Memorandum From Fred Gibson to Prime Minister, Opposition Amendments to the Proposed Constitution Resolution (21 January 1981)
Document Information
Date: 1981-01-21
By: Fred Gibson
Citation: Memorandum From Fred Gibson to Prime Minister, Opposition Amendments to the Proposed Constitution Resolution (21 January 1981).
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).
Note: This document is discussed in an article that has been recently submitted to a peer-review journal.
c.c. The Hon. Jean Chretien
Mr. Pitfield
Mr. Smith
Mr. B. Dewar
Ms. Fairbairn
Mr. Tasse
Mr. P. McDonald
Mr. Goldenberg
S E C R E T
January 21, 1981
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRIME MINISTER
Opposition Amendments to the Proposed Constitution Resolution
The Honourable Jake Epp, on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, tabled 26 amendments to the draft Resolution in the Special Joint Committee last night. Copies of the amendments, in English and French, are attached as Appendix A. Justice officials, in discussions with Lorne Nystrom yesterday, were able to obtain a fairly detailed outline of amendments to the Charter of rights and freedoms that are likely to be tabled on behalf of the New Democratic Party.
On the basis of the material tabled by the Conservatives and of the discussions with Mr. Nystrom, Fred Jordan, working through the night last night, was able to prepare the attached documents (Appendices B and C) which are draft analyses of Opposition amendments to the Charter of rights. The draft analyses and recommendations have been the subject of intensive meetings in the Department of Justice this morning and through the early part of this afternoon and formed the basis of a preliminary discussion of the Opposition amendments that took place in a meeting of Liberal members of the Joint Committee that was held this morning.
I would like to draw your attention particularly to item 10 in the discussion of the Progressive Conservative Party proposed amendments to the Charter. That item deals with a proposed amendment that would allow for provincial opting-in to institutional language rights, as they apply to New Brunswick, or in a more limited way. You will note from the draft paper that
[Page 2]
Mr. Jordan did not include a recommendation with respect to this proposal. Preliminary discussions indicate that the amendment will prove very attractive to Liberal members of the Joint Committee. On the other hand, it appears clear that this amendment would lead to extra ordinary political pressure on the Government of Ontario to “opt in” at an early date.
I wish to emphasize strongly that the recommendations regarding the position of government members on the various amendments are of a preliminary nature and are undergoing intensive review by Justice officials. Any comments you may wish to give us on the “opting in” amendment referred to above or on any of the other proposals, would be most helpful. Since the Committee is moving to clause-by-clause study of the Resolution this afternoon, and therefore to specific discussion of the various amendments, the Acting Minister and Liberal members of the Committee will be forced to adopt positions on the amendments to the early clauses of the bill before the end of the week.
Fred E. Gibson
[Clause 1, Page 3]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 1 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out the amendment to clause 1 and substituting the following:
Rights and freedoms in Canada
“l. Affirming that
(a) the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions, and
(b) individuals and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law,
the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est propose que le projet de modification de l’article 1 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifie par substitution, au passage qui suit la formule introductive, de ce qui suit :
« 1. Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur les principes de la suprématie de Dieu, de la dignité et de la valeur de la personne humaine, ainsi que de l’importance de la famille dans une société d’êtres et d’institutions libres;
attendu que les êtres et les institutions ne demeurent libres que si la liberté s’appuie sur le respect des valeurs morales et spirituelles et de la légalité,
la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés garantit les droits et libertés qui y sent énoncés lesquels ne peuvent être restreints que par une règle de droit, dans de limites qui soient raisonnables et dent la justification puisse se démontrer dans le cadre d ‘une société libre et démocratique. »
[Clause 2, Page 3]
Moved by:
That the proposed amendment to clause 2 of the proposed Constitution Act. 1980 be amended by striking out the word “and” immediately after paragraph (c) thereof, adding the word “and” immediately after paragraph (d) and adding thereto the following paragraph:
“(e) freedom from unreasonable interference with privacy, family, home, correspondence and enjoyment of property.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que l’article 2 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) substitution, 3 la ligne 5 et A la rubrique qui la précède, de ce qui suit :
Libertés et protection fondamentales
Libertés et protection fondamentales
2. Chacun a les libertés et la protection fondamentales »
b) adjonction, après l’alinéa d) du projet de modification de l’article, de ce qui suit :
« e) protection contre toute intervention abusive dans les domaines de la vie privée, de la famille, du domicile, de la correspondance et de la jouissance du droit de propriété. »
[Clause 5, Page 4]
Moved by
That clause 5 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) renumbering clause 5 on page 4 as subclause 4(3); and
(b) adding thereto immediately after line 3 on page 4 the following heading and clause:
Right to Information
Right to Information
5. Everyone has the right to have reasonable access to information in the possession of any institution of any government.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que l’article 5 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) substitution, a son numéro, du numéro de paragraphe 4(3);
b) insertion, après la ligne 3, page 4, de ce qui suit :
« Droit à l’information
Droit à l’information
5. Chacun a le droit d’avoir normalement accs aux renseignements détenus par toute autorité gouvernementale ou administrative du pays. »
[Clause 7, Page 4]
Moved by
That clause 7 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 24 to 27 on page 4 and substituting the following:
Life, liberty, security of person and enjoyment of property
“7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty, security of. the person and enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with principles of natural justice.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 25 à 28, page 4, e ce qui suit :
Vie, liberté, sécurité et jouissance du droit de propriété
« 7. Chacun a droit à la vie et à la sécurité de sa personne et à la jouissance du droit de propriété; il ne peut être porte atteinte à ce droit qu’en conformité avec les principes de justice naturelle. »
[Clause 9, Page 4]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 9 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out the words “or imprisoned” and substituting therefor the following words:
“imprisoned or deported.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de modification de l’article 9 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, A centre la détention ou l’emprisonnement arbitraires.»”, de ce qui suit :
« contre la détention, l’emprisonnement ou l’expulsion arbitraires ».
[Clause 11, Page 5]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 11 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out paragraph C g) thereof and substituting the following:
“(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 principles of law recognized by the community of nations.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que le projet de modification de l’article 11 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, a l’alinéa), de ce qui suit :
« g) de ne pas être déclaré coupable en raison d’une action ou d’une omission qui, au moment où elle est survenue, ne constituait pas une infraction d’après le droit interne du Canada ou le droit international, ou n’avait pas de caractère criminel d’après les principes de droit reconnus par la collectivité mondiale.
[Clause 14, Page 5]
Moved by
That clause 14 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 40 to 44 on page 5 and substituting the following:
Interpreter
“14. A party or witness in any proceedings who des not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, à l’article 14, de ce qui suit :
Interprète
« 14. La partie ou le témoin qui ne peuvent suivre les procédures, soit parce qu’ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employée, soit parce qu’ils sont atteints de surdité, ont droit A l’assistance d’un interprète. »
[Clause 15, Page 6]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 15 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) striking out the words “or age” in subclause (1) hereof and substituting therefor the following words:
“age or mental or physical disability.”
(b) striking out subclause (2) thereof and substituting the following:
Statutory distinctions
“(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any statutory distinction that has as its object the amelioration of the condition of any class of persons.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de modification de l’article 15 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) substitution, a « ou l’âge, au paragraphe (1), de l’âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques»;
b) substitution, au paragraphe (2), de ce qui suit
Mesures législatives
« (2) Le paragraphe (1) n’a pas pour effet d’interdire les mesures législatives destinées l’améliorer la situation de telle ou telle catégorie de personnes. »
[New Clause, Page 7]
Moved by
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) adding thereto immediately after line 3, on page 7 the following:
Extension of application of certain language rights
“21 (1) The legislative assembly of each province to which subsection 16 (2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) or 20(2) does not expressly apply may, by resolution, authorize the issuance by the Governor General of a proclamation under the Great Seal of Canada declaring that any of those provisions
(a) has application in the province; or
(b) has application in the province to the extent and under the conditions stated in the resolution.
Effect of proclamation
(2) Where the legislative assembly of a province authorizes the issuance of a proclamation declaring that a subsection referred to in subsection (1) has application in the province, the proclamation may be issued notwithstanding any other provision of this Act respecting the procedures for amending the Constitution of Canada and shall
(a) if the subsection is to apply in the province without any limitations or conditions, amend the subsection to include the province as a province named in the subsection; or
(b) if the subsection is to apply in the province to the extent or under conditions stated in the resolution authorizing the issue of the proclamation, subject to section 22 so apply in the province and, for purposes of amendment, be deemed to be a provision of the Constitution of Canada that applies to one or more but not all provinces.”
; and
(b) renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
[Clause 25, Page 8]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 25 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) Striking out the word “or” immediately after paragraph (a) and adding thereto immediately after paragraph (a) thereof the following paragraph:
“(b) any rights or freedoms that my pertain to any cultural community; or”
; and
(b) renumbering paragraph (b) of the proposed amendment as paragraph (c).
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de modification de l’article 25 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) insertion, après l’alinéa a), de ce qui suit :
« b) ni des droits ou libertés que peut avoir telle ou telle collectivité culturelle; »;
b) substitution, a la désignation d’alinéa b), de la désignation c).
[Clause 26 Page 8]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 26 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by adding thereto immediately after the words “striking out lines 11 to 15 on page 8” the following:
“and substituting the following:
Laws respecting evidence not affected
“26. (1) No provision of this Charter, other than section 13 affects the laws respecting the admissibility of evidence in any proceedings or the authority of Parliament or a legislature to make laws in relation thereto.
Exclusion of evidence bringing administration of justice into disrepute
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), in any proceedings, evidence shall be excluded if it is established that it was obtained under such circumstances that the use of it in the proceedings would tend to bring the administration of Justice into disrepute.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que le projet de modification de l’article 26 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, au passage qui suit la formule introductive, de ce qui suit :
Droit sur la preuve
« 26. (1) A l’exception de l’article 13, les dispositions de la présente charte ne portent pas atteinte aux lois sur l’admissibilité de la preuve en justice, ni aux pouvoirs du Parlement et des législatures de légiférer en cette mati re.
Exclusion d’une preuve risquant de ternir l’image de l’administration de la justice
(2) Nonobstant le paragraphe (1), doit être exclue, dans toute instance, la preuve obtenue dans des circonstances telles que son admission risquerait de ternir l’image de l’administration de la justice. »
[New Clause, Page 8]
Moved by
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) adding thereto immediately after line 15 on page 8 the following clause:
Newfoundland terms of union
“27. No provision of this Charter affects or abrogates or derogates from section 17 of the Schedule to the Newfoundland Act.”
; and
(b) renumbering. the subsequent clauses accordingly.
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
Terre-Neuve conditions de l’union
a) adjonction, après l’article 26, page 8, de ce qui suit :
« 27. Les dispositions de la présente charte ne portent pas atteinte à l’article,17 de l’annexe de la Loi sur Terre-Neuve. »;
b) les changements de numéros d’article qui en découlent.
[New Clause, Page 8]
Moved by
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) adding thereto immediately after line 22 on page owing clause:
Abortion and capital punishment
“28. Nothing in this Charter affects the authority of Parliament to legislate in respect of abortion and capital punishment.”
; and
(b) renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) adjonction, après l’article 27, de ce qui suit :
Avortement et peine capitale
« 28. La présente charte ne porte pas atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de légiférer en matière d’avortement et de peine capitale. » ;
b) les changements de numéros d’article qui en découlent.
[New Clause, Page 8]
Moved by
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) adding thereto immediately after line 24 on page 8 the following heading and clause:
“Obligation to Examine Regulations and Bills
Duties of Minister of Justice
29. (1) The Minister of Justice shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Governor General in Council, examine every regulation transmitted to the Clerk of the Privy Council for registration and every Bill introduced in or presented to the House of Commons, in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Charter and shall report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.”
Duties of Attorney General of province
(2) The Attorney General of a province shall, in accordance with such regulations as may be prescribed by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province, examine every proposed regulation in draft form and every Bill introduced in or presented to the legislative assembly of the province in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions of this Charter and shall report any such inconsistency to the legislative assembly at the first convenient opportunity. ” ; and
(b) renumbering the subsequent clauses accordingly.
[French]
Motion de
Il est propose que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) adjonction, après la ligne 23, page 8, de ce qui suit :
Vérification des projets de texte
Obligations du ministre de la Justice
29. (1) Le ministre de la Justice vérifie, conformément la règlementation prise en la matière par le gouverneur en conseil, la compatibilité avec la présente charte des avant projets de règlement et transmis pour enregistrement au greffier du Conseil prive et des projets de loi présentés a la Chambre des communes et rend compte a celle-ci, dans les meilleurs délais, de tout cas d’incompatibilité.
Obligations des procureurs généraux des provinces
(2) Le procureur général de chaque province vérifie, conformément a la réglementation prise en la matière par le lieutenant-gouverneur en conseil, la compatibilité avec la présente charte des avants-projets de règlement et des projets de loi présentes à l’assemblée législative de la province et rend compte a celle-ci, dans les meilleurs délais, de tout cas d’incompatibilité. »;
b) les changements de numéros d’article sui en découlent.
[New Clause, Page 8]
Motion de
Il est propose que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifie par :
a) adjonction, apres l’article 29, page 8, de ce qui suit :
Adhésion a certains droit linguistiques
« 30. (1) L’assemblée législative d’une province non expressément visée par les paragraphes 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) ou 20(2) a la faculté d’adopter une résolution autorisant le gouverneur général à déclarer, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, que tel de ces paragraphes.
a) ou bien s’applique à la province sans conditions;
b) ou bien s’applique à la province aux conditions précisées dans la résolution.
Effet de la proclamation
(2) En conséquence de la résolution, la proclamation peut être prise indépendamment de toute autre disposition de la présente loi relative aux procédures de modification de la Constitution du Canada. Cette proclamation :
a) modifie le paragraphe en cause par insertion du nom de la province, s’il s’agit d’une appli cation sans conditions;
b) est considérée comme une disposition de la Constitution du Canada qui s’applique à certaines provinces seulement, s’il s’agit du cas vise à l’alinéa (l)b), et s’applique à la province, sous réserve de l’article 22, aux conditions précisées dans la résolution. »;
b) les changements de numéros d’article qui en découlent.
[Clause 32, Page 9]
Moved by
That clause 32 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 23 to 30 on page 9 and substituting the following:
Constitutional Committee of Canada
“32. (1) No later than two months after this Act comes into force, the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the province shall constitute a permanent committee to be designated the “Constitutional Committee of Canada” hereinafter referred to as the “Committee.”
Composition of Committee
(2) The Committee shall be composed of the Prime Minister and the first ministers of the provinces.
Duties of Committee
(3) The Committee shall cause all Canadian constitutional laws to be examined and shall propose amendments necessary for the development of the Canadian federation.
Meetings
(4) The Committee shall meet at least twice each year.
Assistance by Ministers
(5) The Committee shall be assisted in its work by the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution.”
[French]
Il est propos que l’article 32 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 22 à 28, page 9, de ce qui suit :
Conférence constitutionnelle du Canada
« 32. (l) Dans les deux mois suivant l’entrée en vigueur de la présente loi, le premier ministre du Canada et les premiers ministres des Provinces établissent une conférence permanente dénommée « Conférence constitutionnelle du Canada », ci-après désignée « la conférence ».
Travaux de la conférence
(2) La conférence examine toutes les lois constitutionnelles du Canada et propose les modifications nécessaires à l’évolution de la fédération canadienne.
Convocation de la conférence
(3) La conférence est convoqué au moins deux fois l’an.
Concours des ministres
(4) Un Comité ministériel permanent de la Constitution prête son concours aux participants la conférence. »
[Clauses 33 to 40, Pages 9 to 12]
Moved by
That clauses 33 to 40 of Part IV of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out the headings preceding line 31 on page 9, lines 31 to 36 on page 9, lines 1 to 47 on page 10, lines 1 to 48 on page 11 and lines 1 to 4 on page 12.
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que les articles 33 à 40 de la partie IV du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soient modifiés par suppression des rubriques précédant la ligne 29, page 9, des lignes 29 34, page 9, des lignes 1 à 48, page 10, des lignes 1 à 47, page 11, et des lignes 1 à 5, page 12.
[Clause 41, Page 12]
Moved by
That clause 41 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 5 to 38 on page 12 and substituting the following:
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
“41. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by
(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two thirds of the provinces that in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, a population of at least fifty per cent of the population of all of the provinces.
Dissent by province
(2) Where an amendment to the Constitution of Canada is authorized under subsection (1) that affects
(a) the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws,
(b) the rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the legislature or the government of a province,
(c) the assets or property of a province, or
(d) the natural resources of a province, and the legislative assembly of a province has, by resolution, declined to authorize the amendment prior to the issue of the proclamation bringing it into force, the amendment has no effect in the province until the legislative assembly of the province by resolution approves the amendment.
Amendment of amendment procedure
(3) An amendment to this section may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the legislative assembly of eight or more provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, a population of at least eighty per cent of the population of all of the provinces.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est propose que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 6 à 41, page 12, de ce qui suit :
Procédure normale de modification
« 41. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut être modifiée par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée & la fois:
a) par des résolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes;
b) par des résolutions des assemblées législatives d’au moins les deux tiers des provinces dent la population confondue représente, selon le recensement général le plus récent l’époque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces.
[Illegible] province
(2) Une modification de la Constitution du Canada autorisée en application du paragraphe (1), portant sur
a) les pouvoirs législatifs d’une province,
b) les droits ou privilèges que la Constitution du Canada confère ou garantit à la législature ou au gouvernement d’une province,
c) les biens ou avoirs d’une province,
d) les ressources naturelles d’une province,
que l’assemblée législative d’une province refuse, par résolution, d’autoriser avant la proclamation qui doit la mettre en vigueur, est inopérante cans cette province tant que l’assemblée législative ce celle-ci 1ne l’a pas approuvée par résolution.
Modification [illegible] la procédure de la modification
(3) Le présent article peut être modifie par proclamation du gouverneur général en conseil sous le grand sceau du Canada si cette mesure est autorisée par des résolutions des assemblées législatives d’au moins huit provinces dont la population confondue représente, selon le recensement général le plus récent a l’époque, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de celle de toutes les provinces. »
[Clause 42, Pages 12 and 13]
Moved by
That clause 42 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 39 to 41 on page 12 and lines 1 to 20 on page 13.
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que l’article 4 2 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par suppression des lignes 2 à 4, page 12, et des lignes 1 à 18, page 13.
[Clause 44, Page 13]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 44 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out everything therein following the words “by striking out lines 30 to 43 on page 13”.
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que le projet de modification de 1’article 44 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, a tout le passe qui suit « soit modifié par », des mots « suppression des lignes 28 à 40, page 13. »
[Clause 46, Page 14]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 46 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out everything therein following the words “by striking out lines 4 to 11 on page 14”.
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que le projet de modification de l’article 46 du projet de “Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, tout le passage qui suit « soit modifié par », des mots suppression des lignes 5 à 11, page 14. »
[Clause 47, Page 14]
Moved by
That the proposed amendment to clause 47 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out everything therein immediately following the words “47. (1) The procedures prescribed” and substituting the following:
“by section 41 or 43 do not apply to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for making the amendment, but the procedures prescribed by section 41 shall, nevertheless, be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, other than section 41, but including this section.”
Idem
(2) The procedures prescribed by section 41 do not apply in respect of an amendment referred to in section 43.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que le projet de modification de l’article 47 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, au passage qui suit la formule introductive, de qui suit :
Restriction du recours à la procédure normale de modification
« 47. (1) Les articles 41 ou 43 ne s’appliquent pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procédure différente est prévue par une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada. La procédure visée à l’article 41 s’impose toutefois pour modifier les dispositions relatives à la modification de la Constitution, y compris le présent article mais à l’exclusion de l’article 41.
Idem
(2) La procédure prévue à l’article 41 ne s’applique pas à la modification visée à l’article 43. »
[Clause 48, Page 14]
Moved by
That clause 48 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out line 26 on page 14 and substituting the following:
“government of Canada or the”.
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que l’article 48 du projet de loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 26 et 27, page 14, de ce qui suit :
« relatives au pouvoir exécutif fédéral et à la Chambre des communes. »
[Clause 50, Page 14]
Moved by
That clause 50 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) striking out line 34 on page 14 and substituting the following:
“procedure prescribed by section 41:”;
(b) striking out the English version of paragraph 50(a) on page 14 and the proposed amendment to the French version of paragraph 50(a) and substituting the following
“(a) the office of the Queen and Her status as head of state of Canada and of the provinces and the office of the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;” ; and
(c) striking out line 43 on page 14 and substituting the following:
“(d) the Senate;”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que l’article 50 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) substitution, aux lignes 33 et 34, page 14, de ce qui suit :
« tes se fait selon la procédure visée l’article 41; »;
b) substitution, aux lignes 35 à 37, page 14, de ce qui suit :
« a) la charge de Reine du chef du Canada et du chef d’une province la charge de gouverneur général et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur; »;
c) substitution, a la ligne 43, page 14, de ce qui suit :
« d) le Senat; ».
[Clause 51, Page 15]
Moved by
That clause 51 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out lines 16 and 17 on page 15 and substituting the following:
“Schedule I to this Act are repealed.”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que l’article 51 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, aux lignes 15 à 17, page 15, de ce qui suit :
« n° 21 de l’annexe I de la présente loi sont abrogés. »
Consequential on the amendment to clause 32 und the deletion of Part IV.
[Clause 57, Page 16]
Moved by
That clause 57 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by striking out line 24 on page 16 and substituting the following:
“57. This Act shall”
[French]
Motion de
Il est proposé que l’article 57 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par substitution, la ligne 24, de ce qui suit :
Entrée en vigueur
« 57. La présente »
[Clause 58, Page 16]
Moved by
That clause 58 of the proposed Constitution Act, 1980 be amended by
(a) Striking out lines 28 and 29 on page 16; and
(b) Renumbering the subsequent clause accordingly
[French]
Motion de
Il est propos que l’article 58 du projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1980 soit modifié par :
a) suppression des lignes 28 et 29, page 16;
b) le changement de num4ro d’article qui en découle.
CONFIDENTIAL
January 20, 1981
DRAFT
PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE AMENDMENTS TO JOINT RESOLUTION, JANUARY 20, 1981
CHARTER OF RIGHTS
1. Section 1 – Addition of Preamble
Proposal: To preface guarantee of rights with first two paragraphs of Canadian Rill of Rights.
Comments: Proposed preamble, if there is to he one is insufficient to portray basic principles underlying Charter. Mention would also have to be made of principles such as duality of official languages (cultures), concept of multicultural society, heritage of aboriginal peoples, free movement of people, etc. There would never he agreement on the underlying principles anymore than there was on those for the constitution last summer. In addition, the proper place for a preamble is to the constitution as a whole, not simply for the Charter component.
Recommendation: That a Charter preamble be opposed on foregoing grounds, arguing primarily that it is best left as something that should be developed later as a preface to the whole constitution.
2. Section 2 – Addition to Fundamental Freedoms
Proposal: To add freedom from unreasonable interference with privacy, family, home, correspondence and enjoyment of property.
Comments: This, apart from property provision, derives from Art. 17 of International Covenant which speaks in terms of protection from arbitrary or unlawful interference with matters mentioned.
As for entrenchment of privacy rights, the concept is too vague and premature for placing in a Charter. Legislation hos only begun to attempt to define what privacy means, and should be left to experimentation at legislative level before entrenchment.
As for entrenchment of protection of family, home and correspondence, it is difficult to know what is meant by these. It would seem that the basic idea of this protection and that for privacy will be encompassed by the government proposal to entrench security against unreasonable search or seizure (s.8).
[Page 2]
As for enjoyment of property, see comments under Legal Rights (s. 7) where PCs again deal with this issue of property rights. If enjoyment of property rights is to be included, that is a more appropriate location for it.
Recommendation: That this addition be opposed as a part of fundamental freedoms, on grounds that protection against unreasonable search or seizure as proposed is broad enough to cover the apparent intention of PCs.
3. Section 5 – Addition of Rights to Information
Proposal: To add right of reasonable access to government information.
Comments: This is the proposal advanced by the Canadian Bar Association before the Committee. It is obviously a right which is premature for entrenchment since only recently have governments in Canada begun to define the right legislatively. The courts would be left in a very difficult situation in attempting to define the scope of this right and its exceptions. It is far different from a court defining what documents should be produced in court proceedings to meet the interests of justice.
When the PCs were the government, they did not propose entrenching this right. They simply proposed legislation, and this is the proper course as the present government is proposing.
Recommendation: That addition of this right be opposed as premature. Wait until legislative provisions have been enacted and tested to see what limits and guidelines are workable and acceptable before attempting entrenchment.
[Page 3]
4. Section 7 – Addition of Enjoyment of Property
Proposal: To add enjoyment of property to rights to life, liberty and security, and the right not to be deprived of these except in accordance with principles of natural justice (rather than the principles of fundamental justice as in government proposal).
Comments: Such an amendment would cause the federal government no serious concern since the Rill of Rights now provides for non-deprivation of enjoyment of property except by due process of law — a potentially more stringent test if American jurisprudence were to be followed.
However, the provinces are most concerned about entrenching property rights in any manner for fear of the impact that it could have on zoning laws, preservation of agricultural lands, highway development, condemnation of unsafe premises, etc.
On the other hand, could provinces seriously object to a provision that simply required that property rights could be interfered with in accordance with rules of natural justice (or principles of fundamental justice which means the same thing, i.e. according to procedural fairness)?
Recommendation: That the government be prepared to accept this amendment, provided that the PCs will accept it in the context of the government’s approach of “unilateral” amendment, and not simply in the context of a Charter approved by agreement of the provinces under an amending formula.
5. Section 9 – Right Not to be Arbitrarily Deported
Proposal: To add to the Legal Rights not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned, the right of anyone not to be arbitrarily deported.
Comments: It is unclear from Mr. Epp’s statement whether this right is intended to apply only to citizens or to anyone including permanent residents and aliens in Canada.
If the former, citizens of Canada are already protected by s. 6(1) under Mobility Rights.
[Page 4]
If the latter, there could be problems with the raft amendment.
The International Covenant (Art.13) deals only with an alien lawfully in the country, and forbids his expulsion in an arbitrary manner.
We could probably accept an amendment which provided no non-citizens lawfully in Canada could be arbitrarily deported without causing serious difficulties.
Recommendation: That the government be prepared to accept an amendment that a non-citizen lawfully in Canada not be deported arbitrarily. However, the provision should be placed in section 6 under “Mobility Rights” rather than under Legal Rights.
6. Section 11(g) – Non-Retroactivity of War Crimes
Proposal: To amend the amendment proposed by the government to section 11(g) to ensure that the principle of non-retroactivity of criminal or penal offences will embrace not only acts that were criminal under international law at the time of their commission, but also acts that were criminal according to the general principles of the law recognized by the community of nations at that time.
Comments: The sole purpose of this addition is to remove any doubt that Nazi war crimes were recognized as such in international law at the time of their commission. There is some doubt among legal scholars on this point, and Article 15(2) of the International Covenant sought to dispel this.
While a very technical question, the basic point is that if the Charter provision, as amended by the government, refers to offences under international law, this is an all-embracing term which includes “general principles of law recognized by the community of nations”. If the qualifier is added, it raises questions of whether offences under customary international law or treaties are included.
Consequently, it would be preferable, for purposes of clarity, to remain only with the expression “international law” which includes all sources of international law. At the same time, if the amendment buys a measure of agreement, the legal ambiguity can probably be tolerated.
[Page 5]
Recommendation: That the government advance the reasons why this addition is unnecessary and dubious in terms of legal clarity, but that it not resist the amendment in face of strong insistence for its inclusion.
7. Section 14 – Interpreter for the Deaf
Proposal: To amend the provision for the right to assistance of an interpreter in proceeding s to specifically include the deaf.
Comments: Section 14 guarantees the right to assistance of an interpreter to a party or witness in proceedings where that person does not understand or speak the language of the proceedings.
It would seem apparent from the provision that it would embrace the deaf person or the mute person, the first being unable to understand the language and the second being unable to speak the language of the proceedings.
Consequently, the proposed amendment would seem unnecessary, or if necessary, incomplete. The former, it is suggested, is the correct interpretation of the provision.
However, if greater clarity is felt desirable, it is possible to amend the section to specify that the right applies where the party or witness does not or cannot understand or sneak the language, thus including the handicap situation expressly.
Recommendation: That the government take the position that section 14 already covers the situation of the deaf/mute, hut that if greater clarify is necessary the above suggested amendment could be included. This is preferable to singling out only the deaf.
[Page 6]
8. Section 15(1) – Mental/Physical Disability Equality
Proposal: To add to the specified grounds of non-discrimination that of mental or physical disability.
Comments: The risks involved in including this as a particularly specified ground of non-discrimination are evident. Human rights acts have all found great difficulties in defining what such disability encompasses; Quebec is the only jurisdiction thus far to include mental handicap; the costs of ensuring equality on these grounds are difficult to estimate. It is very new ground of non-discrimination, and impossible to predict how broadly the courts will interpret it in terms of discrimination.
All of that having been said, there is evidently a strong current of sentiment running in favor of including mental and physical handicap as a specified ground of non-discrimination. In light of this, it will be difficult to contend that rationality should prevail over human emotion.
Consequently, political wisdom will no doubt dictate that the ground be included. However, the addition should be in terms of physical or mental handicap, rather than in terms of disability, since the former would likely be more narrowly construed than the latter.
It should also be noted that if this ground is specifically included, it will be almost impossible to resist other grounds such as marital status, political belief, and sexual orientation.
Recommendation: That the government point out the practical problems associated with including handicap as a specified ground of non-discrimination, but be amenable to an amendment to this end.
9. Section 15(2) – Affirmative Action Programs
Proposal: To modify the proposed amendment of the government so as to eliminate the concept that an affirmative action program must be based on a condition of “disadvantage”; and to limit such programs to those authorized by statute on the basis of a distinction.
Comments: The purpose of this amendment is unclear, although it follows the wording suggested by Gordon Fairweather.
[Page 7]
The object of the government’s amendment was to ensure that the broadest scope would be permitted for affirmative action programs, in order to eliminate equality amongst individuals or groups who are disadvantaged, including those who are so situated because of discrimination.
However, perhaps this is too broad, in the context of section 15(1), and should be confined to groups identifiable on a ground of distinction that is discriminatory. At the same time, it would not seem appropriate to confine such programs to those prescribed by law, since many affirmative programs have no clear legislative basis.
Recommendation: That the government not accept the proposal advanced by the PCs, which is too restrictive, but advance an amendment that would ensure that section 15(1) “does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of any class of individuals disadvantaged because of discrimination”.
10. Sections 16-20 – Opting In to Language Rights
Proposal: To provide for a mechanism whereby provinces, other than New Brunswick, could opt into and become constitutionally bound by the same institutional language rights as apply to New Brunswick (or a more limited application of these rights).
Comments: This option has been considered earlier by the government, with the decision being that the preferred approach was to allow other provinces to “opt in” via the amending formula, namely by resolutions of Parliament and the provincial legislature concerned under section 43.
In this way, the same goal would be achieved without yet another “amending formula” being injected into the constitution.
[Page 8]
Recommendation:
11. Section 25 – Preservation of Cultural Community Rights
Proposal: To add to “undeclared rights” of the Charter those that may pertain to any cultural community.
Comments: This is a very vague provision that would seem to add nothing to the preservation of “any other rights or freedoms that may exist in Canada” already contained in section 25.
The proposed amendment by the government to section 26 of the Charter, which would require the Charter to be interpreted “in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians” would seem to be a more direct assurance of multicultural rights.
How, for example, would the courts interpret “any cultural community”, and what right s or freedoms might be associated with such a community if it could be legally identified?
Recommendation: That the government indicate that the amendment proposed by it in section 26 is preferable to that in the PC amendment, in terms of protecting cultural interests.
12. Section 26 – Exclusion of Tainted Evidence
Proposal: To amend the original section 26 of the resolution so that existing laws and legislative authority relating to admissibility of evidence would be preserved, while at the same time compelling courts to exclude improperly obtained ev1d?nce.where its use would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
[Page 9]
Comments: The original proposal of the government under section 26 was to leave to the courts and legislatures the authority to determine whether, and in what circumstances, improperly obtained evidence might be excluded from court proceedings. This, on the basis that it was felt undesirable to entrench either the American rule (exclusion of any improperly obtained evidence) or the Canadian rule (admissibility of any relevant evidence).
In its proposal for amendments, the government deleted this provision, and under the new enforcement section (24), empowered the courts to grant an appropriate remedy for breach of Charter rights. This could include a power for the courts to exclude improperly obtained evidence where that seemed the appropriate remedy, but also left to the courts other remedies such as an award of dangers or a fine against offending police officers.
The PC proposal would force the courts to exclude improperly obtained evidence where that might not be the appropriate remedy. While the Law Reform Commission did propose this approach as a legislative mechanism, it did not propose it as an entrenched constitutional rule. In addition, it spelled out detailed conditions under which a determination of what would constitute bringing the “administration of justice into disrepute”.
The Task Force on Evidence is likely going to recommend against adoption of the Law Reform Commission proposal.
In these circumstances, the PC proposal is not an appropriate approach to this matter.
Recommendation: That the government oppose the PC proposal on grounds that section 24 provides ample scope (and a more flexible approach) for the courts to deal with admissibility of evidence.
13. New Section – Newfoundland Denominational Schools
Proposal: To ensure that the Charter rights do not infringe upon the denominational school rights assured to persons in Newfoundland by virtue of Term 17 of the Terms of Union.
[Page 10]
Comment: Concerns have been expressed by representatives from Newfoundland and other provinces that the Charter provisions respecting freedom of religion and non-discrimination on grounds of religion might infringe upon or restrict the rights to establish publicly supported denominational schools guaranteed by the constitution under section 93 of the BNA Act or equivalent provisions in the Acts admitting PEI, the Western provinces and Newfoundland.
While it is considered that these fears arc unfounded, the government proposed an amendment to section 52(1) of the Constitution Act that would not give the Charter provisions paramountcy over other provisions of the constitution, thereby ensuring the denominational school rights.
The PC amendment is therefore unnecessary, but even if it were considered as a desirable assurance it only has application to Newfoundland.
Consequently if an amendment were to he considered appropriate, it should be cast in terms that covered all provinces : “Nothing in this Charter arrogates or derogates from any right or privilege with respect to denominational schools guaranteed to any class of persons by the Constitution of Canada”.
Recommendation: That the government maintain the pos1t1on that denominational school rights are not impaired by the Charter, but that for greater certainty, it would be prepared to include an amendment to the Charter as outlined above.
14. New Section – Abortion and Capital Punishment
Proposal: To ensure that nothing in the Charter shall impair Parliament’ s authority to legislate with respect to abortion and capital punishment.
Comment: While the government is of the view that these, and other sensitive matters such as euthanasia, should not be decided one way or the other in the Charter, it does not feel that it is either necessary or appropriate to spell them out in order to guard legislative authority.
With respect to these matters, it is not felt that any provision in the proposed Charter would lead the courts to conclude that the death penalty or abortion would be forbidden legislative matters. The right to life is not unequivocally guaranteed; nor is cruel and unusual punishment likely to lead to a ban on the death penalty.
[Page 11]
Recommendation: That the government oppose this amendment as unnecessary and inappropriate.
15. New Section – Examination of Laws and Regulations
Proposal: To place in the Charter the present obligation of the Minister of Justice (and provincial Attorneys General) to examine all proposed laws and regulations to ensure their conformity with the Charter.
Comments: The government had considered that this could be done by legislation, but there seems no harm in placing the obligation in the Charter.
Recommendation: That the government accept the proposed amendment.
DRAFT
POSSIBLE AMENDMENTS BY !\El’! DEMOCRATS TO JOINT RESOLUTION, JANUARY 21-22/81
CHARTER OF RIGHTS
1. Section 1 – Non-Derogable Rights
Proposal: To identify a number of key rights that could never be limited. Recognizing problems of agreeing upon list, may suggest that certain basic (immutable) non-discrimination rights be made nonderogable, eg. race, color, national or ethnic origin and sex.
Comments: This poses as many problems as the broader approach. For example, age and handicap are, or can be, immutables as well. Robinson recognizes this problem, but is still pressing for something.
Recommendation: That the government maintain position that new limitation clause is very stringent and a non-derogation clause is unnecessary and involves invidious distinctions.
2. Section 2(b) – Media of Information
Proposal: To change “media of information” to media of communication”.
Comments: This is acceptable to give scope to expression of ideas and views as well as information.
Recommendation: That government be willing to accept amendment if proposed.
[Page 2]
3. Section 2(d) – Association – Trade Unions
Proposal: To include in freedom of association the right to form and join trade unions and bargain collectively.
Comments: While part of this is found in Art. 22 of International Covenant, we don’t need such detail in Charter. If this went in, then why not a right to form political parties, religious associations? Surely the term “association” is broad enough to encompass the right without spelling it out.
Recommendation: That government oppose adding this detail.
4. Section 3 – Right to Vote and Qualify for Office
(a) Proposal: To extend provisions to municipal government level.
Comments: If it is taken to this step, where does one stop? What about school boards, police commissions, Indian governments, etc? Surely the principle is to provide for those two key elective bodies that are mentioned in the constitution.
Recommendation: That government oppose extending the scope of this provision.
(b) Proposal: To change “without unreasonable distinction or limitation” to “without demonstrably justified distinction or limitation” and then to include grounds covered under non-discrimination rights except for “age”.
Comments: On first point, this would probably be an appropriate change in light of new wording in section 1. Indeed, it might be desirable to drop the provision altogether given the new wording in section 1. On second point, there would seem to be no need for adding specified grounds.
[Page 3]
Recommendation: That if NDP proposes either of these amendments, that government counter with amendment to delete qualifying clause.
5. Section 4 – Extension of Duration of Parliament
(a) Proposal: To require that any prolongation of life of Parliament or a legislature be subjected to a review and renewal of such extension every six months.
Comments: While a prolongation could no doubt be reviewed in any case, it probable wouldn’t hurt to provide specifically for a periodic renewal or revocation of the extended mandate.
Recommendation: That government not oppose such such [sic] an amendment.
(b) Proposal: To change “apprehended” war, invasion or insurrection to “imminent” as a more factual test.
Comments: While the significance of this change may not be great in fact, it may be a modification worth considering.
Recommendation:
[Page 4]
6. Section 6 – Mobility Rights
(a) Proposal: Make citizenship once lawfully acquired irrevocable.
Comments: Thee is the problem under the Citizenship Act of a Canadian born with dual citizenship being required to decide whether he wants to keep his Canadian citizenship or his other one.
Recommendation: That government not accept this proposal.
(b) Proposal: Remove provision of section 6(3)(b) for residency requirements for receipt of social services.
Comments: Provinces do impose two month requirement for hospital insurance and medicare. Also problem of non-residents seeking benefits.
Recommendation: That government not accept amendment.
7. Section 7 – Property Rights
Proposal: Add right to enjoyment of property and rig t not t o be deprived thereof except in accordance with law.
Comments: NDP not really pushing this. In any case, PC proposal is likely preferable.
Recommendation: That government prefer PC amendment if provision must be included.
[Page 5]
8. Legal Rights – Privacy and Access to Government Documents
Proposals: Same (more or less) as PCs.
(See comments under PC proposals.)
9. Legal Rights – Right to Fair Hearing in Accordance with Principles of Natural Justice for Determination of Rights and Obligations
Proposal: To include provision as in section 2(e) of Bill of Rights.
Comments: Because of evolution of law in this area with respect to “fairness” doctrine in administrative proceedings, and concerns of provinces about impact of entrenched right on their licencing procedures, this would be difficult one to accept. At the same time, it is a basic right difficult to deny.
Recommendation:
10. Section 8 – Search and Seizure
Proposal: Change to search or seizure, and cover both person and his property.
Comments: Change to the disjunctive is no problem, but it seems unnecessary to specify that search or seizure applies to both person and property. Law is already clear that both arc now covered.
Recommendation: That government accept first proposal, but not second.
[Page 6]
11. Section 9 – Detention
Proposal: Add provision along lines of Article 10 of Covenant to require that accused juvenile persons shall be segregated from adult accused.
Comments:
Recommendation:
12. Section 10 – Rights on Arrest or Detention
(a) Proposal: Add right to legal aid in serious criminal cases where accused cannot afford lawyer (Art. 14 of Covenant).
Comments: This is already provided for under legal aid plans in all provinces. However, financial eligibility criteria vary. Courts would end up trying to assess financial means of accused. How can they reasonably do this?
Recommendation: That government resist this amendment.
(b) Proposal: Add right of arrested or detained person not to be forced to confess his guilt.
Comments: Robinson is very unclear on what he wants here — possibly a right to remain silent or to answer no quest ions in absence of lawyer.
Recommendation:
[Page 7]
13. Section 11 – Rights When Charged With Offence
(a) Proposal: Amend 11(f) to provide for trials by an impartial jury as in U.S. Bill of Rights.
Comments: This would seem to pose no problems Criminal Code already covers the situation.
Recommendation: That government accept proposed.
(b) Proposal: Amend 11(h) to change “offence” to ‘acts giving rise to same offence”.
Comments:
Recommendation:
(c) Proposal: Amend 11(i) to give benefit of lesser penalty to persons even after sentencing (per Art. 15(1)).
Comments: This is virtually to give effect to in practice.
Recommendation:
(d) Proposal: Add right of person being tried to examine witnesses against him and to obtain their attendance. (Art. 14 of Covenant)
Comments: This appears to be getting into entirely unnecessary detail, trying to put whole Covenant into Charter.
Recommendation: That amendment be rejected as unnecessary.
[Page 8]
14. Section 12 – Cruel and unusual Punishment or Treatment
Proposal: Change to read “cruel or inhuman treatment or punishment”.
Comments: While this could raise some uncertainties in the law, especially in the area of treatment, it is possibly an amendment to be considered to bring it more into line with Covenant. (But note it was rejected by Parliament in 1960)
Recommendation:
15. Section 15 – Equality Rights
(a) Proposal: Add grounds of handicap, marital status, political belief, sexual orientation or lack of means.
Comments: Sec comments under PC proposals on handicap. If it is included, it will be difficult to find reasonable arguments for excluding marital status and political belief. However, it should be argued that including sexual orientation is totally premature and that lack of means is too difficult to assess or define.
Recommendation: That government try to confine expansion of list to handicap.
(b) Proposal: Reword section 15 (1) “without discrimination, including in particular, discrimination based on…”
Comments: This may be a means of overcoming the doubts that “in particular” creates an exclusive list.
Recommendation: That the government consider accepting this amendment.
[Page 9]
(c) Proposal: Add new clause stating that race, color, sex, sexual orientation and national or ethnic origin are never to be considered a reasonable ground for distinction.
Comments: This is the “immutable characteristics” argument, but it will never wash – age and handicap are also immutable!
Recommendation: That government opposed this amendment
(d) Proposal: Add provision specifying that Charter also applies to private discrimination in areas of employment, accommodation and services.
Comments: This would convert the Charter from a state/individual guarantee of rights to an individual/individual document, and would not be acceptable.
Recommendation: That government reject this proposal.
16. Section 24 – Enforcement
Proposal: Specify in particular that remedies include power to exclude improperly obtained evidence and power to award compensation.
Comments: The whole purpose is to leave the inappropriate remedies to the courts. If some are specified, why not others?
Recommendation:
17. Section 25 – Native Rights
Proposal: Specify that it does not include rights that discriminate as between Indian men and women.
Comments: This is felt unnecessary simply to overcome section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act.
Recommendation: That government resist such an amendment.
[Page 10]
18. Section 31 – Equalization
Proposal: Insert new provision reaffirming Canada’s commitment to seek achievement of the goals and rights contained in the International Covenant on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights.
Comments: This would be a rather meaningless expression and does not need any such statement. There are lots of other international commitments we could put in on this basis, eg. the ILO Conventions.
Recommendation: That government reject this proposal.
19. Section 52(1) – Paramountcy of Constitution
Proposal: Make it clear that Constitution is paramount over laws enacted before or after adoption of Charter.
Comments: This would seem an unnecessary provision, and particularly if it referred to coming into force of Charter, what would it mean in relation to laws under other parts of Constitution.
Recommendation: That government reject this proposal.