1981-02-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent necessity. In view of the fact that government expenditures continue to accelerate at an unbelievable rate, notwithstanding promises by the government to curb spending, and having viewed some of the advertising being carried out by the Metric Commission recently on the CBC with respect to temperature readings in Celsius, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Metric Commission be advised that those few people in Canada who have accepted the metric system understand Celsius and that further juvenile advertising by the Metric Commission is nothing but a fraudulent waste of the taxpayers' money and should be discontinued immediately.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the shipbuilding and ship repairing assistance program, known as SIAP, has been cut back steadily since 1976 so that it now stands at a paltry 8 per cent from a previous subsidy level of 20 per cent. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) is on record as saying that he intends to "develop, in consultation with the industry, a new form of assistance which will be cost effective and bring long lasting benefits." As Alfa-Laval Ltd. of Peterborough, to name just one company, is ready and willing to be consulted, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take immediate action and meet with the member companies of the Canadian Shipbuilding and Ship
Repairing Association and begin to develop his so-called "new form of assistance".


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the federal government is proposing a formula that is going to result in drastic increases to municipalities in Canada as far as policing costs are concerned, in some cases as high as 100 per cent, and whereas many Canadian municipalities utilize the services of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to provide municipal policing, by way of contract with the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the proposed increase in cost sharing of RCMP policing be deferred until all Canadian municipalities complete a financial impact study of these proposals, and in the event that the proposal of increased costs be implemented, that it be staged over several years in order to lessen the tax impact on municipalities in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House unanimously endorse the statement made yesterday by the Prime Minister at page 7250 of Hansard, that the resolutions adopted by the Conference on Women and the Constitution over the weekend relating to the proposed Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are "probably very sensitive and worth-while additions" to the charter.

February 17, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE LATE JOHN W. FISHER EXPRESSION OF SYMPATHY-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. On Saturday, February 14, this year, Mr. John Wiggins Fisher, centennial commissioner for Canada's 100th birthday, affectionately known as "Mr. Canada", died at the age of 68 at his winter home in Florida. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne):
That this House pay tribute to the outstanding contribution to Canada of Mr. John Wiggins Fisher, and that this House express its deepest sympathy to his family and friends.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Interest rates paid on Canada Savings Bonds are 11.5 per cent, but the government pays 14 per cent on its market bonds and nearly 17 per cent on its treasury bills. Banks and trust companies are paying depositors 13.5 per cent on relatively small deposits and notes. Since January 1 of this year nearly $1 billion of Canada Savings Bonds have been placed for redemption. This debt has to be replaced by significantly higher interest rate costs to Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House does direct the Minister of Finance to increase forthwith the interest rate paid on Canada Savings Bonds to at least 12.5 per cent in an effort to stem the redemption of Canada Savings Bonds and as an indication that the minister will for once be fair to the ordinary people of Canada who have lent their savings to Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Since the Department of Agriculture has failed to fill job vacancies for veterinary inspectors, thus placing in jeopardy Canadian consumers, farmers, meat exporters, as well as our long-term animal disease research capabilities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House instructs the Minister of Agriculture to take action immediately to reverse the cutback policy which has allowed at 32.4 per cent vacancy rate amongst veterinary inspectors, in order that this country's ability to be assured of a safe and healthy food supply can once again be enforced.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
 * *


CANADA SHIPPING ACT
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The maritime pollution claims fund has accumulated over $60 million in contributions, but the Canadian Labour Congress and the fishermen report that less than $1,000 has been paid in compensation for damages from oil spills. Accordingly I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House direct the Minister of Transport to review the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act governing the maritime pollution claims fund to provide easier access for fishermen's claims and to ensure that adequate contributions to the fund are made by ship owners.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of this House in order to put a motion concerning an urgent and pressing matter.
February 17, 1981

Since the constitutional debate which is starting today is one of the most important debates to be held in this chamber in many decades and since a considerable number of members of this House have voiced their intention to take part in this debate, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That, as of tomorrow and for the duration of the constitutional debate, private members' hour be suspended.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of economic importance. It has been suggested that monuments of the minister responsible for the new National Energy Program be erected by Americans in Houston and Denver in honour of his overwhelming contribution to the U.S. economy.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources either withdraw the NEP, thereby inducing Canadian companies to stay in Canada, or else make himself available to American sculptors so that he may be enshrined in concrete for stimulating the U.S. economy instead of the Canadian economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, mv question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Canadian dollar closed at 82.75 cents in U.S. terms, down 5 cents from 12 months ago when the minister assumed office. For every one cent devaluation the minister knows the cost of
Oral Questions
living in Canada goes up .4 per cent. We now have inflation of 12 per cent. In the budget document of October 28 the minister forecast the Canadian dollar would be worth slightly more than 87.5 cents in 1981. This is 1981.
My question to the minister is this: what are the minister's plans to boost the value of the Canadian dollar by 5 cents, or to keep the Canadian dollar from declining further? What are his plans in that direction? Is he going to encourage higher interest rates in Canada, or is he going to encourage changes in the new energy policy that is so damaging the dollar? What are his plans to help the Canadian dollar, and does he plan to bolster it by 5 cents to meet his forecast?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: No, Madam Speaker, I have no intention of accepting the suggestion of the hon. member for taking steps to bolster the value of the Canadian dollar by 5 cents. I think that is an absolutely absurd suggestion to make.


Mr. Clark:: It was your own.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, this minister is truly comical. The minister's forecast is that the dollar will be in the range of 87.5 cents. That is 5 cents more than it is today. There is serious concern that it will go below its historic low of 80 cents if the minister does not take some steps.
Let me ask the minister, then, in another direction about this fact. For the fourth year in a row, the Conference Board of Canada says we are going to have a decline in real wages this year in Canada. The working people of Canada are going to fall behind for the fourth year in a row because of the cost of living increases, helped by the lower Canadian dollar and other reasons. The minister said on September 9 last year that he became minister to improve living standards. Does he believe that the lowering of the real wages of Canadian workers helps improve living standards and, if he does not, what steps does he propose to overcome this lowering of living standards and the fall in real wages this year? What steps is he taking?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: First of all, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the Canadian dollar did firm today and exceeded the value at which it closed yesterday. As he knows, the Canadian dollar does fluctuate within a range, and I do not think he ought to become traumatized by the events of yesterday because they have been reversed to some extent by the events today.
The hon. member has talked about the decline in real wages in the country, and that decline has been evident for several years now. He knows as well as I do that the cause of the decline in real wages is due to two factors, the necessity of absorbing real increases in energy and the declining productivity in the country. These are the two factors that account for the decline in real income in Canada. There is in the budget which I presented a medium-term strategy which, in my view, over time will provide the basis for growing productivity and declining inflation, and it is on that medium-term strategy that

February 17, 1981
Oral Questions
I am pinning my hopes for a reversal of these unsatisfactory trends.
However, no action taken by any government anywhere in the world can overcome the impact on the economy of the kinds of increases in real energy prices we have experienced in Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, we have to take the minister seriously; he is the Minister of Finance. I just checked on the Canadian dollar, and it is trading at 82.95 cents today, still under 83 cents. It is just as firm as is the minister and his policy, which is like jelly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: That is the minister's definition of "True Dough", when the Canadian dollar is at less than 83 cents U.S. Let me ask the minister again. The "True Dough" Canadian dollar is now at 82.95 cents U.S. What steps does the minister plan to take to prevent it from sinking any further and to allow it to reach his own forecast of just three months ago that it would be trading at around 87.5 cents U.S.? He is the Minister of Finance, he is responsible, and the Canadian people would like to hear from him, as would the working people in Canada who, this year, will be more militant than ever in labour negotiations. What steps does he plan to take?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to respond to the hon. member's suggestion that some action be announced today to deal with the currency which has perceptively improved in value since yesterday-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to tell my hon. friend that the Canadian dollar with respect to the value of the U.S. dollar is performing reasonably well in comparison with other currencies which have been declining in value relative to the U.S. currency, today and yesterday. The hon. member should observe some of these facts before making some of the more outlandish suggestions which he has been putting together on orders of the day.


GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING LEVEL OF CANADIAN DOLLAR
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. Speaking about the falling dollar, which is now below 83 cents U.S., would the Minister of Finance indicate whether, as might be surmised from his earlier responses to my colleague, it is government policy to ensure that the dollar not fall below the 82.75 cent level? The government has lost $200 million in further reserves so far this month. Would the minister clarify to the House whether he believes that the dollar should not drop lower than 82.75 cents U.S.?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is playing one of the oldest and most discredited games ever played by a politician, namely, to ask the Minister of Finance to place a Fixed value on the Canadian currency. It was done one time by a former Conservative minister, much to the regret of all of his colleagues during an election campaign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again 1 direct my question to the Minister of Finance whose comments are well justified, judging by where they came from. May I ask him this question. Essentially, he has two options with respect to the dollar. With the rising interest rates in the United States he can allow Canadian interest rates to rise still further and thus defend the dollar, or he can choose the second option, that is, to allow interest rates to remain where they are or to go lower and see the dollar fall, which will result in more inflation in the country. Which option, would he tell the House, does he intend to pursue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 have no difficulty in accepting the hon. member's definition of the options which have been before the Bank of Canada and the government for some months, indeed for a year. The pressure which has been exerted on the Canadian dollar, for example, through higher interest rates in the United States for most of this year, has been reflected in a balanced approach of taking some of that pressure on interest rates and on the value of the currency. There has not been at any time an exclusive reliance on either one or the other of these options. In most cases it has been a balanced approach, taking into account both economic variables.


An hon. Member:: Bafflegab.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Special Committee on the Handicapped and Disabled produced its report which showed that the disabled in Canada are confronted with widespread discrimination and have considerable obstacles in the way of pursuing lives which provide any satisfaction. High among these obstacles is their level of unemployment which ranges between 60 per cent and 80 per cent. Considering the devastating facts revealed in this report, is the minister now prepared to admit that his own program, which will provide only 2,300 jobs, is sheer tokenism? Therefore, is the government willing to commit itself to a substantial increase in job opportunities made available to the disabled people of Canada?
February 17, 1981


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I had the opportunity to meet with members of that committee, both before Christmas and just prior to the release of its report. As 1 understand the findings in the report, they deal not only with direct job-creation measures but propose a number of initiatives, including affirmative action programs, which would open up a wide variety of opportunities in the private sector.
As the hon. member knows, we initiated affirmative action programs in the Public Service of Canada as a first step in dealing with discrimination in the work place. At the same time we introduced a trial program to provide incentives for private sector employment. If that program succeeds and is taken up by the private sector-and we are evaluating it closely-we will certainly be prepared to look at it further to see if it can be expanded. 1 think it is wise first to see if it does work and to test it out over the first year. That was certainly the response we received from a number of spokespersons for the disabled community when the program was announced; they welcomed it. We are certainly prepared to look at it as our future model for other programs.


NECESSITY FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION PROGRAMS IN PRIVATE SECTOR OF ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question which is precisely on the topic the minister suggested, for the Minister of Supply and Services. The experience in the United States and other countries where they have compulsory affirmative action programs has shown that the disabled unemployment level averages around 15 per cent, compared to our unemployment levels for the disabled which average between 60 per cent and 80 per cent. Considering that on the average the federal government conducts $11 billion a year worth of business with the private sector, is the government prepared to make it a condition for a private company to obtain a government contract that it have an affirmative action program in place? That would put teeth into it.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Indeed, Madam Speaker, I would simply like to make a minor correction. Our purchases from the private sector amount roughly to $3 billion and not $11 billion as the hon. member has just suggested. I might also indicate, Madam Speaker, that I am having discussions with the Minister of Employment and Immigration about this very interesting topic in which I have great interest. I noted as well that the committee report which was tabled yesterday makes certain recommendations in that area. Although I did not have time to review all the issues analysed by that committee 1 can assure the House and the hon. member that I will do so at the earliest opportunity and listen carefully to the representations made to me by my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Oral Questions


ACTION BY DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRY, TRADE AND COMMERCE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, after the representations are listened to, we hope we can expect some action within a matter of weeks on a rather straightforward proposal which has been very effective elsewhere in the world.
I should like to turn to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I understand that all departments were requested by the Minister of National Health and Welfare to do something in the way of affirmative action for the disabled this year. I further understand that all that happened in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce was that it prepared a plaque complimenting VIA Rail for its achievements in this area, which is about a $2 contribution. Is that all his department plans to do with respect to providing programs for the disabled, that is, to give a two-buck plaque to VIA Rail?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to review the report. I think its recommendations deserve to be taken seriously. I will see what I can do to upgrade the response of my department in this important area.
After all, I have had some personal and, thankfully, temporary experience in facing up to the problems of the physically handicapped. I will say, Madam Speaker, that this is an experience which could be a good lesson to a great many people in terms of being sensitive to the needs of the physically handicapped.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with respect to the implementation of the National Energy Program in eastern Canada. The minister knows that the government's trades training program for offshore jobs has been deferred and that the gas pipeline extension is bogged down in Quebec land squabbles and in National Energy Board procedures. The Nova Scotian government has been left alone to negotiate Fundy tidal power with the New York State authority.
Will the minister tell the House exactly what he is doing to solve the energy problems in eastern Canada and to reduce the use of foreign oil and the costs to the taxpayers of $4 billion a year? Will the National Energy Program remain a paper tiger, or will the government move to implement it and solve these problems in eastern Canada?

February 17, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the answer to the last question is yes.


DEVELOPMENT OF BAY OF FUNDY TIDAL POWER
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the other day in the House the minister indicated that he was interested in tidal power development, yet the province of Nova Scotia was meeting last week with the New York authority to advance the Fundy tidal power project which will provide 4,000 megawatts of power to Nova Scotia and eastern Canada. Will the minister tell us what his involvement is with that project and what his government's involvement is? If there is no involvement, what does he intend to do to involve the Government of Canada?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I must advise the hon. member that the government of Nova Scotia did not invite us to consult with them before going to New York. They are very welcome to go wherever they want, since it is a pretty free country.
As far as the issue of tidal power is concerned, the hon. member knows that the federal government has participated with the government of Nova Scotia repeatedly in feasibility studies. The federal government remains of the same disposition vis-a-vis this project. We are ready to review the situation in terms of the Financial viability of the project at any time. Our officials have met in the past, and I am sure will meet in the future, if the government of Nova Scotia has any specific, valid projects to put forward.

[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker,
I have a question for the Minister of Transport concerning the sale of Nordair.

Madam Speaker, there are reports that the sale of Nordair is imminent, if not already a fait accompli. Can the Minister of Transport confirm that the regional carrier has already been sold, or will be sold, to primarily Quebec-based interests, specifically a group headed by Quebecair? When will the hon. gentleman be making an announcement in this regard?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, no announcement is to be made at this time with respect to a sale. I must deny that. The other day, on this same subject, I was reprimanded by one of the members opposite for not having effected that sale up to now.
I want to emphasize the fact, which I have repeated a number of times, that I have selected a group called Regionair which will have first choice with respect to this airline. But that is not unconditional. I have said repeatedly that there must be a fair distribution of shares between the owners of the future integrated company. I have said a number of times that there must be an agreement, a modus vivendi, between the management of those two companies, and between the unions. I have also said repeatedly that there must be a system by which the airlines would be evaluated. Up to now these conditions have not been met, which is why there has been no sale yet.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I gather that the new name of Regionair is the name given to the group headed by Quebecair. Can the minister assure Nordair employees and, indeed the House of Commons, that both major regions which are served by the airline will be represented in the ownership? Can he also assure the House that the announcement of the sale will not be delayed until after the Ontario provincial election?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The hon. member should learn what Regionair is, Madam Speaker. It is a holding company made up of five members, three of which are in Quebec and two of which are in Ontario. Of course, the sale will be announced when it is made.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister announced yesterday that he is once again retreating in the face of heavy pressure from the oil industry. First, there was a $40 million loan to Imperial Oil and, second, the government made a 68 per cent foreign-owned company, Dome Petroleum, presto into a 52 per cent Canadian-owned company. We now have the government reducing the minimum requirements from 75 per cent to 65 per cent in order to qualify for petroleum incentive grants. How can the minister tell this House that his energy program to Canadian-ize is really not breaking down?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I accept the tribute of the hon. member to the flexibility and the willingness of this government to listen to reasoned arguments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I hope that all other parties in this particular debate, whether they be provincial governments or industry, will show as much flexibility or readiness to listen to reason.
As far as the arguments put forward by the hon. member are concerned, 1 want to stress to him that the various meas-
February 17, 1981

ures which have been announced are in order to ensure that we will achieve self-sufficiency during this decade and that the Canadian people will end up owning the majority of that industry well before the end of this decade. That is the determination of the government. The measures which have been announced deal with energy security and Canadian ownership being achieved promptly and in an efficient way in favour of all Canadians.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, the minister calls it flexibility. I call it backing down. I am tempted to quote the remarks of the Liberal leader in Newfoundland reported yesterday in The Globe and Mail.
My supplementary question to the minister is this: the president of Imperial Oil publicly admitted today that there is an agreement giving Exxon all of Imperial Oil's research patents and information. Will this be allowed to continue under the goods and sourcing regulations and provisions of Bill C-48?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I do not think that in Bill C-48 there is any provision which would prevent the continuation of such an arrangement. The president of Imperial Oil has indicated that through this arrangement with the parent company, Imperial also had access to all research being carried on by Exxon in its parent company and around the world. Therefore, there was a pool of research and development which was available to Imperial Oil through its own contribution to Exxon. As far as I can see there is nothing illegal or improper with that arrangement.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is colonial mentality.


Marc Lalonde: However, there is now an arrangement on a contractual basis, whereby the registration of the patents is made by Imperial Oil in this country rather than by Exxon in the United States. In that respect there has been progress.
Our objective is to increase research and development by all companies in this country. We will continue to do this through the National Energy Program.


DISABLED AND THE HANDICAPPED
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare with respect to the subject of the disabled. The magnitude of the problem of the disabled and handicapped is not generally appreciated. Is there any mechanism in place at either the provincial level or the federal level, such as a data bank or census-taking, in order to identify precisely the problems of the disabled in such a way that appropriate measures can be considered?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, it is a fact well acknowledged by
Oral Questions
the very good report of the parliamentary task force tabled yesterday that the statistics are lacking on the subject of disabled persons. There are three specific sources of better data on which we are working. One is the Canada Health Survey carried out jointly with Statistics Canada which will provide us with more information. It is being analysed right now. The other source is the Canada Fitness Survey and we are working in co-operation with Statistics Canada for the 1986 census in order that this does include categories of collecting information that will help us to know better those who are disabled, who we think amount to two and a half million Canadians.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour who has the responsibility for fitness and amateur sport. The CBC today has carried a report with respect to activities surrounding the Ottawa Citizen indoor games, which indicates that payments have been made to amateur athletes, or star athletes, up to $1,500 over and above expenses in order that they participate in this particular event.
In view of the fact that this kind of payment may in fact prejudice the amateur status of athletes in Canada, affecting our internal competition and also international competition, has the minister investigated this particular allegation, and has he also had his departmental officials make an investigation into how widespread this may be across Canada?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I have not investigated the allegation. I have a copy of the article from the newspaper here. I do not believe that my responsibilities as minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport would give me any power or any responsibility to be the guardian against shamateurism, as it used to be called, and I have no knowledge as to the accuracy of the story in the newspaper.
In any event, I would believe that it would be a matter for the sport governing bodies to determine whether there are any improper practices, and not a matter for this department.


KENT ROYAL COMMISSION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I only ask the minister to report to the House in view of the fact that he has some special responsibility for amateur sports, and

February 17, 1981
Oral Questions
I would like to know what that does cover if it does not cover amateur sport.
My supplementary question, on another distressing aspect of this story is to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, to whom I understand the Kent commission is reporting. It relates to a report that there was in fact a suppression of the reporting of this particular set of circumstances by a reporter, Mr. Harper, of the Ottawa Citizen.
In view of the fact that the minister has been looking at the monopolistic activity of the newspaper industry in Canada, I want to know whether the Kent commission will in fact be looking at the ability of one-newspaper towns to receive news and reporting, unfettered by the interests of the publisher or the newspaper in a commercial concern, whether it will be reporting to the minister and then to the House on this aspect of the matter?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I am not aware of that particular case. Of course, as a Royal commission the Kent commission operates at arm's length from the government, but I would certainly be pleased to draw that concern to their attention, and I share some of the concerns the hon. member has in that situation.


CRIMINAL CODE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Justice in regard to his proposed legislation relating to sexual offences.
Vancouver hotel operators are maintaining that the sexual harassment of guests by prostitutes who arrive by the busload during convention times is costing the city millions of dollars in lost convention business and is damaging the image of Vancouver as a safe, clean city. I see the minister winces at that, but it is important for our city that it maintain its reputation as a safe, clean city, and not one where people cannot go out at night.
Last summer the minister promised angry citizens' groups that he would deal with the issue of prostitution in his proposed legislation on sexual offences, yet this legislation does not deal with the issue at all in a meaningful way. Why did the minister not keep his word on this matter?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, last fall I was in communication with the attorneys general on the subject and we received some different points of view from the provinces on the advisability of moving in that field at this time. The second aspect of the problem is there is a case at this moment in front of the Supreme Court and, of course, it is a tradition for the Minister of Justice to wait until the court has established the final determination of the law before proposing amendments. When the Supreme Court has disposed of that
case on the subject, at that time, in relation to solicitation, we will advise the House about the next step to take.


Pat Carney: My supplementary is addressed to the Minister of Justice. I would suggest that over the last several months he has maintained that he is waiting to hear from other groups, he is waiting to hear from other provinces, and now he is waiting to hear from the Supreme Court. I would suggest he is working both sides of the street on this issue.
One of the basic principles set out in the proposed legislation, and which is not being dealt with by the Supreme Court, is the elimination of sexual discrimination, or, quoting from the minister's own information paper, "sexual offences should apply equally to both sexes". If that is the objective of the legislation, why did the minister not introduce legislation to ensure that the customer, or the "John", is prosecuted as well as the prostitute?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In the legislation that we have tabled in the House we are not discussing solicitation and prostitution. It deals with other aspects of the criminal code. In the case of prostitution and solicitation, I gave the reason why we have to wait, and I would like to tell the hon. member that the previous administration made their views very well known last year. They said they were not going to do anything at all; at least I am trying to find a solution.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of the Environment. I think we know that government and industry inaction has caused the death of about one lake in ten in Ontario. Friday's bilateral interim report makes it clear beyond doubt that Canada's agricultural sector is losing productivity and money because of acid rain, and I quote briefly, "Plant tissue loss may approach 15 to 30 per cent and yield losses of 5 to 10 per cent may occur." Does the government plan to compensate farmers in Ontario and elsewhere in Canada for these losses?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, of course we are very pleased that the interim report has come forward so quickly and it has confirmed the very real and urgent pressing dangers which we have previously described. Further work is continuing and, as the hon. member knows, we expect further reports in June and a rapid conclusion of the initial stages of negotiations with the Americans. However, the question of compensation to specific people affected by this general problem is not one on which we have yet made a determination.


James Ross Fulton: Well, Madam Speaker, since 50 per cent of the acid rain falling in Canada is from Canadian sources, and the
February 17, 1981

facts are clear beyond doubt that industry is profiting by not installing available reduction technologies, is it the minister's position that industrial pollution profit is more important than crop yield in Canada?


John (Moody) Roberts: No, Madam Speaker, that is not a fair description of the position. There is still much work to be done to trace specific consequences of specific polluting sources. A great deal of work has been done in that way, and the models which are being brought forward by computer analysis are beginning to converge, but there is not yet an assured way of determining how an initial polluting source affects what particular place of deposition.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice on the Canada Evidence Act. The minister will be aware that a task force has spent, I suppose, hundreds or thousands of hours studying a new Canada Evidence Act; meetings have been held across the country by a great many people over the last, I believe it is three or four years, and have now received a draft,
I understand, of the proposed new Canada Evidence Act. Would the minister tell us, Madam Speaker, if the considered recommendations of this task force were taken into consideration when the government wrote its proposed evidence features into the constitutional resolution, and if so whether they were given the full weight that the amount of work that went into them would appear to warrant?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, when we were in the committee and we looked at some aspects of the charter of rights, this was debated. We received a lot of evidence and the government has made some recommendations. Of course, we kept in mind the views of the people who have been consulting on the Canada Evidence Act, but in fact the charter of rights is part of the answer and I think that this aspect of the charter receives very strong support from all the members of the committee, including some on that side of the House.


David Kilgour: The minister received the report very recently and, if my information is correct, he would not have had time to consider recommendations of these people who have been working now for several years. Can the minister tell us when he received the proposed report and whether in fact he gave it any weight whatsoever in his proposed charter of rights?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I do not know about the date. My advisers have been in touch with the people involved with the study for a long time, who knew the background of their thinking. But we had to have a charter of rights and we
Oral Questions
have to make it as good as possible. That is why we are pleased to be before this House today with the resolution to give a charter of rights at last to all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: You mean to have the British do it.


HISTORIC SITES AND MONUMENTS BOARD
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment as the minister responsible for the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada. My question relates to the home of the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker in Rockcliffe, about which the minister made an announcement yesterday. I must say I am very unhappy about the approach of the minister in releasing a written statement as opposed to coming into the House and telling us the government's intention or in advising us of the decision of the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada regarding the request made by the former Prime Minister of Canada.
The minister is suggesting the board made its decision on the basis that Mr. Diefenbaker lived in his home on Lans-downe Avenue in Rockcliffe neither during the period he was prime minister nor when he was leader of the opposition, but did that Board understand, appreciate, or take into consideration that we have a residence for the Prime Minister at 24 Sussex Drive, and a residence for the Leader of the Opposition which is called Stornoway? In neither case could Mr. Diefenbaker have lived in the home he resided in while he was a Member of Parliament for Prince Albert. Did the board take into consideration all of the things which were of great significance to Canadians which were achieved during the period of time he resided in Rockcliffe Park?


John (Moody) Roberts: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am sure it did.


Robert Carman Coates: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of the Environment. Was the minister speaking for the government when he indicated the request in Mr. Diefenbaker's will to all Canadians was rejected, or was that a statement from the board itself? Is that the position of the government in so far as the home in question is concerned?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, the recommendation was one which came from the board. The board considered the request. The board, as you know, is made up of distinguished historians and citizens of Canada. They came to the decision on their own. They made a recommendation to me and I accepted the recommendation which they presented to me.

February 17, 1981
Oral Questions


Robert Carman Coates: May I ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


Robert Carman Coates: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister about a former prime minister of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The usual practice is to allow a question and a supplementary. I am not treating the hon. member in a different way from anyone else. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


Robert Carman Coates: Madam Speaker, I realize you are not treating me in a different way, but this is a question to the present Prime Minister of Canada about a former prime minister.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, I am sure, along with all of us, has heard the statement made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party that he was prepared to allow a free vote on the constitutional issue. Of course, we realize that he had to because he had to drown revolt in the ranks.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: My question to the Prime Minister is this: could he tell us, without his usual figure skating evasion, whether or not he is prepared to allow a completely free vote on his own side of the House on the issue of the Constitution?


An hon. Member:: They do not know what that means.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member was asking his question I saw the Leader of the New Democratic Party was shaking his head no, that he was not the author of the words ascribed to him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: What is your answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish they would argue among themselves.


Mr. Epp:: We heard the clang over here.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I preface my supplementary question by saying that was not figure skating-he might better have been a ballet dancer-that was dancing all around the question. Will the Prime Minister tell the House, when his Minister of Justice has been quoted in the press as saying that he realizes the majority of Canadians are against what the government is doing with respect to the Constitution but the
government will go ahead anyway, how he can justify having the government go ahead in spite of an obvious democratic opinion against what he is doing? Can the Prime Minister define to us where this is democratic? Is he going to go ahead or is he going to listen to the people of Canada for a change?


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I have quoted to the opposition before the hon. member for Provencher who on behalf of the Conservative Party-it may not be the opinion of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville-said that it was popular will that we have patriation, that we have an amending formula, and that we have a charter of rights. That is exactly what is before the House at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALCOHOL AS PROPELLANT FOR AUTOMOBILES MANUFACTURED IN CANADA
William Kenneth Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact Brazil produces 150,000 cars per year which run on alcohol, and Volkswagen has been developing cars to run on alcohol since 1973 when OPEC countries first raised oil prices, will the minister consider asking the automobile manufacturers to produce cars which use alcohol as fuel and provide some incentive to Canadians to convert their cars from gasoline to alcohol?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, it is possible to produce methanol or gasohol from biomass of various kinds. There are pilot projects being considered at the moment and there are funds available for that purpose. Discussions are being held with various parties in various provinces. I believe announcements will be made in the next while about certain pilot projects in this country.


THE CONSTITUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary to that put by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. I understand that the Leader of the Liberal Party usually takes his marching orders from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, on these questions, or vice versa. I am sure that the Prime Minister would not want to leave a matter of such gravity unanswered simply because he was not sure what the thinking of the Leader of the New Democratic Party is at the moment, so I would like to put the question to him as a matter of policy. Is it the policy of the
February 17, 1981

Government of Canada to recommend to the House of Commons, directly or through House leaders, that there be a free vote on the constitutional resolution?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, other parties are free to conduct their affairs as well they can.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There has never been any doubt on this side of the House that this was a government measure. It was mentioned in the Speech from the Throne. It has been very central to the debates in this Parliament since the last election, and it has been made quite clear to members on this side that this was a government measure and that people were expected to vote freely for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, we have seen the Prime Minister avoid free votes before on questions like capital punishment, and the way in which he introduced that measure into the House of Commons as a practical matter. This is a very important question. We all know that there are very many members of the Liberal Party who are unhappy with elements of the constitutional package-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -just as there are many members of the New Democratic Party who are, and just as the hon. member for Edmonton East in our party is unhappy with the position that I have taken as the leader of our party. I am prepared to treat this matter as one of fundamental seriousness. Is the Prime Minister prepared to treat the Constitution of Canada as being sufficiently free that he will allow his Members of Parliament, members who sit as Liberal Members of Parliament, to vote their conscience, to put their province or their principle ahead of their party on this question? Is he saying that there will be no free vote among the Liberals? Is that what he is saying?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker. I hope very earnestly that members on this side will vote according to their consciences and I so authorize them to do so, if I have any authority on the matter. I hope they do not cop out as the opposition has done on this fundamental matter, which means bringing the Constitution to Canada after 54 years of failure, bringing it in with a charter of rights which the people want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Order Paper Questions PETITIONS


MR. DOMM-PATR1ATION OF THE CONSTITUTION
Madam Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the fortieth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) and that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


ADJOURNMENT-ADJUSTMENT OF SITTING HOURS
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I have had consultations with my colleague on the other side. We have been asked not to sit on Friday, February 27. We have come to an agreement and we will recoup the hours as stated in the following House order.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the House shall not sit on Friday, February 27, 1981;
That on Thursday, February 26, 1981, Monday, March 2, 1981, and Thursday, March 5, 1981, the hours of sitting shall be from 2.00 o'clock p.m. to 7.00 o'clock p.m. and from 8.00 o'clock p.m. to 10.00 o'clock p.m.;
That on these days private members' business shall be taken up at 9.00 o'clock p.m. instead of at 5.00 o'clock p.m.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Does it agree to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,804, 1,978, 1,979 and 1,980.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Does the government have a policy in making Core Funding Program grants to organizations, like the Native Council of Canada, if the government

February 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions
does not know how many individuals are actually paid up members in the council and, if so, what is such policy?
2.	How is the leadership of the council elected and what criteria were placed in determining the word Metis as to a blood relation to aboriginal people?
3.	(a) Who are the members of the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee (b) how many members are paid up (c) what is the committee's source of funding other than from the government?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Secretary of State as follows: 1. The principles behind the Secretary of State Department's programs for native citizens derive from the following objectives and sub-objectives of the citizenship branch as a whole: to promote and assist the development of effective Canadian citizenship and to co-ordinate the formulation and development of national policies affecting citizenship; to encourage an appreciation of the peoples, regions and cultures, official languages and institutions of Canada; to promote a greater understanding among groups and individuals and to combat prejudice and discrimination; to encourage and assist effective citizens' participation and to facilitate access to government and other societal institutions with particular emphasis on the socially and culturally disadvantaged segments of the population.
The Core Funding Program is particularly related to the latter sub-objective, and is based on the premise that the provision of sustaining support to Metis and non-status Indians and Inuit organizations enables the native citizens of Canada to formulate and present their views and to develop program and policy proposals to further their own development. The Native Council of Canada is the national body in Canada which represents the Metis and non-status organizations. Past studies have indicated that there are approximately 500,000 Metis and non-status Indians who identify socially and culturally with their Indian ancestry.
2. (a) All organizations comprise an elected executive and a board of directors with the exception of some status Indian organizations, the boards of which are elected chiefs of bands. The Native Council of Canada's board is comprised of the presidents of the, member provincial and territorial organizations.
(b) The Metis are those individuals of mixed Indian and white blood which are described in Indian communities as those people who identify socially and culturally with their Indian ancestry.
3.	As the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee is a private organization, it would be inappropriate for the government to respond to this question. Answers to this question should be sought from the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee.


Mr. Knowles: I.	How many retired armed forces police personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00 to $29.99 per month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (d) $40.00 to
$49.99 per month (e) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (0 $60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (/) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (I) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (o) $400.00 to $499.99 per month (p) $500.00 to $599.99 per month (q) $600.00 to $699.99 per month (r) $700.00 to $799.99 per month (s) $800.00 to $899.99 per month (t) $900.00 to $999.99 per month (u) $1,000.00 to $1,499.99 per month (v) $1,500.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the total number of retired armed forces personnel and also the number of widows of armed forces personnel or of retired armed forces personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of armed forces personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. Retired armed forces personnel as at December 31,
1980-57,789								
(a)	less than	$20.00	- 2	(1)	200.00	to	249.99 -	-4778(b)	20.00 to	29.99	- 18	(m)	250.00	to	299.99 -	- 4729(c)	30.00 to	39.99	- 92	(a)	300.00	to	399.99 -	- 8254(d)	40.00 to	49.99	- 170	(o)	400.00	to	499.99 -	- 7568(e)	50.00 to	59.99	- 155	(P)	500.00	to	599.99 -	-7066(0	60.00 to	69.99	- 131	(q)	600.00	to	699.99 -	- 5551(g)	70.00 to	79.99	- 153	(r)	700.00	to	799.99 -	- 3641(h)	80.00 to	89.99	- 197	(s)	800.00	to	899.99 -	- 2531(i)	90.00 to	99.99	- 231	(0	900.00	to	999.99 -	- 18910)	100.00 to	149.99	- 1287	(u)	1000.00	to	1499.99-	- 4674(k)	150.00 to	199.99	- 3247	(v)	1500.00	to	over -	- 1423
2. Number of widows receiving monthly pensions as at
December		31, 1980-7029						
(a)	less than	$20.00	- 7	(1)	200.00	to	249.99 -	1089(b)	20.00 to	29.99	- 23	(m)	250.00	to	299.99 -	1112(c)	30.00 to	39.99	- 23	(n)	300.00	to	399.99 -	1457(d)	40.00 to	49.99	- 26	(o)	400.00	to	499.99 -	747(e)	50.00 to	59.99	- 30	(P)	500.00	to	599.99 -	378(0	60.00 to	69.99	- 21	(q)	600.00	to	699.99 -	224(g)	70.00 to	79.99	- 17	(r)	700.00	to	799.99 -	89(h)	80.00 to	89.99	- 31	(s)	800.00	to	899.99 -	34(i)	90.00 to	99.99	- 64	0)	900.00	to	999.99 -	23(j)	100.00 to	149.99	- 646	(u)	1000.00	to	1499.99 -	46(k)	150.00 to	199.99	- 938	(V)	1500.00	to	over -	4
3. Retired armed forces personnel and widows residing in each province as at December 31, 1980:
Province	Personnel	WidowsNewfoundland	327	19Prince Edward Island	561	75Nova Scotia	6162	646New Brunswick	2481	253Quebec	4758	695Ontario	20668	2911Manitoba	2491	324Saskatchewan	992	115Alberta	5968	545British Columbia	12100	1233Northwest Territories	97	8Outside Canada	1184	205Total	57789	7029
February 17, 1981

4. Number of orphans as at December 30, 1980 - 167 Average monthly amount	$94.79


Mr. Knowles: 1.	What was the total amount at credit in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account as at March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
2.	What rate of interest has the government paid for the use of this money during the fiscal year ended on the dates noted above?
3.	What amount of interest was credited to the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?
4.	What was the total amount paid out of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account during the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1978 (b) 1979 (c) 1980?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. Balance in the Canadian Forces Superannuation Account (CFSA) as at:
(a)	March 31, 1978
(b)	March 31, 1979
(c)	March 31, 1980

2,333,827,474.93
2,395,773,602.33
2,449,242,227.75
Actuarial Liability Account
5,204,825,818.72
5,678,838,368.32
6,203,543,207.94
Total
7.538.653.293.65
8.074.611.970.65 8,652,785,435.69
2. Rates of interest for
(a) 1977/78	1.	Quarter ending June 30, 1977 2.	Quarter ending September 30, 1977 3.	Quarter ending December 31, 1977 4.	Quarter ending March 31, 1978	1.8102 per cent 1.8204 per cent 1.8372 per cent 1.8508 per cent(b) 1978/79	1.	Quarter ending June 30, 1978 2.	Quarter ending September 30, 1978 3.	Quarter ending December 31, 1978 4.	Quarter ending March 31, 1978	1.8674 per cent 1.9102 per cent 1.9228 per cent 1.9304 per cent(c) 1979/80	1.	Quarter ending June 30, 1979 2.	Quarter ending September 30, 1979 3.	Quarter ending December 31, 1979 4.	Quarter ending March 31, 1980	1.9528 per cent 1.9702 per cent 1.9786 per cent 1.9998 per cent(a)	March 31, 1978(b)	March 31, 1979(c)	March 31, 1980
91,476,814.34
94,188,404.31
99,395,779.50
Actuarial
Account
198,022,138.53
216,512,549.60
240,704,839.62
Total
283.498,952.87
310,700,953.91
340,100,619.12
4. Payments out of CFSA during fiscal year ending:
(a)	March 31, 1978
(b)	March 31, 1979
(c)	March 31, 1980
207,873,360.29
227,926,358.26
253,964,531.63
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Knowles: 1.	In each year 1959 to 1980 (a) how many personnel of the Canadian Armed Forces have commenced drawing pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act (b) how many widows have commenced drawing pensions under the said act?
2.	In each year 1959 to 1980, how many pensions under the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to (a) retired Canadian Armed Forces personnel (b) widows of such personnel, have been discontinued because of the death of the annuitant?
3.	In each year 1946 to 1980, how many service personnel contributed to the pension or annuity account under the former Part V or under the provisions of the present Canadian Forces Superannuation Act?


Ursula Appolloni: 1. (a) Personnel of the armed forces retired to pension in:
(b)
[DOT]3. Amount of interest credited to CFSA during fiscal year ending:
1959	752	1966	3,407	1973	3,3571960	1,048	1967	2,983	1974	3,4781961	1,418	1968	2,787	1975	3,4591962	1,343	1969	4,050	1976	3,0031963	1,623	1970	4,075	1977	3,1241964	2,454	1971	4,267	1978	3,3881965	3,419	1972	4,405	1979	3,8471980	4,0331959	98	1966	263	1973	4411960	121	1967	303	1974	4781961	166	1968	303	1975	4701962	179	1969	371	1976	5541963	207	1970	323	1977	5271964	208	1971	375	1978	5741965	283	1972	420	1979	4991980	673Retired	pensioners deceased	in:	1959	91	1966	208	1973	379I960	103	1967	243	1974	5241961	114	1968	295	1975	4961962	127	1969	353	1976	5131963	142	1970	356	1977	5071964	169	1971	331	1978	3841965	190	1972	323	1979	6731980	775Widows of	pensioners	deceased	in:	1959	9	1966	39	1973	121960	12	1967	45	1974	301961	17	1968	56	1975	391962	19	1969	50	1976	581963	26	1970	52	1977	281964	28	1971	24	1978	381965	34	1972	11	1979	911980	137
3. Number of CFSA contributors in:
1946	- 212,692
1947	- 36,535
1948	- 34,762
1949-	41,676
1950-	47,185 1951 - 68,427
1952-	195,394
1953-	104,427
1954-	112,529
1955-	118,077
1956-	116,678
1957-	117,092 1958 - 119,038
1959-	120,412
1960-	119,597 1961 - 120,055
1962-	126,474
1963-	123,693
1964-	120,781
1965-	114,164
1966-	107,467
1967-	105,584
1968-	101,572
1969-	98,340
1970-	93,353 1971 - 89,563 1972- 84,933
1973	- 82,402
1974	- 79,921
1975	- 79,639
1976	- 79,772
1977	- 80,546
1978	- 80,032
1979	- 80,059
1980	- 80,166

February 17, 1981
Order Paper Questions


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 534 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 534 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	On January 1 (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979, by department, how many (i) information officers (ii) support staff were employed by job classification and salary range?
2.	For the same dates, by department, how many information officer positions were vacant by (a) job classification (b) salary range?
3.	By department, what duties and responsibilities were handled by each information officer as of January 1, 1979?
4.	By department, what was the total amount spent in 1978-79 on information services, including salaries and wages?
Return tabled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice) moved:
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
CONSIDER ANT:
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,
A respectful address be presented to Her 15*1 est propose que soit presentee respectueu-Majesty the Queen in the following words:	sement a Sa Majeste la Reine 1 adresse dont la 15
teneur suit:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:	A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine,
Most Gracious Sovereign:	Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the Nous, membres	de la Cham-
House of Commons of 20 bre des communes du Canada reunis en Par- 20 Canada in Parliament assembled, respectful- lement, fideles sujets de Votre Majeste, ly approach Your Majesty, requesting that	demandons respectueusement	a Votre	Tresyou may graciously be pleased to cause to be	Gracieuse Majeste de bien	vouloir	fairelaid before the Parliament of the United	deposer devant le Parlement	du Royaume-Kingdom a measure containing the recitals 25 Uni un projet de loi ainsi con9u :	25
and clauses hereinafter set forth:
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
Constitution Act, 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title
The Constitution
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the 5 Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty 10 requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose.
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's 15 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:	20

[Stage Direction]
Loi donnant suite a une demande du Senat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada
Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, 5 considerant:
qu'a la demande et avec le consentement du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni est invite a adopter une loi visant a donner effet aux dispositions enoncees ci-apres et 10 que le Senat et la Chambre des communes du Canada reunis en Parlement ont presente une adresse demandant a Sa Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume- ] 5 Uni un projet de loi a cette fin, 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:	20
1. The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for and shall have the force of law in Canada and shall come into force as provided in that Act.
1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon-cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur conformement a ses dispositions.
Adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1981
2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1981 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.
2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du 25 Cessation du Royaume-Uni apres l'entree en vigueur de la fdgifdrer pour ic Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas Canada 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 version
B, the French version of this Act is set out in	presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a force 30 r,n<;j'sc
Schedule A to this Act and has the same	de loi au Canada au meme titre que la
authority in Canada as the English version version anglaise correspondante. thereof. 4
4.	This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi : Loi sur Titreabrege
Act.	le Canada.
February 17, 1981

[Stage Direction]
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and	l. The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Cantd™Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
The Constitution ANNEXE B

[Stage Direction]
Garantie des droits el libertes
1.	La Charte canadienne des droits et	Droits et
libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y	Canada3*1
sont enonces. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regie de droit, dans des limites 5 qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification 5 puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
Fundamental
freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales suivantes :
Libertes
fondamentales
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion 10 and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
a)	liberte de conscience et de religion; 10
b)	liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opi-nion et d'expression, y compris la liberte de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c)	liberte de reunion pacifique;	15
d)	liberte dissociation.
Democratic rights of citizens
Democratic Rights
Droits democratiques
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 15	3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote
vote in an election of members of the House et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede-of Commons or of a legislative assembly and rales ou provinciales. to be qualified for membership therein.
Droits
democratiques des citoyens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
4. (1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre 20 Mandat legislative assembly shall continue for longer 20 des communes et des assemblies legislatives TssemWees^ than five years from the date fixed for the	est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixee
return of the writs at a general election of its	pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members.	generates correspondantes.
Continuation in special
circumstances
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- 25 mons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House 30 of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
(2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- 25 Prolongations nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut spcc'ales etre prolonge respectivement par le Parle-ment ou par la legislature en question au-dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion ou d'insurrection, reelles ou apprehendees, 30 pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas 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.
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 198
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
Arrest or detention
The Constitution
5.	There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
Mobility Rights
6.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
5.	Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueit nent une seance au moins une fois tous les
douze mois.
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
6.	(1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Liberte de 5 demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en 5circulall0n
sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per-person who has the status of a permanent	sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent
resident of Canada has the right	au Canada ont le droit:
(a)	to move to and take up residence in a) de se deplacer dans tout le pays et 10
any province; and	10 d'etablir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in vince;
any province.	b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
Liberte
d'etablissement
(3)	The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a)	any laws or practices of general 15 application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable resi- 20 dency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social
services.
Legal Rights
(3)	Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Restriction (2) sont subordonnes :	15
a)	aux lois et usages d'application gene-rale en vigueur dans une province donnee, s'ils n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province de residence anterieure ou 20 actuelle;
b)	aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
Garanties juridiques
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 25 \ie, liberte et and security of the person and the right not 25 la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre	secur,lL
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 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 against unreasonable search or seizure.
8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 30 abusives.
Fouilles, perquisitions ou saisies
9.	Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 30	9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la Detention ou
trarily detained or imprisoned.	detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires. empnsonne-
10.	Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;	35
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without 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 40 lawful.
10. Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation ou de detention :	35
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a l'assistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit; 40
c)	de faire controler, par habeas corpus, la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, le cas echeant, sa liberation.
Arrestation ou detention
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time; 5
(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 10 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 15 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;	20
(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- 25 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 30 be tried or punished for it again; and
(/') if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the 35 lesser punishment.
12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceed-40 ings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except
The Constitution
11.	Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affaires
criminelles et
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penaies l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;
b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 5 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 10 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- 15 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 20 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- 25 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;	30
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 35 trouve coupable et puni;
/') de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est modifiee entre le moment de la perpetra-40 tion de Tinfraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.
13.	Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi- Temoignage gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise 45 mcnminan pour Tincriminer dans d'autres procedures,
sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
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
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
The Constitution
in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
14. A party or witness in any proceedings 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 interprete suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne 5 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- 5 prete.
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law 10 without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per- fcgaiite devant sonne et s'applique egalement a tous, et tous wiincect1' dc
ont droit a la meme protection et au meme benefice de la loi, independamment de toute 10 discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, Page ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.	15
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any 15	(2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet
law, program or activity that has as its object d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites the amelioration of conditions of disadvan- destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus taged individuals or groups including those ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait that are disadvantaged because of race, na- de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou 20 tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, 20 ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de age or mental or physical disability.	leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
protection egale de la loi
Programmes de
promotion
sociale
Official Languages of Canada
Langues officielles du Canada 16. (1) Le fran$ais et l'anglais sont les
Langues
langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un 25claf'nCadaesdU
16. (1) English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant their use in all institutions of the Parliament 25 a leur usage dans les institutions du Parle-and government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) Le frangais et l'anglais sont les langues
Langues
officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un 30 Nouveau*dU
Brunswick
(2)	English and French are the official languages of New Brunswick and have
equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant leges as to their use in all institutions of the 30a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-wick.	Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La presente charte ne limite pas le35Pf°8r<:ssi°i>v<:<'s authority of Parliament or a legislature to	pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de legallte advance the equality of status or use of Eng-35 favoriser la progression vers I'egalite de
lish and French.	statut ou d'usage du frangais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le Travauxdu fran?ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra-40Parlement vaux du Parlement.
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
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
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
The Constitution
(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in an debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick.
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran-5ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
Travaux de la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick
18.	(1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes Da"a™"Iaires of Parliament shall be printed and published 5 rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement 5 Par emen,dires in English and French and both language sont imprimes et publies en fran?ais et en 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 10 D<^umenude the legislature of New Brunswick shall be rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-	du Nouveau^
printed and published in English and French lOture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes	Brunswick
and both language versions are equally et publies en fran?ais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme 15 valeur.
19.	(1) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le used by any person in, or in any pleading in	fran^ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires	tribunaux
or process issuing from, any court established 15 dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le pa^mem'e by Parliament.	Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure 20 ar emenl
qui en decoulent.
(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 tribunaux du sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns- Nouveau-20 wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui 25 BrunswiC
en decoulent.
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 Eng- 25 lish 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 fran?ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra-tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou 30 du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a l'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 communications with and services from that 30 office in such language; or
(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.	35
a)	l'emploi du frangais ou de l'anglais fait 35 l'objet d'une demande importante;
b)	l'emploi du fran$ais et de l'anglais se justifie par la vocation du bureau.
(2) Any member of the public in New (2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick, £°™™™eC|es Brunswick has the right to communicate droit a l'emploi du fran?ais ou de l'anglais40Idministrlse* with, and to receive available services from,	pour communiquer avec tout bureau des ins-	i<=s institutionsany office of an institution of the legislature	titutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-	B^swlck11
or government of New Brunswick in English 40 ment ou pour en recevoir les services. . or French.
7348
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
instruction
Application where numbers warrant
The Constitution
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 Mainticncn effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue frangaise ccrtaincs' ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter dispositions atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 5 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux term.es 5 d'une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada.
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 10
before or after the coming into force of this lOvigueur 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 frangais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Droits a Tinstruction dans la langue de la mi norite
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 15 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 20 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
v	i c ^'instruction
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 15 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont regu leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en frangais ou en anglais au20 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelie ils ont regu 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 faire25 have the right to have their children receive 25 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	Cominuite
has received or is receiving primary or	a regu ou regoit son instruction, au niveau	uinguc° dC asecondary school instruction in English or 30 primaire ou secondaire, en frangais ou en 30 ^instruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under (3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana- 35 Jusiification subsections (1) and (2) to have their children 35 diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire pjrlcnomb^
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 40 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
instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite francophone ou anglophone d'une province : a) s'exerce partout dans la province ou le40 nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics, de 1'instruction dans la langue de la minorite;	45
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justice into
disrepute
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Multicultural
heritage
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
(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.	5
The Constitution
b) comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire instruire dans des etablissements d'ensei-gnement de la minorite linguistique finances sur les fonds publics.	5
Enforcement
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola-as guaranteed by this Charter, have been tion ou de negation des droits et libertes qui droits ct Scries infringed or denied may apply to a court of	lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy	s'adresser a un tribunal competent pour obteas the court considers appropriate and just in lOnir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-10 the circumstances.	vcnable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
(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 ^^memsde paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des	prcu™Cqui L
elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des	risqueraiem dc
15 conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou 15
libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces dcia justice elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli, eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisation est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi-20 nistration de la justice.	20
General
Dispositions generates
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-	certains droits et libertes ne porte pas
strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any	atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux,
aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms	issus de traites ou autres - des peuples
that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of 25 autochtones du Canada, notamment:	25
Canada including	a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
(a) any rights or freedoms that have been	Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of	b) aux droits ou libertes acquis par regle-
October 7, 1763; and	ment de revendications territoriales.
Mainticn des droits ct libertes des autochtones
(b) any rights or freedoms that may be 30 acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit 30 Mainticn des tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-	certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas nbcrtes
strued as denying the existence of any other 35 une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.	existent au Canada.
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
27. Toute interpretation de la presente Maimiendu charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro- 35£„[™e°mc mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 40patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 28. Les dispositions de la presente charte	.
derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile- certaines ecolcs anteed by or under the Constitution of ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du 40
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
The Constitution
Canada, in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
Application to 29. A reference in this Charter to a provterritories and .	, .	,	[DOT] ,territorial	mce or to the legislative assembly or legislaauthorities	ture of a province shall be deemed to include
a reference to the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate legislative authority thereof, as the case may be.
Canada concernant les ecoles separees et autres ecoles confessionnelles.
29.	Dans la presente charte, les disposi-	appi ications
tions qui visent ies provinces, leur legislature au*Ierriloires 5 ou leur assemblee legislative visent egale- 5 ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives competentes.
Legislative powers not extended
30.	Nothing in this Charter extends the 10	30. La presente charte n'elargit pas les Non-ciargisselegislative powers of any body or authority. competences legislatives de quelque orga- 10™™pedteesnces
nisme ou autorite que ce soit.	legislatives
Application of Charter
Application de la charte
Char'ic^1'0" °f 31. (1) This Charter applies
(a)	to the Parliament and government of Canada and to all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters 15 relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and
(b)	to the legislature and government of each province and to all matters within the authority of the legislature of each 20 province.
31.	(1) La presente charte s'applique :	Application de
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du ^ Canada, ainsi qu'a tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui 15 concernent le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest;
b)	a la legislature et au gouvernement de
chaque province, ainsi qu'a tous les domaines relevant de cette legislature.	20
Exception	(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), section 15 shall not have effect until three years after this Act, except Part VI, comes into force.	(2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), Particle 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Ten-tree en vigueur, exception faite de la partie 25 VI, de la presente loi.	Restriction
	Citation	Titre	
Citation	32. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.	32. Titre de la presente partie: Charte 25™™ canadienne des droits et libertes.	
	PART II	PARTIE II	
	RIGHTS OF THE ABORIGINAL PEOPLES OF CANADA	DROITS DES PEUPLES AUTOCHTONES DU CANADA	
Recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights	33. (I) The aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.	33. (1) La presente charte confirme les droits, ancestraux ou issus de traites, des 30peuples autochtones du Canada.	Confirmation des droits des peuples autochtonesDefinition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"	(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of 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.	30 Definition dc *peuples autochtones du Canada*PART III	PARTIE III	EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES	PER EQUATION ET INEGALITES REGIONALES	Commitment to promote equal opportunities	34. (1) Without altering the legislative 34. (1) Sous reserve des competences authority of Parliament or of the provincial 35 legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures	Engagements relalifs a I'cgalite des
chances
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Commitment respecting public services
Constitutional
conferences
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
The Constitution
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 5
(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 10 reasonable quality to all Canadians.
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 5 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 10 publics essentiels.
(2) Parliament and the government of (2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Canada are committed to the principle of	Canada prennent l'engagement de principe	services publics
making equalization payments to ensure that de faire des paiements de perequation proprovincial governments have sufficient reve-15pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-15 nues to provide reasonably comparable levels ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre of public services at reasonably comparable en mesure d'assurer les services publics a un levels of taxation.	niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement
comparables.

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES	CONFERENCES CONSTITUTIONNELLES
35. (1) Until Part VI comes into force, a 35. (1) Avant l'entree en vigueur de la 20Conferences^, constitutional conference composed of the20partie VI, le premier ministre du Canada |es Prime Minister of Canada and the first min-	convoque au moins une fois par an une conisters of the provinces shall be convened by	ference constitutionnelle reunissant les prethe Prime Minister of Canada at least once	miers ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
in every year.
(2) A conference convened under subsec- 25	(2) Sont placees a l'ordre du jour de la 25 d"srt"iPp1,e,°n
tion (1) shall have included in its agenda an conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- autochiones item respecting constitutional matters that tion constitutionnelles qui interessent directe-directly affect the aboriginal peoples of ment les peuples autochtones du Canada,
Canada, including the identification and notamment la determination et la definition definition of the rights of those peoples to be30des droits de ces peuples a inscrire dans la 30 included in the Constitution of Canada, and	Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite	du Canada invite leurs representants a partirepresentatives 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 35	(3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite Par',ciP^°"
invite elected representatives of the govern- des representants elus des gouvernements du 55 ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-	Yukon et des territoires du Nord-Ouest a
west Territories to participate in the discus-	participer aux travaux relatifs a toute quessions on any item on the agenda of a tion placee a l'ordre du jour de la conference conference convened under subsection (1)40visee au paragraphe (1) et qui, selon lui, that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, interesse directement le territoire du Yukon 40 directly affects the Yukon Territory and the et les territoires du Nord-Ouest.
Northwest Territories.
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
Interim procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
Amendments
respecting
certain
language rights
Initiation of amendment procedure
Initiation of amendment procedures
The Constitution


[Stage Direction]
36. Until Part VI comes into force, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and by the legislative assembly or government of each province.
36. Avant l'entree en vigueur de la partie VI, la Constitution du Canada peut etre modifiee par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-5risee par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes et par l'assemblee legislative ou le gouvernement de toutes les provinces.
Procedure provisoire de modification
37. Until Part VI comes into force, an 37. Avant l'entree en vigueur de la partie Modifications amendment to the Constitution of Canada in 10 VI, les dispositions de la Constitution du IOJ^Sk* relation to any provision that applies to one Canada applicables a certaines provinces provinces or more, but not all, provinces may be made seulement peuvent etre modifiees par procla-by proclamation issued by the Governor mation du gouverneur general sous le grand General under the Great Seal of Canada sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolu-where so authorized by resolutions of the 15 tions du Senat et de la Chambre des commu-15 Senate and House of Commons and by the nes et par l'assemblee legislative ou le gou-legislative assembly or government of each vernement de chaque province a laquelle la province to which the amendment applies. modification s'applique.
38. (1) Notwithstanding section 40, an 38. (1) Par derogation a Particle 40, toute Modification
amendment to the Constitution of Canada 20 modification de la Constitution du Canada :
(a)	adding a province as a province named in subsection 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) or 20(2), or
(b)	otherwise providing for any or all of the rights guaranteed or obligations 25 imposed by any of those subsections to have application in a province to the extent and under the conditions stated in the amendment,
a)	soit portant insertion du nom d'une province aux paragraphes 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) ou 20(2),
b)	soit prevoyant l'application a une province, aux conditions precisees dans la 25 modification, de tout ou partie des droits ou obligations vises a ces paragraphes,
peut etre prise par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
-n/n concernant certains droits linguistiques
may be made by proclamation issued by the 30autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la 30
Governor General under the Great Seal of	Chambre des communes et de Passemblee
Canada where so authorized by resolutions	legislative de la province concernee.
of the Senate and House of Commons and
the legislative assembly of the province to
which the amendment applies.	35
(2) The procedure for amendment prescribed by subsection (1) may be initiated only by the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
(2) L'initiative de la procedure de modifi- initiative de la cation visee au paragraphe (1) appartient a Procedure l'assemblee legislative de la province concer- 35 nee.
39. (1) The procedures for amendment 40	39. (1) L'initiative des procedures de initiative des
prescribed by sections 36 and 37 may be	modification visees aux articles 36 et 37	procedures
initiated either by the Senate or House of	appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des com-
Commons or by the legislative assembly or munes, a l'assemblee legislative d'une pro-40 government of a province.	vince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci.
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Revocation of authorization
Limitation on use of interim amendment procedure
Coming into force of Part VI
Provincial
alternative
procedure
Procedure for
perfecting
alternative
Referendum
(2) A resolution made or other authorization given for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
The Constitution
(2) La resolution adoptee ou l'autorisation Possibilitydc donnee dans le cadre de la presente partie r v J' peut etre revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.
40. Sections 36 and 37 do not apply to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for making the amendment, but the procedure prescribed by section 36 shall be
5	40. Les articles 36 et 37 ne s'appliquent
pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procedure differente est prevue par une autre disposition de la Consti-piu^uuu,	vj jwuvu	tution du Canada. La procedure visee a Farused to amend the Canadian Charter o/lOticle 36 s'impose toutefois pour modifier la 10 Rights and Freedoms and any provision for Charte canadienne des droits et libertes, amending the Constitution, including this ainsi que les dispositions relatives a la modi-section.	fication de la Constitution, y compris le present article.
5 Restriction du recours a la procedure provisoire
41. Part VI shall come into force
(a)	with or without amendment, on such 15 day as may be fixed by proclamation issued pursuant to the procedure prescribed by section 36, or
(b)	on the day that is two years after the day this Act, except Part VI, comes into 20 force,
41. La partie VI entre en vigueur a lal5Enlrieen
. x ,	,	.	vigueur de la
premiere des dates suivantes :	partjc vi
a)	avec ou sans modification, a la date fixee par proclamation prise conforme-ment a la procedure visee a Particle 36;
b)	deux ans apres Pentree en vigueur, 20 exception faite de la partie VI, de la presente loi.
whichever is the earlier day but, if a referen-	II demeure entendu que, si la tenue d'un
dum is required to be held under subsection	referendum s'impose conformement au para-
420), Part VI shall come into force as pro- graphe 42(3), la partie VI entre en vigueur 25 vided in section 43.	25 conformement a Particle 43.
42. (1) The legislative assemblies of seven 42. (1) Les assemblies legislatives d'au or more provinces that have, according to the	moins sept provinces dont la population conthen latest general census, combined popula-	fondue represente, selon le recensement
tions of at least eighty per cent of the popula-	general le plus recent a Pepoque, au moins 30
tion of all the provinces may make a single 30 quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de proposal to substitute for paragraph 45(1 )(b)	toutes les provinces peuvent presenter une
such alternative as they consider appropriate.	proposition commune en vue de remplacer la
procedure prevue a Palinea 45(1 )b).
Proposition dc remplacement
(2) One copy of an alternative proposed (2) Chaque province concernee peut depo-35 Poss,blhtidc under subsection (1) may be deposited with	ser le texte de la proposition visee au para- mist-auP°inl
the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by 35 graphe (1) aupres du directeur general des each	proposing province within two years	elections du Canada dans les deux	ans suiafter	this Act, except Part VI, comes into	vant Pentree en vigueur, exception faite de laforce	but, prior to the expiration of that	partie VI, de la presente loi, etant	entendu40period, any province that has deposited a	qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours	de cettecopy may withdraw that copy.	40 periode.(3) Where copies of an alternative have (3) Dans les cas ou, deux ans apres Pen-been deposited as provided by subsection (2) tree en vigueur, exception faite de la partie and, on the day that is two years after this	VI, de la presente loi, au moins sept provin-45Act, except Part VI, comes into force, at	ces remplissant les conditions demographileast seven copies remain deposited by prov-45ques visees au paragraphe (1) n'ont pas inces that have, according to the then latest retire leur texte, le gouvernement du Canada
Referendum
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
The Constitution
general census, combined populations of at least eighty per cent of the population of all the provinces, the government of Canada shall cause a referendum to be held within two years after that day to determine 5 whether
(a)	paragraph 45(1 )(b) or any alternative thereto approved by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and deposited with the Chief Electoral Officer at 10 least ninety days prior to the day on which the referendum is held, or
(b)	the alternative proposed by the provinces,
shall be adopted.
fait tenir, dans les deux annees suivant l'echeance des deux ans, un referendum pour determiner laquelle des procedures suivantes sera adoptee :
a)	celle qui est prevue a l'alinea 45(1)6) 5 ou l'eventuelle procedure de remplacement adoptee par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes et dont le texte est depose aupres du directeur general des elections au moins quatre-vingt-dix jours 10 avant la date du referendum;
b)	celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition des provinces.
Coming into force of Part VI where referendum held
43. Where a referendum is held under 43. Dans les six mois suivant la date du subsection 42(3), a proclamation under the	referendum vise au paragraphe 42(3), une 1 5
Great Seal of Canada shall be issued within	proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada
six months after the date of the referendum	est prise en vue de faire entrer en vigueur la
bringing Part VI into force with such modifi-20partie VI, eventuellement modifiee dans la cations, if any, as are necessary to incorpo-	mesure necessaire pour incorporer la proposirate the proposal approved by a majority of	tion approuvee par la majorite des votants et 20the persons voting at the referendum and	pour integrer les autres amenagements justiwith such other changes as are reasonably	fies qui en decoulent.
consequential on the incorporation of that 25 proposal.
Righttovote 44. (i) Every citizen of Canada has, sub- 44. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de ject only to such reasonable limits prescribed vote au referendum vise au paragraphe by law as can be demonstrably justified in a 42(3); ce droit ne peut etre restreint que par 25 free and democratic society, the right to vote 30 une regie de droit, dans des limites qui soient in a referendum held under subsection 42(3). raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se
demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.
Establishment of Referendum Rules
Commission
(2) If a referendum is required to be held (2) Des que s'impose la tenue du referen-30 under subsection 42(3), a Referendum Rules dum vise au paragraphe 42(3), il est consti-Commission shall forthwith be established by tue, par proclamation du gouverneur general commission issued under the Great Seal of 35sous le grand sceau du Canada, une commis-Canada consisting of	sion referendaire composee :
(a) the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission;
(.b) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council; and	40
(c)	a person appointed by the Governor General in Council
(i) on the recommendation of the governments of a majority of the provinces, or	45
a)	du directeur general des elections du 35 Canada, president;
b)	d'une personne nommee par le gouverneur general en conseil;
c)	d'une personne nommee par le gouverneur general en conseil :	40
(i)	soit sur la recommandation des gou-vernements de la majorite des provinces,
(ii)	soit, si les gouvernements de la majorite des provinces ne presentent pas
Entree en vigueur de la partie VI apres referendum
Droit de vote
Constitution de la commission referendaire
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Duty of Commission
Rules for referendum
Proclamation
Computation of period
Rules to have force of law
(ii) if the governments of a majority of the provinces do not recommend a candidate within thirty days after the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada requests such a recommendation, on the recom- 5 mendation of the Chief Justice of Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the provinces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day 10 period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persons as the Chief Justice considers qualified.
The Constitution
de candidat dans les trente jours suivant la demande que leur en fait le directeur general des elections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi presente etant 5 choisi parmi les personnes recomman-dees par les gouvernements des provinces dans les trente jours suivant l'expira-tion du premier delai de trente jours ou, faute de recommandation, parmi les 10 personnes que le juge en chef estime qualifiees.
(3) A Referendum Rules Commission (3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa cons-shall cause rules for the holding of a referen-15 titution, la commission referendaire fait dum under subsection 42(3) approved by a deposer devant le Parlement les regies appli-majority of the Commission to be laid before	cables a la tenue du referendum vise au
Parliament within sixty days after the Com-	paragraphe 42(3), qu'elle aura approuvees
mission is established or, if Parliament is not par decision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne then sitting, on any of the first ten days next20siege pas, ce depot s'effectue dans les dix thereafter that Parliament is sitting.	premier jours de seance ulterieurs.
Mandat de la commission
20
(4) Subject to subsection (1) and taking (4) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1) et	^7 8r^enn'da^n
into consideration any rules approved by a	compte tenu des regies deposees conforme-
Referendum Rules Commission in accord- ment au paragraphe (3), le Parlement peut
ance with subsection (3), Parliament may 251egiferer pour reglementer la tenue du refe-enact laws respecting the rules applicable to rendum vise au paragraphe 42(3).	25
the holding of a referendum under subsection 42(3).
(5)	If Parliament does not enact laws (5) Faute par le Parlement d'avoir legi- Proclamation
under subsection (4) respecting	the rules ap-30 fere, conformement au paragraphe (4), dans
plicable to the holding of a	referendum	le delai de soixante jours suivant le depot deswithin sixty days after receipt	of a recom-	regies visees au paragraphe (3), celles-ci sontmendation from a Referendum	Rules Com-	mises immediatement en vigueur par procla- 30
mission, the rules recommended by the Com- mation du gouverneur general sous le grand mission shall forthwith be brought into force 35 sceau du Canada, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(6)	Any period when Parliament is proro- (6) Dans la computation du delai vise au du°dJJaJa,ion gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (5), ne sont pas comptes les jours u e a' computing the sixty day period referred to in 40pendant lesquels le Parlement est proroge ou 35 subsection (5).	dissous.(7)	Subject to subsection (1), rules made (7) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1), les	Jaieurdeforeeunder this section have the force of law and	regies arretees en vertu du present article ontprevail over other laws made under the Con- force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions stitution of Canada to the extent of any 45 incompatibles de toute autre regie de droit 40 inconsistency.	fondee sur la Constitution du Canada.
February 17, 1981
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Definitions
"Atlantic
provinces"
"Western
provinces"
Amendment authorized by referendum
The Constitution


[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING	PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA	CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
45. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by	5
(a)	resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b)	resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least a majority of the provinces that includes	10
(i)	every province that at any time before the issue of the proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twenty-five per cent of the population of 15 Canada,
(ii)	two or more of the Atlantic provinces, and
(iii)	two or more of the Western provinces that have in the aggregate, accord- 20 ing to the then latest general census, a population of at least fifty per cent of the population of all of the Western provinces.
45.	(1) La Constitution du Canada peut Procedure etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver- mutation neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisee a la fois :
a)	par des resolutions du Senat et de la 5 Chambre des communes;
b)	par des resolutions des assemblies legislatives d'une majorite des provinces; cette majorite doit comprendre :
(i)	chaque province dont la population, 10
avant la date de cette proclamation, representait, selon un recensement general anterieur quelconque, au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de la population du Canada,	15
(ii)	au moins deux des provinces de I'Atlantique,
(iii)	au moins deux des provinces de l'Ouest, a condition que la population confondue des provinces consentantes 20 represente, selon le recensement general
le plus recent a l'epoque, au moins cin-quante pour cent de la population de l'ensemble des provinces de I'Ouest.
(2) In this section,	25
"Atlantic provinces" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland;
"Western provinces" means the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatche- 30 wan and Alberta.
(2) Les definitions qui suivent s'appliquent 25 Definitions au present article.
«provinces de l'Atlantique* Les provinces de la Nouvelle-Ecosse, du Nouveau-Bruns-wick, de l'fle-du-Prince-Edouard et de Terre-Neuve.	30
[DOT]provinces de I'Atlantique*
[DOT]provinces de l'Ouest* Les provinces du -provinces de Manitoba, de la Colombie-Britannique, de IOucsl>
la Saskatchewan et de l'Alberta.
46.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution 46. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Modification of Canada may be made by proclamation	etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver-35^°/^^
issued, by the Governor General under the	neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada,
Great Seal of Canada where so authorized 35 autorisee par un referendum tenu dans tout by a referendum held throughout Canada le pays conformement au paragraphe (2) et under subsection (2) at which	lors duquel la modification a ete approuvee :
(a)	a majority of persons voting thereat, a) d'une part, a la majorite des votants; 40
anc*	b) d'autre part, a la majorite des votants
(b)	a majority of persons voting thereat in 40 de chacune des provinces dont les resolu-each of the provinces, resolutions of the tions de leurs assemblies legislatives suffi-legislative assemblies of which would be raient, avec les resolutions du Senat et de
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Authorization of referendum
Time limit for referendum
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
Amendments
respecting
certain
language rights
sufficient, together with resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons, to authorize the issue of a proclamation under subsection 45(1),
have approved the making of the amendment.
(2) A referendum referred to in subsection (1) shall be held where directed by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada, which proclamation may be issued where
(а)	an amendment to the Constitution of Canada has been authorized under paragraph 45(1 )(a) by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons;
(б)	the requirements of paragraph 45(1)(6) in respect of the proposed amendment have not been satisfied within twelve months after the passage of the resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(c)	the issue of the proclamation has been authorized by the Governor General in Council.
The Constitution
la Chambre des communes, a autoriser la proclamation mentionnee au paragraphe 45(1).
(2) L'ordre de tenue du referendum men-tionne au paragraphe (1) est donne par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le 10grand sceau du Canada. Cette proclamation est assujettie aux conditions suivantes ;
a)	le Senat et la Chambre des communes ont, conformement a l'alinea 45(1 )a), 10 adopte des resolutions autorisant la modi-
15 fication de la Constitution du Canada;
b)	les dispositions de l'alinea 45(1)6) applicables au projet de modification n'ont pas ete observees dans les douze mois sui- 15 vant l'adoption des resolutions du Senat et
20 de la Chambre des communes;
c)	le gouverneur general en conseil a autorise la proclamation.
Autorisation dc referendum
(3) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 20 Decide tenue
du referendum
(3) A proclamation issued under subsection (2) in respect of a referendum shall 25 (2) fixe la tenue du referendum pour une provide for the referendum to be held within	date comprise dans les deux ans qui suivent
two years after the expiration of the twelve	l'expiration du delai de douze mois menmonth period referred to in paragraph (b) of tionne a l'alinea b) de ce paragraphe. that subsection.
47. An amendment to the Constitution of 30	47. Les dispositions de la Constitution du 25 Modification a
Canada in relation to any provision that	Canada applicables a certaines provinces	ce®ta;nesapplies to one or more, but not all, provinces	seulement peuvent etre modifiees par procla-	provincesmay be made by proclamation issued by the	mation du gouverneur general sous le grandGovernor General under the Great Seal of	sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolu-Canada where so authorized by resolutions 35 tions du Senat, de la Chambre des commu-30 of the Senate and House of Commons and of	nes et de l'assemblee legislative de chaquethe legislative assembly of each province to	province a laquelle la modification s'appliwhich the amendment applies.	que.
48. (1) Notwithstanding section 54, an 48. (1) Par derogation a Particle 54, toute Modificaiion amendment to the Constitution of Canada 40 modification de la Constitution du Canada : 35 droits
(а)	adding a province as a province named in subsection 16(2), 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) or 20(2), or
(б)	otherwise providing for any or all of the rights guaranteed or obligations 45 imposed by any of those subsections to have application in a province to the extent and under the conditions stated in the amendment,
a)	soit portant insertion du nom d'une imgmstiques province aux paragraphes 16(2), 17(2),
18(2), 19(2) ou 20(2),
b)	soit prevoyant l'application a une province, aux conditions precisees dans la 40 modification, de tout ou partie des droits ou obligations vises a ces paragraphes,
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
Initiation of amendment procedure
The Constitution
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies.
peut etre prise par proclamation du gouver-neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblee 5 legislative de la province concernee.	5
(2) The procedure for amendment pre- (2) L'initiative de la procedure de modifi- initiative de la scribed by subsection (1) may be initiated	cation visee au paragraphe (1) appartient a	Procedureonly by the legislative assembly of the prov-	l'assemblee legislative de la province concerince to which the amendment applies.	10 nee.
Initiation of amendment procedures
Revocation of authorization
49.	(1) The procedures for amendment 49. (1) L'initiative des procedures delO Initiative des prescribed by subsection 45(1) and section	modification visees au paragraphe 45(1) et a	Procedures
47 may be initiated either by the Senate or	l'article 47 appartient au Senat, a la Cham-
House of Commons or by the legislative	bre des communes ou a l'assemblee legislaassembly of a province.	15tive d'une province.(2) A resolution made for the purposes of (2) La resolution adoptee dans le cadre de 15 Possibility de this Part may be revoked at any time before	la presente partie peut etre revoquee a tout	revocal,onthe issue of a proclamation authorized by it.	moment avant la date de la proclamation
qu'elle autorise.
Right to vote
Establishment of Referendum Rules
Commission
50.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has, sub- 50. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Droit de vote ject only to such reasonable limits prescribed 20 vote au referendum vise a Particle 46; ce20 by law as can be demonstrably justified in a	droit ne peut etre restreint que par une regiefree and democratic society, the right to vote	de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnain a referendum held under section 46.	bles et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.	25(2) Where a referendum is to be held (2) Des que s'impose la tenue du referen- Constitution de under section 46, a Referendum Rules Com- 25 dum vise a l'article 46, il est constitue, par ^3'"°" mission shall forthwith be established by	proclamation du gouverneur general sous lecommission issued under the Great Seal of	grand sceau du Canada, une commissionCanada consisting of	referendaire composee :	30(a)	the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission; 30(b)	a person appointed by the Governor General in Council; and(c)	a person appointed by the Governor General in Council(i)	on the recommendation of the gov- 35 ernments of a majority of the provinces,
or
(ii)	if the governments of a majority of the provinces do not recommend a candidate within thirty days after the Chief 40 Electoral Officer of Canada requests such a recommendation, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the prov- 45
a)	du directeur general des elections du Canada, president;
b)	d'une personne nominee par le gouverneur general en conseil;
c)	d'une personne nominee par le gouver- 35 neur general en conseil :
(i)	soit sur la recommandation des gou-vernements de la majorite des provinces,
(ii)	soit, si les gouvernements de la majorite des provinces ne presentent pas 40 de candidat dans les trente jours suivant
la demande que leur en fait le directeur general des elections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi presente etant 45 choisi parmi les personnes recomman-dees par les gouvernements des provin-
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Duty of Commission
Rules for referendum
The Constitution
inces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persons as the Chief Justice considers qualified.	5
ces dans les trente jours suivant l'expira-tion du premier delai de trente jours ou, faute de recommandation, parmi les personnes que le juge en chef estime qualifies.	5
(3) A Referendum Rules Commission shall cause rules for the holding of a referendum under section 46 approved by a majority of the Commission to be laid before Parliament within sixty days after the Commission is established or, if Parliament is not then sitting, on any of the first ten days next thereafter that Parliament is sitting.
(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission referendaire fait deposer devant le Parlement les regies appli-cables a la tenue du referendum vise a l'arti-lOcle 46, qu'elle aura approuvees par decision 10 majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne siege pas, ce depot s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de seance ulterieurs.
Mandat de la commission
(4)	Subject to subsection (1) and taking (4) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1) into consideration any rules approved by a 15 compte tenu des regies deposees conforme- 15 Referendum Rules Commission in accord-	ment au paragraphe (3), le Parlement peutance with subsection (3), Parliament may	legiferer pour reglementer la tenue du refeenact laws respecting the rules applicable to rendum vise a Particle 46. the holding of a referendum under section 46.	20
Proclamation (5) ]f Parliament does not enact laws under subsection (4) respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum within sixty days after receipt of a recommendation from a Referendum Rules Commission, the rules recommended by the Commission shall forthwith be brought into force by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(5)	Faute par le Parlement d'avoir legi- Proclamation fere, conformement au paragraphe (4), dans 20 le delai de soixante jours suivant le depot des regies visees au paragraphe (3), celles-ci sont mises immediatement en vigueur par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.	25
Computation of period
(6)	Any period when Parliament is proro- 30 gued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the sixty day period referred to in subsection (5).
(6)	Dans la computation du delai vise au paragraphe (5), ne sont pas comptes les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est proroge ou dissous.
Computation du delai
Rules to have force of law
(7)	Subject to subsection (1), rules made (7) Sous reserve du paragraphe (1), les30^al«"rd^erf°r|cees under this section have the force of law and 35 regies arretees en vertu du present article ont e 01 es rcgcs prevail over other laws made under the Con-	force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions
stitution of Canada to the extent of any	incompatibles de toute autre regie de droit
inconsistency.	fondee sur la Constitution du Canada.
Limitation on 51. (1) The procedures prescribed by sec-amendmeT1 tion 45, 46 or 47 do not apply to an amend-procedure ment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for making the amendment, but the procedures prescribed by section 45 or 46 shall, nevertheless, be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this section.
51. (1) Les articles 45, 46 ou 47 ne s'ap-35 Restriction du
v	recours a la
pliquent pas aux cas de modification consti- procedure tutionnelle pour lesquels une procedure diffe-	normale dc
,	. j. [DOT]. [DOT]	*	modification
rente est prevue par une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada. La procedure visee aux articles 45 ou 46 s'impose toutefois40 pour modifier les dispositions relatives a la modification de la Constitution, y compris le present article.
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
Idem
Amendments by Parliament
Amendments by provincial legislatures
Matters
requiring
amendment
under general
amendment
procedure
Consequential
amendments
The Constitution
(2) The procedures prescribed by section 45 or 46 do not apply in respect of an amendment referred to in section 47.
(2) Les procedures prevues aux articles 45 idem ou 46 ne s'appliquent pas a la modification visee a l'article 47.
52. Subject to section 54, Parliament may 52. Sous reserve de Particle 54, le Parle- Modification exclusively make laws amending the Consti- 5 ment a competence exclusive pour modifier 5 parr|ement tution of Canada in relation to the executive les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada drcmcn government of Canada or the Senate or relatives au pouvoir executif federal, au House of Commons.	Senat et a la Chambre des communes.
53. Subject to section 54, the legislature 53. Sous reserve de Particle 54, la legisla- Modification of each province may exclusively make laws lOture de chaque province a competence exclu- 10 ^gris'|easturcs amending the constitution of the province. sive pour modifier la constitution de celle-ci. provinciates
54. An amendment to the Constitution of 54. Toute modification de la Constitution Canada in relation to the following matters du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-may be made only in accordance with a tes se fait selon la procedure visee aux arti-procedure prescribed by section 45 or 46:	15 cles 45 ou 46 :
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the Canadian Charter of Rights and
Freedoms;	20
(c)	the commitments relating to equalization and regional disparities set out in section 34;
(d)	the powers of the Senate;
(e)	the number of members by which a 25 province is entitled to be represented in the Senate;
(/) the method of selecting Senators and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(g)	the right of a province to a number of 30 members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the province; and
(h)	the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the 35 House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada.
a)	la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
b)	la Charte canadienne des droits et libertes;
c)	les engagements enonces, en matiere de 20 perequation et d'inegalites regionales, a Particle 34;
d)	les pouvoirs du Senat;
e)	le nombre de senateurs representant
chaque province au Senat;	25
f)	le mode de selection des senateurs et les conditions de residence qu'ils doivent remplir;
g)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de 30 deputes au moins egal a celui de ses senateurs;
h)	les principes de la representation pro-portionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des communes prevus par la Constitution 35 du Canada.
Recours obligatoire a la procedure normale de modification
55. (1) Class 1 of section 91 and class 1 of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act, 1867), the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, referred to in item 22 of Schedule 1 to this Act and Parts IV and V of this Act are repealed.
55. (1) La rubrique 1 de Particle 91 et la	Modifications
rubrique 1 de Particle 92 de la Loi constitu-	correlatlves
40 tionnelle de 1867 (anterieurement designee sous le titre : Acte de I'Amerique du Nord 40 britannique, 1867), YAete de I'Amerique du Nord britannique (n° 2), 1949, mentionne au n° 22 de Pannexe I de la presente loi, et les parties IV et V de la presente loi sont abroges.	45
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Idem
Amendment to Constitution Act. 1867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources.
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
Authority of Parliament
The Constitution
(2) When Parts IV and V of this Act are repealed, this section may be repealed and this Act may be renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of those Parts and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(2) Des l'abrogation des parties IV et V de ldem la presente loi, le gouverneur general peut, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le present article et changer 5en consequence de cette double abrogation la 5 numerotation de la presente loi.


[Stage Direction]
56. (1) La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification dc (anterieurement designee sous le titre : Acte consiitution-
____	________ __	^	de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867)	nettedetMi
immediately after section 92 thereof, the fol- lOest modifiee par l'insertion, apres Particle 92,10 lowing heading and section:	de la rubrique et de Particle suivants :
56. (1) The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act, 1867) is amended by adding thereto,
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation
to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natu- 15 ral resources in the province;
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to 20 the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c)	development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and produc- 25 tion of electrical energy.
(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renew- 30 able natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for 35 discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.
(3)	Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to 40
«Ressources naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestieres et energie electrique
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque province a competence exclusive pour legife-rer dans les domaines suivants :
a)	prospection des ressources naturelles 15 non renouvelables de la province;
b)	exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, y compris leur rythme de pro- 20 duction primaire;
c)	amenagement, conservation et gestion des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique.	25
Competence
provincialc
(2)	La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiferer en ce qui con- provinces cerne l'exportation, hors de la province, a destination d'une autre partie du Canada,
de la production primaire tiree des ressour- 30 ces naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production d'energie electrique de la province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites 35 de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.
(3)	Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas Pouvoirdu atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legiie-4U
rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragra-
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights
phe, Ies dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines l'emportant sur Ies dispositions incompatibles d'une loi provinciale.
(4) La legislature de chaque province a 5 Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes ressourccs d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de taxation :
The Constitution
in that subsection and, where such a law of Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
(4) In each province, the legislature may 5 make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province 10 and the primary production therefrom, and
(b)	sites and facilities in the province
for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,	15
whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of 20 Canada and production not exported from the province.
(5)	The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule.	25
(6)	Nothing in subsections (1) to (5)
derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section."	30
a)	des ressources naturelles non renou-velables et des ressources forestieres de 10 la province, ainsi que de la production primaire qui en est tiree;
b)	des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique, ainsi que cette pro- 15 duction meme.
Cette competence peut s'exercer indepen-damment du fait que la production en cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, exportee hors de la province, mais les lois20 adoptees dans ces domaines ne peuvent autoriser ou prevoir une taxation qui eta-blisse une distinction entre la production exportee a destination d'une autre partie du Canada et la production non exportee 25 hors de la province.
(5) L'expression «production primaire* a *Production le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme PMmairc* annexe.
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent 30Pouvoirs ou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus dr0lt!>
cx,slanls par la legislature ou le gouvernement d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*
Idem
57. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Schedule:
57. La presente loi est en outre modifiee 35|dcm par l'adjonction 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,
(a) production from a non-renewable 35 natural resource is primary production therefrom if
«SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables el des ressources forestieres
1. Pour l'application de Particle 92A : a) on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non renouvela-ble:	40
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
Consequential
amendments
(i)	it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its natural state, or
(ii)	it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is 5 not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude 10 oil; and
(b) production from a forestry resource is primary production therefrom if it consists of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or any other primary wood product, 15 or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood."
The Constitution
(i)	soit le produit qui se presente sous la meme forme que lors de son extraction du milieu naturel,
(ii)	soit le produit non manufacture de
la transformation, du raffinage ou de 5 l'affinage d'une ressource, a l'exception du produit du raffinage du petrole brut, du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-des derives du charbon ou du raffinage 10 d'un equivalent synthetique du petrole brut;
b) on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource forestiere la production constitute de billots, de poteaux, de bois 15 d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de bois, a I'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[Stage Direction]
DISPOSITIONS GfeNfeRALES
58. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 58. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la 20Primauted<: la supreme law of Canada, and any law that is loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada1"0" " inconsistent with the provisions of the Con-20les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre stitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, regie de droit, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes
(a)	the Canada Act;
(b)	the Acts and orders referred to in 25 Schedule I; and
(c)	any amendment to any Act or order referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(2) La Constitution du Canada comprend :
a)	la Loi sur le Canada;	25
b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figurant a l'annexe I;
c)	les modifications aux textes legislatifs
et aux decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou b).	30
Constitution du Canada
(3)	Amendments to the Constitution of (3) La Constitution du Canada ne peut Modification Canada shall be made only in accordance 30 etre modifiee que conformement aux pou-with the authority contained in the Constitu- voirs conferes par elle. tion of Canada.
59.	(1) The enactments referred to in 59. (1) Les textes legislatifs enumeres a la Abrogations Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed	colonne I de l'annexe I sont abroges ou modi-35nouveauxtltres
or amended to the extent indicated in 35 fies dans la mesure indiquee a la colonne II.
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall Sauf abrogation, ils restent en vigueur en continue as law in Canada under the names tant que lois du Canada sous les titres men-set out in Column III thereof.	tionnes a la colonne III.
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada (2) Toute loi, sauf la Loi sur le Canada, 40 Modifications Act, that refers to an enactment referred to 40 qui fait mention d'une loi figurant a l'annexe correallv<* in Schedule I by the name in Column I I par le titre indique a la colonne I est thereof is hereby amended by substituting modifiee par substitution a ce titre du titre
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
French version of Constitution of Canada
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts
English and French versions of this Act
Commencement
Exception
Short title and citations
The Constitution
for that name the corresponding name in Column 111 thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in Schedule 1 may be cited as the Constitution Act followed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
60.	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.
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 Lot constitutionnelle suivi de 51'indication de I'annee de son adoption et 5 eventuellement de son numero.
60. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs delais, la version fran?aise des parties de la 10 Constitution du Canada qui figurent a Fan- 10 nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante est, des qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adoption par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-15ment a la procedure applicable a Fepoque a 15 la modification des dispositions constitution-nelles qu'elle contient.
61.	Where any portion of the Constitution 61. Les versions fran9aise et anglaise des of Canada has been or is enacted in English 20 parties de la Constitution du Canada adop-and French or where a French version of any	tees dans ces deux langues ont egalement 20
portion of the Constitution is enacted pursu-	force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de
ant to section 60, the English and French	loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de Particle
versions of that portion of the Constitution	60, d'une partie de la version fran9aise de la
are equally authoritative.	25 Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.	25
62.	The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.
63.	Subject to section 64, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
62.	Les versions fran9aise et anglaise de la presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
63.	Sous reserve de Particle 64, la presente loi entre en vigueur au jour fixe par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand 30 sceau du Canada.
64.	Part VI shall come into force as pro- 64. La partie VI entre en vigueur dans les
vided in Part V.	conditions prevues a la partie V.
65.	This Schedule may be cited as the 65. Titre abrege de la presente annexe :
Constitution Act, 1981, and the Constitution 35 Loi constitutionnelle de 1981; titre commun35 Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975 be cited together as the Constitution Acts, (n" 2) et de la presente loi : Lois constitu-1867 to 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
Version fran9aisc de certains textes constitutionncls
Versions fran?aisc et anglaise dc certains textes constitutionncls
Versions fran9ai.se et anglaise dc la presentc loi
Entree en vigueur
Exception
Titres
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 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.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
February 17, 1981

[Stage Direction]
The Constitution

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

[Stage Direction]
Colonne 1 Loi visee
Colonne II	Colonne III
Modification	Nouveau titre
9. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (R.-U.)
10.	Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario) 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)
11.	Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien (nomination d'un suppleant) 1895, 2C session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)
12.	Acte de l'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 3 (Canada)
13.	Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)
14.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)
15. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (R.-U.)
16. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (R.-U.)
17. Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)
18. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (R.-U.)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1886 place par ce qui suit :
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I886.*
Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de 1'Ontario)
La loi est abrogee.
Loi sur l'Alberta
Loi sur la Saskatchewan
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I907.o
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit :
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1915.0
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I930.o
Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli-quent au Canada :
a)	1'article 4 est abroge;
b)	le paragraphe 7(1) est abroge.
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit :
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1940.O
Loi constitutionnelle de 1907
Loi constitutionnelle de 1915
Loi constitutionnelle de 1930
Statut de Westminster de 1931
Loi constitutionnelle de 1940
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
19. British North America Act, 1943,	The Act is repealed.
6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
20. British North America Act, 1946,	The Act is repealed.
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
21. British North America Act, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Newfoundland Act."
Newfoundland Act
22. British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
The Act is repealed.
(effective when section 55 of the Constitution Act, 1981 comes into force)
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 j^erefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, I960."
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
February 17, 1981	COMMONS DEBATES 7371
	The Constitution ANNEXE 1 (suite)
	LOl CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
Colonne 1 Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
9. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
JO. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
21. Acte de I'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-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee lors de I'en-tree en vigueur de l'article 55 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1981.
23. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
24. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)	La loi est abrogee.
25. Acte de i'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1960 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I960.*
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- Loi constitutionnelle de 1964 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : 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- Loi constitutionnelle de 1965 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1965.*
[Stage Direction]
February 17, 1981
	The Constitution	SCHEDULE 1		
		to the		
		CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 - Concluded		
Item	Column 1 Act Affected	Column II Amendment	Column 111 New Name	British North America Act, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part I (Can.)	Section 3, as amended by 25-26 Eliz. 11, 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, 1974British North America Act, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)	Section 3, as amended by 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), 1975British North America Act (No. 2), 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)	Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975"	Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975
February 17, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE ! (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne 1 Loi visee	Colonne II Modification	Colonne III Nouveau titreActe 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 11, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-net le de 1974.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 1974Acte de I'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. 11, c. 28, Partie 1 (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par Particle 31 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 constitution-nelle n" 1 de 1975.*	Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975Acte de I'Amerique du Nord britan-nique n" 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II. c. 53 (Canada)	L'article 3 est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege : Loi consti-tutionnelle n" 2 de 1975.*	Loi constitutionnelle n" 2 de 1975 ! J *
February 17, 1981
The Constitution
[Stage Direction]
He said: Madam Speaker, on February 8, 1865, the Hon. George Brown stood in the Parliament of Canada at the beginning of the Confederation debates and said:
It is with no ordinary gratification 1 rise to address the House on this occasion.
I cannot help feeling that the struggle of half a lifetime for constitutional reform-the agitations in the country, and the fierce contests in this chamber- the strife and the discord and the abuse of many years-are all compensated by the great scheme of reform which is now in your hands.
Today it is with very great pride that I rise to begin the concluding stage of debate on another great scheme of constitutional reform. Like George Brown over a century ago, I am convinced that once the strife and the discord and the abuse are all behind us, all Canadians will be compensated by the reform which we are now debating.
[Stage Direction]
Madam Speaker, four months ago, I spoke at length in the House about the efforts that were made and were frustrated on several occasions for one reason or another during the past 53 years to repatriate our Constitution. I then introduced in the House a proposal to repatriate our Constitution and entrench a charter of rights and freedoms as well as the equalization principle and the notion of sharing, with an amending formula and mechanism designed to solve constitutional deadlocks.
I then proposed that the resolution be deferred to a joint Commons and Senate committee. That resolution, Madam Speaker, has been considerably altered in recent months and much improved, thanks to the hard work of 132 members of Parliament and 51 senators who have taken part since October in the proceedings of that committee, and thanks also to submissions made before that committee by some premiers, by a large number of national organizations, by individuals, thanks to submissions which were made to the committee in writing, to hundreds and hundreds of reports which were considered and to experts that were heard. And today, Madam Speaker, we have before us a resolution which has been drawn up in Canada by Canadians for the Canadians of today, and especially for the Canadians of tomorrow.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I should like first to pay tribute to the permanent committee members, especially to the co-chairmen, Senator Hays, who with his experience and his sense of humour has been a great help to the committee, and more especially to the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) who has chaired most of the sittings and performed an impossible task with dignity, neutrality and ability, thus earning the admiration of committee members, and particularly of all Canadians who followed those proceedings on television.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: During this debate we will hear a great deal about process, and I will speak to that issue later, but 1 want to speak more about substance. Because long after the debate over process is finished and forgotten, Canadians will take pride in the results of the substance of our work.
If anything came out of the joint committee, it is that Canadians want their common values and common aspirations to be reflected in their Constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in my view, is a good reflection of the hopes and dreams of Canadians.
I want to examine the charter both in terms of what it holds out for tomorrow and also in terms of how it fits into the stream of Canadian history. While our history is one in which we can take pride, it is not without its stains. Some of these were brought out very clearly during the hearing by the joint committee of testimony from representatives of our native people, of the National Association of Japanese-Canadians, francophone groups outside of Quebec, of anglophone groups in Quebec, of the National Black Coalition, of women's groups, of the handicapped.
Part of our task is to recognize the injustice of the past, to say "never again shall rights be trampled upon". Part of our task is to ensure that the enormous evolution in our values is reflected in our Constitution. That is what we are doing today. We are building a modern Canada for tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In the modern Canada of today with a vast administrative apparatus spanning two levels of government, we need a charter of rights to ensure that rights common to all Canadians are protected from the actions of both levels of government. Indeed, few have been as clear as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who told the joint committee, and I quote:
It is the popular will that we have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the Canadian people, embedded in the Constitution.
What does this charter of rights and freedoms do? First, it protects fundamental freedoms common to all Canadians, such as freedom of speech, of religion, of the press, freedom to vote and to hold office.
Second, it guarantees the freedom of Canadians to establish residence and seek a job anywhere in Canada without regard to provincial borders. It establishes one Canadian citizenship rather than ten provincial citizenships.
February 17, 1981

Third, the charter guarantees legal rights of Canadians. It sets out protections against arbitrary arrest, against unreasonable search and seizures. It enumerates the rights of an accused to be defended by counsel, to have a fair trial, not to be forced to testify against oneself. It ensures that where evidence is obtained illegally it shall not be used where, by so doing, the administration of justice would be brought into disrepute.
Fourth, the charter enumerates equality rights. In this area, the government is taking bold steps forward in order to ensure the equality of women before and under the law. Indeed, when 1 announced new wording for section 15 on January 12, Mrs. Doris Anderson called it a major step forward. She said: "I think the government's come a very long way toward meeting the consensus of Canadians, including women." We agree with Mrs. Anderson that it is a major step forward.
Yesterday, in this House, the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), assisted in his task by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale), tabled a moving report on the handicapped. Today I take pride in presenting a constitutional charter which specifically prohibits discrimination against the handicapped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Fifth, the charter deals with language rights, and I will speak to this in a few minutes.
Sixth, the charter makes specific reference to the multicultural nature of our society. At the time of confederation our forefathers established a new country based on two great cultures, the English and the French. Over the last 114 years, Canada has been enriched by the contribution of immigrants from the four corners of the globe. And because Canada prides itself on not being a melting pot, we are establishing today that the charter "shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians". As far as the government is concerned, the multicultural heritage of Canadians is such an essential fabric of our nationhood that it must be reflected in our Constitution.

Seventh, the project of constitutional re(prm which we have before us recognizes for the first time, and i am proud to say so, the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Irtdian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. It is not possible to correct generations of injustice merely by adding words to a Constitution. But it is possible to take a giant step toward a newvbeginning so that, in the words of the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), "together we will build a great nation." \


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	\


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to tell \he House that in all the lists of rights that I have spoken about so far, we have not changed in any way distribution of power iny Canada. The limits that we are imposing today are limits that we are imposing on both levels of government. We think that in a modern society like ours the rights of the citizen should be
The Constitution
protected in the Constitution so that the errors of the past- there were not many, but there were a few-will not be repeated, and I stress that point, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I should like to deal now with the language issue and, in this regard, maybe I should direct my remarks especially to my fellow Quebecers. On May 20 of last year, we elected together to remain faithful to our Canadian heritage and roots. During the referendum campaign, the Prime Minister, other Quebec members and I indicated that if Quebec were to remain part of Canada, we would have to change Canada. I, for one, played a very active part in that campaign, and in every speech I made I insisted that if the No side won, we would carry out in-depth reforms. As I said then and repeat now, we intend to patriate our Constitution, adopt a proper amending formula, enshrine both English and French as the official languages of Canada, make sure that from now on the rights of Canadians to deal with federal institutions and courts are protected by the Constitution, and include the Canadian legislation on official bilingualism in the Constitution.
I also indicated a while ago that we would provide francophones outside Quebec with the constitutional right to set up French schools in all Canadian provinces, and that the price to pay for this right which has not been recognized for the past 114 years in Canada would be to grant anglophones in Quebec the same education rights as those being granted to francophones outside Quebec.
I also said that we shall enshrine in the Constitution the notion of sharing because it is part of the fabric of Canada. There have been good years and lean years, depending on the occupation or the area in which one lived. What has made Canada a great country is the fact that when times were hard, the rich have always helped the poor. That is why we are still here together today.
Madam Speaker, the reform we are proposing today follows the trend set by great francophone leaders who were concerned with the whole of Canada, men like Laurier, Henri Bourassa, Andre Laurendeau and others. I am thinking of Laurier, the first French Canadian to lead our country, the statesman who always claimed that all of Canada was the country of French Canadians. 1 am thinking of Henri Bourassa who had this to say, and I quote:
Our very own nationalism is the Canadian nationalism based on two peoples, on the distinctive traditions that duality implies. Our country, our land, is all of Canada.
When Henri Bourassa spoke of constitutional reform, he insisted on the right of all minorities to be taught in their own language everywhere in Canada. Fifty-five years ago today, speaking to the Ontario premier, Bourassa said, and 1 quote him in English:

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
We claim for ourselves the right, natural, historical and constitutional, to have the French language taught to our children in all public schools attended by a sufficient number of them in every province.

That is what Henri Bourassa said 55 years ago to the Ontario premier.
Madam Speaker, that is exactly what we are doing at last in Canada today. We believe it is important to maintain the people's mobility in the country because there are Francophones in every province of Canada and because there are also Anglophones who feel at home and comfortable in Quebec. Here is what Henri Bourassa said about minorities outside Quebec, and I quote:
It is not only the right but the strict duty of the province of Quebec to ensure the conservation of French groups in other provinces, because their survival is the guarantee of its own existence. Let us not forget it. If by an attitude of despicable selfishness or in the torpor of a foolish apathy, we allow the other French groups within confederation, those scattered shoots of the main stem, to perish one after another, we shall be soon attacked on our own ground. We shall suffer the punishment of cowards and egoists.
1 am thinking also of Andre Laurendeau and his struggle to recommend true bilingualism at the federal level. The Official Languages Act is his legacy. Today, Madam Speaker, we are making it a constitutional guarantee, and because such progressive advances have been made in Canada, what would have triggered a revolution 15 years ago now goes almost unnoticed.
Madam Speaker, that is what we are offering Canadians at this point in our history: a new foundation on which to build a more united, a more generous and a greater country. But to achieve this, we must patriate the Canadian Constitution. Why patriate it? As we all know, Canada is now a sovereign and independent country, but it is still lacking something very important. We cannot amend our own Constitution in Canada. It was in 1867 that British colonies joined together to form our country Canada which gradually achieved its independence. This was done by the Balfour declarations of 1926 and the Statute of Westminster of 1931 which virtually recognized Canada's independence. The government of the day, under Prime Minister Bennett, asked that the Constitution remain in Britain until such time as an amending formula could be worked out. According to the historians and the government of the time, it should have been a matter of six months or at most one to two years.
Since then, Madam Speaker, six prime ministers and 11 constitutional conferences have tried to solve the problem. Among those prime ministers, there were some Liberals and some Progressive Conservatives. In the short time that I have been in public life there have been many near misses. In 1963, just as I was getting ready to enter politics, Mr. Fulton, the Minister of Justice under Mr. Diefenbaker, was working on a solution. Subsequently, one of our good friends, the late Guy
Favreau, spent a considerable amount of time trying to achieve consensus with the Fulton-Favreau formula and at one point he thought he had found the answer, but again it escaped him.
The House may recall the fiery period between 1968 and 1971 when all governments attended the Toronto conference convened by Messrs. Robarts and Johnson which continued thereafter because Ottawa and the provincial governments had to reach agreement, which is what was achieved in 1971. For the first time in Canada's history there was agreement. Unfortunately it did not last. A few days later, for reasons altogether foreign to the amendment formula, Quebec withdrew its consent.
And in 1975 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made a renewed attempt at repatriation, and repatriation alone. That did not lead anywhere so we introduced Bill C-60 in 1978 which again ended in failure. This time we began in 1980 and we are now in 1981. Fifty years of efforts, Madam Speaker, 50 years of failure. That is why we are committed at this time to settle an anachronistic situation wherein we have to go through the British parliament if we want to amend our own Constitution. We must set aside the rule of unanimity and break out of that vicious circle; and the only way to do that is to act as we are doing now, although it may not be the easiest way, Madam Speaker.

As I said in French, it is not the easiest way, but it is the only way. It is the only way because we tried under the best circumstances last summer right after the referendum. Hon. members will remember the good wishes of this House of Commons before and after the referendum when I went to the provinces telling them that we wanted to have some changes in Canada. All of them said, "Yes, yes, yes," but in September there was no agreement. The hon. member for Provencher tells me in good faith to try again, but I am telling this House that that is just wishful thinking.


Charles Joseph Clark: That's not true.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will come to that point later on when I talk about the many amending formulas proposed by the opposition.
1 am telling this House that the amending formula we are proposing at this time is the best one, and I will tell the House why. First, we are patriating. We are making the Canadian Constitution a Canadian document. After that we will not impose an amending formula. There will be the rule of unanimity for two years. During those two years the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers will have to meet twice to try to find an amending formula. If for whatever reason seven provinces representing 80 per cent of the population-and we have agreed that will be the amending formula-do not agree, the matter will be put to a referendum, and the people of Canada will settle it once and for all. I think that is the only way to get out of that problem.
February 17, 1981

At the moment it looks as though there is not a great chance of agreement among the provinces. There was a meeting in Montreal last week. Not all ten premiers attended. Only six of them did, and they could not agree on an amending formula. They were not even able to agree on whether or not to go to London. If there is not agreement, we will have the Victoria formula. It is not a perfect formula, but it is the only one which received the approval of 11 first ministers in 1971. In their wisdom they all agreed at that time. So there must be something good about it.
According to the Victoria formula, first, the provinces will have a legal say in the amending process. That is the last time we are going to London. Now we can go unilaterally. When the patriation process is over, under any of the amending formulas which have been proposed, as well as under the one we are proposing now, the provinces will have a say in the amending process.
Second, the Victoria formula gave the regions a say in the amending process. The rule is an easy one; it is the rule of 25 per cent. Any province which has to date 25 per cent of the population has a right to agree or disagree on any new amendment. Any province which some day will have 25 per cent of the population will acquire the same rights. In terms of the regions, as was agreed by the western premiers in 1971, if two provinces representing 50 per cent of the population of western Canada agree, the Constitution can be amended.
The situation is somewhat different in the maritimes. We wanted to apply a similar rule to the one which applied in the western provinces under the terms of the Victoria formula, but after listening to the first ministers of the maritime provinces, we accepted what we called the Henderson amendment according to which two out of the four maritime provinces will have to give their consent. This is the amending formula. Under the amending formula there is sufficient regional protection to ensure that nothing is imposed on the maritimes or on the western provinces unless, in the case of the western provinces, two provinces representing 50 per cent of the population agree with it. The rule is different for the maritimes, but that is the way they want it. So it would be impossible for central Canada to impose its views on the rest of Canada in constitutional matters.
Why do we need in Canada an amending formula that has some flexibility? The answer is very simple, that what we are doing today is the start of the process, not the end. Much reform has to be undertaken in Canada in future in terms of constitutional powers. For example, take the upper chamber, the Senate. The senators themselves prepared a report a few months ago in which they proposed some reforms of the upper House. In my meeting with the ministers last summer, one item took up a lot of time when we were trying to find a formula for reforming the upper House which would result in more adequate regional representation. This was not resolved, but some agreement will have to be reached on it.
The Constitution
We will have to constitutionalize the Supreme Court. There was much discussion of this issue and we came very close to a conclusion this summer. That will have to be done some day. The problem of family law will have to be clarified. The re-examination of the division of powers in Canada will have to be tackled. Some powers could be delegated to the provinces and, in the best interests of Canada, some powers could be transferred to the national government. It is very important also that we strengthen our economic union in Canada.
In short, Madam Speaker, what we are proposing to the people of Canada, through their elected representatives from all across the country in this chamber, is very simple. It consists of the patriation of the Canadian Constitution at long last, and the entrenchment in the Constitution of a charter of rights and liberties, a dream which has been referred to in this House so eloquently and so many times by the former member for Prince Albert. It contains the entrenchment of native rights in the constitution, equalization payments, the notion of sharing, the recognition of the ownership of the resources by the provinces in a very clear test, coupled with the power given to the provinces to tax the resources and to pass laws in interprovincial trade, within, of course, federal parameters. Also, as I said earlier, it includes an amending formula which will permit the many changes which will be brought about in the future.
I should like to tell you, Madam Speaker, that when you look at the distribution of powers, as mentioned in the motion before us, the only changes you will find are in favour of the provinces in matters of resource ownership, indirect taxation and interprovincial trade. It will be the first time that, under the law, the provinces will have to be consulted and will have to agree to any change in the Constitution. We are imposing on the national government a new obligation to grant to those provinces which are less fortunate equalization payments and other schemes to ensure the sharing of Canada's wealth in the future.
In my judgment, our scheme is not that complicated, and I think that the Canadian people are strongly in favour of it. Of course, the Canadian people do not like the unilateral obligation which we have to accept, but when you are the government you have to take your responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There was very little quarrel in the committee regarding these matters. Everyone from across Canada who came to testify before the committee said that we needed a better charter, that we have to inscribe into the charter new protection for certain rights and other such proposals. We have not been able to satisfy all the demands but this is a good beginning. It will clearly establish that what is important in Canada is that we are all equal. We can be different in our society and be equal at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What was the reaction of the opposition? 1 think it is a very amusing situation and at the same time not very amusing. I have seen the work of the members of the

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
opposition in the committee and I have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that when there was no disagreement or protest on the substance, opposition members made some very good contributions, and I thank them for that. They worked very hard, especially the hon. member for Provencher.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: But-


Mr. Crombie:: But what?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will come to the hon. member soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: From the start they all said they were in favour of patriation. That was a great step forward. Some months or a year ago there was no accord on patriation, and it was the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), seconded by the hon. member for Provencher, who put forward a motion, which was approved in this House at the time of the referendum, that we should patriate the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: All hon. members are in favour of a charter of rights. That is very important. 1 quoted the very eloquent words of the hon. member for Provencher, and we are all in agreement. Hon. members are in favour of enshrining native rights in the Constitution. They want to enshrine equalization payments. All that we have done is for the good, but it is not complete and we should do more. But they say the process is wrong. What are they proposing? They have two or three amending formulas but the process is always the same.
According to their formula, the entrenchment of the rights of the natives, of the rights of women, of the handicapped, and so on, will be subject to the approval of the provinces. The Premier of Manitoba, the province of the hon. member for Provencher, said, not only in Canada but in London, that he will never accept any section of the charter of rights in Canada. How can they be in favour of a charter of rights and an amending formula which will ensure that there will never be a charter of rights that will apply to all Canadians; that we have different classes of Canadians in Canada; that in some provinces there will be some natives who will have aboriginal rights and other natives who will not have them; that women in some provinces will have some rights and other women will not have the same rights in other provinces; that the handicapped will have some protection in some provinces and will not have the same protection in other provinces? That is the ambiguity of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 understand their embarrassment; they have to face their responsibilities and the reality. They were all there that Friday morning when we agreed to entrench in the Constitution the protection of aboriginal rights. It was one of
the high moments in my political life, when I saw the unanimity in that committee and some members were crying because there was a commitment on that day that the injustices of the past were at last to be corrected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Suddenly there is an amending formula from Mr. Tremblay which nobody understands as yet. There was, for four months, an amending formula; they might have another one four months later; from the eighth to the twelfth month there was a third possibility. And if there was no agreement, it was "unanimity"; again going back to Mr. Lyon to get approval to entrench any rights in Canada. It was not understandable.
Today they come with a new amending formula; they had a new release yesterday. Now it will be an amending formula with no more unanimity; it is something new. This can be studied at another time, but I think the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) will probably deal with that, with great pleasure, tonight, or the Minister of State for Science and Technology and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) will deal with that tomorrow. But the new amending formula is something different this week; now it is seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population. But have they consulted Mr. Lougheed about it? Have they consulted Mr. Lyon about it who said in London that it is unanimity or nothing? What about Mr. Levesque, their new friend?


An hon. Member:: Or Claude Ryan?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about Roch La Salle? I hope he will come and explain it in this House.

Madam Speaker, you cannot have both ways. One cannot claim to be in favour of a charter of rights-I can guess what is going to happen soon in the House; hon. members will stand each in turn and move preposterous amendments to the charter of rights and then the next day they will vote against it. I find that situation ridiculous. What we are doing here is not a charade. If we want to have a charter of rights it must apply to all Canadians.

I want to tell the opposition that what we are doing here is not a charade. As I said in French, I expect them to come forward with new amendments, all sorts of great amendments, as was the case with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) yesterday concerning women's rights. But the fact of the matter is that the rights of women will never be protected in the Constitution if there is not unanimity; if there is not unanimity, according to the so-called Vancouver formula provinces will opt out of the protection of the rights of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What I am telling you, Madam Speaker, is that it is not the kind of Canada I want. I have worked on that.
February 17, 1981

1 think that our projects are the best we can produce today. They are not perfect. As 1 said so many times in the committee, perfection is the enemy of good. But these are good projects, projects which will realize the hopes of a lot of Canadians.

I must say, Madam Speaker, it is time we took our responsibilities in this House. This problem has been around for 53 years, 54 now. Of course, some professors will have more than one pet subject to expatiate upon in coming generations, and I refer to Mr. Dion, but I feel enough has been said about it. To me, this is a unique opportunity. Last spring we decided we would make major changes. Some will ask who is speaking for whom. I must say, Madam Speaker, that there are 282 Members of Parliament in this House who were elected by all Canadians in the last election. The House has transformed us all. How come? Because when we come to the Parliament of Canada, we take a different view from the one we had before. 1 am proud to admit that 1 have been transformed by the 18 years 1 have been a Member of Parliament, because I got to know my country. I have been through the whole country from St. John's, Newfoundland, to Victoria and from Windsor to the North Pole, in my ministerial capacity. There are not many parts of Canada I have not visited. I learned to know my country. This is a country with a fantastic future. And this is also a country that has to attune its institutions to today's needs. This country has become adult. This is a country which must bring home its Constitution. This is a country which, because of its diversity, must guarantee the helpless in our society equal rights and safeguards the like of which are not commonly found in other democratic countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, this is an historical occasion. We have the occasion, after the traumatic experience of the spring, to build for our children and the children of our children a better Canada-a Canada which will recognize the diversity and equality which should be in our society, a Canada which will protect the weakest in society, a Canada which will have forever two official languages in the Canadian Constitution, a Canada which will be an example to the world. This is a generous land; now we have the occasion to make it even a better country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, four months ago I rose in the House and commented on a proposed resolution concerning the Constitution and the motion which established the parliamentary committee to study that resolution. At that time I expressed very grave reservations over the course of action the government was adopting and over the contents of that resolution. Other members of the official opposition and 1 entered the entire constitutional debate from the perspective that, despite our profound opposition to the
The Constitution
process, we would approach the work of the committee in a positive spirit of co-operation and with the determination that the process should be open to more Canadians.

I would like to take this opportunity, Madam Speaker, to thank the co-chairman of the committee for the work he did, namely, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I know it is not generally the tradition of this House to do that, but I want to say to all members that I believe he dispatched his duties not only with the care his office required, but also with a fairness we all appreciated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If I might, Madam Speaker, I would like to make reference to a few other hon. members. One is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) with whom 1 have had very deep divisions. While those divisions remain, I appreciate that although the divisions were there in the committee they did not become, nor have they remained, in the area of personal animosity, which I feel has no place in the parliamentary system.
I also enjoyed the loquaciousness and the homilies of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey). While at times they were a little lengthy, I believe they were always in the interests not only of protecting his party's position but also his vision of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: There are two other members I want to mention. One is the member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). Although he holds partisan positions other than my own, I developed an appreciation of his vision of Canada's north when I was minister of Indian affairs and northern development. He was able to express his vision in the committee.
I would also like to mention the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). I am sure that times were difficult for him from day to day. I know he presented his case with the sincerity which the occasion demanded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That being the case, Madam Speaker, what do we have before us at the present time? I want immediately to lay out before you and all members of the House that we regard this debate as a serious one. We will treat it in that manner. We also will expect, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said on October 2, that every member who wishes to participate on this side of the House will have that opportunity at this stage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
7380

February 17, 1981
The Constitution


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Additionally, we will act in a very straightforward manner. As well, we will move a minimum of amendments regarding the matter which is now before us.
Having said that, our divisions and our differences with the government run deep, revealing differing views on the nature of Canada. We are today in one of those periods of profound difference between the major parties in this House, between the Liberal Party of the Prime Minister and our own party. Our concern that the proceedings of the committee be televised and that the deadline of the committee be extended beyond December 9 was a means to allow more Canadians to be heard. It reflected both our desire to ensure that Canadians would be heard and also that they would be involved. We are proud and pleased that our determination forced the government's hand on both issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Our amendments in the committee reflected our positive spirit of co-operation. We offered a number of substantial changes to the charter of rights, some of which were adopted to help create a document which we believe would better reflect the fundamental nature of our nation and provide the best possible guarantee of the rights of all Canadians.
We offered a number of other amendments as well, all of which were rejected. Together these amendments would have provided Canadians with an alternative to the government's unilateral and divisive course of action. Thus, four months later we find ourselves before this House, again commenting on a resolution which is certainly better than the one proposed in October; but despite the tremendous work of the committee, those aspects of the proposed resolution threaten the very nature of the Canadian federation. Those parts of the resolution have not been changed. In its most controversial aspects it is the very same resolution. As a result, our principal objections to the resolution remain unchanged.
From the outset the prime focus of our objections has been on the unilateral and divisive nature of the government's action. On October 6 I feared that the government's determination to act alone and to ask Westminster to make substantial changes to our Constitution would create an atmosphere of distrust, of disunity and open confrontation. I believe then, as I believe today, that this is a step which would block the future progress of constitutional reform. While the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) says there will be other steps, 1 do not believe that those steps are possible and that they will result in positive action, in light of the atmosphere which has been created.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: This resolution is creating an atmosphere which will disrupt any possibility of genuine reform taking place in the coming years. The government's proposal is based on a false premise. That premise is this; the approach is based, fundamentally, on the view that the federal system no longer works and that progress cannot come from consensus. That is the basic premise upon which the government has launched
this proposal-that consensus does not work and that negotiation will not result in success. The premise is that, ultimately, the negotiations will fail. On that premise the government justifies acting arbitrarily and unilaterally, and in face of the opposition not only of the provinces but also of the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: With all respect to the Minister of Justice, it is important to note again that today the provinces, the partners in this federation, are continually created as straw men. One can then go ahead and knock them down. That is not the way to build a consensus. It is not the way to build a federation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As well, the government insists on incorporating a referendum proposal which would give the central government unilateral power to change our Constitution without any reference to either the elected legislatures or the elected governments of any province. That is what is proposed.
On that false premise the government is asking another country, Great Britain, to vote on basic Canadian rights and freedoms. It is a blatant surrender of Canadian sovereignty which the Liberals seek to justify on grounds that we could never reach agreement on these important questions in Canada. That is the false premise upon which the government is proceeding.
We are told over and over again that Canadian federalism is a 54-year record of failure. The Prime Minister loves to tout this 54-year deal. It was 53 years when we started; it is now 54. The record shows that since 1927 this matter has come up in federal-provincial relations on 48 different dates. That is less than a day for every year. The Prime Minister continues to insist that it has been a record of failure. The interesting point is that, of those 54 years, he sat as chairman for 13 of them.
In fact, the Canadian federal system about which 1 have spoken, when run by reasonable governments-and I stress "reasonable governments"-has produced agreements on hospital insurance, medicare, the Canadian Pension Plan and equalization. In fact, that process could go on to the point where every agreement between the provinces and the federal government could be reached one way-by agreement, negotiation and consensus. That success story is suddenly to be put in the waste can and we will now be moving unilaterally. The genius, Madam Speaker, of Canadian federalism is that it does work; that is the genius of it. When reasonable governments and reasonable leaders allow it to work, it works.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The system fails only when its leaders let that system down; it works when its leaders make it work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 17, 1981


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: And so we reject the Liberal idea that after 114 years of our Canadian partnership, suddenly that partnership should be abandoned and our federal system should be replaced by a form of unitary state. Our federal traditions grew out of the nature of this country. There is no other system that could thrive here, no other system that can suit our diversity. That nature has not changed. Suddenly, to tear it up, to tear up federal traditions, would be a risk.
To tear up those federal traditions that are at risk now, Madam Speaker, is threatening to tear up our own country, especially the region from which I come. The events of the past four months have confirmed that the Prime Minister will replace the tyranny of unanimity, as it has been called, with the chaos of unilateralism. That is his solution. He says, "You do not like tyranny, so we will give you chaos."
The political atmosphere in Canada now is highly charged and Canadians have witnessed wrangling and outright confrontation between the federal and provincial governments. We are now in legal battles, and the disturbances among Canadians in different regions of the country is something all of us in the House should be aware and take note of.
In my responsibilities within my party I have received numerous letters, telegrams, telephone calls from Canadians in all walks of life and from all parts of the nation. Many of the people sending those messages do not really know much about the substance of what the government is doing, and that is not a deprecating statement, Madam Speaker. But what they convey is that they are deeply concerned by the unnecessary hostility and division which is being created in our country. That is the message that they are giving to us.
As well, Madam Speaker, this is not another flag debate, as the members of the government like to say it is. Charters of rights, amending formulae, referenda are more than just symbols; they are the practical rules, the practical tools, by which our nation will be governed in the future. All laws, and in particular fundamental constitutional laws, are not worth the paper they are written on unless they reflect and represent a true consensus. The government, in its determination to impose this resolution, has forgotten that laws and lawmakers must never just command, but rather in a democracy they must command respect for themselves and also for what they are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Throughout the constitutional debate our party has attempted to strike the compromises which are necessary to put an end to division and hostility within Canada, hostility which is now spreading between Canada and the United Kingdom. It has poisoned the atmosphere which the government has now created, and as a result we have attempted, sincerely, Madam Speaker, to offer alternative solutions to the government's unilateral action.
For example, we have encouraged the holding of another first ministers' conference on patriation and the amending formula; we have proposed a way in which the final details of an amending formula, which already commands substantial
The Constitution
support, the Vancouver consensus, could be finalized here in Canada. We have also adopted a position which would invite and encourage the provinces to change their position and adopt a charter of rights.
Our alternatives would have ensured that Canada's Constitution would be amended here in Canada, and that all substantial changes would command respect from Canadians from sea to sea and to Canada's northern sea.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, the government has rejected every one of those proposals, every one of those compromises, every one of those thoughts, because they are determined to act in the face of opposition not only from the opposition party, but also from a number of the provinces and, most importantly, in face of the opposition of the majority of Canadians.
So, Madam Speaker, the unilateral action, the divisiveness of the government's proposition, remains unchanged and for that reason we oppose it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: As I have said, Madam Speaker, the Conservative party has offered Canadians a positive alternative, a way out of the needless conflict, strife and division which is being created in Canada and between Canada and Great Britain. I emphasize that we have a positive alternative, and I emphasize the difference in approach between the so-called constructive approach of the New Democratic Party and ourselves.
Let us take a look at the contribution of the New Democratic Party just for a minute, Madam Speaker. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) is going around the country claiming victory for the constructive approach of his party.


An hon. Member:: Shame, shame!


An hon. Member:: Because he is right.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He is claiming personal responsibility for nearly every amendment which was made to the charter and to the resolution.


An hon. Member:: You are against it.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That has struck another chord. Madam Speaker, the very claim the NDP make, that they were the ones to propose, is a direct insult to the many interest groups which were able to persuade the government and the members on the committee to introduce the favourable amendments.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The fact is that out of the 43 amendments the New Democratic Party proposed in committee, the majority report that they supported and voted for claims that they only received two amendments; and they claim that they were the architects of two amendments.

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
What is the record, Madam Speaker? In October the New Democratic Party members told us that they had grave concerns over the amending formula. They offered four changes to the amending formula. All of them were rejected. In October the NDP members told us they had grave concerns over the minority education provision. That amendment was rejected.


An hon. Member:: The most concerned party of Canada.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In October again they told us there were serious flaws in the legal rights. Fourteen proposed changes were all rejected.
Again, in the same month, they expressed fears that the charter did not provide adequate protection for women and natives. They moved six additional amendments; all were rejected.


An hon. Member:: By the Tories.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I find it somewhat humorous that the member from New Westminster says we rejected them; I did not know we had a majority in the committee. I always thought, Madam Speaker, it was the NDP-Liberal coalition that had the majority. I must say, Madam Speaker, that if that is the manner in which he taught political science, we are in trouble.


An hon. Member:: If that is the best you can do, Jake, try again.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What, then, Madam Speaker, was the constructive approach of the NDP? I want to say there were constructive measures that they took. For one, they did move on the matter of indirect taxation respecting resources. It is interesting to note when the Leader of the New Democratic Party says there will be hundreds of millions of dollars accruing to the provinces that that position is not concurred in by the federal-provincial relations minister of the province of Saskatchewan. In fact, at the caucus of the New Democratic Party he was asked that very question. He was asked how much money would accrue to the province of Saskatchewan which could not be obtained either through direct taxation or through the royalty regime.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell us about Alberta, Jake.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: He cupped his two fingers and said "this much", which is zero. That is what the NDP got.
There were other "positive" approaches which the New Democratic Party took. For example, it was through its efforts that fundamental property rights for Canadians were not included in the charter. It was the New Democratic Party that moved that the word "information" should be replaced by the word "communication" in the charter; it got that too. Obviously the price of New Democratic Party support for this resolution which undermines and disrupts the nation was very low.
What about the government's proposal? First of all, let us take a look at the amending formula. The Minister of Justice
said there would be a two-year interim period-if we actually look at the clause it is approximately a period of two years- and after that period of time there would be the unanimity factor. What happens after that? Our Constitution will then be changed by a formula discussed in Victoria ten years ago. We rejected the Victoria formula on October 6, 1980. The reasons we gave then are the same reasons we reject it today.
The Victoria formula represents an outdated consensus which no longer corresponds to the reality of the Canada of the 1980s. I believe there is a better consensus on which to build. I believe the Vancouver consensus is a better consensus and a more up-to-date one. Quebec had already rejected large parts of the Victoria agreement in 1971, but as early as 1974 various provinces went on record and stated very clearly that they could not accept the Victoria amending formula. That was seven years ago. The government is still trundling it forward as a consensus project. It has never been the case. That is a political argument, I grant that. But aside from that, there are certain criteria which an amending formula must meet. If it does not meet those criteria, it is not worth entrenching in the charter.
What are those questions and how does the Victoria formula measure up? The first question one must ask about an amending formula, that basic change to any constitution or federal state, is this: Is the proposed amending formula fair? I reject the Victoria amending formula because it does not recognize the equality of the provinces. It is not fair. It provides a perpetual veto to certain provinces regardless of population while creating different classes of provinces in the Atlantic region and again different classes of provinces in western Canada. Discrimination on the basis of population already exists in the House of Commons and in the Senate. I accept that. But do we have to use the power of the veto, which the majority will now enjoy, at all steps of an amending formula in the federal state? The same population discrimination should not be involved in the provincial requirement.
If we think about most other federal states, including our neighbour to the south, such a double discrimination does not exist. In amending the constitution of the United States, the requirements are: population only in the House of Representatives, a two-thirds majority in the Senate and 75 per cent support of state legislatures. What happens is that North Dakota, the state immediately to the south of where I live, is treated as an equal partner with California in the American federation. At no time can the residents of North Dakota argue that they are less American than the people who live in California.
On the test of fairness, the Victoria formula fails. The Victoria formula must also be rejected because it is no longer acceptable to the majority of the provinces, not only because it discriminates between the provinces, but because it creates difficulties in the fields of resource jurisdiction so critical to the western and the Atlantic provinces.
Second, does the formula work? What the government proposes is that Canadians accept an amending formula which no longer corresponds to the Canada in which we live. It takes
February 17, 1981

no account of the tremendous population growth in western Canada and the potential for growth in the Atlantic region. It also contains no provision as to how this regionally-based formula will be adopted in the future when some of the people living north of sixty in the Yukon and Northwest Territories in their wisdom decide to become full partners in the Canadian confederation. The Minister of Justice did not answer that question. What happens with regional imbalance when the other areas of Canada want to join our federation? Based solely on the Canada of 1970, the time the Victoria formula was created, it does not reflect the Canada of 1980. 1 suggest it is even short of the potential of what this country could be by 1990 and on.
Since this resolution was proposed in October, the government has made a change in the permanent amending formula. The Minister of Justice made that point as well. We supported this change to drop the population requirement in the Atlantic provinces to deal Prince Edward Island back into confederation. The earlier proposition had dealt that province out; the government now dealt the province back in. I do not think the government should take any credit for dealing Prince Edward Island back in after having first dealt them out, but they like to take that credit as well. That being the case, there is no accounting for population in the Atlantic region, which is fine.
What is the situation in the west? If we are to be equitable, the 50 per cent population requirement, it could be argued, should not apply to the west either. Such an action, for example, would strengthen the position of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, but it would deny any additional responsibility to British Columbia and Alberta which they might have or should enjoy because of increased numbers, if you are going to stay in the numbers game, as the Victoria formula does. No matter how you manipulate the formula, the fact remains that you cannot bring equity to a formula that is based on inequity.
1 ask the second question: Does the formula work? Let us examine whether the Victoria formula would have worked if it had been in place. The Victoria formula requires the consent of the province of Quebec, the consent of the province of Ontario, the consent of any two provinces in Atlantic Canada and the consent of two provinces in western Canada enjoying at least 50 per cent of the population in that region. We talk about protecting rights and protecting Canadians. At the time medicare was proposed, the province of Quebec rejected it. When the Canada Pension Plan was proposed, the province of Quebec rejected it. Had the Victoria formula been in existence at those times, neither of those programs, which Canadians wanted, would be presently a fact of life in Canada. Those social benefits that Canadians have enjoyed over the years would be seriously jeopardized, if they had existed at all. Therefore, our objection to Victoria remains and the reasons we have given are obvious.
What about the interim amending formula? The minister spoke, for example, of the two-year period of an interim amending formula whereby the rule of unanimity would apply.
The Constitution
Then, of course, the Damocles sword would come down on all of us and we would have Victoria. Last October I was skeptical of the government's provision of an interim amending formula. It was suggested then, and continues to be argued, that this two-year period would allow the federal government and the provinces to agree to a permanent amending formula.
The hon. member for Lincoln made one of his favourite arguments in committee. I say to him with the respect he knows I have for him that this provision can only be viewed as the two-year illusion. The proponents of the two-year illusion ignore a number of facts. They ignore the poisoned atmosphere in which federal-provincial discussions will take place over those two years. That will be there. No one can or will deny that. Moreover, they believe that the federal government will bargain in good faith even though the amending formula, which it always indicated it wants, will come into effect if those discussions break down. Therefore it is a Catch-22 situation. No matter what happens, the feds win. That is the kind of deal they talk about during those two years. There is no hope for agreement as long as the federal government holds every trump card.
The question can then be asked whether the committee has been able to alter this situation in any way. The answer is clearly no. I expressed the concern earlier that just to get a provincial alternative on the ballot, it would take eight provinces with 80 per cent of the population to agree. That population figure ensured an automatic veto for both central Canadian provinces.
I must admit one change that took place. Canadians will be pleased to know that the government responded to these concerns by reducing the number of provinces required from eight to seven while maintaining the 80 per cent population factor. Therefore, the veto remains. Despite the work of the committee and the various amendments that were moved, the two-year interim amending formula remains what it always was, a two-year illusion.
What about the referendum proposal? I find it rather humorous. The Minister of Justice and I have had many exchanges. He talks about the number of formulae we have. I do not know whether the pot has the right to call the kettle black, but I could talk for some time about his own amending formulae.
What about his referendum proposal, which is another amending formula? Alongside its outdated amending formula which I have already talked about, the original resolution contained a radical new proposal to have constitutional amendments accepted or rejected by referenda. Many members of my party and the New Democratic Party as well were concerned with the potentially dangerous effects of a referendum permanently entrenched in the Constitution. Questions were put to the Prime Minister in the early days asking whether this will be used once only as a deadlock-breaking device, which in sincerity a number of those members thought its purpose was. We found out in committee that is not its purpose. The purpose is to have it as a permanent amending formula and to keep it in the proposal so that at any time the federal govern-

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
ment, whenever it chooses to declare deadlock, can trigger the referendum proposal.
I have serious concerns about that proposal. Why? In particular, any government of the day might get a hollow victory which might be won in a referendum, given the tremendous powers at the disposal of any federal government and the powers of persuasion in the media, for example; or given the charismatic role of a political leader of the expenditure of public moneys without accountability until the deed is done. All those things can be used in a referendum.
1 remain deeply concerned that the government has chosen to retain a permanently entrenched referendum in its Constitution. While claiming they are trying to build a united Canada, members of the Liberal Party and New Democratic Party, if the New Democrats vote for this provision, are including a divisive mechanism for changing the Constitution which would pit provinces against the federal government, regions against regions and Canadians against Canadians. They are supporting, New Democrats included, a referendum proposal which could turn constitutional change into a perpetual win-lose situation and will certainly create continued confrontation between the various governments in Canada. All Canada want a Constitution which unites us. Let us not put into the Constitution that which divides.
Where do 1 go for the best evidence? On October 7, 1980, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville had this to say about the proposal. I quote him from page 3344 of Hansard. Referring to the referendum, he said:
I think that has very dire consequences because it means the government can control the timing of the question, which is very important. One can put his finger to the wind and take public opinion polls. If the timing is right, there is a referendum . .. What would happen if there were a tremendous energy crisis, a conflict in the Middle East and a tremendous increase in the price of energy, if there were a national referendum to have more control of resources going to the federal government? That may even carry in two of the western provinces representing 50 per cent of Canadians. For example, it could isolate the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta which have the oil. It is dangerous to have the power which exists in sections 42 and 46 of the resolution.
The numbers obviously have been changed in the new resolution but the statement, I think, remains what it was.
What about a second authority? When the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Blakeney, appeared before the committee on Friday, December 19, 1980, he said in part:
As now drafted, a referendum could be used to by-pass provincial legislatures entirely. There is no requirement that the provincial legislatures be consulted or in any way involved in future constitutional changes before a referendum is called. Thus, there could be a situation of an extensive and well-publicized debate in the federal Parliament, little or no debate in provincial legislatures, a well-orchestrated appeal to the public and then a referendum, what I call the "instant referendum". This clearly undermines the position of democratically elected provincial legislatures.
The instant referendum, as I say, has all the charm of instant mashed potatoes, and it must be changed.


An hon. Member:: You must be choking on the NDP federal position.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I was. In order to keep the record straight, I want to refer to the position that the Premier of Saskatchewan took. There was a change made regarding the instant referendum: they could not trigger it until 12 months had expired after the declaration of deadlock. For clarity and a straightforward approach, I want to put on the record that that change took place after those comments. But the basic argument against referendum remained the same.
Those people who support the referendum proposal argue that the people should be consulted and should be trusted. It should be clear by now that our party is not afraid to allow Canadians to participate in the making of their Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We have done all we could, and we will continue in this process, to open up any means whereby government will be opened up and Canadians will be included.
If the people should be trusted, as we say they should be, why, for example, is there no inclusion in the resolution of a citizen-initiated referendum procedure? Or has that thought never crossed the minds of the government? Should the public not have the right to initiate a referendum? Or, for that matter, should the provinces not have the right to initiate a referendum? Why only the federal government?
Both of the authors of the 1978 discussion paper on constitutional amendment, published by this very government, and the authors of the infamous Kirby memo-and I have to say something here, Madam Speaker, just as an aside to the members of the committee. I understand that we have been wrongfully blaming Mr. Kirby all these long months, and I want to apologize to him publicly. I understand Mr. Kirby only saw the document; it was Mr. Eddie Goldenberg who wrote it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But that memorandum sought to provide this government with advice suggesting that should either the federal government or any number of provincial governments block a constitutional amendment, 3 per cent of their electorate should be able to initiate a referendum to challenge the decision. This was their own advice. As the Kirby memo explained, this would support the view that sovereignty resides with the people. Follow your own advice.
There is no citizen-initiative in the resolution. It is the view of the federal government that the people should be consulted only when it wants to and on which terms. Despite the minor changes introduced since October, the federal government retains ultimate control of the use of referenda for constitutional change. It is not the people we do not trust; it is this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: For the same reason, it is curious that this same federal government which wants to entrench referenda into the constitution refuses to hold a referendum on this resolution.
February 17, 1981

One must ask why. Let us go to the Minister of Justice. In answering questions on the CTV "Question Period" program this last weekend, he explained to Canadians why they would not be consulted on the very fundamental change being proposed by the government. He explained that constitutional amendments such as the charter of rights are very complex issues for the people to understand. He recognized that a referendum might not concentrate on the substance of an amendment, but might involve other issues.


An hon. Member:: Oh, my God!


An hon. Member:: Oh, my Pierre!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Above all, he warned of the divisive nature of referenda, I quote him:
You know, the Optimist Club in my riding in Grand'Mere had split in two during the referendum. . . and so there is no more Optimist Club in Grand'Mere.
That is the reason the minister does not want to take this proposal to the Canadian people. How can he then turn around and tell the people, the good burgers of Grand'Mere and the people of Canada, that he is going to entrench a permanent referendum mechanism in the Constitution? It need be said no more better, I would think, than in the editorial in today's The Globe and Mail. I quote but one sentence:
A federal cabinet which can ask the question it wants, under the rules it wants, can be pretty certain of getting the answers it wants.
That is what they want.


An hon. Member:: That is why they are afraid to go to the people with it now.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: On October 6, I singled out four main objections to the proposed resolution, namely, the unilateral nature of the project, the phony interim amending formula, the outdated permanent amending formula and the referendum mechanism, as wrong, and they remain wrong.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Because we believe that the government's approach was unilateral and divisive, our party offered a series of amendments to the committee which would have offered Canadians what we believe is a real and positive alternative. We suggested that the resolution should be split into a patria-tion package which would be sent to Westminster, and a Canadian package which would be approved by Parliament and referred to the provinces and their legislatures once the amending formula was in place.
What about the patriation package? That package would have provided for the immediate patriation of Canada's Constitution so that Canadians could settle their constitutional problems here in Canada without involving a foreign government.
Before I get to that point, I want one point clearly understood in the House during this debate. It was not the British government, the British Parliament or the British people that insisted on keeping the Constitution in Britain in 1931. It was
The Constitution
done at Canada's request. Let us have no argument here that for some reason the British people have a colonial mentality toward the resolution. That is the reason, our party believes, that the British Parliament has no business making important constitutional decisions for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We also believe just as strongly that the Canadian Parliament has no business asking the British to make those decisions. Worth-while constitutional progress does not lie in abandoning federalism, nor does it lie-and I say this especially to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGui-gan)-in attacking other countries. That is also something which has been in the arsenal of the Prime Minister.
There is only one acceptable role for Britain to play, and that is to accede to only one acceptable request. Let Britain send our Constitution home immediately with an amending formula acceptable to Canadians, and let every other question about our Constitution be decided in Canada by Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What has happened in the last two weeks? In the last two weeks we have seen a serious deterioration in Anglo-Canadian relations. We have seen forced and trumped up charges by the Secretary of State for External Affairs against the British High Commissioner. The minister then had to come back into the House humiliated. All of us were humiliated by the action he took, in partnership with the hon. member for Oshawa. We have seen documents over the last two weeks. Where is the truth? There is a lack of truth. The Prime Minister says it is a lack of candour. Where I come from it is the truth. What about the inevitable collision between the British Parliament and the Canadian Parliament, or is the possibility of collision the very ace the Prime Minister wants to use?
What Britain has to do is repeal section 7(1) of the Statute of Westminster. That is their responsibility; the rest is ours.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We believe the patriation package should also include a means by which Canadians could adopt and approve an amending formula in Canada which reflects a truly Canadian consensus as it exists today, not in 1971. The Vancouver formula found agreement in principle-and I am glad the Prime Minister is back-and I believe the Vancouver consensus could have been developed further and could have brought about consensus, if the Prime Minister had wanted it to. But he did not want that. The Vancouver formula fulfils the criteria I spoke of earlier. It respects the equality of the provinces in the Canadian federation.
No province retains a veto over constitutional changes. It is flexible, yet it provides significant safeguards for the rights and powers which the Fathers of Confederation felt were essential to the nature of the country, and especially the

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
provinces. It is simple enough to be adaptable, whether it be to further demographic shifts in Canada or to the introduction of new northern partners in confederation. It does not freeze a concept of the nation in time, as does the Victoria formula. The Victoria consensus can reflect the Canada of the 1980s only if the aspects I described earlier are removed. I believe the Vancouver consensus is a formula on which we can build for the future.
What about the legitimate concerns raised by the Prime Minister and others about the so-called opting out provisions? I have been very candid about this, and I know the minister was candid about Victoria today. I share that same approach about public life. I have been candid in the committee, and I know there is a need to refine the Vancouver consensus. That is why we say, let us have one more go at it with the premiers.
The Prime Minister is concerned about the so-called checkerboard effect. We do not live in a unitary state. We live in a federal state. We should recognize differences and use those differences to build one common country. In a federal state with 11 governments and two territorial governments, the only way to avoid the so-called checkerboard effect is to demand unanimity on all counts. That is the only way to avoid the checherboard effect. That is not the Prime Minister's formula, that is not the formula of the hon. member for Oshawa and it is not our formula. So no matter how the Prime Minister wants to use it, there will be to some greater or lesser degree a certain checkerboard effect regarding any formula the Prime Minister wants to adopt.
I therefore believe that if we are to succeed in this venture and if we are to protect the powers which were given in 1867, it is important to recognize and maintain the unique regional identities and traditions. In Canada unity has never meant uniformity. All of us have been proud that in order to find national unity, we have to find that national unity in our diversity. I believe the Vancouver consensus protects that diversity and yet gives us the foundation to build a great nation.
What about the Canadian package and the charter? The Minister of Justice and members of the New Democratic Party say that if we delay, Canadians will not have the charter and their rights will not be protected. There are two aspects to this, and other members of our party will speak to them. Should we have a charter or not? I personally favour a charter. We have always enjoyed rights under the British parliamentary system, so it is not that by some stroke of lightning, because of the action of the Prime Minister, I will suddenly have all the rights he gives me. It is not that I did not have them before. Yet that is what he is saying. So I say that the very premise on which he starts is wrong. Our party-and 1 want to say this on the public record, because we have not said it in the House, although we have said it in committee- supports a charter of rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: But not yet.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: They can do whatever they want. If they feel embarrassed, that is fine. The point I want to make is that, in order for the charter to find agreement among Canadians, it must be more than words, noble though they may be. It must enjoy consensus and legitimacy. This charter does not enjoy either.
Canadians want a charter of rights. I said that earlier, but what they want is a charter which is carefully considered and approved by Canadians in Canada. I am not for a moment convinced, as I said earlier, that the power of public opinion cannot in fact bring about those changes. I am not yet ready to give up on that sort of federalism.
Is the charter complete? I agree with the Minister of Justice that there were many amendments which improved the charter. I had the honour to move a number of them. In fact, if we were working at all on any deal, I must admit we were much more successful than was the New Democratic Party-


John Edward Broadbent: Because you moved them first.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -because all we have to look at is the majority report, which we rejected and they approved.
What does this charter do? Where does it start from? This charter starts from the premise that the government will grant us rights. That is where the charter starts from and that is where the charter is wrong. My rights, our rights in this House, the rights of Canadians, are not granted by any government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It is for that reason that we moved an amendment, not only because the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, the then leader of this party and the prime minister of this country, had that entrenched in the Canadian Bill of Rights, but because the philosophy underlying the charter was right. What it did was to say that every human being created in the image of God has certain inalienable rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Once you accept that principle, whether you live under the Canadian parliamentary system or under the American republican system, or in Poland where people are struggling for their rights today, or in the U.S.S.R. where many of our people came from, you still have rights, even though the government abrogates them or does not allow people to enjoy them. But you know inside that you have those rights because you are a human being.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It was for that reason that we moved the following amendment:
Affirming that the Canadian nation is founded upon principles that acknowledge the supremacy of God, the dignity and worth of the human person and the position of the family in a society of free individuals and free institutions.
February 17, 1981

Affirming also that individuals and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law,
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: That proposal was rejected by the Liberal members, and no matter how often they say that we are delaying the entrenchment of the charter, the point is that their charter is based on a false premise. If the minister says that he wants to finish the work of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, let me tell him that what he has now done is to gut and destroy his work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The charter which the right hon. gentleman recognized was based on the very principle which we have just stated. Governments cannot be supreme; it is the people in a democracy who must be supreme.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about our other roots? Can a nation grow and develop if it forgets about its roots? For example, if we want to forget about this amendment, why was this country the Dominion of Canada? Why did the Fathers of Confederation go back to Psalm 72, verse 8, "He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth?" Why was the dominion and the country to be vested in the supreme God and not in government? What the charter does is to remove these roots.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: If hon. members want to laugh about God, go ahead, that is their choice.
What about property rights? Property rights, as I said, were agreed to by a minister of the Crown, by the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan). He gave the solemn commitment, in place of the Minister of Justice, that property rights would be included. It was because of the NDP and the deals that were made that Canadians will not have that amendment in the charter.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about Prince Edward Island?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I am glad the minister asked that question because we have been dealing with Prince Edward Island. Prince Edward Island does not want it in the fundamental section. They have never been against the private ownership of property; what they want is some protection of the shore line. I ask the minister not to confuse the Prince Edward Island position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Red herring.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: What about property rights? Every person who has understood the common law has said that a man's home is
The Constitution
his castle. Why not entrench it? What about the immigrants who came to this country for one thing-the right to own land because they could not enjoy it in their own country or because it had been taken away from them? So if anyone says that they are completing Mr. Diefenbaker's work, let them say that no more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will try to conclude, Madam Speaker, if you will give me a few minutes more.
What is the situation that we face today? I should like to speak provincially for a little while. I am concerned, for instance, when I look at the history of my part of the country. There were various parties which developed as protest parties. The New Democratic Party, which was known as the CCF, is one of them. Today, the west feels strong, and at least some of the protesters in the region believe that the region could find greater strength outside Canada. I believe that separatism runs against the very basic nature of the people of western Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Western Canadians do not want to dismantle, they want to build. They are attracted by the opportunities in Canada, and they will not exchange the excitement for something smaller and more narrow, as some of their leaders, or proposed leaders, think they might. What I do not want to see in this resolution is that the horizon of any region of the country will be narrowed or that the other options can, in fact, become options. I say to the Prime Minister, let him not make the option of rejecting the country a viable option to anyone anywhere.
There are various other amendments and proposals on the national institutions and the Supreme Court which should be made. I do not have time to enumerate them all today, and I thank the House for the indulgence it has shown me so far. But what about our parliamentary approach in the immediate future? In the committee which studied the resolution members of our party offered a series of amendments which, we believe, represented a reasonable alternative.


Mr. Knowles:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder if the House would be willing to dispense with the private members' hour today, and let the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) complete his speech and the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) make his speech as well.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous agreement to that proposal?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, members of our party in the committee offered a series of amendments which we believed were reasonable alternatives to the destructive

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
actions of the government. In this debate in Parliament, our party will continue to offer compromise solutions to the dilemma which we feel is facing our country.
Our amendments to the resolution will also seek to eliminate those provisions of the resolution which we find most objectionable. As the official opposition and the only opposition, we will continue to defend the interests of the federation and of the nation. We will both propose and oppose.
But I do not believe that there is any provision in this constitutional proposal which is more objectionable than the permanent enshrinement of a referendum to change Canada's Constitution. This is not just any referendum, it is not asking the people; it is a referendum which could be held in order to break a so-called deadlock, a deadlock wholly determined by the federal government. It is a referendum which will still be controlled by the federal government. It is a referendum which would be used to by-pass the people's elected representatives in provincial legislatures. It is a referendum which could be used by a majority to override the rights of minorities, the very essence which this proposal purports to protect.
Referenda have been used in extraordinary times and circumstances in the history of our nation. In all cases they have created serious divisions within our country. As I said earlier, even the Minister of Justice recognizes that referenda are open to abuse and create needless strife within communities.
Canadians do not want a constitution which contains a provision that will pit government against government, region against region, Canadian against Canadian. Therefore, as a unifying gesture to all Canadians we ask that the government abandon its provision for referenda in the resolution. If the government is truly flexbile, I urge it to accept the following amendment which would drop this divisive provision from the resolution. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I will close with the following remarks. I reiterate that all of us feel we are as Canadian as any other member in this House. All of us love our country. Each and every one of us has had experiences which have made our love for the country what it is today. If that feeling for the country, if that love for the nation, is to continue, we must respect the very fundamental rules by which we live-our Constitution. It is important that we respect federalism and not change it unilaterally. The Canadian system works and it is time for the Canadian government to respect it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have the amendment of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). I am sure the House would want me to give it very careful consideration. I will take its receiva-bility under advisement.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)-Veterans Affairs- Backlog of cases before Pension Review Board-Call for minister's resignation; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-National Energy Program-Multinational oil companies moving to meet Canadian ownership requirements; the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-The Constitution-Proposals made to the province of Saskatchewan.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed debate on the motion of Mr. Chretien, seconded by Mr. Roberts, for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada.
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we are now in the final stages of an historic debate which began not four weeks or four months or even four years ago; we are in the midst of a debate which goes back at least as far as the last decade.
In the past decade there have been studies and proposals on the Constitution by our political parties, by the legal profession, by an earlier joint House-Senate committee and by a royal commission, to name just a few groups. It has been the subject matter of numerous first ministers' meetings. These reports, these studies and these meetings did not take place in an historical vacuum. They were undertaken because social, economic, cultural and regional change in our country during the past dozen years made them necessary.
Indeed, the Quebec referendum was last year, but what led to it reaches far back into the history of our land. Talk of western alienation has only recently become fashionable, but I recall making a speech on that subject more than ten years ago and, in fairness, members of other parties have spoken on that important issue of western grievances more than ten years ago. Finally, all the provinces, not just in recent months but for many years, have brought to first ministers' meetings constitutional grievances which they have wanted resolved.
What does one conclude from this? After years of studies, conferences and proposals coming from the private sector, the
February 17, 1981

public sector, the federal government and provincial governments, our conclusion is clear: now is the time in Canadian history to act; we have waited long enough.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Let me emphasize in underlining this conclusion three current and pressing reasons. First, the old, pervasive provincial and federal wrangling which takes place at first ministers' meetings, in my judgment, is divisive. It is something for which I do not lay the blame on individual premiers, whether they are in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party or my party. Nor do I blame the prime minister, whoever he may be or has been for the past decade. I blame the decision-making framework of those conferences which has required the unanimity principle to be changed. Year after year we have seen premiers coming to Ottawa, not in the mood to make agreements because they knew unanimity was virtually impossible, but rather, being politicians-and that is their responsibility-to speak for their regional grievances and concerns. Instead of a premier of Newfoundland coming to Ottawa and saying that Newfoundland would like a particular settlement, we have a premier of Newfoundland-I am not talking about the current premier; I mean this as a generalization-who talks only about the grievances of Newfoundlanders. Or we have premiers from western Canada who come to Ottawa to talk only about the grievances of western Canadians, and so on down the line. So year after year we have seen in our first ministers' conferences Canadians who at home I think are men of good will-indeed, I know they are men of goodwill. I hope that one day there will be a woman among them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: What I am saying is that these conferences should show Canadians, on television, what a rich, magnificent and diverse land we have. They could show our leaders coming together to reach decisions. Instead, what happens is that they come together to bash Ottawa. I stress that it is not a conscious, deliberate plot. It is built into a structure which does not enable decisions to be taken because the unanimity principle has been at work. That must change, since these methods are destructive. These kinds of conferences on national unity are not constructive.
The second reason I suggest on behalf of my colleagues that at this poignant moment in our history we need to make a decision is, of course, related to the Quebec referendum. Politicians' memories tend to be very short. I give credit to members opposite for what they did in the province of Quebec. They did what had to be done. I say in passing that they helped to create the problem. I must also say that they helped persuade Quebecers to vote for the right side in that referendum. It was an historic moment of serious consequence for the unity of this country.
The Constitution
After the referendum took place there were a number of people who spoke in this House. I quote one of them from Hansard for May 21, 1980, at page 1265:
We need a new constitution. I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice which was reaffirmed here today. It is a commitment, which I share, to a new constitution for Canada. We need a constitution that is located here in our country, a constitution that can be amended here in our country, a constitution that guarantees certain fundamental rights, and a constitution that articulates a sharing of powers that is appropriate to a diverse federal country. We now have a climate where that can be achieved.
The person who said that is the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). I submit we have that kind of proposal before us now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The suggestion was made to the people of Quebec during the referendum by those of us who live outside Quebec-and I want to stress that as well-that if they voted for Canada, which we all knew the vote was about, then early action would be taken. Premiers from different provinces said that, as did all party leaders in this House. I think we have an obligation to live up to that commitment to take early action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The third point I would like to underline, in terms of its immediacy, concerns western Canada. During the past half dozen years particularly, but also a bit further beyond that, western Canadians have been expressing an exuberant optimism. I do not think it is distorted to say that everywhere in western Canada one now senses a greater degree of optimism about the future and about personal prospects than is the case in central Canada or Atlantic Canada. The reasons are obvious. They are quite analogous to what has gone on in world history. We are a part of the world, in broad historical terms, which is growing economically. People sense there is a vitality here, which creates a greater degree of optimism. I know that is true in western Canada where the growth has been greater. Western Canadians had a tough time during the depression as compared with the rest of Canadians. We must remember that. But they now have a sense that the future is in their hands, and those of us who live elsewhere in Canada should be pleased with that reality and should be supportive of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We need a constitutional change now which moves toward partly resolving some conflicts and concerns which western Canadians have had. But, secondly, we need constitutional change which provides a decision-making framework which can meet the grievances of western Canadians as well as others.
I have outlined three reasons. One has culminated this year in the perpetual wrangling of first ministers, which must be terminated. The second reason is the need to meet our collective commitment to Quebecers on the referendum. The third is the need to resolve the grievances of western Canadians. These

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
reasons lead my members in this party to the conclusion that decisive action is required now.
In short, we in Parliament must make a very difficult decision. And we have made it-at least some of us have. That decision is to act without the co-operation of the majority of the provinces. Indeed, to be quite honest, it is to act in the face of the opposition of most provincial governments. That must give us pause as national politicians. We know we have the legal authority to do so; I do not think there is any doubt about that at all. But is it morally legitimate? Is it politically appropriate? Is it desirable that unilateral action be taken at this time? I would like to address and answer those questions.
The critic for the Conservative Party spoke ably from a perspective which I do not share. He outlined his case ably and he raised this point. He said that by acting now, without the co-operation of the provinces, would be divisive. I want to deal with that issue in two senses, both in the short run and in the long run. It is certainly divisive in the short run among the premiers. There is no doubt about it; Sterling Lyon does not like it one bit, nor does Mr. Peckford. I could go down the line and cite a whole number of premiers. There is no one who will challenge that. Indeed, I will add to the list because I am sure he will soon make it known publicly. The premier of Saskatchewan will be opposing unilateral action. Thus, it cuts across all party lines in our land. We must deal with that. The premiers are unhappy. Of course, in one sense that is divisive.
What about the people of Canada? Are they unhappy? Is this action divisive now? In the short run I would say the answer to that, regrettably, must be yes. Part of the reason for the divisiveness among the people of Canada, as opposed to the politicians of Canada, surely has to be the performance of the Government of Canada in the whole process before Christmas. I say this bluntly to the government side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The initial refusal to have radio and television coverage of the committee, the refusal to extend the deadline for Canadians to appear before the committee and the bringing in of closure early in the debate, created tension and unhappiness in the country. That is a banal truism. I say at this time that there were almost 100 groups who wished to present their testimony before the committee. It was the people who basically liked the charter of rights and those who wanted change, who were unhappy with the process before Christmas. I think it was a reflection on the efficacy of Parliament that both opposition parties made that clear. They fought that kind of process. Also, part of parliamentary efficacy is to show that this process can work and reflect the genuine needs of this country.
Belatedly, I give credit to the government; it came to its senses and it did respond. It could have remained intolerant. It could have remained even more rigid to its deadlines. It could have kept out radio and television. But after pressure was put on from this side, it yielded. I think the yielding was sensible, but regrettably it did promote dissension and divisiveness in the country from which we are still somewhat recoiling.
However, I want to go beyond the short run, and before doing so I want to say this, because in a debate of historic significance it certainly behooves us to look back in history just occasionally; and by that I mean beyond last week's headlines or even last year's referendum.
There has not been, Madam Speaker, significant constitutional change anywhere in the world at any time, beneficial change, that has not been divisive. That is the reality of politics, particularly in a democratic age. The United States, to achieve independence, had to have a war of independence. We now look back to 1867 with rather romantic eyes and at what was achieved by some distinguished leaders who put aside partisan differences.
Those who know the history of the period well know indeed a lot of divisiveness remained in Atlantic Canada, remained in Quebec, remained in parts of what was then Upper and Lower Canada. So at the very birth of our nation, although our forefathers came together to create a Canada, that action was certainly divisive, too; at the time it was divisive. Just a few years ago, Newfoundland voted to come into confederation- how short historical memories are. If I recall correctly, there were two votes and the population of Newfoundland was almost evenly divided. So that, too, was historic action that 1 think we are all happy about. Those of us who do not come from Newfoundland welcome Newfoundland as a sister province, and a vast majority of Newfoundlanders are proud today to be Canadians.
So I am saying, Madam Speaker, that the divisive argument, to a considerable extent, is a bogus argument. It would be nice to have significant historic change where we all sat down and said: Aren't we wonderful fellows? A community of communities. There would be no differences. We will just sit there and, even though we come from different cultures, even though we come from different regions, even though we come from different economic groups, we will sit down and agree overnight. Well, history just ain't like that, Madam Speaker. It is a little more uncomfortable.
So if we are going to act decisively in history-and that is what we are doing now-we have to be prepared as parties, as politicians, to take a little divisiveness, even if it means, as it does for most of us, divisiveness within our own parties too, if it is good for Canada in the long run.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The serious question, Madam Speaker, about divisiveness then is not in the short run but in the long run. To assess whether this package is divisive in the long run, one has to look at it in terms of its substance; one has to look at the essence of what we are being asked to deal with and say, as our founding fathers did more than a hundred years ago: Is that going not only to please our children but our grandchildren and our great grandchildren? Is it going to keep the people in Atlantic Canada, in central Canada and in the west happy or make them happier or more content with their
February 17, 1981

existence as Canadians? That is the serious question that has to be asked.
Therefore, we have to look at the substance of the proposal. During three months of committee hearings I as one Canadian was proud to see other Canadians who were not politicians, who were not in many cases active in any parties, come before a committee and speak for the women of Canada. They spoke for the multicultural dimension of Canada, for our disabled, for the rich, for the poor. There was a very good cross-section of the people of our land who made a remarkable contribution in a remarkable period of our history in that committee; and high among these I want to include, of course, the original inhabitants of our land, the aboriginal peoples themselves. 1 will come back to them in a minute.
So I ask this question, Madam Speaker, particularly of the people of Canada today. Put aside the notion that this is a Liberal proposal, or that it is a Liberal-NDP proposal, or that it is opposed by the Conservatives and therefore others must oppose it. I ask the people of Canada to think of the substance of what we are dealing with and to forget its political parentage.
1 also ask, particularly after the months of work that was done by members of all parties in that committee and by the citizens of Canada: What are the results? Can any MP who puts aside that partisan difference now seriously doubt the viability of this charter of rights? After the improvements that have been made, can any person who takes human liberty as a fundamental value oppose what is probably the best charter of rights in the world? I say that and I mean it. I say no. With this charter we will be entrenching not only individual rights but also group rights, a process so essential in a federal state as diverse as ours.
To those who say a charter of rights is unnecessary-and there are in this land a number who say that-I say do not think of American history, do not think of the Soviet Union, do not think of Europe, do not think of anywhere else, just think of Canada. Think of our own history; think of how Japanese Canadians were treated during World War 11; think of the padlock law in Quebec and of the anti-free press legislation that was once passed in Alberta. Think of the smashing of the IWA which was trying to get established in Newfoundland; think of the denial of schools to francophone kids where they happen to be a minority; think of all Canadians who are not of British or French ancestry and think about the number of years that they had to grow up in our country called in very pejorative terms "bohunks" or "wops" because they did not happen to be francophone or anglophone. This is Canada I am talking about.
Think of the discrimination which has persisted and persists today against women in our land; think of the denial of equality to our disabled; and, Madam Speaker, most important for all of us in this Parliament and elsewhere whose ancestors came from other continents, think of our aboriginal peoples and the abominable way they have been treated throughout our history.
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Well, Madam Speaker, my party says now is the time to redress some of these injustices; now is the time to provide equality and freedom within the Constitution; now is the time to entrench a Canadian charter of rights in a Canadian Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the point has been made that such a charter curtails the legislative power of federal and provincial governments. Well, we in this party have said since the Regina manifesto back in 1933 that this is, of course, true and it is, of course, desirable. That is one of the central purposes of a charter of rights. And if it had existed around 30 or 40 years ago, a number of the injustices that I have just listed would probably not have taken place.
However, in making this point about the limitations on both federal and provincial jurisdictions that results from a charter of rights, I want to stress the findings of our legal experts, those who know that the effect of bills of rights in other countries is not the curtailment of legislative authority; the most beneficial effect that charters of rights or bills of rights have had in other lands is the protection of individuals in the administration and enforcement of laws. That is the prime benefit from a charter of rights, and we must always keep that in mind.
Although many Canadians citizens and Members of Parliament from other parties have made substantial contributions to the improvement of the charter, I want to pay special tribute to some members of my party who made what I regard as an outstanding contribution. 1 want to do so because some of them are not happy with the over all effects. There is a small minority of well meaning conscientious members of Parliament in my party who are not in agreement with the very substantial majority. Some of them made outstanding contributions to this process, nonetheless, in good conscience, fulfilling a very difficult role as human beings.
I want to say that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) and the hon. for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who worked hard on that committee did an outstanding job not only for our party, but for Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) will deserve, when history is written about this period, much credit for the progress we made in entrenching aboriginal and treaty rights in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 17, 198!
The Constitution


John Edward Broadbent: I congratulate the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) for achieving remarkable progress in ensuring the charter provides equality for Canadian women not only before but under the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I compliment also the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young) who, along with members in other parties, worked hard to ensure that those with physical disabilities are recognized in our Constitution. 1 want to express appreciation to the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky) who joined with others in fighting for recognition of our multi-cultural heritage in this constitutional document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to emphasize that this charter is of utmost significance to the francophones of this country. It acknowledges at last the duality of Canada concerning federal institutions and access to education in either language.
There is no need to say here that the anglophone minority in Quebec has always enjoyed fair and equitable treatment from the majority of the people in that province. And at last with this charter we are beginning to recognize that our francophone minorities outside Quebec have the same rights. I must insist that this charter does not take any power away from the provinces which want to pass legislation on linguistic matters. It is perfectly normal that Quebec should want to be the main centre of French culture in Canada. The fact that Quebec is now as French as Ontario in English demonstrates the cultural vitality of Quebecers. When the Quebec government enacted Bill 101, we endorsed the aims of that legislation because it was the answer to the need felt by Quebecers to assert themselves, not only in cultural endeavours but in all spheres of activity as well.
The proposed constitutional resolution does not negate the spirit of that statute. We do not want a uniform Canada. The aspirations of Quebecers are compatible with Canadian federalism. What makes this country exciting and rich on the cultural and human level is precisely the contribution of those two great civilizations which, in spite of everything, have managed to live side by side and in harmony throughout our brief history.
Of course, there were some difficult moments, but the common experiment of French-and English-speaking Canadians is unique and has proved to be mutually enriching. Obviously, the French fact in Canada transcends the borders of Quebec. Over one million francophones living in the Atlantic provinces, in Ontario and in western Canada have been impatiently waiting for their Parliament to confirm their basic rights. This proposed resolution meets these century-old expectations. Let us not deceive them. If we let this opportunity go by today, it may be too late tomorrow. Canada belongs to all Canadians wherever they are and whatever language they speak.

If I may make a personal observation on that point, I will tell hon. members that I am married to a Franco-Ontarian and I have a daughter who attends a francophone school here in the city of Ottawa. But 1 was disturbed to discover that the first publicly financed, as opposed to ecclesiastical, francophone school was established in the city of Ottawa just last year. It shows, Madam Speaker, that we have just begun the battle, but with this charter of rights, at long last we anglophones are beginning to smarten up and do for francophones all over Canada what anglophones have had for themselves in the province of Quebec throughout history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say also that in addition to this central duality of this country, which my party has long accepted and cherished, the proposal in the constitutional resolution on equalization is a matter of great concern to social democrats. The disparities that exist between regions and which have resulted in unequal opportunities in life must always be fought against. It must remain a concern until the end of time. If a child grows up in one of the outports of Newfoundland without the same opportunities in life as a child who grows up in downtown Toronto or Vancouver, as long as these disparities exist which make it impossible for a young man or woman to achieve full fruition in the development of his or her talents, we must do everything we can to overcome those inequalities. We are happy about the provision for equalization which resides in this resolution and it merits support.
I turn now to the amending formula. As noted, it is basically one which was agreed to a number of years ago by all the provinces but one and the federal government. In our judgment it is a practical formula which gives each of our four major regions a veto on constitutional change. A notable improvement in the proposed amending process was to make clear that a referendum cannot be used except as a deadlock breaking mechanism. As a result of improvements which were made to the resolution at committee stage, a referendum on constitutional change can take place only after it has been thoroughly discussed for some period of time at the first ministers' level. That is the way co-operative federalism should work.
We stress in our party, unlike the Conservative party, that a referendum is not a bad idea for constitutional change. We do not like referenda for normal responsibilities of Members of Parliament. We have long argued that when tough issues are faced in terms of normal legislation it is our responsibility to face them, whether they deal with abortion or capital punishment. They are things which Members of Parliament should debate, debate honestly and for which they should be prepared to stand up and be counted. Like other federal states, for example, Australia and Switzerland, we can see the utility from time to time of perhaps going to the people directly on matters which affect the framework within which other decisions are made, namely the Constitution. It is a pretty basic democratic idea. Our party supports a referendum as a deadlock breaking mechanism.
February 17, 1981

1 want to come to another element in the package which leads us to the conclusion that what we have is substantively solid, correct and will wear well over the years, and that is the issue of resource control.
When 1 first met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on the day the Leader of the Opposition met with him last fall, we went over matters in the proposal and talked about equalization, language rights and a general charter. The Primer Minister had done his research with his staff. He knew the NDP position and principle on these things. It was not long after that my party in general supported the principles embodied in the resolution.
During that first meeting and subsequently, I said there was something missing which had to be dealt with at this time in our history; that is the resource question. It was not put in there as some attempt to buy off one province. The matter of resources and resource control is something which now affects Atlantic Canada, something that has historically affected the province of Quebec but in particular concerns western Canadians. We are all well aware of that.
It was my view and that of my party that if we were going to make serious constitutional change, we should deal not only with grievances as they emerged historically, with good reason, from the province of Quebec, but also deal with possible serious grievances in western Canada. The issue which stood out above all others in that area was the control of resources.
I suggested on behalf of my colleagues to the Prime Minister that if reasonableness was shown in the amending process at the committee stage, on the charter and other aspects of the proposals, and if they added three key elements regarding resources, we would be prepared to accept this package as being good for Canada at this time. Contrary to what the Conservative Party has been saying, and if there is anything that has disturbed me in a partisan sense in this debate-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired. I must interrupt him, unless the House gives its unanimous consent to allow him to continue his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Don't make it partisan.


John Edward Broadbent: I will pretend that objection did not occur because I intend to get partisan for a minute. Something that has disturbed me is the failure of the Conservative Party to recognize for western Canadians the relevance of these resource concessions. There were Supreme Court decisions, and I will not go into them in detail, which caused concern among western governments. Alberta was very much among them. They wanted change.
I give credit to the government because we insisted on the change and they went along with it. What has not been so widely recognized is that the government did show flexibility. The Prime Minister knows very well that in the summer when
The Constitution
they discussed change in respect of resource control going to the provinces, the federal government said it would have to reintroduce new broad powers over the economy. We were told that if we were going to have one, we were going to get the other. We did not agree to that. Demonstrating the flexibility required in constitutional building, the government did not reinstate or reinsert the broad powers. That was very wise.
What we have obtained in terms of addressing a provincial concern of particular relevance to the west is that the provinces now have ownership of their non-renewable natural resources clarified in the Constitution. They can participate in interprovincial trade with federal paramountcy. For the first time they can levy indirect taxes on those resources. 1 say to the Conservative members that this means in revenue potential for the province of Alberta in excess of an additional $600 million. Even for Alberta, that ain't hay. It counts for something.
We wanted this resource change because those who grew up in central Canada in particular, and received their livelihood on the basis of industry protected by tariffs and other arrangements, know full well that western Canadians had a certain grievance about that. We know full well they wanted to use their resource potential to provide themselves with wealth for the future as the industrial structure provided did for us in the past. Although the resource amendment we obtained from the government does not go all the way, three out of four demands are not bad. Those three concessions are going to be very good for western Canada.
Having said all these good things about this proposal I want to express some reservations we will be debating in this final stage of the process. First, we deeply oppose the Conservative and Liberal position to remove the limited degree of reform which was in the original package of the Senate. We think the Senate, to put it euphemistically, has outlived its existence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It has outlived its legitimacy for some time. I see some embarrassed looks on Liberal faces.


Marc Lalonde: We need it for Stanley.


John Edward Broadbent: We objected to the Conservative and Liberal vote on that. We will have something to say about that later. Similarly, we would like to see coastal provinces have control of their offshore resources just as provinces have control of inshore resources. We would like to see limited participation, with federal paramountcy, in international trade. These are legitimate goals. We regret the government did not see fit to accept them.
We would also like to see the western provinces put on the same basis as the Atlantic provinces in the amending formula. If two provinces are all that are required in Atlantic Canada to fulfil part of the veto requirement, then we should have simply two provinces in western Canada, and not two provinces with more than 50 per cent of the population.

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
Among all these concerns there is one that is fundamental. I discussed this earlier today with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). It concerns the entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights. I am pleased to report to the House that, as a result of those discussions, the government has agreed to accept an amendment which will be moved to Clause 54. It will ensure that aboriginal and treaty rights of our native people will be as firmly entrenched in the Constitution as all other rights for all other Canadians. That must be done.
I want to finish my comments on the details of this proposal by saying that if the government ensures a fair and full debate and adds nothing objectionable, my caucus will proudly vote for a motion that at long last will provide us with a Canadian bill of rights in a Canadian constitution that can in the future be amended exclusively here by Canadians.
1 conclude with one additional observation. We live in one of the most difficult nations in the world to govern, one of the most regionally and culturally diverse in existence, but we are rich in natural resources and human potential. We must now use this new Constitution we are acquiring as the beginning step of a new spirit of nation building which will lead to the creation of one of the most just and exciting nations on the face of the earth. We know we can do that.


Madam Speaker:: I have now had time to examine the motion presented by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and I can say that it is in order. Therefore, the amendment moved by Mr. Epp, seconded by Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton), is that the motion be amended as follows:
That the motion be amended in Schedule B of the proposed resolution by
deleting Clause 46, and by making all necessary changes to the Schedule consequential thereto.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Mr. Mackasey:: May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, earlier in the debate the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) was kind enough to mention me in his opening remarks as well, of course, the co-chairman and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). I appreciated that gesture because in the many months during which we were locked up together in committee we both realized we shared the same concern and appreciation
for the House of Commons and its institutions, and we realized that one can debate without being personal; one can make his point without heckling and interfering, and I think quite unexpectedly that type of atmosphere dominated more often than not the many meetings we held on the Constitution.
The hon. member even mentioned that at times I was rather loquacious-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh, no.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: -which is a polite word for long-winded. I felt sorry today when I checked the record to find that the hon. member for Provencher-he is agreeing with me-surpassed me in time in the last ten days. I only wish I had known he was creeping up. I might have pre-empted a little of his time.
This is one of those great debates; it is an opportunity for members of the House of Commons, and I can recall a few since 1962. No matter how people criticize the House of Commons and no matter how imperfect the procedure tends to appear, I have found that given half a chance, the House of Commons usually meets the challenge placed before it. I mention this because I think-and I will develop the theme- that we have two ways to go before this debate is over. We can procrastinate further, or we can accept the challenge and go on to greater things in this country. I do not pretend to know for which parliamentarians will opt. I think it is too early to say.
Over 100 members of this House of Commons participated to some degree or another in the committee hearings. That is a remarkable number of members. Some participated for only fleeting moments. Others participated for days and weeks on end replacing sick members or members unavoidably absent. Over half the members of the Senate participated in the deliberations of the committee.
Over 914 individuals expressed their opinions to that committee through letters, telegrams or participation. No less than 294 groups made their views known either directly or indirectly to that committee.
What I am saying is that nobody can suggest for a moment that the resolution before this House was made anywhere else but in Canada, by Canadians and for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is wrong to suggest that we are asking Great Britain to amend our Constitution. We are asking Great Britain to respect the amendments which the House of Commons and the Senate-the Parliament of Canada-have felt to be in the best interests of this country. That is a very important distinction.
I would say that perhaps unintentionally the committee of which I, the hon. member for Provencher and others here were members has probably opened a new avenue of communication for Canadians from all walks of life. In retrospect 1 feel the insistence of other parties that we televise the proceedings was wise.
February 17, 1981

I think it provided an opportunity, for the first time in Canadian history, to countless hundreds of thousands of Canadians, of watching, not simply members of a committee at work, but their neighbours, their friend, their representative, and thus participate directly in the constitutional processes. What a change, Mr. Speaker, from what had been the custom and the tradition over the last two decades when backbenchers were ruled out of the constitutional process, when they had no input. Backbenchers were as curious as other Canadians as to what the provincial premiers, the federal government or its representatives would decide on their behalf.
It seems to me that the success of the committee's work, its ability to bring forward a good document has reflected, not simply in two amendments by the NDP, seven amendments by the Conservatives and 28 or 48 amendments by the government-those statistics are unimportant-but more important is that 25 members of the House and of the Senate of all political parties were able to produce a document, a bill of rights which, as the Leader of the NDP Mr. Broadbent indicated tonight, is one of the finest of its kind anywhere in the world.
Why is that document a good document, Mr. Speaker? It is a good document because of the sincerity and the eloquence of those who appeared before that committee. It is no secret that many members shed a tear when they listened to Canadians of Japanese origin telling us quietly and in a dignified manner about the type of discrimination they suffered in the war. They did it, not in a reproachful tone but in a sad tone of voice, suggesting in a moderate way that they hoped this blot on our history would never be repeated.
Then came the very deeply proud Canadians of Ukrainian origin who reminded us rather forcefully, with dignity and integrity, that they accepted the bilingual nature of Canada but this is a multicultural country now, a pluralistic society, and they wanted their culture, their language and their traditions respected and reflected in the Constitution.
I could go on, Mr. Speaker, to talk about other groups, and I will do so about a few of them, about the quiet dignity of no less than 16 groups of aboriginal people who came before that committee and, with their earthy wisdom, dedication and determination, insisted, but did not plead, that we enshrine in the bill of rights some recognition that aboriginal rights existed. They did not ask us to define them, they left that up to the courts or, better still, for negotiation. But what was important to these very proud Indian and Eskimo people and Metis was that we at this level recognize once and for all that aboriginal people have rights still to be defined and injustices still to be rectified.
Women's rights, the rights of the disabled, our fundamental freedom, our legal rights all presently enshrined in that document, for the most part were not enshrined when we began the process last October or November. Now they are enshrined
The Constitution
because Canadians, for the first time, had a direct input into this Parliament and said to their elected and their non-elected representatives, "We want a charter of human rights now, not in five years, in ten years or in 20 years, but now." I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if we adopt the proposal of the Conservative Party, we will prolong indefinitely the passage of a bill of rights for Canadians. Those of us who sat on that committee- I am certainly talking for the Liberals and, I gather, for the NDP-do not want to be part of any procrastination in the enshrinement of the bill of rights at this time.
What do my good friends opposite propose? Let us look at the minority report which they presented to the Canadian people some days ago. It is a good document, a precise document and an accurate document in that it reflects the views of the Conservative Party. What does it propose? It says something that would please all of us if read not too carefully. It says that the Constitution should be patriated, and it will be, Mr. Speaker. It recognizes if that is to be a meaningful gesture, there must be an amending formula. It goes further to suggest that the overwhelming number of people and groups who appeared before us wanted a bill of rights containing legal protection against overzealous legislators, overzealous law enforcement officers or insensitive bureaucrats.
Hon. members opposite recognize the need for an amending formula for a bill of rights to be patriated. What is the formula? Having said that we must have one before we bring the Constitution home, they suggest it must include, preferably, a charter that is known as the Vancouver charter. One of the dilemmas we have with the Conservative position is that really they want their cake and they want to eat it too. They want to amend the Constitution, they want an amending formula, they want a bill of rights, but not too soon, some time in the future when the climate is better, when the premiers will agree, and if they do not agree then there would be no amending formula, no patriation and no bill of rights.
Where is the evidence that there is any dramatic shift in the attitude of the premiers? All of us who have followed this debate for many years will recognize the need for a bill of rights. I still remember with horror the dying days of the last provincial-federal conference when one premier tried to trade mobility rights for mineral rights, and another premier tried to trade fishing rights for minority rights. This has not been the exception; it has been the practice for some 50 years. We have discussed the need for a bill of rights not for 50 years, but certainly for a couple of decades. Yet Conservative members would suggest that public opinion would force the premiers to change their hardened attitude.
Today we heard how the big bad Liberal Party opposed the entrenchment of the recognition of the deity, God, that somehow we all got together, we non-religious members, and huddled and decided that we did not want to see the word "God" enshrined in the Constitution. We heard also that we did not recognize supremacy, the essential worth of a human person or the special importance of the family in our society. That

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
declaration was included in the preamble last fall. It was placed there by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), by the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development; by the Liberal Party. Who decided that they did not want a preamble which included these declarations? It was the ten provincial premiers of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No one in this House has any monopoly on virtue or religion. I find it rather strange that these arguments are brought into the House of Commons. Perhaps it is because they must divert attention from a bad argument or a weak case.
Now, why bring in the Vancouver formula? Why are so many of us adamantly opposed to the Vancouver formula? We are concerned and we will continue to be concerned about people. We do not want a formula which would make it possible for Canadians in one province to have different rights than Canadians in other provinces. The Victoria charter we suggest recognizes four distinct regions in Canada; the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the west. We recognize the uniqueness of British Columbia and the western region. By saying we would need the support of two provinces and 50 per cent of the population, that automatically means, certainly in the foreseeable future, the inclusion of British Columbia. The Prime Minister said that that formula is not etched in stone. It is one that could be changed or altered in the next two years or at the next federal-provincial conference which, under the proposed resolution, must be held once a year.
What is obnoxious to us about the Vancouver formula? I will let Quebec members tell the House what is wrong with it later on in this debate. For instance, it fails to recognize the unique position of that province. Quebec is rightly concerned with its language and culture because it is the home of the majority of French-speaking Canadians, Canadians who worry that unless they can exercise some unusual prerogative in the form of a veto, things could take place in an amended Constitution which would make it difficult for that province to retain its language, its culture and its control over the educational process. I do not intend to belabour that or elaborate beyond what I have said. I will leave that to other hon. members.
The most insidious provision of the Vancouver formula is that it permits the provinces of the country to opt out of any change they do not like. If you, Mr. Speaker, were one of the spokesman for the aboriginal groups appearing before the committee, how would you feel if you saw Parliament endorsing a formula which permitted one province to recognize aboriginal rights but the next province to deny aboriginal rights? How would one feel as a francophone from Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Quebec, who wanted to transfer to another province and did not have the assurance when he or she moved to that other province that their children could be educated in that minority language? How would they feel about constitutional change which permits one province to recognize minority rights but denies the same rights to minorities in another province?
How about the disabled? The plight of the disabled has not been recognized with great warmth by all provinces. The minister told me that one day. Provinces recognize that if this desirable recognition of the rights of the disabled goes into effect, many provinces will have to insist that the building code reflects basic changes to make the lives of disabled people a little easier. They will have to toughen up their labour laws to bring an end to the discrimination which has been practised for too long against disabled people. What kind of a Canada is the opposition proposing when some provinces can recognize the particular problems of the disabled and other provinces are not required to? That is essentially what they are proposing when they propose the Vancouver formula. It does not surprise me; at least they have been consistent in their opposition. Anything that they may feel is undesirable the provinces could object to.
What about the rights of tradesmen such as electricians, carpenters and construction workers living in a country in which mobility rights are recognized in some provinces but not in others? What I am describing, if I was describing it to a stranger, is not one country, but ten countries, maybe four of five regions, ten associate states, ten sovereign nations or ten nation states. That is not the Canada we in this place want; that is not the Canada that Canadians want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is the kind of Canada we would have if the amending formula permitted certain provinces that did not like the changes to opt out.
What about women's rights? Once again we find a variation from one province to another. What about legal rights, which is perhaps the most important item in a charter of human rights? There would be no uniformity. Some provinces would respect the charter and some would opt out because certain elements in those provinces might feel that one is guilty until proven innocent. That is the kind of balkanization this party does not want to see.
Hon. members opposite might say they do not want a unitary state. Of course we do not either. The Fathers of Confederation selected very wisely when they decided to opt for the federal system. This country is great because it is not bland, uniform or over-centralized. In 1867 the Fathers of Confederation would never have agreed to any other form of government. Somebody in the House must remind hon. members opposite, the public, the intellectuals and the provincial premiers that federalism is a two-way street. We should not be ashamed to suggest that Canadians want a strong federal government as part of our federal system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When you listen to some of the premiers you would think we were a community of communities, or ten provinces bound together very loosely, almost as a nuisance factor, perhaps to look after the army, the military and a few
February 17, 1981

other services. That is not what the Fathers of Confederation expected, nor is it to be the legacy of Pierre Elliot Trudeau.
I said earlier, Mr. Speaker-and 1 am conscious of the time, it will be a long debate-that we have two choices before us. I can see the same mood coming over this House as the one that came over the committee. I saw a committee evolve from a group of individuals, some of whom wanted no part of patria-tion. They certainly wanted no bill of rights. I will not mention names, since they are sincere people. They are people of conviction who believe in the British system, the unwritten code. I saw the evolution, and in many ways, 1 understood a little better the opposition to the extension of certain language rights which, as an English Quebecer, I always took for granted. I did not approve of that opposition but I understood, just as members opposite, and perhaps some members on our own side understood, that if we were to have a bill of rights it should be a good one.
I am suggesting that in the next three weeks or a month we may be able to come to some accommodation in this House. We may be able to put aside the tendency of the Conservatives to procrastinate, to delay to another day the passage of a bill of rights, the concern which reflects the fear of anything that may be temporarily unpopular with the people. Perhaps it is the concern for the views of six or seven Conservative premiers, although this does not include Bill Davis. Whatever their logic for proposing a formula which would postpone the passage of the bill of rights, I think they may realize that if we patriate the Constitution, include the Victoria Charter and a bill of rights and if we dump that whole package on the table at the next federal-provincial conference and the premiers realize they have nothing to fear from that bill of rights, or from that particular formula which could be amended and improved or changed to some degree in the next year, they may very well be taking a type of progressive, bold initiative which would unlock the future of this country for the new generation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: In the few minutes I have left, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to say that our challenge is not to simply bring back the Constitution but to unlock the future, to make certain that the students of the future coming out of our universities are not saddled with the same constitutional dilemma, the same impasse, the same procrastination that has characterized federal-provincial relations in the last two or three generations in this country.
As someone has already mentioned, we have a great country. I think it was the hon. member for Provencher who said so eloquently today that we have the greatest country in the world. It could be greater because we are rich in resources. The richest resources we have are not natural resources or minerals but human resources. Thanks to medicare we have the healthiest work force in the world. Thanks to our educational programs, both federal and provincial, we have the best educated work force in the world. We have had the freest
The Constitution
people in the world until some of these provincial barriers crept in, interfering with mobility and the flow of capital.
Out there we have hundreds of thousands of young Canadians who want to get on with the job of nation-building and who want to see the constitutional issue behind us, not in front of us. That is the message which comes through loud and clear to all members when they return home.
What is the message of the business community? They say, "For goodness sake, Bryce, get the constitutional problem off the table and let us get on with other issues. Let us get on with unemployment problems and with the issue of inflation. Let us resolve the energy problem." This is what people are saying. We have the power in this House in the next few weeks to do precisely that, to bring back the Constitution with a decent amending formula and a bill of rights.
If we were to do that we would show French-speaking Canadians we appreciated their gesture last year when they opted for Canada when faced with the choice of looking inward or looking outward, despite their grievances, real or imagined, that they were wise to opt for Canada. This was the result of the work of members of this House, particularly the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister to whom we should be thankful.
Think of the contribution the Atlantic provinces could make if we unlocked the future. They are a proud people, independent minded, who have exported their human resources to central Canada for far too long. Think of the contribution the native peoples can make if we can only recognize their rights and put the Constitution behind us, bringing them into the mainstream of thinking, as they were before. Think of the people of the west. They seem many times to me to be forgotten, maligned, misunderstood and misrepresented. When I travelled in the west in 1978, to Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Winnipeg, speaking on this very subject, not always in the largest cities, I realized that perhaps the first generation of unhyphenated Canadians would come from the west, not from Quebec, the Atlantic provinces or from Ontario. They are Canadians who can trace their roots back for one, two and three generations or more, Canadians who look puzzled at our dilemma. The westerners want to participate in nation-building, and they want to do it from the west. They do not want to have to constantly come to Ottawa, Toronto or Montreal to participate. We need to get rid of the stereotype image we have of the west, as simply that of the granary, of the empire.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: What is this stereotype?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: It is of an immeasurably rich people, but its contribution goes well beyond that. Those of us who spent any time in British Columbia know of the contribution that province makes in the field of architecture. It is way ahead of that of other countries and other provinces. Universities in the west are at the forefront of research; cancer research and in the use of the cobalt bomb. There is research going on with respect to optic fibres in the west. The west has much to contribute.

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
When you ask me what the west wants I say they want to participate as equals, as Canadians.
We in this House of Commons have a unique challenge to put the constitutional problem behind us. We have the challenge to bring the Constitution home, including in it a bill of rights fashioned by Canadians, for Canadians and in Canada. Then let us marshal the forces out there, Canadians of all walks of life; the aboriginal people, an independent people; the warm people of Cape Breton, the Atlantic provinces; the potential and joie de vivre of French Canada, now that they have turned once more to this great nation, and the untapped potential of the westerners. This is what makes this country; this is the challenge that the Elouse of Commons has to face. I am not sure if we are worthy of it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, the Constitution is a country's statement of fundamental principles that determines how it shall be governed. What we refer to now as our Constitution is a British law enhanced and encumbered with formal amendments, court decisions, orders in council and unwritten convention. The British North America Act is the heart of our Constitution, enacted by the British Parliament in 1867 after extensive preparatory work by Canadians. It distributes powers between the federal and provincial governments.
Since a good part of our Constitution is already here in the form of court decisions and unwritten convention, this really means transferring the power of amendment to the British North America Act from Britain to the Canadian federal and provincial governments. At the moment the British North America Act can only be amended by the British Parliament. After it is patriated, however, there must be some method of amending it when necessary, and this poses the problem. All parties agree there must be an amending formula but they cannot agree on the formula.
Personally, I feel the Constitution should be patriated unchanged except for the amending formula, and that amendments should be made in Canada and agreed to by at least seven provinces representing more than 50 per cent of our people.
I pose the question: if seven provinces and 50 per cent of our people do not favour change, should it be made? Is there a mandate for change?
The constitutional proposals of the government are skilfully conceived, designed and executed. Constitutional proposals attract great interest in the Atlantic provinces. Who of us have not noted from our boyhood days the agitation in these provinces by the sea for fairer treatment at the hands of Ottawa? We recall the delegations which from time to time have appeared before the central authorities, and constant representations of provincial governments and other groups protesting alleged discrimination against our provinces because of tariff, trade and transportation policies and practices of Ottawa. At this very moment I am protesting the severe cutbacks in Canadian National Express services, services which were supposed to be a quid pro quo for the reduction of rail services not so long ago. 1 am also protesting the neglected development of oil shales which have the potential to supply Canada with 1 5 billion barrels of oil.
On several occasions in this very session of Parliament I have pointed to the long-term savings that an enlightened investment in regional development could produce for both the Atlantic provinces and the central government. That is why any constitutional amendment which can provide the Atlantic provinces with the assistance that is now denied us, and which we feel is due to us in consequence of our participation in confederation, would merit careful consideration. National policies of restraint, restricted credit and high interest rates hit adversely against the Atlantic provinces. We must have a claim for redress against such policies.
Actuated by that thought I have considered the arrangements and understandings in effect in 1867 when my province, then prosperous and thriving, entered confederation. 1 have the view, which many others have shared, that confederation was the result of an agreement among the original provinces which comprised certain definite understandings as to trade and transportation arrangements which were to be developed to the advantage of my province, and if the federal authorities could be prevailed upon to carry out the original plan, the grievances about which our people have complained would tend to disappear.
If the confederation of the colonies of British North America was not the result of an agreement between the original provinces which entered into it, then to what was it due? Surely no one suggests it was thrust upon them by the Imperial Parliament.
Our Constitution is really the crystalization into law by an imperial statute of an agreement made by the provinces after full consultation and discussion. Probably one of the most learned and eloquent dissertations on the Constitution was made in this House a very long time ago, on February 18, 1925, by the then minister of justice, the Hon. Ernest Lapointe. He said, and his words are reported in Hansard at page 297 of that year in column two:
There were many obstacles in the way of achieving confederation. Everybody who knows something of the history of Canada knows what some at least of those obstacles were. The country was on the verge of civil strife. During the two years which preceded the Quebec resolutions, not less than four cabinets succeeded each other at the head of the affairs of Canada. The provinces got together; they tried to effect an understanding and they effected one.
In the language of Sir John A. Macdonald, the very pact of confederation bears on its face all the marks of a compromise.
1 draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, these words of Sir John A. Macdonald to a pact of confederation which are quoted by the hon. Mr. Lapointe. These words are contrary to many of the propositions and positions being advanced and taken today by the government.
Mr. Lapointe continued at page 297:
The provinces relinquished some of the powers which were theirs and they retained for themselves other powers. The powers which they relinquished, they relinquished subject to conditions which were put into confederation, some of those conditions being more or less important, others essential, and without such
February 17, 1981

conditions confederation would not have taken place. They tried to combine federal strength with local freedom of action. Everything that was private, domestic, home rule, the provinces kept to themselves, and they saw to it that their powers in that regard should never be interfered with. It is to be noted that in the British North America Act, they have the right to amend those provisions which concern their own constitution, except as regards the office of the Lieutenant-Governor.
Not so in the case of any of the provisions concerning the federal Parliament; and there were reasons for that. If confederation was a pact, an agreement, is it possible for one of the parties to the agreement, or rather for the body which resulted from the agreement, to amend, to alter the conditions of that pact without consulting and without securing the consent of the parties to the original agreement?
You will again observe, Mr. Speaker, the use of the word "pact" and "agreement". Mr. Lapointe made it very clear that the Constitution cannot be altered without the consultation and the consent of the parties to the agreement.
Mr. Lapointe continued at page 297 as follows:
As regards the United States as well as Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, they all agreed at the time of the enactment of the statute creating their constitution that they would have the right to alter it. They possess that right because it was made one of the conditions of the statute constituting them a state. Not so with Canada, because there were special conditions and difficulties in the way. I ask my hon. friend this question. Confederation was achieved and the new parliament was opened in 1867.
Does he believe that two years afterwards, in 1869, for instance, this parliament could have fairly and reasonably amended the British North America Act or have asked the Imperial parliament to amend it without the consent of the four original provinces? Could he fairly say that that could have been done two years after the opening of this parliament? If it could not be done at that time, could it be done 25 years afterwards, or even 50 years afterwards, without the consent of the contracting parties in the pact of confederation.
I would commend a full reading of this learned address to all members of the House. The hon. Mr. Lapointe goes on to indicate that the other provinces, which joined the first four and came later into a joint confederation, have the same status, powers and rights as the original four provinces, and they should be consulted just as much as any other province if any substantial changes are asked regarding the British North America Act.
The learned gentleman concluded his remarks with the admonition that we cannot ask for power to alter the Constitution without the consent of the provinces, for it is their Constitution as well as ours.
In 1906 to 1907 Sir Wilfrid Laurier speaking in this House, as reported in Hansard, said:
In Parliament here we can do as we please; we are in the majority; but are the members of this House prepared to say that if any province finds itself aggrieved by the terms of confederation, which have been accepted by all the provinces, they will ask the British parliament to alter the Constitution in the way desired by that particular province?
Such a course might be followed by very serious consequences. Confederation is a compact, made originally by four provinces, but adhered to by all the nine provinces who have entered it, and I submit to the judgment of this House and to the best consideration of its members, that this compact should not be lightly altered. It should be altered only for adequate cause, and after the provinces themselves have had an opportunity to pass judgment on same.
In what surely must have been one of the landmark addresses ever made in this House, the hon. Mr. Lapointe took support from the remarks made by the Right Hon.
The Constitution
Arthur Meighen, Sir George Etienne Cartier, Hon. George Brown, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir! Robert Borden. In their words which he quoted, he held that the British North America Act is a covenant, is of a nature of a treaty, the provinces of which were essential for the acceptance of the whole scheme, and he was forced to the conclusion that we do not have the right to ask to alter it without the consent of those who are parties to the agreement.
One of the greatest constitutional scholars to whom I have been exposed was the late Chief Justice of New Brunswick, the Hon. John B. McNair. In his illustrious career Mr. McNair served not only as chief justice but also as lieutenant-governor and indeed he was premier of New Brunswick for 17 years.


An hon. Member:: He was a Liberal.


J. Robert Howie: Yes, a Liberal.
I would like to share with you Mr. McNair's thoughts on the important question of constitutional amendment. I am quoting from the synoptic of the proceedings of the legislative assembly of New Brunswick on March 17, 1939, as reported at page 223:
Democracy had its roots in a very small state that existed in Greece many centuries ago, where all freemen were entitled to meet in the public forum to transact the public business. That was the democratic system in its purest form.
In these days of great population, with wide expanses of territory to be governed, that method of administering public affairs is impracticable. British genius, however, long since developed a system under which the people send to the legislative halls persons of their own choosing to represent their interests and do their business for them.
It is desirable to keep government, the administration of the affairs of the people, as close to the people as is possible. No doubt it would be easier for those elected to office to rule from afar off where, protected by an army of bureaucrats, they would hear little of the individual problems and needs of their constituents. That is the way totalitarian rulers carry on-from behind a screen. But is not close contact with the people the very essence of our democratic representative system of government?
Life might be easier without it for those who are administering public affairs. But is it well for them to be out of touch with the leaders of thought who are found all over-in the municipal councils, on the farms, in the factories, in divers places in every community?
In support of the doctrine of centralization it has been suggested here that sweeping changes are essential in the distribution of legislative powers between the Dominion and the provinces, as now found in the Constitution. Might I suggest this question for hon. members to consider-what authority does the Dominion Parliament not now possess that is necessary for the solution of the problems of our day?
I have expressed my view that the Constitution should be patriated with an amending formula. There is merit in both the Vancouver consensus and the Victoria charter, and there are drawbacks to both formulas as far as smaller provinces such as the maritimes are concerned. My personal preference is for the Vancouver consensus because each province is treated equally and given one vote, seven of ten provinces must vote in favour of the changes and they must represent more than 50 per cent of our population.
The Victoria charter, on the other hand, takes a regional approach and has much to commend it from the point of view of smaller provinces like the maritimes. It does, however, give both Quebec and Ontario a veto power, but this would be reflected, by their larger populations, to a great extent in the

February ! 7, 198 !
The Constitution
Vancouver consensus as well. Where both amending formulas have much to commend them, I would tilt in favour of the Vancouver consensus because it appears to have a wider acceptance among the provincial partners to Confederation.
One thing the lengthy committee discussion has done is to acquaint more Canadians with the problems which face our constitutional deliberations. I believe it has created a new climate where one more attempt at winning agreement with the provinces on the amending formula is justified and desirable. After all, as Sir John A. Macdonald pointed out, the nation has been built on compromise and our federal and provincial governments have repeatedly demonstrated the ability to come up with a great compromise when it is required. In terms of an amending formula, 1 believe that compromise is required now.
Unilateral patriation is a move that would completely change the constitutional relationships between the federal government and the provinces as established in 1867.
A cautious and prudential position is well taken. Present necessary amendments to the British North America Act can be quickly procured in the usual way; by imperial statute and pursuant to an address by the federal Parliament with the concurrence of the provinces. To reduce the BNA Act to the category of a federal statute would be a retrograde move, contrary to the spirit of Canadian confederation, replete with possibilities of constitutional confusion and future trouble.
It is simply astounding that the government proposes a trend against which statemen of all parties have been protesting vehemently for decades. Revision of the British North America Act may seem to be essential in certain respects but in no respect will the work of amendment lack difficulty, and it is right, of course, that constitutional changes should not be regarded lightly or made an easy matter. The provinces, especially Quebec, will be wary of alterations. They will be jealous to maintain their rights and tenacious in clinging to the powers given them by the British North America Act.
There is every reason why we should go slowly with amendments to the British North America Act, especially with regard to the transfer of the powers to amend the act from Westminster to Ottawa.
We are told that we are living in a new age under conditions which the Fathers of Confederation never contemplated; the old arrangements must be modified; there must be a fresh alignment of powers.
No one will deny that some adjustments may be necessary, but the suggestion that social reconstruction is possible only through federal legislation and control carries little conviction. In theory that message might create greater uniformity; but in practice uniformity has not resulted from the exercise by the federal government of its privileges and its powers. Our forefathers in 1867 rejected the arguments in support of uniformity when they refused to enter a legislative union. The grounds for such rejection are just as strong today. Each province has its own special conditions, its own special problems and its own special interests.
There is no question but that some adjustments may be necessary or advisable in the division of legislative powers made in 1867 and in the financial arrangements now existing between the federal government and the provinces. But as to the real move now afoot to give to the Parliament of Canada the power to enact a substantial constitutional amendment to the British North America Act and impose a new charter on the provinces, I view the entire proposal with great misgivings.
It is my fear that such a scheme would entirely destroy our federal fabric. The division of legislative and executive powers, which is the pith and substance of the federal system of government, must depend for its maintenance and stability upon a paramount law; in our case upon the supremacy of the British North America Act.
Legislatures hold their present powers because each province is an autonomous self-governing province under the BNA Act, sovereign within the sphere defined for it in the act and independent of the Canadian Parliament to that extent.
It has been suggested by critics that the course taken by the provinces is the course of obstruction. Why should they not oppose? A province has every reason to mistrust a greater exercise of power by Ottawa. The high hopes held out in 1867 have not been realized; the fine promises then made have not been honoured. Take for example the trade of Ontario and Quebec and the regions beyond. It was to flow through New Brunswick and make of the seaports of the maritime provinces great emporiums of the world. But it continues to find channels through a foreign country or over artificial water routes, maintained at our expense and closed by nature for a great part of the year.
Our domestic products, which were to find markets in Ontario and Montreal, are turned back by a manipulative freight rate structure. Even the inter-colonial railway, the substantial quid pro quo for New Brunswick's entry into confederation, has had its value largely destroyed. Within a few short months the modern day quid pro quo, the CN Express, the remnant of the CPR valley line through New Brunswick, will be closing its doors to the capita! city of the province, isolating it from contact by rail with the rest of the country. It is the bounden duty of this government to see that these wrongs are remedied and that the trust imposed in the central government is observed and fulfilled.
In speaking of Canada, the Hon. Mr. Lapointe said, "It is the child of the provinces, it is not their father." The great caveat which I enter at this time is that a nation's constitution is not just another statute, it is the foundation of all the laws, federal and provincial, which are enacted in the name of the Crown. The Constitution is not just a set of goals and objectives. It is the bedrock of our rule of law and it permeates every statute and regulation enacted within Canada. It will require vast changes and significant adjustments. Why should not this package in its new form be submitted to the provinces? What rights are contained in the new proposed Constitution that are not now enjoyed by Canadians? Admittedly they
February 17, 1981

will be in a more permanent form enshrined in a new constitution, but could they not wait to be put through the amending process here in Canada after the Constitution is patriated with an amending formula? That is the route I prefer because it maintains the checks and balances which are the hallmark of our federal provincial system; it honours the pact of confederation and it meets the dictum spelled out by some of the greatest parliamentarians of our age.
I have no objection to the enshrinement of the equalization principle or to many of the excellent human and civil rights which are proposed for the charter to be included in the British North America Act. My great concern is for the process by which this is being accomplished and 1 have spelled out my objections. I have asked that the proposal be put before the provinces again and I have given my reasons why that course of action should be taken.
On the substance of the proposal, I have one final caveat to file. The proposed constitution's bill of rights has been steadily expanded while in committee. The bill was to include a few guarantees such as the right to an education in either official language where numbers made this possible. Since then proposed additions to the charter have multiplied like fruit flies. Various groups have pushed for the inclusion of specific guarantees to protect different people who make up our population. Many of these are justified. The committee majority decided not to include mention of the deity in a preamble and the question of property rights was discarded. Is the resultant constitution-the resultant charter of rights-the best charter of rights that can be given to Canadians?
I would really like to see a cooling off period, a reference to the provinces and a second look at the charter before it is enacted. After all, if seven of ten provinces representing 50 per cent of our population will not vote for it, should we really enact it? That is the challenge I want to leave with the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity of taking part in this debate. As you know, in the previous debate held last fall I was denied that right despite the fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of our country indicated to the country and the members of this House on October 22 that each and every one of us could have the opportunity of participating in the debate.
Within the last few days there have been rumblings in the press and the media about the possibility of closure once again in this debate. I hope that is not true. We are at a critical time in our history and the resolution is so important that we must have a full and complete debate which allows the expression of opinion by all of us in this House. That is what democracy is all about.
As I rise to take part in this debate, I do so with a certain degree of sadness in my heart, sadness because this debate is so unnecessary. It is a debate which has come about because of the ideological theories of one man, the Prime Minister of Canada, an individual who, in my opinion, does not understand or, more likely, does not want to understand, the true nature of
The Constitution
Canadian federalism which singles Canada out as being unique in the world. He does not understand the importance that Canadians for more than 100 years have placed upon consultation, negotiation and co-operation between the partners in confederation.
I can see two Canadas, the Canada of the present day and the Canada which existed only two or three decades ago. The Canada of yesterday existed before the decay set in, a cancerous growth which began to grow and spread and now is attacking the very heart of this great country.
The Canada of yesterday is a Canada which struggled through the thirties, the depression years, and then suddenly found itself faced with an even greater struggle, the Second World War. That war was started by a nation whose ambition was to conquer the world. The survival of western European and the North American continent and our democratic way of life was in jeopardy. Hundreds of thousands of proud Canadians, both men and women, volunteered to serve their country; many paid the supreme sacrifice. There are others, of course, but they were relatively few in number, who because of their ideological beliefs were not prepared to serve their country. We came out of that war respected as a nation, a proud nation, rich in resources, both human and natural.
We elected the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and later on the Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker, as prime ministers of our country: two gentlemen that, in my opinion, personified Canada. People across the country from all walks of life and different ethnic backgrounds, regardless of their political affiliation, were able to say with pride, "He is my prime minister. He is the leader of my country." When they visited abroad, they displayed dignity, integrity, and statesmanship so befitting our country.
No Prime Minister since, who has held office for any lengthy period of time, has had this statesmanlike quality necessary to instil in Canadians that same feeling of oneness, of belonging and being part of that great multitude of people of all races and creeds that make up this great country of ours. Lacking that leadership, we have drifted over the years, ignoring the direction in which we were headed.
But there was one man who knew, the man at the helm, the man who is still the Prime Minister of our country, a man who said this:
I am satisfied, but I suppose one has to be in the wheelhouse to see what shifts are taking place. I know that we have spun the wheel and I know that the rudder is beginning to press against the waves at sea-but perhaps the observer who is on the deck and smoking his pipe, or drinking his tea, sees the horizon much in the same direction and doesn't realize it, but perhaps he will find himself disembarking at a different island than the one he thought he was sailing for.
Having spun the wheel, the Prime Minister has brought us to the Canada of today: a country divided by language, by region, and over energy; a country where the vast majority of Canadians no longer are filled with pride for their flag, their country or their national anthem.
As a Memberiof Parliament for eight and a half years I have had the privilege of visiting a number of countries in various

February 17, 198 1
The Constitution
parts of the world as a delegate with parliamentary associations. I am always filled with emotion when, in the opening ceremonies, the host country raises its flag and its national anthem is played. As in the Canada of yesterday, the people snap to attention. They stick their chests out, and with pride they join in singing their national anthem. During the singing, my thoughts returned to the Canada of today. I had visions of some of our official functions such as football games or hockey games where our national anthem is played. One can observe people wearing hats, standing with hands in their pockets or chatting with neighbours. That is the Canada of today, with a Prime Minister at the helm whose personal ambition is to change the face of Canada even more.
For 113 years, we have had a constitution, the British North America Act. It has served us well. It is a constitution that was made in Canada by Canadians. It is a British statute, however, and because of this amendments have to be made in Westminster.
We had the opportunity in 1931 to break those ties, as did South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, The Irish Free State and Newfoundland. They seized the opportunity. We did not. It is not Britain, as suggested by the Prime Minister, which has prevented patriation, but we ourselves as Canadians, because Canada could never agree on an amending formula.
So the tie with Britain remained with the unanimous consent of the ten governments. Over the years, various attempts have been made to find an acceptable formula, without success. Basically, I suppose, this is because of the regional nature of our country and the fear that one region or one province could take advantage of another region or province.
The fact that amendments have to be made in Westminster has really caused no problems for Canada. Many amendments have been made over the years based on requests, after consensus between the provincial and federal governments. There was never any undue delay. However, there has always been a desire or consensus on the part of all Canadians to have our Constitution brought back to Canada. That desire or consensus is stronger today than it has ever been.
I am sure that had the first ministers' conference last fall been called to reach an agreement on patriation and an amending formula only, such agreement could have been arrived at, but the Prime Minister was not prepared to limit the discussion to these two items. He insisted on including a so-called "people's package", a charter of rights to be entrenched by the British parliament.
This caused concern amongst the premiers because they felt, and rightly so, that some of the package could intrude into provincial rights. In many cases, they doubted the value of the bill of rights. They felt our British parliamentary system was such that the protection of the citizens of Canada was better under that system than under the entrenchment.
I would like to comment for a moment on the charter. I listened with interest this afternoon to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). He said, "Never again will our rights be trampled upon." He was attempting to give the impression that once entrenched, those entrenched rights are inviolate.
A short time ago, I took the opportunity of asking the parliamentary library to supply me with a copy of the constitution of the U.S.S.R. I would like to quote a few brief paragraphs.
Art. 125. In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to strengthen the socialist system, the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed by law:
(a)	freedom of speech;
(b)	freedom of the press;
(c)	freedom of assembly, including the holding of mass meetings;
(d)	freedom of street processions and demonstrations.
Article 126 reads in part:
In conformity with the interests of the working people, and in order to develop the initiative and political activity of the masses of the people, citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed the right to unite in mass organizations, trade unions, co-operative societies, youth organizations, sport and defence organizations, cultural, technical and scientific societies-
Article 127 reads:
Citizens of the U.S.S.R. are guaranteed inviolability of the person. No person shall be placed under arrest except by decision of a court of law or with the sanction of a procurator.
The final article I would like to read is Article 128, and it says this:
The inviolability of the homes of citizens and privacy of correspondence are protected by law.
One can conclude that writing basic rights and freedoms into a constitution is not in itself a guarantee to the individual citizen that he will enjoy these rights and freedoms. The only real guarantee is a democratic system of government in which the right of an individual to exercise his or her franchise freely is guaranteed and in which every two, three, four or five years citizens have the option of replacing the government.
The rights and freedoms in the government's charter of rights, and many more, have been enjoyed by us as Canadians under the British parliamentary system since we became a country 113 years ago, and they are not written down. They are not entrenched. These rights we have enjoyed during our lifetimes and the lifetimes of our forefathers have their roots in the Magna Carta, which goes back to the year 1215.
Under the system that exists today in Canada, each of us now has the right to own property. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said this afternoon, many people emigrated to Canada attracted by that right to own homes or farms. Early in the century the railroads of Canada and the government advertised extensively in Europe encouraging people to come to Canada and to take up homesteads, land of their own. Now the government, because of pressures exerted by the New Democratic Party, has refused to include in the charter the right to own land. I wonder why. Is it because the NDP sees it as an obstacle to its plans to try to bring in socialism? Why would the Prime Minister not turn his back on such representations from the NDP? Would that perhaps spoil his plans as well?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Maybe it is a provincial right.
February 17, 1981


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Let's get into that one for a moment.


Douglas Charles Neil: 1 hope when my friend to my left goes back to Saskatchewan he is able to explain that to his constituents.
As my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher, so eloquently put it this afterhoon, members of the Liberal Party refused to acknowledge the supremacy of God. They did so by turning down the amendment of our party based on the Diefenbaker bill of rights. Why was it turned down? Was it because the late hon. gentleman from Prince Albert had drafted it, or has our country reached such a state that the Prime Minister and members on the government side of the House refuse to acknowledge that all power comes from God?
On the positive side, I would like to say I agree with the government's indication that it will protect mobility rights, and I will give the reason. A short time ago a constituent visited me at my office back home and told me he was leaving the Armed Forces very shortly. He had travelled to another province. 1 will not name the other province, but when he got there he looked around and decided that was the place where he would like to retire. He thought perhaps he should find a job before he tore up his roots in Moose Jaw, so he went to the local Manpower office. Everyone knows that Manpower offices are run by the Government of Canada. Do hon. members know what he was told? As soon as Manpower found out he was not a resident of that province, he was told that Manpower was sorry but Manpower could not take his name and register him for employment. Is that mobility? The government is preaching mobility, but is certainly not practising mobility.
On the eve of the conference of first ministers a leaked government document left the impression that the government hoped the conference would fail. As one who watched the complete proceedings on television, I was impressed with the premiers' sincere attempts within a limited time to reach a consensus. I am satisfied that given more time, with a Prime Minister who sincerely wished for an agreement, we would not be involved in this debate today.
The Prime Minister has attempted to stress the urgency of patriation, but what is the urgency? There is no matter pending in Canada at the moment which requires immediate changes in our Constitution. The Prime Minister said this was a promise to Quebec during the referendum campaign and that Quebec is expecting it. It is interesting to note that there is not one political party in the province of Quebec, including the Liberal Party under Mr. Claude Ryan, which supports the steps being taken by the government on the Constitution. So what is the urgency? I suggest that the Prime Minister has spun the wheel too far, the boat is capsizing and he is making a last vain attempt to make his mark in history. He really does not care if in doing so he does irreparable damage to our country.
As I said in my opening remarks, the Prime Minister does not understand the true nature of federalism or the importance Canadians for more than 100 years have placed upon consultation, negotiation and co-operation between the partners in
The Constitution
confederation. Would it not make sense for the Prime Minister to call a halt to his unilateral action and invite the provincial first ministers to a conference to deal specifically with an address to Her Majesty requesting patriation of the Constitution with an amending formula and leave the other issues to be dealt with by Canadians in Canada? This would give Canadians and the provinces an opportunity to take time to consider the matter of a charter of rights. I know that suggestion will fall upon the deaf ears of the Prime Minister and Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), the leader who has been so anxious right from the start to ally himself as closely as possible with the Prime Minister. The reason, of course, may be that the philosophies of the two are not that far apart, and at times both of them may have had their hands on the rudder.
What is the future of our country if this resolution passes? Are we headed for a unitary state? This afternoon the hon. member for Provencher discussed the amending formula and the referendum clauses in some detail. I watched the look of amazement on some of the faces of the backbenchers on the government side of the House and I honestly do not believe that, until it was explained to thereby the hon. member for Provencher, they fully realized the unfairness of the resolution and the problems it can create in our country. Quebec and Ontario will have a permanent veto while the other eight provinces will have none, and unless a province can join with another province in its region, they will have no clout at all.
What about my own province of Saskatchewan? What about Alberta or British Columbia? It means that the other provinces in Canada could gang up and take control of our resources, or, under the referendum process, the federal government could do the same thing, on its own.
I am sure further discussions and negotiations with the provincial ministers would lead to a solution of our problems, but I gather from the remarks of the Minister of Justice that such a step will not be taken. Therefore, I appeal to the backbenchers on the government side of the House, and to the more reasonable members of the New Democratic Party who have indicated they will probably be voting against the government, to give serious consideration to what they are doing by supporting the Prime Minister in his unilateral action.
Parliament is in the course of dealing with a matter which could change the course of Canadian history, and I think members on the other side and members of the NDP should consider that on such an important issue they are not answerable to the Prime Minister, not answerable to the Leader of the NDP, but they are answerable to all the people of Canada and, above all, they are answerable to themselves and to their conscience. I urge each and every one of the backbenchers on the government side and the NDP members to think the situation over. They must live with their conscience as long as they live. The decision they make with respect to this vote is

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
vital for our country. Let them examine their conscience well and, I beg them, vote to defeat this resolution.


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, it is my opinion that in the process of this debate, Parliament stands abused. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of our country chose to introduce this important resolution at a press conference rather than in Parliament. That might perhaps have been excused if television had not been available in the House but, since the same media was available here, the same exposure and the same ability to communicate with the people of this country was available. One can only presume that his failure to present that motion in the House of Commons was an example of his arrogance, contempt and an abuse of this institution.
The rights of the people of Fraser Valley West have been abused in this House of Commons by the closure motion. I stand here tonight with half of my rights gone. The debate has gone full circle. It started in the House of Commons, went on to committee, and now my input comes after the fact. The input of the people of Fraser Valley West has been denied.


Mrs. Mitchell:: Do they like your behaviour?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am certain that the people of Fraser Valley West and, I hope, people who stand for parliamentary democracy, as I thought the hon. member did, recognize this kind of abuse. I would have expected the hon. member stand with me on closure, not against me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. The rights of the people of Fraser Valley West were abused by that closure. My privilege and responsibility as their Member of Parliament have been impinged in the same way. The offending closure motion, as we sit tonight, has not been withdrawn despite representations to the minister responsible. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), said in this House of Commons that this is an unconscionable rule which should be re-examined. To my knowledge, it has not been re-examined, it has not been withdrawn, and another potential motion hangs like an axe over this Parliament, hangs like an axe over this debate.
1 cannot understand why, when the Prime Minister and the government House leader see the seriousness of this, members of the House of Commons do not rise against this closure rule and have it struck from the records. Party after party, prime minister after prime minister, have stated that it should be struck from the record. I should like to quote Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he spoke the first time this motion was to be used-


David Michael Collenette: By a Tory government.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I do not care whether it is a Tory government, a Liberal government, an NDP government or any kind of a government. This rule is an inequitable rule, and you
know that too. Stand up for democracy in the House and listen to your former prime minister, listen to the echo of Liberalism-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Remarks should be directed to the Chair.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, 1 am speaking directly to you, sir. This is what the Liberal prime minister of Canada said:
Let me repeat to my right honourable friend: As you sow, so shall you reap; as you are fair, so shall you meet with fairness; as you are unjust, so shall you meet with injustice ...
In the words of Shakespeare "this even handed justice commends the ingredients of our poisoned chalice to our own lips".
The poison that he offers to us today will come to his own lips at some future day. We are in the minority; we can be gagged, we can be prevented from expressing our opinions; they can trample upon our rights. But, sir, the day of reckoning will come!
Those are the words of a great prime minister, a Liberal prime minister. Those are Laurier's words. Laurier's words are as true today as the day they were uttered in April of 1913. They are as true today as we watch our current Prime Minister's universe unravel in a poisonous and less than candid, way.
In the future, history may well show its repetition of the results of the April 9, 1913 resolution. With the implementation of the obnoxious and infamous closure of October 23, 1980, history may well repeat itself. Like that initial debate in 1913, it may in fact mark the pivotal point for the ultimate defeat of intent and purpose, not only of this resolution but also of the government itself. Hopefully this closure motion will not be the pivotal point for the final severance of this nation as well.
Laurier went on in his speech at that time to say:
But, sir, I also have the honour to belong to the great Liberal Party of Canada. I have occupied a position of some importance in it; nay, I may say that for 20 years and more I have been entrusted with its chief command. During the 15 years I was in office it sometimes happened that friends came to me and told me that I was not doing justice to myself or to the party, but that 1 should impose closure, as had been done in many other Parliaments. Sir, I am a Liberal of the old school; I have been brought up in the school of Fox and of the old leaders of the Liberal minority in Parliament of such a valuable weapon as it would be deprived of by the introduction of closure. Perhaps I was wrong; perhaps I was too generous. Nay, I was not; I would rather stand here today, having refused, after the 15 years of my administration, to impose closure, and having decided to abide by the old rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I would rather stand here in opposition than be over there "by the power of the gag".


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I know the hon. member stands for the principle of democracy and against closure. I thank him for that comment.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Would the hon. member entertain one question now that we have referred to each other? What did Diefenbaker do during the five or six years he was in office?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I have already covered that aspect. I said that if it had been the New Democratic Party in Saskatchewan,
February 17, 1981

Alberta or British Columbia, if it had been the Conservative Party of 1980, if it had been the Liberal Party of 1981, the Liberal Party of 1913 or whatever date it happened to be, it does not make it right. You, a man of principle, understand that only too well. Of course I make that comment through Mr. Speaker.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We both understand it.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If freedom is the absence of coersion, then closure marks the desecration of freedom. Surely freedom is the essential philosophic principle of our Parliament and our democracy. The most obnoxious form of closure is therefore undemocratic and should be removed from our procedures before it is further allowed to erode the fundamental values and traditions of our Parliament.
In our Parliament freedom of speech-the obligation, the privilege, the platform, the right-is far more important than the substance or process of this speech, of any other speech to be given, of any other bill or of any other resolution which may be placed here. The irony of the resolution we are debating today is that it purports to guarantee the process it has already taken away. The process has tarnished and subverted its own most basic freedom of speech.
The Prime Minister of Canada who claims to stand for justice and equity knows that the closure motion is wrong. He knows he has wronged both his own principles in invoking it, as well as this Parliament. He stands in a position to correct it, and I call upon him to do so.
1 have had the best of all Canada has to offer. This nation has been good to me. I have received the best of education, the best of spiritual values, material plenty and opportunity unbounded. This country has been good to me. I have also had the opportunity to put words together in an educated and parliamentary way. But last week when 1 talked with a person in my riding, he said, "You know, one thing you are doing is starting to sound like them. When you get up and speak on the Constitution, why do you not just tell it the way we feel it? Why do you not just get up and say these kinds of things?"
I said in the early part of my speech I would use some of his words. These were the things he told me to say. I think that sometimes the majority of the people out there, the great democracy out there, somehow speaks with a clarity that we, the mechanics of the Constitution, confederation and re-confederation, do not have. Sometimes we really cannot see the forest for the trees.
The people I represent see the issue of the Constitution so simply. They say to me, "Why do you not just bring the Constitution home as quickly as possible, with as little change as possible, and then make whatever changes are desirable and as many as possible here in Canada?" This sounds simple. It is simple patriation with a majority amending formula, with no special status for any partner in confederation, with fairness, justice, equality, but above all let us get on with the business of the House and the country of solving pressing economic and social problems. They do not understand why the government cannot hear and see this simple message. The consensus is
The Constitution
clear. It is clear, whether it is among the women of Canada, the provinces of Canada or the parliaments speaking in unanimity. The consensus is already obvious. My constituents cannot understand why we do not just do it, or why we did not do it when we had the unanimous resolution of the House. Quite frankly I agree with them. I do not understand why we did not, or and why we cannot. The consensus is clear.
My constituent also said that there was a sense in the west that somehow the centre is fiddling around with the Constitution while the west burns. There is a sense that the east and the centre mistake western tolerance for western ignorance. The west is tired of being tolerant, the west is tired of being laughed at with blue-eyed Arab jokes. The people are tired of being put down as red-necked yahoos. Westerners feel that the west has turned a blind eye to this kind of centralist bigotry, but that does not mean the west is blind. The west has had enough of one-way equalization.
A westerner's salary might be 5 per cent higher than salaries anywhere else in Canada, but it costs 100 per cent more to buy a house in western Canada. That 5 per cent more does not make up for it. It costs more than 5 per cent more to buy a car in western Canada than it does here in Ottawa or in central Canada. It costs more to pay for a telephone in the west. The cost of living in the west is very, very high. The west does not mind paying under these equalization formulas, but they do get tired. The people in the west want the centre to wake up and recognize the facts before they say, and they are seeming to say it in the telephone calls from my constituents, "Take your subsidies, take your tariffs and quota barriers, take your unfair freight rates, take your smug constitutional veto, take your eastern credit institutions, take your weighted electoral system home. If you want us to be a continuing part of this great federation, we want to be a part of it on a fair and equal basis." We do not want to play with your loaded dice. We do not want to play with your stacked deck. We want a new deal from a straight deck in the west.


Mr. Paproski:: We want to get in on the poker game.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: You are darned right we do, with a straight deck. We will play poker but let us not have stacked cards. The response must be that if you want to play the game with a straight deck then you must say what you really want. We want the potential of the west recognized. We want you to help us build upon that potential. We want you to recognize that the future of and for the east lies in the building of the west, not the exploitation of the west. We want you to see that the west is but a gateway to the great markets in the world of the Pacific Rim. That is the first step. It is British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba which hold great potential, not the far east. The near west of the Pacific Rim holds even greater potential since we were excluded from the traditional markets in Europe. Why can you not see that potential and build with us? That is what we want, and we want it in a very positive way. We in the west want one strong, united Canada. I have no doubt about that, even in light of separatist

February 17, 1981
The Constitution
groups which come to me in anger. When you get right down to it, when you get past the argument, they still want one strong, united Canada. Our country holds forth great promise. We believe Canada is a federation of equal individuals and equal partners who can build on that promise. We in the west are proud Canadians. We love Canada. Do not force us out. Help us build together for our mutual benefit, for it can be done.
There are so many of these concerns I want to bring to your attention. I would like to be more specific about them rather than just talking about them in the rhetorical form. Rhetoric is fine, but we want to be seen, heard, to be understood and to be a part of. Westerners see this constitutional package, unfortunately, as yet another attempt to make the citizens of the west second class.
Tariffs have caused the longest standing grievance on the part of all. Tariffs were originally instituted in 1879 to protect and promote Canadian manufacturing which, at that time, was located almost entirely in central Canada. In view of the potential competition from the much larger American industry to the south, such a policy was justified in its place and in its time.
As the west opened up and settled, tariffs meant only one thing to westerners. They meant westerners had to pay higher costs for manufactured goods. Input costs for industry were also higher in the west than in the east. Tariffs meant that western industrial development was, in fact, hampered. The reality of these tariffs was that western Canadians paid higher prices for goods than other Canadians. Because Ontario and Quebec had more industry, central Canada enjoyed a disproportionate share of the tariff benefits. Canadians outside Ontario and Quebec pay for central Canada's higher wage bill without gaining proportionate benefits. This is not an opinion, it is fact.
The figures on the relative level of tariff benefits are revealing. In 1977 British Columbia had 10.8 per cent of Canada's non-agricultural employment. At the same time British Columbia had only 8.5 per cent of Canada's manufacturing employment, a sector with the highest nominal tariff protection at 8.49 per cent. The discrepancy in respect of the prairies is even greater. While having 16 per cent of Canada's nonagricultural employment this region has only 8.2 per cent of the country's manufacturing employment.
On the other hand, Ontario and Quebec between them have 66 per cent of Canada's non-agricultural employment. However, they have 78.4 per cent of all manufacturing employment. It is clear that if high tariffs were to benefit all provinces equally Ontario and Quebec should only have 66 per cent of the manufacturing employment. Obviously, that is not the case.
Moreover, B.C. and the prairies have a greater than proportionate share of primary industrial employment which receives only nominal tariff protection. That tariff protection is only 1.12 per cent. Ontario and Quebec have a less than proportionate share of this low tariff sector. In effect, B.C. and the prairies are paying as much as Ontario and Quebec for tariff
protection yet they are not receiving even proportionately as much protection as are the two central Canadian provinces. This means there is an unrecognized transfer of payment from the west and from the Atlantic provinces to Ontario and Quebec. This is what I mean when I say "two-way equalization". If you equalize on income tax you must equalize on the other factors as well. This is just one example.
I have been very specific, Mr. Speaker, in order to show you some of the obvious injustices. It may be something to which we have turned a blind eye and said nothing about it. Now that we are talking about equalization we must weigh all these factors. These factors were not weighed in the committee which heard briefs. They were not weighed there, at least from what I heard. I do not think they will be weighed because the provinces have not yet had an input, have given that point of view. Somehow the regions in this great country are not heard, understood or felt. But we will start talking about these specific items. We will bring them to you. Will you do something about it now? Either you respond to what I have just said or you call me wrong and correct my statistics. Do something about it one way or the other. Do not ignore us again. We are tired of being ignored. We want to be heard. We want to be felt. There is representation in this House from western Canada. 1 am standing here representing western Canada. It does not take a Liberal on the side opposite, a member of the NDP, or a Conservative to represent the west. It does not matter who does it. We are elected representatives. We are here to be heard. We have a message to give to you. You must hear it. You must listen because this is something specific. Let us see what you can do about it.
This is just one example of how western Canadians have been doing more than their share to assist in Canadian economic development. I do not think it is healthy for anyone to suggest they are doing anything else. I do not think the west is asking too much when it says it deserves an equal say on how the Constitution will be amended, nor do I believe it is helpful to threaten western premiers with scorn every time they object to proposals which could hinder their future social and economic development. We have that feeling.
The last time I stood in debate in this House I quoted Premier Lougheed, I quoted Premier Blakeney, and I quoted Premier Bennett. I was hooted down for quoting them, and 1 wonder why. That is something we in the west do not understand. We will not put up with it any more. To be sure, the federal government has provided great assistance to the development of the west. I want to recognize that, but at the same time they have acted in too many cases to hinder, to retard and to throw sand in the gears.
The case of freight rates is a clear example of what 1 am saying. Again, 1 want to be specific so that I give you not just rhetoric. The substantial benefits from confederation should not all flow from west to east or from east to west. Yet westerners must pay higher prices for consumer goods from central Canada because of expensive rail charges. 1 find it absolutely amazing that I can move the same furniture and goods from Ottawa to Vancouver on the same van line more
February 17, 1981

cheaply than I can move them from Vancouver to here. There is something wrong there.


An hon. Member:: It is further from Vancouver to Ottawa.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: That is the kind of answer we receive, that it is further.
I would call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, on February 11 my colleague from Grey-Simcoe directed a question to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Lamontagne) regarding a pensioner in his riding who was having great difficulty having his pension application reviewed. He received a letter from the Royal Canadian Legion, Ontario command, stating that he would have to wait from 12 to 14 months before his application would be reviewed. We find this unacceptable. This matter has been raised continually in this session, even by Liberal members, and we are not satisfied with the answers we are receiving about the delays, Mr. Speaker.
I also posed a supplementary question to the acting minister pointing out, as recorded on page 7127 of Hansard for February 11, 1981:
There is a backlog of serious proportions before the Pension Review Board, and many veterans are dying before their claims are processed. As the two previous ministers of veterans affairs were making progress in clearing up this problem, and as things have gone from bad to worse under the minister's direction, is he now prepared to resign and let another minister take his place so that this serious, shocking matter will be cleared up in the department?
He gave me no answer at that time, Mr. Speaker, and one of his Liberal colleagues pointed out to him: Don't answer it. We are going to keep asking the question until we get the answer, you can be sure of that. We are not going to stop raising this.
The reason I suggested this Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs resign, Mr. Speaker, is that 1 believe he is having great difficulty in handling the two portfolios, the Department of National Defence and the acting veterans affairs role. 1 would suggest to him, and 1 hope the parliamentary secretary will relay my feelings and the feelings on this side of the House, that he have a talk with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), suggesting that he just handle one portfolio or the other. We
Adjournment Debate
have no objections on this side to the acting minister taking over as the-Hull-time Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Prime Minister giving the Department of National Defence portfolio to another member.
I believe there are some ministers who can handle two portfolios. I have seen that on both sides of the House. The hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) had no difficulty handling both portfolios, but we feel on this side of the House that the present acting minister is having great difficulties.
He is not here tonight, he is out visiting military bases or he has been the last few days. That is part of his job and there is nothing wrong with that, but we want a full-time minister who is going to be spending some time over on Wellington Street at the Department of Veterans Affairs headquarters in order to find out what is going on with this Pension Review Board.
1 want to point out, Mr. Speaker, that in this letter my colleague from Grey-Simcoe was quoting from about that 12 to 14-month delay before a review of this man's pension claim, it actually says he might have to wait up to two years-two years, Mr. Speaker.
Veterans are getting older, they have been hit hard with the budget, they are hit hard by this new energy package and they are looking to increased pensions. To tell them they have to wait for up to two years before their pensions are reviewed is absolutely ridiculous. That is why we are calling for a full-time minister.
1 have here a list of several pages I received from the War Amputations of Canada of veterans who have passed away waiting for their pension to be reviewed. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot accept these continuous excuses, or that it takes six to eight months to clear this up. That is the standard answer; in six to eight months we are going to get some action on this. We are finding that even Liberal members are asking questions in the House about this matter, and I pointed that out a couple of weeks ago.
One Liberal, in a question to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, pointed out that as a Member of Parliament one hesitates to recommend to a veteran that he go through the appeal procedure because it takes so long. It is a sad situation when a Member of Parliament has to tell a veteran that he may as well forget about his problem because it might take two years before anything happens. This is discouraging news to give a veteran.
Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could ask the present acting minister to consider discussing his role with the Prime Minister. We need a full-time minister of veterans affairs in light of the problems we are having in the Department of Veterans Affairs, especially those with the Pension Review Board. 1 hope the parliamentary secretary will have some good news for us tonight. I hope he is able to give me some assurance that he will pass the message on to the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs on his return.

February 17, 1981
Adjournment Debate


Mr. John Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) for the opportunity to clarify the situation concerning the backlog of cases to be heard by the Pension Review Board.
When an application is received, action is initiated without delay, usually within the same week, to keep the applicant informed about the appeal process. The backlog arose some four years ago when applications to the Board increased from 550 appeals to 1,400 appeals. Three years ago the government appointed two additional ad hoc members to the board, thus increasing the board's production from 560 decisions to 1,100 decisions annually. Unfortunately, there remained some 200 cases which were not heard, and the Pensions Review Board was not meeting the demand for appeals.
Under the previous government, vacancies occurred and the membership of the board was never brought up to strength. These unfulfilled positions had the unfortunate effect of compounding the problem.
Upon forming the government last year, we moved quickly to bring the board to full strength and the acting minister personally recommended and obtained government approval to provide six additional person-years to assist board members in the researching and gathering of facts, thus speeding up the appeal process to meet demand. The year-end statistics show that the Pensions Review Board is now disposing of more cases than new applications received.
Contrary to the statement by my hon. friend, progress has been made and we have taken the steps necessary to ensure that further progress is made in reducing the backlog. The Canadian Pension Commission is presently dealing with a backlog of cases at the first division level. Problems created by the loss of trained medical and other support staff and the lengthy time it takes to train new staff have contributed to the increase in time required to prepare a case for a first decision. Other factors, such as the availability of pertinent medical information only obtainable from private physicians or nondepartmental hospitals have also contributed to delays in adjudication. During the last meeting of the Standing Committee of Veterans Affairs the chairman of the Canadian Pension Commission explained the situation at length with regard to delays in adjudication.
It should be noted that a few months ago Parliament gave the commission the added responsibility for adjudication on the award of proportionate pensions for widows. These applications are being processed rapidly with an absolute minimum of delay. Not long ago there were many complaints about the length of time required to hear a claim which was appealed to the second level of adjudication, namely, entitlement award hearings. The commission has been able to reduce the waiting period so that now it is less than at any time in the last ten years. There is every reason to believe it will be just as successful in reducing the number of claims awaiting first decisions.
Hon. members will know that the Pension Act makes provisions for retroactive awards to successful applicants so that
applicants are not penalized for delays in adjudication beyond their control. We are very aware of the difficulties delays cause to our veterans and their families, and we are taking steps to improve the situation.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM-MULTINATIONAL OIL COMPANIES MOVING TO MEET CANADIAN OWNERSHIP REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on February 11, 1981, I put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) concerning the National Energy Program and what has happened with respect to Canadianiza-tion.
It seems to me there are three important parts to the program. The first is the pricing and distribution of revenues, which gets perhaps 80 per cent or 90 per cent of the present publicity and interest across the country. The second, which is very important, relates to conservation and substitution. 1 hope that in the next month or so the minister will be moving ahead with plans for greater conservation and substitution of oil by natural gas, electricity and renewable energy sources. The third part which is very important and certainly will be important to the future of this country relates to the Canadi-anization program.
In my question, I asked the minister if he could confirm press reports that some seven multinational oil companies were moving rapidly toward Canadianization.
This question was based on a press report on page six of the Ottawa Citizen of February 10, 1981, to the effect that multinationals are scrambling on to the bandwagon. The press report suggested that several oil companies, Getty, Murphy, Suncor and Ultramar, are about to be taken over by Canadian companies in order to qualify for the petroleum incentive grant system which will be available to Canadian-owned companies.
It further suggests that Gulf Canada submitted a report to its parent company in the United States suggesting three alternatives for Canadianization of that company. It suggests that Shell and Mobil are negotiating with medium-sized Canadian companies for greater Canadian ownership and corporate arrangements which would make them eligible for the Canadian petroleum incentive grants as well.
If these negotiations are taking place, it will be a major step toward breaking the log jam and moving toward greater Canadianization of our petroleum industry, especially when coupled with the actions by Dome in its move toward Canadianization and, of course, the recent takeover of Petrofina by PetroCan.
The president of Imperial Oil appeared before the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. He indicated that company was not contemplating corporate structure changes, that it would be able to continue on without moving toward greater Canadianization. It has been suggested in some circles that by using farm-in arrangements for drilling
February 17, 1981

on their lands that in fact they can qualify for the grants available.
These moves are important. 1 hope the parliamentary secretary will indicate how much progress has been made. We are told that 71 per cent of our petroleum industry is foreign owned and 82 per cent is foreign controlled. If these press reports are accurate, this means we are starting to move toward greater Canadianization of our petroleum industry. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to confirm this in his response to my comments tonight.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member raised the question of Canadianization in the petroleum industry since it is a principal feature of the National Energy Program tabled in the House last autumn.
I want to note, as the hon. member has already done, that the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada and the recent move by Dome Petroleum toward a greater degree of Canadian participation represent major progress in the program of Canadianization, a program which carries broad support across this country. In asking the question a few days ago, and in pursuing the matter this evening, the hon. member referred to possibilities of further Canadianization moves that can be anticipated.
Those moves must necessarily remain within the terms of commercial confidentiality during this stage of discussion and negotiation, but I share his expectation that in the time ahead we will see a greater degree yet of Canadianization in this dynamic sector of our economy.
In that regard, I want to emphasize the willingness of the government to assist petroleum companies in meeting the Canadianization objectives. In that context, I should like to refer to the statement made yesterday by the minister which set forth some details about the ownership criteria to qualify for the petroleum incentive program. The minister announced yesterday that the incentives will significantly help companies meet our Canadianization objectives. The hon. member may well be aware that the phasing-in approach to the program will ensure that more companies are immediately eligible for the maximum incentive payments for exploration and development, particularly in the so-called "Canada lands", or the frontier areas. These new regulations will give the companies more time to increase their Canadian ownership rate, a measure which, in some respects, is similar to that now in place in Australia.
I refer to these and other provisions as indications of the desire of the government to facilitate the move toward Canadianization of a number of corporations in the petroleum sector, and, indeed, of the importance the government places on this objective. I do not need remind the House that the degree of foreign control in the industry has been greater than in other industrialized countries, and that the government is committed
Adjournment Debate
to ensure a greater degree of Canadian control in the petroleum industry.


THE CONSTITUTION-PROPOSALS MADE TO PROVINCE OF SASKATCHEWAN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and his question with respect to the energy policy. It is my understanding that members traditionally use this opportunity to express their concern and dismay over the inadequacy of answers which have been given during question period. I can fully understand why the hon. member for Algoma would ask that question.
My question has to do with the Constitution. I would really appreciate the opportunity, following the speech by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), of a Liberal member speaking on this issue. It appears that the seals are silenced; the Liberals are sitting back with their lips zipped, not participating in this debate leaving it to members of the House of Commons on the opposition side to speak. Maybe by this device of asking a question in the course of the late night show we can get some Liberal to stand in his place and talk about the Constitution.
This matter has preoccupied the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal Party. My question is very specific. I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in the House what in the world was going on in respect of his negotiation with the province of Saskatchewan, trying to bring Premier Blakeney and the province of Saskatchewan on side in this constitutional debate?
This is a very serious debate in the course of our country's history. I do not deny that for a moment, but I think this kind of debate, discussion and negotiation requires candor on the part of the government. The government should keep the people of Canada advised on what it is prepared to do and how far it is prepared to go in order to win political support for this package.
While we hear many statements from government spokesmen, particularly the Minister of Justice, to the effect that these are fundamental principles which will be entrenched in the Constitution by way of a charter of rights, the government has demonstrated in the course of its activities during this debate that it is prepared to be so flexible as to do almost anything to receive political support in order to get the package through.
I think it was not unfair for me to ask what is happening with the province of Saskatchewan. There was no secret. Everyone across the country knew that the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan was involved with senior officials of the Department of Justice. Offers were made. These negotiations went on for a full week while the committee was sitting and considering constitutional proposals. The Premier of Saskatchewan raised two questions at the constitutional

February 17, 1981
Adjournment Debate
committee in respect of his requirements. One question was in respect of a definition of ownership of resources, and the second was in respect of an amending formula and referendum provisions. He was opposed to the government's proposals in those respects.
The negotiations went on. 1 asked what offers were being made. The Minister of Justice refused to answer. All of a sudden, once the negotiations broke down, we found a line was given to the press. The press was being fed different versions of the story. What did we read in the press of February 10, 1981? Spokesmen for the federal government, one Edward Golden-berg, an aide to the Minister of Justice, and Senator David Steuart, a former Saskatchewan Liberal leader and a political opponent of Premier Blakeney's New Democratic Party government, said that the government offered Saskatchewan all it asked. That was the word being fed to the press. That was the contrived press manipulation this government is so good at and attempts to use so often.
The next day there was a report from Mr. Romanow, the attorney general of the province of Saskatchewan. He said the federal government never offered to meet the bottom line of Saskatchewan's constitutional demands. I know it is not a very parliamentary term, but if one party says one thing and another party says exactly the opposite to what the Liberal spokesmen were saying, I would say the other party was accusing the Liberal spokesmen of not speaking the truth.
I simply want to know what the government was doing in the negotiations. Is it in a position now that it is still prepared to negotiate with the province of Saskatchewan? Will the parliamentary secretary stand in his place and explain, after all this press speculation and press manipulation, precisely what game this government is up to in respect of its negotiations with the province of Saskatchewan? I come from Saskatchewan and I am interested in knowing what is happening to my province. The people of Canada want to know how far the federal Liberal Party is prepared to go in order to get this package through.
I very much look forward to the parliamentary secretary's response, which I know will not equivocate. It will answer this question without any attempt to deviate from the facts of the case, and it will let us know exactly what was offered and what is the true story in this instance.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) this evening in respect of the particular points he just mentioned in his question. First I should state with regard to the strategy of dealing with the constitutional debate, I thought it rather iroriic that the Conservative Party, which decried the lack of opportunity to speak before Christmas when the resolution was in the House, would now complain that there are too many opportunities to speak. I would like to point out to the
hon. member that the interventions from this side of the House cannot and will not be judged solely by their quantity but mainly by their quality.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Now for the serious part of the answer.


David Michael Collenette: On the particular point at hand, the record is quite clear. On February 5, the minister gave what I thought was a very clear response to the hon. member for Saskatoon West. The deliberations with regard to all provincial governments are a matter of public record. Ever since the proposed resolution was made public on October 2, 1980, the government has been prepared to discuss with any province any changes they may wish. Certainly I would say that the government is still prepared to entertain any further suggestions on the part of anyone, whether it be the opposition in the House, provincial governments or any other individuals. Notwithstanding the fact that the committee stage has passed, this matter is still before Parliament. The final decisions will not be made until the final vote is taken in this chamber.
Premier Blakeney has said several times since October that he was not going to take any position on the package until it was clear what its final contents would be. He appeared before the special joint committee on December 19 and publicly submitted his views on the resolution. He suggested a number of changes, some of which have been adopted.
For example, and I want to be quite candid with the hon. member, Mr. Blakeney proposed a referendum rules committee. This request has been met in Sections 44 and 50 of the resolution before us. Secondly, he and Premier Hatfield suggested a change in the equalization provision. This change is now reflected in the text of Section 34. He urged the adoption of provisions confirming or transferring authority over resources to the provinces. The text supported by him has been adopted, except it does not give the provinces jurisdiction over international trade, as he advocated. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has been equally strong in his point of view that there will be no change in the government's position in respect of the provincial role in international trade and resources.
The government has discussed all these matters with Mr. Blakeney and his representatives from time to time, and after considering all the factors has made recommendations to the committee. This is reflected in the resolution now before the House, and it is up to Canadians, and the people of Saskatchewan in particular, to judge the actions of Mr. Blakeney for what they are, and whether he is acting in the best interests of the people of Saskatchewan and in the best interests of Canada.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, February 18, 1981