1981-12-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, there have been five serious train derailments in the 60-mile Miami subdivision of the Canadian National Railroad in Manitoba during the past year alone, and two workers have been badly injured. Today trains are forced to travel at ten miles per hour rather than take the chance of running off the track. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Mar-quette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House demand that the Minister of Transport take immediate action to have the Miami subdivision made eligible now, not in 1983 as is currently planned, for the federal rail rehabilitation program before there is any loss of life or further injury.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), the following motion:
That this House welcome to Canada the parliamentary delegation from the Polish People's Republic, led by Marshal of the Sejm, Stanislaw Guckw with the hope that the visit will strengthen the already strong and friendly relationship between our two countries, and that this House extend to the parliamentary delegation from the Polish People's Republic our support and best wishes for a continuing independent and economically strengthened Poland.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the latest drop of 4 per cent in Canada's GNP during the third quarter of 1981 and Statistics Canada's forecast that "things will get worse before they get better", and in view of the most recent increase in unemployment of 130,000 people, the highest in 30 years, and whereas the Bank of Canada Governor continues to support the inflationary high interest rate policies pursued by the government and the Bank of Canada, as illustrated in his speech yesterday by his ill-informed and uncaring statements such as "minimum wage rates keep people out of work", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That this House immediately call for the resignation of Gerald Bouey, the Governor of the Bank of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the imminent passage of the constitutional resolution which will recognize and affirm, for the first time, aboriginal and treaty rights for native peoples in the Constitution of Canada, and in view of the many treaty and land claims under negotiation between Indian Bands and the native peoples across Canada with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Develop-

December 2, 1981
ment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That this House of Commons encourages and recommends to the Minister of Indian Affairs that the federal government increase its efforts to reach early agreements on treaty and land claim negotiations with the native peoples of Canada on a fair and equitable basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, the federal government is the single largest advertising account this country has and the supplementary estimates allocate additional funding for advertising by the federal government. I move, therefore, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the Minister of Agriculture explain to the House why he is unable to do anything for the Canadian beef industry, while at the same time the federal government has an ever growing budget for advertising.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the resolution under Standing Order 43 which passed on November 19, 1981, moved by the hon. member for York South-Wes-ton (Mrs. Appolloni), I wish to report to this House that lobbying the Saskatchewan government was unnecessary because the province of Saskatchewan had already stated its support for women's rights in a telex to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) the previous day. To set the record straight, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong):
That this House congratulate the province of Saskatchewan for its positive role in having women's and natives' rights entrenched in Canada's Constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


APPROVAL FOR TREATMENT OF EPIDERMOLYSIS BULLOSA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, yesterday officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare approved the process and medications used by Romanian scientist, Mr. Pavel Kozak, in his treatment of a previously incurable and potentially deadly skin disease called epidermolysis bullosa. In view of the fact that this approval brings Mr. Kozak's treatment one step closer to being made available to Canadians in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House recognize and support Mr. Kozak in his effort to make this treatment accessible to the hundreds of Canadians who suffer from this disorder, a treatment without which they have little hope of recovery.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, yesterday at the NDP economic hearings held in Edmonton, representatives of the private housing industry, HUDAC, told us the following:
For many Albertans and many of the 60,000 people expected to migrate into Alberta next year, there will be waiting lists for apartments, doubling and tripling up, illegal or below standard shelter, or people being forced to leave because they cannot find shelter.
The situation is even worse in British Columbia with higher housing costs and rents. Since every one of many persons presenting briefs from both sides of the mountains was convinced that the budget will make conditions much worse, I move:
That the Minister of Finance come down from the mountain top and bring in legislation to reduce mortgage interest rates to 12 or 14 per cent, which even HUDAC now recommends.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
December 2, 1981


THE BANK ACT
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that thousands of home owners across the country are forced to renew mortgages at outrageous interest rate levels and those home owners will receive no assistance from the November 12 budget, as will very few other home owners, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That this House instruct the Liberal government to bring forward immediately amendments to the Bank Act that will guarantee that mortgage interest rates will be within the means of all Canadians and that these amendments will be applicable to all existing mortgages whether they are up for renewal or not.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of yesterday's decision by the Supreme Court of Canada dismissing appeals by the Crown on two soliciting charges in the City of Vancouver, British Columbia, and in view of the very serious threat to the residential neighbourhood in the West End of Vancouver as a result of the problems of street prostitution there, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House call upon the Minister of Justice to bring forward at the earliest possible time amendments to the Criminal Code which would make it very clear that not only the woman who is a prostitute can be charged but also the customer who is harassing innocent women can be charged, and as well, that the minister bring forward Bill C-53 at the earliest possible time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, in view of the recommendation of the all-party parliamentary report
Oral Questions
"Work for Tomorrow", and recognizing the severe shortage of skilled workers in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That the federal government grant accelerated depreciation allowances to companies using equipment and machinery for training purposes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that some hon. members on this side of the House have just come from economic hearings held in Vancouver and in Edmonton, and in view of the fact that we have heard from the Energy Services Association and the Canadian Petroleum Association, one of whose members was quoted in the Toronto Star today as saying that "he didn't expect Waddell to stand up in the House, and speak up for his cause", and in view of the fact that these groups are clearly suffering, especially the small servicing companies, because of the energy deal between Alberta and Ottawa, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis):
That the government take another look at the 12 per cent petroleum and gas revenue tax as it pertains to the small servicing and small drilling outfits so that we can help them survive these difficult times.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice who has responsibility at law with respect to writs of assistance. The minister knows that writs of assistance provide the holder with extraordinary legal ability to carry out searches and seizures without search warrants. There is no discretion provided to the court with respect to issuance, no back-up material need be

December 2, 1981
Oral Questions
filed outlining the reason for issuance, and there is no time limit imposed upon the duration of these writs.
As the Minister of Justice will know, the Solicitor General has been putting out floaters with respect to the lifting of the moratorium imposed by the minister's predecessor, the Hon. Ron Basford. The Solicitor General has put out other floaters with respect to the prosecution of Nazi war criminals in Canada, which has now been repudiated by the Minister of Justice.
The Minister of Justice has now had an opportunity to consider his position and the position of the government in this matter. I wonder whether the minister will stand in his place and make an unequivocal declaration that the moratorium on writs of assistance will not be lifted and, indeed, that writs of assistance will be abolished by the government.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, yesterday I had an opportunity to appear before the committee, and I said that the moratorium imposed in 1977 by my predecessor, Mr. Basford, was still in place and that for the time being, we had no intention of making any changes.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REPUDIATE PROCESS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice knows that today is the day on which we will be voting on the constitutional package, which involves a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As the minister well knows, that Charter contains the principle that the individual in Canada should be free from unreasonable search and seizure, yet he stands in his place and supports the continuation of writs of assistance. By not repudiating the Solicitor General the Minister of Justice is allowing the Solicitor General to make policy for the government by default.
In view of the fact that today is the day to demonstrate that there is bona fide on the part of the government with respect to civil liberties, I want to ask the minister once more to accept his responsibility and repudiate, once and for all, these lifetime licences to break and enter the homes of Canadians.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said that the moratorium is still in place, and I do not intend to change that. When the RCMP appeared in committee, it was explained to the members that there are circumstances when police officers are on duty in which they need some instrument to be able to discharge their responsibility. The number of writs has now been reduced to eighty, and we would like to see further reduction. I repeat that we do not intend to change the moratorium, but I do think at one point we will have to look at alternative mechanisms to help the police discharge their responsibility and at the same time make sure that the rights of Canadians are well protected.


FORMULATION OF POLICY
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, what the minister suggests would be quite all right, but when questioned in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs Commissioner Simmonds of the RCMP indicated that writs of assistance would not be the cure in connection with the drug problem in Canada. The minister's assumptions are indeed wrong in this particular instance.
The minister also knows that the Law Reform Commission, which reports to him, is undertaking a study on the efficacy of writs of assistance. A report on that study will be released in April of next year.
All I want the minister to tell me is who in fact is in control of this matter. Will the minister stand and indicate that the Solicitor General will be building the policy in this matter? Is it the policy of the government to allow ministers to go around the country, at great expense, promoting their own particular fetishes and ideas respecting policy? Possibly in the case of the Minister of Finance he might have done some good in that respect, but is the Minister of Justice going to allow the Solicitor General to keep promoting this, and will the minister stand mute while this policy comes into effect by default?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, after the small speech of the hon. member I do not have to add anything. I stated the policy of the government very clearly. The moratorium is still in place. We are concerned about the problems of the RCMP in discharging their responsibility. At the same time we are concerned about the need of Canadians to have their rights protected. I think the situation is well in hand at this time, and if there is some change I will announce it to the House of Commons.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee released a study that documented how it took the federal government nine months to handle an oil spill from the vessel Edgar Jourdain at Hall Beach in the Arctic, involving something like 20,000 gallons of diesel fuel. Given that the study established in great detail that the government's response to this oil spill was characterized by "bureaucratic indecision, interdepartmental wrangling and an unwillingness to act", will the minister admit that the Edgar Jourdain incident demonstrates beyond any doubt that the government is incapable of handling any kind of oil spill, whether major or minor, especially in Arctic waters?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, that is not the information I have. My information is that the Edgar Jourdain was grounded in September, 1980,
December 2, 1981

and that burn-off operations were carried out in June, 1981. The public hearing was held in April, 1981. I have questioned my officials on this subject. They explained to me that the burning-off operation could not be conducted because of the weather. Consequently, they had to wait until spring to do it. With respect to the hearing, there is nothing abnormal in the time it took to set it up. I was told that throughout, local government, industry, all the interested parties, were kept fully aware of what was happening.


REQUEST THAT INQUIRY BE INSTITUTED
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, the minister should go back to the drawing board. He should certainly go to a different group of officials and get the real facts, including the fact that it took the Department of the Environment six weeks to respond to a request from the owners of the vessel Edgar Jourdain for guidance in disposing of the petroleum on board that vessel. In view of the minister's confusion and the fact that there is a conflict between what officials of his department are saying and what environmentalists and conservationists are saying, will he support a full inquiry into the Edgar Jourdain incident with a view to preventing a similar disaster and a similar shambles in the future? Will be at least admit the need for an inquiry to look into the whole matter?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that public hearings were held on this matter in April, 1981. The hon. member is doing his job and I will do mine. Now that he asks me to look into the matter further, I will, and report to him very rapidly.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In an unbelievably callous and insensitive speech in Montreal yesterday, Governor Bouey, known in many circles as Bouey XVI-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: -admitted that six years of monetarism had not worked because of high energy costs, low productivity and international inflation, and that the only thing it had produced was a recession. He said, "One has to see how it works out." I would ask the Prime Minister how the government can continue to implement that policy for the next five or six years, as promised by Governor Bouey, when we know we are going to be faced with high energy costs, low productivity because of high interest rates, and international inflation. When will the government learn from its experience and stop this monetary foolishness?
Oral Questions


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: -it is rather interesting to hear the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood come out with his criticisms of Governor Bouey, who simply said that after six years the policy has not worked as well as he would have liked to have seen it. Obviously when inflation is running at 12.7 per cent, it is not working as well as the governor would like to have seen it or as we would like to have seen it. The fact is that the only way we are going to control inflation is to follow policies that include monetary restraint and support from the fiscal side of the government policies as well. The current budget implements those policies to support monetary policy. We think that is the way we are going to get inflation under control, real growth going in the economy, and to get the situation back on its feet.


STATEMENT MADE BY GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I am not sure whether I got Edgar Bergen or Charlie McCarthy, but I would like to go back to Charlie McCarthy, if I can.
Let the record show, Madam Speaker, that when the Prime Minister was asked a fundamental question on the economy, he was unable and unwilling to answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: My supplementary question, Madam Speaker, deals with another comment made by Governor Bouey when he said that minimum wages of $160 a week were a cause of both unemployment and inflation, and when he said that workers had to accept even lower wages although they have fallen behind inflation for the last four years. My question is directed to the Prime Minister and it is a fundamental question of policy. Does the Prime Minister agree, Madam Speaker, with Governor Bouey that wages of $160 a week, or $8,320 a year, are excessive, and if he does not agree with Governor Bouey why does he not fire him?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the question of minimum wages is, to a great extent, a provincial responsibility. The governor may have made some comments within the context of the over-all economic situation. Madam Speaker, the government is more concerned with trying to get the economy back on its feet and running efficiently, creating jobs and increasing incomes for all Canadians, than to deal with this. With the kind of questions the hon. member is asking, then any dummy should be able to answer them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 2, 1981
Oral Questions


Bob Rae: That is precisely why I asked the question of the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, when they lob them like that it is hard not to hit them back.


REQUEST THAT MEASURES BE INTRODUCED TO CURB EXCESS PROFITS
Bob Rae: This is my final supplementary to the Prime Minister. I wish he would just try to take an interest in problems that really do concern the average Canadian and that hit the average Canadian where it really hurts. Given the fact that Governor Bouey was quick to defend the chartered banks' profits, which have been at record levels as announced just in the last two or three days-50 per cent for the Royal Bank, 40 per cent for the Toronto-Dominion Bank, profits in the hundreds of millions of dollars-and given the fact that the budget has clearly failed to address the central economic questions facing the country, why will the Prime Minister not introduce additional measures to the budget which will deal with the problem of excess profits, which will deal with the problem of the economy in a recession, and which will provide some hope for Canadians facing the most difficult winter in 25 years?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, the question of bank profits is one that the Minister of Finance has looked at in the past, and he continues, as he said earlier, to be concerned with that question of the growth of bank profits. But the hon. member has to realize that if we are to get the country growing and going again we must have an economic position that does not respond with fiscal policies, that is, the big levers of our economic strategy, to problems that even the hon. member himself would indicate will last for a period of perhaps two quarters. If we re-inflate the economy through massive fiscal stimulus, then the hon. member will be complaining next year that inflation is higher then than it is now, investment will be lower and confidence in the economy will be less. We do not plan to follow that kind of an approach, at least not this government, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SMALL BUSINESS
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has become more than evident that last month's budget, which the minister supported, is having a devastating effect on small business and most other sectors of our economy. While the
government's excuse is fiscal restraint, yesterday the minister dipped into funds made available through the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program to buy off his already disenchanted home town of Windsor with a $6 million interest free loan, in order to help Hilton Hotels expand their chain to his city. Could the minister justify this action when he knows full well that $6 million interest-free would create more full-time jobs in small business, for example? When will the government stop catering to large multinationals and start helping the small guys?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program is designed to help create new long-term viable employment in the communities designated under it. It permits assistance to eligible commercial activity which makes sense in the community. When there is a potential for a hotel business to serve conventions and tourism, creating some 300 permanent jobs and perhaps double that amount in indirect jobs connected with the project, I do not see why my hon. friend opposes that for any community in Canada which is justified for inclusion under the Industry and Labour Adjustment Program.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to direct my question to the Minister of Finance, but I understand that he is out of the House eating haggis when he should be in the House eating crow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Vincent Martin Dantzer: Therefore I will direct my question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. The minister is aware that certain proposals in the budget seriously and viciously attack retirement income. To mention only two, they are the removal of interest deductibility on loans to purchase RRSPs, and the taxation of insurance dividends. The minister must know that this seriously jeopardizes the third tier of the retirement system, that is, personal savings. Since the minister has spoken a great deal about pension reform, is she in favour of these vicious proposals?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I do not accept any more than any other Canadian that some people in top income brackets can benefit from tax privileges in the name of putting aside good pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 2, 1981


Monique Bégin: I know very well that we have figures proving that in Canada those with good pensions, aside from public servants at all levels of government-this is okay because that is the pension we want other Canadians to reach-are senior executives. They are equipped with abnormally good pensions.
1 am against that. By the way, I wish I knew the difference between eating crow and haggis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MINES AND MINING
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Mines. They budgetary provision which will restrict the deductibility of interest costs will have, and is already having, a strong negative impact upon the availability of investment capital to junior mining companies. Also we read that the major giants of the mining industry, Inco and Noranda, have registered massive third quarter losses. What is the hon. minister recommending to the Minister of Finance in terms of changes to the budget to rectify these very serious problems?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Madam Speaker, I answered the hon. member's question the other day. Perhaps he did not examine the answer very thoroughly. I explained to him that the Minister of Finance had taken into account one of the recommendations of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which the prospectors and developers strongly proposed for several years. That was the change to capital gains for those investors who are particularly interested in exploration and development. The international markets are the reason for the decline in the profits of the two major companies, Inco and Noranda. 1 am sure the hon. member is well aware of that. We are as concerned as he about the viability of the Canadian mining industry.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the minister is aware, the ministers of social services for the Atlantic provinces have expressed concern about some proposals which the minister is considering to the unemployment insurance reform package. They are primarily an increase in the number of work weeks to be eligible for UIC benefits from ten to 15 weeks, and the introduction of a regional differentiated single phase benefit structure. Notwithstanding the fact that if the minister's program is put into effect it will put untold hundreds of people on the welfare roles and that the program is shared under the Canada Assistance
Oral Questions
Plan, will he reconsider and advise the House if indeed it is his intention to put those programs into effect? If so, will he reconsider those decisions in order to show a little consideration for the Atlantic region?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, once again the hon. member is engaging in the exercise of faulty future forecasting. I should simply like to point out to him that a task force report put forward a number of recommendations for discussion. We have been spending a good deal of time over the past summer and fall consulting with business, labour, and provincial governments to discuss the entire area of reform in the unemployment insurance package and in the labour market area, including many reforms that would allow repeaters and new entrants to gain benefits at an earlier date than they now do. Those reforms are still being discussed. We will be holding further meetings with the provincial governments before any decisions are made. When the decisions are made, they will be brought to the attention of the House.


HOUSING
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for housing. At recent task force hearings in western Canada, knowledgeable representatives of the construction industry made it very clear, based on the government's present economic leadership and the decisions brought down in the budget, that they are predicting a literal collapse of the housing industry in Canada in the next six months. Also they made it very clear that many people who are trying to obtain access to housing or rental accommodations find it difficult to understand why, in a country clothed in forests, with ample land, with builders willing to build, with contractors willing to contract out, with sawmills willing to operate, and with people wanting to buy houses, they cannot obtain access to houses. What will the minister do? Will he admit that the present high interest rate policy is the major stumbling block?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in the last week I have had the opportunity to conduct many economic conferences in one part of the country or the other. I should like to respond to the hon. gentleman by telling him that in the various regional offices of CMHC I have met with various representatives of the industry across the country. As late as a half hour ago I met with the national executive of HUDAC in Ottawa. The scene is not as desperate or as bleak as the hon. member would point out. We have to consider that the starts this year will be considerably higher than last year. Every respectable projector of housing starts for next year shows starts improved over this year. This means that they will be in the area of somewhere over 175,000 units. In addition, with the $350 million directed to assist and increase starts in the country announced in the budget a few

December 2, 1981
Oral Questions
weeks ago, with one in four housing starts supported by the government, and with the support of the provinces which I requested in the last few days, I am positive that housing will be in a very good position and that the industry will be handsomely supported.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I suspect that the minister is the only person who is encouraged by what he is hearing these days. Certainly representatives of the industry are not commenting that way at all.


INDUSTRY
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In our discussions with management and labour on the west coast of Canada, we found that the British Columbia forest industry is in its worst slump in 35 years, with production down nearly 40 per cent in logging operations along the British Columbia coast. Earlier we heard the minister's efforts at industrial restructuring in Windsor with a $6 million interest-free loan to a company which will enventually be taken over by the struggling Hilton corporation. Is this his idea of assisting auto workers in Ontario? Will he be using the same approach to assist logging and forestry workers in British Columbia?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as far as I am aware the project in question will remain under Canadian control. The project was widely praised by representatives of the workers in the Windsor area.
With respect to British Columbia forest industries, it is an unfortunate fact that the major market for their production, the United States, is in a state of severe economic decline; economic growth there has just about drawn to a halt. At the same time we are continuing our efforts to assist the British Columbia forest products industry to maintain and strengthen its position in the United States and in world markets. We have the program of co-operative overseas market development which we are running jointly with the B.C. forest industry and the B.C. government. We recently renewed our agreement to support that program, providing increased funding over three years. This program has a successful track record, increasing our experts to other than U.S. markets from $200 million to $1 billion in the last ten years. We look forward to the successful operation of that program, giving further strength and growth to the B.C. forest products industry and the workers in that important sector.
[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND
Madam Speaker:: I wish to call to the attention of the House the distinguished presence in our gallery of a delegation of parliamentarians from the People's Republic of Poland, headed by Marshall Stanislaw Guckw, the Speaker of the Polish Parliament.


PETRO-CANADA ALLEGED DIFFICULTIES IN RENEWING CREDIT CARDS
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and it consists of three parts.
First, owners of Petro-Canada service stations are complaining that credit cards are not being renewed as fast as they should be, and as a result, they are losing a lot of business. It seems there are hardly any credit cards. Second, people are complaining that when they dial the Zenith number to call for information on conversion of heating systems, the number is always busy and they never get through. Third, in the agreement signed with Hydro-Quebec, does it say that Hydro-Quebec is to provide services as soon as possible? There are still complaints that people have to wait three months before they even see the inspectors. Can the minister comment on that?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I find very encouraging that the Canadian public is showing a great deal of support for Petro-Canada service stations, and that is also why there has been some delay in providing credit cards. In fact, the number of credit card applications is very high, and I have been told that Petro-Canada cannot keep up with the demand at the present time. All I can say, is that people will have to be patient for a while and they will get their cards.
Regarding the second point, I shall check with my department to see what is happening. Probably there have been quite a few queries from home owners wanting to switch to gas or electricity or other types of heating, and if necessary, we shall put in additional lines to meet the demand. As for the last point, I shall forward my colleague's remarks to the authorities at Hydro-Quebec and ask them to look into the situation, with a view to dealing with the public's requests as quickly as possible.
December 2, 1981


THE BUDGET
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I only have a 12-part question. In the absence of the Minister of Finance may I put my question to the Minister of Communications who will know that the proposed changes in the budget, notably the change in the capital cost allowance and the non-deductibility of interest, have put into jeopardy millions of invested dollars and hundreds of jobs in the film and television industries in Canada. Would the minister please tell the House what representations he has made to the Minister of Finance to abandon these proposals that put the clear lie to the minister's fine words regarding the Canadianization of our cultural industries?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has underlined the very real usefulness of the capital cost allowances in getting the Canadian film industry on its feet. It was introduced in 1974, I believe, and it has permitted not only the existence and the survival but the flourishing of the Canadian film industry. Anyone who has followed the Canadian film industry also knows that it has had a very difficult year in 1980-81. All of the forecasts for this year were that, from a high of $170 million last year, there would probably be, at the maximum some, $40 million to $70 million worth of films produced in this country this year.
It is the intent of the government to see to it that there continues to be a good program production industry in Canada. We intend to see that that industry not only continues to survive but continues to flourish. As a matter of fact I believe the Canadian film industry is now beginning to produce the type of films of which all Canadians can be proud and which will justify the continued existence of a capital cost allowance of the type we have had up to now.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The latest Statistics Canada figures show the most severe drop in employment in Canada is in Quebec and in the Atlantic provinces. Has the minister considered the effect that continuing high interest rates have on DREE programs that are operated extensively in these areas and, if so, what measures is he taking to prevent the positive and important effect of DREE programs from being eroded?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member and in fact, I am pleased to be able to do so, that most
Oral Questions
of the DREE budget is spent in the Maritimes and Quebec. Furthermore, there is a basic rule in our federal system that each government must bear the consequences of the policies it puts forward and implements. And now the government of Quebec has imposed on that province the highest gas prices in North America, a policy that will certainly not be conducive to regional development in Quebec. I feel that in a federal system, it is elementary that each government should bear the consequences of its actions. And when Quebec businessmen, for instance, complain that under the province's tax system, they pay 26 per cent more income tax than elsewhere in Canada, that does not help regional development either.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State who will know that the Canadian Council of Social Development has warned that the budget will cripple an already overloaded voluntary sector and that it has reported that the budget will increase the burden on municipal governments. Both bodies provide many social services for Canadians. Has the minister asked the Minister of Finance to change the budget so that it does not penalize individual volunteers and local governments across Canada in their caring efforts?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: No, Madam Speaker.


EFFECT ON INSURANCE POLICIES AND RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam
Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the acting minister. Insurance companies and citizens planning their future are being severely penalized by the budget's new means of taxing. Canadians will no longer be able to maintain the Canadian tradition of self and family protection through self initiated RRSPs or insurance plans, and many will have to turn to welfare. There will be no incentive to buy retirement policies, and this will cause lay-offs in the insurance industry. Will the acting minister guarantee this House that he will do everything in his power to have these tax penalties on insurance policies and RRSPs cancelled in the next overhaul of the budget?


John Leslie Evans: Madam Speaker, I understand that the hon. member is asking a question with regard to insurance policies and RRSPs. I think he is under the same delusion as his leader who seems to think that in some way the government's proposals tax the contributions put in RRSP accounts. The government's proposals do no such thing.

December 2, 1981
Oral Questions
The hon. member should inform his leader that when he makes the statement that the government's policies are taxing the moneys that are borrowed to put into an RRSP, that is not true either. The government is simply saying that the interest on moneys borrowed can no longer be deducted from other income, other earnings, other non-investment earnings. Certainly there is a great benefit to Canadians in putting money into RRSPs even if that money is borrowed, because they will be able to deduct the contribution from income. If someone borrows $3,500 and is in a 25 per cent tax bracket, he will save about $1,150 in taxes in the year that occurs.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister explain to the House why the Export Development Corporation must be given a subsidy in the last quarter of 1981 and in the calendar year 1982 of $36 million to meet interest losses?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Export Development Corporation borrows in world markets wherever it can get the best deal. At the same time there has been a very strong demand for loans. In order to maintain the level of operations which are so important to Canada's export industry, we have to provide this amount as provided for in the supplementary estimates.


GUIDELINES GOVERNING BORROWING POLICY
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, what are the guidelines that the cabinet imposes upon the Export Development Corporation in its borrowing policy so that the subsidy granted to the corporation does not run away unchecked? What are the guidelines? Does the minister insist upon passing on the transactions of borrowing abroad at high rates of interest, or lending money at extraordinarily low rates?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the Export Development Corporation seeks the best rates it can when it borrows, and when it lends it does not seek extraordinarily low rates for the loans it makes. It seeks rates which will be competitive with competition abroad, enabling our export industry to remain strong. I hope my hon. friend is not opposing our efforts to enable the Export Development Corporation to meet foreign competition and strengthen our export activities across the country. We want to strengthen its activities. We want to strengthen our exports. I am sorry that my hon. friend seems to oppose this.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House of the representations made by his department concerning four Canadian women in Guatemala who were arrested in a case of alleged kidnapping and the use of forged documents in order to adopt children in Guatemala?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have helped the four women who are being held prisoners in Guatemala in various ways. We have helped them to retain counsel, we have already improved their situation in prison, including admittance to hospital of one of the women. We have communicated on their behalf with their families and in fact, we have done everything we could do in the circumstances, subject to Guatemalan law. We have heard that one of the four prisoners has been charged with forging official documents and the three others have been accused of collusion. There is, however, a real possibility that the four women will be released on bail by the end of the week.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In the travels of the New Democratic Party economic task force, a number of presentations from both industry and labour regarding taxation of work related benefits were heard. These groups expressed unanimous concern that many projects in the north and in remote communities will not take place-
Madam Speaker, can we get the Minister of Labour back into the House?


An hon. Member:: He is over there.


An hon. Member:: Do your homework.


An hon. Member:: You don't know who he is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, will the government recognize that many work related expenses are necessary for people working in remote and northern communities? Will the minister make sure that these expenses, like subsidized food, subsidized housing and trips back to home communities, will not be taxed?
December 2, 1981


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is also aware that the tax measures will make it possible for 12 million Canadians to pay $200 a year less in personal income tax.


QUERY RESPECTING TAX LEVELS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I have another question for the minister. If the government really thinks that the workers in this country have benefited from this budget, why did the government only reduce the taxation rate for those who are earning the most in this country? Why did the government not provide the exact same tax reduction for those people who will be taxed more on benefits? Why do those people not also receive a tax reduction through the budget?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the hon. member does not seem to be aware that the tax measure will bring down the tax rate for millions of Canadians, including millions of workers.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is behind the curtain. It concerns urea formaldehyde foam insulation. I am told that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is the only minister who can answer this question. Here he comes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He doesn't have any answers.


Thomas Edward Siddon: He was out talking to the press a minute ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Let us see if the minister gets the same applause from all home owners who have urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their homes. What kind of compensation has the government decided for those home owners who have UFFI in their homes? Who will be compensated, and how many dollars are involved?


Mr. Nielsen:: As announced by the minister.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is aware that last June we announced a five-point program to assist UFFI victims. We set up an information centre, and we also set up a mechanism for responding to all requests and concerns of these home owners. We have carried out tests in 2,400 homes
Oral Questions
throughout the country. The National Research Council has been given some $2 million to conduct research on ways of neutralizing this product or helping home owners to more changes without incurring the prohibitive cost of-in the worst event-having their homes demolished. So that I feel the government has already done more than its share to help these victims.
Furthermore, I can inform the hon. member that a second series of measures is being considered by cabinet, and will be announced in due time.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister has had a request from Lake Group Ltd. for financial assistance. Lake Group Ltd. is the second largest fishing company in Newfoundland. I am advised if that company does not hear about financial assistance in the next few days that it will have to close its eight plants in Newfoundland, putting 2,500 people out of work directly. The company will cease to buy fish from 1,600 inshore fishermen, and 20,000 people who live in the communities where it has fish plants will have no way to make a living. They have asked the minister for some indication of support, up to $15 million, so that they can carry on in the present very difficult economic conditions in the fishing industry.
Can the minister advise the House whether a decision has yet been made with regard to assistance? If a decision has not been made, will it be made this week, and will the minister produce the $15 million to save these jobs, which is nothing in comparison to the hundreds of millions of dollars whacked out in central Canada to try to keep computer companies and the like going, that are now gone forever?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the problem the company in question has been facing goes back a number of months. It was only last week that we were approached with a proposal. We are now studying the proposal. I do not think the hon. member, who was a former minister of finance for a short time, would want me to put these funds forward before I have examined the facts and made sure that the proposal is one that I can present to cabinet successfully.


John Carnell Crosbie: When will you make a decision?

December 2, 1981
The Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, December 1, consideration of the amended motion of Mr. Chretien:
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 Votre Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loiainsicon^u :
December 2, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution ANNEXE A-SCHEDULE A
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
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 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 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.
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, considerant:	5
5 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 10 10 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,	15
15 sur l'avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis en Parlement, et par l'autorite de celui-ci, edicte:
1. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in 1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20 ^option**la Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for	cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada	uonnettedeand shall have the force of law in Canada	et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur	I98t
and shall come into force as provided in that conformement a ses dispositions.
Act.	25
2. No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Ceuvo'r°dedU Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act,	Royaume:Uni apres l'entree en vigueur de la 25 f^rer pour ie
1981 comes into force shall extend to	Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas Canada
Canada 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 fran?aise de la	fr"si°"se
B, the French version of this Act is set out in presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a force	rdn?a,se
Schedule A to this Act and has the same	de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30
authority in Canada as the English version	version anglaise correspondante.
thereof.
4. This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi: Loi sur Titre abrege
Act.	le Canada.
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 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]
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and free- 5 doms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- 10 tal freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 15
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.

[Stage Direction]
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit:
Garantie des droits et liberies
1.	La Charte canadienne des droits et Droits et libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 au 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
Libertes fondamentales
2.	Chacun a les libertes fondamentales Libertes
suivantes :	fondamentales
a)	liberte de conscience et de religion;
b)	liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opi-nion et depression, 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 20 Droits vote in an election of members of the House	et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede- des^enT* 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 fixee25aSSem "
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 sP«clales 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
December 2, 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 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueiie and of each legislature at least once every	nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5
twelve months.	5 douze mois.
Mobility Rights
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
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 Lihertede demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en urcu a"° 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- 10 Liberte
v 7	, J	t .	4 d etablissement
sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent lOau 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 grammes de elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou socia,e 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 a 35 liteniei 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 con^re	^ruq'""'ljons ou
against unreasonable search or seizure.	les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies40saisies
abusives.
9.	Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la ^pr"^°nn°u trarily detained or imprisoned.	40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires. ment
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1981
Arrest or detention
The Constitution
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun a le 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
criminal and'"	Any Person charged with an offence
penal matters h&S the right
(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
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen-35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and
(0 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.
11. Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affaires
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de 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
December 2, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
Interpreter
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Affirmative
action
programs
Official languages of Canada
Official languages of New Brunswick
The Constitution
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Everyone has the right not to be sub- 12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites. punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceed- 13. Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi- 5 ings has the right not to have any incriminat- 5 gnage mcriminant qu u donne ne soit utilise ing evidence so given used to incriminate	pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures,
that witness in any other proceedings, except	sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour
in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving temoignages contradictoires. of contradictory evidence.
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.
] 0 Interprete
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
15. (1) Every individual is equal before 15	15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de perand under the law and has the right to the	sonne et s'applique egalement a tous, et tous	benefice et
equal protection and equal benefit of the law ont droit a la meme protection et au meme Paction egaie without discrimination and, in particular, benefice de la loi, independamment de toute e a 01 without discrimination based on race, nation- discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20 al or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age 20 tions fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale or mental or physical disability.	ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
l'age ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any (2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet 25	de
law, program or activity that has as its object	d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites sociaie
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan-	destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus
taged individuals or groups including those 25 ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait that are disadvantaged because of race, na-	de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou
tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,	ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30
age or mental or physical disability.	leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Official Languages of Canada
Langues officielles du Canada
16.	(1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le fran?ais 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 Langues^ 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]
December 2, 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 gouvernement du Nouveau-wick.	Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
(3) La presente charte ne limite pas le Progression vers pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de 1 egdllte 5 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de 5 statut ou d'usage du frangais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use Eng- 17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le	Travaux du
lish or French in any debates and other	fran?ais ou 1'anglais dans les debats et tra-	Parlemenl
proceedings of Parliament.	vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10T|;avaux<iela
or French in any debates and other proceed-	9ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de	Niveau-'dUings of the legislature of New Brunswick.	la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.	Brunswick18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes Documents of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement Parlemen,aires in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en frangais et en 15 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- 20jj>uinouJmu-'printed and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Brunswickand both language versions are equally 20et publies en fran^ais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loiet cedes des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	2519. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament.	2519. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le Procedures fran?ais ou 1'anglais dans toutes les affaires ^'bunaux dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le etabiisparie Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure Parlemenl qui en decoulent.	30
(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 ulbunawdu sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns- Nouveau-wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui Brunswick en decoulent.	35
20. (1) Any member of the public in 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 English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a l'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra-tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en40 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a 1'egard de tout autre bureau de ces institutions la ou, selon le cas :
Communications entre les administres et les institutions federates
(a) there is a significant demand for com- a) l'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais fait munications with and services from that l'objet d'une demande importante;	45
office in such language; or	40	£) l'emploi du fran9ais et de l'anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.
December 2, 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
The Constitution
(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.
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 termes 10 d'une 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 :	Langue
.	destruction
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 re?u 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.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant	Continuite
has received or is receiving primary or	a re?u ou re?oit son instruction, au niveau	|anguesecondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en fran?ais ou en 35d'insuuciion 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]
December 2, 1981
Application where numbers warrant
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justxe 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 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 out of public funds.
Enforcement
(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,
10 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-
15 gnement de la minorite linguistique finan- 15 ces sur les fonds publics.
Re c ours
Justification par le nombre
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.
(2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au irrecevabiiite paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des preu^^mde 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 risqueraient de conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou ^"mmisuttion libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces deia justice 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.
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
(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and	40
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Dispositions generales
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
26.	The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit	Maintien des
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas	^rr"sdro,ts et
December 2, 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.
The Constitution
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation de la presente Maimiendu manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro- SltureT"' enhancement of the multicultural heritage of 5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 Canadians.	patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28.	Notwithstanding anything in this 28. Independamment des autres disposi-
Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to	tions de la presente charte, les droits et liberin it are guaranteed equally to male and	tes qui y sont mentionnes sont garantis egalefemale persons.	lOment aux personnes des deux sexes.	10
29.	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 privileanteed by or under the Constitution of	ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du
Canada in respect of denominational, sepa-	Canada concernant les ecoles separees et
rate or dissentient schools.	15 autres ecoles confessionnelles.	1530.	A reference in this Charter to a prov- 30. Dans la presente charte, les disposiince or to the legislative assembly or legisla-	tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislatureture 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 20Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives 20 legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes.
be.
Egalite de garantie des droits pour les deux sexes
Maintien des droits relatifs a certaines ecoles
Application aux territoires
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
31. La presente charte n'elargit pas les competences legislatives de quelque orga-nisme ou autorite que ce soit.
Application de la charte
Non-elargisse-ment des competences legislatives
32. (1) La presente charte s'applique :
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du
Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest;	30
b)	a la legislature et au gouvernement de chaque province, pour tous les domaines relevant de cette legislature.
25 Application de la charte
Application of Charter
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	(2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), l'ar- Restriction
tion 15 shall not have effect until three years	tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Ten-35
after this section comes into force.	tree en vigueur du present article.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature province may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est
Parliament 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 40
shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte. this Charter.
Derogation par
declaration
expresse
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1981
Operation of exception
Five year limitation
Re-enactment
Five year limitation
Citation
Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
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 va 1 1 e 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 ioadopUon 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- valldlte graphe (4).
Citation
Titre
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
15	34. Titre de la presente partie : Charte 15Tilre
canadienne des droits et lihertes.


[Stage Direction]
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
35. (1) Les droits existants - ancestraux ou issus de traites - des peuples autochtones du Canada sont reconnus et confirmes.
Confirmation des droits existants des peuples autochtones
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of 20 Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada.
(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]
36. (1) Without altering the legislative 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 legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement 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;
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.
Engagements relatifs a I'egalite des 25 chances
35
December 2, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Commitment respecting public services
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
The Constitution
(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.
(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 l'entree en Conference posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and	vigueur de la presente partie, le premier 1U nene
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 des'^upirs" section (1) shall have included in its agenda 15 conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- 15 aut<Snones 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 es e 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 l'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, 30selon 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]
December 2, 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 15 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 20 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 (2) est sans effet dans une province dont 15 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-ment 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 l'adoption de la resolution a l'origine35 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
December 2, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
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.
42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 42. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu- Procedur^ of Canada in relation to the following mat-20tion du Canada portant sur les questions 20 J^ncation ters may be made only in accordance with suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-subsection 38(1):	phe 38(1) :
{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;
(e)	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.
(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).
43. An amendment to the Constitution of 43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du	[^rdC<iet,on
Canada in relation to any provision that	Canada applicables a certaines provinces	CeftainesL
applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par provinces including	45 proclamation du gouverneur general sous le45
(a) any alteration to boundaries between grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des provinces, and	resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 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 44. Sous reserve des articles 41 et 42, le 10 Modification ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour pariement the Constitution of Canada in relation to the	modifier les dispositions de la Constitution
executive government of Canada or the	du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif fede-
Senate and House of Commons.	ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des
communes.	15
45. Subject to section 41, the legislature 15	45. Sous reserve de Particle 41, une legisof each province may exclusively make laws lature a competence exclusive pour modifier amending the constitution of the province. la constitution de sa province.
Modification par les legislatures
46. (1) The procedures for amendment 46. (1) L'initiative des procedures de '"^jures65 under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be modification visees aux articles 38, 41, 42 et20procc urcs initiated either by the Senate or the House of 20 43 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 ^Mede purposes of this Part may be revoked at any dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre rc"XJ l0n 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 of Canada made by proclamation under section 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the 35 expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.
47. (1) Dans les cas vises a Particle 38, 41,
42 ou 43, il peut etre passe outre au defaut d'autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n'a pas 30adopte de resolution dans un delai de cent 30 quatre-vingts jours suivant Padoption de celle de la Chambre des communes et si cette derniere, apres Pexpiration du delai, adopte une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
Modification sans resolution du Senat
(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 u cai 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 Canada shall advise the Governor General to issue a proclamation under this Part forthwith on the adoption of the resolutions 45
48. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le Demandede Canada demande au gouverneur general de40procamatlon prendre, conformement a la presente partie, une proclamation des l'adoption des resolu-
December 2, 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 modi fication 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 Iui-meme, en vue du reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitutionnelle


[Stage Direction]
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 10 'constitution's amended by adding thereto, immediately de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) "file de 1867 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 vince a competence exclusive pour legife- 15 Prov'nciale 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 legiferer 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
13648
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1981
Authority of Parliament
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights
Idem
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 atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife-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.
(4)	La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des
' '	ressources
competence pour prelever des sommes d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de 10 taxation :
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*Production le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme pnma're' annexe.
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus r0's ex' par la legislature ou le gouvernement 35 d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*
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,

[Stage Direction]
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres
1. Pour {'application de Particle 92A :	40
December 2, 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]
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 constitute de billots, de poteaux, de bois d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de 20 bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[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
52. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la Primautf de la loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada1"0"du les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre 25 regie de droit.
(2)	La Constitution du Canada comprend :	constitution du
.	Canada
a)	la Lot 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 Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed	enumeres a la colonne 1 de l'annexe I sont
or amended to the extent indicated in	abroges ou modifies dans la mesure indiquee 40
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall a la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent continue as law in Canada under the names 40 en vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous set out in Column III thereof.	les titres mentionnes a la colonne III.
Abrogation et nouveaux titres
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 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(1)(fl) in rdspect 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 <-orre atlves d'un texte legislatif ou decret figurant a Fan-nexe I par le titre indique a la colonne I est 5modifie 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 l'annexe 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 l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le gouverneur general peut, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le 15 present article et apporter en consequence de cette double abrogation les amenagements qui s'imposent a la presente loi.
Abrogation et modifications qui en decoulent
55. A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.
55. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs 20 20delais, la version frangaise des parties de la Constitution du Canada qui figurent a Fan-nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante est, des qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adoption par proclamation du gouverneur general 25 25 sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-ment a la procedure applicable a l'epoque a la modification des dispositions constitution-nelles qu'elle contient.
Version frangaise 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.
57.	The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.
certains textes constitutionnels
30	56. Les versions frangaise et anglaise des 30 Versions
parties de la Constitution du Canada adop- angSTde tees dans ces deux langues ont egalement force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de loi, des Fadoption, dans le cadre de Farticle 3555, d'une partie de la version frangaise de la 35 Constitution, cette partie et la version anglaise correspondante.
57. Les versions frangaise et anglaise de la presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
Versions fransaise et anglaise de la presente loi
58.	Subject to section 59, this Act shall 58. Sous reserve de Farticle 59, la presente 40 Entree 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(l)(a) shall come 59. (1) L'alinea 23(l)a) entre en vigueur Entreeen into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be 45 pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclama- 45 r'^HnSa 23(i)a)
pour le Quebec

December 2, 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) shall be issued only where authorized by the legislative assembly or government of Quebec.
(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 5(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation de l'assemblee legislative ou du gouverne-ment du Quebec.
Autorisation 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 tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1981.
60.	Titre abrege de la presente annexe: 15 fitres Loi constitutionnelle de 1981\ titre commun des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975 (n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 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
December 2, 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 l'article 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: *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 I'ile-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873	Conditions de l'adhesion de l'ile-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 ties adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880	Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
December 2, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
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 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
Constitution Act, 1886
10.	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act,
1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)
11.	Canadian Speaker (Appointment of	The Act is repealed.
Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59
Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
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 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
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 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
Constitution Act, 1930
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)
In so far as they apply to Canada,
(a)	section 4 is repealed; and
(b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
Statute of Westminster, 1931
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
Constitution Act, 1940
19.
British North America Act, 1943,	The Act is repealed.
6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
December 2, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	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.>[DOT]
10.	Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario)
1889,52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)
11.	Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien	La loi est abrogee.
(nomination d'un suppleant) 1895,
2e session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)
12.	Acte de l'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed.
VII, c. 3 (Canada)
Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de l'Ontario)
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 1907.9
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 1915.9
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 1930.9
17.	Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22	Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931
Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)	quent au Canada :
a)	l'article 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 1940.9
19. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-	La loi est abrogee.
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (R.-U.)
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column III New Name
20. British North America Act, 1946,	The Act is repealed.
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
Item
Column I Act Affected
Column II Amendment
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,	The Act is repealed.
1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
23. British North America Act, 1951,	The Act is repealed.
14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
24. British North America Act, 1952, 1	The Act is repealed.
Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)
25. British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1960."
Constitution Act, 1960
26. British North America Act, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1964."
Constitution Act, 1964
27. British North America Act, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1965."
Constitution Act, 1965
28. British North America Act, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part I (Can.)
Section 3, as amended by 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."
Constitution Act, 1974
December 2, 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-	La loi est abrogee.
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.)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi sur Terre-Neuve place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi sur Terre-Neuve.*
22.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-	La loi est abrogee.
nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c.
81 (R.-U.)
23.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-	La loi est abrogee.
nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32
(R.-U.)
24.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-	La loi est abrogee.
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.)
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutional'le de I960.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
26. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1964.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1964
27. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I (Canada)
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit :
«2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1965.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
28. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)
L'article 3, modifie par le para-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.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1974
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Concluded
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II Amendment
Column III 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),	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975
1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)	following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2),
1975."
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Miss MacDonald,-That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended by striking out Section 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"40. In the event that a province dissents from an amendment conferring legislative jurisdiction on Parliament, tne Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of that province, taking into account the per capita costs to exercise that jurisdiction in the provinces which have approved the amendment."
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Deans,-That the amendment be amended by striking out, in the first line, the words "a province" and substituting the words "the province of Quebec".
And on the amendment of Mr. Manly, seconded by Mr. Fulton,-That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended
(a) by adding immediately after Section 47 the following new section:
"48. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the rights of the aboriginal peoples of
Canada set out in Part II may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only in accordance with the following procedure:
(a)	in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, when so authorized by resolution of a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate and House of Commons and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected;
(b)	in the provinces, when so authorized in accordance with Section 42 and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected; and
(c)	for the purposes referred to in this Section, consent of the aboriginal peoples shall be obtained by a procedure determined by the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of Canada."; and
(b) by renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly.
December 2, 1981
_________COMMONS DEBATES___________________
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre
29. Acte de l'Amerique 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° 1 de 1975.*
Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975
30. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975 place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975.*
Sur l'amendement de M. Epp, appuye par Mlle MacDonald,-Qu'on modifie le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 en retranchant Particle 40 et en le rempla-?ant par ce qui suit:
*40. Si une province n'est pas d'accord sur une modification qui donne competence legislative au Par-lement, le gouvernement du Canada doit indemniser raisonnablement le gouvernement de cette province, compte tenu du cout per capita de Pexercice de cette competence dans les provinces qui ont approuve la modification.*
Sur le sous-amendement de M. Broadbent, appuye par M. Deans,-Qu'on modifie l'amendement, a la premiere ligne, en retranchant les mots «une province* et en les rempla$ant par les mots «la province de Quebec*.
Et sur l'amendement de M. Manly, appuye par M. Fulton,-Qu'on modifie le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981,
a) en ajoutant, immediatement apres Particle 47, le nouvel article suivant:
«48. Une modification de la Constitution du Canada portant sur les droits des peuples autochtones
du Canada enonces dans la Partie II ne peut etre faite par proclamation du Gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada que conformement a la procedure suivante:
a)	dans le Yukon et les Territoires du Nord-Ouest, lorsqu'elle est autorisee par vote du Senat et de la Chambre des communes a la majorite de chacun des peuples autochtones qu'elle touche;
b)	dans les provinces, lorsqu'elle est autorisee conformement a Particle 42 et acceptee par la majorite de chacun des peuples autochtones qu'elle touche; et
c)	aux fins mentionnees a cet article, l'acceptation des peuples autochtones s'obtiendra selon une procedure convenue entre le gouvernement du Canada et les peuples autochtones du Canada.*; et
b) en renumerotant en consequence les articles qui suivent.
[Stage Direction]
December 2, 1981
The Constitution
Madam Speaker:: Order, please! It being 3 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to the order made on Friday, November 27, 1981, to dispose of government business under No. 56. [English]
The question is on the amendment to the amendment by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: 
Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment to the amendment defeated.
December 2, 1981

The next question is on the amendment by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, perhaps we could have consent to dispense with the ringing of the bells.


Madam Speaker:: Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment defeated.
The next question is on the amendment of the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed to the amendment will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the vote.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment defeated.
The question is now on the main motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).
[ Translation)
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion as amended? All those in favour of the motion as amended will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
December 2, 1981


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: We shall now proceed to the recorded vote.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Whereupon the members of the House rose and sang
O Canada


Madam Speaker:: If it would not be too much of an anticlimax, we should proceed to routine proceedings.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might make an appeal to the government House leader and the House leader for the official opposition to call it

December 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
six o'clock for today and to proceed with the business tomorrow.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, I feel that the best way to celebrate this historic day is to show an exceptional willingness to expedite the business of the House. We have a very full legislative schedule, and I think it is important that we should try to get the third reading of Bill C-48 this afternoon.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, surely Canadians should learn how to enjoy themselves. This is an historic day; let us adjourn the House and celebrate it. There is only an hour left. We would allow third reading to take place right now.


An hon. Member:: No.


Madam Speaker:: We obviously do not have the consent of the House to adjourn the House.



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 Tuesday, December 1, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[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. 2,695, 3,096, 3,103, 3,124, 3,142 and 3,143.


Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore): 1.	In the past five years, what amount was allocated by the government to highway research and science?
2.	Does the government presently maintain research facilities to research highway technology and, if so, what are the facilities?
3.	From 1976 to 1980, what amount went toward research of urban transportation?
4.	Since 1970, did the government commit funds to provincial or municipal governments for building an urban transportation system and, if so, in what amount?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works, Regional Economic Expansion, Supply and Services and Transport as follows:
1.	The Transportation Development Centre of Transport Canada (TDC) in the past five years has allocated approximately $200,000 to highway research and science.
The Department of Public Works also made a contribution of $50,000 in 1976 to the Ontario ministry of transportation and communications to aid in developing a better code for the design of highway bridges. In addition, $84,000 was allotted in the last five years for contracts to study bridge vibration and thermal and construction stresses, and $20,000 was contributed to two studies under contract by Department of Supply and Services.
The Department of Supply and Services through its unsolicited proposal program contracted for the following three studies:
(i)	Study of transverse distribution of vehicle loads on highway bridges, $30,000 DSS and $10,000 DPW.
(ii)	Analysis and design of box bridges and voided slab bridges, $49,950 DSS.
(iii)	Study of the effectiveness of intermediate diaphrams in distributing five loads in beam and slab bridges, $18,000 DSS and $10,000 DPW.
2.	TDC does not maintain research facilities to research highway technology.
3.	From Fiscal years 1976/77 to 1980/81 TDC spent approximately $10,250,000 toward research of urban transportation.
4.	The TDC has since 1970 often cost-shared R & D projects with provinces and/or municipalities on R & D projects to improve components of various urban transportation systems. The costs of these R & D projects are included in the amount described in part 3 above.
Through the Transport Canada Urban Transportation Assistance Program, established in 1978, approximately $47.4 million has been approved for urban transportation projects of various sorts and $97.5 million has been approved for the construction of railway grade separations.
Since 1970, the Department of Regional Economic Expansion committed a total of $167,689,071 in grants and $20,037,111 in loans to provincial and municipal governments for building of urban transportation systems.


Mr. Clarke: 1. During the period 1970-80 did the Centennial Commission acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries
December 2, 1981

thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2. Does the Centennial Commission have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Gerald Augustine Regan: The Centennial Commission ceased to exist on April 1, 1968 pursuant to Appropriation Act No. 1, 1968, 1967-68.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did Loto Canada Inc. acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does Loto Canada Inc. have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Gerald Augustine Regan: 1. No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to each corporation partially-owned by Her Majesty in right of Canada, during the period 1970-80 did the corporation acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	In each case, does the corporation have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. The government has collected information on all corporations in which it holds an interest since 1977. The names of all partially-owned corporations as well as their subsidiary and associated corporations have been published by the Office of the Comptroller General on the basis of questionnaires sent to the parent corporations. This list, revised in 1980, was tabled on October 6, 1980 to an answer to question No. 46.
As a partial shareholder the government is not privileged to receive financial information other than that available to all shareholders.
2. Corporate planning is the responsibility of the board of directors. It would not be appropriate for the government to violate commercial confidentiality by obliging its nominees on the board to divulge investment plans.


Mr. Cossitt: Was the government charged for long-distance telephone calls not placed through government operators or on government long-distance lines during the fiscal year 1980-81 and, if so, what amount?
Motions for Papers


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows: yes, based on the information reported by departments for the fiscal year 1980-81, $26,325,000 was billed directly by the carriers to individual departments.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to telephone calls made by Members of Parliament and their constituency office staff on their allotted government code number and on connections where the government operators made note of the number of the call, were the numbers made available in any way to the government or to any other source?
2.	Other than requests from individual Members of Parliament who might be checking misuse of their code numbers, were requests received by the Department of Communications or by any other government department or agency for numbers called by means of any member's code number and, if so, in each case (a) what was the date (b) what was the constituency involved (c) who was the person requesting such information (d) what was the reason given for such a request?


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: In so far as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	The Government Telecommunications Agency requires certain information for billing and planning purposes on calls made by the use of government call codes. The information, which is entered on mark sense cards by government operators consists of: point of termination, point of origin, called number, call code number, and connect and disconnect times. This data is provided only on written request to authorized officials of departments or agencies to which the call codes have been specifically assigned. The Sergeant-at-Arms is the authorized official for Members of Parliament. Any requests by members who might be checking misuse of their code numbers are channeled through his office.
2.	No, other than noted above, GTA has not received any requests from government departments, agencies or other sources for numbers called by means of any member's code number.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers No. 57 in the name of the hon. member

December 2, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) is acceptable to the government, subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and internal working papers.
I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 57-Mr. Hovdebo:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House, copies of all papers, studies, calculations and communications between the Canadian Wheat Board and the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board) or any other cabinet minister concerning compensation for Canadian farmers to losses sustained during the grains embargo.
Madam Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the parliamentary secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that Notice of Motion No. 57 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. Bussieres that Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Madam Speaker, when I last spoke to the House about Bill C-48 it was on November 10, and the government did not see fit to continue with this bill until now. It was obviously not very important to the government. Frankly, we would prefer the government not to proceed any further with this bill. It contains some of the worst legislation ever to come before this House.
I had related to the House the effect this measure was having on small business in Canada. I also related that members of the NDP and the Liberal Party stated how concerned they were about small business in Canada. This legislation affects small business and how small business relates to the oil industry. Over the past year many small oil companies have shut down. Many have left for the United States and Australia. Many have gone out of business. All of this is because of the efforts of this government to nationalize the oil industry.
I also related to the House how numerous members from the other side said that we would have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. I mentioned that in 1974 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that we would have oil self-sufficiency in 1980. He said that from 1974 right through to 1980, but we do not have it at this time. Now he says we will have energy self-sufficiency by 1990. This is the same Prime Minister who in 1974 said they had beaten inflation. We all know that inflation has not been beaten.
The Independent Petroleum Association, the Canadian Petroleum Association and the National Energy Board all say that we will not have oil self-sufficiency by 1990, but this socialist Liberal government says we will.
We presently consume 1.8 million barrels a day and produce 1.4 million barrels a day, resulting in a shortfall of 400,000 barrels daily. According to the latest figures, by 1990 our production will be down by 700,000 barrels a day. The government has no means at the present time to recover that shortfall. Technology is not in place to do this and the government knows it. The government will admit this but not in public. They say they will put the technology in place to do that. How can we do that and at the same time allow the oil rigs to leave the country?
We do not have the technology on the east coast, in the Beaufort Sea or in the Arctic, the three areas affected by this bill. All the oil companies are prepared to say is that they are working on it. They worked for ten years in the North Sea to bring in those wells. This government says that within the next few years it will bring in the wells in the Arctic, on the east coast offshore and the Beaufort Sea.
Yesterday representatives of the Independent Petroleum Association appeared before the Senate banking committee. They reported that approximately 256 rigs are drilling in Canada at present, 150 rigs are idle, 180 have left Canada, 34 are under construction and will leave Canada. Of the 620 rigs in Canada, only 256 are drilling.
The ratio of rigs to wells drilled in Canada in one year is approximately 20 to 1. The government is telling us that we are going to drill between 6,000 and 7,000 wells this year compared to the 10,000 which the oil companies and drilling companies told us we could drill in 1981. This is all due to the Canadianization program which the government has backed us into.
We call this program of Canadianization confiscation. Members opposite have repeatedly stood and said that this only pertains to the oil industry. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. MacLaren) stood in this House and related the special place
December 2, 1981

which the oil industry has in Canada. He said that Bill C-48, which provides for a degree of government involvement in frontier lands, lands that belong to all Canadians, represents a pragmatic response to a particular set of circumstances.
Last weekend one of the Liberal hit men, Jim Coutts, called for Canadianization of other industries such as mining, forestry, farm machinery, telecommunications and the auto industry. They have been hiding behind this. We have known for a year that this is what they intend to do. All one had to do was talk to members of the staff of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. They will admit privately that it is nationalization, not Canadianization. To go further, last weekend the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) urged the government to adopt a national cultural policy similar to the national energy policy, even though the national energy policy has supposedly been shut out with the new energy agreement. However, we know it has just been changed.
On November 3 in a statement in this House, the parliamentary secretary glossed over some of these provisions. He said that the rule prior to 1977 was that if you drilled on any federal lands, you had to give back to the Crown 50 per cent of those lands and they would in turn put them up for bid once again. That was changed in 1977. Those were terrible conditions and the government was going to improve the situation, allowing a person to keep all the lands on which he drilled. The government said it would waive the royalties. In exchange for that, it asked for 25 per cent ownership in everything that is drilled. In other words, a Canadian company or the government must own 25 per cent of all wells drilled.
Along came Hibernia. Where was the government? Canadian companies did not want to get involved, so they approached Petro-Canada. Petro-Canada did not want to get involved in Hibernia, but because of the legislation it had no choice. It was forced to come in-fortunately, hopefully, for Canada in the future. This field will end up to be a very exceptional one in terms of oil fields in Canada.
From 1977 to the present day the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources skipped over it completely. He never even mentioned this back-in clause of Petro-Canada, this supposedly 25 per cent Canadianization. He glossed over it entirely and stated that they were going from a 50 per cent ratio of Canadian ownership to what we have at the present time, a 25 per cent back-in clause, or confiscation. He does not even know half of what is in this bill, but he is quite prepared to read a statement prepared by the department. That is what he has done in the house most of the time: he is quite prepared to read statements that the department prepare for him. He does not even know the legislation that is in effect at the present time.
With this bill the government says that we will have self-sufficiency by 1990. Where is it? It is certainly not there in their actions. It is certainly not evident in the budget that was just provided. As everyone is aware, the 1980 budget was really a national energy policy that was bootlegged into the House.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
The 1981 budget has done nothing more than take the heat off the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) and transferred the burden to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Surely most hon. members in the House assumed that the Minister of Finance was too smart to get caught in this bind.
We need to look no further, Mr. Speaker, than at what happened in Toronto last weekend when 1,500 Liberals met to talk about how they would turn this country into a socialist state. And a socialist state they do intend. We have no self-sufficiency plan for Canada. All we have is a housing industry that is falling apart, a forest industry in B.C. that is in desperate straits, a fishing industry on the east coast where 50 per cent of the fishermen are unemployed. Is this the government that will provide benefits for Canada? Will it provide an energy policy that will solve the problems of Canada when it cannot even solve the other problems? It is almost ridiculous the way this Liberal government goes on and on assuming that the Canadian people will keep voting for them because they will give them something around election time.
Many hon. members on the other side will not see this House after the next election. In fact, one can almost start to say goodbye to most of them now. So many of them will not return to this House that if one were to say goodbye to each one of them, it would take a long time.
Certainly many members on the other side are pretty concerned about their seats at the present time because a few people, without consultation with industry, without consultation with the provincial governments, have introduced a bill which will not provide self-sufficiency for this country.
They talk about Canadianization. This back-in clause is nothing but confiscation, Mr. Speaker. I should like to refer, in particular, to one clause, I believe it is Clause 38. Can one believe that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who heads up PetroCan, is also the arbitrator of any disputes? So if PetroCan and an oil company, in partnership, have a disagreement, then according to the provisions of Clause 38 the matter shall be submitted for arbitration in the manner provided for by order of the Minister. In other words, the minister will decide the means of arbitration and then the minister will arbitrate. Not only that, but when he does arbitrate, under Clause 38 his decision is final and binding on all affected parties. What a ridiculous bill!
As one further studies this bill it gets worse. At times I do feel sorry for some of the members opposite who are prepared to vote for such terrible legislation; they have allowed themselves to become so degraded that they are more interested in the patronage which the Liberal Party has given them oyer the years and when it tells them that if they vote with the party they will receive more patronage in the future. Unbelievable!
Many hon. members on the other side call themselves Liberals, but this bill is just another rubber stamp on the socialist policies that we have had for 13 years. There are not many members on the other side who are prepared to stand up and call a spade a spade, but that is what it is-socialism. Socialism is the key word for the next election. Do we want

December 2, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
socialism under these members opposite or do we want free enterprise? Do we believe that the individual is supreme or do we believe that the state is supreme?
These socialists on the other side are not building a system or a better Canada; they are tearing it down. How can one say that they are building a better Canada when they put people out of work? Is there any member on the opposite side who is prepared to say that this energy policy is creating more jobs? I ask them to stand up and tell me how many jobs have been created in Alberta in the last year. Tell me how many jobs have been lost in Alberta over the last year? Thousands of them. What member on the other side is prepared to say that not one job has been lost in Alberta over the last year? Stand up now. We have silence, Mr. Speaker, because they are all mutes over there. They are not prepared to stand up on that point.


An hon. Member:: The hon. member does not know what to say.


Frederick William Wright: The hon. member opposite says that I do not know what to say. All he has to do is look to his right and observe the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources read a statement prepared by his department and he will find out who knows what to say.
There is no question that this country is worse off today than it was ten years ago. Why do we have inflation today? Why do we have unemployment? The budget does not address the problems of Canada, Mr. Speaker. This bill does not address the problems of Canada. How many Liberals can actually stand up and defend such action? How many are prepared, without a written statement, to stand up and say that this is terrible legislation? Yet, Mr. Speaker, this is the worst legislation that we have ever seen in this country. All of us look forward to new legislation when a Conservative government comes to power to replace the onerous legislation before us at the present time.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, indeed I am pleased to be here with such a full House to discuss Bill C-48.


An hon. Member:: A full House!


Jack Wendele Shields: We all realize the significance of today. Surely this is why so many members are absent. I am sorry the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) cannot be here; after all, Bill C-48 is key to his policies.
I have some comments I should like to make. We have been through the amendment stage and committee stage, but I say to the people of Yukon and the Northwest Territories, "Look out, a massive grab of wealth is being perpetrated by the federal government; it is known as the Canada lands." When we talk about the Canada lands, we are talking about Yukon, Northwest Territories and the Beaufort Sea. History clearly repeats itself.


Henri Tousignant: Oh, oh!


Jack Wendele Shields: The hon. member had a chance to rise to make his comments before the Chair recognized me, but he did not do so. I only ask him to show me a little courtesy; I may say something he will understand. I hearken back to the days when Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta were being carved out of the Northwest Territories.


Henri Tousignant: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to the hon. member who is saying we should not rise in the House, that we are not the ones who are moving the amendments, they are, so we do not have to rise.


Jack Wendele Shields: Certainly it is interesting when a backbencher of the Liberal Party rises to say that we are speaking on amendments. We are speaking on the bill. All the amendments have clearly been dealt with.
For a moment I should like to discuss history. We should recognize that Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at one time were all part of the so-called massive Canada lands, as is the case with the Northwest Territories. At one point they were just territories. When Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were brought into confederation, they did not have ownership and control of their natural resources. Indeed, there was a rape of the industrial, mineral and resource bases of those provinces until 1930 when the central or controlling provinces clearly recognized that they must give control of natural resources to Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba so that they would be treated in exactly the same manner as any other province in confederation. Clearly members of the government are not learning from the people of the Northwest Territories and Yukon. They are not treating the people who were born and raised in the north, or those who moved to the north, with any degree of foresight. They are robbing those people of their heritage. It is as much their heritage as the heritage of people born in Quebec, in Newfoundland or in Alberta. The problem has not been addressed. It astounds me when I think about it.
All regulatory control of resource development will be the direct responsibility of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In some minor cases it will be the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). There is a clear conflict. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources does not have to account to the people or the governments of the Northwest Territories or Yukon. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, where it is applicable, does not have to account to the governments of the people of the Northwest Territories or Yukon. A very serious mistake is being made by allowing Bill C-48 to proceed in its present form. Virtually the people of Yukon and Northwest Territories are being told, "Forget it, you will never have the wherewithal to become a province".
If one has travelled extensively in Canada and in the north, one will realize that a number of things stand out about the people of those areas-their individuality, their strength and their determination to develop the territories in exactly the
December 2, 1981

same manner that the founding people of Quebec, Ontario and Alberta established their provinces, those immigrants from other parts of the world and those people from other parts of Canada who established and hued out those provinces. The people of the north are exactly the same kind of people. They are still pioneers and they are proud of it. With Bill C-48 they are being told to forget it because the mighty czar of energy, mines and resources will control what goes on in the Northwest Territories and in Yukon, the so-called Canada lands. Also they are virtually being told that they will never be able to carve out a province as did the founders of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.
One cannot consider Bill C-48 without talking about aboriginal rights. Effectively it eliminates aboriginal rights in many ways. It undermines the negotiations and the commitment of the federal government. It clearly undermines aboriginal and native rights in the north. If the government is clearly interested in native people in the north, it should come to grips with the problems there; this should be done now. They should make settlements prior to development and prior to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources moving in with the discretionary powers that are outlined in this bill.
There is a debt here that has not been paid, Mr. Speaker, and that will become evident when development begins. The signals are there already. The people of the north, the Dene people, the aboriginal people, the Indian people, are not going to allow the uninterrupted development of the natural resources in the territories until they know that they will be treated fairly by the government. That is a warning that we should heed, Mr. Speaker.
Bill C-48 gives very wide discretionary powers to the minister. In committee discussions I put forward what I thought was a logical argument but it fell on deaf ears. I suppose it will fall on deaf ears again today. The minister has wide discretionary powers to decide what oil company, what private consortium, what public consortium, is going to be able to develop this or that area and who is going to get this or that lease. If a find is made, the minister may determine how big that find is. He may say that he wants three more wells to be drilled. The private company that has sunk the hole and found reserves could be at odds with that and say that the find does not justify three wells and would not be commercially viable. The minister could overrule the company and say, "You will drill three more wells; if you do not, we will take the lease away from you." That is the kind of discretionary power the minister has.
I do not think that these are the kind of powers the minister wants. I have not seen any legislation that has passed this House in the short time that I have been here which opens the door to such abuse. There is the opportunity for pork-barrelling, for favouritism, for nailing someone you do not like. The minister has put himself in the position of Solomon and clearly, Mr. Speaker, he is not Solomon.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Bill C-48 has an enormous impact on Canada, not just on the gas and oil industry alone. The enormity of the program was recognized by the minister when he introduced the national energy policy and said that the decisions relate to energy but that they will impinge on almost every sphere of Canadian activity, on every Canadian and on the economic and social structure of the country for years to come. He also said that they would have major and positive implications for the federation itself. I would ask my colleagues to examine that statement and try to digest it in the context of Bill C-48.
I agree with the minister that Bill C-48 has that kind of implication. We are either going to develop into a country with individual initiative, individual thought and the individual gamble that will be rewarded, or else we are going to develop into a country that will cater to the mediocre. We will develop into a nation of enterprise, of individual initiative, or else-and Bill C-48 is a clear indication of this-we will develop along the lines of a socialist state.
During the debate that culminated in the House today, we on this side wanted a very small provision put into the Constitution of Canada, and that is the basic right to own property. The Liberals refused, however. A study of Bill C-48 indicates why they refused. Of course, they were spurred on by their socialist friends in the corner, the little red rump. But at least the people in the corner are honest; they tell us exactly where they stand. They are for government ownership and for socialism-for the mediocre. They say that constantly so at least we know their views. We do not hear that kind of statement from the Liberal benches, however, because they disguise their views, but that is what has happened.
The whole thing is designed so that preferential treatment will be given to the Crown corporation. No compensation is provided for the initiative of an entrepreneur who goes out and finds oil, but there is a 25 per cent back-in provision. That will only pay immediate costs. There are laws in this country that deal with expropriation. Certainly governments can expropriate property, but compensation is paid and there is recourse to the court of appeal. Although there is some provision in Bill C-48 for compensation, there is no appeal provided.
I have already mentioned the discretionary powers of the minister and they scare me, Mr. Speaker. A great deal of time and money has been spent in putting a staff together that has the necessary expertise to develop an oil property. An instance of this is the Hibernia play. No single company could afford to go out to the Hibernia and drill a well offshore. No one company could stand the risk involved and so a consortium was formed.
As many as 22 companies could be involved in a consortium which was drilling only one well. Each company could take as little as one half of 1 per cent of the action or 10 per cent of it, depending upon how much they can risk. But together, the companies determine who will be the over-all operator. They may select Dome because of its experience in the Beaufort Sea, or they may select Petro-Canada as the company having the most knowledge.

December 2, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Under this legislation however, that will no longer be the case. The minister may determine at any time, with any consortium with which Petro-Canada is involved, who shall be the operator. It does not matter if Petro-Canada has only 1 per cent of the action. The minister may make a determination and say to a company: "You are going to allow Petro-Canada to be the operator." A great deal of time, effort and expense is involved to put the staff with the necessary background and expertise together. It will be absolutely devastating if the operator were removed for political reasons. But that is what we are giving the minister the power to do. Clearly if you do not like the way the operator is running the project, it is the consortium that sits down and says: "We do not want you there. We do not think you are doing it the way the majority of us would like you to do it; therefore, you will be removed." That is not the case with Bill C-48. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and his senior bureaucrats, the mandarins, can determine who is going to be the operator of the consortium if Petro-Canada is part of it. That is total and absolute abuse.
There are national and international implications to Bill C-48. Clearly we have not looked at them. We have not examined the stability of our legislative framework. Clearly we have not looked at the protection of personal property rights. Clearly we have not looked at the sanctity of a contract. But these very things are absolutely necessary if we are to gain a degree of stability in our investment climate in the eyes of our national and international business community. We need investment in this country. But no one will invest in this country, no one from outside Canada will invest, and many in Canada will not invest in their own country without the protection of property rights. People will not invest in Canada if we do not have a legislative framework that gives us stability.
Canada has always through its courts strongly defended property and contractual rights. Canada has been known worldwide as being a safe climate in which to invest because individual rights were protected, corporate rights were protected and property rights were protected. The provisions of this bill violate every one of those concepts.
I urge hon. members across the way to think through this bill very clearly and I ask them once and for all to sit down and read it. I urge them to look at the implications for the people in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, the implications for the native people, the aboriginals and the Dene. But more than that, I tell members across the way to look at what this bill is telling the rest of the financial community in the western world. This bill is telling the financial community very clearly not to invest in Canada because we do not protect property rights and individual rights, nor do we have a legislative framework giving stability. We confiscate in Canada as they do in banana republics. That is what we are saying by passing this bill, so I urge hon. members to think it through clearly.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it may not be an accident that we are discussing this particular bill immediately after the House has just expressed itself on a question of grave and fundamental importance, that of a change in our Constitution.
My hon. friend and colleague who just preceded me made some references to the fact that one should read Bill C-48 if one is to understand some aspects of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which now, at least in the House of Commons, has been entrenched in the Constitution. It may not be an accident because there were certain aspects of this Charter of Rights and Freedoms which gave me and some of my colleagues from all sides of the House serious and dramatic difficulties, and may I just touch on one.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, one of the major objectives of Bill C-48 is energy self-sufficiency by 1990. What that means is not only massive and costly exploration and development efforts in Canada lands, but massive amounts of money, incalculable amounts. Some say between $300 billion to $500 billion is required to carry this out. Naturally, when one embarks on that kind of effort, knowing the incredible risks involved and the chances that have to be taken to develop new oil, one also knows that little things, such as environmental and human concerns, cannot stand in the way once the bulldozers move into a promising area.
Let me touch on one issue. I shall compare this with what happened in Quebec when that province decided to move with almost indecent haste to develop the James Bay power potential. There were certain environmental concerns that had to be considered. They were quickly bridged, but the people created more of a problem. Most of the people there were native people. Some had to be moved to another area. Some of them were unwilling to go, but there was no time to negotiate. Therefore, some kind of a settlement was legislated. We talked with the native people. We asked them what they wanted. They did not like the price. The native people were told that while the negotiations were going on the bulldozers had to operate. As we know, the native people sought refuge in the courts and obtained an injunction to stop the work. Work on the James Bay development was shot down until an accommodation and a settlement were reached, a settlement of the legitimate rights and a price for which the native people of James Bay asked.
I want to return to the Constitution. We entrenched certain native rights in the Constitution today. They were not the same rights that were in the resolution that emerged from the parliamentary committee, that great exercise that was displayed to all Canadians throughout our country for months on end. That resolution said that native rights should be respected, recognized and affirmed. While it was not perfect, it was a step in the right direction. As you know, sir, the way we have been treating our native peoples in this country is a national disgrace, and it has earned us the condemnation of other countries and of international tribunals. We are being looked at almost like South Africa in the way it is treating its native peoples.
December 2, 1981

The resolution that came before the House and is now entrenched in the Constitution had a word added to it, and that word is "existing". In other words, only the rights which now exist are recognized and affirmed. It does not matter how many times the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) says this word really does not mean anything. First of all, he is intellectually dishonest in saying that, in that legislators, particularly the Minister of Justice, are not supposed to be writing words into fundamental laws that have no meaning, unless they are wantonly and deliberately trying to confound the courts. We are not supposed to be writing words into the Constitution that have no meaning. No, the Minister of Justice knows what the word "existing" means and why it was written in.
If we were to apply the new charter with respect to the rights of the native people in the James Bay situation at the time they went to the courts to seek refuge and obtain an injunction, the judges would have had no other way to interpret their demands than to say: "You have no existing rights; your rights have not been established and do not exist, so how can we grant you an injunction on the basis of something you do not have? We have a clear indication from Parliament, from the Premiers of all the provinces, and we assume there will be ratification by the government of the United Kingdom, that the only rights you have are rights that now exist." We know what would have happened. The work would not have been stopped, a settlement would have been legislated and, undoubtedly, it would have been something much less than what the James Bay people finally achieved for themselves.
It may not be an accident because there are other things in this Constitution and some aspects of this charter of rights that are more important because of omissions rather than because of things that are written; for instance, the omission of property rights, which my colleague touched on.
Property rights relate to the right to own and enjoy property, which is the very basis, foundation and beginning of western civilization. It is now a secondary kind of right, it is no longer a fundamental right. It would have been very difficult to do what the minister or his agent, PetroCan, is doing in relation to the Canada lands, if we had written in the Constitution one of the main features of the Diefenbaker bill of rights, and that is the right to the ownership and enjoyment of property, because the companies in the north who have now had their property confiscated would probably have been able to make a claim in the courts on the grounds of the Constitution. Naturally, that is no longer so. The statement my colleague made that members should read Bill C-48 if they are worried about the ominous consequences of what we have done here today is probably quite right.
I have said that the basic principles and objectives of Bill C-48 are laudable enough, and they are two. The first is a greater degree of Canadian ownership. I personally would not like to put a percentage figure on that, but certainly 50 per cent is a reasonable objective, particularly since we had already achieved that Canadian ownership content before we began with Bill C-48. Of course, I have to qualify that by
Canada Oil and Gas Act
saying that that includes all the energy play and not just drilling, the companies actions and the service sector, which was mainly owned by Canadian companies.
The other component principle or objective is self-sufficiency. Naturally that has to be a main objective, and it is certainly one that my party has pursued very actively with great energy and vigour.
Let us talk about Canadian ownership for a moment. We all know that we have to generate and assemble the kind of capital required to carry out what is necessary to be done in ten years. Not only will we have to find 400,000 barrels a day of new oil by the year 1990, but we have to replace almost one million barrels a day of oil that is now coming from the conventional shallow reserves in Alberta, which in the main will have been depleted by the year 1990. New oil will have to be found to replace that.
We all knew that in order to assemble the necessary capital to carry out these massive exploration and development schemes, the price of energy would have to rise. All of us agreed it simply did not make sense that we should sit in an energy-poor world and charge for our own resources within our own country a fraction of what it was worth in the international world. We also knew that if we were to go closer to the world price, if we were to double the price of gasoline and heating oil, someone in the energy sector, particularly the oil companies, would be making excessive profits-their profits would not be reasonable in relation to the cost of production and the other factors involved.
The oil companies all expected us to bring in a measure that would protect the Canadian consumer and give the companies a direction on how their profits would have to be reinvested. They fully expected that royalties and economic rent would be adjusted so that the government could either tax or charge away through economic rent some of those profits which would have been in excess of a reasonable profit reflecting costs of production.
The oil companies thought the government already had all the tools necessary to do that without confiscating their assets and without actually entering the energy sector itself. We could have adjusted our economic rents, as we do with any other natural resource sector. In the lumber sector, which I know most about, the provincial governments adjust their stumpage rates to reflect the world price of lumber. Whenever the price goes up, stumpage goes up; whenever it goes down, stumpage goes down. Right now in British Columbia, at least, stumpage is at a bare minimum. The companies pay very little for the resource they are taking from the public domain.
The oil companies expected that to happen, but they also knew this could have been done another way. There could have been guidelines and directions on how oil companies' excess profits should be reinvested; in other words, they could not pay them out in dividends, and they could not take them out of the country. We could have said that excess profits have to be put back into development and exploration.

December 2, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Further to that, the oil companies fully expected that the government would tell them where to explore and develop. This has to happen on Canada lands and they cannot go anywhere where the government does not make proper leases available to them. The government knew that it had all the tools necessary to protect Canadian interests in the energy sector, but it did not choose any of these conventional tools because, to the draftsmen of this bill, Canadian ownership meant government ownership.
I would like to talk for a moment about the way Bill C-48 was drafted. I served on the committee which received this bill for consideration. It contains 85 clauses and it became quite clear, even in the early stages of committee discussion-even before it went to committee-that as soon as the government let it be known what it was about to do, it became quite obvious what some of the consequences of this action would be. Naturally, we came to committee prepared and armed with certain amendments and proposals that we thought would improve the measure and at least restore a degree of confidence that was lost in our ability to manage our resources.
It was an incredible situation and I do not know if there is any precedent for it, but we were told in committee that the government would not accept any opposition amendments of any kind. At the same time, however, the government laid before the committee no less than 115 amendments of its own, none of which redressed some of the more serious aspects of the bill which has now led our energy sector into a serious situation.
The bill was actually drafted by this committee. The bureaucrats were there, sitting around and saying, "If you do not like this, we will move another amendment." There were 115 amendments introduced by the government to approve a bill which should never have come before the committee in the first place. It was obvious that the term "Canadian ownership" meant government ownership and that Petro-Canada was to become an agent of the minister, not to participate in the energy play on Canada lands, but to take over control. Canada lands were identified as our northern territories, the Yukon, the offshore and certain other regions. Petro-Canada was given 25 per cent of every lease in operation on Canada lands.
My colleagues have spoken on this aspect and pointed out that, because of the incredible risks often associated with some of the major development plays in the north, particularly the risks associated with developing new technology, it has been a tradition with the oil companies that whenever the risks get high they seek to share them with their partners in the industry.
For example, we do not yet know how we will bring oil ashore from the Beaufort Sea and how we will protect the infrastructure under the ice pack from scouring and so on. Nor do we know how we will bring Hibernia oil ashore and transport it to the marketplace. That has still to be developed and there are serious risks involved.
Well, these oil companies have a partner now. It is called the governor in council and its agent, Petro-Canada, who will own 25 per cent outright. In most cases, even if it states that Petro-Canada will own 25 per cent, which is not entirely assured, if a company is still below Canadian ownership content of 50 per cent, Petro-Canada will confiscate the rest. But even if it is only 25 per cent, in most cases Petro-Canada will be the major shareholder in the larger plays.
Earlier in the debate I said that we have not yet considered the incredible risks and contingent liability that the minister has placed on the backs of the taxpayers of Canada as a result of this particular action. We are going to be the major players and the major risk-takers in the oil patch. By "we" I am referring the Canadian taxpayers. If it costs approximately $400 billion between now and 1990, it will cost the Canadian taxpayer $100 billion to pay his share in the energy play on Canada lands.
Many people are confused about why our interest rates are so high when at the same time we have such a high rate of inflation. It has never been a mystery to me. When a government is out in the marketplace trying to raise large amounts of capital and pay 2 per cent or 3 per cent above market rates of interest, it is no wonder that interest rates are high. When a government maintains a $13 billion or $14 billion deficit and then goes into the marketplace to borrow money to pay last year's interest, there is no doubt that interest rates will stay high.
Interest rates are one of the key factors of inflation because a businessman who cannot pass his costs of doing business on to the consumer will not stay in business very long. That is why we have both high inflation and high interest rates. It is something which has never been written into the textbooks. That is why economists are shaking their heads in utter disbelief; they do not have a solution to the situation because Adam Smith, Friedman and Galbraith did not write it into the textbooks. They have never had to deal with a government like ours, which taxes the poor and fundamentally changes the way it should behave in the marketplace.
The government is spending $3 billion alone to buy up private companies and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) says that that is only a beginning. He has not yet actually spent $3 billion because he does not have it, but he has accepted a liability of $3 billion to purchase these two oil companies, which were doing quite well, were producing quite a lot of oil, although they were more active in the retail market than they were in the exploration and development field.
The government does not just want to be sure we are energy self-sufficient by 1990, it also wants to be sure that the Canadian taxpayer has a share in the corner service station. It is incredible to think that the government would go to Petrofina and say that it would like to buy their oil company but that it does not have the money. It told them: "Our credit is good, though, and New York will lend us the money, but we do not want to go to the taxpayers, and tell them what we are about to do and to increase the deficit even further, because
December 2, 1981

that is such a public thing. What we want is for you to carry the credit."
We are yet to be told, Mr. Speaker, what interest rates the minister has committed us to when he made the Petrofina deal. All we know is that this Belgian company is no longer owner of a Canadian oil company, but it is holding $1.5 billion of Canadian credit. If it were possible to imagine anything like that, it would boggle the mind to consider that that situation
Canada Oil and Gas Act
will continue until 1990 and that that is the kind of liability which the minister is placing on the backs of Canadians.
I see our servant is reaching for the mace, so may I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, this House now stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, December 3, 1981