. Dans la presente charte, les disposi- Apvliwivn an
territoircs
a reference to the Yukon Territory and the ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 2ONord~Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives 20
legislative authority thereof, as the case may compétentes.
be.
Legislative
p0wet’S not
extended
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the
Application of Charter
32. (l) This Charter applies 25
(:1) to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the
authority of Parliament including all mat-
ters relating to the Yukon Territory and
Application of
Charter
Northwest Territories; and 30
(b) to the legislature and government of
each province in respect of all matters
within the authority of the legislature of
each province.
Exwrtivn (2) Notwithstanding subsection (l), see-35
legislative powers of any body or authority. competences législatives de quelque orga-
nisme ou autorité que ce soit.
Non~é|urgisse-
mcnt dcs
competences
legislulivcs
31. La presente charte n’elargit pas les
Application de Ia charte
32. (1) La presente charte s‘applique : 25 {zritilisfiéivn 1″
a) au Parlement et au gouvernement du
Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant
du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-
nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoi-
res du Nord-Ouest; 30
b) a la legislature et au gouvernemcnt de
chaque province, pour tous les domaines
relevant de cette legislature.
(2) Par derogation au paragraphe (I), l‘ar- Re-=\ri¢”<“\ tion l5 shall not have effect until three years ticle l5 n’a d’effet que trois ans apres l’en- 35 after this sectioncomes into force. tree en vigueur du present article. derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile- anteed by or under the Constitution of ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du Canada in respect of denominational, sepa- Canada concernant les ecoles separées et x E><¢¢P1i<1“ 33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (l) Le Parlement ou la legislature Dérvsalivn var
where express r t , . – ~ r declaration
dcC|m,;o,, province may expressly declare in an Act of d une province peut adopter une lot ou il est “pram
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressement declare que celle-ct ou une de
may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independamment40
shall operate notwithstanding a provision d’une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 a l5 de la présente charte.
this Charter.

13256
– COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
Operation of
exception
Five ye-in
limitztliott
R0<tZ|IilI3(|It£1l1
Five year
limitation
Citation
Commitment to
promote equal
opportunities
Conmtitmcnl
respecting
public services
The Constitution
(2) An Act or ti provision of an Act in (2) La loi ou lu disposition qui fait l‘objet Elfeldéla
respect of which u declaration made under d‘une declaration conforme au present article dé’°ga”°”
this section is in effect shall have such opera- ct en vigueur a l‘effet qu‘elle aurait sauf la
tion 11$ it would have but for the provision of disposition en cause de la charte.
this Charter referred to in the declaration. 5
(3) A declaration made under subsection (3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) 5 Dvyésfic
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after cesse d’avoir effet a la date qui y est precisée “°l’d”°
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.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov-10 (4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut Ndouvelle
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au 10“ °P“°”
subsection (1). paragraphe (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a (5) Le paragraphe (3) s‘applique a toute ‘Z\:ir§i=‘é<1= re-enactment made under subsection (4). declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- graphe (4). Citation Titre 34. This Part may be cited as the Canadi— 15 34. Titre de la presente partie: Charte 15Ti\r¢ an Charter of Rights and Freedoms. canadienne des droits et libertés. PART ll PARTlE ll EQUALlZATlON AND REGlONAL DISPARITIES PEREQUATION ET INEGALITES REGIONALES 35. (1) Sous reserve des competences licqfppsmsnis » . . , . S legtslattves du Parlement et des legislatures isgaliteaaes legislatures, or the rights of any of them with et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement chums respect to the exercise of their legislative 2Oet les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-20 35. (l) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the ments federal et provinciaux, s‘engagent a : a) promouvoir l’egalite des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-etre; W¢ll’b@l\1g Qf Canadians; 25 b) favoriser le developpement economique 25 (b) furthering economic development to pour reduirel’inegalite des chances; l”°dl1°¢dl$Pa1’ltyl”°PP°1‘l\1fllli¢S;flfld c) fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un (c) providing essential public services of niveau de qualité acceptable, les services reasonable quality to all Canadians. publics essentiels. (2) Parliament and the government of3O (2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du 30 Enswment Canada are committed to the principle of Canada prennent l’engagement de principe ;:§l’cl,:’;,’:,,,,ic5 making equalization payments to ensure that de faire des paiements cle pérequation pro- provincial governments have sufficient reve- pres a donner aux gouvernements provin- nues to provide reasonably comparable levels ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre of public services at reasonably comparable 35 en mesure d’assurer les services publics a un 35 levels of taxation. niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement comparables. November 25, I981 COMMONS DEBATES l3257 Constitutional conference Participation of aboriginal peoples Participation of territories General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada Majority of members The Cons/1’/u/ion PART III PARTIE III CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE CONFERENCE CONSTITUTIONNELLE 36. (1) A constitutional conference com- 36. (1) Dans l’année suivant l’cntrée en posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and vigueur de la présente partie, le premier the first ministers of the provinces shall be ministre du Canada convoque une conference convened by the Prime Minister of Canada constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers within one year after this Part comes into Sministres provinciaux et lui-meme. force. (2) The conference convened under sub~ (2) Sont placées a l‘ordre du jour de la section (I) shall have included in its agenda conference visée au paragraphe (1) les ques- an item respecting constitutional matters tions constitutionnelles qui intéressent direc- that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of lOtement les peuples autochtones du Canada, Canada, including the identification and notamment la determination et la definition definition of the rights of those peoples to be des droits de ces peuples 21 inscrire dans la included in the Constitution of Canada, and Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite du Canada invite leurs représentants a parti- reprcsentatives of those peoples to participate 15 ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions. in the discussions on that item. (3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite invite elected representatives of the govern- des représentants élus des gouvernements du ments of the Yukon Territory and the North~ territoire du Yukon et des tcrritoires du west Territories to participate in the discus‘ 20 Nord~Ouest a participer aux travaux relatifs sions on any item on the agenda of the a toute question placee a l’ordre du jour dc la conference convened under subsection (I) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. 25 selon lui, intéresse directement le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest. PART IV PARTIE IV PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA CONSTITUTION OF CANADA CONSTITUTION DU CANADA 37. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 37. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Conference constitution- nelle 5 Participation des peuples autochtones IO 1§ Participation des terriloircs conference visée au paragraphe (1) ct qui,2O Procédu re d of Canada may be made by proclamation étre modifiée par proclamation du gouver- issued by the Governor General under the neur général sous le grand sceau du Canada,25 Great Seal of Canada where so authorized autoriséea la fois: by 30 a) par des resolutions du Sénat et de la (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Chambre des communes; C0mm0T1$; and b) par des resolutions des assemblées (b) resolutions of the legislative assem- législatives d’au moins deux tiers des pro- blies of at least two-thirds of the provinces vinces dont la population confondue repre- that have, ifi ‘the aggregate, according to 35 sente, selon le recensement général le plus the then latest general census, at least fifty récent a l‘époque, au moins cinquante pour per cent of the population of all the cent de la population de toutes les provinces. provinces. (2) An amendment made under subsection (2) Une modification faite conformément (I) that derogates from the legislative4Oau paragraphe (1) mais dérogatoire a la powers, the proprietary rights or any other competence legislative, aux droits de pro- rights or privileges of the legislature or gov» priété ou a tous autres droits ou privileges 30 35 Majorité sim plc 13258 COMMONS DEBATES November 25, I981 Expression of dissent Revocation of dissent Restriction on proclamation Idem Compensation Altiendmcltt by unanimous Consent The Constitution ernment of a province shall require a resolu- tion supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Com- mons and the legislative assemblies required d’une legislature ou d’un gouvernement pro- vincial exige une resolution adoptee a la majorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux et des deputés de chacune des assemblées under subsection (1). 5 legislatives du nombre requis de provinces. 5 (3) An amendment referred to in subsec- tion (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has (3) La modification visee au paragraphe (2) est sans effet dans une province dont l’assemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la expressed its dissent thereto by resolution proclamation, exprime son desaccord par une supported by a majority of its members prior 1Oresolution adoptee a la majorite des deputes, l0 to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup- ported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. 15 sauf si cette assemblee, par resolution egale- ment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son desaccord et autorise la modification. Désaccord (4) A resolution of dissent made for the (4) La resolution de desaccord visee au L-9″“ dud purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at paragraphe (3) peut etre révoquee a tout 15 °”°c°’ any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates. moment, independamment de la date de la proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte. 38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20 38. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra- Restriction under subsection 37(1) before the expiration of one year from the adoption of the resolu- tion initiating the amendment procedure thereunder, unless the legislative assembly of phe 37(1) ne peut etre prise dans l’annee suivant l‘adoption de la resolution a l‘origine 20 de la procedure de modification que si l‘as- semblee legislative de chaque province a each province has previously adopted a reso- 25prealablement adopte une resolution d’agre- lution of assent or dissent. ment ou de desaccord. (2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 25 idem under subsection 37(1) after the expiration 37(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l’adoption de la resolution a l’origine lution initiating the amendment procedure 3Ode la procedure de modification. thereunder. 39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fourrtit une juste compen- Comvcmlivfl subsection 37(l) that transfers provincial legislative powers relating to education or sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s’applique 30 pas une modification faite conformement au other cultural matters from provincial legis~ 35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to any province to which the amendment does not apply. d’education ou dans d’autres domaines cultu- rels, a un transfert de competences legislati- ves provinciales an Parlement. 35 40. An amendment to the Constitution of 40. Toute modification de la Constitution ¢::$¢n\=m=”* Canada in relation to the following matters 40 du Canada portant sur les questions suivan- “ “me 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 tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto- risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la4O Chambre des communes et de l’assemblee the legislative assembly of each province: 45 legislative de chaque province : (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur; November 25, -1981 COMMONS DEBATES U259 (b) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force; (c) subject to section 42, the use of the English or the French language; (d) the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and (e) an amendment to this Part. 10 5 Amsflqmcnl by 41. (1) An amendment to the Constitution fjfjjgjm of Canada in relation to the following mat- ters may be made only in accordance with subsection 37(1): (a) the principle of proportionate l5 representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; (b) the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators; 20 (c) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators; (d) subject to paragraph 40(d), the 25 Supreme Court of Canada; (e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and (f) notwithstanding any other law or prac- tice, the establishment of new provinces. 30 Exception (2) Subsections 37(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to mat- ters referred to in subsection (1). A”1¢_”_d”‘e”*°l 42. An amendment to the Constitution of provisions . . . . ,c]a\;,,gm°,,,c Canada in relation to any provision that35 but qvlfi” applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, “‘°””°°5 including a an alteration to boundaries between _ Y provmces,=and (b) any amendment to any provision that 40 _ The Constitution b) le droit d’une province d’avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de deputes au moins egal s celui des sénateurs par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre repre- sentee lors de l‘entrée en vigueur de la 5 presente partie; c) sous reserve de l’article 42, l‘usage du francais ou de l’anglais; d) la composition dc la Cour supreme du Canada; 10 e) la modification de la presente partie. 41. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu- tion du Canada portant sur les questions §,°(:£fic°m,n suivantes se fait conformement au paragra- phe 37(1) : 15 a) le principe de la representation propor- tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des communes prévu par la Constitution du Canada; b) les pouvoirs du Senat et le mode de 20 selection des senateurs; c) le nombre des senateurs par lesquels une province est habilitée a etre represen- tee et les conditions de residence qu‘ils doivent remplir; 25 d) sous reserve de l’alinéa 40d), la Cour supreme du Canada; e) le rattachement aux provinces existan- tes de tout ou partie des territoires; _/) par derogation a toute autre loi ou 30 usage, la creation de provinces. (2) Les paragraphes 37(2) a (4) ne s‘appli- E><¢¢P\i<>”
quent pas aux questions mentionnées au
paragraphe (1).
Procedure
al dc
42. Les dispositions de la Constitution du 35]l{!*><iz¢§li<>”*”1
Canada applicables a certaines provinces c§§f;’M°
seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par Pl‘°Vi”¢°5
proclamation du gouverneur general sous le
grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des
resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des4O
communes et de l’assemblée legislative de
laws to the usc of the En “sh or the chaque province conccrnee. Le present arti-
re g
French language within a province,
may be made by proclamation issued by the
Governor General under the Great Seal of
cle s’applique notamment :
a) aux changements du trace des frontie-
res interprovinciales; 45
Canada only where so authorized by resolu-45 b_) QUX m°difi<I=1li°Y15 d°$_di5P°5m°f1$ Tel?‘
tions of the Senate and House of Commons
tives a l’usage du francais ou de langlais
dans une province.

l3260
– COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
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
Constitutional
conference
The Constitution
and of the legislative assembly of each prov-
ince to which the amendment applies.
43. Subject to sections 40 and 4l. Parlia-
43. Sous reserve des articles 40 et 41, le |\’mi”¢=li0“
ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour ifsmcmcm
the Constitution of Canada in relation to the 5
executive government of Canada or the
Senate and House of Commons.
44. Subject to section 40, the legislature
of each province may exclusively make laws
modifier les dispositions de la Constitution
du Canada relatives au pouvoir exécutif fede- 5
ral, au Senat ou s la Chambre des
communes.
44. Sous reserve de l’article 40, une legis- M<><:”i<=@li<>”
I I 1 – T CS
lature a competence exclusive pour modifier Fe-“gi$|a,,,m
amending the constitution of the province. 10 la constitution de sa province. 10
45. (1) The procedures for amendment
under sections 37, 40, 4l and 42 may be
initiated either by the Senate or the House of
Commons or by the legislative assembly of a
province.
(2) A resolution of assent made for the
purposes of this Part may be revoked at any
time before the issue of a proclamation
authorized by it.
45. (1) L‘initiative des procedures -de lflilialive tics
modification visees aux articles 37, 40, 4l et p’°°°d'”°S
42 appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des
communes ou a une assemblee legislative.
(2) Une resolution d‘agrement adoptee IS P§>§§i’=il_i1é¢l¢
dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre “’V°C““°”
révoquee a tout moment avant la date de la
proclamation qu‘elle autorise.
46. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 20 46. (1) Dans les cas vises a l’article 37, 40, Modificfltivr
of Canada made by proclamation under sec-
tion 37, 40, 41 or 42 may be made without a
resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue
of the proclamation if, within one hundred
sans resolution
41 ou 42, il peut étre passe outre au defaut2Od,,’5éna\
d’autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n’a pas
adopte dc resolution dans un delai de cent
quatre-vingts jours suivant l’adoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the 25de la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons of a resolution authoriz
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such
a resolution and if, at any time after the
expiration of that period, the House of Com-
mons again adopts the resolution.
(2) Any period when Parliament is proto-
gued or dissolved shall not be counted in
computing the one hundred and eighty day
period referred to in subsection (l).
derniere, apres lexpiration du delai, adopte 25
une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
(2) Dans la computation du delai vise au §°:\}1″%@\i°”
paragraphe (l), ne sont pas comptees les u H‘
periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
prorogé ou dissous. 30
, ,
47. The Queens Privy Council for35
Canada shall advise the Governor General to
issue a proclamation under this Part forth-
with on the adoption of the resolutions
required for an” amendment made by procla-
47. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le Dsmendcés
Canada demande au gouverneur general de P’°°’a’“a“°”
prendre, conformement a la presente partie,
une proclamation des l‘adoption des resolu-
tions prevues par cette partie pour une modi- 35
mation under this Part. 40 fication par proclamation.
48. A constitutional conference composed
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the
first ministers of the provinces shall be con-
vened by the Prime Minister of Canada
48. Dans les quinze ans suivant l’entree en C°”€€”fi’,¢°
. . . – cons t ton
vigueur de la presente partie, le premier “cue
ministre du Canada convoque une conference
constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 40
within fifteen years after this Part comes into 45 ministres provinciaux ct lui-meme, en vue du
force to review the provisions of this Part.
reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.

November 25, I981 COMMONS DEBATES 13261
é\'”=”d”\°*” 1° 49. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly 49. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ll‘/l<><1*|’M11<=”<*¢
‘ 1’1 1′ , . . , – , . , – L
,4Zf,’8f;‘;’°” named the Brll!Sh Alorth America Act, 1867) (anterieurement designee sous le titre: Acre ,’“:,,,,‘ff,,,,,,,,,
IS amended by adding thereto, immediately de I’/tmérique du Nord britannique, I867) 5~<*/MPI867
after section 92 thereof, the following head- est modifiée par insertion, apres l’article 92,
ing and section: 5 de la rubrique et de l’article suivants :
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from
provinces of
resources
Authority of
Parliament
PART v
1867
The Constitution
PARTIE V
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ACT, MODIFICATION DE LA LOI
CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1867
“N0n—RenewabIe Natural Resources, <¢Ress0urces naturelles non renouvelables,
92A. (I) In each province, the legisla-
ture may exclusively make laws in relation
t0
(a) exploration for non-renewable natu-
ral resources in the province; 10
(b) development, conservation and
management of non-renewable natural
resources and forestry resources in the
province, including laws in relation to
the rate of primary production there- l5
from; and
(c) development, conservation and man-
agement of sites and facilities in the
province for the generation and prodi1c~
tion of electrical energy. 20
(2) In each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the export from
the province to another part of Canada of
the primary production from non-renew-
able natural resources and forestry 25
resources in the province and the produc-
tion from facilities in the province for the
generation of electrical energy, but such
laws may not authorize or provide for
discrimination in prices or in supplies 30
exported to another part of Canada.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates
from the authority of Parliament to enact
laws in relation to the matters referred to
in that subsection and, where such a law of35
Parliament and a law of a province con-
flict, the law of Parliament prevails to the
extent of the conflict.
Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy ressourcesforestiéres et énergie électrique
92A. (I) La legislature dc chaque pro- ComP‘l°I|’°°
vince a competence exclusive pour légifé- l”°v’“m°
rer dans les domaines suivants : IO
a) prospection des ressources naturelles
non renouvelables de la province;
b) exploitation, conservation et gestion
des ressources naturelles non ren0uvela-
bles et des ressources forestieres de la 15
province, y compris leur rythme de pro-
duction primaire;
c) aménagement, conservation et ges-
tion des emplacements et des installa-
tions de la province destinés a la produc- 20
tion d‘énergie électrique.
(2) La législature de chaque province a Exwéitivn
competence pour légiférer en ce qui c0n- ,,f;§,,,m
cerne l’exportation, hors de la province, :31
destination d’une autre partie du Canada, 25
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
province, sous réserve de ne pas adopter de 30
lois autorisant ou prévoyant des disparités
de prix ou des disparités dans les exporta-
tions clestinées a une autre partie du
Canada.
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas 35;@“!v°*’d:*
atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de légifé- 3’ ‘””°”
rer dans les domaines visés a ce paragra-
phe, les dispositions d’une loi du Parlement
adoptée dans ces domaines l’emp0rtant sur
les dispositions incompatibles d’une loi 40
provinciale.

13262
– COMMONS
DEBATES November 25, 1981
Taxation of
FCSOLITCCS
“Primary
production“
Existing powers
or rights
Idem
The Constitution
(4) In each province, the legislature may
make laws in relation to the raising of
money by any mode or system of taxation
in respect of
(a) non-renewable natural resources
and forestry resources in the province
and the primary production therefrom,
and
(b) sites and facilities in the province
for the generation of electrical energyl0
and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported
in whole or in part from the province, but
such laws may not authorize or provide for
taxation that differentiates between pro-15
duction exported to another part of
Canada and production not exported from
the province.
(5) The expression “primary produc-
tion” has the meaning assigned by the20
Sixth Schedule.
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5)
derogates from any powers or rights that a
legislature or government of a province
had immediately before the coming into 25
force of this section.”
50. The said Act is further amended by
“THE SIXTH SCHEDULE
Primary Production from Non-Renewable
Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this
(4) La legislature de chaque province a
competence pour prélever des sommes
d’argent par tout mode on systeme de
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;
b) des emplacements et des installations
5
de la province destinés a la production I0
d’énergie électrique, ainsi que de cette
production meme.
Cette competence peut s’exercer indepen-
damment du fait que la production en
cause soit ou non, en totalité cu en partie, 15
exportée hors dc la province, mais les lois
adoptées dans ces domaines ne peuvent
autoriser ou prévoir une taxation qui eta-
blisse une distinction entre la production
exportée a destination d’une autre partie Z0
du Canada et la production non exportée
hors de la province.
Taxation des
resson rces
(5) L’expression (production primaire» a -P_r<><i\§¢li<>n
. . . .. ftmal .
le sens qui lui est donné dans la sixieme P ‘°
25
annexe.
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent
pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits détenus
par la législature ou le gouvernement
d’une province lors de l’entrée en vigueur
du présent article.»
30
Pouvoirs ou
droits existants
50. Ladite loi est en outre modifiée par Idem
adding thereto the following Schedule: adjonction dc l’anncxe suivante :
¢SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tirée des ressources
naturelles non renouvelables et des
ressources forestiéres
,.,..
9 a –
1. Pour l application de l article 92A :
Aclt 1‘ ” 30 a) on entend par production prirnaire tirée
(a) production from a non-renewable d’une ressource naturelle non renouvela-35
natural resource is primary production
therefrom if
(i) it is in the form in which it exists
ble :
(i) soit le produit qui se presente sous la
meme forme que lors de son extraction
upon its recovery or severance from its 35 du milieu naturel,
natural slate’ °r (ii) soit le produit non manufacture de 40
la transformation, du raffinage ou dc

November 25,1981 COMMONS DEBATES _‘MN‘ _ 13263
T/11* Constitution
(ii) it is a product resulting from proc- l’affinage d’une ressource, £1 l’exception
essing or refining the resource, and is du produit du raffinage du pétrole brut,
not a manufactured product or a prod- du raffinage du pétrole brut lourd ame-
uct resulting from refining crude oil, lioré, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-
refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refin- 5 des dérivés du charbon ou du raffinage 5
ing gases or liquids derived from coal or d’un équivalent synthétique du pétrole
refining a synthetic equivalent of crude brut;
oil; and b) on entend par production primaire tirée
(b) production from a forestry resource is d’une ressource forestiere la production
primary production therefrom if it consists IO eonstituée de billots, de poteaux, de bois 10
of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, saw- d‘oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d’autre
dust or any other primary wood product, produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de
or wood pulp, and is not a product manu- bois, a l’exception d’un produit manufac-
factured from wood.” turé en bois.»
PART Vl PARTIE Vl
GENERAL DISPOSITIONS GENERALES
giifliw vi r 51. (l) The Constitution of Canada is the l5 51. (l) La Constitution du Canada est la 15 Primflulédvlj
<>n’i‘i t‘ . . ,. . , C H i’
CHM,“ ‘°“° supreme law of Canada, and any law that is loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes 5:22;,“ ‘°“ “
inconsistent with the provisions of the Con- les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre
stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regle de droit‘
of no force or effect.
g0″S:;\”‘i°” QT (2) The Constitution of Canada includes 20 (2) La Constitution du Canada comprend : g<>”§\;lHliQ”d”
Mm 3 (a) the Canada Act, including this Act; a) la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la Z0 W a
(b) the Acts and orders referred to in PYé5°”l°l°l§
Schedule l; and b) les textes législatifs et les décrets figu-
(c) any amendment to any Act or order Yam 5 l’aflI1¢XB I;
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b). 25 c) les modifications des textes legislatifs et
des décrets mentionnés aux alinéas a) ou 25
b).
A”‘¢”§*”\9″“‘<> (3) Amendments to the Constitution of (3) La Constitution du Canada ne peut Msdiliwiofl
Consiiiuiion of . , . ., 1
C,,,,,da Canada shall be made only in accordance etre modifiee que conformement aux pou-
with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conférés par elle.
tion of Canada.
R¢P¢=\’>‘=”d 52. (l) The enactments referred to in 30 S2. (l) Les textes législatifs et les décrets 30Ab’°Ba”°”_°\
“cw Mm“ Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed énumérés at la colonne l de l‘annexe l sont noumuxmm
or amended to the extent indicated in abrogés ou modifiésdansla mesureindiquéea
Column ll thereof and, unless repealed, shall la colonne ll. Sauf abrogation, ils restent en
continue as law in Canada under the names vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous les
set out in Column lll thereof. 35titres mentionnés a Ia colonne Ill. 35
Conseqwilial (2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Tout texte législatif ou réglementaire, Mvqilisativfls
amcndmem Act, that refers to an enactment referred to sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention °°”°”“’”°s
in Schedule l by the name in Column I d‘un texte législatif ou décretfiguranta l’an~
thereof is hereby amended by substituting nexe I par le titre indiqué a la colonne l est
for that name the corresponding name in 40 modifié par substitution a ce titre du titrc4O
Column III thereof, and any British North correspondant mentionné a la colonne lll;
America Act not referred to in Schedule I tout Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britanni~
may be cited as the Constitution Act f0l- que non mentionnéa l‘annexel peutétre cité
sous lc titre de Loi 1-onsrirutionnel/e suivi de
80106~12

13264 ,___m_M COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1921
7’/iv Constitution
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its l‘indication de l’annee de son adoption et
enzietmeiit. eventuellement de son numero.
Abrogniion cl
modifications
qui en
5 decoulcnl
53. Part III is repealed on the day that is 53. La partie III est abrogee un an apres
one year after this Part comes into force and l’entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le
this section may be repealed and this Act Sgouverneur general peut, par proclamation
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le
of Part III and this section, by proclamation present article et apporter en consequence do
issued by the Governor General under the cette double abrogation les amenagements
Great Seal of Canada. qui s‘imposent 5 la presente loi.
Repeal and
consequcniiiil
amendments
French version
of Constitution
of Canada
54. A French version of the portions of the IO 54. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada 1OV¢r<~”i¢>{1
Constitution of Canada referred to in est charge dc rediger, dans les meilleurs
Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister delais, la version francaise des parties de la wnsiiluiiwinels
of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos- Constitution du Canada qui figurent at l’an~
sible and, when any portion thereof sufficient nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante
to warrant action being taken has been so l5est, des qu’elle est prete, deposée pour adop- l5
prepared, it shall be put forward for enact- tion par proclamation du gouverneur general
ment by proclamation issued by the Gover~ sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-
nor General under the Great Seal of Canada ment a la procedure applicable a l’époque a
pursuant to the procedure then applicable to la modification des dispositions constitution-
English and
French versions
ofcertain
constitutional
texts
English and
French versions
of this Act
Commence-
ment
Commence-
ment of
paragraph
23( l )(n) in
respect of
Qucbcc
Authorization
of Quebec
an amendment of the same provisions of the 20 nelles qu‘elle contient. 20
Constitution of Canada.
55. Where any portion of the Constitution
of Canada has been or is enacted in English
and French or where a French version of any
portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu-
ant to section 54, the English and French
versions of that portion of the Constitution
are equally authoritative.
55. Les versions francaisc et anglaise des
parties de la Constitution du Canada adop-
tées dans ces deux Iangues ont egalement
25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de
Versions
francaisc ct
anglaise dc
cerlains tcxlcs
Conslilulionncls
loi, des l’adoption, dans le cadre de l’article 25
54, d’une partie de la version francaise de la
Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.
56. The English and French versions of 56. Les versions francaise et anglaise de la ;/cf-ii<1!i-”
this Act are equally authoritative. 30 presente loi ont également force de loi. 30 a’:g”|§?;:°d°c’|n
presente not
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall 57. Sous reserve de l’article 58, la presente f?iE1’cé§r¢”
come into force on a day to be fixed by loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par pro-
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.
35
Canada.
58. (I) Paragraph 23(l)(a) shall come
into force iniresp_ect of Quebec on a day to be
fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or
the Governor General under the Great Seal
of Canada.
58. (I) L’alinea 23(I)a) entre en vigueur35a;\:§§r@§c
pour le Quebec 5 la date fixée par proclama- ,-1,23%, 230,0)
tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general n<>t»rIcQ\|¢b¢¢
sous le grand sceau du Canada.
(2) A proclamation under subsection (I) (2) La proclamation visée au paragraphe g::£ci;f<“””>i\<i\1
shall be issued only where authorized by the (l) ne peut etre prise qu’apres autorisation 40
legislative assembly or government of
Quebec.
de l’assemblee legislative ou du gouverne-
ment du Quebec.

November 25, l98l – COMMONS DEBATES 13265
Repeal of this
section
Short title and
citations
(3) This section may be repealed on the
day paragraph 23(1)(a) comes into force in
respect of Quebec and this Act amended and
renumbered, consequential upon the repeal
of this section, by proclamation issued by the
Queen or the Governor General under the
Great Seal of Canada.
59. This Act may be cited as the Consti-
lution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts
1867 to l975 (No. 2) and this Act may be
cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867
to 1981.
The Constitution
(3) Le present article peut étre abrugé 51 la Abzflsi-110:1 1:“
date d’entrée en vigueur de l’alinéa 23(l)a) P” °“ “M
pour le Quebec, et la presente loi faire l’ob-
jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et
Schangements de numérotation qui en décou- 5
lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du
gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du
Canada.
59. Titre abrégé de la presente annexe: Tim
Loi constitutionnelle de I981; titre commun IO
l0des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975
(n° 2) et de la présente loi: Lois constitu-
tionnelles de 1867 Z2 198].

l3266 _u’_‘_M.M_M_ COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The Constitution
MODERNIZATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, l98l
Column I
tent Act Affected
Column ll
Amendment
Column ill
New Name
I 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 oi” 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,
l87O
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, I875,
38-39 Vict., c. 38 (U.K.)
Order of Her Majesty in Council
admitting all British possessions and
Territories in North America and
islands adjacent thereto into the
Union, dated the 3lst day of July,
1880
(1) Section l is repealed and
the following substituted therefor:
“l. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I867.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
(3) Class l of section 91 is
repealed.
(4) Class l of section 92 is
repealed.
(1) The long title is repealed
and the following substituted
therefor:
“Manitoba Act, I870.”
(2) Section 20 is repealed.
Section l is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“l. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1871.”
Constitution Act, 1867
Manitoba Act, 1870
Rupert’s Land and North-Wesb
ern Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Constitution Act, 1871
Prince Edward Island Terms of
Union
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order

November 25, 1921 _ COMMONS DEBATES 13267
ANNEXEI
LO] CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
ACTUALISATION DE LA CONSTITUTION
The Com-timrion
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne I1
Modification
Colonne I11
Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1867, 30-31 Vict., c. 3
(R.-U.)
Acte pour amender ct continuer
1‘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)
Arreté en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant la Terre de Rupert et le
Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date
du 23juin 1870
Arrété en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant la Colombie-Britannique,
en date du16 mai1871
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1871, 34-35 Vict., c. 28
(R.-U.)
Arreté 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.)
Arreté en conseil de Sa Majesté
admettant dans l’Union tous les ter-
ritoires et possessions britanniques
dans l’Amérique du Nord, et les iles
adjacentes a ces territoires et posses-
sions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
(1) L’article 1 est abrogé et
remplacé par ce qui suit :
11. Titre abrégé 1 Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I867.»
(2) L’article 20 est abroge.
(3) La catégorie 1 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 :
t l0b0.»
(2) L‘article 20 est abrogé.
L’artic1e 1 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
KI. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1871.»
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 de l’adhésion de la
Colombie-Britannique
Loi constitutionnelle de 1871
Conditions del 1‘adhésion dc
|’1le~du~Prince-Edouard
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du
Canada
Décret en conseil sur les territ0i-
res adjacents

13268 – COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The Constitution
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981–Continued
SCHEDULE I
to the
Column 1 Column ll Column 111
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.
V11, c. 3 (Can.)
The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5
Edw. V11, c. 42 (Can.)
British North America Act, 1907. 7
Edw. V11, c. ll (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1915,
5-6 Geo. V. c. 45 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1930,
20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)
Statute of Wesimirister, 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. V1, c. 30 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act. I886.”
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I907.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I915.”
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I930.”
In so far as they apply to
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, I940.”
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

November 25, 1981 ~ COMMONS DEBATES 13269
ANNEXE I (suite)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
The Cons/imrion
Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1886, 49-50 Vict., c. 35
(R-~U-)
Acte du Canada (limites d’Ontario)
1889, 52-53 Vict., c. 28 (R.-U.)
Acte concernant 1’Orateur canadien
(nomination d’un suppléant) 1895,
2° session, 59 Vict,, c. 3 (Rt-U.)
Acte de 1’Alberta, 1905, 4-S Ed.
VII, c. 3 (Canada)
Acte dc la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5
Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45
(R.<U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan~
nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26
(R–U-)
Statut de Westminster, “F931, 22
Geo. V, ct 4 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36
(R.-U.)
Acte de 1’/Xmérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, ct 30
(R.-U.)
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit:
(3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1886.»
La loi est abrogée.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
12. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutiannelle de I907.»
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
43. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1915,»
L’artic1e 3 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
<3. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I930.»
Dans la mesure ou ils s‘app1i-
quent au Canada :
a) l’article 4 est abrogé;
b) 1e paragraphe 7(1) est
abrogé.
L’artic1e 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
‘<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I940.»
La loi est abrogée.
Loi constitutionnelle de 1886
Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron
tiéres de 1‘Ontario)
Loi sur1‘A1berta
Loi sur la Saskatchewan
Loi constitutionnelle de 1907
Loi constitutionnelle de 1915
Loi constitutionnelle de 1930
Statut de Westminster de 1931
Loi constitutionnelle de 1940

13210 __ . commons ostmres
November 25, 1981
The Com-ti/urion
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981—~C0ntinued
Column 1
Column II
Item Act Affected Amendment
Column Ill
New Name
20.
Z1
22
23
24.
25
26
27
28.
British North America Act, 1946,
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1949,
12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
British North America (No. 2) Act,
1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1951,
14-15 Geo. V1, c. 32 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1952, l
Eliz. ll, c. 15 (Can.)
British North America Act, 1960, 9
Eliz. ll, c. 2 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1964,
12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
British North America Act, 1965,
14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
British North America Act, 1974,
23 Eliz. II, 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, I964.”
Section 2 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“2. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act, I965.”
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1)
(Can.) is repealed and the follow-
ing 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

November 25, 1981′ COMMONS DEBATES 13271
ANNEXE 1 (suite)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
The C unstitution
Colonne I
Loi visée
Colonne 11
Modification
Colonne III
Nouveau titre
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, 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 l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32
(R-~U-)
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15
(Canada)
Acte de l’Amerique du Nord britan-
nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
Acte de 1‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73
(R.-U.)
Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1965, 14 Eliz, II, c. 4, Partiel
(Canada) ‘ ‘
Acte de l‘Amérique du Nord britan-
nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie
I (Canada)
La loi est abrogée.
Ijarticle 3 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
<3. Titre abrégé : Loi sur
Terre-Neuve.»
La loi est abrogée.
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogée.
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit :
:2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1960.»
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
-<2. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle de 1964.»
L’article 2 est abrogé et rem-
place par ce qui suit :
-<2. Titre abrégé de la pre-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle de 1965.»
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 de la pre-
sente partie : L01‘ constitution-
nelle de 1974.»
Loi sur Terre-Neuve
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
Loi constitutionnelle de 1964
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
Loi constitutionnelle de 1974

13272 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES
November 25, 1981
The Constitution
SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981-—C0nc1uded
Column I Column II
Item Act Affected Amendment
Column I11
New Name
Section 3, as amended by
25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.)
is repealed and the following sub-
stituted therefor:
“3. This Part may be cited as
the Constitution Act (No. I),
l975.”
29. British‘ North America Act, 1975,
23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)
Section 3 is repealed and the
following substituted therefor:
“3. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act (N0. 2),
1975.”
30. British North America Act (No. 2),
1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)
And on the amendment thereto of The Minister of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development,——That the
proposed Constitution Act I981 contained in the motion
in the name of the Minister of Justice (Government
Business, Government Motion No. 56), as printed in the
Order Paper of Monday, November 23, 1981, be
amended
(a) by adding, immediately after line 19 on page 24 of
the Order Paper, the following:
“PART II
RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF
CANADA
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of
the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recog-
nized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada”
includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of
Canada.” =- J;
(b) by renumbering the subsequent parts and clauses
accordingly.
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr.
Fulton, seconded by Mr. Broadbent,-—That the amend-
ment be amended by deleting the word “existing”.
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975

November 25, 1981 ” COMMONS DEBATES 13273
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)
LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
Colonne I Colonne II Colonne III
Loi visée Modification Nouveau titre
29. Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britan- L’article 3, modilié par l’article Loi constitutionnelle n” 1 de 1975
nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c.
Partie 1 (Canada) 28 (Canada), est abrogé et rem-
placé par ce qui suit 1
.13. Titre abrégé de la pre-
sente partie : Loi constitution-
nelle n” I de I975.»
30. Acte de 1’Amérique du Nord britan- L‘article 3 est abrogé et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975
nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 placé par ce qui suit:
(Canada) ~13. Titre abrégé : Loi consti-
tutionnelle tr’ 2 de I 975.»
Et sur Pamendement du ministre des Affaires indien-
nes et du Nord canadien,—Que le projet de Loi consti-
tutionnelle de I981 qui figure dans la motion du minis-
tre de la Justice (Affaires gouvernementales, motion n°
56 du gouvernement) parue dans le Feuilleton du lundi
23 novembre 1981 soit rnodifié par:
a) insertion, apres la ligne 19, page 24 du Feuilleton,
de ce qui suit:
¢PARTIE II
DROITS DES PEUBLES AUTOCHTONES DU
CANADA
35.(1) Les droits existants – ancestraux ou issus dc
traités – des peuples autochtones du Canada sont
confirmés.
(2) Dans la presente loi, cpeuples autochtones du
Canada» s’entend notamment des Indiens, des Inuit ct
des Métis du Canada»; “-1
b) les changements de numéros dc partie ct d’article
qui en déooulent.
Et sur le sous-amendement dc M. Fulton, appuyé par
M. Broadbent,——Qu’on rnodifie Pamendement en retran-
chant 1e mot uexistantsn.

13274 – COMMONS DEBATES November 25, I981
T/11’ Constitution
Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon): Before you leave the chair,
Madam Speaker, since ten o’clock last night, when I was
recognized, thcrc have been developments that require my
further COl1Sl(l0l”i\1lOI1 before participating in the debate. I
would therefore ask that in my stead you recognize our critic
for Indian :1l‘l’11irs, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr.
Schellcnhcqtei‘).
Miulum Speaker: I will recognize him if he rises.
Mr. Pinard: Madam Speaker, we on this side will be glad to
ugrcc to that, because unanimous consent is required. In
nddition, I would like to confirm that there were talks among
the representatives of the parties. It seems there will be
unanimous consent that the length of speeches on the sub-
amendment be limited to 20 minutes, beginning now. 1 would
like confirmation of that. This seems to be the case from
discussions I had with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr.
Nielsen) and the acting House leader for the NDP.
Mr. Nielsen: That is agreeable, Madam Speaker.
Mr. Deans: Madam Speaker, we have no objection to
reducing the length of the speeches. I understood that was with
an eye to voting on the subamendment and the amendment
before six o’clock this evening.
Mr. Pinard: Madam Speaker, we certainly do not object to
voting on the amendment and subamendment at six o’clock
today. I understand the hon. member for Yukon is in a better
position to speak on behalf of his party.
Mr. Nielsen: Madam Speaker, when 1 became House
leader, in my first meeting and in a subsequent meeting with
the government House leader and the acting House leader of
the NDP I assured them that the discussions between us would
be confidential and not exposed on the floor of the House of
Commons.
This is the first breach of that confidentiality. It does not
bode well for our future discussions if that kind of exposure is
going to take place. I am talking about the submission just
now made by the acting I-louse leader of the NDP relating to
discussions which were had between the government House
leader and him and the government House leader and me
separately, but in the nature ofa House leaders’ meeting. That
kind of thing is not going to help co-operation in the House of
Commons.
When I use the term confidentiality, that is exactly what I
mean, that discussions will remain confidential. Otherwise we
will get into the kind of hassle that was evident prior to the
summer recess on the floor of this House of Commons with
respect to negotiations, and I do not think that is at all helpful.
[Translation]
Mr. Pinard: Madam Speaker, l am afraid there is a misun-
derstanding and that the facts are being misinterpreted by the
hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). First of all, he is
referring to the situation before the summer recess, when his
hon. predecessor initiated some memorable agreements. ln my
opinion he would perhaps find it helpful to follow the example
of his predecessor, because we did, in fact, obtain very satisfac-
tory results that have been beneficial to Parliament and to this
country. I would therefore urge him to take a leaf from the
book of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
He also mentioned that we had an understanding that the
contents of our discussions were not to be revealed, and 1
certainly do agree. In any case, I am the one who made the
request in the first place. However, 1 think that what the hon.
member failed to understand when the hon. member for
Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) mentioned the possibility of
having a vote at six o’clock this evening on the subamcndment
and the amendment is, that, as I understand it, the hon.
member for Hamilton Mountain did not disclose the contents
of our discussions. He was referring to what seemed to him to
be a procedure that would be acceptable to all the parties.
I agree that the contents of our discussions should not be
disclosed. On the other hand, it is very difficult when an
agreement is reached to avoid revealing its substance if we
want it to be approved by the House. ln these circumstances, 1
can assure the hon. member for Yukon that, in the future, we
shall be very careful not to offend his sensibilities, but we also
want to be practical. Some of our agreements will have to be
made public if we want them to be approved by the House. We
shall have to properly define what constitutes an agreement
and what constitutes a discussion. Once that is settled, l am
more than willing, and I also would ask the hon. member, to
respect the confidentiality of our discussions. There are some
areas, of course, where we must be flexible enough to under-
stand that we are so close to reaching an agreement that there
is nothing against mentioning the discussions that have just
taken place. In this case, I assumed that we were agreed on a
20-minute limit on speeches. The hon. member for Yukon left
the floor, we discussed this privately and he did not hold it
against me. He said: Yes that is true, we do agree. We did not
agree on this point in the meeting but we finalized the matter
here. I assume that what the hon. member for Hamilton
Mountain said about the vote on the subamendment and the
amendment being held at six o’clock this evening was said with
the same intent. I want to assure the hon. member for Yukon
that we have no intention of disclosing the contents of our

November 25, 1981 – COMMONS
DEBATES 13275
meetings in the future, but we must be flexible enough to
accept that once an agreement is reached, we should be able to
explain how it was reached, what it was about and how it is to
be implemented by this House.
[English]
Mr. Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to the
agreement on 20-minute speeches. That was agreed upon. I
was concerned about the subject matter which went beyond
that and which was raised by the hon. member for Hamilton
Mountain. The government House leader left me with the
impression that that would be the subject matter of further
discussions this afternoon. That was going to be discussed
privately. We were in a three-way conversation as House
leaders when that discussion took place.
I am not going to stand idly by and see any political
manoeuvring by these two parties that are in bed together in
an effort to embarrass us. I am prepared to sit down at any
time with the other House leaders in a confidential way to
discuss ways and means of expediting House business, but if
we cannot have confidentiality in those meetings and discus-
sions, the whole purpose is destroyed.
I agree with the government House leader that at the
appropriate time, should a House order be necessary, or should
it be necessary to inform all members of the House what the
business is going to be and how it is going to be handled, at
that time, should it be necessary, the meetings and the subject
matter thereof will become public. I have adopted the standard
throughout, since our first House meeting, of not discussing
anything that goes on there with members of the media or
anyone else. My stock answer has been that the discussions
that take place between House leaders in House leaders’
meetings are confidential. I intend to keep them that way. If
we want to start off on a fresh foot and keep them that way,
that is fine; that is the way it will be. But if it is the intention
to have this kind of byplay that took place today about voting
on the subamendment and the amendment today, when those
discussions had not yet been completed, as far as I am
concerned, between House leaders, then that is the time that
House leaders’ meetings have lost any useful purpose. If that is
the manner in which—
Q (I520)
Mr. Deans: Oh, sit down.
Mr. Nielsen: The member for Hamilton Mountain says to
me, “Oh, sit down”. If tihc hon. member feels that retaining a
high standard of confidentiality in House leaders’ meetings-—
Mr. Deans: It is not a high standard, it is a lot of nonsense.
Mr. Nielsen: If he thinks that my intention to adhere to that
high standard is being an ass, then I can only say to him that
he has an entirely different idea of how proceedings here
should be conducted in an appropriate fashion.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
The Constitution
Mr. Nielsen: I would like the assurance from the govern-
ment House leader, since this matter has come up, that he
intends to keep those discussions confidential. If I do not get it
from him, then I will know how to conduct myself in the
future.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Pinard: It happens often in our meetings that are not
institutionalized that we will have discussions, that we have to
go back to our respective caucuses to submit proposals and
then come back and make up an agreement. Most of what is
said sooner or later is known by our own caucuses and,
therefore, is known by the press.
Mr. Nielsen: Not through me.
Mr. Pinard: It is very difficult to keep absolutely confiden-
tial what is discussed in our meetings. For example, following
our negotiations on the debate of the Constitution, we agreed
to consult with our respective caucuses this morning and
submit proposals. It is very difficult then to guarantee the
confidentiality of what has been discussed in the previous
House leaders’ meetings if we submit it to all Members of
Parliament. I cannot guarantee that his caucus will not keep
totally secret what we discuss in our House leaders’ meetings.
Mr. Nielsen: Let me draw one example. The government
House leader called me to the back of the chamber at about
ten minutes to three.
An hon. Member: You are disclosing secrets now,
Mr. Nielsen: We had a discussion in which certain proposals
were put to me involving a discussion between himself and the
NDP House leader. I have not yet even had the opportunity of
informing. my leader of the content of those discussions before
they were exposed on the floor of the House of Commons. I
ask you whether that is decency‘?
Mr. Deans: I do not quite understand what this is all about.
Mr. Clark: That is right.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mr. Deans: First of all, I want to suggest that if it is the
intention of the House leader for the official opposition to turn
everything into a political wrangle, then he will destroy what-
ever opportunity there is for co-operation.
An hon. Member: Right on.
Mr. Deans: I want to say further that by rising and indicat-
ing that there was agreement for 20-minute speeches, at that
point there was an admission that there had been a meeting
and that that matter had been discussed. All I was doing was
asking whether other matters that had been discussed had
been left out inadvertently or whether or not at some subse-
quent point in time there would be further discussion.

13276 . COMMONS DEBATES November 25, I981
‘l’l|t’ (.‘0/mriturian
As far as I run concerned, whatever takes place at House
leaders’ meetings, so fur as the House leader for the Tories is
concerned, his contribution is zilch anyway.
Madam Spoukerz I understand from this exchange that the
House him ngreed upon a limitation of 20 minutes for
speeches. ls this for today or for the entire debate?
Mr. Nielsen: For the subamendment.
Madam Speaker: Agreed and so ordered.
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin): Madam Speaker,
because of the time limit imposed upon members and the
importance of the amendment that is before us today, I would
like to limit myself to speaking on the amendment.
This resolution, as we know, has been put before us. Many
of us, as individual members, can find reasons why one section
or another is not in a sense perfect to us. We feel many should
be left out or others included.
One area that is of importance to me as a member, and to
many other members in this chamber, has been the leaving out
of the aboriginal clause and now the proposal that it be
replaced. We want to treat this as a very serious amendment
and hope that we can contribute to the thoughts and desires of
all parties to deal with this in a serious manner.
I believe it is essential for our aboriginal peoples that their
treaty rights be reinstated in this charter. Recently I went over
the committee reports at the time the wording of Section 34
was discussed. That was back on January 30. At that time the
feeling was evident that this was a very historic moment. It
was the culmination of months of lobbying, of years of hard
work by the native groups and a determination by all partici-
pants finally to come to some conclusion. It was a dedication
to a principle. That should not be overlooked.
This process of constitutional renewal has been ongoing for
many years. It took a decisive step forward on the evening of
October 2, I980, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a
televised statement began with these words: “A century and
thirteen years ago, a group of remarkable people launched a
remarkable endeavour. They created a country.“
While the Fathers of Confederation indeed did create a new
political unit, a new country, Canada, it is sometimes too easy
to overlook the obvious. There was not only a land upon which
Canada was built in existence in 1867, but there also were the
original inhabitants that were here long before any European
settlers emigrated to this land. A society, a culture, a way of
life, existed in Canada. More precisely, a number of cultures
existed in this country. As we now continue with the
endeavour, as is provided in Section 36 of this resolution, these
aboriginal rights must be defined. It will be a very difficult
quest for the provinces, the federal government and the native
people to define what are aboriginal rights.
As I said, many cultures existed in this country. As a result,
it will be difficult to sit down and make a definition that will
cover all of these political entities that existed and what rights
they now have because of those in this nation. The indigenous
peoples have lived in Canada for thousands of years. When the
settlers arrived, they were welcomed. The Indian community
never attempted to impose its way of life or its culture on the
European settlers at the time. In fact they welcomed those
settlers. They allowed them to live in a different culture and
climate. They gave them examples and the ability to deal with
the country.
Q (I530)
Many times they have assisted in the country’s advancement
over the years. For example, in the war of 1812, some 9,000
Indian warriors fought as allies of Canada. During two world
wars 12,000 Indian people enlisted and fought on the side of
the allies, and many of them lost their lives.
Even today as a country we have never adequately recog-
nized our native veterans. We created the Indian Act which
many felt was paternalistic. We created reserves which placed
native people in groups on small tracts of land which, in many
instances, we thought were worthless at the time. We did not
allow these people the right to vote and to participate in
government until recently. At one point we did not allow them
the right to drink alcohol. Now we wonder why they are
fighting so hard to have their rights entrenched in the Consti-
tution! Basically it is because they never had the rights which
we accept as natural since the founding of Canada in 1867.
Many times in our history we have found that the tracts of
land set aside were valuable to us. Therefore, we took certain
of those parcels on behalf of governments. The cutoff lands in
British Columbia are a perfect example. Of course, the natives
reacted with realistic suspicion at the time. We entered into
the James Bay agreement because we needed a power source,
and it became immediately important to settle aboriginal
rights. That was also the case with respect to the Beaufort Sea.
We wanted to build a pipeline from the Yukon, through
Alberta, to the United States; suddenly it became important to
deal with the concept of aboriginal rights.
Basically Indian people were immature politically, but they
are moving very rapidly to gain political maturity. They
virtually had no weapons because they faced a different kind
of law from that to which they were accustomed. We imposed
our law. They faced a massive culture shock, deplorable living
conditions, alcoholism, poverty and unemployment. Now they
are faced with being dealt a blow as far as their rights are
concerned. Their rights are first in the Constitution, then out of
the Constitution. Now they are back in again and one word is
included which is causing great concern.
When we give a group of people with such a history some
hope that finally an amendment will be placed in the Constitu-
tion which will give them some assurance of equal rights and
of what are aboriginal rights, and then they find it taken out,
is it any wonder they reacted in the manner they did’! A strong
and courageous voice has developed. Native people marched
on the Hill. They displayed a conduct which I wish many other
groups would display when marching on the Hill, speaking for
their rights.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

November 25, 1981- COMMONS
DEBATES 13277
Mr. Schellenherger: This is why I am angry when I hear
people complain that the reason the rights were removed was
because native people could not agree among themselves
whether or not Section 34 should be included. They never
stated that. They stated that because of the definition clause it
was not enough, that it may not mean anything more than
they have at the present time. All they have been requesting
over the months is something more specific to define legitimate
aboriginal rights. Because of that concern and, as I said
before, genuine mistrust, is it any wonder they would ask for
more as far as recognition of aboriginal rights is concerned?
No wonder anger, panic and cynicism engulfed native people
when they learned they had been dropped from the charter. At
least it is understandable, To them it was the latest in a long
line of broken promises. They felt angry and betrayed when
they were dropped from the charter. We now find that they
are legitimately suspicious of the new word “existing” con-
tained in the amendment.
This word has taken us all by surprise. Many of us are
attempting to define it, to find out what it really means. The
Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) and the Hon. Minis-
ter of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro)
assured us that it in no way changed the meaning of the text of
the amendment before us. It is the same now, with the word
“existing”, as it was before without the word.
We in our party feel that it is essential to reinstate Section
34, which is now Section 35. We are pleased that that is the
case, but we also realize the tremendous importance which is
being placed upon the federal government, provincial govern-
ments and native people of the land to define what these rights
are. If we are to be faced with another impediment, another
word such as “existing”, it only makes a conference so much
more important.
Because of the manner in which the resolution has been
drafted and because Section 36 has been included, it is impera-
tive for the House, since nine provinces have signed the accord
and there was the unanimous movement of the House to have
native rights placed in the Constitution before, to place the
heavy burden of faith and hope of aboriginal peoples upon the
conference; it is a tremendous undertaking. I know the prepa-
ration for the conference will be very important, but it also
places upon us as legislators and upon the provinces that
signed the accord the obligation to deal in a fair, proper and
legitimate manner with the definition of aboriginal rights.
That will be the most important part of the conference.
Would it not have been better for the conference to have
taken place before, so Zthat iwe would know with what we are
dealing and would not have to flounder about trying to find the
meaning of words? Would it not have been better to place
before the House the hope that aboriginal rights would be
adequately dealt with and adequately defined? We would then
not have to return to the House time and time again to
question whether or not promises were kept.
It reminds me of the James Bay situation. We signed an
agreement to take over certain lands. We included in the
agreement various terms of justice which were supposed to be
The Cvnstilution
upheld, such as housing and health care. Various moneys were
to be paid to eliminate the term “aboriginal rights”. Now we
find the government is living up to the letter of the law, the
meaning of words, but not up to the spirit of the agreement
which the aboriginal people of the area and we as members of
the committee felt we had discussed in specific terms. We feel
we showed some spirit and some reason by which the agree-
ment should have taken place. When we now look at the
wording, is it any wonder that native people are justly con-
cerned, organized and lobbying us to do the right thing’?
I know time goes very quickly and I have much more I
should like to say.
Q (1540)
However, I must state that since 1973 this party has stood
formally in this House for aboriginal rights.
In 1973 a motion was moved in committee by the member
who is now the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon.
member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). I will read just one
sentence from his motion, as follows:
——pubIiely accept and endorse the said concept ofaboriginal title.
That was supported by the two opposition parties at that
time. We stand by that, Mr. Speaker, and we have shown this
by our intention to move an amendment which we are pleased,
through the accord with the provinces, the government has
been able to move. Last week when it seemed that aboriginal
rights would not be included in the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms, my colleagues and I were deeply disturbed. That is
why we chose at that time to reintroduce the motion on
Section 34.
When the Constitution is finally patriated and Canadians
have their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have a just
method of amending the Constitution in Canada, how sad it
would have been if not all Canadians could share in the pride
and happiness of that event. How tragic it would have been if
one group of Canadians felt that they had been excluded and if
that group should have been the aboriginal peoples. That
situation would have been unacceptable to more than the
native peoples; it would have been unacceptable to this nation-
al Parliament and this nation.
The time is now right for us to act responsibly by entrench-
ing aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution, thus put-
ting an end to the injustices of history, of which none of us is
proud, and replacing them with a positive change—with an act
of good faith. That good faith must come from the provinces,
the federal government and the native peoples if we are ever to
solve this problem. I hope that will be soon, Mr. Speaker.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
[Translation]
Hon. J.-J. Blais (Minister of Supply and Services): Mr.
Speaker, not only is it a pleasure for me to rise, but I
appreciate being able to participate in this debate today. It is
of course a historic occasion, particularly on Saint Catherine‘s
Day which gives a very special meaning to the debate. Mr.

13278 COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The Constitution
Speaker, I was in the House last Friday when the Minister of
Justice (Mr. Chrétien) introduced the amended resolution. I
felt there was in this House a consensus the likes of which I
had never seen before on such a basic question. Naturally it
took quite some time to reach an agreement, but the events of
last Friday really warmed one’s heart because all members on
both sides of the House readily accepted the promises made by
the Minister of Justice.
If we consider the role played by the Minister of Justice,
Mr. Speaker, we really have to extend our congratulations to
him for what he did and for his contribution to the events we
are witnessing now. He was the chief negotiator for the
government, he worked long and very hard and never gave up,
Mr. Speaker, until he had finally completed this arduous task.
I have also read in yesterday‘s Hansnrd the remarks made
concerning the aboriginal rights and the answers given by the
Minister of Justice. I find it difficult to understand why
members opposite should raise objections about one additional
word, the word which means the existing aboriginal rights,
that is to say those which are confirmed by Canadian history.
Indeed, if we are talking about aboriginal rights, about treaty
rights, it is because those rights do exist.
We cannot expect the creation of ancestral or aboriginal
rights in the near future because, after all, when we are talking
about the nature of ancestral rights we imply that those rights
used to belong to our ancestors and since they are no longer
with us the rights must have belonged to those ancestors who,
of course, have since died. Considering that we cannot talk
about future rights, I do not see anything wrong with that
additional word. If it was added, as the Minister of Justice has
already said, it was indeed to make explicit something which
was already implied in Section 34 when it was inserted in the
first constitutional proposal. The word “existing” has now
been added simply to meet the requirements of certain prov-
inces that wanted a more specific wording. Moreover, when we
say that we are grateful to the Minister of Justice, it is obvious
that the architect of the constitutional proposal, its principal
mover, namely the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau),
deserves the thanks of all Canadians for the efforts he has put
in this project. It is because of his foresight, his sense of
history, his love ofjustice, his persistence and his patience that
we now have before us a constitutional proposal of such scope.
The contribution of the New Democractic Party, and espe-
cially of its leader, should, be singled out because last year,
when we were looking for siipp”oi’t, it was the New Democratic
Party and its leader who gave us that alliance, that support
which provcd essential to maintain the principles included in
the constitutional proposal. The leader of the NDP showed a
lot of courage because he did not have the support of all his
caucus, and we know that there were divisions within that
group for some time. He held on and even confronted his own
members. We are also all indebted to the premiers of the
anglophone provinces. They have helped us achieve the final
consensus and they have also agreed to the compromises which
were essential to achieve it. I am personally grateful to them
for having agreed to Section 23 ofthe Charter ofRights. As you
know, Mr. Speaker, Section 23 is very sensitive because it
guarantees the educational rights of francophones outside
Quebec.
As recently as 12 months ago, who would have believed that
the English-speaking provinces and their governments would
agree to submit freely to the requirements of Section 23 and to
relinquish part of their jurisdiction in the field of education as
provided in Section 23′! For my part, I would not have believed
it, because of my long experience of the manner in which
francophone minorities outside Quebec were dealt with. I have
already told the House of my experience at school when I was
unable to attend a French secondary school in Ontario. Since
all this has already been put on the record of the House, I will
not repeat it. However, Mr. Speaker, I had another experience
as a young lawyer in Toronto. I was then approached by
French-Canadian parents from Midland, in Simcoe county,
who wanted French language education in that county, not
even at the secondary level, only at the primary level. At that
time, you had to apply to the separate school board for this
right. Our request was turned down. I then went before the
separate school board in Simcoe county in Ontario, where
there is a large proportion of francophones, to ask for French
schooling. Our request was firmly denied. The members of the
school board were very nice and very polite, but they were
under no obligation to recognize these rights which we had
always considered as ours. When I was a young lad, we,
Franco-Ontarians thought that we had a right to be educated
in our mother tongue. But that right was not clearly expressed
in the Constitution. What we have done now is to precisely
spell it out.
Q (1550)
Furthermore, with regard to secondary education, when I
was in Toronto, I sat on the advisory committee on French
language whose purpose was the establishment of a French
high school. That took four years of hard work, Mr. Speaker.
In a large city like Toronto, where there are two million people
and 60,000 French Canadians, there was a real need for such a
school. Yet that process took four years. I have also seen the
frustration experienced in communities throughout Ontario
when they tried to set up French schools. Why‘! Because this
came under the local school boards and not the provincial
government as such. Everything was almost in complete chaos.
Yet, all that is past now because Section 23 recognizes minori-
ty language rights. Despite the reservations some may have, I
am quite pleased with the “where numbers warrant” provision.
Rights are guaranteed but there has to be enough students to
justify the setting up of French classes or of a French school.
What pleases me is the fact that the “where numbers warrant”
provision will be interpreted generously by anglophone prov-
inces, precisely because they have accepted Section 23. They

November 25, I981 – COMMONS
DEBATES 13279
will therefore be willing to give a generous interpretation to
that provision so that as many students as possible can exercise
that right.
The second reason why I am not too concerned with the
“where numbers warrant” provision in Section 23 is that it will
be up to the courts to enforce it. In his speech, the Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Clark) expressed the hope that provinces
would be generous in their interpretation of that section. I
hope so too. But he forgot to add that if provinces are not
generous in their interpretation, that is not the end of it, since
reference will be made to the courts for their interpretation,
and those courts will be bound by Sections I6 to 20 of the
Charter. It is precisely in Sections I6 to 20 that for the first
time in our history, the official status of both French and
English is entrenched. Therefore, when French minorities in
anglophone provinces ask for French education, at either grade
school or high school level, they can expect to have the same
rights, in the final analysis, as the English majority of those
same provinces.
Indeed, if a French community wants a French school, the
criteria used, as far as numbers are concerned, will be the
same as would be applied for an English community asking for
an English school. That is normal. It is clear and understand-
able. That is precisely how the court will interpret this provi-
sion. No discrimination will be made between a rural and an
urban region, because the criteria applied to a rural commu-
nity for English schools are the same as those applied to an
urban community, and the same goes for French communities.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I sec no problem with the “where
numbers warrant“ provision. Of course, I would have preferred
that the phrase be deleted, but it was not possible and there it
is. French groups outside Quebec might now find an interpre~
tation to that phrase in favour of the establishment of French
schools throughout English Canada to serve French Canadians
that would like to attend them. Mr. Speaker, I was therefore
somewhat shaken by the fact that the province of Quebec
dropped us francophones outside Quebec, and for once that
English-speaking provinces had been generous, they did not
also agree to Section 23. Of course, this is disastrous. They did
not expect either that Englishspeaking provinces would agree
to Section 23. And they were taken by surprise when the
conclusion was reached on French minority rights outside
Quebec. They had no reply, although they had undertaken in
I977 to grant equivalent rights to English minorities in their
own province. They did not apt accordingly.
In addition, I would be less than honest were I not disap»
pointed that Ontario did not choose to follow New Brunswick‘s
example in agreeing to Sections I6 to 20 of the constitutional
charter. I hope they will do so in the near future. I can assure
that in my capacity as a government member of this House, I
will keep on pressing the government to agree to that actual
section, not Section I33 because it is not enough, but Sections
16 to 20 of the new Charter of Rights. Just the same, I must
The Conslilutiori
point out, Mr. Speaker, that last weekend there was a meeting
of the association of French-speaking members of the legal
profession in Ontario for the purpose of giving French-speak-
ing lawyers in Ontario the opportunity to compare notes so
that they will be ready to practice in the French courts that
are being established in Ontario. As you are aware, we have
already amended the Criminal Code to provide for French
language court proceedings in Ontario, and this is already in
place. Also, the province of Ontario has designated a number
of areas, including my own, as areas where French language
courts are to be established in order that court proceedings can
go on in French, not only in criminal matters but also in civil
matters.
Some would have wished that government had forced Sec-
tions I6 to 20 on the province of Ontario. However, I read
yesterday in the newspaper Le Droit an editorial that I would
like to share with this House, because l agree with it and I also
feel it is very informative, and I quote:
But can the federal government be blamed for not going still further? Should
it get involved more deeply into exclusive provincial domains‘? Already the
Quebec government is indignant because school safeguards granted religious
groups I I4 years ago are extended to language groups. Any consensus between
\l\C provinces would then be llflposslblc.
Two options are open to the Federation of French-speaking
Canadians outside Quebec. In effect, the editorial attacked the
Federation, which is fighting for the adoption of Section I33 in
Ontario.
The FFI-IQ is left with two possibilities. First, it could do its utmost to
convince Pierre Trudeau to strike a heavy linguistic blow and in total defiance of
the provinces, to unilaterally introduce in Westminster an omnibus constitutional
motion with the sole support of the federal Liberals and I even doubt that they
would all agree to it. It would be political suicide to disregard provincial
jurisdictions for the sake of coast to coast bilingualism. Second, the FFHQ could
get ready for the second phase of the constitutional reform where provincial
jurisdictions and political institutions will be specifically discussed.
Mr. Speaker, I must say at once that I agree with the
editorial. Secondly, I think it gives a proper direction to the
FFHQ which, with all other French-speaking institutions in
various English-speaking provinces, should change its policy
and instead of zeroing in on the amendments made to the
Canadian constitution, they should try to inform the various
provincial governments, to prepare various French minority
groups for their application to governments, and school
authorities, to draw up files to assist public authorities
unfamiliar with minority language education. They should
begin to educate public authorities in English-speaking prov-
inces with a view to enabling them to adjust when they show
some reluctance. They should also indicate to French-speaking
minorities how to take advantage of Section 24, which allows
them to go to court to have their rights confirmed.
As I have said before, I would have liked to see the whole
package in force in English-speaking provinces. However it is
impossible! Back home, however, we say that a bird in the
hand is worth two in the bush. We know that the bird we have
in hand is a big one. We also know that we must protect it and

13280 . COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The Constitution
use it to try to catch the one in the bush. That bird in the bush
we will certainly catch, because we are indeed very determined
to do so. What is great about the constitutional package is that
for the first time the right to education for francophones is
clearly spelled out and enshrined. lt never had been before.
There used to be separate school systems; now, French-spealv
ing Canadians outside Quebec and English-speaking Canadi~
ans within Quebec are clearly identified as linguistic minori-
ties. Mr. Speaker, this will allow all Canadians, whether
French or English speaking, to choose freely the place they like
most and may want to call home.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude espe-
cially to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, as l indicated
earlier, has not only elaborated a framework for the future of
Canada on the basis of its past history, but succeeded in
securing the consensus of all Canadians on his action. Mr.
Speaker, I suggest that no Canadian will ever be too grateful
for that. I, for one, thank you for granting me a few additional
seconds, Mr. Speaker, and I say to you that the times all
Canadians are living now are most favourable and promising.
. (I600)
{Eng/is/1]
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
am glad to have a few moments to participate in this part of
the constitutional debate which concerns the rights and privi-
leges of our native peoples in their own country. The longer we
carry on this discussion about the Constitution, the more
evident it becomes that we were right when we said we should
patriate the Constitution, that we should agree on an amend-
ing formula and then bring the Constitution home to broaden
the discussion about other matters. These include the Charter
of Rights and Freedoms, matters which profoundly affect
individuals, matters which profoundly affect the relationship
between the individual and the state and matters which affect
individual groups in our society, such as our native people.
Our native people do have a very special position in our
society in Canada. They are aboriginal people. They have been
in this country since time immemorial. Not only that, they
have made a valuable and important contribution to this
country. Our aboriginal people have played an important part
in our early history and in the evolution of what we now
consider a great and important nation in a community of
nations in the world. It is said that had it not been for the
Indians, the province of Ontario may not have been an English
province. It is said that if it were not the residents in the Arctic
and their traditional rightsandipursuits, we would have had no
justification to proclaim sovereignty in the Arctic.
Certainly all of us know that had it not been for the Metis
and Louis Riel in Manitoba, that part of the country may not
be as it is today.
ln 1973 this party achieved in this House the recognition of
the concept of aboriginal rights for the first time. Before that
and certainly since then the courts have tried to come to grips
with the definition of “aboriginal rights”. lfone takes a look at
the proclamation of 1763, aboriginal rights have something to
do with property. No one doubts that. But are aboriginal rights
only to do with property‘! What about cultural rights‘? What
about religious rights’? Some courts say that aboriginal rights
only concern property rights. But if aboriginal rights have
something to do with religious and cultural rights, why did we
allow the missionaries to take our native peoples to the river to
baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy
Ghost?
That certainly was not a solution to their problem. They
have their own religion and they have their own culture. Their
culture is one that cannot co-exist with the western civilization
because it is something quite different. Their culture is one
which moves in harmony with nature whereas the culture and
basis of western civilization is a culture that has taken upon
itself to manage nature to its best advantage. Therefore, the
native culture and the western culture cannot co-exist.
If we were to give our native people some cultural integrity,
we would have to back that up with constitutional rights.
Everything else means assimilation and integration. We would
be lying to our native people if we told them that we were not
asking them to assimilate and to integrate by not protecting
their cultural rights. l have already said their culture cannot
co-exist with that of the western culture in our Constitution. lt
is for that reason that natives in our country need special
protection.
Q (|6lO)
Natives are not the only group that needs special protection.
ln Quebec there are the special circumstances of the French
culture and language. That is why some of us have now agreed
that there needs to be special protection and recognition in the
Constitution of the reality that there are six million French-
speaking persons in North America and 260 million English-
spcaking persons. This is a special problem which requires
special consideration. That is why I am saying nativc people
deserve and must have special protection in the Constitution.
What should that protection be‘! Is it good enough just to
say that we will recognize and affirm the concept of aboriginal
rights when we have not taken the time to give a definition to
that concept‘! What is the rush now‘? We have an accord to
patriate the Constitution and an amending formula. Why can
we not sit down and define aboriginal rights, which we recog~
nize do exist, before we take the final step‘? The Minister of
Justice (Mr. Chrétien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
tell us there is no need for that because they are deeply
committed to sit down with the aboriginal peoples and talk
about their rights and put a definition on those rights as soon
as the Constitution is patriated. [fl were the Prime Minister l
would have no problem agreeing with that, but l am not the
Prime Minister; nor was I the Prime Minister or an agent of
Her Majesty the Queen when the treaties which were never
kept were Signed.
If we look back 80, 100 or 200 years when the treaties were
signed, at least we asked the native people to sit down and
discuss what was being signed. Some of these treaties were

November 25, 1981 – COMMONS
DEBATES l
peace treaties because the natives were at war with the settlers
who were moving on to their land and arrangements had to be
made to keep the peace. Not only that, the government said
that whatever was agreed to, whether it be a box of shells, a
Hudson Bay blanket or a medical chest, would be written
down and signed.
That is not so with this Constitution. The Constitution will
be brought back, the government will sit down with the native
peoples and talk about the future of their culture and lan-
guage, but there will no longer be any consent or signature
required. The nine Premiers and the Prime Minister will
decide and say: “We are your guardians forever; we do not
need your signature any longer”. That is why I am saying that
this Constitution cannot work without a consent clause,
because natives have special problems. These problems cannot
be compared with women’s rights or other political rights.
There must be a consent clause as there was at the time we
were negotiating the treaties.
Many members have discussed this crucial word “existing”,
which, as they say, is totally meaningless, if you listen to the
advice of the Minister of Justice and the Crown counsels. This
word “existing”, which is now the subject of this amendment,
was inserted by the Minister of Justice. The minister told us
yesterday that we do not have to worry about a thing because
it is totally meaningless. If I know anything about law, Mr.
Speaker, it is that legislatures are not supposed to put mean<
ingless language into law. Logic tells me that if the word is
meaningless, then it should be taken out.
I say that it is dishonest for the Minister of Justice to stand
in the House and say that the word “existing” is meaningless,
because if it were it would be his duty to take that word out. It
is not for us to give the Supreme Court language in our
fundamental law that is meaningless. You know as well as I
do, Mr. Speaker, that the words “existing rights” are not at all
meaningless.
The premiers have decided among themselves that the
native people are getting everything to which they are entitled
now and nothing else. The status quo is what the native
peoples will be dealing with. The premiers say: “lf the status
quo is property rights, we will find them some property
somewhere to hunt and fish until we need that property for
drilling and developing resources. Then we will find some-
where to push them, farther away, somewhere where the rats
and caribou are.” If “existing rights” means cultural and
language rights or religious rights, they certainly do not exist
right now so there is little hope for those rights to exist in the
future. _ g
I feel very deeply and emotionally about this issue. l find it
very difficult to reconcile what we are doing here with my
conscience. I cannot believe that this national disgrace should
be allowed to exist for another hundred years. I cannot believe
that we should continue to make ourselves the target for
condemnation by international tribunals to which our native
peoples have found access. These tribunals have agreed with
our native peoples that they are being treated as second-class
citizens and that we have commited an act of cultural and
The Constitution
religious genocide. l cannot believe that this nation, as proud
and rich as it is, can afford to let that kind ofdisgrace continue
in the future.
I suggest that we must take steps today to correct this
imbalance. I question the integrity of those who have asked to
have the word “existing” added to the resolution. I question
the integrity of those who will not give the native people at this
crucial time in our history the right to consent to matters
which affect no one else but themselves, to consent to changes
in our fundamental law which will have no effect on anyone
but them. What this means is that we are no more sincere in
coming to grips with the very special rights of our aboriginal
people in this country than we were when we signed the initial
treaties.
I do not have any faith in the conferences that are to be
conducted for the purpose of putting a definition on the term
“aboriginal rights“. We have recent examples of why there
should be doubt and mistrust. We only have to look at the
James Bay agreement for an example. lt is not so long ago
that we sat here and talked about that. There were just a few
of us in the House who sounded warning signals at that time
and we were right. The treaty was signed and then forgotten
about. These meetings will continue, Mr. Speaker, and the
native peoples will be able to participate, but the decisions
about their lives, their future and their culture and religion
will be made by people who have very little understanding, if
any, of the real problems of our two cultures. Our two cultures
can only co-exist if one develops respect for the other. The
rights of these cultures must be entrenched in the basic law of
the country.
If we cannot have any faith in what the premiers are going
to do after the Constitution is patriated, certainly the courts
have been given a clear direction regarding what they are to
do. They are to legislate the status quo since the words
“existing rights” are in the Constitution. Existing rights have
not helped our native peoples achieve self-determination in the
future.
If we are not prepared to accept the status quo, I say let us
defeat this amendment. I find myself in a very difficult
position because we have been told that unless this word stays
in the resolution, the accord could be fractured. Well, I will
not develop any pride in our Constitution if my neighbours
have to live in abject poverty and deprivation, as the native
peoples whom I represent in Parliament do and as they have
done for the past 300 years since the white man took over their
land.
I cannot be proud of my country when that kind of situation
exists. l will find it difficult to consent to something like this
and I would go so far as to say that I do not care if this accord
is broken or not. I am ashamed of what we have done to our
native peoples in the past and I will fight for them in the
future, as l am now.

13282 . COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The Constitution
Q (I620)
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of State (Multiculturalism)): Mr. Speaker, over a year ago I
told the minister responsible for the constitutional reform that
I intended to take part in this historic debate. Finally, after an
incredibly long debate in this House and after over 500 hours
of proceedings and public hearings at the joint committee, I
finally have the honour to share my vision of our country and
of our constitutional charter with the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, during the past year, I may have prepared as
many as three speeches to be delivered in this House. I believe
that if they had been delivered at the time they were written
they would surely have seemed quite relevant.
The events being what they are, those speeches are no longer
relevant and I had to write a new one in the past few days. The
political conditions have so drastically been altered, Mr.
Speaker, that you will understand why my comments are
particularly directed to Quebecers. In my previous speeches, I
had never questioned the necessity under the present political
circumstances of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover
I had examined at length the European Convention for the
Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms
signed in Rome on November 4, 1950. And if you will allow
me one digression, Mr. Speaker, I would say that our charter,
although there is no such provision at present, will in the
future require not only a commission of human rights but also
a special court such as the European Court of Human Rights
to ensure the enforcement of our Charter of Rights and
Freedoms. However, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that as
far as the contents of the charter are concerned with the
recognition of native rights and sexual equality, it is a greatly
improved paper. It is now a much more valuable resolution
than it was last week and it can be favourably compared with
any charter, especially the European Convention.
The most important fact this day, on November 25, Mr.
Speaker, is that we are on the verge of voting in the Parlia-
ment of Canada on a constitutional resolution patriating our
Constitution to which has been added an amending formula
and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I must admit that in
spite of the fact that I am certain that Canada will be a
greater country once the resolution is passed and our constitu-
tion is patriated, I must say that as a federal member repre-
senting a Quebec constituency, léam disappointed and sorry
that Quebec, on account of its separatist government, is not a
party to this agreement. Not only as a Member of Parliament
but also as a Quebecer I had to decide what kind of Canada I
wanted for today and especially which one I wanted for my
children. And my choice is clear: I choose our motion, our
constitutional resolution which is, in my view, a true Canadian
vision that has nothing to do, of course, with that of Rcné
Levesque and his separatist government.
I want a Canada which will be far greater for having a
Constitution which recognizes and exemplifies our national
identity. When I attended the Saint-Jean seminary in Quebec,
Mr. Speaker, they used to teach Greek philosophy, and espe-
cially Aristotle, and I remember that in one of his books,
Aristotle had this to say about constitutions, which is quite
relevant to what we have before us today, and I quote:
A good constitution must express the identity of a nation and also promote the
establishment and stability ofa just and orderly society.
But in expressing its vision for the future, Mr. Speaker, a
good constitution for Canada must recognize the successes and
failures of our past history, that is, a Constitution committed
to the ideals of tolerance, diversity and dissidence, a vision that
is affected as much by the deportation of the Acadian people
as by the French school issue in Manitoba, as much by Louis
Riel‘s rebellion as by the involvement of the Canadian Armed
Forces in peacekeeping duties, as much by the detention of
Canadians of Japanese descent during World War II as by
Canada’s international image as a peace-loving country. Mr.
Speaker, we need a Constitution which reflects fundamental
values and reiterate the truly Canadian views expressed by Sir
Wilfrid Laurier when he wrote, and I quote:
l will devote my whole life to achieving reconciliation, harmony and under-
standing among the various elements of our country,
I think that we are indeed very lucky that our Prime
Minister is a worthy successor to Laurier in word and dced.
He had to be a very courageous and ambitious man, Mr.
Speaker, to attempt, after 54 years of repeated failures, such a
giant constitutional step forward. It would have been easy for
him to abandon or postpone the constitutional reform, and
only a leader who really understands Canada, our country, its
differences and needs, could also understand that the time to
act and move forward had come if one believed in the future of
Canada. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we will have a constitution that
we can call our own.
Only a few days before the dramatic breakthrough of
November 4, a book appeared in Canada which summarizes
my vision of our country. As indicated by the very title of this
book, “Fragile Freedoms”, by Justice Thomas Berger, who is
well known in Canada for his tolerance and far-sightedncss,
our fundamental freedoms have long been very fragile realities
for minority and dissident groups in Canada, and although this
alone could warrant the entrenchment of a charter of rights,
my position differs from that of Mr. Levesque on another
point, and it is the extreme importance of having rights and
freedoms granted to all Canadians. That is why I unreservedly
support this excerpt from Justice Berger’s book, and I quote:
[English]
lf every Canadian is not to enjoy freedom of conscience, of speech, of religion.
of association and 1\SScmb|y, as necessary incidents of citizens, and the federal
state docs not include express provisions for the safeguarding of fundamental
freedoms throughout Canada, freedoms common to every citizen and enforce»
able cqually in every province, then what is the point of our remaining together‘?
What is the common bond—whal are the common values—that hold us
together?

November 25, 1981 ‘ COMMONS
DEBATES 13283
[Translation]
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the separatist government in
Quebec claims that no common values are strong enough to
justify Quebec’s presence within confederation, and that over
the short term, as far as it is concerned, the only thing of value
might be an economic association. Mr. Speaker, with that kind
of principle or policy, it would indeed have been amazing for
Mr. Rene Levesque to sign the constitutional agreement with
the Canadian government, regardless of what offers were
made, The unanimous agreement of the ten provinces and the
central government, the government of Canada, on a series of
common values that would serve as the very foundation of
federalism, would be in obvious contradiction with the descrip-
tion of Mr. Levesque, the one he refers to so often and which
he quoted repeatedly in his book “Option Quebec”, in which
he compares Quebec and Canada to two scorpions in the same
bottle. It therefore seems obvious that Mr. Levesque and his
separatist party are prisoners of their own rhetoric.
Mr. Speaker, is there then such a thing as a possible and
acceptable constitutional pact‘? l must confess that, to my
mind, there cannot be any for Mr. Levesque. He and his
separatist government have failed the test of good faith. l have
no intention, Mi: Speaker, of repeating the gesture of our
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, in Quebec, two weeks
ago, threw him a line. But the door was opened on November
4 last. Today, even as l am speaking, it is still open and will
continue to be even after the final vote is taken on the
resolution. And if it is, Mr, Speaker, at this time when we are
so close to the vote, when we are fed up to the gills with
constitutional talk, that is because the people of Quebec, those
who send us here to Ottawa and those who elected Mr,
Levesque in Quebec want to keep it open, want the talks and
negotiations to resume. Still, the Quebecers are those who bear
the brunt of the door that remains closed in the separatist
camp, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Levesque made three objections to the Canadian agree-
ment signed on last November 4. Ishould like to dwell briefly
on the one that strikes me as the most fundamental in terms of
the vision I have of Canada. What obviously flies in the face of
the philosophy of the Parti Quebecois are the mobility clauses
as they would apply to Quebec. And yet, there is no doubt the
people of Quebec will benefit from them. Maybe more than
any other province, because unfortunately, we have seen in
recent years provincial legislatures pass legislation restricting
manpower mobility. It is also obvious that in the very short
term all provinces would have had to pass such legislation with
the result that workers would have been prisoners within their
own province, their only consolation being that their fellow
workers in their province would have shared their lot.
What are we proposing, Mr, Speaker? We are proposing
that all Canadian workers, and especially Quebec workers,
whenever they cannot find employment in Quebec, could move
to greener pastures, in Alberta or elsewhere, in order to get
The Constitution
some work, to earn a living, to have their children educated in
French, and to return to Quebec some day if they wanted to.
Of course, those workers who stay in Quebec, precisely
because of the amendment proposed by the province of New-
foundland in a genuine spirit of federation, would be protected
here as long as the province did not have full employment, and
thus the province of Quebec is now protected. On its face, this
makes so much sense and it is so evident we must ask why the
PQ is against it. Well, it is clear their opposition stems from
the fact that this stands for a united Canada, an open Canada
while they want a closed-in Quebec, an isolated Quebec. That
kind of Canada the separatists cannot accept. What is at stake
is the lot of all Canadians, including Quebecers. That lot must
be improved, at the cost of entering into an agreement with the
Canadian government. And this is something the Quebec
government is not willing to do.
The references to us Quebec Members of Parliament being
traitors, bums, gangsters and thieves point to a lack of argu-
ments and a reliance on rhetoric, It is ignoring public opinion,
Mr. Speaker, because the population is fed up with family
quarrels, because all that bickering and aggravation are going
on between Quebecers.
But let me conclude by quoting Laurier once more, because
this explains why Levesque cannot sign, and expresses our
challenge, as Members of Parliament from Quebec and l
quote:
We are French Canadians, but our Country is not confined to the territory
overshadowed 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 \vesl, 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~countrymcn 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. l um :1 Canadian.
The rights of my fellow-countrymen of different origins are as dcur to me. as
sacred to roe, as the rights of my own race. What l claim for us is an equal place
in the sun, an equal share of justice, of liberty; that share we have it; we have it
amply. and what we claim for ourselves, we are anxious to grant to others.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is our role here. Such a role Mr.
Levesque and his government would deny us. They are jealous
indeed because they are truly isolated. They are locked in. And
l want to ensure all the constituents of Laprairie and all
Quebecers that once this resolution is passed, it will only be a
starting point because every day, with a Constitution that will
be here in Canada where it may be amended freely, we are
going to strive together to improve the lot of all Canadians,
and this includes all Quebecers.
Q (1630)
[English]
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Curnberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, when l was first elected to the House of Commons in
1957, almost a quarter of a century ago, my leader, thc Right
Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, displayed the same deep sense of

13224 ‘ commons
DEBATES November 25, 1981
‘1‘/ie (‘mi.r!l’1n/io/1
commitment for fundamental rights and freedoms of individu-
al Canadians as has been projected by the present Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Mr. Deifenbaker’s commitment to a
Bill of Rights for Canadians came from his ethnic background
and personal experience as a lawyer and politician. It was Mr.
Deifenbakcr‘s lifelong ambition to make Canadians who are
not of English or French extraction comfortable as Canadians.
The present Prime Minister has indicated by his words and
actions the same type of commitment and concern for Canadi~
ans of French origin. I know what a special day it was for Mr.
Diefenbaker and for Canadians when thc Bill of Rights was
introduced in the House of Commons on July 1, l960, and
again when it was proclaimed on August l0, l960, but the Bill
of Rights never realized its full potential as the protective
statute it was meant to be, much to the chagrin and Frustration
of Mr. Diefenbaker.
First, it was a federal statute and thus did not relate to
provincial affairs unless provinces passed enabling statutes.
Some did, others did not. Second, the Bill of Rights was never
given the priority consideration Mr. Diefenbaker had hoped
and anticipated it would receive by the Supreme Court of
Canada.
There were examples where it was a protection to Canadi-
ans. such as the Drybo/res case, but all too often the protec-
tions offered individual Canadians were ignored by the
Supreme Court in the decisions that august body rendered,
Because these are facts, it pleases me that we will have a
Charter of Rights and Frccdoms in our Constitution that
touches both the federal and provincial governments. While
that charter might not be perfection, it is the beginning of
something very special in the area of rights and freedoms that
will be built upon in a truly democratic way as Canada moves
forward to find its rightful place in the sun.
November 4, 1981, was a historic day of monumental
significance for the maturity of Canada and Canadians.
Almost since the last general election there has been an
urgency of purpose on the part of the Prime Minister to
conceive a new Constitution for Canada. Many will argue, and
there is much evidence to support such arguments, that we
sacrificed much from an economic viability point of view to
reach this moment in our history. Such arguments, however,
cannot dilute the special significance of this debate. We have
come of age in a special way.
There were times leading up to the agreement of November
4 when l feared for this nation’s future. To be very honest, I
was a pessimist about a final agreement in Canada. I hated to
imagine what might transpireiin London were such an accord
not achieved. The achievement of agreement between the
federal government and nine of the ten provinces of Canada
was a victory for the maturity of our nation and its people, and
not for any single individual in this nation.
Q (I640)
However, it must be recognized that the stubborn persist-
ence of the Prime Minister made it happen. it must also be
recognized that the Prime Minister proved himself a most able
negotiator in his dealings with the ten provincial Premiers.
lt must also be recognized that my leader made a very
special, significant and courageous contribution to this
achievement. There were many times, especially in the final
months of i980 and again during the committee hearings and
the debate that followed in this chamber, before the resolution
was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, when my leader
could have taken different, more popular stands. But he per-
sisted, and in many ways was the catalyst that kept it moving
until we had this document before us.
The premiers, in representing the different views of our very
large nation, made it happen because they were willing to
compromise, which is the art of politics, with the Prime
Minister. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chrétien) has been the
workhorse for the Prime Minister in seeing that the flesh was
put on the skeleton when deals were made. The hon. member
for Provencher (Mr. Epp) from our party acquitted himself
with distinction in his special efforts to achieve the compro~
mise that finally became the accord.
I came from a town and county in Nova Scotia that has
contributed much to the history of the nation. The first
member from Cumberland, which was the constituency I first
represented in Parliament, was Sir Charles Tuppcr. Sir
Charles Tupper was joined by three others from Cumberland,
namely, Dickey, McCully and Chandler as Fathers of Confed~
eration, in conceiving this nation.
I would suggest to the hon, member for Edmonton East
(Mr. Yurko) that taking stands on significant matters can
sometimes prove to be a very heavy burden, l have some
appreciation of how he has felt during this long debate on the
Constitution because of his commitment to a Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. I might tell the hon. member that Sir
Charles Tupper, who was premier of Nova Scotia and made
the decision to have Nova Scotia join in the confederation of
the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Upper and
Lower Canada, found that in Nova Scotia he was one of three
MPs elected to Parliament in 1367, with l6 Liberal MPs
opposed to confederation elected in the other seats. Sir Charles
also found hc unleashed the anger of Joseph Howe, a not
insignificant force in the politics of our nation at that time.
l believe that John Diefenbaker would have championed this
constitutional accord because it is the firm evidence that we
believe in ourselves and in our future destiny. We are involved
in a unique and historic happening that will not return again to
our nation.
For those who feel it is not the perfect document, and it is
not, l say, do not be concerned, because when this resolution is
passed by Westminster we will have a Constitution in our
nation that can be improved upon because, included in that
Constitution, is an amending formula that guarantees the
Canadian Constitution will not become a sterile document only
amendable by the Supreme Court of Canada but will reflect
the attitudes and desires of Canadians through their elected
representatives, either federal or provincial.

November 25, 1981 ‘ COMMONS DEBATES W H 13225
I say to my colleague from the province of Quebec who has
just finished his speech that I really feel for the members from
the province of Quebec at this particular juncture in our
history because, by and large, they support the Prime Minister
in his special commitment to produce a new Canadian Consti-
tution and, at the same time, they have a government in their
province that opposes the objectives of a new kind of Canada
for Canadians. I can well understand why the Premier of the
province of Quebec would find arguments with every word and
phrase in that constitutional accord that has been agreed upon,
arguments why he should not sign it. It is because the whole
aspect of that accord is opposed to his philosophy on the place
of Quebec in future on the continent of North America. They
are in the vanguard in ensuring that the people of the province
of Quebec have the opportunity tomorrow, if not today, to
become full partners in the confederation of Canada. No
mattcr what Mr. Levesque thinks of where his province should
be heading, I believe there will be a different government in
that province tomorrow and there will be the opportunity for
the people of that province to join with the rest of Canada in
the signing of this accord. That is my attitude, Mr. Speaker,
I think that this Constitution is much larger than any
political party. It is a special feeling that every individual must
have about his own nation. While it is not the perfect docu-
ment, in my opinion, it is a very unique Canadian document,
unlike any other constitution in the world. We should recog-
nize it as a signal achievement. This debate and this resolution
instil a new sense of pride in me when I say I am a Canadian.
As well, it pleases me, as President of the John G. Diefen-
baker Memorial Foundation, to know that while this debate is
taking place in the House, our foundation will be holding its
first annual meeting in this building. While we cannot have
John Diefenbaker with us to provide the inspirational message
he always managed on historic occasions, we will be able to
pay tribute to the special contribution he made to the building
of this nation.
In conclusion I would like to say to the members of the
present government, as President of the John G. Diefenbaker
Memorial Foundation, that I thank them for their consider-
ation and reconsideration in relation to Mr. Diefenbaker‘s
home in Rockliffe Park, which he bequeathed to the nation. In
the first instance, the government believed it could not accept
the house because of many other commitments it had made to
Mr. Diefenbaker in his life but, on reflection and reconsidera-
tion it has agreed to accept it as a historic site and a museum
for future generations of Canadians, and has agreed to ask the
foundation to implement and carry out the operation of that
home as a historic site and museum. I can say to you, Mr.
Speaker, the foundation accepts that responsibility with a
great deal of pride and pleasure. As one who has been here for
a long time, I can only say that I deeply regret that John
Diefenbaker is not with us today. I am sure he would consider
this a very special and unique debate that will be forever an
important factor in the lives not only of Canadians today but
of Canadians, tomorrow.
Mr. Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Constitution
Mr. Blais: No.
Mr. Nielsen: Did I hear the Minister of Supply and Siwvlces
saying no?
Mr. Blaisz I was commenting on a private conversation.
Mr. Nielsen: I rose on a point of order which l think will be
pleasing to the government, especially the government House
leader. In order to expedite the debate and the hopeful early
conclusion of debate on the resolution, we in this party are now
prepared to vote at once on the subamendment.
. (I650)
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted to vote 20
minutes from now, as soon as the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) has completed his
speech.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The Chair will take the
silence as some indication that the last proposal was agreed to.
Mr. Nielsen: No, it was not, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared
to vote at once, if the Chair can obtain the consent of all
parties; I am sure you will get it from the government side.
[Translation]
Mr. Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to vote
anytime. Clearly enough the New Democrats are indicating
that they would prefer contributing one more speaker. There-
fore, we are not denying consent. In these circumstances, we
are agreeable. I do not think they are.
[English]
Mr. Nielsen: You gesture, Mr. Speaker; we are still pre-
pared to vote at once.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): It is evident to the Chair
that there is no agreement, but the hon. member for Yukon
(Mr. Nielsen) is encouraging the Chair to put the question to
the House. Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the vote
immediately‘?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Some hon. Members: No.
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake): Mr.
Speaker, originally I had many concerns about the process of
patriating the Canadian Constitution. Certainly the original
package has changed over the many months the House of
Commons and the people of Canada have been intensely
involved in the patriation process. My original concerns were
about the unilateralism of the process versus co~operative
federalism of the provinces working together to form one
country. I had concerns about the package as well, in terms of
provincial ownership of resources, the amending formula, the
referendum and the Senate veto. Also I was concerned about
native rights from the beginning.

13286 ‘ ____W_’_M_ COMMONS DEBATES November 25, 1981
The (.’on.r!i!ulI’0n
We have reachctl this point in the debate, and I am limited
to 20 minutes. I shuultl like to dwell on the subject of the
subamendmcnt and the amendment concerning native rights
which are now included in the package once again. Also I have
another concern with regard to the province of Quebec. I
should like vcry much for the Québécois to be part of the
agrcenient. I hope the Liberal members oi that province truly
represent the people in what they are doing. I hope there will
in fact be an accord across Canada and that we will remain
one country. It saddens me deeply to think that Quebec is not
part ofthe accord
When I speak of Indian and Metis people, let me make it
clear that I refer to treaty Indians, non-status Indians, the
Inuit and the Metis. Unless I state otherwise, when I speak of
Indian and Metis people this is what I actually mean. I was
shocked when the accord came back on November 5 and the
recognition of the aboriginal rights of native people in the
country had been removed. I am pleased to a large extent that
we will now place it back in the charter.
One particular area of concern to me is the word “existing”
which is being included in the resolution as it now stands. If
the word “existing” docs not mean anything, if it is there just
to make more explicit the meaning of the section in the
resolution, if it does not change anything, it is important as a
matter of principle to have it removed, espccially because of
the distrust Indian and Metis people have for governments
which have dealt with them over a number of years, going
back to the first treaties that were signed and the many
promises that were broken.
In the part of Saskatchewan which I represent, there are 17
Indian reserves, and approximately 50 per cent of the popula~
tion of the northern part of my riding consists of Metis people.
From living in the area and having worked closely with Indian
and Metis people, I know they have very special rights which
have been recognized I am referring to their historical rights,
to scripts, to the affirmative action programs in various parts
of Canada, to statutes, treaties and to the royal proclamation
of I763. It is not a matter of them not having rights. The real
problem is that ovcr the years an economic base has never
been formed. There has never been a political willfiand I say
this in a non-partisan manner-—to bring those rights to the
forefront and to develop the needed economic bases so that the
people of who_m we are speaking today can live with some
pride and dignity.
Over the years great institutions were developed which were
supposed to take care of Indian and Metis people. Those great
institutions have failed. In fact, they placed Indian pcoplc into
a position of reliance upon our system. We have dominated
them. We have passed out money to appease their feelings and
at times to keep them quiet. This has caused a great reaction
in the white community. Many people in tho white community
are upset by the amounts of money and by the rights given to
Indian and Metis people, but they do not understand that all
that giving was not helping. It has only oppressed Indian and
Metis people in Canada, and made them regress.
I have mentioned that the word “existing” should be
removed. I feel very strongly about this. It is a principle of law,
of statutory interpretation, that every word in a statute——and
in this case it is the Constitution-has meaning and must be
considered by the courts when something comes before them.
If this word remains, I am sure the judges will have to say that
the word is there because the legislators or the parliamentari-
ans, the people who put it into the Constitution, the governing
law of the land, wanted it there. It may mean a variety of
things. For example, the Metis people are not recognized by
the federal Department of Justice as having any rights. If the
courts look at the interpretation of the Department of Justice
without looking at the historic rights, the land scripts and
other rights of Metis people, the Metis could very well have no
rights left under the Constitution as it stands now with the
inclusion of the word “existing”. In order to clarify it or to
make it explicit in terms of the way I am speaking today, the
word should be deleted.
I think there are things which should have happened before
we became involved in the constitutional process. As has been
mentioned by other hon. members, the talks with Indian and
Metis people should have taken place before the constitutional
resolution was drafted. The provincial and federal govern~
ments tried to impose some type of rights without adequate
consultation and the consent of the aboriginal people, the first
peoples of the land.
Now I should like to refer to a point which was just brought
to my attention. Today the Newfoundland legislature brought
in a resolution to keep the word “existing” in that section of
the constitutional resolution. I was informed a few moments
ago that Premier Brian Peckford introduced the resolution in
the Newfoundland assembly and it was defeated.
Some hon. Members: I~Iear, hear!
Mr. Anguish: There might be accord from the premiers but
there is certainly not accord from all governments. The Liber-
als and some Conservatives in Newfoundland defeated the
resolution today. This should bear heavily upon the minds of
the parliamentarians who will be voting on this resolution in
less than an hour.
I should like to deal with the items that I feel should have
been included in Section 36 but were put in the background.
We should lay down some principles which govern the discus~
sions, meetings or consent-findings meetings, with Indian and
Metis people within the period of a year after thc Constitution
comes back home. Those governing principles should define
who the treaty Indian people are, who the Inuit are, who the
Metis are, who the nonwstatus Indians of this country arc.
They should determine what the rights of these groups are so
that \ve can come to some kind of fair settlement and live with
these groups in harmony. As a social democrat and as a New
Democrat I believe they should have some right of selt’-dcter-
mination. I also believe that is the way most Canadians would
want the issue resolved. _

November 25, I98 I COMMONS
DEBATES I 3287
Q (I700)
It must be made clear that the Metis people are in fact
Indian people. That should be stressed in the governing Sec-
tion 9l(24) of the British North America Act. We should
recognize the Metis people and the non-status Indians as
Indians in the language of the statutes that we put through the
House.
Also, the following principles should prevail at the meetings
provided for in Section 36. These principles were authorized
and approved by the Joint Council of the National Indian
Brotherhood. They read:
I. The aboriginal title, aboriginal rights and treaty rights of the aboriginal
peoples of Canada, including:
(a) all rights recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7th, I763;
(bl all rights recognized in treaties between the Crown and rtntl0rtS or tribes of
Indians in Canada ensuring the Spiritual concept of Treaties;
(c) all rights acquired by aboriginal peoples in settlements or agreements with
the Crown on aboriginal rights and title;
are hereby recognized, confirmed, ratified and sanctioned.
2. “Aboriginal people” means the First Nations or Tribes of Indians in
Canada and each Nation having the right to define its own Citizenship.
3. Those parts of the Royal Proclamation of October 7th, I763, providing for
the rights of the Nations or tribes of Indians are legally and politically binding
on the Canadian and British Parliaments.
4. No Law of Canada or of the Provinces, including the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada, shall hereafter be construed or applied
so as to abrogate. abridge or diminish the rights specified in Sections l and 3 of
this Part.
5. (a) The Parliament and Government of Canada shall be committed to the
negotiation of the full realization and implementation of the rights specified in
Sections I and 3 ofthis Part.
(b) Such negotiations shall be internationally supervised, if the aboriginal
peoples parties to those negotiations so request.
(c) Such negotiations, and any agreements concluded thereby, shall be with
the full participation and the full consent ofaboriginal peoples affected.
6. Any amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any constitu-
tional matters which affect the aboriginal peoples, including the identification or
definition of the rights of any of those peoples, shall be made only with the
consent of the governing Council, Grand Council, or Assembly of the aboriginal
peoples affected by such amendment, identification or definition.
7. A Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Protection Office shall be established.
I think it is imperative that the Government of Canada and
we as parliamentarians take action on this, Mr. Speaker. The
Indian and Metis people in this country have had rights for
many years but one would hardly realize this to see them on
the reserve or in the urban native settings where alcoholism
runs high and unemployment is such a disaster that it is not
included in the Statistics Canada unemployment reports.
Today, Indian babies are beirig born with a fetal alcohol
syndrome as high as 50 per cent. This must have a disastrous
effect on the education of these children and the way they will
proceed through life. An aboriginal rights protection office
should be established so that there is political will and art
economic base is established to fulfil those rights and aspira-
tions of the Indian and native people. They must be fulfilled
with some authority and by a specific group responsible for
those obligations.
The C0n.s”tituti0n
The document goes on as follows:
8. A declaration that Indian Governmental powers and responsibilities exist as
a permanent, integral fact in the Canadian policy.
That should happen within the year following patriation.
The document continues:
9. All pro-confederation, po$t~ConrCdCf8li0n treaties and treaties executed
outside the present boundaries of Canada but which apply to the Indian Nations
of Canada are international treaty agreements between sovereign nations. Any
changes to the treaties requires the consent aftlte two parties to the treaties, who
are the Indian Governments representing Indian Nations and the Crown repre-
sented by the British Government, the Canadian Government is only a third
party and cannot initiate any changes.
That refers to agreements that have already been made.
Those things should be clear in our minds as Canadian politi-
cians when the resolution returns to this country. Those things
should be included for the protection of the Indian and Metis
people in order to overcome some of the atrocities committed
over the years and to put respect and self-determination back
into the hands of the Indian and Metis people.
So far we have failed to do this, Mr. Speaker, but a good
place to start would be to remove the word “existing” from the
resolution by voting for the subamendment. If that word
means nothing, then we should remove it as an indication of
our trust. If the word “existing” means something, then that
should be established too. I have tried to point out that the
interpretations of the courts may differ. The Indian, and
especially the Metis people, may have to go to court to
establish that they have rights before they can enter the
negotiating process in which they determine what they want in
the year following patriation. I think the word should be
removed in order to clarify the situation.
We have reached the point where we must restore the trust
that has been eroded over the years between ourselves and the
Indian and Metis people. Earlier today, a Conservative
member spoke of smoking the peace-pipe together, talking
about concerns, and then signing a document. But that trust
has been lost over the years. At the present time there is very
little trust between the Indian and Metis people and the
predominantly white government in Canada.
That must be changed, Mr. Speaker. Let us change it now
by deleting the word “existing” from the resolution. Let us
approach the negotiations following the patriation of the Con-
stitution with a political will to return to the hands of the
native and aboriginal peoples the right of self~determination,
the right to guide their own destiny and to have the Indians
and Metis work with the rest of Canada as they work in
harmony together.
Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!
Mrs. Ursula Appoloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minis-
ter of National Defence): Mr. Speaker, it is 114 years since
the Fathers of Confederation laid aside seemingly irreconcil~
able differences in the larger interests of the union of this
country. The country itself was born, despite differences, and
it grew in defiance of geography. Throughout the years, the
plea for unity has become almost stale with frequent usage.
The coin may be common, but it certainly is not debascd.

13288 ~ COMMONS DEBATES November 25, I981
The (.‘0n.l’li1u1i0n
When other countries laboured in blood and fratricidal strife
for their very survival, Canadians struggled in controversy and
frequently acrimonious debate.
Q (|7|l))
However, if there was one outstanding quality which kept us
together, surely it was the quality of faith, the faith of
successive leaders that Canadians could prove to the world
that a nation such as this, born in strife, diverse in its origins,
speaking two languages and representing the embodiment of
several great cultures, can survive and prosper. That faith has
been tested on many occasions. There were those who ques-
tioned our will to survive as a nation. There were others who,
recognizing the bone and the muscle of nationhood, queried
whether or not we possessed the spirit of nationhood. The spirit
of nationhood had to be embodied in a sense of patriotism
which would put Canada ahead of its parts; and, for a fleeting
period, that emotion was palpably evident in the year that
marked Canada‘s centennial.
Finally, we had a distinctive, truly Canadian flag which
became the symbol which helped erase the image and the idea
of any kind of hyphenated Canadian. However, even the
adoption of a distinctive flag was not sufficient to instil in all
Canadians a sense of common purpose, a deep sense of pride in
their country, and an abiding faith in its destiny. To a certain
extent, Canada was a nation in search of an identity. After all,
what did it really mean and what does it really mean to be a
Canadian‘! Now, for the first time in 114 years, we are finally
in a position to at least partially answer that question, an
answer which probably would not have been supplied through
the process of simple patriation.
Finally, we are able to establish in our own minds and in the
minds of the rest of the world, the kind of people we really are,
the vision of a country we intend Canada to be, and our deep
commitment and loyalty to that country and to the principles
by which we govern ourselves.
I have noticed, among some members of the public, and
even of the media, a certain impatience that Parliament should
devote so much time to constitutional matters when economic
matters are so very pressing. My feeling is that unless we
proclaim our determination to survive as a country, to live
together, to work together and to build together a worth-while
nation, we will be constantly assailed by economic forces to
which the very lack of cohesion would leave us particularly
vulnerable.
Finally, and in an awesome endeavour demanding a sense of
responsibility which the importance of the question deserves,
we are about to achieve that c’ohesion. However, even as I
sense the euphoria of the moment, I am conscious~—as, indeed,
are all hon. members of the House~of the absence of one
voice from the proclamation of common purpose. What is that
purpose? It is to build a truly Canadian nation in which all its
people will be known by their tolerance, fairness and determi-
nation to uphold the dignity and to acknowledge the intrinsic
value of every man and every woman. It is on these very
attributes of tolerance and fairness that I wish to dwell as I
believe they are the hallmark of the constitutional proposal
now before us.
Perhaps I am in a unique position to be objective in analy-
sing the Canadian identity for the simple reason that I am
probably the newest Canadian in the entire House, inasmuch
as citizenship was conferred on me only ll years ago. There-
fore, I am Canadian not by birth but very definitely by
conviction. Unlike some people, I had a choice of countries to
which I could have emigrated, and each of them probably
could have offered me an equal amount of economic
opportunity.
Why, then, did I specifically choose Canada? Fundamental-
ly, it was because of my faith in Canada as an open, free,
tolerant country which refused to remain prisoner of its own
past but which was capable of reconciling the past with the
present in one vibrant, throbbing hope for the future. I choose
it too because of its immense size and the sense of grandeur,
adventure and rich variety which that size denoted. In geogra-
phy alone it offered me more wealth than any treasure trove of
which I had ever read or dreamed. I believed that Canada
would welcome me and my family, not despite our cultural
background but, perhaps, even because of it. I believed that
diversity was considered to be a challenge and even an asset
rather than a pitiable or even contemptible liability. I believed
that the only restrictions imposed on myself and on all mem-
bers of my family were those of good common sense, our own
ability and our own willingness to work.
My private faith in Canada and in the Canadian way of life
has been fully justified. The daughter of a women who had to
join the suffragette movement in order to obtain the right to
vote is now, herself, a member of Parliament. The sister of a
fully qualified veterinarian, denied a prominent government
position because of his faith, can now proudly, and without
fear of reprisal, claim from government benches, “I am a
Catholic“. ”
My personal odyssey through four countries has no doubt
given me a perspective of freedom unseen by many who so
blithely take freedom for granted. However, the same odyssey
gave me an insight into other sections of the document now
under debate when fate conspired to deprive me of some of my
abilities. For years, I joined the ranks of handicapped people.
This charter is eloquent testimony to the fact that a broken
body does not denote a broken spirit. Human worth and
dignity cannot and must not be governed by the outward
condition or appearance.
Therefore, drawn to the freedom, tolerance and boundless
opportunity which, for me, spelled Canada, I applied for and
was granted Canadian citizenship. I so well remember the day
on which I became a Canadian citizen because, for me, it was
an occasion which prompted a very deep sense of marvel and
gratitude and, at the same time, a particularly strong sense of
responsibility toward the country which had so fully accepted
me. However, even as I rejoiced that my own personal faith in
Canada had been amply justified, I soon realized that many of
the freedoms which I had enjoyed had been denied to others,
because the freedom I had experienced came not from a

November 25, I981 ~ COMMONS
DEBATES
constitutional guarantee but merely from tradition. We all
know that tradition cannot too often be broken.
Whereas my freedom had come with a sense of good
fortune, I was determined, because it was my responsibility, to
guarantee the freedoms of people who would come after me.
Therefore, it was not a kind of Russian roulette where one
wonders who will be free and who will not. On this momentous
occasion, we are on the brink of guaranteeing those freedoms,
not just to me but to all who come after us, and I am very, very
proud of that.
Again, as a new Canadian, I spoke of the vastness of this
country which had attracted me, the wealth and the diversity
of it. As a new Canadian at the time of the referendum in
Quebec, I was shattered. First of all, I marvelled. I thought,
“How can people, born with this immense wealth, want to get
rid of it and make the country smaller? How could people
want to live only in a province and not in a great big country?”
I could not understand, for many, many months—»perhaps I do
not understand even to this day–those people who would want
to make Canada smaller. I remember also that at that time,
particularly in the I-louse, we feared for the future of our
country. We feared for Canada. I in recent days realized the
analogy of what has happened. In Quebec the quiet women got
together in what we now call the Yvette movement. Quietly
and systematically they won over the male leaders of Quebec
and made them accept the Canadian situation. That was a
tremendous triumph for the women of Quebec. It was a
tremendous triumph for all of Canada. I refer to that because
what happened in the last few days has been woman power.
We have achieved equality of the sexes in this Constitution. It
is not really thanks to a few individual, isolated men who
happen to be premiers of provinces, it is mainly due to the
work of women who felt, just as I do, about the integrity and
the intrinsic value of the human person.
. (I720)
If I can, I would like to direct my plea to the women in
Quebec in particular to repeat what they did. The Yvette
movement gave us and the rest of Canada the idea in the first
place of sticking together to ensure that we can have a united
country. I ask the women in Quebec now to please help us once
again. I ask them to get all their power together to ensure that
their leaders give to them the same equality that our leaders
have done in the rest of Canada. I am sure they can do that.
I urgc the immigrants of Quebec—and here again I can only
speak to them in Englishfi-to use their power. They came to
Canada with the same aspihations that I have. We are guaran-
teeing the rights that people like me enjoy. I want the immi-
grants in Quebec to realize that. I want them to go to Mr.
Levesque to ask him what he is doing. I want them to ask him
if he is not robbing them of their rights.
Now I want to speak directly to the women of Quebec. If
they will forgive me, I shall try my fractured French to address
them in their language.
The Constitution
[Translation]
I too am a woman. I too am a mother whose aspirations are
the same as yours for our children. I too am a Canadian. So, I
invite you to join me in making sure that the whole Canadian
family has a future filled with hope, tolerance and unlimited
potential.
[English]
Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises
out of comments made by the hon. member for The Batt-
lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). I know members of the
House would want accuracy to prevail. While I do not have
the verbatim account of what the hon. member said, I believe
that he made the point that the house of assembly in New-
foundland today voted or decided that if the word “existing” in
Section 34 were not deleted, the assembly could not support
Section 34. I want to tell the House and the hon. member» –
Mr. Fulton: That is not what he said.
Mr. Epp: I think what is important is that I do mention
what happened, Mr. Speaker. There was an attempt to have
the motion introduced, and the opposition did not give consent.
It was on that basis that the motion did not go forward.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. BIaker): The Chair will recognize
the hon. member for The Iiattlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr.
Anguish) whom I expect to finish the issue.
Mr. Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I want the context of my speech
to be accurate. At this time I will not withdraw what I said in
my address this afternoon. However, if events over the next
days prove that what I said was inaccurate, I will certainly
stand up in the House at the appropriate time and withdraw
any inaccurate statement I might have made. I do appreciate
what the hon. member is trying to do.
Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkarneen): Mr. Speaker, I
feel especially privileged to take part in this constitutional
debate in this House of Commons, the highest court of the
Canadian realm. Without a doubt, of all the multitude of
issues which have occupied the time, attention, talents and
emotions of members over the past century, this issue has by
far the greatest implications. The debate, which has been the
preoccupation of the House despite obvious more pressing
economic concerns, will define the future direction and com-
plexion of this Canada of ours for all time to comc. This is the
ominous and vital context in which the whole Constitution
matter must bejudged.
As individuals, our characters are formed from the amalgam
of all the inputs and actions which have gone into our develop-
ment to this point. We are the product of parental guidance, of
education, of spiritual conviction, of environment, of the influ-
ence of friends and of our community.
Similarly, Canada‘s character as a nation has been formed
by our experience and traditions in living together as at federa-
tion. The substance of the original constitutional proposal was
an attempt to repudiate the essential elements of the character

13290 – COMMONS DEBATES November 25, I981
The Constitution
of Canada, the elements of experience in partnership and
equality which arc so essential in a federal state.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) took
the highroad approach to this debate when he addressed the
House last Friday. lrlis comments and observations were com-
pelling, made the more so by his stated intention to refrain
from politically inspired rhetoric. That speech had a quality
and depth befiting a national leader as he lay before the House
and the nation the issues and the position of this party on some
of the unresolved irritants to domestic peace and unity.
It is possible that I will wander from the highroad example
of my leader. You see, I am an angry and not so young man. I
am angry about what this and previous Liberal administra-
tions have done to our nation, about what they have done and
what they are still attempting to do. I am not alone in my
resentment. I would think that never in the life of this nation
has there been such widespread and justified unrest.
We have seen the anger of the native peoples of Canada and
the anger of the women of Canada. It is hoped that the
constitutional amendments announced by the Minister of Jus-
tice (Mr. Chrétien) will have soothed those angers and will
provide the framework under which fair and equitable resolu-
tions can be achieved.
This would be our wish, particularly for the aboriginal
peoples of Canada. I, like all Members of Parliament, have
received letters and personal representations from native
people expressing their resentment or, as the tribal director of
the Shuswap nation tribal council put it appropriately: “I wish
to convey my disheartened feelings.” One letter especially
gripped me. It was from the Nicola Valley Indian Fellowship,
a group trying to improve the educational status of children
within their care.
Barney Shackclly, the pastor, wrote in part as follows:
All we ask is that you and your party deal justly with this so»called new
Constitution and be merciful unto the native peoples of our land, so-called
Canada. Sincerely in Christ, l3nrncyShackelly. Pastor.
Q (I730)
l trust that this constitutional recognition of aboriginal
rights will mark the point from which native people can begin
to feel they are being justly treated, but that it will also mark
the point at which native people will feel full partners in
society, receiving due recognition and—l think this is impor-
tant—accepting a full position in the creative responsibility
toward development of the total Canadian society, being pre-
pared to live within the rules of society which attempts to
produce the fairness and justice for all which native people
have found lacking to date. *1
It is a situation which Parliament and the provincial legisla-
tures are now attempting to redress. It would be tragic indeed
if friction such as now exists in mobile home parks on the West
Bank Indian Reserve were allowed to create blockage to the
growing spirit of goodwill and supportive favour between
aboriginal and other Canadians. Hopefully this will receive
impetus from the supportive words and actions of all members
of the House.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in his speech to
the House last Friday put our party’s position on aboriginal
rights in the proper perspective when he said:
…thc original people were here before our civilization. Our treatment. our
meagre, mean treatment of them. has increased our obligation, not diminished it.
We cannot reverse history, but we can take account of it. A minimum step
must be for this Parliament to put in a document that deals with the rights of
our people and to acknowledge at least the particular rights of our first people to
draw their life and their culture from what we made our land.
Now we still have with us the anger of the territorial
government focusing on constitutional provisions which are
seen as leaving them vulnerable to the ambitions of other
jurisdictions and which fail to address their aspirations to
develop into full partnership arrangements. This also must be
addressed by the Governments of Canada under the authority
now vested in the Constitution of our nation to produce
changes and improvements in Canada through the process of
negotiation, compromise and reconciliation, recognizing
always the unique political situation occupied by the vast area
of northern Canada.
We see the anger of labour as expressed in their march on
Parliament Hill last Saturday. We have seen the anger of
Canadians who are losing homes and businesses because of
high interest rates. We have seen the anger of western Canadi-
ans take form in WestFed and other separatist-motivated
organizations. This is an angry, resentful nation, and the very
people who formed the Government of Canada, who are the
root cause of the economic mischief that befalls Canada, had
the effrontery in October, I980, and through the months of
constitutional debate to say to the nation, “Look, Canada, we
alone have the knowledge of what is good for you. We alone
possess constitutional wisdom. Premiers are unwise. Liberal
Members of Parliament are omnipotcnt. In Canada’s interests
we are going it alone.” This was the message that Liberal folly
delivered to the nation in October, I980. What pomposity
from a government which has brought economic disaster to so
many!
The anger of which I spoke was reflected in conversations
with my constituents last weekend in Okanagan~Similkameen.
Everywhere I went, the same was true. Businessmen, home
owners, investors were hurt, frustrated and incredulous that
disasters like this could happen to them in Canada.
How can the government face the people with an attitude of
constitutional superiority when its direction for Canada over
the past decade reveals a record of economic failure? The road
to socializing Canada with ever-increasing government inter-
ference in the economic life of the nation and in the individual
lives of Canadians was to have its great quantum forward leap
through the Prime Minister’s own personally conceived consti-
tution. Thank God this was at least partially forestalled.
On January 20, I981, at the meeting of the constitutional
committee, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), in
presenting our party’s proposed amendment to a bad govern-
ment initiative, said the following:
Mr. Chairman, in presenting our proposed amendments to the government’s
resolution, we do so in the knowledge that it is the popular will of Canadians that
our Constitution rest in this country. It is also the popular will that we have a

November 25, I981 COMMON
S
DEBATES _WW 13291
Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the Canadian people embedded in the
Constitution.
The Progressive Conservative Party’s position in these matters reflects the
popular will. The desire to enhance our freedoms is based on the strong
traditions of our party. lt was this party, through the vision and leadership of the
Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, which gnvc Canadians their first Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights gave expression to the full citizenship Canadians desired. No
longer were they hyphenated Canadians. The sovereignty of God over the nation
was expressed. The family was recognized as the cornerstone of our society. The
right to own personal property, so often denied in other countries, was guaran~
teed. Thosc principles are valid today; all amendments to the charter rest on that
foundation.
The hon. mcmbcr went on to say:
…w¢ have listencd to Canadians, and believe we have also listened to col-
leagues on both sides of this table. I believe the acceptance of our suggestions
will save us from constitutional chaos and deepening national division.
It is unfortunate that it took a Supreme Court decision plus
the outcry of the people, plus the concentrated effort of the
official opposition in the House and in the Senate to cause the
Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal members
opposite to abandon their unilateralist role in the matter of the
Canadian Constitution.
Western Canadians in particular were incensed by an
amending formula which would have entrenched second and
third-class status upon the provinces in which they hold
citizenship, a citizenship which they hold dear, just as they
hold dear their allegiance to Canada.
In the February, I981, issue of The Presbyterian Record.
Lloyd Robertson, who is anchorman on the CTV eleven
o‘clock newscast, wrote an article entitled “Viewing the
West”. In part, this is what he wrote:
At this time in the west, one reality overwhelms all others. In spite of the
strident voices of the protest leaders, the vast majority of westerners are
Canadians first. They are not greedy or unputriotic. They will tell you repeatedly
that all they want is a fair deal. lt will take a long time and much more
disenchantment to bring the majority close to the breaking point of separation.
Nevertheless the seeds of discontent are there. They can be blown away by
understanding, friendship and good old Canadian compromise.
So wrote Lloyd Robertson in February, 1981.
The truth of Mr. Robertson’s conviction that the majority of
westerners arc Canadians first is evidenced by the accord
reached in which premiers from the west, the centre and the
Atlantic put the interests of Canada before narrow provincial
ambitions. We applaud that spirit of compromise and accom-
modation which resulted in the resolution which is the subject
of our debate in the House today.
I am proud that the Premier of British Columbia played
such a distinguished role in producing the climate in which
compromise was possible.
g (mo) ” 3
On February 9, I981, as a member of the constitutional
committee meeting in room 200 of the West Block, I had the
opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents I represent
and the party to which I am proud to belong. At that time I
said in part:
The Constitution of Canada should by its very nature be a unifying, inspiring
document which should raise in all Canadians the passion of patriotic fervour:
and I ant appalled that this most significant action in the history of Canada’s
The Constitution
Parliament should be the instrument by which discord and discontent in focused
and intensified across Canada.
I went on to say:
It is with acute sadness and a degree of despair, I might say, that l must tell
you that what has been done, and more especially the way it has bccn done. is
totally unacceptable.
The announcement that the first ministers of Canada had
reached an accord was a milestone in Canadian history which
brought forth a great sigh of relief from Canadians from coast
to coast. The more recent refinements and additions to that
accord can only increase the level of satisfaction. I have shared
in that immediate reaction, not because what was created by
the Prime Minister and the premiers was perfect; quite the
contrary, there are many Canadians, myself included, who
have very grave reservations about this resolution. Those reser-
vations extend far beyond the process employed by the govern-
ment in its headlong reach for constitutional change, with all
the many implications for change to the very character of
Canada itself. These reservations extend indeed to the content
itself.
I can do no better than to refer each hon. member here to
the speech in the House yesterday by the hon. member for
Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), whose factual and compre-
hensive review of the resolution should be compulsory reading
for all hon. members, most specifically those hon. members
opposite whose euphoric description of the Charter of Rights
and Freedoms and what it offers to Canadians is based on a
distortion of the present reality in Canada with regard to
individual rights and freedoms. No country has a better record
of respect for the individual than has our Canada. My analysis
is that the charter mainly marks a new day for rights in
Canada to the extent that the charter‘s provisions put into the
hands of the courts, rather than the elected legislatures, the
future direction of social policies in Canada. The hon. member
for Saskatoon West said last night:
We will soon realize that the composition of the courts and the political and
social beliefs of our judges will be an extremely important factor in the
determination of the rights and prerogatives of citizens and institutions in the
country. Indeed, the power ofappointment ofjudges from time to time will be of
immense importance in the ultimate determination and interpretation of funda-
mental rights in Canada.
I concur in that fully.
With the end of the constitutional confusion now in sight,
where do we as a nation go from here? We have to be
optimistic. We have very much going for us. We have to be
optimistic because we will have a Canadian Constitution resi-
dent in Canada with an amending formula which recognizes
the reality of Canada and respects the role of the provinces in
the composition of our nation. We have to be optimistic
because we have an amending formula which will preclude the
type of arbitrary change which so recently threatened national
unity and composure.
I know that time is moving fast and that I have only a few
minutes left. Let me just say in closing that an hour ago we
offered to vote on the subamendment, and I suggest that we
move to that vote immediately.

13292 ~ COMMONS
DEBATES
November 25, 1981
The Constitution
Mr. Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Once
again I make the same offer to call the vote on the subamend-
ment HOW.
Mr. Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to have the vote
called 40 minutes ago.
Some hon. Members: Oh, oh!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): Is the House ready for
the question’?
Some hon. Members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): The question is on the
amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for
Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt
the subamendment?
Some hon. Members: Agreed.
Some hon. Members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): All those in favour of the
subamendment will please say yea.
Some hon. Members: Yea!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. Members: Nay!
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker): In my opinion, the nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen.-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. BIaker): Call in the members.
The House divided on the suhamcndment (Mr. Fulton)
which was negatived on the following division:
I (I750)
(Division N0. 126)
YEAS
Messrs.
Allmaim gamlfl,
/llihoi-it Heap Nyslrom
Anguish Hovdebo own
B¢”.l3″\l” lttinuar Orlikow
Blackburn Jewell (Miss) Parker
Blaikie Keeper Robinson
Broadbcnl Manly (Burnaby)
Cossitl McRl:c 1 .. ‘1 Rose
Deans Miller Sargaarit
Murphy
Bcauchamp-Niqucl
(Mrs)
Begin (Miss)
Berger
Blais
Blakcr
Blcnkarn
Hockslael
tmley
Eujnld
Burgliardt
Bussieres
Cnccia
Campbell
(Miss)
(South West Neva)
Campbell
(Cardigan)
Cardiff
Carney (Miss)
Cltrétien
Clark
(Yellowhead)
Clarke
(Vancouver Quadra)
Coates
Culleiiette
Comlois
Cooper
Corbin
Corriveau
Coté (Mrs-)
Cousincau
Cromhic
Crosby
(Halifax West)
Crouse
Cyr
Danizer
Daudlin
Dawson
De Bané
dc Corneillc
Demers
Dcnigcr
Desrnnrnis
Dingwall
Dion
Dionne
(Chicoulimil
Dionne
(N0rlllun1l)¢rland-
Mirai-rilclli)
Dornrn
Dubois
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Ellis
Elailiga
Err
Erolll (Mrs)
Ellllfl
Evans
Feimcll
Messrs.
Ferguson
Fisher
Flis
Forreslall
Foster
Fox
Francis
Friesen
Frilh
Garanl
Gauthier
Gimaicl
Gingras
Gourde
(Levis)
Guilballlt
Gurbin
Guslafson
Halliday
Hamilton
(Qu‘Appc|lc~Moosc
Mountain)
Hargrave
Harquail
Hawkes
Henderson
Herbert
Hervieux-Paycttc
(Mrs-)
Howie
Hudecki
Irwin
Jarvis
Jelinek
Johnston
Joya!
Kaplali
Kelly
Killcns (Mrs.)
King
Kushner
Lachanoc
Lajoic
Lambert
Lamunlagnc
Landcrs
Lang
Lapierrc
Lapointc
(Charlcvoix)
Lapoinlc
(Beauccl
La Selle
LcB|anc
Lewis
Lonsdale
Lumlcy
MacBairl
Maciiacllen
Macfiuigan
Mackasey
MaeLarcn
MacLe||an
Maléparl
Malone
Maltais
Marceau
Massé
Masters
Mayer
McCain
McCaul¢Y
McCuish
McD¢l’mid
M<:Gra(h M¢Kinnon McLean McMillan Munro (Esquima|\»Saanicl\) M\lnl‘0 (Hamilton East) Nielsen Olivier Ouellct Plaproski Parent Patterson Pellclicr Penncr Pepin Peterson Pinard Porlclancc Prtltfhommc Reid (St.C1\lllarin¢5) Reid (KGIl0It‘l>R3l|‘t)’ River)
Roberts
Robinson
(Etobicokc-Lakashorc)
ROCllc
Rompkey
Rossi
Roy
Savard
Schellcnbcflcr
Schrodcr
Scott
(Hamilton-Wcritwrzrlh)
Scott
(Vicloria~Halil!l|rlon)
Siddon
Simmons
Smith
Stevens
Tardif
Taylor
Tessier
Thackcr
Tobin
TOUSigVl3fll
Turner
Veillclle
Walsbn
\Vea\l1crl1ead
Whclan
Wright
Yanakis— I 79.
Madam Speaker: The amendment to the amendment is
defeated. Motion (Mr. Fulton) negatived.
[Translation]
de long
Fulton
Andre
Appolloni
(Mrs.)
Axworllly
Mitchell Skelly
(Mrs.) Waddell
Yaini;~:iz.
NAYS
Messrs.
Baclland Baker
Baker (Nepeorl—Carle\0n)
(Gander-Twillingatc) Bcatty
Mr. Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I believe there is agreement
among the parties. In the French version of the amendment
the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
(Mr. Munro) moved yesterday, the word “re<:onnus” was
omitted in Section 35(1). Only the word “confirmés”
appeared. By unanimous consent of the House, we should like
the word “reconnus” to be added to the French text, at line 3
of Section 35(l).

November 25, 1981 – COMMONS DEBATES 13293
The Cvnxtitution
Mr. Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we agree. It being six o’ciock, I do now leave the chair until tomorrow
at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
Mr. Deans: We also agree, Madam Speaker. _ 4 _
At 6.26 p.m. the House 8Ci_]0Ul”llCd, without question put,
Madam Speaker: ifeveryone agrees, it is so ordered. pursuant to Standing Order.

Read less