Document Information

Date: 1981-02-02
By: Government of Canada
Citation: Memorandum, Vancouver Formula (2 February 1981)
Other formats: Click here to view the original document (PDF).

February 2, 1981

VANCOUVER FORMULA

1. No agreement on a complete formula:

1. • fiscal implications of opting-out not resolved;

   • no agreement on how to handle matters where opting-out is inappropriate (e.g., Senate);

   • no agreement on how to handle matters of special concern to Quebec (e.g., amendments affecting official languages, where 6 provinces with 50% of the population gives no protection to Quebec).

2. There remained serious reservations on the part of some governments respecting the notion of opting-out itself (checkerboard effect).

3. The Honourable Thomas Wells noted in his letter of January 5:
“In sum, our discussions held out the potential for consensus, but it was not achieved in fact. The explanation lies not in the ill will of any of the participants, but in defects inherent in the formula itself”.

[Page 2]

4. The Conservative proposal is not the Vancouver formula (to the extent it had been drafted); example:

• Vancouver formula provided for amendments without Senate resolution;

• sections 41(3) of the Conservative proposal not contained in Vancouver formula.

• This would permit amendments to the amending formula with the consent of 8 provinces with 80% of the population. As this was never discussed during the summer, can Mr. Epp tell us if it is acceptable to Quebec?

6. If there really is an emerging consensus on the Vancouver formula, why force the issue now?

1. • Can be put to the people by 7 provinces with 80% of the population after patriation.

7. Which approach provides greater respect for the provinces and the people of Canada? The immediate imposition of the Conservative Party’s version of the Vancouver formula or the conciliatory two stages approach of the federal government which permits seven provinces, if unanimity is not possible, to call upon the people of Canada to decide?

8. Are you going to impose the Vancouver formula unilaterally if Ontario does not agree or are you saying that a new amending formula requires unanimity and this is contrary to what you have been saying all along.

9. If what you are saying is that Britain should do nothing until there is full agreement, then you are dropping even your split resolution because Mr. Charron has said that he will only agree to patriation and an amending formula if Quebec gets satisfaction on division of powers.