Document Information

Date: 1981-03-31
By: Canada (Parliament)
Citation: Canada, House of Commons Debates, 32nd Parl, 1st Sess, 1981 at 8782.
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

COMMONS DEBATES — March 31, 1981

[Page 8782]

THE CONSTITUTION

RULING BY SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION—MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John’s East): Madam Speaker, today is the thirty-second anniversary of the dominion of Newfoundland becoming a province of Canada. It is not without coincidence that the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland at twelve o’clock today brought down a unanimous ruling upholding the position of six provinces on the government’s joint constitutional resolution now before the House.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McGrath: I quote very briefly from a part of the unanimous judgment of the court.

The framers of the British North America Act decided in their wisdom that Canada should not be in a unitary state, but a federal one.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr. McGrath: The quotation goes on:

Canada, however, could in effect be converted into a unitary state if that act could be amended simply at the request of the Canadian Parliament without the concurrence of the provinces.

I therefore move, with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for St. John’s West (Mr. Crosbie):

That in view of the decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court upholding the position of the provinces, that the government withdraw forthwith the joint constitutional resolution now before the House, until the Supreme Court of Canada brings down its decision.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Some hon. Members: No.

SUGGESTED DELAY IN CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION—MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants): Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of today’s unanimous decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court against the federal process and proposals relating to the constitutional resolution now before the House, and in view of recent remarks on the television program Question Period by the Hon. Robert Stanfield, one of Canada’s most serious and highly respected political statesmen, when he said the Trudeau package is a “constitutional coup d’état“, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):

That the government forthwith delay any further consideration of the constitutional resolution until the Supreme Court of Canada, which is now seized of the matter, has had an opportunity to decide whether the rule of law or the Prime Minister’s rule shall prevail in this country.

Madam Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?

Some hon. Members: Agreed.

Some hon. Members: No.