1981-11-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The loss by fire of the Riverport Seafoods Ltd. plant in Nova Scotia on September 26 brings one of the province's highest productive areas to zero growth, puts 400 people out of work, and robs the local economy of $4.6 million annually in income. Since the plant cannot be rebuilt without a guarantee from the federal government that it will replace the million dollar wharf which was also destroyed by the fire, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans give an immediate indication of the government's plans for the reconstruction of this facility.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Madam Speaker, 1 am pleased that the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) has taken his seat. From time to time the House recognizes the exceptional and truly outstanding selflessness of certain individuals. Last night a handful of Canadian Armed Forces personnel from CFB Shearwater and from CFB Summerside joined these numbers. In winter's first major storm, in the mask of night, these gentlemen clearly demonstrated and distinguished the level of professionalism which is clearly the hallmark of the Canadian Armed Forces; 26 crew members of the Euro Princess are alive this morning because
these professionals did their duty. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House says, "Well done, gentlemen" to Canadian Armed Forces personnel from CFB Shearwater and CFB Summerside who participated in the rescue of 26 crew members of Euro Princess.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, the lifting of import quotas on leather shoes this week will not only eliminate 40 per cent of Canadian shoemakers within three years, but it will have a disastrous effect on Canadian tanneries, according to Peter Dunham, President of Beardmore & Company Limited, Acton, Ontario, whose tannery was already forced to lay off 400 people. In view of the fact that we are already in a depressed economy, as witnessed by massive lay-offs in most other industries as a result of Liberal economic policies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bramp-ton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be instructed to reconsider the timing of his negative announcement which could virtually eliminate Canadian leather shoe manufacturers, thereby adding considerably to record high unemployment and the lack of productivity in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 27, 1981


S O. 43 INDUSTRY CALL FOR PARLIAMENTARY INVESTIGATION OF CONSOLIDATED COMPUTER INC. LOSSES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The federal government's 49 per cent ownership of Consolidated Computer Inc. resulted in the loss of more than $30 million in public funds since the government took over active management, or should I say mismanagement, of the firm 16 months ago. This black hole of public funding has now been sold for a $100,000 cash downpayment plus $7 million in future considerations. The total anticipated loss is expected to be almost $100 million, a staggering sum which might have been better used to give assistance to Canada's beleaguered home owners. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House condemns the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce for his incompetence and mishandling of public funds and, further, to prevent a government cover-up, that this entire matter be referred to a special parliamentary committee for a thorough public investigation of this previously secret deal.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) announced changes in Canada's immigration policy as it affects foreign domestic workers in Canada. The result will be that this group, which has often been at a disadvantage, will be given a greater opportunity to become full contributing members of the country. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Niagara Falls (Mr. MacBain):
That this House applauds the minister for his progressive and humanitarian policy.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, the discontinuation of the MURB incentives in the coming year will reduce the number of multiple unit starts from 9,000 to 2,000 in the Calgary area alone. In view of the fact that this action taken by the federal government will result in soaring rents and even lower vacancy rates during this period of high interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
[DOT] (mo)
That the Minister of Finance consider the very serious implications the discontinuation of MURB incentives has on the housing market, the construction industry and renters, and that he fully reinstate MURB incentives in his budget.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity which relates to a group of veterans who served in an RCAF nuclear warfare unit. Over a long period of time these individuals were exposed to radiation and now appear to have contracted degenerative illnesses and cancer from that service. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That the Minister of Veterans Affairs provide an order of reference to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs authorizing it to conduct a study into the circumstances of the veterans who served in the RCAF nuclear warfare group, particularly the present health status and needs of this group.
Second, that the Minister of National Health and Welfare authorize her department to undertake a long-term medical study of the members of the nuclear warfare group to establish if the exposure to radiation during their term of service has resulted in the contracting of cancer and degenerative disease.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 27, 1981


THE BUDGET
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, the MacEachen budget kills the incentives to invest, makes a mockery of saving for retirement or for a home in the future, continues to waste the peoples' money on such things as useless advertising, imposing metric on our people, providing excessive amounts of booze at every government function, and spending money like a drunken millionaire. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright):
That this House demands the immediate resignation of the Minister of Finance.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED NAME FOR NEW BREAKFAST MENU ITEM-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, given the universal reaction to the November 12 budget, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), I move:
That this House honours the Minister of Finance for his budget by recommending to that well-known restaurant chain a new item to be inserted on their breakfast menu: Egg MacEachen.
You don't eat it; you wear it all over your face.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, I rise to call the attention of all members of this House to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43. In view of the damaging typhoon which has destroyed south-east villages in Manila, Philippines, leaving 73 people dead, 37 injured and 40 missing, causing $9 million in crop damage, and given that Canada has always acted with swiftness in meeting such natural disasters, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That this House express its deepest sympathy for the people of the Philippines who have suffered from a typhoon which destroyed south-east villages in Manila, and request the Canadian government to join with other countries in extending relief to the victims if requested to do so in an international appeal.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Madam Speaker:: The house has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, the budget provisions respecting the taxation of life insurance have placed the industry in jeopardy. These ill-advised measures will have the effect of inhibiting saving, of discouraging the accumulation of retirement funds, and will generally fuel inflation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to withdraw these onerous and foolish tax measures.


Madam Speaker:: Is there consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Earlier this week the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) was content to wring her hands and plead that it was not up to her, it was up to the economy, to help the 400,000 elderly women who scrape by on $5,000 a year. Members of the New Democratic Party find this to be unacceptable. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the Liberal government be condemned on the grounds of moral bankruptcy for ignoring the plight of the hundreds of thousands of elderly Canadians whom this government has wilfully committed to lives of utter destitution.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

November 27, 1981
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. There is more evidence every day of the very great disruption which has been caused by this budget, particularly by its tax reform elements, which is undermining the investment and, therefore, the job-creation process in this country. Obviously this is a very great concern, particularly because of the serious recession we are in today.
In view of this, and in view of the response in the House by a number of the minister's colleagues while he was away on other business, that he is considering amendments to the budget, would the minister advise the House today whether, in fact, he is considering substantial amendments to the budget, which is now known in this country as the "Oops, I forgot that one" budget?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Alley Oop!


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member was absent yesterday on business I am sure, when I did respond to an hon. member who inquired about the impact of the change in income-averaging annuity contracts affecting farmers. 1 said that I was prepared, first of all, to explain to various groups in the country the impact of changes which, in some cases, have been misunderstood. For example, I believe that in the case of farmers, they might find it useful to compare the rigidity which was imposed upon them under an income-averaging annuity contract system with the flexibility which may be available to them under the new forward-averaging system.
For example, the Canadian Federation of Agriculture has made some representations. We would like to discuss with the federation whether, in fact, the disadvantages which it perceives actually exist, or whether, indeed, there may not be some advantages to farmers in the way of providing additional flexibility.
Therefore, I have no hesitation in telling my hon. friend, first of all, that I think it is important that affected groups understand the implications of the budget. Second, if it is apparent that any changes made are not in accordance with the motivation of equity which is within the budget, then of course I am prepared to consider making adjustments. That has always been the case with respect to budgets, and it will not change in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POLICY GOVERNING TAX CHANGES
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, one of the reasons the investment process to which I referred in my original question is being undermined is because the budget introduces a major change in taxation policy. It is applying new rules which affect investment decisions on a retroactive basis. This applies to people who have invested in small businesses, in high technology companies, in annuities, in junior resource companies, and those anticipating retirement allowances, who now find that the rules of the game have been changed and, in some cases, significantly changed. The result will be fewer jobs created in Canada, just to remind the minister again, at a time when we are in very serious recession.
Is the minister consciously departing from this principle of non-retroactivity in the formation of tax policy in this budget, and will that affect future budgets?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is constantly missing the fundamental, underlying public policy reason for the tax changes in the budget.


Mr. Andre:: We are not talking about cars; we are talking about interest.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The burden of taxes has grown more and more as special provisions have crept into the tax system-


An hon. Member:: You put them in.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -with the result that, at the present time, quite a considerable number of high-income people in Canada are paying absolutely no tax at all because of the tax system. They are not carring any burden. That is the first fact.
The second fact is that quite a considerable number of taxpayers in high-income income brackets are paying a lower proportion of their income in taxes than other tax filers in low-income brackets. What kind of a system is that in this country?


An hon. Member:: You created it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member is overlooking that kind of correction that we intend to make.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF TAX REFORM ELEMENTS TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the minister, in his normally very self-righteous tone, is ignoring the fact that those so-called loopholes today were put in by governments of which he was a part.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Broadbent:: Supported by the Tories.
November 27, 1981


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The minister is forgetting one fundamental factor. That factor is the impact of these changes on job creation in this country at a time when the economy is in serious recession.
Before 1 put my final supplementary question to the minister, I want to stress that I am not being provocative-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -but the minister, because he has been bound by conflict of interest guidelines for some 15 years, has never had to make an investment decision. Those decisions have been made for him. Members of his staff and senior officials have been bound by those same guidelines. They have not had to make investment decisions. Therefore, because of his lack of experience with this process, and lack of understanding of the impact of that process on job creation in this country, would the minister consider at this time removing, as a package, those elements of the budget which come in under the entitlement of tax reform? Would he consider removing those elements from the budget and putting them before a special committee of the House in the form of a white paper for study, thereby allowing Canadians who are so seriously affected by the budget to explain to the minister, to his officials and to members of this House the implications of the budget?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the other day that question was addressed to me by a member of the New Democratic Party who suggested that it might be useful to send the bill to a standing committee which could hear representations. The person who objected to that proposal was the hon. member for York-Peel, who suggested to me across the aisle that the place to deal with the bill was in Committee of the Whole House.


Mr. Clark:: That is incorrect.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think that is another illustration of the conflict of views between members of that party. We are going to have an opportunity to deal with the bill before the Committee of the Whole House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Huntington:: You are the one who mentioned Committee of the Whole.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and that seems to me to be an adequate place.
The hon. member suggested that many of the tax preferences that are in the tax system had been put in by former Liberal governments. That is true. That is the case. But I must say that when I examined the tax system I was scandalized by the number of preferences-


An hon. Member:: Where were you for the last 15 years?


An hon. Member:: Where were you in 1971?
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that had crept into the system, not for the purpose-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Not for the purpose of what?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Maybe for very laudable purposes at the time they were developed, but which have had the effect of permitting large, high-income earners to escape taxes altogether-


Charles Joseph Clark: Blue Cross, dental care and severance pay- what about those?


Harvie Andre: What about small business investment?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -or other income earners to bear a lower proportion of the tax burden. That is what I am attempting to correct.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW AGENCY
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. When the Canadian government owns control of a company and the government then decides to dispose of its equity to a foreign firm, giving the foreign firm control, is this transaction subject to FIRA, or because the Government of Canada is one of the parties to this transaction, is the transaction exempt from the usual FIRA process?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, if I am not mistaken the law provides that the disposal of companies by either the federal or provincial Crown is not subject to the Foreign Investment Review Act.


CONSOLIDATED COMPUTER INC.-REQUEST THAT SALE BE MADE TO CANADIAN FIRM
Paul Wyatt Dick: Madam Speaker, as this matter has been brought up, let me say that my understanding is that there has been nothing finalized as yet in relation to Consolidated Computer. If something has been finalized, perhaps the minister could inform us.
Because the Government of Canada has announced that one of its major target industries for support is the high tech industry, and because the government has indicated that it would try to encourage Canadian firms rather than foreign

November 27, 1981
Oral Questions
firms to buy Canadian companies up for sale in Canada, will the minister undertake not to sell Consolidated Computer, of which it owns 49 per cent, to the Japanese firm Fujitsiu, but rather to sell or dispose of the government's interest to one of the three Canadian companies which, I understand, have taken an interest in that company?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we have done.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister of Finance. He makes Rip Van Winkle look like an insomniac with his answers. Where was the Minister of Finance during all those years when the loopholes were being put in by his government? Let me return to a question I asked last week.
The Minister of Finance indicated last week that he agreed with me that those people who were locked into very high mortgage interest rates as a result of a peak that took place during the summer months should be given some consideration now in trying to bring their interest rates to a level that would be more acceptable. I note with interest that some of the banks have flatly rejected any responsibility in this regard.
What does the minister propose to do to try to aid the close to 150,000 Canadian families who are locked into interest rates of 19 per cent, 20 per cent, 21 per cent and 22 per cent and who are obviously being asked to shoulder a burden far in excess of what could be considered reasonable?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member put a preamble to his question on which I would like to make a comment. All of these tax expenditures or tax preferences were originally put into the tax system for what we expected to be useful purposes. Over time, instead of encouraging investment as much as had been intended, they have become, in addition to that, a basic way of avoiding taxes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Now his leader-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The Leader of the New Democratic Party for weeks before the budget was up on his feet every day asking the government to take action to close off these tax preferences. Now that we have taken the action he hasn't got the backbone to stand up and support that action we proposed in the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is how the Leader of the New Democratic Party behaves. If the hon. member is going to put preambles into his questions he is going to get answers to them also.
The member has talked about those particular persons who renewed mortgages at very high interest levels. I have indicated to the hon. member that I have taken his point and will attempt, through the system that we established with the financial institutions, to see whether any adjustment can be made in those mortgage rates. That is what I am attempting to do.

[DOT] (M30)


BANKS AND BANKING
Ian Deans: Let me say to the
minister that, in the closing of the loopholes, he has left at least 80 of those loopholes open in terms of people being able to take unfair advantage of the tax system.
Let me go back to the housing question because it is of vital importance. To this day there are people in Canada who have paid in excess of $40 million more than they ought to have been asked to pay as a result of the inordinately high interest rates that they have been tied into. The banks have reported, just in the last two days, obscene profit margins when compared to the profit margins of most other areas of the economy. Those are being taken from people who are paying mortgages-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has to proceed right now to his question.


Ian Deans: Will the minister direct the banks to reduce the mortgage interest rates for those 150,000 Canadians who are paying in excess of the going rate today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that under the terms of the Bank Act which went through this Parliament during this session, and in which members of his party participated-


An hon. Member:: And opposed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -there is no authority for the government to give direction to the banks to establish any rate of interest.


An hon. Member:: Be honest.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What we have done is to provide, through that act, increased competition for the banks.
I would hope that those mortgage renewals which took place during a period of very high interest rates were for a very short
November 27, 1981

term. Even so, I have told the hon. member that I will do what I can within my powers to encourage the banks to make some adjustments. But there is no authority under the law to direct the financial institutions, or any other institution in the country, to provide for any particular price. However, what the hon. member ought to be satisfied about is that there has been a very significant drop in interest rates and that many hundreds of thousands of Canadian home owners who are now facing renewals will do so under a much better arrangement than has been in existence in the last few months.


THE BUDGET
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is quite simple. If the minister wants to change the Bank Act to allow the government to have the power to set the interest rates for mortgages, we will pass it in one day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I want to ask the minister how this government can find $91 million to waste on a company that is going bankrupt yet cannot find money to help people who are losing their homes or are paying far more than they should be asked to pay?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member will have noticed that we have provided several hundred millions of dollars in the budget-


Ian Deans: Not for this.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to help the housing situation and we have taken-


An hon. Member:: Only if they go down to the banks.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have taken steps in the budget to ensure that no home owner in Canada will lose a home because of high interest rates. We made that commitment in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session. I am rather pleased to be able to say in the House of Commons that no Canadian family will lose a home because of high interest rates.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Honourable Prime Minister. Yesterday, Premier Levesque, in referring to statements by the Prime Minister to the effect that Quebec had lost its veto right, said that these statements in fact acknowledged the existence of a veto right. Some members of the media appear to be rather confused by this apparent paradox. Would the Prime Minister say that the alleged veto right was never a legal right but rather a political privilege that the government of Quebec has now lost by obstructing all attempts to reform the Canadian Constitution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as far as the legal aspect of the matter is concerned, obviously I can only express an opinion. The courts will have to decide on the legality aspect, if necessary, but my position has always been, that ever since I became leader of the Canadian government we have always looked for an amending formula based on the concept of regionalism, which recognized the existence of four regions in Canada and as a result acknowledged implicitly that the Province of Quebec had a veto right. That was our position at the constitutional conference in 1971, and has been our position up to the events of the past few weeks, when we had a resolution before the House in which we were proposing an amending formula based on the regional concept and therefore on a veto right for Quebec. So that when Premier Levesque, in joining forces with the seven provinces, agreed with their concept that all provinces were equal and that there were no veto rights for anyone, and signed the accord on April 16 of this year, he relinquished the veto right we had been prepared to acknowledge in the amending formula. So that is what happened, Madam Speaker, and once more, I do not want to say what the law is on this question nor what the constitutional conventions should be. I merely wish to say that for ten years we have been proposing a constitutional amending formula that would have given the Province of Quebec veto rights, and it was Mr. Levesque's government that since or sometime before the accord, in September 1980, joined forces with the seven provinces which denied veto rights to any of the provinces. Mr. Levesque agreed to accept this view, thereby relinquishing the veto rights we were prepared to acknowledge, not in law but in the amending formula we were proposing.

November 27, 1981
Oral Questions


THE BUDGET
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In his budget the minister said that the reason some of these provisions were placed in the budget was for fairness. He talked about the removal of income averaging annuities because high income earners in Canada were using them not to pay any tax.
For the reason of fairness, would the minister consider using the existing laws as they stood before November 12 so that people who had sold, in particular people who had sold property to which capital gains were attached, prior to November 12, would not be penalized because the existing law prior to November 12 gave them until March 2 to purchase an income averaging annuity?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think I should make the point that I have been talking about a fairer tax system which would more evenly distribute the burdens of taxation. When I make that comment, I am not casting aspersions on any individual taxpayer who may have used that tax system. It was fully legal. But the impact of the tax system, as is revealed in the analysis on tax expenditures, is such as to create considerable inequity. That is what I have attempted to remove.
The hon. member has spoken about one particular aspect of these tax changes, having to do with the possible transitional adjustment. I have indicated several times in the House that I am quite prepared to listen to the representations of groups and Members of Parliament to see whether transitional adjustments in certain circumstances might not be fully justified in the interest of equity.
I take the hon. member's question as a serious one in the interests of providing equity to a particular class of Canadians.


REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PROVISIONS
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I appreciate very much the response of the Minister of Finance because, knowing his roots, I am sure he understands that people build for retirement in this country, and they do their best to provide for themselves. I hope the minister will listen a little more earnestly. One example is a widow who is forced to live below the poverty line. She sold a quarter section of farm land so that she could use the proceeds to live on in her retirement. This widow has to pay $30,000 in capital gains tax now.
I would like to inform the minister that another retiring farmer in my constituency consulted the tax department on how much time he had in which to purchase his incomeaveraging annuity. He was told March 2. He now does not
have that opportunity, and I hope the minister, with all the fairness he can muster, will give people in this position the opportunity, until March 2, to provide for their retirement with their own funds.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I mentioned earlier, it is difficult, if not quite impossible, to adjudicate on a particular case on the floor of the House during question period. I know that several days ago a member of the House said that as a result of the budget the tax on a particular farm would have increased by $72,000, after the budget. I had a chance to look at that case and found that of that tax $49,000 under the forward-averaging system would be a refundable tax, and would be of benefit to the farmer and provide him with additional flexibility. I believe the hon. member ought to examine very carefully the forward-averaging system to determine whether he may be advocating a rule for farmers that is more onerous, namely, the existing one.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. It has to do with the Small Business Development Bond. We all know that the minister was very confident when he brought in this singular measure to help small businesses and farmers. He was confident of the co-operation of the banks. It now being quite evident that the banks are not co-operating, for a variety of reasons, and that they are not offering to co-operate with their clients in issuing this bond, what is the minister's next step in solving the serious problems affecting small businesses and farmers?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, I am really surprised that once again, for the third time, a Conservative member is trying to give the impression that banks are not implementing the Small Business Development Bond. Madam Speaker, I have checked with the Royal Bank, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Bank of Montreal, following statements by one of the honourable member's colleagues at the beginning of this week to the effect that there was a moratorium on implementation of the Small Business Development Bond. The three Financial institutions I consulted have told me that they were implementing the provision, that they supported the program and that they would be using all the means at their disposal to develop a new definition of the terms as quickly as possible and the provision is already being implemented.
November 27, 1981


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, as the minister has done, 1 have undertaken the same kind of exercise. I have telephoned the head offices of some banks. They are very confused about the guidelines, and their instruction to their bank managers is not to issue the small business bond. We may have a conflict of understanding, but that is my conclusion.


REQUEST THAT PROGRAM BE BROADENED
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, has the Minister of Finance himself asked or has he received some advice about the notion of broadening the scope of the Small Business Development Bond by offering the bond to private purchasers, in other words, allowing private investors to purchase these bonds with the same kinds of guarantees that are offered to the banks and the same kinds of tax advantages?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I do not see how the characteristics of the Small Business Development Bond could be applied to private investors. If the hon. member wishes to make a proposal, I would be glad to consider it, but there is an interface between the operation of the Small Business Development Bond and the taxing situation of the banks.


Charles Joseph Clark: I guess they should talk to Ian Stewart, the real minister of finance.


QUERY RESPECTING CHANGE IN PROGRAM
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I certainly concur with the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River. There is confusion out there as to whether the Small Business Development Bond is available now or not.
My question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism, and it too is with respect to the bond. I remember when the minister asked the House to extend the date of termination of the bond until the end of this present year, and I believe no one objected and that it went through very quickly because it was one of the few things the government had done to provide some limited assistance to small business. However, on November 12 that program was changed and, as a result, many small businessmen who were anticipating and planning to enter into the provisions of that bond were no longer able to do so. Consequently, their rates of borrowing money have gone up, in some cases many tens of thousands of dollars. Would the minister state to this House whether he does not consider that to be changing the rules of the game half way through the game?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Madam Speaker, we are more than halfway through implementing the program. The new provisions concerning the Small Business Development Bond were
Oral Questions
announced on November 12, while the previous program was to end on January 31 and I feel that the one-year extension is extremely important. I agree with the member that there is a certain amount of confusion within the financial institutions at the present time. Monday morning, there will be a meeting of representatives from all chartered banks belonging to the Canadian Bankers' Association, with officers of the Department of Finance, the Department of National Revenue and the Small Business Secretariat, and by the end of that day we hope that any questions that exist at the present time will have been answered.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We will certainly be looking forward to that clarification.


REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENTS IN APPLICATION OF PROGRAM
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism has agreed that indeed there was a change in the rules of the game, perhaps not at mid-point but toward the end, but it still left many small businesses caught unawares. The minister indicated earlier this morning that he is prepared to make adjustments where there is some injustice committed. Would the Minister of Finance look into making adjustments so that those small business men anticipating taking advantage of the Small Business Development Bond until the end of the year will have that opportunity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think there is some confusion with respect to the impact of the Small Business Development Bond. There has been the suggestion that the bond is no longer available for development purposes. It is available until the end of the year for development purposes. There is, of course, a threshold of 6 per cent in effect now. With that threshold there is still a very considerable interest advantage to small businesses taking out financing under the small business loan. If, for example, the market rate were 20 per cent, banks could offer about 13 per cent to 14 per cent to small businesses even with this threshold. We established this threshold because we wanted to create a greater availability for firms in financial difficulty.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Three weeks ago the Government of the United States issued a request for comments on the reciprocity status of Canada dealing with the Mineral Lands Leasing Act which calls for retaliation against "citizens of another country, the

November 27, 1981
Oral Questions
laws, customs or regulations of which deny similar or like privileges to citizens or corporations of the United States".
Has the minister or somebody else in the government- perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whose national energy policy triggered this request-responded to the request which was made to Canadians as well as Americans? Is he planning to respond to the request and, if he has or is planning to do so, will he undertake to table in the House of Commons his response to this request?
[DOT] (M50)


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I heard every word of the hon. member's question. I understood him to say that this was a request by members of a congressional committee. He can correct me if that is not the case. I am not aware of any specific request. We have certainly kept the United States informed of our views in this respect.


REQUEST MADE BY UNITED STATES OFFICIAL
Harvie Andre: The request was made by the administration from the assistant secretary of policy budget in the administration, Department of the Interior. It specifically invites Canadians, individual corporations, elected officials, as well as Americans, to respond to this request. I humbly suggest to the minister that failure to do so could result in the U.S. administration taking precipitous action which could be very damaging to Canada's interests.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, that type of request I think is not one which is addressed to the Government of Canada, and not one that we would be responding to directly. But we have certainly fully informed the U.S. government of our views on this and any other questions in dispute.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the House about the specific impact of indirect taxes, the hidden taxes on recipients of the guaranteed income supplement. Specifically the $35 which this House voted a year ago-does it exceed the tax take which now averages better than a $100 a month increase under the two budgets?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker. The $35 a month increase to the recipients of the supplement is fully indexed.


REQUEST FOR STUDY INFORMATION
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I understand the impact of full indexing. At 10 per cent per year that would be $3.50 a month. Indirect taxes, on average, per household, have increased over $100 a month under this Minister of Finance. He talks about equity. Could the minister table in this House a specific scientific study that would show the impact on senior citizens in this country, the impact of his indirect taxes on their capacity to buy food, to pay rent and to buy clothing?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will be delighted to do that. I will be delighted to provide the hon. member with information that would remove from his mind the impression that we have increased indirect taxes.
[DOT] * [DOT]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Since yesterday, the government of Quebec has started to show an interest in the situation of francophones outside Quebec, after having ignored them for a year and a half during the negotiations on the Constitution. I may recall a statement by Claude Morin at the beginning of the last conference in which he said that applying Section 133 to Ontario was of no consequence whatsoever.
Does the Prime Minister agree that far more generous guarantees would have been obtained if Quebec had wanted to take to heart the interests of Canadians instead of withdrawing within its own separatist option?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this question is similar to the issue of Quebec's veto which I discussed earlier in reply to another question. I can say that both items received our attention, since we were proposing a veto right for Quebec and improvements in the position of francophones in the rest of the country. In the course of the negotiations on the Constitution, we did not receive Quebec's support on either of these two items. In fact, it joined forces with the seven provinces that at the time did not want veto rights-they still do not-and which also did not want to guarantee educational rights. Madam Speaker, I believe we could go even further. Starting at the Victoria Conference in 1971, the Canadian government had received from seven provinces a constitutional guarantee for at least part of Section 133. These constitutional guarantees were entrenched in the
November 27, 1981

Victoria charter, which, as the record shows, was rejected by the province of Quebec.
The federal government, since I became Prime Minister and, of course, under Mr. Pearson, has been fighting for the entrenchment in the Constitution of minority rights for francophones outside Quebec. We have always done so without the help of the province of Quebec, and now, since Mr. Levesque came to power, in spite of the opposition of the province of Quebec, and that is what the situation has been for ten years.


THE BUDGET
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker,
I wonder if the Minister of Finance would explain to the House why in this budget he is increasing the excise tax on building materials, contrary to what has been said about the reduction of the rate of excise tax, yet with regard to building materials the rate remains at 5 per cent, notwithstanding that the basis for valuation for tax goes from the manufacturer to the wholesale level?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, in certain aspects of the budget I had to seek additional revenues in order to carry out the fiscal policy which I thought was necessary in the present circumstances.


IMPACT ON HOUSE BUILDING INDUSTRY
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, has the minister consulted with the minister responsible for housing? Has the minister seen the impact of that increase in tax on the cost of building houses in this country, an industry which at the moment is possibly at its lowest in a generation?
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, I had the necessary consultations with my colleagues. As a result of consultations with the minister responsible for housing I was able to provide very substantial sums of money in the budget in order to support housing activity in Canada.
An bon. Member: That is why it dried up.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It concerns the proposal that he is considering of the transferable property
Oral Questions
rights. The policy proposal would allocate to individual fishing enterprises or companies assigned quotas over a year, as opposed to the current total allowable catch management system. This proposal also would allow these enterprises or companies to buy, sell, or trade those rights. Will the minister please inform the House if this proposal will become government policy, and when it will be implemented?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, a couple of days ago I said that the meeting had taken place. The advice from all sectors is being pulled together. I should be having a meeting with my officials next week. I would like to repeat to the hon. member what I said before, that there is no question to allocate in perpetuity what belongs to the people of Canada.


EFFECT ON INSHORE FISHERMEN
Melbourne Alexander Gass: Madam Speaker, I read the proposal. The principle of the proposal is to allow orderly and uniform delivery of fish to the onshore processors, a policy with which I agree. Will the minister explain to me and to the inshore fishermen, the independent fishermen, how this policy will benefit them?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, we are trying to deal with the problem of the offshore fleet which generally is in the hands of four major companies. If we can solve that problem, that is good. There are other problems of the inshore that are not related to this proposal.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It has now been two years since we learned of the financial plight of many of our armed forces personnel stationed at CFB Calgary. Since then, the situation has worsened, so that today some 400 families qualify for provincial welfare aid and some 30 to 40 families are actually collecting such aid. Will the minister please inform the House why he has not done anything during his year and a half in office to turn this situation around?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am always glad when someone from the NDP seems to have some interest in defence.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 27, 1981
Oral Questions


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I always had a great concern for the welfare of our armed forces. I know that in some areas-


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: They do not want welfare.


Maurice Lamontagne: Do you want an answer?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Yes.


Maurice Lamontagne: In some areas we know that they have difficulty, like the hon. member just told me, for example, in Calgary. This is why I authorized yesterday that the armed forces will have in the future a special posting allowance for people when they are posted from a low cost to a high cost area. Also, with the approval of Treasury Board there will be a special accommodation assistance allowance effective November 1, 1981, for people moving from low-cost to high-cost areas. This is what we have done for the Canadian Armed Forces, and they deserve it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL GUARANTEE
Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, I should like to point out to the minister that hon. members in this corner of the House are interested in the defence of people.
We have heard many platitudes over the last couple of years from the minister about how proud he is of service personnel. I think it is a shame that service personnel have had to go on welfare before the government was forced into doing something for them.
Would the minister guarantee that the program, which he finally brought in or is promising to bring in, will guarantee all armed forces personnel, whether stationed in Canada or in Europe, an adequate quality of life?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, the hon. member referred to an article in The Globe and Mail. The woman who told the reporter the story seems to be more reasonable than the hon. member on the other side. She said "that she went into this with her eyes open, so she cannot really be bitter". Armed forces personnel know very well what kinds of salaries and conditions they will have when they join the armed forces. We are doing everything to try to help them. I just mentioned to the hon. member these two new policies to help these people. We have corrected a lot of what the hon. member mentioned. As far as forces personnel being on welfare is concerned it is a very small minority. It is a question of trying to help them when we can.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Thursday, November 26, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I could have the attention of the government House leader, I wonder whether it would suit his convenience and his schedule if he would call a House leaders' meeting immediately upon resuming orders of the day so that we might discuss the timing of the conclusion of the Constitution debate and dealing with any intervening amendments. Because I have some positive proposals to put to him.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I welcome this offer, provided that the NDP House leader attends the meeting as well.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, as I said yesterday, I am willing to meet at any time. I can hardly wait to see these positive proposals.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I believe the privilege of hon. members of the House in committee, as well as those who appear to present points of view, is being somewhat detracted from, if not absolutely breached, by virtue of the fact that we find ourselves in a blocked system. I am speaking in general. I am not speaking about a specific instance or making a criticism against a specific chairman. I ask Madam Speaker to be patient with me for just a moment; I will not take much of the time of the House.
For example, the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry met yesterday to hear the evidence of the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union of the province of British Columbia on the Pearse Commission report, with which most of us are familiar. That committee, by virtue of its organization-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that the question which the hon. member wants to raise at this particular time does not flow from the deliberations of today's sitting. A question of privilege may be brought forward without notice only if it flows from the deliberations of today. I am afraid what the hon. member is talking about does not flow from the
November 27, 1981

deliberations of today. If he has a question of privilege, he can give me notice of it and I can hear him on it on another day.


Fred Alward McCain: It was my understanding, Madam Speaker, that a question of privilege could be presented at the first opportunity which presented itself to an hon. member after the incident occurred. Under the circumstances, it was impossible to obtain the necessary information to present the question of privilege yesterday. Perhaps I should have given Your Honour notice of it yesterday, but it was impossible to pursue the item until today. I would ask you to just bear with me; I will be very brief.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot; I must follow the Standing Orders. A matter of this nature could possibly be brought forward under privilege. I cannot judge the substance of the matter which will be brought forward, but I remind the hon. member of Standing Order 17(2) which clearly indicates:
-any member proposing to raise a question of privilege other than one arising out of proceedings in the Chamber during the course of a sitting shall give to the Speaker a written statement of the question at least one hour prior to raising the question in the House.
If the hon. member wants to give that statement and that notice, I can hear him on another day.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table the fourth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and the House has agreed through spokesmen for both opposition parties-

Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition and the New Democratic Party have agreed that I move concurrence of this report later this day.


WAYS AND MEANS
Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I wish to table a notice of ways and means in English and in French. The notice of ways and means, in accordance with earlier notices, provides for the dropping of the petroleum compensation charge from $51.28 per cubic metre to $39.64 per cubic metre. The decrease in the charge is, as was announced by the Minister of
Concurrence in Committee Report Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in September, consequent on the wellhead price increase which, while imposed by regulations made on October 1, 1981, does not flow through to the consumer until November 30, 1981. It means that Canadians will face a price increase of .5 cents per litre rather than 1.6 cents.


PETITIONS
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by Canadians which deals with Section 33(l)-Section 33(5) of the resolution presently before the House. It expresses a concern with respect to the override clause as it applies to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution. It is extremely long in its preamble. I think I would be presuming upon the House to read it all, although I should like to do so to make it clear. But Madam Speaker will be in a position to see it.
I believe that petitions are the one way in which people can contribute directly to debate and impress on members of Parliament the depth of feeling. It is on that basis that I beg leave to table this petition in the House.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I also have a petition to table on behalf of the Native Council of Canada, the Inuit Committee on National Issues and the Native Women's Association of Canada. It has a long preamble as well. I will not impose upon the time of the House by reading all of it, but I should like to point out that the prime concern is that the native people of Canada have been unable to meet with any government ministers; in fact, they have refused to consult with native people during this past week about some of the very important provisions they request to have within the Constitution. I table it on their behalf.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), chairman of the subcommittee on Canada's Relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, that the fourth report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, tabled earlier today in the House, be concurred in.

November 27, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Erik Nielsen: Agreed, Madam Speaker.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,683, 3,136, 3,264 and 3,328.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	Will Mirabel Airport have a deficit by the end of this fiscal year and, if so, what will it be and for what reason will there be a revenue shortfall?
2.	What is the projected deficit for the airport for the fiscal year 1981-82, if present conditions remain the same?
3.	Is the government presently exploring avenues to lower the deficit and, if so, which avenues?
4.	Will an announcement be made on an airport policy change and, if so, on what date?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The deficit for Mirabel is $20.1 million for fiscal year 1980-81, including depreciation of $17,675,000. The deficit is attributable to decreased revenues because some carriers have cancelled their service to Mirabel.
2.	Projected deficit for 1981-82 is $28.5 million, including depreciation of $18,355,000.
3.	Senior officials of the Action Mirabel group undertook a marketing mission to Europe in November, 1980, in order to promote the use of Mirabel as a gateway to North America. In addition, continuous efforts are made to control and reduce operating and maintenance costs at the airport.
4.	The first stage of the study on the Montreal airports system was completed some months ago and the findings were summarized in a report entitled "An interim report on airport role options", which was made public in February 1981. The second stage of this study, a more detailed cost-benefit appreciation, is well advanced and is scheduled for completion soon.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Was the "Fuel Purchase Diary" issued by Statistics Canada and, if so, what was the total cost for (a) its preparation (b) its distribution (c) compilation of the data?
2.	What was the purpose of the diary and did it achieve its purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1.
Statistics Canada reports that the "Fuel Purchase Diary" is a
data collection instrument issued by Statistics Canada as part of the national Fuel Consumption Survey. The survey itself is conducted by Statistics Canada under the sponsorship of Transport Canada as part of the federal government energy research and development program (an inter-departmental program under the leadership of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources). Each month samples of vehicles are drawn from provincial motor vehicle registration files provided to Statistics Canada by each of the ten provinces. Owners of the selected vehicles are asked a series of screening questions on the telephone and fuel purchase diaries are then mailed to the principal drivers of privately-owned vehicles. For a one-month period, the principal drivers use the Fuel Purchase Diary to keep a record of fuel purchases. At the end of the month, the completed diaries are returned by mail to Statistics Canada where the data are processed and tabulated for release on a quarterly basis. The total cost for the survey for a fiscal year is approximately $675,000 which can be subdivided as follows:
(a)	Sample selection and preparation for data collection-


[Stage Direction]
(b)	Screening and data collection-$300,000.
(c)	Processing, compilation and publication-$175,000.
2.	The primary purpose of the Fuel Consumption Survey is the establishment of a national data base concerning the personal use of passenger cars and light trucks and vans in Canada which would contain the following information: total distance travelled, total amount of fuel consumed, average distance obtained per unit of fuel, total expenditures on fuel and seasonal fluctuations in fuel consumption and in distance travelled. To date the survey methodology, as described in the answer to question one, has proven successful in meeting the primary objective. Four quarters of data have been published on the fuel consumption patterns of personal use passenger cars, and data on the fuel consumption patterns of light trucks and vans are currently being evaluated. Future quarters will be published as data become available.
Mr. Howie: In the fiscal year 1980-81, how many motor vehicles were purchased for staff members of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in (a) New Brunswick (b) Nova Scotia (c) Prince Edward Island and what amount was paid for the vehicles?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: As far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned, it has not purchased motor vehicles for staff members in the fiscal year 1980-81. We have, during this period, purchased the following motor vehicles for use by staff members in the performance of their duties and functions in two of the three maritime provinces in question:
November 27, 1981

Province New Brunswick Nova Scotia P.E.I.
Vehicles	Total cost
10	$68,499.80
12	$83,347.80
None


Mr. Herbert: How many tourists entered (a) Quebec (b) Ontario from (i) the United States (ii) other countries in 1980 and in 1981 and what percentage of the tourists are believed to have spent most of their stay in the two provinces?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, it should be noted that Statistics Canada in its monthly tabulation of International Travellers Entering or Returning to Canada differentiates between total travellers (visitors) and long-term travellers (tourists). The distinction between these terms is important as the following numbers reveal. The total number of travellers (excursionists with less than 24-hour visit and visitors of more than 24-hour visit) coming into Canada for the period January through September, 1981 amounted to 35,197,473; the number of long-term visitors (plus 24 hours) comprised only about one third of the foregoing total, namely 11,430,720 in the same period. In responding to the inquiry made, use has been made of Statistics Canada's Long-Term Traveller which most closely relates to the term tourist.
Having stated the above, some arbitrary decisions are made by Statistics Canada in determining who might be plus/minus 24-hour visitors on a monthly basis.
Long-term travellers (tourists) from U.S. are classified as total plane, auto and bus, one or more nights; and total train and boat flows. The foregoing method is accurate for auto and bus, and quite accurate for plane and train, in that most plane and train arrivals have a stop overnight; however, it possibly tends to inflate boat entries as it indicates those persons who take ferry excursions between the U.S. and Canada but may not stay overnight. Given the foregoing caution, the attached statistics are relevant.
A.	From U.S. to Quebec and Ontario
Long-term travellers, residents of the U.S. entering into Canada through Quebec;
(a)	First eight	months of	1980:	1,067,263(b)	First eight	months of	1981:	1,023,674Percentage:	-4.1 percent.
Long-term travellers, residents of the U.S. entering into Canada through Ontario;
(a)	First eight	months of	1980:	5,158,450(b)	First eight	months of	1981:	5,317,651Percentage:	3.1 percentB.	From Overseas to Quebec and Ontario
The Constitution
Defining long-term travel from countries other than the U.S. as overnight or longer land entries via the U.S., total air entries, total boat entries (includes same day travel by plane and boat), the undernoted figures are provided;
Long-term travellers, residents of countries other than the U.S. entering into Canada through Quebec;
(a)	First eight months of 1980:	269,881(b)	First eight months of 1981:	263,906Percentage:	- 2.2 per cent
Long-term travellers, residents of countries other than the U.S. entering into Canada through Ontario;
(a)	First eight months of 1980:	729,574(b)	First eight months of 1981:	729,993Percentage:	0.1 per centC.	Tourists spending most of their stay in Quebec and Ontario
The international travel survey measures, on an annual basis, provinces visited and each person is credited for each province visited. The data, however, cannot be desegregated to answer the question on the percentage of tourists spending most of their stay in the two provinces.
Defining tourists as those travellers staying one or more night only in Canada, the following statistics may be of use:
2.6 million U.S. tourists visited Quebec in 1980; 6.4 million U.S. tourists visited Ontario in 1980; 0.5 million tourists from countries other than the U.S. visited Quebec in 1980; 1.1 million tourists from countries other than the U.S. visited Ontario in 1980.


David P. Smith: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien:
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
CONSIDERANT :
que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a modifie a plusieurs reprises la Constitution du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-tement de celui-ci;	5
que, de par le statut d'Etat independant du Canada, il est legitime que les Canadiens aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur Constitution au Canada;
qu'il est souhaitable d'inscrire dans la 10 Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance de certains droits et libertes fondamentaux et d'y apporter d'autres modifications,
15 il est propose que soit presentee respectueu-sement a Sa Majeste la Reine l'adresse dont 15 la teneur suit:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Majesty, requesting that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25 set forth:
A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
Nous, membres de la Chambre des communes du Canada reunis en Parlement, fideles20 sujets de Votre Majeste, demandons respec-tueusementa VotreTres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loiainsicon^u :
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Constitution Act, 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
Loi donnant suite a une demande du Senat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the 5 Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty 10 requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose.
Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, considerant:
qu'a la demande et avec le consentement du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni est invite a adopter une loi visant a donner effet aux dispositions enoncees ci-apres et que le Senat et la Chambre des communes du Canada reunis en Parlement ont presente une adresse demandant a Sa Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi a cette fin,
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's 15 sur l'avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual en Parlement, et par l'autorite de celui-ci, and Temporal, and Commons, in this present edicte :
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:	20
10
1.	The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in 1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20 Adoption de b
Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for	cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada	tionnelle deand shall have the force of law in Canada	et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur	1981and shall come into force as provided in that	conformement a ses dispositions.Act.	252.	No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Ce"^°dneduKingdom passed after the Constitution Act,	Royaume-Uni apres l'entree en vigueur de la 25 ['"Xer £>ur ie1981 comes into force shall extend to	Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas CanadaCanada as part of its law.	partie du droit du Canada.3.	So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30	3. La partie de la version fran9aise de la VentoB, the French version of this Act is set out in	presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a forceSchedule A to this Act and has the same	de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30authority in Canada as the English version	version anglaise correspondante.
thereof.
4. This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi: Loi sur Titre abrege
Act.	le Canada.
13392
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Rights and freedoms in Canada
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic rights of citizens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
Continuation in special
circumstances
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981	LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981

[Stage Direction]
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:

[Stage Direction]
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Garantie des droits et libertes
1. 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.
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Droits et 5 libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 cTria'd^" sont enonces. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regie de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.	10
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- 10	2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales
tal freedoms:	suivantes :
Libertes
fondamentales
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 15
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
a)	liberte de conscience et de religion;
b)	liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opi-nion et d'expression, y compris la liberte 15 de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c)	liberte de reunion pacifique;
d)	liberte dissociation.
Democratic Rights
Droits democratiques
3.	Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoyen canadien	a le droit de vote 20Dr<>itsvote in an election of members of the House	et est eligible aux elections	legislatives fede- de^oycm"
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 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre Mandat legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assemblies legislatives
than five years from the date fixed for the	est de cinq ans a compter	de la date fixee25
return of the writs at a general election of its 25	pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members.	generates correspondantes.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- Prolongations invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut sptoales mons may be continued by Parliament and a etre prolonge respectivement par le Parle- 30 legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au-legislature beyond five years if such con-	dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more	ou d'insurrection, reelles ou apprehendees,
than one-third of the members of the House pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
The Constitution
l'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre des communes ou de l'assemblee legislative.
5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
5.	Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueiie nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5 5 douze mois.
Mobility Rights
Liberie de circulation et d'elablissement
6.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de	Li bene de
<	j ji	.	circulation
demeurer au Canada, d y entrer ou d en sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a)	to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per- 10j-i.bert£
J	,	, . ,	^	. d etablissement
sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent 10au Canada ont le droit:
a)	de se deplacer dans tout le pays et
d'etablir leur residence dans toute province;	15
b)	de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) 15 are subject to
(a)	any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of 20 present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.	25
(3)	Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Restriction (2) sont subordonnes:
a)	aux lois et usages d'application gene-rale en vigueur dans une province donnee, 20 s'ils n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province de residence anterieure ou actuelle;
b)	aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25 de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
(4)	Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas	de
elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou sociaie as its object the amelioration in a province of activites destines a ameliorer, dans une pro- 30 conditions of individuals in that province who vince, la situation d individus defavorises are socially or economically disadvantaged if 30socialement ou economiquement, si le taux the rate of employment in that province is d'emploi dans la province est inferieur 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 * 35 ^ejibertfet and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a ce droit qu'en conformite with the principles of fundamental justice.	avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre ^J^ruq'""|ionsou against unreasonable search or seizure.	les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies40sajSjCS
abusives.
9.	Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la trarily detained or imprisoned.	40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires. mcnl
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Arrest or detention
The Constitution
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun a Ie droit, en cas d'arrestation detention	ou de detention :
Arrestation ou detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.	10
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;	5
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a l'assistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit;
c)	de faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, le cas echeant, sa liberation.	10
Proceedings in U. Any person charged with an offence
penal matters has ngnt
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 20 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tribunal, 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
(gj not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen-35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and (/) 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.
II. Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affaires
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penaies l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;
b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 15 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;
d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue 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;
f)	sauf s'il s'agit d'une infraction relevant de la justice militaire, de beneficier d'un proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prevue pour Tinfraction dont il est accuse 30 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave;
g)	de ne pas etre declare coupable en raison d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 35 tuait pas une infraction d'apres le droit interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n'avait pas de caractere criminel d'apres les principes generaux de droit reconnus par Tensemble des nations;	40
h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau 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 ete definitivement 45 declare coupable et puni;
0 de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
Interpreter
12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
12.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.
13.	Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi-5 gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise
pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
Cruaute
5 Temoignage incriminant
14. A party or witness in any proceedings 10 who does 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.
14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employee, soit parce qu'ils sont atteints de surdite, ont droit a l'assistance d'un inter-prete.
1 0 Interprete
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
Equality before 15, (l) Every individual is equal before andequa|MaW ar|d under the law and has the right to the protection and equal protection and equal benefit of the law benefit of law wjthout discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15.	(1) La loi ne fait acception de per-	Egaiite devant
sonne et s applique egalement a tous, et tous	benefice et
ont droit a la meme protection et au meme P™lae,;"on ^galc benefice de la loi, independamment de toute e J 01 discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20 tions fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
Page ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.
Affirmative	(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any
programs law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
(2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet 25 Programmes de d mterdire les lois, programmes ou activites sociale destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30 leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences mentales ou physiques.
Official languages of Canada
Official languages of New Brunswick
Official Languages of Canada
Langues officielles du Canada
16.	(1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le fran9ais et l'anglais sont les	Langues
languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un	Canada
status and equal rights and privileges as to	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35
their use in all institutions of the Parliament	a leur usage dans les institutions du Parleand government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le fran?ais et l'anglais sont les langues J^Setedu languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un Nouveau. equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du wick.	Brunswick.
gouvernement du Nouveau-
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La presente charte ne limite pas le authority of Parliament or a legislature to	pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de
advance the equality of status or use of Eng- 5 favoriser la progression vers I'egalite de lish and French.	statut ou d'usage du fran?ais et de 1'anglais.
17.	(1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran^ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra-vaux du Parlement.
Progression vers legalite
Travaux du Parlement
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10T|;avauxdela
or French in any debates and other proceed-	?ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de	Nouveau-"*dUings of the legislature of New Brunswick.	la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.	Brunswick
Documents
parlementaires
18.	(1) 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 Parlement in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en fran9ais et enl5 versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes Documents de the legislature of New Brunswick shall be	rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-20jfauLNou!eluur.e
printed and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Brunswick
and both language versions are equally 20et publies en fran^ais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	25
19. (1) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le	Procedures
used by any person in, or in any pleading in	fran^ais ou Panglais dans toutes les affaires	mbunaux
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le etabiis par ie by Parliament.	25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure
qui en decoulent.	30
Parlement
(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- Procedures ?ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont tribunal™ du sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns- Nouveau-wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui Brunswi** en decoulent.	35
20. (1) Any member of the public in 30	20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a
Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in Engl'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou ['administration centrale des institutions du Parlement ou du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40
Communications entre les administres et les institutions federates
lish or French, and has the same right with 35 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a respect to any other office of any such insti- l'egard de tout autre bureau de ces institution where	tions la ou, selon le cas :
(a)	there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or	40
a)	l'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais fait
l'objet d'une demande importante;	45
b)	l'emploi du fran9ais et de l'anglais se justifie par la vocation du bureau.
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
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.
The Constitution
5	(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
droit a l'emploi du fran^ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec tout bureau des institutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
Communications entre les administres et les institutions du Nouveau-Brunswick
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.
21.	Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran?aise ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 5 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termeslO (Tune autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada.
Maintien en vigueur de certaines dispositions
22.	Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour Droits preserves or derogates from any legal or customary	effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privileright or privilege acquired or enjoyed either	ges, anterieurs ou posterieurs a l'entree en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la presente charte et decoulant de Charter with respect to any language that is	la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres
not English or French.	que le fran?ais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Droits a I'instruction dans la langue de la minorite
23.	(1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 25 linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the 30 language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English
or French linguistic minority population of the province,
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 20 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re?u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fran^ais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont re9u cette instruction est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province,
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 primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue. that language in that province.
Langue
d'instruction
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant	J°mp"oi de la
has received or is receiving primary or	a re$u ou re9oit son instruction, au niveau	|anguesecondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en fran9ais ou en 35 d'instruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Application where numbers warrant
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justice into
disrepute
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
The Constitution
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)	applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of 10 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 15 out of public funds.
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana-diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite 5 francophone ou anglophone d'une province :	5
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, de l'instruction dans la langue de la 10 minorite;
b)	comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire instruire dans des etablissements d'ensei-gnement de la minorite linguistique finan- 15 ces sur les fonds publics.
Justification par le nombre
Enforcement
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola-as guaranteed by this Charter, have been	tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui
infringed or denied may apply to a court of	lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 20s'adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20 as the court considers appropriate and just in nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-the circumstances.	venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
Recours cn cas d'atteinte aux droits et libertes
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or 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 of justice into disrepute.
Irrecevabilite d'elements de
(2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des preuvequi 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 risqueraicm de conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli, eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa-30 tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi-30 nistration de la justice.
deconsiderer ('administration de la justice
General
25.	The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(а)	any rights or freedoms that have been
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and	40
(б)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26.	The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- 45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas
Dispositions generates
25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit certains droits et libertes ne porte pas atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux, issus de traites ou autres - des peuples35 autochtones du Canada, notamment:
a)	aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
b)	aux droits ou libertes acquis par reglement de revendications territoriales.	40
Maintien des droits et libertes des autochtones
Maintien des autres droits et libertes
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Multicultural
heritage
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
Application to territories and territorial authorities
Legislative powers not extended
Application of Charter
Exception
Exception where express declaration
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
The Constitution
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27. Toute interpretation de la presente charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro-5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
Maintien du
patrimoine
culture!
28.	Notwithstanding anything in this 28. Independamment des autres disposi- Egaiitedc^
Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to	tions de la presente charte, les droits et liber-	droits	pour iesin it are guaranteed equally to male and	tes qui y sont mentionnes sont garantis egale-	deu* sexesfemale persons.	10 ment aux personnes des deux sexes.	1029.	Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 29. Les dispositions de la presente charte	.derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile ' certaines ecoles anteed by or under the Constitution of	ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution duCanada in respect of denominational, sepa-	Canada concernant les ecoles separees etrate or dissentient schools.	15 autres ecoles confessionnelles.	1530.	A reference in this Charter to a prov- 30. Dans la presente charte, les disposi- App'^'km aux 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 egalea reference to the Yukon Territory and the	ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20 Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives 20 legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes. be.
31.	Nothing in this Charter extends the 31. La presente charte n'elargit pas les legislative powers of any body or authority. competences legislatives de quelque orga- competences
nisme ou autorite que ce soit.	legislatives
Application of Charter
Application de la charte
32.	(1) This Charter applies	25
(a)	to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and 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.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec-35 tion 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
32.	(1) La presente charte s'applique : a) au Parlement et au gouvemement du Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest;
25 Application dc la charte
b) a la legislature et au gouvemement de chaque province, pour tous les domaines relevant de cette legislature.
(2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), l'ar- Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Ten-35 tree en vigueur du present article.
33.	(1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature	parprovince may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est	expresseParliament or of the legislature, as the case40expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de may be, that the Act or a provision thereof	ses dispositions a effet independamment 40shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de 1 article 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte. this Charter.
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Operation of exception
Five year limitation
Re-enactment
Five year limitation
The Constitution
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l'objet d'une declaration conforme au present article et en vigueur a l'effet qu'elle aurait sauf la disposition en cause de la charte.
Effet de la derogation
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) 5 Dureede cesse d'avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee vjlldl,c ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en vigueur.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov- 10	(4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut Nouveiie
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au I0adoption subsection (1).	paragraphe (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
(5) Le paragraphe (3) s'applique a toute Dureede declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- vahd,te graphe (4).
Citation
Citation	Titre
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadi- 15	34. Titre de la presente partie : Charte 15 Titre
an Charter of Rights and Freedoms.	canadienne des droits et libertes.


[Stage Direction]
Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of20 Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
35. (1) Les droits existants - ancestraux Confirmation ou issus de traites - des peuples autochtones existants des du Canada sont reconnus et confirmes.	peuples
autochtones
(2) Dans la presente loi, «peuples autochtones du Canada* s'entend notamment des Indiens, des Inuit et des Metis du Canada.
20 Definition de
[DOT]peuples autochtones du Canada*


[Stage Direction]
CromoteTul|t0 36, ^ Without altering the legislative opportlmdie^ authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
36.	(1) Sous reserve des competences	Engagements
legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures	Mgihte^des
et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement 25 chances et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-ments federal et provinciaux, s'engagent a :
a)	promouvoir l'egalite des chances de
tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-etre;	30
b)	favoriser le developpement economique pour reduire l'inegalite des chances;
c)	fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un
niveau de qualite acceptable, les services publics essentiels.	35
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Commitment respecting public services
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
The Constitution
(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Canada prennent l'engagement de principe de faire des paiements de perequation pro-pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-5ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre en mesure d'assurer les services publics a un niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement comparables.
Engagement relatif aux services publics


[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE	CONFERENCE CONSTITUTIONNELLE
37. (1) A constitutional conference com- 37. (1) Dans l'annee suivant 1 entree en ^0°nns^"fen. posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and	vigueur de la presente partie, le premier 10neiie
the first ministers of the provinces shall be 10 ministre du Canada convoque une conference convened by the Prime Minister of Canada	constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers
within one year after this Part comes into	ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
force.
(2) The conference convened under sub- (2) Sont placees a l'ordre du jour de la section (1) shall have included in its agenda 15 conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- 15 aut0chtones an item respecting constitutional matters tions constitutionnelles qui interessent direc-that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of	tement 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 a inscrire dans la included in the Constitution of Canada, and 20Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre 20 the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite du Canada invite leurs representants a parti-representatives of those peoples to participate 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- 25 des representants elus des gouvernements du ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-	territoire du Yukon et des territoires du 25
west Territories to participate in the discus- Nord-Ouest a participer aux travaux relatifs sions on any item on the agenda of the	a toute question placee a 1 ordre du jour de la
conference convened under subsection (1)	conference visee au paragraphe (1) et qui,
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, 30 selon lui, interesse directement le territoire directly affects the Yukon Territory and the du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest. 30 Northwest Territories.

[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING	PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA	CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
38. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 38. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut of Canada may be made by proclamation etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver- modification issued by the Governor General under the 35 neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
Great Seal of Canada where so authorized autorisee a la fois :
by	a) par des resolutions du Senat et de la 35
(a)	resolutions of the Senate and House of Chambre des communes;
Commons; and	b) par des resolutions des assemblies
(b)	resolutions of the legislative assem- 40 legislatives d'au moins deux tiers des pro-blies of at least two-thirds of the provinces vinces dont la population confondue repre-
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Majority of members
Expression of dissent
Revocation of dissent
Restriction on proclamation
Idem
Compensation
Amendment by
unanimous
consent
The Constitution
that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
(2)	An amendment made under subsection (1) that derogates from the legislative powers, the proprietary rights or any other rights or privileges of the legislature or government of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
(3)	An amendment referred to in subsection (2) shall not have effect in a province the legislative assembly of which has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution supported by a majority of its members prior to the issue of the proclamation to which the amendment relates unless that legislative assembly, subsequently, by resolution supported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
sente, selon le recensement general le plus recent a l'epoque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces.
5	(2) Une modification faite conformement 5 Majorite simple
au paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire a la competence legislative, aux droits de pro-priete ou a tous autres droits ou privileges d'une legislature ou d'un gouvernement pro-10 vincial exige une resolution adoptee a la 10 majorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux et des deputes de chacune des assemblees legislatives du nombre requis de provinces.
(3) La modification visee au paragraphe Disaccord 15(2) est sans effet dans une province dontl5 l'assemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la proclamation, exprime son desaccord par une resolution adoptee a la majorite des deputes, sauf si cette assemblee, par resolution egale-20ment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son 20 desaccord et autorise la modification.
Levee du desaccord
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the (4) La resolution de desaccord visee au purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at 25 paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquee a tout any time before or after the issue of the moment, independamment de la date de la proclamation to which it relates.	proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte. 25
39.	(1) A proclamation shall not be issued 39. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra- Restriction under subsection 38(1) before the expiration phe 38(1) ne peut etre prise dans l'annee
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-30suivant l'adoption de la resolution a l'origine tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la	procedure de modification	que si l'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	semblee legislative de chaque	province a 30
each province has previously adopted a reso- prealablement adopte une resolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de desaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued 35	(2)	La proclamation visee au	paragraphe	|demunder subsection 38(1) after the expiration	38(1)	ne peut etre prise que dans	les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant 1'adoption de la resolution a l'origine 35 lution initiating the amendment procedure de la procedure de modification, thereunder.
40.	Where an amendment is made under 40	40. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation
subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformement au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-	paragraphe 38(1) et relative, en matiere40
latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide	d'education ou dans d'autres domaines cultureasonable compensation to any province to 45 rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-which the amendment does not apply.	ves provinciales au Parlement.
41. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters
41. Toute modification de la Constitution Consentement du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-45unanime
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not 10 less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;
(c)	subject to section 43, the use of the English or the French language;
(d)	the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e)	an amendment to this Part.
The Constitution
tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblee 5 legislative de chaque province :	5
a)	la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
b)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de deputes au moins egal a celui des senateurs 10 par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre representee lors de l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie;
c)	sous reserve de Particle 43, l'usage du
15 fran?ais ou de l'anglais;	15
d)	la composition de la Cour supreme du Canada;
e)	la modification de la presente partie.
Amendment by
general
procedure
42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 42. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu- f^malede of Canada in relation to the following mat- 20 tion du Canada portant sur les questions 20 Indication ters may be made only in accordance with suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-subsection 38(1):	phe38(l):
(a)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the 25 Constitution of Canada;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the 30 Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	subject to paragraph 41 (d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(«?) the extension of existing provinces into 35 the territories; and
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.
a)	le principe de la representation propor-tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des communes prevu par la Constitution du 25 Canada;
b)	les pouvoirs du Senat et le mode de selection des senateurs;
c)	le nombre des senateurs par lesquels une province est habilitee a etre represen- 30 tee et les conditions de residence qu'ils doivent remplir;
d)	sous reserve de l'alinea 41 d), la Cour supreme du Canada;
e)	le rattachement aux provinces existan-35 tes de tout ou partie des territoires;
f)	par derogation a toute autre loi ou usage, la creation de provinces.
Exception	(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply (2) Les paragraphes 38(2) a (4) ne s'appli- Exception
in respect of amendments in relation to mat-40quent pas aux questions mentionnees au40 ters referred to in subsection (1).	paragraphe (1).
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including	45
(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du Modification a Canada applicables a certaines provinces certaines seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par provinces proclamation du gouverneur general sous le45 grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 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
The Constitution
(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
communes et de l'assemblee legislative de chaque province concernee. Le present article s'applique notamment:
a)	aux changements du trace des frontie-
5 res interprovinciales;	5
b)	aux modifications des dispositions relatives a l'usage du fran?ais ou de l'anglais dans une province.
44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parlia- 10 ment may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
44. Sous reserve des articles 41 et 42, le 10 Modification Parlement a competence exclusive pour parlement modifier les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif federal, au Senat ou a la Chambre des communes.	15
45. Subject to section 41, the legislature 15	45. Sous reserve de Particle 41, une legis-	Modificationof each province may exclusively make laws	lature a competence exclusive pour modifier	j^is^tures
amending the constitution of the province. la constitution de sa province.
46. (1) The procedures for amendment 46. (1) L'initiative des procedures de initiative des under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be modification visees aux articles 38, 41, 42 et 20procedures initiated either by the Senate or the House of 2043 appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des Commons or by the legislative assembly of a communes ou a une assemblee legislative, province.
(2) A resolution of assent made for the (2) Une resolution d'agrement adoptee Possibiiite de purposes of this Part may be revoked at any dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre revocallon time before the issue of a proclamation 25 revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la 25 authorized by it.	proclamation qu'elle autorise.
47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 47. (1) Dans les cas vises a Particle 38, 41,	Modification
of Canada made by proclamation under sec-	42 ou 43, il peut etre passe outre au defaut	^"slna"1"110'1
tion 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a d'autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n'a pas resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue 30adopte de resolution dans un delai de cent 30 of the proclamation if, within one hundred quatre-vingts jours suivant Padoption de celle and eighty days after the adoption by the	de la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons of a resolution authoriz-	derniere, apres Pexpiration du delai, adopte
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens, a resolution and if, at any time after the 35 expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au 35 Computation gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les	dudelai
computing the one hundred and eighty day 40periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est period referred to in subsection (1).	proroge ou dissous.
48. The Queen's Privy Council for 48. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le Canada shall advise the Governor General to	Canada demande au gouverneur general de 40
issue a proclamation under this Part forth- prendre, conformement a la presente partie, with on the adoption of the resolutions 45 une proclamation des l'adoption des resolu-
Demande de proclamation
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Constitutional
conference
Amendment to Constitution Act. 1867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
required for an amendment made by proclamation under this Part.
The Constitution
tions prevues par cette partie pour une modification par proclamation.
49. A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.
49. Dans les quinze ans suivant l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie, le premier 5 ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitutionnelle


[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION ACT,	MODIFICATION DE LA LOI
1867	CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1867
50. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly 50. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification de named the British North America Act, 1867) 10 (anterieurement designee sous le titre : Acte \ 0 constuution-is amended by adding thereto, immediately de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) neitedet867 after section 92 thereof, the following head- est modifiee par insertion, apres Particle 92, ing and section:	de la rubrique et de Particle suivants :
«Ressources naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestieres et energie electrique
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque pro- Competence
.	/	a [DOT]	i / ' c* 1 c provinciale
vince a competence exclusive pour legite- 15 rer dans les domaines suivants :
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation 15 to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural 20 resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c)	development, conservation and man- 25 agement of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.
(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from 30 the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the 35 generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.
a)	prospection des ressources naturelles non renouvelables de la province;
b)	exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvela- 20 bles et des ressources forestieres de la province, y compris leur rythme de production primaire;
c)	amenagement, conservation et gestion des emplacements et des installa- 25 tions de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique.
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiierer en ce qui con- provinces cerne l'exportation, hors de la province, a 30 destination d'une autre partie du Canada, de la production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production d'energie electrique de la 35 province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.	40
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
Authority of Parliament
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights
The Constitution
(3)	Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province con- 5 flict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
(4)	In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation 10 in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources
and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and	15
(b)	sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but 20 such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.	25
(5)	The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule.
(6)	Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a 30 legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section."
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas Pouvoirdu atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- Parlement rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragraphe, les dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines l'emportant sur 5 les dispositions incompatibles d'une loi provinciale.
a)	des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production primaire qui en est tiree;	15
b)	des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique, ainsi que de cette production meme.
Cette competence peut s'exercer indepen- 20 damment du fait que la production en cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, exportee hors de la province, mais les lois adoptees dans ces domaines ne peuvent autoriser ou prevoir une taxation qui eta- 25 blisse une distinction entre la production exportee a destination d'une autre partie du Canada et la production non exportee hors de la province.
(5) L'expression «production primaire* a 30'Prod"<;tion le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme pnmaire' annexe.
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent Fouyoirsou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus droits existants par la legislature ou le gouvernement 35 d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*
(4) La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes ressources d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de 10 taxation :
Idem
51. The said Act is further amended by 51. Ladite loi est en outre modifiee par idem adding thereto the following Schedule:	35adjonction de l'annexe suivante :

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this Act,
«SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres
1. Pour l'application de Particle 92A :	40
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
(a)	production from a non-renewable natural resource is primary production therefrom if
(i)	it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its 5 natural state, or
(ii)	it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, 10 refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and
(b)	production from a forestry resource is 15
primary production therefrom if it consists of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or any other primary wood product, or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood."	20

[Stage Direction]
52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.	25
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a)	the Canada Act, including this Act;
(b)	the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule I; and
(c)	any amendment to any Act or order 30
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.	35
The Constitution
a)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non renouvela-ble:
(i)	soit le produit qui se presente sous la meme forme que lors de son extraction 5 du milieu naturel,
(ii)	soit le produit non manufacture de
la transformation, du raffinage ou de l'affinage d'une ressource, a l'exception du produit du raffinage du petrole brut, 10 du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-des derives du charbon ou du raffinage d'un equivalent synthetique du petrole brut;	15
b)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource forestiere la production constituee de billots, de poteaux, de bois d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de20 bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[Stage Direction]
52. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la Primautedeia
..	*	j ii	j- ' a.	Constitution du
loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre 25 regie de droit.
(2)	La Constitution du Canada comprend :	Constitution duv	r	Canadaa)	la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la presente loi;b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figu- 30 rant a l'annexe I;c)	les modifications des textes legislatifs et des decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou b).(3)	La Constitution du Canada ne peut 35 Modification etre modifiee que conformement aux pouvoirs conferes par elle.53. (1) The enactments referred to in 53. (1) Les textes legislatifs et les decrets Abrogation et Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed	enumeres a la colonne I de l'annexe I sontor amended to the extent indicated in	abroges ou modifies dans la mesure indiquee 40Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall a la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent continue as law in Canada under the names 40en vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous set out in Column III thereof.	les titres mentionnes a la colonne III.
November 27, 1981
Consequential
amendments
Repeal and
consequential
amendments
French version of Constitution of Canada
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts
English and French versions of this Act
Commencement
Commencement of paragraph 23(l)(fl) in respect of Quebec
The Constitution
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act, that refers to an enactment referred to in Schedule I by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in Schedule I may be cited as the Constitution Act followed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
(2) Tout texte legislatif ou reglementaire, Modifications sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention corrt-la"ves d'un texte legislatif ou decret figurant a Fan-nexe 1 par le titre indique a la colonne I est 5 modifie par substitution a ce titre du titre 5 correspondant mentionne a la colonne III; tout Acte de FAmerique du Nord britanni-que non mentionne a Fannexe I peut etre cite sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de 101'indication de l'annee de son adoption et 10 eventuellement de son numero.
54. Part IV is repealed on the day that is one year after this Part comes into force and this section may be repealed and this Act renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of Part IV and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
54. La partie IV est abrogee un an apres Abrogation et Fentree en vigueur de la presente partie et le ™dc'J,'cat,ons gouverneur general peut, par proclamation decouient sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le 15 15 present article et apporter en consequence de cette double abrogation les amenagements qui s'imposent a la presente loi.
55. A French version of the portions of the 55. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada Constitution of Canada referred to in est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs 20 Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister 20 delais, la version franqaise des parties de la of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos-	Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l'ansible and, when any portion thereof sufficient	nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importanteto warrant action being taken has been so	est, des	qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adopprepared, it shall be put forward for enact-	tion par	proclamation du gouverneur general 25ment by proclamation issued by the Gover- 25 sous le	grand sceau du Canada, conformenor General under the Great Seal of Canada	ment a	la procedure applicable a Fepoque a
pursuant to the procedure then applicable to la modification des dispositions constitution-an amendment of the same provisions of the nelles qu'elle contient.
Constitution of Canada.
Version fran9aise de certains textes constitutionnels
56. 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 pursuant to section 55, the English and French versions of that portion of the Constitution are equally authoritative.
30	56. Les versions franqaise et anglaise des 30 versions
parties de la Constitution du Canada adoptees dans ces deux langues ont egalement certains textes force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de ""sututionneis loi, des Fadoption, dans le cadre de Farticle 35 55, d'une partie de la version frangaise de la 35 Constitution, cette partie et la version anglaise correspondante.
57.	The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.
57.	Les versions fran^aise et anglaise de la presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
Versions fran9aise et anglaise de la presente loi
58.	Subject to section 59, this Act shall 58. Sous reserve de Farticle 59, la presente 40 Entr«e en come into force on a day to be fixed by 40 loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par pro-	Vlgueur
proclamation issued by the Queen or the	clamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Canada.
59.	(1) Paragraph 23(1 )(a) shall come 59. (1) L'alinea 23(1 )a) entre en vigueur Entree en into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be 45 pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclama- 45 pfE 23e(l)a)
pour le Quebec
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Authorization of Quebec
Repeal of this section
Short title and citations
The Constitution
fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general the Governor General under the Great Seal sous le grand sceau du Canada, of Canada.
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1)	(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe Q^ftiondu
shall be issued only where authorized by the 5(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation uc cc legislative assembly or government of de l'assemblee legislative ou du gouverne- 5 Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
(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.
(3) Le present article peut etre abroge a la date d'entree en vigueur de l'alinea 23(1 )a) 10 pour le Quebec, et la presente loi faire l'ob-jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et changements de numerotation qui en decou-lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Abrogation du present article
60. This Act may be cited as the Consti- 15	60. Titre abrege de la presente annexe : 15 Titres
tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts	Loi constitutionnelle de 1981\ titre commun
1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be	des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975
cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867	(n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constituto 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I
	to the

[Stage Direction]
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
1. British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)	(1)	Section 1 is repealed and Constitution Act, 1867 the following substituted therefor: "1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867." (2)	Section 20 is repealed. (3)	Class 1 of section 91 is repealed. (4)	Class 1 of section 92 is repealed.2. An Act to amend and continue the Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Can.)	(1)	The long title is repealed Manitoba Act, 1870 and the following substituted therefor: "Manitoba Act, 1870." (2)	Section 20 is repealed.3. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June, 1870	Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order4. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May, 1871	British Columbia Terms of Union5. British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	Section 1 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1871 following substituted therefor: "1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1871."6. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873	Prince Edward Island Terms of Union7. Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.)	Parliament of Canada Act, 18758. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July, 1880	Adjacent Territories Order
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution


[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
1. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	(1)	L'article 1 est abroge et Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 remplace par ce qui suit : «1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.* (2)	L'article 20 est abroge. (3)	La categorie 1 de Particle 91	est abrogee. (4)	La categorie 1 de Particle 92	est abrogee.2. Acte pour amender et continuer 1'acte trente-deux et trente-trois Victoria, chapitre trois, et pour etablir et constituer le gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Canada)	(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba et remplace par ce qui suit: [DOT]Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba.* (2)	L'article 20 est abroge.3. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin 1870	Decret en conseil sur la terre de Rupert et le territoire du Nord-Ouest4. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Colombie-Britannique, en date du 16 mai 1871	Conditions de l'adhesion de la Colombie-Britannique5. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	L'article 1 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1871 place par ce qui suit : «1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.*6. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant l'lle-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873	Conditions de Padhesion de l'lle-du-Prince-Edouard7. Acte du Parlement du Canada, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du Canada8. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant dans l'Union tous les ter-ritoires et possessions britanniques dans l'Amerique du Nord, et les lies adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880	Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
November 27, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 -Continued
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
9. British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1886 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
10. Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
11. Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
12. The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3 (Can.)	Alberta Act
13. The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)	Saskatchewan Act
14. British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1907 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1915 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1930 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)	In so far as they apply to Statute of Westminster, 1931 Canada, (a)	section 4 is repealed; and (b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1940 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
19. British North America Act, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
9. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1886 place par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1886.*
10. Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario) 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de l'Ontario)
11. Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien (nomination d'un suppleant) 1895, 2' session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
12. Acte de 1'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 3 (Canada)	Loi sur l'Alberta
13. Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)	Loi sur la Saskatchewan
14. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1907 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I907.*
15. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1915 place par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1915.*
16. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1930 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1930.*
17. Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)	Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931 quent au Canada : a)	Particle 4 est abroge; b)	le paragraphe 7(1) est abroge.
18. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1940 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1940.*
19. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
20. British North America Act, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
21. British North America Act, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Newfoundland Act following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Newfoundland Act."
22. British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
23. British North America Act, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
24. British North America Act, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)	The Act is repealed.
25. British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1960 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, I960"
26. British North America Act, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1964 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1964."
27. British North America Act, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1965 following substituted therefor: "2. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1965."
28. British North America Act, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part I (Can.)	Section 3, as amended by Constitution Act, 1974 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1) (Can.), is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1974."
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre20.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (R.-U.)21.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (R.-U.)22.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)23.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)24.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)25.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
26. Acte de 1'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)
27. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I (Canada)
28. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)
La loi est abrogee.
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi sur Terre-Neuve.*
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogee.
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi consti-tutionnelle de I960.*
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi consti-tutionnelle de 1964.*
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle de 1965.*
Loi sur Terre-Neuve
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
Loi constitutionnelle de 1964
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
L'article 3, modifie par le para- Loi constitutionnelle de 1974 graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit :
«3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1974.*
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Concluded
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
29. British North America Act, 1975,	Section 3, as amended by
23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)	25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.),
is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975"
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
30. British North America Act (No. 2), 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2),
1975."
And on the motion of Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton), in amendment thereto,-That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended by striking out paragraphs (e) and (/) of subsection 42(1).
November 27, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE 1 (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre
29. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Partie I (Canada)
L'article 3, modifie par Particle 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle n° I de 1975.*
Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975
30. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit :
«3. Titre abroge : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975.*
Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975
Et sur l'amendement de M. Nielsen, appuye par M. Baker (Nepean-Carleton),-Qu'on modifie le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 en supprimant les alineas e) et f) du paragraphe (1) de Particle 42.
[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1981
The Constitution
Madam Speaker:: Before resuming debate, may I point out to the House that because of the amendment to the resolution adopted yesterday, a renumbering of the sections was necessary. Therefore a technical change will have to be made to the amendment now before the House in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The amendment should amend Section 42 instead of 41.
[ Translation]


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Madam Speaker, when the House adjourned last night, I was about to ask your permission to quote from a speech Henri Bourassa, the then member for Labelle, made in 1931 upon his return from a conference in London, in which he reported some comments by a member of the British House of Commons on the desire of Canadians to have their own Canadian constitution. Here is the account given by Henri Bourassa:
To be perfectly frank, we are rather tired of all this talk about the independence of the dominions, and it is high time you people in Canada, Australia and elsewhere start to prove that you are really worthy of the concessions we are prepared to make. On the other hand, if you are afraid of some minor consequences this might have in your own provinces, you cannot expect us to have more respect for you than you have for yourselves.
That speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker. Henri Bourassa added in the same speech:
Surely, the time will come when wisdom and self-respect in the Dominion or in the provinces will have reached a level where, with the concerted efforts of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, we shall be able to formulate measures with a view to exercising the right to amend our own constitution.
And that is exactly what happened when the accord was signed by the vast majority of the provincial premiers.

It will surprise no one, I am sure, when I say that I favour the early passage of the resolution. I do so, not simply because I am a Liberal and a supporter of the government; 1 do so because I am a Canadian with pride in this land, the most generous country in the world, with the potential for global greatness.
Some members of this House have come to this country from other lands and know from personal experience the immense value of the liberty we enjoy. Others, like myself, were born here and have developed their love for, and pride in, Canada through experience in wartime and the opportunity to look at their native land from overseas.
In my own case, I was born and brought up in the area of Quebec that I represent today in this House, in an almost totally French-speaking region. I was 18 and joined the Royal Canadian Air Force before I could speak English. Like many young men and women of my generation I was impatient with
our leaders. I found it incomprehensible that Canada had no flag of its own and that we had to wear uniforms that were not identifiably Canadian in any way. I found it curious, and deeply disturbing, that I could not even risk my life for my country in my own language. I had to learn another language.
In this respect I share some of the background and experience of the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) for whom I hold a high regard. We are Canadians of the same generation, he from Alberta and I from Quebec. He served, as I did, with the RCAF overseas and we entered politics-he as a Conservative, I as a Liberal-at about the same time and for the same reasons. I therefore identify myself closely with the moving remarks he made in this House on March 10 last and I share with him the view that bringing our Constitution to Canada after 114 years of nationhood is, for many of us, the fulfilment of a dream to make this nation whole, to give it a distinctiveness, a true Canadianism that is wholly our own.
Like the hon. member I, too, regard myself as a Canadian before first being a partisan politician, and a citizen of this country rather than of one of its regions.

I want to ask my fellow Canadians to make a commitment to this country to stand up and be counted as proud Canadians. Mr. Speaker, unlike what has happened in Europe during the last 50 years, we have not often been called upon to fight and risk our lives for our country. And although more than a million of us joined up during World War II to stop Nazi tyranny, those Canadians who did not want to go, simply stayed behind.
In the 35 years since the war, we have been able to count our blessings in one of the richest and most generous countries on earth, without pausing to consider our responsibility in turn. What have we done to deserve what we enjoy in Canada today? What can we do for Canada in return? You know, Madam Speaker, it is often said, and accurately, that to see your own country best, you must look at it through the eyes of an outsider. Try to imagine how Canada looks today to people of South and Central America, of Africa and the Middle East, of the crowded lands of Asia and the regimented societies of Eastern Europe. They must regard us with a mixture of envy and wonder-wonder that we accept our affluence and freedom so casually, as though they were our God-given right. In our selfish self-contemplation, we have neglected our wider responsibilities on the global scene by failing to respond adequately to the needs of other less fortunate people.
The world is calling on Canada today to show its greatness and generosity, to give leadership at the international level,
November 27, 1981

and to share its good fortune with others. To meet those high expectations, we must first demonstrate our national unity and sense of purpose. This constitutional debate provides the opportunity to do just that. Since we started seriously discussing the question of having our own constitution, observers throughout the world have been wondering whether we have that quality of greatness we must have if we are to meet the constitutional challenge and the aspirations of all Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) recalled a few days ago in Vancouver that the major problem in Canada was perhaps that too many Canadians find this country too big for them. We now have the opportunity to show the entire world that we Canadians are worthy of Canada and able to meet the greatest challenges. We did so in the past when we had to build a railroad from one end of this vast continent to the other. The Canadians who came before us succeeded magnificently in this endeavour. Other projects which Canada alone has tried have succeeded, and the last challenge that remains, Mr. Speaker, is for us Canadians to have a truly Canadian constitution, and this is an urgent task. The Canadian people are becoming increasingly impatient with their legislators. The day before yesterday, the Right Hon. Prime Minister transmitted an invitation to the people of Vancouver which I now repeat to all my colleagues and to every Canadian. If we are worthy of Canada, let us face and meet this challenge.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we are debating an amendment which would remove an insulting and degrading inequity in the resolution before this House which seeks to provide us with a made-in-Canada constitution. That inequity is inherent in the provisions of the amending formula for the proposed Constitution which would allow the extension of existing provinces into the two northern territories without their consent. It is degrading because it would enshrine in the Constitution of our country the revolting concept of a perpetual colonial status for the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: It is insulting because it would entrench in the Constitution the repugnant idea that there could be two different classes of Canadians with different political rights, depending upon whether they live in Canada north or Canada south. These two offensive clauses represent the threat of a possible grab by some of the provinces for northern resources which more properly belong to northerners and to Canadians as a whole. If retained in our Constitution, they virtually eliminate any hope that the two northern territories could evolve as a province, as did the rest of the country, and as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has explained. Thus, this resolution, in its present form, is offensive, repugnant and also ludicrous.
The Constitution
The resolution suggests that one Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and nine southern premiers could carve up the north in their so evident self-interest. It would create a Constitution drafted by southern Canadians which gives them rights denied to northern Canadians. I hope the premier of my province, Premier Bennett of British Columbia, can see the unfairness of this resolution.
Imagine the anger, the fury and the rage of those Canadians who live north of 60 who, by an act of this Parliament, would be condemned to perpetual serfdom and to perpetual colonial status unless these offensive clauses are withdrawn. I can relate to this anger because I experienced it while I was a resident of the Northwest Territories. I can relate to it because it is an anger similar to that felt in the west when the provisions of the original resolution laid before this House would have created different classes of provinces.
I can remember the rage British Columbians felt under the old resolution that British Columbia could be excluded from participating in any future constitutional change. I can remember the fury we felt about a resolution which placed the west under the shadow of submission to other regions of Canada, a shadow which this resolution casts over the 40 per cent of the country which represents our north. I cannot believe that hon. members of this House feel no shame in reserving for themselves and for provincial legislatures powers they are unwilling to grant the two legislative assemblies of the Yukon and Northwest Territories, either now or in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: It is the hope of my party that this unfair situation does not reflect the spirit of this House of Commons. It is certainly the hope of the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) and the hon. member for Yukon that this House will ensure that their constituents have the rights which southern Canadians enjoy under a new Canadian Constitution.
The original resolution has now been amended to provide equal rights for women, partial rights for natives, and less rights for northerners. We now have the opportunity to correct this wrong. We can unanimously vote to drop these offensive clauses from the resolution. We are not simply talking about clauses; we are also talking about people. We are talking about the Pudluk family in Resolute, John and Vince Steen in Tuk, Terry Ryan at Cape Dorset, and the Amagoalik families in Frobisher Bay, Bill and Jessie Lyall and their four children at Cambridge Bay, and Ernie Lyall at Spence Bay. We are talking about Dick Hill, the first mayor of Inuvik, and his wife, Cynthia Hill, the current mayor of Inuvik. We are talking about Inuvik town councillors, Susan Husky and Alex Foreman, and the one-woman chamber of commerce at Teslin on the Alaska Highway, and Archie Lang, who operates the Watson Lake Hotel. We are talking about the chief at Old Crow, Charlie Able, whose wife told me about a tragedy in her family and said, "People don't think how I feel".
We are not thinking about how people feel in Coppermine, Fort Good Hope, Fort Franklin, Fort McPherson and Yellow-

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
knife. We are not thinking about how they feel if we permit this document to proceed in its existing form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: We are talking about Canadians. If members of this House are prepared to declare that these Canadians are to be enshrined as second-class citizens under our Constitution, we should be ashamed of ourselves.
We must act now to restore to the north the rights that we have reserved for the south if the concept of Canada as a nation is to endure. We in the House have the power to do this. We know how this inequity could be corrected. Twenty-two members of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories, all fully elected, the majority of them native northerners, came to Ottawa to tell us to remove the clauses which are such an assault on their own legislative powers.
The Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories seeks a deletion of Section 41(1 )(e) of the amending formula in the proposed constitution which provides for the extension of existing provinces into the territories. The Legislative Assembly sees this authority as an affront to its own legislative authority and an infringement of the democratic rights of the people of the Northwest Territories. Thus, the Legislative Assembly has requested that the power to alter boundaries be exercised as currently provided under the British North America Act of 1871. The Legislative Assembly also seeks the deletion of Section 41(l)(f) from the amending formula in the proposed Constitution, because this clause provides that, notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces can only be achieved with the consent of Canada and at least two thirds of the provinces, the total population of which exceeds 50 per cent of the population of Canada.
The position of the Legislative Assembly is that the right to establish new provinces out of existing territories is vested in the federal Parliament by virtue of the British North America Act of 1871 and that this power should continue to reside in the Parliament of Canada. The Legislative Assembly of the Yukon has unanimously endorsed the principle set out by their colleagues in the Northwest Territories.
The 22 members of the Legislative Assembly from the Northwest Territories and their colleagues in Yukon understand very well that these clauses would encourage a grab for northern resources by the southern provinces. They understand very well that this is a real threat because it has happened in the past. Unless these clauses are removed, it could happen in the future.
Last month in the House I described how the Northwest Territories have been defined entirely by the needs of southern Canada. I outlined how the original Northwest Territories was once composed of the area which now represents Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, northern Ontario, northern Quebec and the present Yukon and Northwest Territories. I described how the Northwest Territories, as we know it, is the residual area left after the creation of the prairie provinces, and after Ontario, Manitoba and Quebec had extended their boundaries
north. Therefore, one can understand the very real concern of our northern territories.
I suggest that if we sell out the north we will sell out our self-respect as Canadians. We should never be a party to a document which would permit the extension of the provinces into the Yukon or the Northwest Territories without territorial consent.
Some may argue that amending the resolution at this stage might threaten the spirit of the accord reached by the Prime Minister and the Premiers. We can only ask ourselves why the Prime Minister and the nine provincial premiers would feel that discriminatory measures that were so unacceptable to them would be acceptable to people in the north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: If this resolution passes in its present form, it will lead to a psychological and emotional isolation of northerners in their own country. If this resolution passes in its present form, I would say to the MLAs who came here from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and to my former colleagues George Braden, Nellie Cournoyea, Nick Sibbeston, Mr. Pudluk, Don Stewart, Arnold McCallum and all the others, that we have failed to protect the rights of our fellow Canadians in the north.
If we fail them, they would be justified in putting up the barriers on the Mackenzie highway keeping southern Canadians out. If we fail them, I would tell our northern colleagues to turn off the heat in the federal building in Inuvik, to turn off the lights in the federal offices and homes in Frobisher Bay and to send all federal employees from southern Canada back home. If we fail them, I would tell them to take over the airports at Resolute and Yellowknife and divert southern based traffic back there, sever the telecommunications link with the south and shut down satellite-delivered television. I say give the north back to northerners and put it beyond reach of the greedy grasp of the south.
If we pass a resolution which gives certain rights to some Canadians and denies them to others, then we will have destroyed the very foundation of this Parliament, this federal institution of a country which stretches from sea to sea to northern sea. If we pass this resolution unamended as an act of Parliament, it will be an act of contempt toward Canadians north of 60.
I urge members to right this wrong, remove this self-serving insult and ensure our self-respect as Canadians. I implore them to support our position that these degrading clauses must be removed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: May I ask whether the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) is in his seat? In order for the Chair to recognize him, he should be.
November 27, 1981


Mr. Lewis:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I apologize to the hon. member.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair as to the order of speakers to be recognized in this debate at this time? Can you tell me who is to be recognized next? Is it someone from the government side or are we to vote on the motion now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will try to assist the hon. member. A fiction has been maintained over the centuries that the Chair does not keep a list of speakers. I will recognize an hon. member who stands and wishes to contribute to the debate. If no hon. member stands, I will put the question to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have not yet spoken on this matter. I think there are some things that should be put on the record, especially when we are discussing the very important matter of whether or not the provinces are to be allowed to extend their boundaries north and take over the area that we know as the Northwest Territories.
I think we all realize that this is an area of the country that is in its developmental stages. We want to treat the northerners fairly and we want to protect their right to govern themselves. For that reason, I speak in favour of the amendment. It is not something which this House should countenance by putting forward the resolution as it now stands to give the potential to the House of Commons or the provinces to extend their territories northward by the simple drawing of a line. That would then take away from the northerners, the people about which my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), has spoken. They are the people who live in the north now and feel very strongly about their connections to Canada. These are the people in the north who want some day to have the right to attain provincial status. I think we are all agreed here that Canada is an emerging nation. Canada has been a nation for 114 years. We look forward to many, many more centuries as a nation. It would be wrong at this time for us to shut off prematurely any opportunity which the people in the Northwest Territories may have to form a province.
Ten provinces are involved in this exercise. Ten provinces felt very strongly about the amending formula. The provinces felt that the formula of regionalization of this country was wrong. We saw something very dramatic when the provincial premiers decided to take away that unfair amending formula in the original resolution, the unfair amending formula which gave a perpetual veto to Quebec and to Ontario, and I say that as a member from the province of Ontario. The perpetual veto given to Ontario was wrong.
For that reason, I think we should deal very carefully with this amendment. We should examine it closely and ask ourselves whether we want to be in a position to prevent the
The Constitution
Yukon and the Northwest Territories from ever becoming provinces. I think it very important that we consider where we stand on this issue.
I want to touch on two other areas. As Canadians, what fair deal do we want for our children? Where are we going with respect to mineral rights? To speak about those issues more fully, I would like a little more time to prepare myself. Therefore, at this time I will relinquish the floor to another hon. member.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask a question of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis)? We understood yesterday that the proposer of the amendment, the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), had been consulting with provincial representatives to determine whether they would agree to his amendment. Someone from that side told me late yesterday that seven of the nine provinces involved in the accord were ready to go along with the amendment. Could the hon. member or one of his colleagues inform the House what the present status is of the consultations? In other words, how many provinces agree with the amendment?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, in preparing my remarks to speak on this question, I did not have an opportunity to get involved in the many negotiations as to whether or not the provinces would agree to this amendment. I understand that the proposer of the amendment is now involved in a House leaders' meeting and it would not be fair or correct for me even to venture a suggestion at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Has the hon. member for Simcoe North now completed his remarks?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Yes, I have.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the hon. member for Simcoe North rising on a point of order?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not tell you that I had completed my remarks. I have in fact completed them, and I believe another one of my colleagues is ready to speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Mr. Collenette:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I distinctly saw you recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko). I find it somewhat strange that you recognized him and although a point of order intervened, you are now recognizing another member.


Mr. Paproski:: Are you challenging the Chair?

November 27, 1981
The Constitution


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I will try to ease any problems that may have been created. I do not understand the expression that the Chair was seen to recognize an hon. member.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Are you challenging the Chair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. If the hon. member for York East is indicating that he had heard the Chair recognize the hon. member, there might be a point. In point of fact I did not verbally recognize the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) at all; I quite clearly recognized the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), whom I recognize again.


David Michael Collenette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I used the wrong words, but before the point of order by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), the only member standing in this chamber to speak was the member for Edmonton East, who was shuffling his papers preparing to speak. You said the words "the hon. member for Edmonton-uh", and perhaps the word "East" was truncated. I just wonder whether or not you should be-


An hon. Member:: He never said "Edmonton".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He has rights too.


David Michael Collenette: Yes, the hon. member for Edmonton East should at least have his right to be recognized reserved.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He can speak for himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair can once again make a contribution to this matter. There really is not a point of order that I know of, but I will dispose of the matter very simply. It must have been perfectly evident to all members present that on several occasions in the last few minutes I have looked to my right in the expectation that there might be an hon. member there who wished to take part in the debate; and in the absence of an hon. member rising to my right I have looked to my left. The Chair is in no way involved in any conscious selection of one member as opposed to another, or in any plan to approve of the recognition of one member or another.
I recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In summarizing, and in answer to the hon. member for York East, I would state that "I call 'em as I see 'em".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker-


Steve Eugene Paproski: You pick your own member and we will pick ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You look after your side and we will look after our side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to note the attention being paid by certain people who have not the slightest idea of what is happening or should be happening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is simply a matter of their wanting to show that they are here, possibly mischief-making.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In so far as this present debate is concerned, I would think the two members who have been participating would go and hide their heads in shame. As I recall, just a little over a year ago when the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette) was trying to be the busybody as Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council, he was the man who was hustling us as well as his minister to get this resolution through the House. According to him, this was the best possible resolution. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) was there, I suppose, as the spokesman for his superior, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and they were imposing their original resolution and their will. Apparently they had been anointed by God, or touched by that wand of wisdom that had touched Moses. The resolution as it then stood was the best possible resolution to be given to man by their fellow man.
We have seen what has happened. I do not want to dwell upon this because the record will show a sorry, sad performance of backing, filling and trading of rights which has been declared to be sacrosanct, but when the chips were down the participants became as cynical in their haggling and trading of rights as a rug merchant in a bazaar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What have we been doing? We have been considering amendments that are almost precisely the same as what was contained in Sections 28 and 34 of the original resolution-part and parcel in the beginning. Those rights were included at the time of public hearings. The Minister of Justice then had the gall subsequently to say "we gave you". How grandiloquent of them; how generous of them!


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The parliamentary secretary says "right". He has not, nor has any minister of this government, an ounce of power or right to grant a right to a fellow citizen. The citizen has his or her rights, and it is not for the state or a representative of the state to grant those rights. That is the difference
November 27, 1981

between the philosophy of this government and ours. The Liberals are "states rightists".

They are states rightists, obsessed with the theory that the individual exists for the benefit of the state.

We can expect that from the socialists because that is their morning porridge, and of course the two have been getting together. The socialist leader has been clasping the original resolution and charter to his bosom and saying "me too, me too!" That is what he said at the beginning, indicating clearly the philosophy that the state gives the individual his or her rights.
A constitution is that body of law given by the constituent peoples to the state for their governance, not some sort of body of law devised by a man or those in power granting rights to individuals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is what has been happening, and what has happened since October 1980 has shown the corrupt thinking of the whole process. We have reached this point, lurching this way and that way, where members of this House and colleagues from the Senate have heard from the people who appeared before the joint committee. The people were not supposed to be heard from, not at all. That was the doctrine of the NDP to start with. In the original instance they supported the timetable through the mouth of their leader who did everything but genuflect before the Prime Minister in his self-serving subservience to achieve, I do not know what.
This resolution and charter, which is not recognizable as the resolution in its original form, was supposed to be over in Britain by the first of July. Look at all the imperfections. I am glad the NDP did finally wake up and did put forward proposed changes, with a good deal of ability. Their chief representative was so sickened by the process that he broke from them and resigned from his position. During that time we did witness, through statements from the mouth of the Minister of Justice or the representative of the government in the Senate, the grudging granting or the inscribing into the charter the expression of a further right, here and there.
That was not a good performance on the part of Canadian legislators. There was a question of whether it was legal for the Government of Canada unilaterally to push through whatever they wanted, to turn black into white just because they said so. Our party said no, Canadians said no and the courts said no. I believe that the British Parliament would have given a resounding no. But that does not have to happen now.


Mr. Peterson:: Vote against the charter if you do not like it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) has always got a cheap contribution to make from his seat. I have not talked of the charter as it now stands. The
The Constitution
charter now expresses certain rights. Because there was a compromise, it does not meet everybody's satisfaction. I believe people are entitled to say whether the charter expresses their rights properly. There are hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have not been heard from. Few of their provincial legislatures ever held a debate or proposed a resolution in support of their premier for the views he put forward during the negotiations. Some legislatures, to their credit, were exceptions to that. During the last several weeks there seems to have been some sort of grand poker game going on, wheeling and dealing between ten people.


An hon. Member:: That is your process.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Again, this was what the hon. members on the socialist side of the House had been quite prepared to accept beforehand. We must remember that they protested very loudly once they saw the light, but their leader committed their party to a quick passage of the original resolution in which there were no aboriginal rights, no equality of the sexes, hardly any rights for the handicapped, and all the way down the line. The NDP was ready to go, grosso mode right out.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With regard to the present amendment, it is again manifestation of that centralist thinking bureaucracy. It appears to the public eye as though the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister are granting rights in a colonial way, as my friend, the hon. memberfor Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney)so ably pointed out a moment ago.
I visited the Northwest Territories in 1940 and the Yukon in 1957 and have done so certainly many times since. The feeling of those people and their resentment, which was so ably described by my colleague, is similar to the feeling felt in Alberta and Saskatchewan against the bureaucratic, centralist thinking in Ottawa, represented by ministers from central Canada. The bureaucrats and the members from central Canada cannot see that there is this violent objection to this patronizing colonialism which permeates government policy. It is a clear example of how the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon can have their territories emasculated without their consent. We saw it in Bill C-48, the oil and gas legislation.


An hon. Member:: What about it?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The parliamentary secretary says, "What about it?" I will tell him that Bill C-48 permits an outright plunder of the resources of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon before they are turned over to the people to whom they rightfully should be given in due course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have been told by Liberal members in all seriousness-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please.
13424

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
[ Translation]


Mr. Laniel:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) allow a question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: At the end of my speech, Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to continue my comments.

Those resources which should rightfully belong to the people of the Northwest Territories today and in the future should not be stripped and spoiled by a money-hungry central government which would attach if it could as many milk bags on one cow and hook on to every teat in order to get all the possible milk it can. If the government could put pipelines into the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, they would do it. Those Liberals have told me that under a Liberal government those territories will never achieve provincial statehood. That is the view today. Those Liberal members may be speaking for the government and it is a philosophy that they portray and, naturally, they come from central Canada.


Gérald Laniel: The people of Canada voted for it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I suggest that there is nothing more tyrannical where people's rights are concerned than when there is a temporary majority.
We have seen a great deal happen here in the past year, generally to the credit of the system, notwithstanding the efforts of individuals who were representing the federal government and some of the provinces who wanted to rush along with this resolution. Canada would have been much poorer if we had not taken the time to make the amendments in the joint committee, at the Premiers' conferences and through bargaining with the federal government in this chamber. I hope that we will be able to make more amendments in uniquely federal jurisdictions where the consent of the premiers is not required, because this is the way Parliament should function.
This House and the Senate should not be rubber stamps to federal-provincial first ministers' conferences. That is growing into a convention in this country. I hope that we will see an end to it so that this chamber will be responsible for itself and arrive at decisions with a government that is responsible to it.
The parliamentary secretary wanted to ask a question. Perhaps we can get it in now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No, we cannot. It being one o'clock I do leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At 1.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at one o'clock, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had the floor, and I think he had completed his remarks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In that case I will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West for approximately two minutes.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, Mr. Speaker, never shall it be said that I have completed my remarks! However, in closing I wish to reiterate all the sentiments which were contained in that most tremendous speech last night by my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I commend it to all members of the House and to whomever is within hearing range of my voice, because I think it represents a true sentiment.
In dealing with this question this House should be inspired by confidence in the new beginning, and there is even a glimmer of light-there may be a number of glimmers-for holding within the framework of Canada the province of Quebec. I am satisfied that the people of Quebec are within the whole federation. The people are, yes; but the government, no, because it had its principle of independence to begin with.
I want to pay particular tribute to all those who participated in getting the Constitution this far. There are some parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms I do not like. I do not like turning my life over to the courts and to interpretation by the courts. That is alien to our form of government and our social consciousness. That is something that is American.


David P. Smith: Vote against the charter then.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is the other spirit now. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith) says that if we do not agree with him 100 per cent and if we disagree with the Prime Minister even by 5 per cent or 10 per cent, we should vote against the charter. That is our alternative, but that is nonsense. That is the most foolish philosophy which could ever be adopted by any government in this country.
I trust that with some more amendments which the House will support and the amendments that are before it presently- and there may be one or two others which I would commend to the attention of the House-we could then accept this resolution and see it on its way, so that ultimately in due course we will have a made-in-Canada or resident-in-Canada Constitution. We have done pretty well for 114 years. Another few days, weeks or months will not make any difference.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, in the radiant glow of constitutional euphoria in which the Liberal government is at present basking because of the apparent success of the constitutional resolution and process so far, the comments I am about to make are not likely to be well received-about as welcome, I suggest, as a storm cloud about
November 27, 1981

to obliterate the sun and drench the sun bathers in a lashing gale and hailstorm.
For openers, however, I wish to pay tribute briefly to the Progressive Conservative Party and our leader for the outstanding work we managed to accomplish since October 2, 1980 when the original resolution was revealed to the Canadian public. Time will not permit me to list all these accomplishments. I propose to summarize them, nonetheless, and to say that had it not been for the perspicacity and foresight of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and for the determined and unified opposition against that earlier proposal, ably led in this House and in committee by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), Canada would by now be strait-jacketed into a completely unworkable Constitution-if the British Parliament could have been persuaded to approve it in that earlier form, that is, having gone through the first intended process, namely, unilateral imposition through arbitrary decision.
Our leader and our party can take a great deal of credit for the following: first, alerting the Canadian people through insisting on open television coverage, of what exactly what was taking place in the committee; second, the appearance of expert witnesses; third, the inclusion of amendments which were at first refused; fourth, the extension of time which was at first circumscribed; fifth, the reference to the Supreme Court; and sixth, the meeting of the first ministers. That is not a bad record. It is one of which we can be proud.
However, as already indicated, we still have a defective document which will not accomplish what this government claims it will; that is, it will not provide Canada with a purely Canadian Constitution. To that matter I shall return, as I will to some other defects, shortcomings and false expectations, not to mention the illusory benefits which the government's advocacy advertising has either promoted or glossed over and made a number of Canadians believe. I
I am having difficulty with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is riddled with defects. There are drafting defects as well as shortcomings. The charter gives rise, furthermore, to false expectations. It is a document which was hastily thrown together. What we are witnessing is amendment even as we debate.
However, one of my arguments is, given the nature of the three main elements this document contains-namely, a patriation formula in Schedule A, Section 1, an amending formula in Schedule B, Part IV, and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Schedule B, Part I-and given that the amending formula is so drastically changed and improved over the rigid one included in the original proposal, I am wondering now if we could not proceed with the patriation formula and the amending formula as a package for the British Parliament to approve and leave the charter, as it should be, a document which will be fashioned and approved in Canada in accordance with the approved Canadian amending formula. Why not? That is my first suggestion.
The Constitution


Mr. Waddell:: What do you think we have been doing for the last year?


Donald W. Munro: Let us go about this properly and in a Canadian way now that at last we have found a formula that can be accepted by "a substantial majority," as we were directed to do by the Supreme Court. Even the decision as to whether or not we really require a Charter of Rights and Freedoms-and I am not sure that is so-ought to be dealt with through the amending formula.
One of the reasons I make the suggestion is that, however you look at it, Schedule B of the resolution, once approved in Westminster, will be and will remain a British statute. Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be a British statute-it cannot be anything else-just as is the BN A Act. It is drafted in Canada, but the British Parliament is asked to approve it. There is no way out of that impasse. If one were to insist that the Charter be submitted to Westminster for approval, it will emerge from that Parliament as a British statute. That is not what I consider patriation.
I shall cite one example, Mr. Speaker. Do we know what we are doing when we in the Canadian Parliament, presumably supreme within our own domain, ask the British Parliament, I repeat the British Parliament, to provide in a British statute that this Parliament shall sit and each legislature of this country shall sit at least once every twelve months? We ask the British Parliament to tell us when to sit. Is that not something we should do in Canada?
Personally, I resent the very suggestion that now, with all the talk of being maitres chez nous, masters in our own house, we should be bound by a British statute as to how, and how often, we conduct Canada's business. Should we ask the British Parliament to legislate in respect to provincial equalization and regional disparities, as Part II, of Schedule B suggests they are being asked to do? Have we no pride? Are we unable to stand on our own feet? Is the British Parliament being asked to do these things? I suggest it is, Mr. Speaker, and they are things we should be doing ourselves. Also on the matter of whether or not we should hold constitutional conferences, which is in Part III? We must all be out for lunch, and not at Mr. MacEachen's lunch either. In this respect as in so many others, this Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the promises made to the Canadian people about it are an utter sham.
It comes down to this: charters as such have me worried. I do not believe that freedoms, liberties and rights are advanced, much less guaranteed, merely by itemizing them. Most freedoms, most liberties and many rights, I contend, are inherent in us as human beings. They are ours from birth and remain ours unless we are deprived of them.


An hon. Member:: By governments.


Donald W. Munro: It is not within the power of the state to grant them or to confer them because the state

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
has no such storehouse of rights on which to draw, not a single one.


David P. Smith: Then vote against it.


Donald W. Munro: However, the state, having sovereign power, can deprive us of our freedoms, our liberties and our rights and in doing so become tyrannical. That is the problem.
When we put these two notions together, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that rights can only be real and have lasting meaning when we consider them as limitations on the sovereign power of the state to protect individuals from the unfettered exercise of the power of the state. Or perhaps more simply put, as protection against unwarranted invasion by the state.
Blackstone, that great eighteenth century legalist, put it in this way: "... the principal aim of society is to protect individuals in the enjoyment of those absolute rights which were vested in them by the immutable laws of nature".
More contemporary expressions of that same attitude are to be found in the writings of Mr. E. A. Driedger, Q.C., a former deputy minister of justice of Canada, whom I have paraphrased somewhat in the foregoing.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms before us in this House, Mr. Speaker, is not drafted from this perspective. This Charter of Rights and Freedoms offends that approach to rights in that it reverses the relative place in the order of things as between man and the state. Blackstone and Driedger-and, if I may be so bold as to place myself in that company, I too-place the individual first and the state second. This charter has put things the other way. It was put together by people who believe in the supremacy of the state over the individual. Had it been otherwise, instead of saying what they do in Section 2, that "Everyone has the ... fundamental freedoms ..and then it proceeds to list them, it would have been drafted in this way: "No act of Parliament, or of a legislature, as the case may be, shall derogate from the following fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals, unless the case is made that to do so is in the general or public interest". That is a hasty redraft of that Section 2. That puts the priorities in their proper place.
My proviso is a concession that is necessary to recognize that freedoms, liberties and rights are not unlimited-and I have never said they were-but must be subject to societal demands.
The Chair might think I have made more of a case than I needed to to demonstrate a different approach to rights. I consider the difference fundamental. I fear the results of subscribing thoughtlessly to provisions drafted by those whose ideas, concepts and driving forces differ so radically and fundamentally from that concept that rights belong to the individual and should be protected from invasion by the state.
I have other concerns with the substance of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is before us, Mr. Speaker. Some relate to the wording but most relate to the risk that we are
running in handing over to the courts the task of interpreting this document and, in consequence, of making the laws that Parliament should be making. In our tradition, Parliaments are our legislators. In this particular document we are about to hand over a large portion of that legislative responsibility to our courts. That worries me, Mr. Speaker, as it should worry not only parliamentarians but all Canadians.
Judicial interpretations of entrenched items in this charter will be, if I understand matters correctly, alterable only through the application of the amending formula. That will not be easy. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will hand over to the courts much that was once within the power of Parliament to consider. This I consider regressive, Mr. Speaker.
I have spoken about what the British Parliament is being asked to do, and I consider it improper that it be asked to tell this Parliament when it should meet. On the other hand, Part IV, the amending formula, is properly a matter on which the British Parliament can decide, along with the passing of Section 2 of Schedule A by which the British Parliament formally and finally renounces any power it has to pass laws having effect in Canada. In other words, to remove itself from that role that it has played in the past. This is the essence of patriation with an amending formula.
I can see no other way of making Canada's Constitution a truly Canadian document, patriated, along with an amending formula that has a substantial measure of support, as the Supreme Court of Canada ruled was desirable; all the rest is for Canada to decide-by the Canadian Parliament and Canadian legislatures.
If we were to proceed in any other way we will still be governed by a statute-as I previously said, and it needs underlining because some people cannot see this-which is not fully and properly of Canadian make and has the full force of Canadian law behind it.
If I may be permitted a further comment, I should like to draw the attention of the House to a rather slipshod bit of drafting in the bill; it is one of its defects. Despite the fact that the clause in question has been before us for approximately 14 months, this defect has remained unchanged. I refer to Section 3 which provides that every citizen of Canada has the right to vote. I have a neighbour with two children, one eight years of age and the other six years of age. Both these children were born in Canada and are Canadian citizens under the Citizenship Act. The Canada Elections Act may well indicate that in order to vote, Canadians must have attained that age of 18 years by election day.
However, I submit that under Section 15 of the charter, legislation which discriminates on the basis of age could be contested. I consider this somewhat farcical. While the intent of the right to vote is clear, the method of expressing it is distinctly faulty and makes a laughing stock of the particular clause. I do not think the Constitution should be the laughing stock of the people who are supposed to accept it. If faulty
November 27, 1981

drafting can be identified here in such an obvious context, how many other perhaps even more serious flaws may lie undetected in the 57-odd sections of the bill? I am not a lawyer; I just happened upon this particular defect. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) detected two defects concerning the extension of the provinces into the territories.
I have serious misgivings about charters and codes of right. They stem from my intellectual upbringing, relying on precedent, practice, convention and common law to determine the four corners at any given time within which I may exercise the rights I believe I possess.


Mr. Chenier:: Oh, oh!


Donald W. Munro: I cannot understand why the hon. member is giggling. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) intervened on the original resolution. He expressed much the same thoughts, particularly as they referred to the inherent nature of our rights. I commend his speech to all within hearing distance of my voice. It can be found on page 7497 of the February 19 edition of Hansard.
As I have already said, it will be impossible to escape from the strait-jacket of entrenchment without recourse to the amending formula. This is a frightening concept. Perhaps I am repeating myself, but I think it is worth doing so. By my understanding of this term and its application, judicial interpretations are just as entrenched as the sections that are being interpreted. This gives judges the role of legislators which they were never intended to be.
I notice Mr. Speaker is becoming somewhat jittery; perhaps he is suggesting that I should sit down soon. I should like to refer to Section 24(2) which deals with the enforcement provisions. It rules out evidence in a proceeding for remedy against an infringement of an entrenched right or freedom, if it is established that "having regard to all the circumstances", which is a phrase that is surely open to judicial interpretation and appealable beyond the court where such a ruling was given, the admission of that evidence would "bring the administration of justice into disrepute". Again this is an open-ended phrase. What do those words mean? What will the judges say about them?
In the few minutes remaining I should like to examine the preamble because I think it is defective as well. There are three whereas clauses. Between the second and the third there is need for amendment. It overlooks the fact that there was an agreement in conformity with the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada. I suggest that the following two additions be made:
And whereas it is constitutionally required that this resolution have a substantial measure of provincial consent.


An hon. Member:: Are these amendments?


Donald W. Munro: I am suggesting that there are defects. I am not proposing amendments, but I think the entire document is a sham. The second addition would read:
The Constitution
And whereas provincial consent to this resolution has been signified by the governments of the provinces of-
And the provinces ought to be listed. It would fulfil the requirement of the Supreme Court of Canada. We cannot rely on the British Parliament or on Her Majesty the Queen to follow our newspapers. It should be part of the document which is going to them. It should indicate that substantial consent is required and has been obtained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, indeed this is a surprise. I followed closely the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), but I could not quite understand whether he finds the Constitution so fatally flawed that he will vote against it. 1 almost gathered this from his speech.
I should like to say something generally about the Constitution and something precisely about the particular amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). A constitution is more than a mechanical set of ground rules: it is a mirror reflecting the national soul. I agree with the last speaker that we must take time to make this the best document possible.
We in the New Democratic Party have consistently argued for three historic goals: patriation of the British North America Act, 1867, hitherto Canada's main constitutional document; an amending formula which would do justice to the regional diversity of Canada; and a charter of fundamental freedoms and rights. Today I had the opportunity to speak with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). On the basis of my experience as a westerner and partly as a northerner, and his experience from travelling around the country with the inquiry into the Constitution for years, we both agree that Canada is a difficult and regional country. But this is part of the greatness of the country. We wanted to see an amending formula which would do justice to the regional diversity that is Canada.
This is not new for us. It is consistent with the history of our movement, the movement of the CCF and the NDP. For example, in 1927 J. S. Woodsworth introduced a motion to patriate the Constitution. The same motion prompted the calling of the first constitutional conference which really began the entire process we now see culminating.
The New Democratic Party and its predecessor, the CCF, have a record in civil liberties unsurpassed by any political party. One need only mention our fight for the vote for Chinese Canadians, against the shabby treatment of the Japanese Canadians, as well as our opposition to the War Measures Act. On a provincial level, T. C. Douglas introduced Canada's first bill of rights in Saskatchewan in 1947. We have consistently fought against Canada's political colonialism to the United Kingdom. Today, every day in the House and in every committee, we fight against Canada's present economic colonialism to the United States. It is a consistent history. One would expect that we would welcome, support and advocate the government's thrust toward a new constitution.
I should like to put one matter to rest. The Constitution was made in Canada. It was made by 900 individuals who

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
appeared before the committee, the presentation of 300 briefs and the work of approximately a hundred members. I should like to pay tribute in my speech today to the excellent work of the hon. Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), as able co-chairman of the committee, as well as that of the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) as members of the committee.
This Constitution was made in Canada and at every stage of the process Canadians wanted to make it a better and more contemporary constitution. That was always the resolve.
Some doubts were raised in the country about the legality of the process, so it was proper that the finished package be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. When the Supreme Court ruled that it was legal but not constitutional in the conventional sense, it was proper for this party to hold out for another first ministers' conference. That is history, Mr. Speaker. We had that first ministers' conference and in the end we had a document.
That document contains some improvements. For example, the Senate veto was deleted and that is an improvement. But it also had some fundamental flaws, Mr. Speaker. There were four-and perhaps a fifth one is this amendment dealing with the north.
The first fundamental flaw was the removal of the principle of equality between men and women. That was restored, however. The second flaw was that it removed an explicit and positive affirmation about native rights. That was restored, but only partly, because the word "existing" was added to Section 34. I want to speak further about that in a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. That amendment was very symbolic for the native people and it is something upon which we can build. The third flaw is that the accord does not include Quebec.
The fourth flaw is that the charter has been somewhat emasculated. The principal concession that the premiers won from the federal government in the November 5 accord was the provincial override on fundamental freedom, legal rights and equality rights in the charter.
The purpose of an entrenched charter is to give the courts, in an open and direct manner, the authority they need to protect our basic freedoms if legislative and government restraint should fail. If legislatures are given the power to cancel that judicial authority, as they now have been, they are most likely to use it when there is a failure of restraint. Canadian history shows that it has been, by and large, the provincial legislatures and their creatures, the municipalities, that have most often violated fundamental rights.
I am a lawyer, Mr. Speaker, and I have appeared in every level of court in Canada on civil liberties cases and I have seen this pattern emerge very clearly. It is in our history, from Mr. Roncarelli's liquor licence to the Alberta press laws, most recently to the anti-parade by-laws in some of our cities which affect freedom of assembly. It is a sorry picture.
There have been violations of civil liberties in this country and if the legislatures are given an override, they may use it some time when restraint is called for.
A great lady who once represented my riding of Vancouver-Kingsway in this House, Grace Maclnnis, told me that her husband, Angus Maclnnis, stood up against a tidal wave of public opinion when it was proposed to confiscate the homes and property of Japanese Canadians and move the people away from the west coast during the war. I am afraid that could happen again and that is why I think it is unfortunate that we do not have an entrenched charter. We will have to live with that, however. We expected that some concession would be made to the premiers and this is it. I just want to express my disappointment about that, Mr. Speaker.
This is not the kind of charter that we, as socialists, believe in, Mr. Speaker. We believe that the hungry must be fed; the ailing must be helped; the old must be looked after and the young must be allowed to go as far as possible in school. These ideals are almost universally accepted. They belong in a twentieth century constitution but what we have here is a nineteenth century charter.
Socialists are concerned with the growth of the human spirit. This charter talks of freedom but we know that no one is really free if unemployed, if poor or if unable to send his or her children as far as possible in school.
Last weekend 100,000 people demonstrated on Parliament Hill. I think they were demonstrating for economic freedom in the interests of working people, students and pensioners. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, if it is true, as it has often been said, that the Prime Minister and his liberal caucus are the most legitimate representatives of Quebec and that we can ignore the designs of the Quebec premier, Mr. Rene Levesque, I ask myself a few questions. Why do the same principles and reasoning not apply to the other provinces? Have the aspirations of the premiers of anglophone provinces been brushed aside when they were inconsistent with those of the federal members from those provinces? Surely not Mr. Speaker. The Parti quebecois may fail to reach its goal of Quebec independence but it will remain a political power in Quebec for several years to come. This is why it must be taken seriously, this is why we cannot allow ourselves to ignore the legitimate aspirations of Quebec merely because the Parti quebecois is in power.
As federal Members of Parliament, it is our duty to be prudent. What should we do? I think that the federal Parliament should do its utmost to respect the traditional position of Quebec in constitutional matters. In April, 1981, Quebec agreed to a patriation project with seven other provinces. I think that this constitutional resolution should contain the basic principles of the agreement reached among those eight provinces. How could Mr. Levesque reasonably object to such a resolution? To maintain the principle of two majorities in Canada, I would even be willing to consider the right for Quebec and for Quebec only to opt out of federal programs
November 27, 1981

coming under its own jurisdiction and to receive a fair financial compensation.

We cannot say that the federal Liberals necessarily represent Quebec. It is not said of me that I represent the provincial interests of British Columbia; I represent national interests. If we are to take provincial interests into consideration, then we must carefully consider the government of Quebec. The Parti Quebecois will not just go away. I suggest that in this regard we should examine the April accords and try to implement them. I have gone so far as to say that we may have to consider giving Quebec, but only Quebec, the right to opt out of programs with financial compensation.
The reason that I will vote for this package is that it embodies, not in a perfect way but in a general way, the picture that I have of Canada. I see Canada as two founding societies, the English and the French, built on the foundation of the aboriginal people. That is why we fought so hard to get Section 34 included.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what Canada is about. We have the native people included, and they can continue their fight; and we also have the French and the English. We recognize that it is important not to educate a bunch of old bureaucrats in the French language, but that we go to the kids, to the schools and to educational rights. That is where we should be going. Then we have added on the multicultural provision. The hon. member for Calgary East (Mr. Kushner), from the Conservative Party, spoke eloquently about how he came as an immigrant, as I did. We add that aspect and that is Canada, is it not? We put that foundation in place.
Before I conclude, I want to say a couple of things about this particular amendment. In the Rupert's Land Act of 1867, Parliament was clearly given jurisdiction over the Northwest Territories. Now, in light of that act, it is clear that the inclusion of Section 41(1 )(e) and (f) is a violation of trust and an abdication of the federal government's responsibilities to the territories. By taking the power for themselves, the provinces have made an incursion into federal jurisdiction. Besides, when did we ever agree to grant provinces extraterritorial jurisdiction? That is what we are doing here. Why should the provinces of Canada be able to expand into the north? Why should they have a veto as to what happens in the northern territories?
I lived in Yellowknife for two years, I am a member of the bar of the Northwest Territories and I had an opportunity to travel throughout the north.


An hon. Member:: Canadian bar?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Not some of the bars which my hon. friends think of, there are legal bars there as well!


Walter David Baker: Is there an illegal bar?
The Constitution


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In the north we have a unique opportunity to create different kinds of provinces. The Yukon has its own culture. I would like to see the Yukon as a province. I would like to see the Dene area of the Mackenzie Valley a province some day. I would like to see an Eskimo province in this country. Just think what that would mean to the world! Just think what it would mean to have Nunavut a province. I might say that I see the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) in front of me. In my chance to speak concerning the constitutional resolution, I want to pay sincere tribute to the hon. member. Sometimes he and I do not agree on everything, but I want to pay tribute to the hon. member because he has consistently fought for his constituency, his people, against long odds and he has been very successful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: In his speech on this very topic the other night, he continued to fight against these proposals in Section 41 of the Constitution. People wonder, what are the interests of most Canadians in the north? Most people live in the south or on the American border. They stretch five thousand miles across the country. They do not really live in the north. Yet even though most Canadians have not been to the north, they feel that they are northerners. We are a northern land, a northern country.


An hon. Member:: The true north, strong and free.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is part of the Canadian culture. That is why there is always consistent public support in protecting the people of the north from the encroaching development which prevents them from getting a fair break. I ask the government to consider that when it votes on this particular amendment.
I notice my time is drawing to a close, but I want to back up what I said with the fact that Canadian culture and Canadian literature has always referred to us as northern people. We should not allow the possibility of expanding our existing provinces into the north; rather, we should work to create new provinces of the north-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -just as we will work to create new ideas of aboriginal claims and rights in the north and other parts of the country.
I want to end by a quote from my favourite poet, F. R. Scott. In a poem entitled "Laurentian Shield", he wrote the following:
Hidden in wonder and snow or sudden with summer This land stares at the sun in a huge silence Endlessly repeating something we cannot hear Inarticulate, Arctic
Not written on by history, empty as paper.
The Canadian dream of which I have spoken may still be elusive and undefined. However, in our own way, in this House of Commons, in this Parliament, with the premiers and in meetings, and with the good will of the people of this country

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
who have tried to make this constitutional resolution better- let us remember the word "better"-we can find a little part of that Canadian dream and define it a little bit. We can add to that empty paper. We can articulate in the huge silence which is Canada, and that is what we are trying to do.
That is why I am supporting this constitutional document. That is why I am encouraging hon. members opposite to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon, as spoken to the other night by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, and, the other day, by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), and to let our northern territories develop into new and unique provinces to further continue the Canadian dream.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my thanks to my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus for giving me another opportunity to speak to the constitutional resolution as this parliamentary debate draws to a close. We began with the introduction of the constitutional resolution in September of 1980. We have travelled some perilous waters in coming to the position in which we find ourselves today; that is, our constitutional accord which may, in the end, result in giving the people of Canada a new Constitution, made in Canada, with provisions governing rights of Canadians.
I realize that we have yet to vote in this House of Commons on the ultimate provisions of the constitutional proposal. However, the establishment of the accord between nine of the provinces of Canada and the Government of Canada gives hon. members in this House the opportunity to consider the constitutional provisions in the light of a consensus and agreement among the great majority of the Canadian people. That is something we did not have in September of 1980 when this constitutional proposal was first brought before the House of Commons.
For that reason, let me pay my respects to the work done by the right hon. member for Yellowhead and Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). From the time the constitutional resolution was introduced in this House, the Leader of the Official Opposition made his position clear. That position was that the constitutional resolution did not result from a process of consent and concurrence.
The process followed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in bringing this resolution to the House of Commons did not involve, and was not the product of, agreement with the heads of the provinces with whom he had dealt in a first minister's conference. It was the lack of the following of that process which was raised in the House by the Progressive Conservative Party as being the major objection to the constitutional resolution.
Today we stand here with our leader, the right hon. member for Yellowhead, completely vindicated in the position which he took with the support of the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Howard Edward Crosby: If the people of Canada are not already aware, they should be made aware of the disaster which would have taken place in this country had this Parliament simply stood mute and not fought the Prime Minister and his party on their insistence in bringing forward a constitutional proposal which did not have the consent and concurrence of the provinces.
It should be repeated again and again across this country that it was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party who stood up to be counted in the face of the apparent popularity of the constitutional provision. The Prime Minister said time and time again that the people of Canada were behind him; but in spite of that bravado on the part of the Prime Minister, the opposition on this side of the House stood firmly behind its leader. Now we have the constitutional accord which will give real meaning to constitutional change.
*50)
The process of consent and concurrence must continue. The Government of Canada cannot expect to bring about substantial changes in the traditions, culture and heritage of Canadians without the consent and the involvement of the provincial governments. That is very much a part of our federal system. I hope the Prime Minister and his supporters in this House of Commons have learned a lesson over the last months and years in that the federal nature of Canada must be honoured in any constitutional change.
There has been a fight in Parliament. The position taken by those who fought that battle has been vindicated. I hope that we can now proceed in a common sense fashion to bring about a sensible conclusion to this constitutional process.
I must remind you, Mr. Speaker, and other members of this house that part of that fight was the stand which this Progressive Conservative Party took on the matter of the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Again the Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) stood both inside the House and outside of it and said that the Supreme Court of Canada had no role to play in the constitutional process. The Prime Minister and his Minister of Justice said that the constitutional proposals should go forward without any reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine its legality, notwithstanding the fact that in the past the government's proposal with respect to Senate reform had been pronounced unconstitutional.
Other legislative measures introduced by the government have been declared unconstitutional in the past and yet the Prime Minister failed to yield to those who cried caution and asked and begged that the matter be referred to the courts for resolution by the highest court of this land. It was only under pressure, again from the opposition and under the leadership of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that we were able to convince the Prime Minister that the matter ought to be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Of course, everybody knows what happened once the constitutional proposal was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada said quite clearly that the proposal violated constitutional conventions. But what did
November 27, 1981

the Prime Minister do? Did he respect the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada? No, the Prime Minister then commenced an argument as to the meaning, extent and involvement of constitutional conventions in the process of change. The Prime Minister was again proved wrong, I suspect not because of action in this House, but because he must have known that the United Kingdom Parliament would force him to act on the basis of constitutional convention, that the United Kingdom Parliament would not allow him to have passed in Westminster the constitutional proposal unless the constitutional conventions established by the Supreme Court of Canada were observed.
We then had the process before us which led to the accord between the Government of Canada and the provinces. It is that accord that we must follow and keep in mind as we consider the constitutional proposal now before this House. The Prime Minister himself in the past has indicated quite clearly that the constitutional proposal had two main parts. The first part was to bring the Constitution to Canada and make it subject to an amending formula which could be implemented within Canada and without reference to the United Kingdom Parliament. The second part was the establishment of a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I want to deal principally with the matter of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as enacted in the constitutional resolution. The legislative provision on human rights and fundamental freedoms is not new to the Parliament of Canada. In fact, the Canadian Bill of Rights was introduced in this House by the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker many years ago. As a result of the efforts of Mr. Diefenbaker, the Canadian Bill of Rights was enacted and became law. If you review that Canadian Bill of Rights today, Mr. Speaker, you will see provisions not much different from those provisions included in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
But, Mr. Speaker, you must ask yourself, what effect do those provisions have? Since the enactment of the Canadian Bill of Rights and over the years since then, when brought before the courts in attempts by persons to apply those provisions to situations which arose from time to time, the courts, and particularly the Supreme Court of Canada, have not championed the cause of human rights as enacted by the Canadian Bill of Rights. Time and time again the courts in their decisions have limited the application of the Canadian Bill of Rights.
When people talk about emasculating constitutional provisions and emasculating the charters of rights, that is indeed what has taken place over the years with respect to the Canadian Bill of Rights. That is my first and foremost concern. Will the provisions now contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be given full force and will they be implemented across Canada if and when the charter becomes law. That will happen only if the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has the real support of the Canadian people. It is only today, as a result of the accord reached among the provinces and the Government of Canada, that I think there will be the kind of acceptance on the part of the
The Constitution
Canadian people that is necessary to give real meaning to the provisions of this charter.
I would like to review some of the provisions of the charter which I think are of real importance and could bring about just results in situations where in the past injustice has occurred. I have particularly in mind the provisions relating to handicapped persons. Anyone who has followed the plight of handicapped persons in Canada will know that in many practical and theoretical ways they have been deprived of their rights. Our charter now contains a provision which will guarantee handicapped persons equality with all citizens of Canada. I wonder if the people of Canada and indeed even members of this House, realize and recognize what that means. It means in one way the simple provision of access to buildings so that a person in a wheelchair can go into the same places as a person who has the full use of his or her legs. That physical access can be easily provided.
But what about the other problems facing the handicapped? Will our schools across Canada be willing to admit children with handicaps? It will be very difficult to bring handicapped children into the classroom in which other children, are taught-those who might be said to be normal children. If handicapped children cannot be brought in and integrated into the educational system and have exactly the same privileges and treatment as children without handicaps, this provision will be meaningless.
I can say from past personal experience that the implementation of those provisions will cost thousands and thousands of dollars, perhaps millions and millions, in the provinces of Canada. I hope that when we rise to vote on this constitutional resolution and endorse the rights which we are now giving handicapped persons, we will do so in the full realization that in order effectively to implement those rights millions of dollars of public funds will have to be expended.
I can say the same thing about native persons. In this Charter of Rights and Freedoms, if it is enacted by this House, we have given special rights to native persons. To implement those rights we are now giving to native persons will mean a massive, expenditure of public funds, so as to equate the position of native persons with that achieved by other Canadians. I hope we are ready for that.
We are giving special rights to women by way of a provision that will ensure that women have equal rights with men. I am sure all Canadian women can tell you of many instances during their lifetime when they have been deprived of rights. Again we must face the fact that in order to implement any special rights, such as the right of equality we will be giving women, we have to face the challenge of implementing those rights.
Members of this House from the province of Nova Scotia, particularly my good friend, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), were surprised to learn a few weeks ago that the government of Nova Scotia had some concerns about giving full rights to women. We have come to

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
learn that this involved a technical matter and the legal drafting of the measure, and that there was never any intent on the part of the government of Nova Scotia to refuse to give women across Canada equality of rights.
However, I do want to go a step further. I have said publicly, and I repeat now, that the challenge to the government of Nova Scotia and, indeed, the challenge to all provincial governments and the Government of Canada, is not to stop at merely enacting a provision that gives equality to women, but to proceed to implement that right and ensure that women receive their just and fair treatment in Canada in all phases of life. I cannot repeat too often the need to challenge governments, having given rights to the people of Canada, to ensure that those rights are implemented and given real meaning.
There is an area not expressly a part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is very important to persons in Eastern Canada, and that is the question of equalization and regional disparity. The constitutional resolution contains a provision in Section 35 guaranteeing the removal of problems which have in the past created regional disparities. The same provision indicates that the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada will promote equal opportunity for the wellbeing of Canadians, and will further economic development to reduce disparity in opportunity and provide essential services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. The area of Atlantic Canada has suffered in the past in this regard. Again the challenge to the Government of Canada is to implement this provision which is about to be enshrined in a constitutional resolution.
I have to say that it does not look to me at this point in time that the government takes that challenge seriously. The government is willing to bring forward a provision and include it in a constitutional resolution, but is it ready to go forward with the economic measures and initiatives required to bring about real equality among the regions of Canada?
I look across the House and see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), and I am reminded of the record of the Canadian National Railway Company. In 1867 the national railway line was very much a part of the confederation proposal. Confederation was built around a transportation system that would give to all areas of the confederation equal access and equal opportunity to trade goods and otherwise deal with various parts of the confederation. Some 115 years later that transportation system is in jeopardy.
At the port of Halifax, for example, as the minister knows, we are suffering from the inability to transport goods, particularly in containers and in other forms of cargo containers, from the port of Halifax to Central Canada. The only practical link is the Canadian National Railway Company. What does the railway company do? It places rates on that freight transportation which make it impossible for many marine transporters to compete effectively. How can we take seriously a constitutional provision intended to develop equal treatment and remove regional disparities when right this very day we have allowed our national transportation company to fall to the position
where it cannot create at least that level of equality of transportation services?
We have before us at the present time, at the initiative of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), a proposal to remove from the constitutional resolution those provisions which would give to all the provinces and the Government of Canada the right to decide whether the Yukon Territory or the Northwest Territories can become provinces of Canada. If that amendment succeeds in passing through the House, then the right to create new provinces will belong solely to the Government and the Parliament of Canada, as has been the case in the past. I support that proposal, and I support it because-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Howard Edward Crosby: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely wish to say in conclusion that 1 support the proposal the hon. member for Yukon has initiated because we have a similar problem in the province of Nova Scotia. We want to expand our boundaries in order to include within our province the submarine lands, which we believe are rich in natural resources and which we believe are rightfully claimed by the province of Nova Scotia. This goes to the right of self-determination among the regions and provinces of Canada, and is very much an important feature of any constitutional change; that is, giving the people of an area the right to determine their future. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand in the House this afternoon to speak about the Constitution of Canada. I should like to begin by paying tribute to the right hon. leader of the Conservative Party and to my colleagues in this party on this side of the House. I think that tribute is warranted because we would not be here in the month of November 1981, dealing with this basic resolution, which is so very different from the one we first saw in October 1980, had it not been for the leadership given by that former Prime Minister of Canada who sits in this chamber on this side of the House. He has had that experience and that awesome responsibility as head of the Government of Canada. It was that experience as well as his experience from the years before that perhaps provided him with the wisdom and common sense needed to recognize what was wrong with the original package.
May I suggest that it was not just the content of the original package which was at fault but, and this is perhaps clear to most Canadians, that unilateral process which ran against the very nature of this country and which has run as a thread throughout our discussions on the Constitution both in this House and in the committee. I am pleased to be able to stand this afternoon and indicate to Canadians that this unilateral process was stopped and we returned to the Canadian way of
November 27, 1981

resolving conflicts. As a result, we were able to reach an agreement among the nine provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). Once that initial barrier was overcome, we subsequently found in the House of Commons a remarkable degree of agreement on some very basic issues. This would indicate that the charter and the resolution itself were still flawed. We are engaged here this afternoon in the process of trying to correct it further.
For me, the word Canada suggests something clearly greater and more significant than the sum of its parts. I think we should acknowledge, especially in the House of Commons of Canada, that our nation is truly blessed, both in the quality of the people who live within it and in the resources which are available to every Canadian. I believe it is equally true, as our leader often says on public platforms to Canadians, that we are a community of communities. What he is reflecting is the basic reality of this nation. What he is speaking to is our vast distances, the different political choices in many of our provinces and regions. What he is trying to communicate to Canadians is the necessity for every member in the House, and hopefully every Canadian, whatever their origin, to be sensitive and never forget how large this country is and how varied those of us who live in different parts of Canada are.
When we cease to be sensitive and try to move unilaterally, when decisions which are binding on all parts of Canada are made from the centre, and as the distance from Ottawa increases, the sensitivity to those decisions decreases. The rhythms which result are frequently dangerous and run counter to the essential nature of Canada and, 1 believe, counter to the reality of Canada in the future.
If we are not sensitive to each and every part of this nation, we run the risk of putting intolerable pressure on parts of this nation. We run the risk of giving cause to those who would separate us in this nation. That is true of Quebec today and that is true of the people in my province because of the tensions we have experienced over the last 12 months. Those tensions were real and were caused by nothing more and nothing less than the public perception of a lack of sensitivity to those parts of Canada which are somewhat different than the centre.
I suggest to members of the House that it takes a long time for public perception to grow and for the public to understand accurately what it is that we sometimes debate in the House for too little time.
The major feat which this party accomplished on behalf of the Canadian people was really nothing more and nothing less than time for the Canadian people to begin to understand what the constitutional resolution was all about and time for Canadians to mobilize and bring pressure to bear on the people whom they elect and give them, if you will, a sense of public's will and a sense of the need for change. That is what the filibuster brought on behalf of the Canadian people.
I believe that this week has been an important one in the history of this nation, and the common ingredient again is
The Constitution
time. People who care, who are knowledgeable and who live in all parts of this country have used that time to put pressure on their provincially and federally elected members to continue to change and try to improve this resolution before it becomes the basic law of our country.
If it was true in October, 1980, that we needed time, I stand in the House this afternoon to say that I do not think we need much more time, but we do need some. I wonder how future members of this chamber will feel ten years from now if they look back on what we are doing here today and wonder if a few hours or a few days would have given a little more time for the Canadian system to work, more time for the people of Quebec, for instance, to find out exactly what this constitutional resolution is about and to bring pressure on the people elected from the province of Quebec to improve it so they could be signatories of the resolution.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I may be so discourteous as to interrupt the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), I believe the government House leader has a proposal that he wishes to advance, if that is acceptable to the hon. member for Calgary West.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that there is unanimous consent to allowing me to move the following motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is that agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, following a proposal made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and following the House leaders' meetings which followed this proposal made on the floor of the House this morning, I am happy to report that we have come to an agreement on the following motion. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the motion of the Minister of Justice for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen concerning the Constitution of Canada (Government Orders, Government Business, No. 56), notwithstanding any Standing or other Order, be disposed with as follows:
1.	The first member to be recognized after the amendment to the said motion proposed by the honourable member for Yukon has been disposed of shall be the honourable member for Rosedale who shall propose an amendment.
2.	All questions necessary for the disposal of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Rosedale shall be put without further debate no
later than 4.30 p.m. this day.
3.	After the disposal of the amendment proposed by the honourable member for Rosedale the first member to be recognized shall be a member of the Progressive Conservative Party who shall propose an amendment relating to fiscal compensation of provinces and the next member to be recognized shall

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
be a member of the New Democratic Party who may propose a subamendment.
4.	Not later than 8.00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 1981, a member of the Progressive Conservative Party may propose an amendment relating to section 23 of the resolution.
5.	Notwithstanding any Standing Order or ruling or practice, at 10 p.m. on Tuesday, December 1, 1981 an amendment that is the same as the subamendment proposed by the honourable member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands on November 26, 1981, but found to be out of order, shall be deemed to have been moved and to be in order.
6.	Except as provided in this Order, no other amendments may be proposed, provided that this shall not be interpreted as preventing the proposal of sub-amendments.
7.	At 3 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2. 1981, the Speaker shall interrupt whatever proceedings are under consideration and shall put, forthwith and successively all questions necessary to dispose of the aforementioned Government Order without further debate or amendment.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely as agreed.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 would just like to add that I too find this motion in order, and I am happy to see the end in sight.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I want to be fair to the House leader. I had made it known that I insisted on having the right to speak in this debate because I have a special position on certain sections, and the House leader did guarantee me that right to speak. However, I must say that by merely listening in the House to the whole motion which is a long, complicated motion, it is hard to grasp, and I wonder if it is necessary that we agree to it immediately. Could we not circulate it so that we could read it, and then agree to it perhaps in five or ten minutes? I do not suggest for one minute that the House leader is trying to mislead me in any way, but I feel I have an obligation to read the motion to make sure my rights are protected.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: This places the Chair in and awkward position. Either we have a motion or we do not have a motion before the House. However, for the benefit of the hon. member, I will read the motion through again.
It is very difficult to entertain a motion and then not to entertain a motion. There is a motion before the House, and I think it should be accepted or disposed of now.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I can reassure my colleague, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). What he says is correct. I promised that he would have an opportunity to speak before the end of the debate. I even told him-and I have no hesitation in saying so publicly-that there is a possibility, not a guarantee because that kind of guarantee cannot be given to any member, and as far as I am concerned I will not raise any objection, a possibility for him to move a subamendment to Section 23 of the constitutional resolution, keeping in mind Section 4 of the agreement. In these circumstances, whether we need five or ten minutes to vote on the resolution, I have only one word and again I say to
the hon. member that I cannot guarantee that he will be given an opportunity to move a subamendment, it is possible he may have that opportunity, but one thing for sure is that he will be entitled to make a speech before the end of the debate on the constitution.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not ask of course for a guarantee that I be allowed to propose an amendment. I merely asked about the possibility to do so. To ask for a guarantee I would have to sit here every hour of every day the House is sitting. It is my responsibility to be here and to take advantage of the opportunities open to me, but as long as I have the possibility and the guarantee to speak in the debate, I will agree to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I think that, according to the motion, that possibility does exist. Before putting the motion to the House-


Mr. Duclos:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) on a point of order.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I had told the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) that I would agree to any motion that would require unanimous consent if I were allowed to move in the House an amendment concerning Section 37. 1 am not saying I suspect the intentions of my colleague the President of the Privy Council, I simply want to be enlightened because 1 did not quite understand the full consequences of the motion.


Yvon Pinard: I can clear this up by saying that the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) was kind enough to give me his word that he would never refuse to accept any agreement whatsoever in this House. I took his word for it and I accept it. If he wants further clarification I will be very pleased to sit down with him in a few minutes, after the motion has been adopted, to explain it to him. If he wants to speak in the debate I will ask the chair to give him an opportunity to speak.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, it is not just a matter of having the guarantee to speak in this debate. I had also indicated my intention of moving an amendment to Section 37 on the amending formula. In any event, I shall respond to the invitation extended to me by the President of the Privy Council and I am sure that we can come to a gentleman's agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Before putting the motion there would have to be unanimous consent to dispose of the private members' hour, since this motion calls for a vote at 4.30. Is that agreed?
November 27, 1981


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on that, and we do not want in any way to impinge on private members' hours. So I think we are all agreed that whatever time this matter takes, the private members' hour shall continue this evening for a full hour. Its commencement is dependent upon the disposition of the first parts of this House order.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that, no matter when the vote on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) would take place, there would be a full hour for private members' business, and although the motion says 4.30, I am sure that out of courtesy, if we need a few extra minutes to end the speeches, we could have them by unanimous consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Is it agreed that the Chair will not see the clock at four o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, now we put the question on my amendment now before the House.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning I asked one of the speakers from the opposite side of the House if there would be a report on the discussions with the provinces. I understand that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was seeking agreement to his amendment from provincial governments, and I would like to know what sort of consensus or agreement he has from the provinces. Is he suggesting that we break the accord, or does he have agreement to do that?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to answer for the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but as far as the business of the House in concerned, I want to indicate that by order of the House you must now put the amendment moved by the hon. member for the Yukon. I have no objection if he wants to reply to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We should hear the answer to that particular question. It is very relevant to this vote, and we should not cut it off. I suggest that we seek the unanimous consent of the House so that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) can answer the very
The Constitution
relevant question posed by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose and speak to the following motion:
That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended by adding after Clause 31 of Part I the following new clause:
"32. Nothing in this charter affects the authority of Parliament to legislate
in respect of abortion."
The other day, the hon. member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a question with respect to this matter. The Prime Minister responded in this fashion:
If the essence of the question is whether this House continues to have the right to deal with abortion. Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. It will be the Parliament of Canada which will still be writing the Criminal Code, and members of this House will have the responsibility, and I wish them well, in dealing with the problem of abortion.
In my view, all sides of the House and, indeed, Canadians across the country, want to ensure that Parliament has the right to legislate if any changes are deemed necessary with respect to the law on abortion. The difficulty for a great number of Canadians is that conflicting legal difficulties throw that matter into doubt. We want to make it clear that Parliament's freedom to legislate on this matter is unimpaired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: That is the purpose of the amendment, and there is no other. Abortion is not merely a legal matter, and it is not only a medical matter; it is both. For many people it is also a moral question. Those who believe in, and call themselves Pro-Life, have a strong moral conviction that life begins at conception. They hold a deep and abiding reverence for the sanctity of human life. They even have difficulty with the existing legislation. Those who believe in, and call themselves Pro-Choice, believe, as stated in I Corinthians, that the body is the temple of the Holy Spirit; therefore, they believe that abortion and the question of abortion is a personal and individual responsibility. They hold that conviction so strongly that they have difficulty with the existing legislation.
Many of us on all sides of this House and throughout the country represent constituents who understand and agree with at least some parts of both of those positions. Indeed, it has been my experience that when Canadians themselves deal with the matter of abortion in specific situations, they approach the matter with soul-wrenching honesty. They try to do the right thing and they try to choose the good. They try to do what they ought to do.
If Your Honour has ever been involved in any specific circumstance, you know that there is a desperation concerning the question of abortion as people strive to get a moral perspective in dealing with the onslaught of circumstance. That is why the vast majority of Canadians approach the matter with a feeling of individual responsibility to themselves, to their families, to their communities, and to their God, taking into consideration their reverence for life. That has been my experience; but it may not be the same for all at all times.
There are some people who think that abortion is only a medical matter and that it is devoid of any moral context. There are others who think that there are no moral, theological or compassionate grounds for the act of abortion. It is not my purpose, in this amendment, to evaluate or judge any of those perspectives. I want to ensure that these perspectives will be heard when the question is raised in the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: It took 350 years to establish the parliamentary system where legislation governing our actions with respect to life and death would be determined not by those appointed by the state but, rather, by those elected by the people themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: None of us disagree on that: not the Liberals, not the New Democrats, not the Conservatives, not Pro-Life, not Pro-Choice, and not anyone in the middle. We all agree that Parliament must have the freedom to decide. The purpose of this amendment is simply to make sure and make clear to all that that is, indeed, our intention.
The Constitution
++NAYS
Messrs.
Dupras Erola (Mrs.)
Ethier
Evans
Ferguson
Fisher
Flis
Fox
Garant
Gauthier
Gimalel
Gingras
Gourd
(Argenteuil-Papineau)
Gourde
(Levis)
Gray
Guilbauit
Herbert
Hervicux-Payette
(Mrs.)
Hopkins
Hudecki
Irwin
Johnston
Joyal
Kelly
Killens (Mrs.)
Lachance Lajoie Lamontagne Landers Lang Laniel La pierre Lapointe (Charlevoix)
Lapointe
(Beauce)
LeBlanc
Lefebvre
Lonsdale
Lumley
MacBain
MacEachen
MacGuigan
Mackasey
MacLaren
MacLellan
Malepart
Maltais
Marceau
Masse
Masters
McCauley
McRae
Munro
(Hamilton East) Olivier Ouellet Parent Penner Pepin Peterson Pinard Porteiance Prud'homme Regan Roberts Robinson
(Etobicoke-Lakeshore) Rompkey Rossi Roy Savard Schroder Simmons Smith Tardif Tessier Tobin Tousignant Turner Veillette Watson Whelan Yanakis-117.
November 27, 1981

For those who have doubts about the matter being in the Constitution, this will lay to rest their fears. For those who do not have any doubts, it should give them no problem because this motion does not alter the substance of the charter one whit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Through this amendment, I am simply making explicit what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister made implicit yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Moreover, I should add that since the amendment deals only with the Parliament of Canada, it should not have any effect on the accord between the federal government and the provincial governments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: I would also like to say that in my view this amendment strengthens the charter. It will remove doubt from those who would like to be able to support the charter, just as we removed doubt in Section 28 when Parliament restored equality to full guarantee, as no override is contained in that section. Finally it agreed with the ancient Chinese philosopher that women hold up half the sky, therefore confirming that in this country there should be clear equality between women and men.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: We have also removed the doubt concerning Section 34 and native rights, as many people in on both sides of the House are attempting to do with respect to the doubts raised in the Province of Quebec.
When I was asked if I might speak on this motion, I prepared some notes. I do not mind saying that a number of people got in touch with me. Although they agreed with the substance, they asked why I was doing it since I was not directly involved with the issue and had not participated on behalf of my party on the issue. I make these comments today and, in a sense, put my neck on the line because I believe in this Charter of Rights and Freedoms.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: What about the accord?


David Edward Crombie: I believe in the accord.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You believe in the accord?


David Edward Crombie: The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is very important, not because it will deliver immediate realities tomorrow, but because it contains articles of faith and testimonies of hope for the people whom this Constitution governs.
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: This charter not only sets down the rights, the freedoms and the privileges for which generations of Canadians have fought and died, its provisions also extend to Canadians who until now have had great difficulty understanding that in this country they had an equal stake in the future. This charter allows those people to come into the Canadian home. What I want to do through this amendment is to allow the doubters to come home. I want to allow the doubters to come home and support this charter.
The story of Thomas is an old story, but it was Jesus of Nazareth who told us that it was necessary to go with the doubters one more time, to go with the doubters that one extra mile. That is the purpose of this amendment.
This charter was built by all of us. It is not the product of the Liberal Party of Canada, it is not the product of the Conservative Party and it is not the product of the New Democratic Party alone. I served on the constitutional committee and I know that this charter is the product of all of us. It is not a triumph of one group over another. It is not a triumph of one view over another. This charter moves us one giant step closer to the goal of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker in 1961 when he stated that his reason for having an entrenched charter of rights was as follows:
I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country.
Therefore, I can decide the questions that are vital to me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I am aware that this motion causes difficulty, and it was not my purpose to cause difficulty. I ask the government to consider my motion. It is a simple one. It allows those who want to support this Charter of Rights and Freedoms to be able to support it once they have been assured that the Parliament of Canada, not the courts alone, will deal with the question of abortion.
I want to emphasize that all of the groups, no matter on which side of the question they are, want Parliament to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I see the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) rising on a point of order.


Mr. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a brief question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 27, 1981
The Constitution


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the comments I am about to make regarding this particular amendment, including various reasons why I feel the amendment is redundant, I should also like to take this opportunity to explain the government's general position with respect to amendments that are presented to the House at this stage, undoubtedly for perfectly good reasons, with a view to further improving the charter. Of course there is room for improvement in the charter like everything else that is made by man, and we admit as much. However, 1 would like to suggest to the House that at this stage, any further amendment such as the one presented by the hon. member opposite and the one that has just been defeated and which was moved by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), is actually a threat to the accord concluded on November 5 which finally gave us our own constitution amendable in Canada with a charter of rights, of which a member of the opposition has just said that it was very good in its present form.
I shall first address the substance of the amendment. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has explained several times in this House, in point and verbally on other occasions, that in his view, which is supported by his own Department of Justice, the charter is at this point in time neutral with respect to abortion. In other words, the charter does not say whether abortions will be easier or more difficult to practise in the future. The charter is absolutely neutral on this matter, and according to the interpretation of senior officials and agents of the Department of Justice and according to the minister himself, under the constitution the House retains the right to amend the Criminal Code, which is the statute affecting the issue of abortion. So, as I said yesterday, I believe, in answer to a question by the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), the House will probably have to decide in the weeks, months or years ahead, depending on the wishes of its members, whether the Criminal Code should be amended to make abortion less readily or more readily available. The onus will be on us. This, Mr. Speaker, is to reassure those who feel that under the charter we are losing some of our rights with respect to abortion. However, as I said yesterday to the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore, should a judge conclude that on the contrary, the charter does, to a certain extent, affect certain provisions of the Criminal Code, under the override clause we reserve the right to say: Notwithstanding this decision, notwithstanding the charter of rights as interpreted by this judge, the House legislates in such and such a manner on the abortion issue.
Mr. Speaker, that is our general argument. Moreover, towards the end of his speech I heard the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) say that there were still people who had some doubts about this, and he said, and I hope I am quoting him correctly:

"We want the doubters to come home. "We want the doubters to feel reassured as a result of this charter, and, therefore, I am proposing an amendment relating to abortion".
Once again I think what the hon. member is doing is being done with the utmost of good faith. But I wonder why he does not also attempt to satisfy doubters with regard to the question of capital punishment. Maybe the right to life, which is guaranteed in the charter, in some way affects the possibility of restoring or abolishing capital punishment. There are certainly some doubters on that point. I see some hon. members in the backbenches behind the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) nodding in assent.
What about the question of euthanasia? It also affects the right to life. Why do we not say that nothing in this charter prevents us legislating on that? What about genetic engineering? What about all the doubts that will arise on every other subject? We have the right to have conscription, maybe; the right to send men to war to kill other people or be killed themselves. All these things may cause doubt in some people's minds.
This is to say, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot expect in advance, in the short time we have, without the test of the application of this charter in the courts and without some experimentation with its effects, to bring all the doubters home, as the hon. member would like to see us do.
I will go on to another argument which once again affects not particularly this amendment but others. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has handed me several pages of argument to the effect that this amendment is not only unnecessary but could, indeed, be harmful because, by excluding from the charter the right to do something as regards abortion, lawyers and judges might be inclined to conclude that since we made that exclusion for abortion and did not make it for euthanasia, capital punishment and so on, therefore the charter itself precludes the Parliament of Canada from legislating in those areas.
That is just one of the many arguments the Minister of Justice has just handed me. I will not go into them at this stage. They are all good, but it seems to me we have another reason which does not affect only this amendment, but which affects the amendment moved earlier by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and no doubt will affect other amendments which will be moved in the course of today, Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday. I want to explain the attitude this party has as regards those amendments.
When I was meeting with the ten provincial first ministers on November 3, 4 and 5 I was meeting them not only with the desire of this party but with that of others to seek one final compromise, which I must say in my own heart I was not very optimistic about reaching, though I was very determined, as was the Minister of Justice who was assisting me, that we would ago as far as was conceivably possible to try to make an accord possible. Not only was that argued on this side of the
November 27, 1981

House, it was a very firm enjoinder of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who made strong, I would say almost vociferous, statements to the effect that if we went there and did not negotiate in good faith, they would fight us tooth and nail all the way. They would not let us go to London.
I must say this was not surprising coming from the Leader of the Opposition. This has always been his position, and I respect it. But the Leader of the New Democratic Party, who has been a supporter of the previous resolution before the House, made it very clear to me too that if there was not some compromise, if there was not a genuine attempt to reach an agreement, he would not be able to guarantee that he or his caucus would support this party in the resolution which was then before the House.
The Government of Canada went to that meeting of first ministers intent on compromise, intent on reaching agreement even if that meant giving up some parts of the charter or, indeed, some formula for amending which we thought, and, as I indicated in answer to questions earlier today, probably still think, is better than the one with which we are now going to proceed to Westminster. But we compromised. We were asked to compromise and we did compromise.
The result is that we reached an accord which is historic not only in content but in bringing into effect the will of the Canadian people and of successive governments since they began the attempt in 1927, to give a constitution to Canada, the only sovereign country in the world which until now, and it is still true today, did not have its own constitution amendable in its own country-a constitution as a result of an accord which would have these historic, momentous dimensions.
This did mean on this side giving up quite a bit. It meant telling the premiers: We will give in to you when you want a non obstante clause; we will give in to you when you do not want the Victoria formula but prefer the Vancouver formula- which was also the preferred formula of the Leader of the Opposition-but at least we will sign this accord in good faith and will undertake as a government to see it through the House of Commons. I think we have lived up to the spirit of that accord until now.
It is true that with regard to the two amendments, one concerning women and equality between the sexes, and the other concerning aboriginal rights and the entrenchment thereof in the Constitution, the Minister of Justice did support changes. He did so after consulting with the nine signatories to the accord who gave their consent in circumstances which are known.
It is true also that in an effort to reach out to the government of Quebec we also brought in other amendments, one on the Canada clause and the other on some form of compensation when there is opting out of constitutional change in areas concerning culture and language, two subjects which, of course, are very important to the preservation of the identity of the French-speaking Canadians who are largely citizens of Canada residing in Quebec. It is true that the Minister of Justice did this. He did this in the case of the first two
The Constitution
amendments because I think the results showed that if the equality of sexes amendment and the aboriginal rights amendment were left out of the accord, it was not the result of a wilful desire of the ten signatories to take out of it what had been before the House and the country for a year. In that sense I think the Minister of Justice, though I know he felt he was walking on eggs, treading gingerly, knew every time he picked up a phone to speak to the premier or attorney general of a province he was risking their saying: "Look, what are you people doing in Ottawa? You are trying to force us, blackmail us or threaten us into recognizing such and such a pressure from such and such a lobby group. You are end-running the accord." I must say the provinces have shown a great deal of forebearance and the Minister of Justice a great deal of patience in getting the improvements we already have.
I say, as regards the two amendments relating to the particular situation of Quebec, that they were not only brought before the House with the consent of the nine signatory provinces, but with the support, I believe it is fair to say, of at least a majority of the official opposition and of the NDP because they, as we on this side, feel it was and is important to bring the province of Quebec, through its legal government-I say "legal", but is it legitimate; I am not sure-into signing this accord.
That is the story of the amendments we had until now. That is why, from now on, when it comes to improving the charter in ways that had not been put before the House or had not been accepted in the previous resolution, improving the charter to bring doubters home as the present amendment suggests, or improving the charter to give satisfaction to the requests of the Council of the Northwest Territories or Yukon, as the amendment brought in by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) does, we say those improvements should be made in the charter when it is in Canada and when we have an amending formula to improve that charter.
I think that was the point of view expressed ad nauseam by the official opposition last year when we were trying to-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister. There was a House order earlier this day that at 4.30 the question would be put. However, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sorry I did not realize that the vote was for 4.30, Mr. Speaker. I beg the indulgence of the House to permit me to at least terminate this last argument I was in the process of making.
Any amendment now which is brought before the House and which does not have support of the nine premiers, we will vote against. We will vote against it because we are holding our word to them. When the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) telephoned them during these past days, the premiers said that if that was the last time we would go to them, it was all right. But we are also keeping our word that

November 27, 1981
The Constitution
we gave them when we signed that accord, that imperfect as it was, we would be bound by that accord and we would not try to make end runs in order to improve it in some way that had not been done through the accord.
Once again, for a year the official opposition has been telling us that it wants a charter written in Canada, that it does not want it to be done in London and does not want Westminster to tell Canadians what their rights are. For the past ten days they have been trying to change this resolution so as to tell Westminster to tell us what this charter should be. Surely a minimum of consistency should be required. We had a charter. We have one now. It is not perfect, nor was it in the previous resolution, but now that we have an accord, now that we are proceeding to Westminster at least in a way in which the courts indicated was not only legal but constitutional, let the accord and the resolution go to Westminster. Let it come back and let us use the amending formula not only to bring other doubters on board if we have to, but even then to continue trying to bring the government of Quebec on side and hopefully as well the government of Ontario when it comes to entrenching Section 133.
These are the tasks ahead of us, Mr. Speaker. We should now turn our efforts in these last days to making sure that we do not destroy the historic accord of November 5. My caucus, my cabinet and I have reached this conclusion in past discussions, including one which we had this morning amongst several ministers in which we said that from now on we cannot risk accepting any amendments, no matter how desirable, because they do risk endangering the accord.
I think the first precept of ethics is to make sure that the aim for the better does not destroy the good.
We had made this decision and I told the leader of the House that I intended to speak in this way on this amendment, but just 15 minutes ago I was handed the text of a telex sent to me by the premier of British Columbia who, as we know, is the chairman of the premiers' conference for this year.
It is a telegram that was not solicited by me or my government and of which I had no knowledge until after we had made the decision that I have just announced.
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I will read this telegram which has reached my office by telephone. I am told the telex is on its way. The telegram reads:
1 am writing to you on behalf of the nine provinces that signed the November 5 constitutional accord. The agreement reached in Ottawa is a significant achievement in the affairs of our nation and was only possible through compromise on the part of all of us. I have been asked by my colleagues to inform you that additional constitutional change should only be considered in Canada following the patriation of our Constitution. My colleagues and I believe that further negotiation must not put at risk the accord and that the package should be approved by Parliament as it now stands and proceeded with without further delay.
That is the position of the nine provinces which signed the accord. That is the position of this government and, regardless of the merits or demerits of any amendment put forth between now and the adoption of this measure, this government, and I hope members of this caucus, will respect the word we gave when we signed that accord and will agree to be bound by a
compromise agreement which was constantly described as the Canadian way, by a compromise agreement which we signed in good faith and which we will defend in this House with utmost vigour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) is seeking the floor. Again, that can only be done with unanimous consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members of this House take most seriously the telegram that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just read. I hope the House will still take the time and the courage to consider some of the amendments that are to come before the House yet, such as the one in relation to the consent of the aboriginal peoples of this country.
I would like to speak to the amendment put before the House by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and to inform him and all members of the House that it is our opinion and that of the Department of Justice that the Constitution is neutral on the issue of abortion, and intentionally so.
Despite this, if what the member says is true, there is definitely a flexible amending formula, of which all members of the House are aware, and also the fact that seven of the consenting provinces are led by premiers of the same party as the hon. member.
I would like to deal for a moment with the last-minute amendment put forward without notice that is now before us. It is something that the Conservative House leader and the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) took offence to our party doing yesterday when we introduced the consent clause in relation to aboriginal rights. They condemned us for not giving the House time to see the text and to consider it, to perhaps have caucus meetings and an opportunity to prepare speech notes before coming into the House. For that reason it is somewhat regrettable that they have suddenly moved this amendment.
It is the view of our party, Mr. Speaker, that it is clearly a redundant amendment, explicitly so, to use the same words as those used by the hon. member. It is an attempt to inflame the argument on both sides of this issue. For what purpose? I have listened to the Conservatives-the member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker), the previous House leader of that party, just yesterday, calling for support for the resolution, and he certainly was not alone in that party. It is neither necessary nor appropriate to spell out the proposed amendment in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
There is the danger in the constitutional sense that by specifically preserving Parliament's power in this area, the courts could draw the implication that Parliament's power is somehow diminished in other areas which are not named in
November 27, 1981

just such a clause. This is a very potent argument and one carefully avoided-in fact, perhaps purposely absent-in the argument put forward by the hon. member for Rosedale in the hope of drawing attention away from the issue of constitutional law to one of morality, to various possible court decisions and the very function of this House.
Why is the Conservative Party singling out abortion but not capital punishment, for example, and what is the signal they intend to send out, first to the Canadian public and, more specifically, to the courts? The answer is clear. This is an attempt by the Conservative Party to play the most devious kind of politics, and I say that without intending any slur or touching in any way on the honestly-held beliefs of the hon. member for Rosedale.
Where is the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands (Miss MacDonald)? I know that just a few hours ago she was unaware of this Tory action, this Conservative amendment. She was in Kingston today and is now hoping to get back, and I am confident she would fight against this kind of action taken, no doubt, to rally the Conservative caucus around an idea-a deeply felt issue, I admit, on the broader scale of human life-but it is certainly not specified here or in the amendment or in any of the legal arguments we have heard in the House or in the committee.
It has been made to seem that, through some sleight of hand, this was not previously dealt with in the committee or here in the House. The moral, legal and medical arguments on the issue of abortion are only to be dealt with by Parliament, and always will be. This sleight of hand-this trick-was twice lost this year already and is resurrected-for what reason I can only wonder.
I ask all hon. members of this House to refer to Votes and Proceedings of April 23, 1981, to look at the clause put forward by the Conservative Party at that time and to reflect on the fact that it was lost by a vote of 175 to 93. When this was under very intense scrutiny before the joint House of Commons and Senate committee on January 30 of this year, a very similar clause was put forward. However, it included capital punishment, and it also was sufficiently lost during the committee stage.
Where is the capital punishment part of that clause in this amendment, or is it to be the next amendment of the Conservative Party? And where are the other social questions which could also have serious constitutional and legal implications for the interpretation of the charter? I will deal with capital punishment in a moment.
As I said earlier, this is a redundant amendment. The Conservatives say it is to make explicit what they say is, somehow shadily, implicitly taken away from Parliament. That is a crude political portrayal of months of legal argument on this issue. Even though twice lost, the Conservatives have again sought the spotlight, not to settle this issue as they claim but to ask Canadians perhaps to gaze askance at the charter and to set the mood out there that perhaps some of them are going to vote against the package or against some part of it
The Constitution
and that somehow the Parliament of Canada is giving over something very vital to the courts.
As I have said earlier, if what they say comes true, there will be ways very early in the future to deal with it. This issue is vested, just as is capital punishment, with the House and with the collective moral conscience of all the men and women elected to this place.
The issue of capital punishment is perhaps not here, as it was on both previous votes, because the Conservative leader himself is opposed to it in principle. Also the attempt is to force the issue of abortion in a new way through the courts through the Constitution. I urge all those listening to this debate in the House to see this for what it is. It is not an attempt by members of the official opposition to clarify what they now call a glaring error in the Constitution but a dangerous play to fire up the Canadian public by calling a concern a shadow, a shadow a vagary and a vagary a reality, and thus a constitutional flaw. History will prove me correct that this staged debate is no more than a fabrication.
I have my views on the issue of abortion, and I have stood firmly by those views through two consecutive elections. Many Conservatives have their views as well, but to use this forum and this debate to put forward their views, veiled in the artificial shroud of fact, is a sad way to respond to this issue and to the fabric of this nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Pursuant to an order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the amendment now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Call in the members.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely notices of motions, public bills and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' NOTICES OF MOTIONS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 43 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


Gordon Edward Taylor: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should include the follwoing question in the 1981 census:
"Do you favour the reinstatement of capital punishment for deliberately
planned murder?"
He said: Mr. Speaker, I placed this motion on the Order Paper on April 30, 1980, with a view to having it debated prior to the 1981 census. It has just now been called, more than a year and a half later, and the census has already been taken. Whether there is any purpose in debating the motion is questionable, but since it has been ordained by the House that private members' hour must go ahead, I suppose I have no choice.
My view of a representative of the people is that he or she, to the greatest possible degree, should reflect the thinking of the people who sent the member to a legislature or to Parliament. My view of a government is that it should reflect the thinking, to the greatest possible degree, of the majority of the people they endeavour to govern.
This is the premise upon which I endeavour to act as the representative of the people of Bow River. I am sure many other hon. members follow the same premise. If a member feels that way, he or she has a responsibility to find out how his or her people feel about various issues and questions. In my own riding I have no doubt because the matters were discussed very definitely at fora. From knocking on some 8,000 to 10,000 doors, I know that a great majority of the people indicated that they wanted capital punishment for carefully planned murders reinstated. Consequently, that is what I believe I should present to the House of Commons. In addition it is my own conviction.
In order to find out how Canadians feel about this matter, I thought there was no better way than doing it through a consensus where practically every Canadian family is contacted, so that they would have an opportunity to say how they felt
November 27, 1981

in regard to capital punishment. A simple question could have been included on the census paper. It could have read:
Do you favour the reinstatement of capital punishment for deliberately planned murder?
It would not have been difficult for people to answer yes or no to the particular question. However the government did not see fit to bring it forward in time for the 1981 census. All we can do now is discuss the matter after the fact and possibly have the question included on the next census.
We have some indication as to how the people of Canada feel. The Government of Canada does not prepare legislation on the basis of one constituency. It prepares its legislation on the basis of the majority of the population. There are different ways to find out how people feel. It can be through the representations of every Member of Parliament or through Gallup Polls.
[DOT] <mo)
I want to refer briefly to what the people of Canada have said to the government about capital punishment. I do not intend to discuss the merits or demerits of capital punishment to any great degree at this time, but I will endeavour to show that governments should reflect the thinking of the people. The people have spoken very, very clearly. I do not believe in the totalitarian philosophy-that the government knows best; that the government should tell the people how they feel; that the government should tell the people what is good for them. I do not believe in that philosophy at all. I believe that the government should find out what the people at the grassroots think and then reflect that thinking in the laws of the country.
I think every party pays attention to the Gallup poll, so let us examine the polls for the last few years to see what they show is the concerted thinking of the people on this particular topic. The publication "The Gallup Report" of August 6, 1977, begins as follows:
In spite of the fact that Parliament voted to abolish capital punishment last summer, a large proportion of the Canadian electorate still are in favour of this form of punishment.
Today, 75 per cent favour the death sentence for the killing of a prison guard or an on-duty policeman; while almost as many Canadians (74 per cent) would like to see it for murders committed by terrorists. Somewhat fewer, but still a solid majority (68 per cent) favour capital punishment for the killing of any innocent person.
The people of Canada spoke very loudly and told Parliament that they did not support the law that had been passed a few months previously. The report shows that people feel very strongly about the murder of prison guards and policemen. Today, 75 per cent to 80 per cent of people feel that if a prison guard or police officer is killed in the course of duty, the murderer should suffer death as well. The report showed that for the murder of any innocent person, a child or a woman or an elderly man, 68 per cent to 69 per cent of the people felt that capital punishment should be imposed.
On April 19, 1978 "The Gallup Report" began as follows:
When questioned about a recent suggestion that a referendum be held on the issue of capital punishment at the time of the next federal election, over
Capital Punishment
eight-in-ten Canadians said they would favour such a vote; 12 per cent opposed it-
The people had said that the government was passing legislation with which they did not agree and that they wanted to have a way of telling the government how they felt. The following question was posed:
Would you yourself be in favour or opposed to a vote being held on the issue of capital punishment?
The response was 82 per cent in favour of a vote. In effect, the people said that they wanted to tell the government how they felt. The response was broken down into age groups. Many people feel that the young people are opposed to capital punishment but the response showed that in the age group 18 to 29, 80 per cent wanted the right to tell the government how they felt; in the age group 30 to 49, it was 81 per cent and for 50 and over it was 84 per cent. So across the board, more than 80 per cent of the people thought that the government should let them say how they felt about capital punishment for deliberately planned murder.
In 1979 the same question was asked, "Do you favour or oppose capital punishment (a) for the killing of a prison guard or on-duty policemen?" The response was from 70 per cent to 79 per cent in favour. For the killing of any innocent person the response was 68 per cent to 69 per cent in favour of capital punishment. The questionnaire also dealt with terrorists but I will not go into that. In 1979, however, more than 70 per cent of the response favoured the reinstatement of capital punishment for the killing of a police officer or prison guard and almost 70 per cent favoured reinstatement for the deliberate killing of an innocent person.
On March 25, 1981 "The Gallup Report" began as follows:
There has been little change over the past two years in the attitude of Canadians towards the death penalty. Today, 73 per cent favour it for the killing of a prison guard or on-duty policeman; 74 per cent for terrorists; and 67 per cent for the killing of any innocent person.
Let us analyse the results, Mr. Speaker. For the killing of a prison guard or an on-duty policeman the response was 70 per cent to 73 per cent in favour with only 7 per cent not having an opinion; for the killing of any innocent person the response showed that 67 per cent or 68 per cent of people wanted the death penalty brought back for those who kill our little girls, our little boys, our elderly people-sometimes for their own lust and gratification. The people had spoken again in 1981.
Throughout these Gallup polls in which many people place a lot of faith, it has been shown that the people are consistent in asking for the return of capital punishment for the deliberate murder of prison guards, on-duty policemen or any innocent person. Apparently the government will not listen to what the people have to say.
In his householder of January, 1981, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) asked whether constituents favoured the imposition of capital punishment for premeditated first-degree murder. The response showed that 87.2 per cent of those polled asked for the return of the death penalty. The result was broken down into urban and rural categories showing the response of adults and of youths.

November 27, 1981
Capital Punishment
I think the people of Canada have a right to expect that the government will reflect their thinking. More than two thirds of all the polls indicate that the people of Canada want the return of capital punishment.
There was an ideal opportunity to get the opinion of almost every Canadian on this subject had my motion been brought forward prior to the 1981 census. The question "Do you favour the reinstatement of capital punishment for deliberately planned murder?" could have been included in the census form. The response would have given the government an indication of how the vast majority of people in Canada feel about this important subject. The government was not prepared to include that question, however, so we do not have the information. It would have been a more sensible question than asking how many bathtubs are in a house.
A few years ago when I was in provincial politics I conducted a poll through public meetings. After debating both sides of the question results showed that 82 per cent of the people at those meetings, from all political parties, favoured the reinstatement of capital punishment.
Today, crime is running rampant and violent crime is becoming all too prevalent throughout the country. The elderly, and particularly elderly women, are afraid to walk outside after dark in some of our cities. We are more concerned with treating the criminals justly than we are concerned with the victims. The rights of law-abiding citizens seem to be eroding with the increasing leniency toward crime, prison sentences and punishment.
Some people say that we should not worry because those who commit hideous sexual crimes, particularly those against little boys and girls, will be killed by fellow prisoners. That is a great way to have justice! The country should face its own responsibility! When someone commits a crime, such as the one where a little girl was terribly abused and then killed, surely that is deliberate murder and it should not be condoned.
People should not be put into prison for 20 years and then released. There are many cases where people have been in prison once, twice or three times, and they have come out and killed someone else. That is not justice, in my view. It is not the type which gives people a sense of security.
I consider, for example, the heinous crime committed in my own constituency last year. I appreciate the tremendous concern expressed by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). Perhaps all the cabinet ministers were concerned, and I believe I can say that every hon. member in the House was concerned. That little girl was taken out under there pretext that she was to babysit, and her parents never saw her alive again. Who knows what she went through in those hours before the monster who took her, tied rocks to her and sent her to the bottom of a lake in southern Alberta? He is still running at large. If he is apprehended, there will be the bleeding hearts who will say, "Oh, poor man. He is sick". He was so sick to have planned, deliberated and committed a crime that he does not deserve to live.
It is time we took this type of crime seriously. Sixty six per cent to 90 per cent of the people of Canada cannot be wrong. We are asking the government to take cognizance of and give recognition to what the people of Canada are saying in regard to reinstating capital punishment. Let us show that if criminals murder, deliberately, they have no right to life themselves.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Let us not put them in prison for nine, ten or 20 years and then let them loose again so that they can commit the crime all over again. That is not justice, in my view.
We are now providing conjugal visits, at the expense of the taxpayer, for prisoners with life sentences. We are letting people with life sentences get out on parole among the public. It is no wonder that parents are concerned about what will happen to their children.
I said that I would not deal with the merits and demerits of capital punishment to any great degree, and I do not plan to do so. However, I want to say that crime is reaching high proportions in this country and that it is high time the government started to listen to what the people of Canada are saying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I join in this debate because I was one of the Members of Parliament, along with many of my colleagues, who were present in the House at the time this vote was taken. I can recall that for some 18 months prior to the vote, there was not a time when I could go home on the weekends and talk to my constituents or, for that matter, even to people around the Hill, who did not have very strong opinions about capital punishment.
If I could address myself directly to the motion, it is surely out of order in the sense that nothing can be done about the 1981 census. The intent of the motion is to have the people of Canada generally decide whether there should be a return to capital punishment. I question whether this type of query should be answered by way of a census. If this question is put to the people, should we not also have a question on abortion? Should we not also have a question on euthanasia? Should we not also question people on to the use of nuclear power? Surely, if anything were to go wrong there, it would mean the loss of thousands of lives.
I think that once we start putting these questions by way of a census, we must have some kind of an idea as to why we would take a census. Would it be to get opinions from people, or hard facts? Why should we obtain these facts from a census? Surely, it would help us to view the make-up of our country.
If we want to get the opinions of the people of Canada, we can do that through an election. We in the House of Commons are the spokesmen for our regions throughout the country. As we have all been present in the House in these last hours, and as so many people are here listening to our words of wisdom, I would point out that we will probably be influencing everyone who is in the House of Commons. Indeed, if I were simply to
November 27, 1981

influence half the people present and get their agreement, I am sure it would go a long way toward showing the people of Canada just exactly what is thought of the motion which has been raised, and, perhaps what is generally thought of the private members' hour.
However, I wish to address myself in part to the issue of capital punishment itself. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) spoke earlier about Gallup polls and polls which he had taken in his own meetings where people of various political persuasions were present to give their opinions. Perhaps I could share with him and with all my other colleagues in the House the results obtained when I took such a poll. I was the Member of Parliament for St. Catharines at the time.
I prepared and sent out a questionnaire for householders. At the time, there were 40,000 householders in my riding of St. Catharines. It should be kept in mind that this was the most pressing problem for most of the people of Canada, and it was the one issue my constituents wanted to discuss with me on the weekends when I went home. This was the issue which, in its intensity and importance, took up virtually all of the waking time of some people.
I sent out my questionnaire to the people of my former riding so that they could share with me in making this decision. Out of 40,000 questionnaires which were sent out, the grand total of 2,255 people shared with me their perception of capital punishment. It amounted to less than 8 per cent. Only 7.3 per cent of the people who were sent questionnaires took the time to let me know what they were thinking when they had the opportunity to respond to their Member of Parliament.
We could agree, but then say that if we decide on the census, it would force the people to answer. Perhaps it would. Capital punishment was a burning issue at the time 1 sent out the questionnaires. I ask myself and hon. members here, is this the way we should conduct ourselves? Is this the way that such a very important question should be decided, by poll results? Or should we view the question in the quietness and solitude of our own minds and consciences? Can the state take the life of one of its citizens? Do we have the power to play God? Shall we decide who deserves to live and who does not?
I personally believe that the state does have the right to take a human life. The conditions I laid out then have not changed for me. I voted in favour of capital punishment then because long ago, when I was in university, 1 learned in the study of apologetics that for a person to be truly responsible for an act, he must, first of all, know that the act is wrong. I agree with the hon. member. If the man deliberately, wholeheartedly, coolly and methodically plans a murder, he must know it is wrong. First, he must know the deed is wrong. Second, by wanting to commit murder, he has exercised his will, knowing the deed is wrong yet wanting to carry it out. Third, he plans his crime over a long period of time. I can hear the question, how long is the period of time. I say, long enough for someone to plan a sequence of events leading to such a hideous crime. Finally, the crime must be committed. There are four steps. Those are the four conditions which, as said, if they exist, then that individual who knowingly, wilfully, methodically, carried
Capital Punishment
out a murder whether against a young girl, a young boy or an older person, it does not matter, against another human being, has forfeited his right to live in this society. After proving beyond any shadow of a doubt that this crime was planned, perpetrated and finally committed, after due process of the law and recourse to the courts of appeal and after all the demands for mercy have run out, I believe now as I did before that the state has the right to take a human life.
I have looked at other facts aside from recognizing the logic of this conclusion. Many times I have heard that the lives of murderers should be taken because they will kill again. But what are the facts to support that? From the time that England abolished capital punishment until January 1975 we know that 308 men and women were tried and convicted of first degree murder. To wilfully plan and commit murder carries the ultimate charge of murder in the first degree.
But these 308 men and women in England convicted of First degree murder evidently were not hanged. They were not put to death. How many of them committed murder again? If 300 of them committed murder a second time, then we must conclude that they should have been put to death. If 200 of them committed murder a second time, then we should conclude that because over 50 per cent committed murder a second time, they should be put to death. And if only ten committed murder a second time out of a total of 308, then 298 did not do it a second time.
From the figures I quoted at the time I spoke on capital punishment and declared my stand on the issue, of the 308 men and women who had been convicted of murder in England up to January, 1975, one, and only one, committed murder again. Yet 307 other men and women would have been put to death as well. What happened to them? I do not have the case histories of them in front of me. I know that a number of them, I think of three in particular, who were convicted of murder wrote books giving us an insight into their lives before the crime and into their lives in prison. I know that these people, who are not among us now, experienced a great change in their lives.
I am not for one moment saying that we were right to give them a second chance, but I am saying there might be a doubt in our minds about these people who commit heinous crimes that they are beyond redemption in the sense that they are beyond doing any good for society.
Since voting on this issue, I have had a great deal of time for second thoughts. The other day the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), when he was asked a question in this House as to whether capital punishment would again be considered, quoted a figure which surprised me. He said that the number of murders committed in Canada had declined on a year-to-year basis since the abolition of capital punishment. What do we conclude from that? Do we conclude that the action we took in abolishing capital punishment has convinced more people not to commit murder? I do not know.

November 27, 1981
Capital Punishment

I wish I had the answer to all those questions. Mr. Speaker, when, for some reason or other, men and women take away the life of one of their fellow citizens, we really have no idea what was going on in their mind when they committed their crime. We must ask ourselves whether or not, in some way or other, it may not be that society, the type of life they led, programmed them to commit their crime. Four or five months ago, I met five men all members of the same family. Thank heavens, none of them had committed murder. Yet, the five brothers were in prison at the same time. One must wonder why they were in jail, all at the same time. Could it be because of their home life? Because of the environment in which they grew up, perhaps the school they attended? What motivated them? If only we had the time, perhaps we could change the situations which lead people to commit this or that crime.

If I can return to the question itself, Mr. Speaker. The motion put forward by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) is simple. He asks that the question be included in a census. I have asked myself, I have questioned the hon. member for Bow River as well as my colleagues, whether this is the way to go about getting the information we seek. I wish I had a nice easy answer and I wish I could say to the hon. member that he is dead wrong. I wish I could say to him that he should not suggest seeking the answer that way. But if I say that, then I have to come up with a better way to glean the answer. I do not know if it is a better way in the sense that we will get a real answer, but I think the system we have devised for members such as ourselves is to get as much information as we can. But more than that, we should get all the information we can through reading and by listening to the debates here, then after struggling with our consciences, decide, each one of us individually, if the state does have a right to take a life. Perhaps then we would come to a decision which would be best for the individual concerned, ourselves as legislators and, indeed, the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Peter Lang (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to repeat that the motion we are debating once again brings capital punishment to the attention of hon. members. The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should include the following question in the 1981 Census:
"Do you favour the reinstatement of capital punishment for deliberately planned murder?"
As the previous speaker has pointed out, the question really is out of order because obviously the 1981 census has been taken. I found that the question was put on the Order Paper in April, 1980. Perhaps the next time it would behoove the hon. member for Bow River to put in a clause to cover the possibility of a similar situation arising, because if his motion is dated, there is a chance it will be irrelevant. Nevertheless, I think the hon. member has made some points and put forward some issues which deserve consideration.
I sense in my constituency a growing concern that there is more emphasis being placed on the rehabilitation of an individual who has done physical damage to another individual than on the victim, in some cases a victim who has lost his life. There is no amount of rehabilitation, psychiatric treatment, pill or anything that can return a life. I sense in my constituency the feeling that in society as a whole we have lost this balance.
I should like to address this problem as I feel there are two major areas in which we can improve the situation. First, there should be better methods of protection for the general population from those who have already shown, by their deeds, that they are capable of physical harm to another person. I would give as an example the individual who has committed rape upon a child, or some other horrendous deed, and where it has been shown there is an associated mental disorder.
Unless evidence is produced through the medical community, or that community which deals with criminology, that this pattern of behaviour can be changed, and no such evidence has been produced, then I think it is incumbent upon those who make the laws in our country, that is hon. members here and in the legislatures, to ensure that such individuals not be allowed back into society. The reason I say that is the probability that such an individual will commit the same kind of crime. We know there is no cure for the mental condition exhibited by the individual who commits the kind of crime I have just described. We know that no amount of rehabilitation can eradicate that kind of behaviour on the part of an individual who has demonstrated the ability to commit that kind of crime, the rape of a small child and murder. I have referred to that example because that was the example given by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). I feel society has the right to be protected from this type of individual when it has been established that there is a mental disorder which allows the commission of such violent acts.
It is time we made our views strongly known to the provincial governments which have the responsibility of enforcing existing legislation, such as the Criminal Code. Unfortunately many people feel the federal government is the enforcer of such legislation. In point of fact, the responsibility for the enforcement of the law in most criminal areas lies with provincial governments and those judges who handle most of these criminal cases.
Let me refer again to this matter of protection. A previous speaker suggested that the number of murders had decreased since the removal of capital punishment. I think we have to look with some suspicion at that statistic. I have discussed this issue with judges and lawyers in my area. I have learned that the number of murders shown by the statistics is not the same as the number of murders actually committed. First of all, there is the matter of charges being reduced from murder to manslaughter and, secondly, there are the not-obvious murders. An example would be the individual who decides to murder someone and then commit suicide by getting into a car and hitting another car head-on. There is a whole spectrum of murder from those that are not obvious through to the cold-
November 27, 1981

hearted, deliberate murder described by the previous speaker. It is quite difficult to use statistics in relation to murder to come to any conclusion about capital punishment.
What we really want to do is to establish in Canada a social milieu in which we have as few murders as possible. How can we do that? This brings me to the second major area I want to discuss, and that is the area of prevention. I think one thing we can do in order to achieve this goal is to stress the importance and value of human life and its first priority over anything else in our society. We can talk about this, but the fact is that in many little ways, which mount up to a big way, we put material things far ahead of respect for and value of human life. This involves a challenge not just for politicians, educators, teachers, professors and those engaged in business and labour, but for all Canadians, the challenge to reassess their values. Human life is at the apex.
The last point I would like to make on this issue is that I am concerned. I do not think it is idle talk to be speaking of the value of human life at this time. I believe that at this time in history it is one of the most important subjects we should be talking about.
The value of human life must become a political issue, especially when I hear the President of the United States talking about the feasibility of a limited nuclear war involving the deaths of 100 million people or talking about the feasibility of pressing the button first to start a nuclear war. I hear of military strategists saying they may lose 100 million people in a war but they will win it because it is worth it. This is an issue which people should consider when electing their leaders.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to speak after my two colleagues from Welland (Mr. Parent) and Kitchener (Mr. Lang) on this important subject. I think it is pertinent to remind the House that we are discussing, of course, an obsolete motion and that because of the wish of the member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It was not my wish that this come today. There was another motion which was proposed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Do not put the blame on me. The government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Céline Hervieux-Payette: To come back to the motion, and the purpose of the motion at the time it was tabled in April, 1980, I myself believe it amounts to governing by census. As my colleague from Welland pointed out earlier, it would be a strange way for us to start governing by sending confidential questionnaires throughout the country after thorough consultation by all parties who are using these figures. In fact, every party has the opportunity today to take polls on all issues. This particular issue, of course, is certainly being discussed.
Capital Punishment
Nevertheless, the subject matter before the House today and in the past weeks centered more on the constitutional motion than on other subjects, and I was proud of the vote taken in the House on several amendments, including the provisions on equal rights for women and the rights of the aboriginal people to be entrenched in the charter. I would remind members that these rights were initially in the charter.
To speak to the motion, Mr. Speaker, I was elected to be part of this Parliament, and this Parliament is here to legislate by respecting the opinions of each of our constituents. There are different views on the role of Parliamentarians. I see my role as representing not only the views of my constituents but also my own. My constituents know what I stand for, they know what I campaigned for and they know the platform of my party. I trust that they elected me because of these reasons.
Earlier today there was a vote on an amendment submitted by the hon. member for Bow River to amend the constitutional resolution by adding a provision on abortion.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I did not move any motion about abortion. Surely the hon. member should know that the government calls these, not the opposition. Why does the hon. member not speak to the motion? I offered to withdraw it. She would not go for it. She wants to make a speech. She has not even prepared a speech. She is talking about the Constitution. What is the matter with this Liberal Party?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. [Translation]


Céline Hervieux-Payette: Mr. Speaker, I shall now come back to the issue which concerns us, namely the basic question of individual rights. As a matter of fact, when we talk about capital punishment, I believe that we are dealing with rights, or at least the first right of any individual, the right to life. And when a vote was taken this afternoon seemingly to clarify the constitutional issue, we were once again playing a political game aimed at leading the Canadian people to believe that you can sit on the fence where this issue is concerned.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that our party has ever sat on the fence when it comes to such fundamental issues as individual rights. This is why, when we are dealing with such important matters as the power of a Parliament to take away the life of individuals, I believe that we should do so with a great sense of responsibility without trying to score political points. And for those of my constituents who are not anglophones, I repeat that I find it very strange to use a census, and the next one will probably be in 1986 if we follow the usual procedure, to ask the voters of the Montreal-Mercier constituency if they are for or against an issue which deals with the conscience of every Canadian. I would like to explain the purpose of a census and the reasons why, in fact, such an issue should not be raised during a census.

November 27, 1981
Capital Punishment
First there were technical questions when the matter was raised; the questionnaire had already been finalized and approved by order in council, in February. Therefore, when the member submitted his question, it was already too late to have it included. Mention must first be made that since this questionnaire is sent out to every family across Canada, even though the full questionnaire is sent to a smaller sample, this involves millions of copies that have to be made, prepared and printed.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, when a census is prepared, questions and objectives cannot be changed without serious thinking. It is very important, in view of the number of people that are to be surveyed across this country, to also consider the needs of all the people in this country who use the results of the census. I
I would like to refer to the scope of the questionnaire. Because more than 8 million families, distributed over an area of more than 9 million square kilometers, have been reached. Some 39,000 temporary workers are hired to collect the information from the people. Provision has also been made for combining the farm census with the general census. Therefore, 340,000 farmers have also been reached. This is no small task, no work that leaves-


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There are only four members in the House. We do not have a quorum. I move that we adjourn.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: If that is a motion, it should be in writing.


Gordon Edward Taylor: I can write it.


An hon. Member:: Call it 6.05.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it agreed that we call it 6.05?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being 6.05 p.m., this House stands adjourned.

It being five o'clock, this House stands adjourns until Monday next, November 30, 1981, at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Orders 2(1) and (3).
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 30, 1981