1981-11-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, as a person knowledgeable of the wholesaling business, and with reference to the budgetary provision which shifts the federal sales tax from the manufacturing level to the wholesale level, I know that this is another clumsy example of the MacEache-nism school of root canal economics from the minister in charge of the expanding department of unemployment and bankruptcies. It is yet another hidden tax, another ad valorem tax, perpetrated against the Canadian consumer, which will provide constantly escalating millions of dollars built into the final retail prices consumers will be forced to pay, particularly for building materials, this from the minister who preaches restraint. It is inflationary. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the minister act immediately to rescind this regressive hidden tax and spare consumers from higher prices and wholesalers from added paper burden, which means additional employees, not to mention the increased government bureaucracy which would be required for its administration.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, they say it can only happen in the movies. Last week a 19-year-old amateur boxer named Shawn O'Sullivan, who trained in a run-down, decayed building in that part of Toronto known as Cabbagetown, won a gold medal at the World Cup Amateur Boxing Championships in Montreal. As this is the first gold medal awarded to a Canadian boxer in 49 years, I move,
seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House do recognize the fine example and inspiration that Shawn O'Sullivan will be to the art of boxing, and commends him on an accomplishment which leaves all Canadians proud and elated.


Madam Speaker:: I am sure the House would want to express its sentiments, but I am afraid this is not an urgent and pressing matter under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has placed a tax on farmers for being good at what they do, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Malone) and the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That the Minister of Finance jump in his Jetstar and fly out to visit a few of our Canadian farmers to see the disastrous effect his America plus 4 per cent interest policy is having and, while he is there, announce his plans to change his Small Business Development Bond policy so that not only farmers facing bankruptcy but also those who are being crippled by his America plus 4 per cent policy qualify for Small Business Development Bonds.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that in Canada's history new provinces were created at the request of the territories and regions in direct legal and constitutional negotiation with the federal government, and since it is the view of this party that that regime should continue, with boundary or provincial status change coming only with the consent of the territories, and in view of the November 5, 1981, consensus in which eight Tory premiers, along with the Liberal Party of Canada, changed the historic rules for creation of provinces without consultation with or the participation
13232

November 25, 1981
of the Yukon and Northwest Territories governments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That this House condemns the Liberal and Conservative parties for refusing to accept publicly their responsibility for initiating the proposal to exclude the territories and to give such extraordinary new power to the provinces.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that many farmers in western Canada have, over the years, based their retirement plans on tax laws respecting capital gain and IAACs which have been in force for a number of years, and in view of the fact that the budget makes changes in these laws effective November 12 rather than at the end of the taxation year, resulting in unexpected and excessive tax burdens on these retiring farmers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson):
That the government allow retiring farmers who sell their property prior to December 31, 1981, the right to make use of the provisions of the Income Tax Act respecting IAACs that were in effect prior to the November 12 budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, in view of the positive initiative taken by President Reagan's zero option proposal, under which the Soviet Union and the United States would mutually agree to have no intermediate range nuclear missiles, and recognizing that President Brezhnev has made a counterproposal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House urge the United States and the Soviet Union in their negotiations scheduled to start on November 30 in Geneva, Switzerland, to seek vigorously, balanced and verifiable limitations and reductions of those nuclear weapons at the lowest possible levels.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance, by paying 1914 per cent on savings bonds, at least 4 per cent more than he should have paid, raised from the private market nearly $12 billion, thus exacerbating the interest problems faced by ordinary Canadians. The money raised is largely on deposit with the chartered banks. The borrowing raises government expense by at least $ 1 billion over what it should be. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman):
That the Minister of Finance report to this House on motions why he paid 19xh per cent to borrow Canada Savings Bond money, why he borrowed far more money than he needed for current operations, and why in so doing he is now Canada's one billion dollar loser?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) has confirmed that the RCMP is still gathering information of a political nature in Quebec, although this does not fall within its terms of reference, and whereas the Solicitor General has refused to put an end immediately to these irregular activities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That the minister take immediate action to stop this unlawful infiltration of the Quebec Government and also cease to consider the present Quebec government as an alien and subversive government.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, according to reports in the media today, Dennis McDermott, president of the Canadian Labour Congress, has threatened to move his protest movement into an occupation of Parliament Hill, claiming that he is unable to get the ear of the government. In view of the fact that Mr. McDermott claims the New Democratic Party would not exist if it had not been created by the labour movement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail):
That this House urges the hon. member for Oshawa and his colleagues to tell their leader, Mr. McDermott, to come clean with the labour movement and inform them that, at the request of the Canadian Labour Congress, nine ministers, including the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Public Works, as well as many MPs, met for close to two hours last Thursday afternoon inside Parliament Hill with representatives from all regions of this country to discuss their views, well in advance of the carefully staged rally on Parliament Hill last Saturday.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
HERD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM PAYMENTS-MOTION UNt)ER
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I did not hear you call my name because of the labour supporters down here. In light of the fact that the herd maintenance program, established to assist farmers in maintaining beef herds following the drought conditions of the spring and summer of 1980, was conducted in such a way as to pay farmers or ranchers in large blocks while leaving a few individual operators in the middle of those blocks without payment, paid compensation for full townships except for specific individuals whose ranch buildings were located in adjoining townships, and because payment was made for hays and legumes relative to the farmers' production of yield for cereal crops, a situation for which there is no necessary correlation, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That the subject matter of the 1980 pay-out for herd maintenance programs be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


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


THE BUDGET
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the government's new budget threatens to reduce funding for social programs across Canada, and increases the burden on the voluntary sector which so significantly serves the social needs of Canadians, especially those of women, the elderly, the disabled and the working poor. The government's budget has ignored the taxation suggestions put forward by the national voluntary organizations which would have encouraged charitable giving during these inflationary times. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That this House condemn the government for its neglect of the voluntary sector in its budget of November 12 and demands that the budget be withdrawn and replaced by one which encourages the important work of Canada's volunteers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister, since the Minister of Finance is not in his seat and is presumably out to lunch.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Yesterday, in Vancouver, the Prime Minister accused British Columbians of being "terribly unaware of what is happening in the country". I suggest that the Prime Minister is unaware of the unfair and unthinking impact the budget has on many Canadians. Since the stated objective of this government is to encourage the Canadianization of our economy, why has the government eliminated the right to deduct interest on loans made to invest in Canadian companies?

November 25, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, I should like to remind the hon. member that the Minister of Finance came back from Halifax yesterday and went on to Toronto to attend other meetings, so that today he is unavoidably absent from the House. I can assure hon. members that he is very sorry to have to miss question period. The member indicated that the Minister of Finance did not pay sufficient attention to some aspects of the budget which might have created certain problems. The hon. member will recall that in the case of certain costs related to the MURB program, the Minister of Finance, following a question and representations from colleagues on this side of the House, immediately added refinements which made it possible to improve the program to accommodate MURBs on which construction had already started.
Concerning the deduction of interest on loans for investment purposes, this provision should be considered most carefully. It does not say that interest costs may never be deducted. Interest received on investments may also be deducted. Furthermore, one should also consider that under this provision interest payable on loans for investment purposes can be deferred over a period of time.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF &quot;GRANDFATHER CLAUSE&quot;
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my next question is addressed to the Minister of State for Finance. His comments bring to mind a letter written to me by one of the Prime Minister's own constituents. It states, "Never in the history of human endeavour have so few stolen so much from so many".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, many civil servants, senior citizens and small businessmen base their retirement plans and their business decisions on measures introduced by past Liberal governments and now face heavy tax penalties. Will the minister consider imposing a "grandfather clause" on those measures which impose retroactive tax penalties, to allay the extreme hardship and anxiety of those Canadians who made their commitments in good faith?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I believe it is a mistake to draw hasty conclusions with respect to the various provisions contained in the budget, before a careful analysis of each individual case has been made. I feel that certain measures may require further refinement. We are considering them as we are considering individual cases that are brought forward. We shall also have an opportunity to discuss the nature of each measure
when the House is in Committee of the Whole. I feel that if we take the trouble to look at the exact nature and scope of these measures, we will find that they make our tax system more equitable, and that in fact, they are benefiting all Canadian taxpayers. We must also realize that when a tax preference was removed which mainly benefited higher income people at the same time, marginal income tax rates were adjusted, thus increasing the financial power of individuals who lost that benefit or preference.


TAX INCENTIVES FOR RENTAL HOUSING
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question also is addressed to the Minister of State for Finance who calls for the need for analysis. Most of us would have preferred to have had the analysis made before the budget was introduced to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the prospect of huge rent increases in a tight housing market is panicking many tenants who realize that the government's proposal to subsidize only
15,000	new rental units will produce a rental housing famine. There are 20,000 people on the housing waiting list in the Greater Vancouver area alone. Will the minister recommend that the government continue tax incentives for rental housing, at least until the supply is in better balance with the demand?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seemed shocked at my use of the word "analysis". I can assure the hon. member that very thorough analyses were made before the budget was brought down. In fact, it was because these analyses were so thorough that the Minister of Finance was able to bring down such a sound budget. However, if we refer to specific measures and specific cases, the impact of the general measure on a specific case cannot be established without analysing that particular case.
On the subject of housing, the hon. member wanted us to reintroduce tax incentives for residential construction. For the sake of equity, the Minister of Finance decided to remove from our tax system a number of tax privileges and preferences. I fail to see why, after removing existing tax privileges or preferences, we should turn around and introduce new preferences. We want a more equitable tax system, and I believe that we shall achieve this by taking these tax preferences out of our system altogether.
November 25, 1981


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS FEDERAL FUNDING FOR HOSPITALS AND UNIVERSITIES
Mr, Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It concerns federal payments covering health and post-secondary education. The budget indicated a cut in that area of $1.9 billion, but, as a result of a government error, the cutback has been increased by $600 million. Does the minister still believe that the hospitals, universities and colleges of the country can continue to provide services at the same level?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, the simple answer to the question the hon. member poses is yes, as long as the provinces meet their responsibilities. If the hon. member listened carefully to the budget address of the very able Minister of Finance, he would have noted that the minister specifically said that there would be no cut in the financing of higher education and of health services. He chose, instead, despite the dire predictions of hon. members opposite, to remove the revenue guarantee, an item of financial transfer which had been specifically mentioned again and again by the provincial governments as not being part of the financing of higher education or of health care costs.
If the hon. member will not place himself in the very unusual position in his party of disagreeing with the provincial governments, then he would have to go along with what they have said in the past, that this is not part of the financing of higher education or of health. I assure the hon. member that, in relation to our goals in negotiating the future structure of higher education-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Gerald Augustine Regan: -we have every intention of continuing to provide high priority to the support of post-secondary education, which has characterized the government over the years.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Short questions; long answers which mean nothing.


STATEMENT MADE BY MINISTER
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, the Secretary of State seems to ignore the fact that an all-party task force called for the retention of that money. Somehow the government seems to think that the universities, colleges and hospitals of the country can make more bricks with less straw.
My supplementary question is directed to the Secretary of State. On November 3 he said that he was "highly confident that there will not be any $1.5 billion reduction in support of post-secondary education", and that "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". How does it feel to swallow a sour $2.6 billion cut pudding, including the plate?
Oral Questions


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the problem the hon. member has is that he is throwing straw men instead of bricks. He is in the position that he refuses to recognize that he was wrong and that the budget clearly showed that there is not a $1.5 billion cut that affects education or health. As long as the provinces do their part, which in many instances they have not been doing, then we can improve post-secondary education in this country.


PURPOSE OF FEDERAL FUNDING
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will put my question to the Minister of State for Social Development, not to the Secretary of State. I do not think we have enough time for another answer by the Secretary of State.
In view of the intransigence which the Minister of Finance seems to be showing in his intention to cut back federal transfer payments to the provinces, particularly the money associated with the $5.7 billion over five years of revenue guarantees, will the minister please explain to the House why the Minister of Finance and his government now pretend, as the Secretary of State just did, that this money is not for health and post-secondary education? Up until the budget of November 12, the government and the Liberal Party always regarded this money as being earmarked for health care and post-secondary education.
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I have nothing much to add. I think that the Minister of Finance has clearly established that at the time of the fiscal reform in 1972, when Mr. Benson was Minister of Finance, we had offered to the provinces a revenue guarantee for a period of five years, which was then extended for another five years. All this was done under the tax reform and had absolutely nothing to do with the health and post-secondary education payments.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister really expects anyone who knows anything at all about fiscal arrangements to be tricked by this latest manoeuvre on the part of the government. In his submission to the parliamentary task force the Minister of Finance called the revenue guarantee money "conditional" money. The Liberals have used the revenue guarantee money for the last five years in their self-righteous calculation of the federal share of spending on health care and post-secondary education. It seems to me they have a very short or convenient memory.


NEGOTIATION OF NATIONAL HEALTH CARE STANDARDS
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and concerns the government's stated

November 25, 1981
Oral Questions
intention to clarify and strengthen national standards for health care in Canada, something which we in the NDP would support. How does the minister expect to negotiate tough, new, and undoubtedly expensive national health care standards with the provinces, when the government is taking money off the table?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The answer is very clear, Madam Speaker. I would have liked the premiers, when they met in whatever city of Canada at the end of August, not to have issued a press release saying that the revenue guarantee was not part of health or post-secondary education. They would have helped me and their ministers of health today, and would have avoided the debate we are now having. They decided clearly-and it was not the first public statement-that they would separate the revenue guarantee from the health moneys. The health moneys per se have not been and will not be cut. The hon. member knows that. The total sum over the next five years which I hope to negotiate, with more serious conditions, to save the health system in Canada, that is, medicare, will include an average increase over preceding years of 13 per cent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We will deal with the sophistry of the provinces after we have dealt with the sophistry of the federal government. I submit that the latest actions of the federal government are indeed an abandonment of the search for better national standards in medicare.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question is addressed to the Minister of State for Finance. The minister knows that, even if the present arrangements are continued, the federal government will be paying a smaller and smaller share of the health and education fiscal pie, so to speak, and that there is no need for the government to cut back in this area in any case. Expecting, as he should, that funding for these services is already at an irreducible level, as the task force recommended, if the government is so intent on saving money, why has it put these vital Canadian programs in jeopardy at the same time that it is reducing tax rates for the wealthy, thus giving the lie to all this Liberal piety about equity and fairness?
[ Translation]


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think that it is important to remember and to understand that the established programs, financing and the revenue guarantee, are two separate things. The financing for health, medicare and post-secondary education programs is not affected and will continue to increase at the same rate as the gross national product. As for the revenue guarantee, the hon. member is well aware that the removal of certain fiscal preferences or privileges from our tax system, will provide additional revenues for the provinces. These additional revenues for the provinces will compensate for their losses due to the removal of the revenue guarantee from the program as a whole.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF DELEGATION FROM ANGUILLA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a delegation from Anguilla, consisting of the Chief Minister, Ronald Webster; the Hon. Franklin Connor, Financial Secretary, and the Hon. Victor Banks, Minister of Social Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE BUDGET
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will ask the Minister of Agriculture a question. In regard to the cancellation of income annuities, particularly those of farmers, and the hardship that this has placed upon farmers in the sale of their farms, the sale of their cattle or the sale of their machinery, was the minister aware that his government was taking this action? If he was, what is he doing about it? Farmers are losing the only retirement plan they have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well, under the British parliamentary system, how a budget is developed.


Some hon. Members:: How is that?


Mr. Crosbie:: How?


Eugene Whelan: I will not say anything more about that.


An hon. Member:: You never had that system going here.


Mr. Clark:: You tell Vickers and Benson, but not the Minister of Agriculture.


Eugene Whelan: I have received representations earlier from the hon. member, and also from hon. members on this side, concerning this matter. I am sure the Minister of Finance has also received representations. We have prepared a presentation on that, along the lines of the representations made to us by many people. There has been deep concern expressed. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, has told the House that he will look at these representations, and I am sure that he will. He has already acted on some which have been made.
November 25, 1981


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO CABINET
Leonard J. Gustafson: Is the minister aware that he is a part of the cabinet and that he is a part of that government which should be doing something about the matter? Is he willing to make representations in that area, as well as in the area of capital gains, where the rollover of the family farm has become almost impossible under this latest budget?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, in response to the last statement made by the hon. member, to the effect that the roll-over of the family farm is almost impossible, we are the only nation in the world which allows a father and mother who happen to be the owners of a farm to turn that farm completely over to a son or daughter without any tax, if the son or daughter is to take over the operation of that farm. No other country in the world does that kind of thing. It is true that, if the farm is to be sold, there have been some changes in the capital gains-


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, there sure have.


Eugene Whelan: -in the taxation program for the farm, if it is being sold to a son or daughter. However, if the farm is just being given away, there is no problem whatsoever, because that is the law of the land.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are rolling over. That's the problem.


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member asks, "Are you aware of the fact that you are a member of the cabinet?" I am, because that law is one of the ones which is so beneficial to Canadian farms and Canadian farm families who have helped build those family farms. They are able to turn them over without paying for them again in the form of taxation. We have one of the best laws in the world.


REASONS FOR INCOME TAX CHANGES
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance from the House, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The minister will be aware that the Minister of Finance, in his budget, has reduced tax rates for people in the highest tax brackets and, at the same time, has decided to tax long-term protection in life insurance policies, 70 per cent of which are held by those earning $20,000 or less per year.
Quite simply, my question to the minister is, why is the government taxing low-income people while giving tax breaks to those with higher income?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I think that the hon. member should pay more attention to the income tax tables or marginal rates and
Oral Questions
examine how they have been adjusted. They have been adjusted fairly, and the hon. member will recognize that the removal of taxation privileges in the budget will affect mostly those in higher-income brackets who in turn will have to pay more taxes. As for the income from a life insurance policy, which now becomes taxable, we consider this part of a life insurance policy as a savings instrument. The income produced by this savings instrument therefore becomes taxable. This proposal therefore aims at putting this savings instrument on the same level as any other.


EFFECT ON WORKERS RECEIVING HEALTH AND DENTAL INSURANCE BENEFITS
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, out of one side of its mouth the government states that it is concerned for long-term protection for Canadians and calls pension conferences; however, from the other side it states that these vehicles will suddenly become investment vehicles. Will the minister explain to low-income Canadians why his budget proposes a punishing tax on workers who are eligible for employer paid health and dental insurance benefits? Will the minister tell the House why he is wiping out years of bargaining, with a tax which will cause many plans to be withdrawn or never installed?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I would invite the hon. member to reflect on the meaning of the word "equity". If we want to have a more equitable taxation system, we must ensure that people will pay taxes commensurate with their income. Obviously, a great many taxpayers cannot benefit from certain privileges in the same way as others do in our system. This creates distortions within the tax system, because of which a great many taxpayers pay proportionately more income tax than others who can avoid taxes because of all sorts of completely legitimate deductions allowed under our tax system. If we consider the system on the basis of equity, we want to make-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please! I really have to ask the minister to try to reply more briefly.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As a result of the recent strident and half-witted remarks of the leader of the Canadian Labour Congress following the weekend rally on Parliament Hill, there have been a number of attempts made by that leadership to give the impression that the government is less than willing to meet with the CLC and openly to discuss

November 25, 1981
Oral Questions
labour views and real concerns. The House is aware of the fact that a number of ministers met with representatives from the CLC two days prior to that demonstration, and that a number of Members of Parliament met on a regional basis, in the Atlantic and western regions, to discuss both sides. Could the minister indicate to the House what was achieved in terms of a better understanding of the views of one another in this regard?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, these meetings which were held at the request of the Canadian Labour Congress covered a number of topics, including the economy, mortgage rates, the employment situation, and the like. It would be fair to conclude that, while it was unfortunate that senior officials of the CLC were not present, the meetings ended with a mutual understanding and with a conclusion that both sides had the same objective, namely, that of bringing down interest rates and mortgage rates. Further, both sides came to the conclusion that frequent and regular meetings of this kind would be mutually beneficial.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the former postmaster general, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Canadians will soon be facing a proposed 76 per cent increase in postal costs, having been given only a few months notice. The budget in more detail projects post office revenues and expenditures will be over $3 billion by 1985-1986, which is almost three times today's revenues.
Will the minister make a commitment to this House that he will strive to delay the implementation of the present 76 per cent rate increase until April of next year to permit planning by such entities as small business and charities, and further, will the minister work to ensure that no other increases are granted until the public is presented with a five-year postal rate forecast?
[ Translation]
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I can advise the House that not only several organizations, but also several individuals have availed themselves of the consultation process which has been under way for the past few weeks to express their views, and that after the deadline in late December, the government will have to make a decision in light of the recommendations and suggestions that are now being received.


BUDGET PROJECTION OF INCREASED POSTAL REVENUES
Sidney James Parker: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the former postmaster general. This increase and the estimate in the budget could foreseeably see post office mailing rates go to 60 cents or 70 cents within the next four years. Could the minister tell the House what rate for first-class postage was projected in the budget document to arrive at the figure that over $3 billion worth of revenue would be generated by the post office in 1985-1986?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member who has been such a strong supporter of the bill to establish the Canada Post Corporation and to provide the directors of this corporation with more authority and administrative discretion, will certainly recognize that his question should be directed instead to the chairman and the board of directors of the new corporation. I shall be pleased, however, to forward his representations to the chairman.


PENSIONS
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if I could get her attention. The minister will recall, as she was co-chairman of the National Pensions Conference, that the one thing upon which there was unanimous consent was that the most urgent problem in Canada was to assist the some 400,000 elderly women living in poverty. A recent report of the Ontario Status of Women Council has highlighted this national scandal. My question to the minister is simple. When is this government going to assist those 400,000 elderly women living in poverty?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the exact same question was asked of me yesterday. My answer is, as soon as possible.


Mr. Siddon:: That is not an answer at all.


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the significant statement on monetary policy made yesterday by the Bank of Canada, could the
November 25, 1981

Acting Prime Minister tell me whether the government was consulted before this policy statement was issued yesterday?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I am sorry that I am unable to answer this question. The Minister of Finance will be here tomorrow, and I ask the hon. member to address his question to him then.


Charles Joseph Clark: What do you do here?


Mr. Nielsen:: You are the Acting Prime Minister. For heaven's sake, inform yourself.


CANADIAN UNITY
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister whose responsibility covers the Canadian Unity Office. Last night in Vancouver the Prime Minister is reported to have said that "Vancouver is terribly unaware of the rest of the country". Madam Speaker,
1 would suggest that Vancouver is situated in a province which is the most aware in the country, because British Columbia sends no Liberals to this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The Prime Minister is also reported to have said that "British Columbia is like a consort who is always the last to know". In view of these insulting comments, is keeping the province of British Columbia in the dark a matter of government policy, or may we expect massive tax dollars to be spent by the Canadian Unity Office for advertising to correct the Prime Minister's incorrect assumption of our unawareness?


An hon. Member:: More propaganda.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for pointing out to the House how very useful it is for the government and for Parliament to have this office working for all of us.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last month the Minister of Agriculture suggested that if his government did not bring forth measures to save the red meat industry within weeks, he would re-examine his position within cabinet. We have had a budget with Farm Credit Corporation changes that might help 235 farmers across Canada, a change in the Small
Oral Questions
Business Development Bond that increased rates 3 per cent to distressed farmers, and changes in capital gains that have cut the legs off the financial future of farmers.
Does the minister feel that he has provided "practical and workable" efforts as far as saving the red meat industry in Canada is concerned? Does the minister know that the measures that have been taken will ensure that within another year we will have hundreds if not thousands more farmers in trouble? In fact, already in Ontario a vigilante committee has been formed by farmers who are prepared to take militant action unless something is done.


An hon. Member:: We do not want a marketing board.


Erik Nielsen: String them up.


Mr. Jarvis:: Tell us about the questionnaire now.


John Carnell Crosbie: High noon, Gene.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I attended a very nice meeting in his constituency not too many weeks ago. We are doing some of the very things that I said were needed to be done and that many people said were needed to be done. The Minister of Finance has seen fit to extend the Small Business Development Bond, which has no limitations on how much money is available. Much more money can be made available to the farmers who are in need of extra financing, or who need emergency financing, under this bond than I could ever provide under the provisions of the Farm Credit Corporation, because the lending institutions have tremendous amounts of money which they can loan out under the bond program.
There are some discussions going on about the suggested interest rate. I understand that the Minister of Finance is meeting with representatives of the lending institutions this coming Monday to explain all the criteria and just how this proposal will work.
The Farm Credit Corporation has outlined its program. The government is willing to work with the lending institutions to make sure that the money available is lent to those people who really need it. I have a two-person commission working on a program to try to outline some better marketing system for the red meat industry. The hon. member knows, as well as I do-


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Eugene Whelan: -that you can give them all the money that you want but if they do not have a better marketing system they will go down the tube anyway.

November 25, 1981
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. In his budget speech, and earlier this week in Halifax, the Minister of Finance indicated that as of 1982, Ontario would be used as the norm to calculate the equalization payments made to have-not provinces. Could the minister indicate to the House what effect this change will have on the equalization payments made to Quebec as of 1982, and could he tell us whether it is true, as was suggested by the Quebec Minister of Finance, that such a change will prompt the federal government to promote Ontario's economic development inordinately?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I fail to understand the rationale of the statement of the Quebec Minister of Finance to the effect that to take Ontario as the norm for equalization purposes would prompt the federal government to give increasing support to Ontario's development. The federal government will use this yardstick to calculate what should be the revenue of a province eligible for equalization payments. That means that as Ontario develops, the amounts given by the federal government to eligible provinces would increase. Therefore, it would be in the federal government's interest that eligible provinces develop at a faster rate, because as their revenue increases and catches up with that of Ontario, it will not have to pay out so much in equalization payments. Therefore, I think Mr. Parizeau's argument should be turned around in order to understand exactly what the Ontario norm means.


MCDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General, of course, will be aware that the McDonald commission report which is now in our hands has been very seriously abridged. We know why some of the abridgements took place, but could the minister tell us where those abridgements are, and will we eventually have an opportunity to examine them? Can he say that they will not disappear as one of the volumes of the Mackenzie King diaries did?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as members will know from the statements I made at the time, there is an editing process which took place in which less than 3 per cent of the substance of the report was deleted-


An hon. Member:: Eighteen minutes?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: -on the grounds of national security. I explained this at the time they were put forward. Perhaps the hon. member is referring to two chapters which have not been published because of the recommendation of the McDonald commission that they be referred to the relevant attorneys general of provinces, along with accompanying documents and other material, to permit attorneys general of those provinces and the federal Attorney General to make decisions about the possibility of laying charges.
I cannot inform the House yet when those decisions will be made. I have begun to get reaction from provincial attorneys general, but I have not had any firm decision made about them. The federal Attorney General still has the matter before him.
There was, in addition, an amount of material from the report that was referred to the Commissioner of the RCMP to make decisions about disciplinary charges. His work will be done and his decision will be made before the end of the year.


PREPARATION OF INDEX TO REPORT
Donald W. Munro: Madam Speaker, I was referring, of course, to all the material which was not made public. I do hope it is in safe hands and will not disappear.
In the meantime, I understand that there is some sort of computer record or index which would help one find one's way through the three volumes of the McDonald commission report. I was wondering whether any steps whatsoever are being taken by the minister's department to make sure that an index is prepared and made available to the public, so that they will be able to find their way through the McDonald report?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the report was not prepared by the Government of Canada. It was prepared by the McDonald commission, which was an independent royal commission established under the Inquiries Act. I do not know whether they worked with the kind of computer index to which the hon. member refers. I can look into that and find out if there is one which might be helpful to members and if the commissioners would agree to have it made public and report back to the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns important developments taking place which will affect Canada's good relations with Nicaragua.
November 25, 1981

As the minister knows, since the Andreas Mentor is in Vancouver Harbour today loading the last of Canada's wheat aid for Nicaragua, as well as several thousand tons of fishing gear, office machines, and other aid donated generously by British Columbians-which rather contradicts the Prime Minister's assertions that British Columbians are parochial and self-centred-will the minister assure this House that, if and when the federal government buys back any more fishing vessels on the west coast, these vessels will be studied for their suitability for the needs of Nicaragua and, if found to be suitable, be passed on to Nicaragua as part of our assistance to that country?


Hon. Mark MacCuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have already announced a grant of $4.5 million in food aid for Nicaragua. We are in the process of planning other aid projects.
When hon. members raised the question, several weeks ago I believe, of the possibility of providing some of these vessels to Nicaragua, at that point we had not had any request from Nicaragua, but a request did arrive shortly afterwards. We do have that under consideration. We have already informed the Nicaraguans that the number of ships that they believed was available is not that, and we are not sure how valuable this would be, even if we could include this in our aid program. I would like to assure the hon. member that we will continue to scrutinize this.


Pauline Jewett: I did realize that seven of the vessels that are remaining of the last buy-back are totally unsuitable. 1 am speaking of the next buy-back, which I understand is going to take place very soon, and I hope the minister will look into it immediately.


STATEMENTS MADE BY UNITED STATES AUTHORITIES
Pauline Jewett: As a
supplementary question on a closely related matter, since many countries are most concerned about the United States administration's calling for the violent overthrow of the Nicaraguan government and possible military intervention in that country-the minister will have read that in the testimony in Washington this week of the U.S. Secretary of State-will the Canadian government express to Washington its grave concern about this escalating rhetoric and actual threats against that country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I do look forward to an early opportunity of discussing questions involving Central America with Secretary Haig.
I think that all of the reports that we have seen are highly speculative. Even the suggestions by the Secretary of State in the United States, and in the press, have been very speculative. We are certainly not anticipating any early United States action.


Pauline Jewett: It is in his testimony.
Oral Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: On the question of fishing boats, I can assure the hon. member that we will consider it fully, as she has suggested. Second, I will be discussing these problems in Central America with Secretary Haig.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare, with respect to the Sir Frederick Banting Building and the callous disregard by the government for the safety of its employees, by permitting them to work in hazardous conditions.
Would the minister tell us how a building such as the Sir Frederick Banting Building, which was not designed for the use of hazardous materials, could be used for that kind of handling? Could the minister also explain to the House why, with the knowledge of that inadequacy, the government permitted its public servants to continue to work there until they threatened to stop work? There must be an explanation for such callous neglect.


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the member, whom I invited with other local members to a meeting last Friday on that subject, as soon as all the facts were gathered asked the same question, and answers were provided to him by the senior officials who were present in my office.
The Sir Frederick Banting Building, which is one of my labs here in Ottawa, was designed and built in the early 1970s. Because we are new players, none of us in the department in that particular branch know exactly whose responsibility it is but, as I told the hon. member, I believe it is most important to make sure that all my labs in Canada are suitable for research and the handling of toxic materials. I have asked for a survey on that to be made immediately. In the meantime, the situation in the Sir Frederick Banting Building is being corrected and will be completed in two weeks.


EVACUATION OF PERSONNEL OFFICE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the problem still goes on. Despite what the minister says, the personnel office of the Sir Frederick Banting Building had to be evacuated last Friday by the safety officer because of the smell. Yet there are reports that the venting has been completed. I ask the minister whether or not she is aware of this and, if she is not, would she please look into it? I can tell her that the problem is still continuing, and the apprehension is still there. There have been tests taken recently which indicated that inappropriate levels of toxic materials are still in the area and are being breathed by the people in that building.

November 25, 1981
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member has any other specific requests I would want to note them myself if possible. The answer to this one is yes, I am aware of the problem. Yes, there were unpleasant odours, but the measurement of the toxicity of those odours was below the ceiling which is acceptable to protect the health of people. It was in fact so low that it was hardly measurable, so from a scientific viewpoint the situation seems to be under control, but we are investigating these abnormalities.


EMPLOYMENT
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The minister has on his desk a proposal for the establishment of a national industrial labour market institute. He has had the proposal on his desk for some time, and I am sure he is aware that the purpose of that institute would be to pinpoint skilled labour needs and to map out strategies for meeting those needs. It is supported by the Canadian Labour Congress and by the Business Council on National Issues. I would like to ask the minister why he is taking so long to support it.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is not quite accurate in saying it is sitting on my desk. In fact the matter is the subject of active exchanges between members of the CLC, the Business Council and officials of my office. I met with senior officials of those two organizations about three weeks ago. We looked at the application in principle, and we then set up a steering committee composed of officials of my department and of those two organizations to look at the details of those proposals.
I expect a report from the steering group within about a week or so, at which time I will have another meeting with the CLC and the Business Council on what I consider to be a very important proposal.
* *
*
[ Translation]


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism. Considering the forthcoming negotiations and the present agreements on restrictions with respect to the
textile and clothing industry, and considering the great concern expressed by so many workers in this industry regarding the future of their companies, perhaps the minister could inform the House when the Canadian Industrial Renewal Board will be able to respond to requests for assistance from established businesses in this sector which are having to face increasing international competition.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, in my opinion, the policy on textiles and clothing announced a few months ago, the special fund of $250 million and the extension of protective measures with respect to imports will help the textile and clothing industry not only to survive but to modernize their plant and seek out new markets with the expectation of a more promising future.
The Industrial Renewal Board started operations this week, and this morning I was informed that a number of applications had already been received by the board. The director general informed me that we are now examining these applications, which will be processed as soon as possible.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and thirty-fifth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) on Tuesday, November 24, 1981 and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
* *
*


PRIVILEGE
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the amendment put before the House yesterday by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) regarding the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada. The words he read into the record are the following:
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
However, the translated words tabled by the minister are the following:
35. (1) Les droits existants-ancestraux ou issus de traites-des peuples autochtones du Canada sont confirmes.
That is a terribly inaccurate translation of the English words. What I am going to ask of you, Madam Speaker, is
November 25, 1981

that you rule both on the facts I put before you and also the law.
This being an amendment which could be in the Constitution of Canada, it is extremely important that the legal principles which are articulated in the English language are articulated in the French language as well. What is left out in the French is the legal concept or recognition. I have checked with some scholars of the French language who say the section should read:
Les droits aborigenes ou issus de traites des peuples autochtones du Canada sont par les presentes reconnus et confirmes.
I ask Your Honour to take steps to inquire into the accurate translation of the English spoken into the record yesterday and tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I ask Your Honour to inquire into that translation and to provide the appropriate and accurate translation of those words so that the legal significance which is there in the English is provided in the French text.
Since it is part of the Constitution, it will go before the courts and before legislatures, and I think it would be very improper for this House to pass something that has such a tragic inaccuracy in it.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I have to tell the hon. member that this is neither privilege nor order. The Chair is not competent to determine whether a translation is correct or whether two texts are equivalent. Sometimes it is a matter of translation, but there is also the matter of the equivalency of texts, and it is not for the Chair to determine that either under order or privilege. If the hon. member feels he has a point, the proper way to deal with it would be to propose an amendment to the motion in order to have the text changed. That would be the proper course to follow, and I invite the hon. member to do just that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition to the House sponsored by the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution. This petition asks for the removal of the override section, Section 33, from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is the hope of Canadian women that members of Parliament will delete the shockingly regressive Section 33 in order to guarantee that basic rights and freedoms-and 25 of them are
Order Paper Questions
listed-cannot be violated by the provinces or the federal government.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,326, 2,956 and 3,309.


Mr. Crosby: Is Mr. A. E. Masters, president of the Maritime Employers Association, also a member of the Montreal Port Authority and, if so, does the government consider that the holding of the office of the president of the Maritime Employers Association plus membership in the Montreal Port Authority might result in a conflict of interest in respect of the different interests of the port of Montreal and the port of Halifax?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The National Harbours Board advises as follows: Mr. Masters has been a member of the Montreal Port Authority since it was established as an advisory body. The Port Authority membership includes representatives from both labour and employers, and Mr. Masters' knowledge and expertise in labour matters associated with shipping is considered an asset in providing advice to those responsible for management at the port of Montreal.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to Section 32 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what authority has the limit for enumeration of professional and special services contracts been raised from $2,000 to $25,000 and what rationale was used in making this twelvefold increase?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The office of the Comptroller General authorized the limit increase for the enumeration of professional and special services contracts, from $2,000 to $25,000. This was done after the office of the Comptroller General consulted with the Departments of Finance and Supply and Services.
This increase in the limit was requested by the Department of Supply and Services in order to reduce the costs of preparing and printing the public accounts as well as the costs incurred by departments in preparing their input to the accounts. As a result of the increase in limit, departments do not provide information on contracts between $2,000 to $25,000, but only $25,000 and over.

November 25, 1981
Motions for Papers JOB PLACEMENTS IN CANADA


Mr. Herbert: What percentage of all job placements in Canada, by province and for the last complete year for which statistics are available, were placed by the Department of Employment and Immigration?


Lloyd Axworthy: The Canada Employment and Immigration Commission does not have data on all placements made in Canada. However, placements made by the commission in response to job orders from employers numbered 1,045,181 for the fiscal year 1980-81. The breakdown by province is as follows:
Province	Placements
Newfoundland	28,953
Nova Scotia	46,999
Prince Edward Island	8,009
New Brunswick	35,049
Quebec	217,333
Ontario	357,252
Manitoba	42,021
Saskatchewan	39,662
Alberta/N.W.T.	110,322
British Columbia/Yukon T.	159,581
Canada total	1,045,181


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 532 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 532 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[ Text]


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For each department and agency, what was the total budget allocation for (a) all persons employed (b) casual (c) term casual (d) other temporary employees, for the Fiscal years 1977-78 and 1978-79?
2.	In each case, what amount of the budget was spent at the end of each Fiscal year?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that there be consent that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I can draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to notice of motion for the production of papers No. 34, which has been on the Order Paper for a year. When I inquired of the department why these papers were not being produced, I was told that the department was awaiting a report from the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I feel that perhaps the subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence might like to have these papers in advance of making its report. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would inquire.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's representation and make inquiries.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, if I am in error I apologize to the parliamentary secretary, but I do not think I heard him say he was answering question No. 30 today. If I am correct, I would like to raise a point of order.
That question has been on the Order Paper for over five and a half years. It asks the question, as I have repeated to the House on a previous point of order, how many members of the Canadian Transport Commission, their wives, employees and so on have passes on Air Canada. There is a direct conflict of interest when someone who is regulating Air Canada receives free transportation, free gravy, from Air Canada.
For five and a half years the government has persisted in saying the question will be answered soon. The parliamentary secretary's predecessors frequently gave the answer "soon". I do not know this government's definition of the word "soon", but to me it means a week or two weeks, not five and a half years.
Every time I raise this matter, I get statistics about how many of my questions have been answered. I know the parliamentary secretary has accused me of loading up the Order Paper, not being diligent and all kinds of fancy things. I do not mind those accusations. They are not true, so what does it matter? My point is, and I think I have a fair accusation to make, that the question has not been answered for five and a half years. When are we going to get more than gobbledygook, such as we will get when I sit down? I know we will get more gobbledygook. I hope I am wrong. Can the parliamentary
November 25, 1981

secretary tell us when I will be told who in the Canadian Transport Commission is getting free gravy from Air Canada, and why?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I remind the hon. member that this question was on the Order Paper during the entire length of the Clark government and was not answered at that time. In response to the hon. member's inquiry, I would say soon.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
The Constitution



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien:
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
CONSIDERANT :
que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a modifie a plusieurs reprises la Constitution du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-tement de celui-ci;	5
que, de par le statut d'Etat independant du Canada, il est legitime que les Canadiens aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur Constitution au Canada;
qu'il est souhaitable d'inscrire dans la 10 Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance de certains droits et libertes fondamentaux et d'y apporter d'autres modifications,
15 il est propose que soit presentee respectueu-sement a Sa Majeste la Reine 1'adresse dont 15 la teneur suit:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Majesty, requesting that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25 set forth:
A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, Tres Gracieuse Souveraine:
Nous, membres de la Chambre des communes du Canada reunis en Parlement, fideles20 sujets de Votre Majeste, demandons respec-tueusementa Votre Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi ainsi con?u :
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
Constitution Act. 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada
Loi donnant suite a une demande du Senat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose.
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:
Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, considerant:	5
5 qu'a la demande et avec le consentement du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni est invite a adopter une loi visant a donner effet aux dispositions enoncees ci-apres et que le Senat et la Chambre des communes 10 10 du Canada reunis en Parlement ont presente une adresse demandant a Sa Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi a cette fin,	15
15 sur l'avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis en Parlement, et par l'autorite de celui-ci, edicte :
1.	The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in 1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20	laSchedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for	cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada	,ZnmUedeand shall have the force of law in Canada	et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur	19X1
and shall come into force as provided in that conformement a ses dispositions.
Act.	25
2.	No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du CCuvoir°,Jcdu
Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act,	Royaume-Uni apres l'entree en vigueur de	la 25 pour ic1981 comes into force shall extend to	Loi constitutionnelle de 1981	ne font pas CanadaCanada as part of its law.	partie du droit du Canada.3.	So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30	3. La partie de la version fran?aise de la	fr^rnsi""scB, the French version of this Act is set out in	presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a force	rjn?JISCSchedule A to this Act and has the same	de loi au Canada au meme	titre que	la 30authority in Canada as the English version	version anglaise correspondante.
thereof.
4.	This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi: Loi sur Tureabrege
Act.	le Canada.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Rights and freedoms in Canada
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic rights of citizens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
Continuation in special
circumstances
The Constitution

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

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

[Stage Direction]
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Garantie des droits et libertes
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Droits et 5 libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 j^enra'^au sont enonces. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regie de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.	10
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- 10	2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales
tal freedoms:	suivantes :
Libertes
fondamentales
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 15
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
a)	liberte de conscience et de religion;
b)	liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opi-nion et d'expression, y compris la liberte 15 de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c)	liberte de reunion pacifique;
d)	liberte dissociation.
Democratic Rights
Droits democratiques
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote vote in an election of members of the House	et est eligible aux elections legislatives fedeof Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciales. to be qualified for membership therein. 4

20 Droits
democratiques des citoyens
4. (1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre Mandat legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assembles legislatives TssenadLlT than five years from the date fixed for the est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixee 25 return of the writs at a general election of its 25 pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections members.	generates correspondantes.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- Prolongations invasion or insurrection, a House of Com- nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut sPcciales mons may be continued by Parliament and a etre prolonge respectivement par le Parle- 30 legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au-legislature beyond five years if such con-	dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more	ou d'insurrection, reelles ou apprehendees,
than one-third of the members of the House pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
The Constitution
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as l'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix the case may be.	de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre
des communes ou de l'assemblee legislative.
5.	There shall be a sitting of Parliament 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueiie and of each legislature at least once every	nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5
twelve months.	5 douze mois.
Mobility Rights
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de	Liberte de
demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en	UIXU dllon
sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per- 10 Liberte person who has the status of a permanent	sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent
resident of Canada has the right	10 au Canada ont le droit:
(a) to move to and take up residence in a) de se deplacer dans tout le pays et any province; and	d'etablir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in vince;	15
any province.	b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) 15 are subject to
(a)	any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of 20 present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.	25
(3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Restriction (2) sont subordonnes :
a)	aux lois et usages d'application gene-rale en vigueur dans une province donnee, 20 s'ils n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province de residence anterieure ou actuelle;
b)	aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25 de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
(4)	Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas Programmes de elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d interdire les lois, programmes ou Sociaie as its object the amelioration in a province of activites destines a ameliorer, dans une pro- 30 conditions of individuals in that province who vince, la situation d'individus defavorises are socially or economically disadvantaged if 30socialement ou economiquement, si le taux the rate of employment in that province is d'emploi dans la province est inferieur a la below the rate of employment in Canada.	moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights	Garanties juridiques
7.	Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 Viejiteneet
and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre	"
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a ce droit qu'en conformite with the principles of fundamental justice.	avec les principes de justice fondamentale. 8
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre	perqu^iions ou
against unreasonable search or seizure.	les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 40saisies
abusives.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre 40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires.
la
Detention ou emprisonne-ment
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Arrest or detention
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
The Constitution
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(h) to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and (c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
10. Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation ou de detention :
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;	5
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a l'assistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit;
c)	de faire controler, par habeas corpus, la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, le
10 cas echeant, sa liberation.	10
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; 15
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 20 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;	30
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and
(i)	if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the 45 lesser punishment.
11. Tout inculpe a le droit:
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;
b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 15 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;
d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue d'un proces public et equitable;
e)	de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause d'une mise en liberte assortie d'un caution- 25 nement raisonnable;
f)	sauf s'il s'agit d'une infraction relevant de la justice militaire, de beneficier d'un proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prevue pour Tinfraction dont il est accuse 30 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave;
g)	de ne pas etre declare coupable en raison d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 35 tuait pas une infraction d'apres le droit interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n'avait pas de caractere criminel d'apres les principes generaux de droit reconnus par i'ensemble des nations;	40
h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement acquitte, d'autre part de ne pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement 45 declare coupable et puni;
/) de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est
Arrestation ou detention
Affaires criminelles et penales
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
Interpreter
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Affirmative
action
programs
Official languages of Canada
Official languages of New Brunswick
The Constitution
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de 1'infraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Everyone has the right not to be sub- 12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites. punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
13. Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi-5 gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
5 Temoignage incriminant
14. A party or witness in any proceedings 10	14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent
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.
suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employee, soit parce qu'ils sont atteints de surdite, ont droit a l'assistance d'un inter-prete.
1 0 Interprete
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
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 without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15	15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per-	Egaiite devant
sonne et s applique egalement a tous, et tous	benefice et
ont droit a la meme protection et au meme protection egaie benefice de la loi, independamment de toute de la lo' discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20 20tions fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l'age ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques. 2
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any (2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet 25 Pr°grammesde law, program or activity that has as its object	d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites	sociTie' 0"
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan-	destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus
taged individuals or groups including those 25 ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait that are disadvantaged because of race, na- de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,	ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30
age or mental or physical disability.	leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Official Languages of Canada
Langues officielles du Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le fran$ais et l'anglais sont les	Langues
languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un	Canada
status and equal rights and privileges as to	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35
their use in all institutions of the Parliament	a leur usage dans les institutions du Parleand government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le frangais et 1'anglais sont les langues	du
languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un Nouveau-equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
lature et du Brunswick.
gouvernement du Nouveau-
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10 Travaux deia
or French in any debates and other proceed-	gais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de	Nouvea'u^ dUings of the legislature of New Brunswick.	la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.	Brunswick
(3) La presente charte ne limite pas le pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de 5 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de statut ou d'usage du frangais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le frangais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux du Parlement.
Progression vers I'egalite
Travaux du Parlement
Documents
parlementaires
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en frangais et en 15 versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.
(2) LeS lois, les archives, les COmpteS Documents de
rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-20'd Leglsljture
(2) The statutes, records and journals of the legislature of New Brunswick shall be printed and published in English and French ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes and both language versions are equally 20 et publies en frangais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	25
du Nouveau-Brunswick
19. (1) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le	Procedures
used by any person in, or in any pleading in	frangais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires	ulbunaux
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le eiabiis par ie by Parliament.	25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure Parlement
qui en decoulent.	30
(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- Procedures gais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont tribunaux du sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Brunswick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui en decoulent.	35
Nouveau-
Brunswick
20. (1) Any member of the public in 30 Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with 35 respect to any other office of any such institution where
(a) there is a significant demand for communications with and services from that office in such language; or	40
20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a Communica-l'emploi du frangais ou de l'anglais pour administrdset communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra- les institutions tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou lcderales du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a l'egard de tout autre bureau de ces institutions la ou, selon le cas :
a)	l'emploi du frangais ou de l'anglais fait
l'objet d'une demande importante;	45
b)	l'emploi du frangais et de l'anglais se justifie par la vocation du bureau.
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
instruction
The Constitution
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
5	(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
droit a l'emploi du fran^ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec tout bureau des institutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
Communications entre les administres et les institutions du Nouveau-Brunswick
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.
21. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran?aise ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 15 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes d'une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada.
Maintien en vigueur de certaines dispositions
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour Droits preserves or derogates from any legal or customary	effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privileright or privilege acquired or enjoyed either	ges, anterieurs ou posterieurs a l'entree en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la presente charte et decoulant de Charter with respect to any language that is	la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres
not English or French.	que le fran^ais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Droits a Vinstruction dans la langue de la minorite
23.	(1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose First language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 25 linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the 30 language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :	Langue
. N ,	.	d'instrui
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 20 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re9u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fran?ais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont re?u cette instruction est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province,
ont, dans l'un ou l'autre cas, le droit d'y faire 30 have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue. that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant	Continue
has received or is receiving primary or	a re$u ou re$oit son instruction, au niveau	fanglli'0'de ' *secondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en fran?ais ou en 35 ^instruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Application where numbers warrant
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justice into
disrepute
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
The Constitution
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)	applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b)	includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana-diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite 5 francophone ou anglophone d'une province :	5
a)	s'exerce partout dans la province ou le nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics, de Finstruction dans la langue de la 10 minorite;
b)	comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire instruire dans des etablissements d'ensei-gnement de la minorite linguistique finan-15 ces sur les fonds publics.
Justification par le nombre
15
Enforcement
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola-as guaranteed by this Charter, have been	tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui
infringed or denied may apply to a court of	lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 20s'adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20 as the court considers appropriate and just in nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-the circumstances.	venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
Recours cn cas d'atteinte aux droits et libertes
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
General
(2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au irrecevabiiiic paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des preuvTqui C 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 risqueraiem de conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou radmfnisuation libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces deiajustice elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli, eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa-30 tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi-30 nistration de la justice.
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 35 issus de traites ou autres -des peuples35 that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of autochtones du Canada, notamment:
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	fr) aux droits ou libertes acquis par regle-
October 7, 1763; and	40
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
Maintien des droits et libertes des autochtones
ment de revendications territoriales.
26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit Maintien des tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas nbenL °'tS et
26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer-
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Multicultural
heritage
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
Application to territories and territorial authorities
Legislative powers not extended
Application of Charter
Exception
Exception where express declaration
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
27.	This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
28.	Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
29.	Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
The Constitution
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27.	Toute interpretation de la presente charte doit concorder avec 1'objectif de pro-
5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28.	Independamment des autres dispositions de la presente charte, les droits et libertes qui y sont mentionnes sont garantis egale-
10 ment aux personnes des deux sexes.	10
29.	Les dispositions de la presente charte ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privileges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du Canada concernant les ecoles separees et
15 autres ecoles confessionnelles.	15
30. A reference in this Charter to a prov- 30. Dans la presente charte, les disposi-ince or to the legislative assembly or legisla- tions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature ture of a province shall be deemed to include	ou leur assemblee legislative visent egalea reference to the Yukon Territory and the	ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20 Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives 20 legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes. be.
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
31. La presente charte n'elargit pas les competences legislatives de quelque orga-nisme ou autorite que ce soit.
Maintien du
patrimoine
culturel
Egalite de garantie des droits pour les deux sexes
Maintien des droits relatifs a certaines ecoles
Application aux territoires
Non-elargissc-ment dcs competences legislatives
Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies	25
(a)	to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and	30
(b)	to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec-35 tion 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Application de la charte
32. (1) La presente charte s'applique :	25 Application de
la charte
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du
Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest;	30
b)	a la legislature et au gouvernement de chaque province, pour tous les domaines relevant de cette legislature.
(2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), Par- Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Pen-35 tree en vigueur du present article.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature	^dafatlonPar
province may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est	expresse
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case40expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de may be, that the Act or a provision thereof	ses dispositions a effet independamment 40
shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte. this Charter.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Operation of exception
Five year limitation
Re-enactment
Five year limitation
Citation
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
Commitment respecting public services
The Constitution
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait 1'objct d'une declaration conforme au present article et en vigueur a I'effet qu'elle aurait sauf la disposition en cause de la charte.
Effet de la derogation
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) 5 D"r"de cesse d avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en vigueur.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov- 10	(4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut Nouvdle
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au ioadopllon subsection (1).	paragraphe (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
(5) Le paragraphe (3) s'applique a toute Dureede declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- va 1 1 e graphe (4).
Citation
Titre
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
15	34. Titre de la presente partie : Charte 15 Titre
canadienne des droits et libertes.


[Stage Direction]
35. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with
35. (1) Sous reserve des competences legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement
Engagements relatifs a I'egalite des chances
respect to the exercise of their legislative 20et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-20 authority, Parliament and the legislatures, ments federal et provinciaux, s'engagent a :
together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the
well-being of Canadians;	25
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
a)	promouvoir I'egalite des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-etre;
b)	favoriser le developpement economique 25 pour reduire l'inegalite des chances;
c)	fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un niveau de qualite acceptable, les services publics essentiels.
(2) Parliament and the government of 30	(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du 30 Engagement
Canada are committed to the principle of Canada prennent l'engagement de principe scmcespubiics making equalization payments to ensure that de faire des paiements de perequation proprovincial governments have sufficient reve- pres a donner aux gouvernements provin-nues to provide reasonably comparable levels ciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre of public services at reasonably comparable 35 en mesure d'assurer les services publics a un 35 levels of taxation.	niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement
comparables.
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Majority of members

[Stage Direction]
The Constitution PARTIE III


[Stage Direction]
36. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within one year after this Part comes into force.
(2) The conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including the identification and definition of the rights of those peoples to be included in the Constitution of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on that item.
36. (1) Dans l'annee suivant l'entree en	Conference
vigueur de la presente partie, le premier	nel|e
ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 5 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.	5
(2) Sont placees a l'ordre du jour de la conference visee au paragraphe (1) les questions constitutionnelles qui interessent direc-lOtement les peuples autochtones du Canada, notamment la determination et la definition 10 des droits de ces peuples a inscrire dans la Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre du Canada invite leurs representants a parti-15 ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions.
Participation des peuples autochtones
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite 15 Participation invite elected representatives of the govern-	des representants elus des gouvernements du «'err<toires
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-	territoire du Yukon et des territoires du
west Territories to participate in the discus-20 Nord-Ouest a participer aux travaux relatifs sions on any item on the agenda of the	a toute question placee a l'ordre du jour de la
conference convened under subsection (1)	conference visee au paragraphe (1) et qui, 20
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister,	selon lui, interesse directement le territoire
directly affects the Yukon Territory and the	du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest.
Northwest Territories.	25
PART IV	PARTIE IV
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING	PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA	CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
37. (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	30
(a)	resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b)	resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to 35 the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
37. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Procedure etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver- modification neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, 25 autorisee a la fois :
a)	par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes;
b)	par des resolutions des assemblies
legislatives d'au moins deux tiers des pro- 30 vinces dont la population confondue represente, selon le recensement general le plus recent a Fepoque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces.	35
(2) An amendment made under subsection (2) Une modification faite conformement Majorite simple (1) that derogates from the legislative 40 au paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire a la powers, the proprietary rights or any other	competence legislative, aux droits de prorights or privileges of the legislature or gov-	priete ou a tous autres droits ou privileges
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Expression of dissent
Revocation of dissent
Restriction on proclamation
Idem
Compensation
Amendment by
unanimous
consent
The Constitution
ernment of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
d'une legislature ou d'un gouvernement provincial exige une resolution adoptee a la majorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux et des deputes de chacune des assembles 5 legislatives du nombre requis de provinces. 5
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visee au paragraphe Disaccord tion (2) shall not have effect in a province	(2) est sans effet dans une province dont
the legislative assembly of which has	l'assemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution	proclamation, exprime son disaccord par une
supported by a majority of its members prior 10 resolution adoptee a la majorite des deputes, 10 to the issue of the proclamation to which the	sauf si cette assemblee, par resolution egaleamendment relates unless that legislative	ment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup-	disaccord et autorise la modification,
ported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. 15
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
(4) La resolution de desaccord visee au Levee du paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquee a tout 15 esaccor moment, independamment de la date de la proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20	38. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra- Restriction
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration	phe 37(1) ne peut	etre prise dans l'annee
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-	suivant l'adoption de la resolution a Torigine 20
tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la procedure de	modification que si l'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	semblee legislative	de chaque province a
each province has previously adopted a reso-25 prealablement adopte une resolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de desaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 25ldem under subsection 37(1) after the expiration	37(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l'adoption de la resolution a Torigine lution initiating the amendment procedure 30de la procedure de modification, thereunder.
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation subsection 37(11 that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformement au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d'education ou dans d'autres domaines cultu-reasonable compensation to any province to rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-which the amendment does not apply.	ves provinciales au Parlement.	35
40. An amendment to the Constitution of 40. Toute modification de la Constitution Consentement Canada in relation to the following matters 40 du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-	undnime
may be made by proclamation issued by the	tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of	general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-
Canada only where authorized by resolutions	risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la 40
of the Senate and House of Commons and of	Chambre des communes et de l'assemblee
the legislative assembly of each province:	45 legislative de chaque province :
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor	a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a	general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
province;
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
(b)	the right of a province to a number of
members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;	5
(c)	subject to section 42, the use of the English or the French language;
(d)	the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e)	an amendment to this Part.	10
41. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 37(1):
(a)	the principle of proportionate 15 representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the
method of selecting Senators;	20
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	subject to paragraph 40(d), the 25 Supreme Court of Canada;
{e) the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces. 30
(2) Subsections 37(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
The Constitution
b)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de deputes au moins egal a celui des senateurs par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre representee lors de Pentree en vigueur de la presente partie;
c)	sous reserve de Particle 42, l'usage du fran9ais ou de Panglais;
d)	la composition de la Cour supreme du Canada;
e)	la modification de la presente partie.
41. (1) Toute modification de la Constitution du Canada portant sur les questions suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-phe 37(1):
a)	le principe de la representation propor-tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des communes prevu par la Constitution du Canada;
b)	les pouvoirs du Senat et le mode de20 selection des senateurs;
c)	le nombre des senateurs par lesquels
une province est habilitee a etre representee et les conditions de residence qu'ils doivent remplir;	25
d)	sous reserve de Palinea 4Od), la Cour supreme du Canada;
e)	le rattachement aux provinces existan-tes de tout ou partie des territoires;
f)	par derogation a toute autre loi ou 30 usage, la creation de provinces.
(2) Les paragraphes 37(2) a (4) ne s'appli- Exception quent pas aux questions mentionnees au paragraphe (1).
10
Procedure normale de modification
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
42. An amendment to the Constitution of 42. Les dispositions de la Constitution du 35 Modification a Canada in relation to any provision that 35 Canada applicables a certaines provinces	ceftainet0
applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par	provinces
including	proclamation du gouverneur general sous le
(a) any alteration to boundaries between grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des provinces, and	resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des 40
(.b) any amendment to any provision that40communes et de >'assembl6e legislative de relates to the use of the English or the cbacl,ue Prov,nce concernee. Le present art.-French language within a province,	c e s aPP*lclue notamment:
may be made by proclamation issued by the	a) aux changements du trace des frontie-
Governor General under the Great Seal of	res interProvinciales, ...	^Canada only where so authorized by resolu- 45	b) aux modifications des dispositions relations of the Senate and House of Commons	tives a I'usage du fran9ais ou de l'anglais
dans une province.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Amendments by Parliament
Amendments by provincial legislatures
Initiation of amendment procedures
Revocation of authorization
Amendments without Senate resolution
Computation of period
Advice to issue proclamation
Constitutional
conference
The Constitution
and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
43. Subject to sections 40 and 41, Parlia- 43. Sous reserve des articles 40 et 41, le Modification ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour pariement the Constitution of Canada in relation to the 5 modifier les dispositions de la Constitution executive government of Canada or the du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif fede- 5 Senate and House of Commons.	ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des
communes.
44. Subject to section 40, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.
44. Sous reserve de Particle 40, une legis- ^^'ca,ion lature a competence exclusive pour modifier legislatures 10 la constitution de sa province.	10
45. (1) The procedures for amendment under sections 37, 40, 41 and 42 may be initiated either by the Senate or the House of Commons or by the legislative assembly of a province.	15
45. (1) L' initiative des procedures de modification visees aux articles 37, 40, 41 et 42 appartient au Senat, a la Chambre des communes ou a une assemblee legislative.
Initiative des procedures
(2) A resolution of assent made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.
(2) Une resolution d'agrement adoptee 15Possibilit4 de dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre rcvocJ,,on revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la proclamation qu'eile autorise.
46.	(1) An amendment to the Constitution 20	46. (1) Dans les cas vises a Particle 37, 40,
of Canada made by proclamation under sec- 41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut20^uns£na°u 1 tion 37, 40, 41 or 42 may be made without a d'autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n'a pas resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue	adopte de resolution dans un delai de cent
of the proclamation if, within one hundred	quatre-vingts jours suivant Padoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the25de la Chambre des communes et si cette House of Commons of a resolution authoriz-	demiere, apres Pexpiration du delai, adopte 25
ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such	une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens,
a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.	30
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au d°jfja|atl0n gued or dissolved shall not be counted in	paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les
computing the one hundred and eighty day	periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
period referred to in subsection (1).	proroge ou dissous.	3047. The Queen's Privy Council for 35	47. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le	DemandedeCanada shall advise the Governor General to Canada demande au gouverneur general de	proc jmallonissue a proclamation under this Part forth-	prendre, conformement a la presente partie,with on the adoption of the resolutions	une proclamation des l'adoption des resolurequired for an amendment made by procla-	tions prevues par cette partie pour une modi- 35mation under this Part.	40 fication par proclamation.
48. A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.
48. Dans les quinze ans suivant l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie, le premier ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 40 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitutionnelle
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Amendment to Constitution Act. 1867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
Authority of Parliament
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution PARTIE V

[Stage Direction]
49. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act, 1867) is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 92 thereof, the following heading and section:
49. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification de (anterieurement designee sous le titre: Acte ^onsutuuon-de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) 5 neiiede/867 est modifiee par insertion, apres Particle 92,
5de la rubrique et de Particle suivants :
"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 natural resources in the province;	10
(b) development,	conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production there- 15 from; and
(c)	development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.	20
(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-renewable natural resources and forestry 25 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 discrimination in prices or in supplies 30 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 in that subsection and, where such a law of 35 Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
Competence provinciale
a)	prospection des ressources naturelles non renouvelables de la province;
b)	exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la 15 province, y compris leur rythme de production primaire;
c)	amenagement, conservation et gestion des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la produc- 20 tion d'energie electrique.
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas35P°"v°'r<iii atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- Parlement rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragraphe, les dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines l'emportant sur les dispositions incompatibles d'une loi 40 provinciale.
«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 :
(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, 25 de la production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production d'energie electrique de la province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de 30 lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights
Idem
The Constitution
(4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources 5 and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and
(b)	sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy 10 and the production therefrom,
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 pro-15 duction exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.
(5)	The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the 20 Sixth Schedule.
(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 25 force of this section."
50. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Schedule:
(4)	La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des
v '	°	j	ressources
competence pour prelever des sommes d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de taxation :
a)	des ressources naturelles non renou- 5 velables et des ressources forestieres de
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 10 d'energie electrique, ainsi que de cette production meme.
Cette competence peut s'exercer indepen-damment du fait que la production en cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, 15 exportee hors de la province, mais les lois 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 20 du Canada et la production non exportee hors de la province.
(5)	L'expression «production primaire* a .Production
le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme Primaire* annexe.	25
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent Pouvoirsou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus par la legislature ou le gouvernement d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*	30
50. Ladite loi est en outre modifiee par ldem adjonction de Pannexe suivante :

[Stage Direction]
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this Act,	30
(a) production from a non-renewable natural resource is primary production therefrom if
(i) it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its 35 natural state, or
I. Pour l'application de Particle 92A : a) on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non renouvela- 35 ble:
(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 40 la transformation, du raffinage ou de
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
Consequential
amendments
(ii) it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refin- 5 ing gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and
(b) production from a forestry resource is primary production therefrom if it consists 10 of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or any other primary wood product, or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood."
The Constitution
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 5 d'un equivalent synthetique du petrole brut;
b) on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource forestiere la production constituee de billots, de poteaux, de bois 10 d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[Stage Direction]
51. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 15 supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes 20
(a)	the Canada Act, including this Act;
(b)	the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule I; and
(c)	any amendment to any Act or order
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).	25
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
51. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la 15 Primaul«de la
..	*	,	^	,	,,	..	✓	,	Constitution du
loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre regie de droit.
(2)	La Constitution du Canada comprend :	Constitution du
i	__ Canada
a)	la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la 20 presente loi;
b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figurant a l'annexe 1;
c)	les modifications des textes legislatifs et des decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou 25 b).
(3)	La Constitution du Canada ne peut Modification etre modifiee que conformement aux pouvoirs conferes par elle.
52. (1) The enactments referred to in 30	52. (1) Les textes legislatifs et les decrets 30 Abrogationet
Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed enumeres a la colonne I de l'annexe I sont n0UVtJUX 1 re or amended to the extent indicated in	abroges ou modifies dans la mesure indiquee a
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall	la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent en
continue as law in Canada under the names vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous les set out in Column III thereof.	35titres mentionnes a la colonne III.	35
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act, that refers to an enactment referred to in Schedule I by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in Schedule I may be cited as the Constitution Act fol-
(2) Tout texte legislatif ou reglementaire, sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention d'un texte legislatif ou decret figurant a l'an-nexe 1 par le titre indique a la colonne I est 40modifie par substitution a ce titre du titre40 correspondant mentionne a la colonne III; tout Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britanni-que non mentionne a l'annexe I peut etre cite sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de
Modifications
correlatives
13264
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
Repeal and
consequential
amendments
French version of Constitution of Canada
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts
English and French versions of this Act
Commencement
Commencement of paragraph 23(I)(a) in respect of Quebec
Authorization of Quebec
The Constitution
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
l'indication de l'annee de son adoption et eventuellement de son numero.
53. Part III is repealed on the day that is one year after this Part comes into force and this section may be repealed and this Act renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of Part III and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
53. La partie III est abrogee un an apres l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le 5 gouverneur general peut, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le present article et apporter en consequence de cette double abrogation les amenagements qui s'imposent a la presente loi.
Abrogation et modifications qui en 5 decoulent
54. 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.
10	54. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada 10Version
est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs Mri^nTtextes delais, la version frangaise des parties de la constitutionneis Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l'an-nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante 15 est, des qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adop- 15 tion par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-ment a la procedure applicable a l'epoque a la modification des dispositions constitution-20 nelles qu'elle contient.	20
55. Where any portion of the Constitution 55. Les versions frangaise et anglaise des of Canada has been or is enacted in English	parties de la Constitution du	Canada adopand French or where a French version of any	tees dans ces deux langues	ont egalementportion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- 25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de ant to section 54, the English and French loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de l'article25 versions of that portion of the Constitution	54, d'une partie de la version	frangaise de laare equally authoritative.	Constitution, cette partie	et la version
anglaise correspondante.
Versions frangaise et anglaise de certains textes constitutionneis
56. The English and French versions of 56. Les versions frangaise et anglaise de la Versions this Act are equally authoritative.	30 presente loi ont egalement force de loi.	30 ^giaisTdeia
presente loi
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.	35
57. Sous reserve de l'article 58, la presente loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Entree en vigueur
58. (1) Paragraph 23(1)(a) shall come 58. (1) L'alinea 23(1 )a) entre en vigueur into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be	pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclamafixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or	tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general
the Governor General under the Great Seal sous le grand sceau du Canada, of Canada.	40
35 Entree en vigueur de I'alinea 23( 1 )a) pour le Quebec
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1)	(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe Automation du
shall be issued only where authorized by the	(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres automation 40Quebec
legislative assembly or government of	de l'assemblee legislative ou du gouverne-
Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Repeal of this section
Short title and citations
The Constitution
(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1 )(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(3) Le present article peut etre abroge a la date d'entree en vigueur de l'alinea 23(1 )a) pour le Quebec, et la presente loi faire l'ob-jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et 5changements de numerotation qui en decou-lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Abrogation du present article
59. This Act may be cited as the Consti- 59. Titre abrege de la presente annexe:	Titres
tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts Loi constitutionnelle de 1981; titre commun 10 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may belOdes lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975 cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867	(n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constituto 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
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.)
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)	Section 1 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1867."
(2)	Section 20 is repealed.
(3)	Class 1 of section 91 is repealed.
(4)	Class 1 of section 92 is repealed.
(1)	The long title is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Manitoba Act. 1870."
(2)	Section 20 is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1867
Manitoba Act, 1870
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,
4.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May,
5.	British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)
6.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873
7.	Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.)
8.	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
Section 1 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1871."
Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Constitution Act, 1871
Prince Edward Island Terms of Union
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order
November 25, 1981

[Stage Direction]
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre
1. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)
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)
3.	Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin 1870
(1)	L'article 1 est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit:
«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.*
(2)	L'article 20 est abroge.
(3)	La categorie 1 de Particle
91	est abrogee.
(4)	La categorie 1 de Particle
92	est abrogee.
(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 constitutionnelle de 1867
Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba
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.)
6. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant l'lle-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873
L'article 1 est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit :
«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.*
Loi constitutionnelle de 1871
Conditions de l'adhesion de l'lle-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 ties 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]
November 25, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
9. British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1886 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
10. Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
11. Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
12. The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3 (Can.)	Alberta Act
13. The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)	Saskatchewan Act
14. British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1907 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1915 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1930 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)	In so far as they apply to Statute of Westminster, 1931 Canada, (a)	section 4 is repealed; and (b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1940 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
19. British North America Act, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE 1 (suite)

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

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
20. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
21. Acte de PAmerique 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 PAmerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
23. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
24. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)	La loi est abrogee.
25. Acte de PAmerique 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 PAmerique 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 PAmerique 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.*
28. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par le para- Loi constitutionnelle de 1974 graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1974.*
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Concluded
Column I	Column II	Column IIIItem	Act Affected	Amendment	New Name29.	British North America Act, 1975,	Section 3, as amended by	Constitution Act (No. 1), 197523-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)	25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:	
"3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975."	
30.	British North America Act (No. 2),	Section 3 is repealed and the	Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975
	1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)	following substituted therefor:	
		"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975."	
And on the amendment thereto of The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development,-That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 contained in the motion in the name of the Minister of Justice (Government Business, Government Motion No. 56), as printed in the Order Paper of Monday, November 23, 1981, be amended
(a)	by adding, immediately after line 19 on page 24 of the Order Paper, the following:


[Stage Direction]
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada."
(b)	by renumbering the subsequent parts and clauses accordingly.
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Fulton, seconded by Mr. Broadbent,-That the amendment be amended by deleting the word "existing".
November 25, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre
29. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Partie I (Canada)
L'article 3, modifie par Particle Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c.
28 (Canada), est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
[DOT]3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle re l de 1975.*
30. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975 place par ce qui suit:
[DOT]3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975.*
Et sur l'amendement du ministre des Affaires indien-nes et du Nord canadien,-Que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 qui figure dans la motion du ministre de la Justice (Affaires gouvernementales, motion n° 56 du gouvernement) parue dans le Feuilleton du lundi 23 novembre 1981 soit modifie par:
a)	insertion, apres la ligne 19, page 24 du Feuilleton, de ce qui suit:


[Stage Direction]
35.(1) Les droits existants - ancestraux ou issus de traites - des peuples autochtones du Canada sont confirmes.
(2) Dans la presente loi, «peuples autochtones du Canada* s'entend notamment des Indiens, des Inuit et des Metis du Canada.*;
b)	les changements de numeros de partie et d'article qui en decoulent.
Et sur le sous-amendement de M. Fulton, appuye par M. Broadbent,-Qu'on modifie 1'amendement en retran-chant le mot <existants*.
[Stage Direction]
November 25, 1981
The Constitution
Erik Nielsen: Before you leave the chair, Madam Speaker, since ten o'clock last night, when I was recognized, there have been developments that require my further consideration before participating in the debate. I would therefore ask that in my stead you recognize our critic for Indian affairs, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger).


Madam Speaker:: I will recognize him if he rises.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, we on this side will be glad to agree to that, because unanimous consent is required. In addition, I would like to confirm that there were talks among the representatives of the parties. It seems there will be unanimous consent that the length of speeches on the subamendment be limited to 20 minutes, beginning now. I would like confirmation of that. This seems to be the case from discussions I had with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the acting House leader for the NDP.


Erik Nielsen: That is agreeable, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, we have no objection to reducing the length of the speeches. I understood that was with an eye to voting on the subamendment and the amendment before six o'clock this evening.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we certainly do not object to voting on the amendment and subamendment at six o'clock today. I understand the hon. member for Yukon is in a better position to speak on behalf of his party.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, when I became House leader, in my first meeting and in a subsequent meeting with the government House leader and the acting House leader of the NDP I assured them that the discussions between us would be confidential and not exposed on the floor of the House of Commons.
This is the first breach of that confidentiality. It does not bode well for our future discussions if that kind of exposure is going to take place. I am talking about the submission just now made by the acting House leader of the NDP relating to discussions which were had between the government House leader and him and the government House leader and me separately, but in the nature of a House leaders' meeting. That kind of thing is not going to help co-operation in the House of Commons.
When I use the term confidentiality, that is exactly what I mean, that discussions will remain confidential. Otherwise we will get into the kind of hassle that was evident prior to the summer recess on the floor of this House of Commons with respect to negotiations, and I do not think that is at all helpful.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am afraid there is a misunderstanding and that the facts are being misinterpreted by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). First of all, he is referring to the situation before the summer recess, when his hon. predecessor initiated some memorable agreements. In my opinion he would perhaps find it helpful to follow the example of his predecessor, because we did, in fact, obtain very satisfactory results that have been beneficial to Parliament and to this country. I would therefore urge him to take a leaf from the book of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He also mentioned that we had an understanding that the contents of our discussions were not to be revealed, and I certainly do agree. In any case, I am the one who made the request in the first place. However, I think that what the hon. member failed to understand when the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) mentioned the possibility of having a vote at six o'clock this evening on the subamendment and the amendment is, that, as I understand it, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain did not disclose the contents of our discussions. He was referring to what seemed to him to be a procedure that would be acceptable to all the parties.
I agree that the contents of our discussions should not be disclosed. On the other hand, it is very difficult when an agreement is reached to avoid revealing its substance if we want it to be approved by the House. In these circumstances, I can assure the hon. member for Yukon that, in the future, we shall be very careful not to offend his sensibilities, but we also want to be practical. Some of our agreements will have to be made public if we want them to be approved by the House. We shall have to properly define what constitutes an agreement and what constitutes a discussion. Once that is settled, I am more than willing, and I also would ask the hon. member, to respect the confidentiality of our discussions. There are some areas, of course, where we must be flexible enough to understand that we are so close to reaching an agreement that there is nothing against mentioning the discussions that have just taken place. In this case, I assumed that we were agreed on a 20-minute limit on speeches. The hon. member for Yukon left the floor, we discussed this privately and he did not hold it against me. He said: Yes that is true, we do agree. We did not agree on this point in the meeting but we finalized the matter here. I assume that what the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain said about the vote on the subamendment and the amendment being held at six o'clock this evening was said with the same intent. I want to assure the hon. member for Yukon that we have no intention of disclosing the contents of our
November 25, 1981

meetings in the future, but we must be flexible enough to accept that once an agreement is reached, we should be able to explain how it was reached, what it was about and how it is to be implemented by this House.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to the agreement on 20-minute speeches. That was agreed upon. I was concerned about the subject matter which went beyond that and which was raised by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. The government House leader left me with the impression that that would be the subject matter of further discussions this afternoon. That was going to be discussed privately. We were in a three-way conversation as House leaders when that discussion took place.
1 am not going to stand idly by and see any political manoeuvring by these two parties that are in bed together in an effort to embarrass us. I am prepared to sit down at any time with the other House leaders in a confidential way to discuss ways and means of expediting House business, but if we cannot have confidentiality in those meetings and discussions, the whole purpose is destroyed.
I agree with the government House leader that at the appropriate time, should a House order be necessary, or should it be necessary to inform all members of the House what the business is going to be and how it is going to be handled, at that time, should it be necessary, the meetings and the subject matter thereof will become public. I have adopted the standard throughout, since our first House meeting, of not discussing anything that goes on there with members of the media or anyone else. My stock answer has been that the discussions that take place between House leaders in House leaders' meetings are confidential. I intend to keep them that way. If we want to start off on a fresh foot and keep them that way, that is fine; that is the way it will be. But if it is the intention to have this kind of byplay that took place today about voting on the subamendment and the amendment today, when those discussions had not yet been completed, as far as I am concerned, between House leaders, then that is the time that House leaders' meetings have lost any useful purpose. If that is the manner in which-


Ian Deans: Oh, sit down.


Erik Nielsen: The member for Hamilton Mountain says to me, "Oh, sit down". If the hon. member feels that retaining a high standard of confidentiality in House leaders' meetings-


Ian Deans: It is not a high standard, it is a lot of nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: If he thinks that my intention to adhere to that high standard is being an ass, then I can only say to him that he has an entirely different idea of how proceedings here should be conducted in an appropriate fashion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Constitution


Erik Nielsen: I would like the assurance from the government House leader, since this matter has come up, that he intends to keep those discussions confidential. If I do not get it from him, then I will know how to conduct myself in the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: It happens often in our meetings that are not institutionalized that we will have discussions, that we have to go back to our respective caucuses to submit proposals and then come back and make up an agreement. Most of what is said sooner or later is known by our own caucuses and, therefore, is known by the press.


Erik Nielsen: Not through me.


Yvon Pinard: It is very difficult to keep absolutely confidential what is discussed in our meetings. For example, following our negotiations on the debate of the Constitution, we agreed to consult with our respective caucuses this morning and submit proposals. It is very difficult then to guarantee the confidentiality of what has been discussed in the previous House leaders' meetings if we submit it to all Members of Parliament. I cannot guarantee that his caucus will not keep totally secret what we discuss in our House leaders' meetings.


Erik Nielsen: Let me draw one example. The government House leader called me to the back of the chamber at about ten minutes to three.


An hon. Member:: You are disclosing secrets now.


Erik Nielsen: We had a discussion in which certain proposals were put to me involving a discussion between himself and the NDP House leader. I have not yet even had the opportunity of informing my leader of the content of those discussions before they were exposed on the floor of the House of Commons. I ask you whether that is decency?


Ian Deans: I do not quite understand what this is all about.


Charles Joseph Clark: That is right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: First of all, I want to suggest that if it is the intention of the House leader for the official opposition to turn everything into a political wrangle, then he will destroy whatever opportunity there is for co-operation.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Ian Deans: I want to say further that by rising and indicating that there was agreement for 20-minute speeches, at that point there was an admission that there had been a meeting and that that matter had been discussed. All I was doing was asking whether other matters that had been discussed had been left out inadvertently or whether or not at some subsequent point in time there would be further discussion.

November 25, 1981
The Constitution
As far as I am concerned, whatever takes place at House leaders' meetings, so far as the House leader for the Tories is concerned, his contribution is zilch anyway.


Madam Speaker:: I understand from this exchange that the House has agreed upon a limitation of 20 minutes for speeches. Is this for today or for the entire debate?


Erik Nielsen: For the subamendment.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, because of the time limit imposed upon members and the importance of the amendment that is before us today, I would like to limit myself to speaking on the amendment.
This resolution, as we know, has been put before us. Many of us, as individual members, can find reasons why one section or another is not in a sense perfect to us. We feel many should be left out or others included.
One area that is of importance to me as a member, and to many other members in this chamber, has been the leaving out of the aboriginal clause and now the proposal that it be replaced. We want to treat this as a very serious amendment and hope that we can contribute to the thoughts and desires of all parties to deal with this in a serious manner.
I believe it is essential for our aboriginal peoples that their treaty rights be reinstated in this charter. Recently I went over the committee reports at the time the wording of Section 34 was discussed. That was back on January 30. At that time the feeling was evident that this was a very historic moment. It was the culmination of months of lobbying, of years of hard work by the native groups and a determination by all participants finally to come to some conclusion. It was a dedication to a principle. That should not be overlooked.
This process of constitutional renewal has been ongoing for many years. It took a decisive step forward on the evening of October 2, 1980, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in a televised statement began with these words: "A century and thirteen years ago, a group of remarkable people launched a remarkable endeavour. They created a country."
While the Fathers of Confederation indeed did create a new political unit, a new country, Canada, it is sometimes too easy to overlook the obvious. There was not only a land upon which Canada was built in existence in 1867, but there also were the original inhabitants that were here long before any European settlers emigrated to this land. A society, a culture, a way of life, existed in Canada. More precisely, a number of cultures existed in this country. As we now continue with the endeavour, as is provided in Section 36 of this resolution, these aboriginal rights must be defined. It will be a very difficult quest for the provinces, the federal government and the native people to define what are aboriginal rights.
As I said, many cultures existed in this country. As a result, it will be difficult to sit down and make a definition that will cover all of these political entities that existed and what rights they now have because of those in this nation. The indigenous
peoples have lived in Canada for thousands of years. When the settlers arrived, they were welcomed. The Indian community never attempted to impose its way of life or its culture on the European settlers at the time. In fact they welcomed those settlers. They allowed them to live in a different culture and climate. They gave them examples and the ability to deal with the country.
Many times they have assisted in the country's advancement over the years. For example, in the war of 1812, some 9,000 Indian warriors fought as allies of Canada. During two world wars 12,000 Indian people enlisted and fought on the side of the allies, and many of them lost their lives.
Even today as a country we have never adequately recognized our native veterans. We created the Indian Act which many felt was paternalistic. We created reserves which placed native people in groups on small tracts of land which, in many instances, we thought were worthless at the time. We did not allow these people the right to vote and to participate in government until recently. At one point we did not allow them the right to drink alcohol. Now we wonder why they are fighting so hard to have their rights entrenched in the Constitution! Basically it is because they never had the rights which we accept as natural since the founding of Canada in 1867.
Many times in our history we have found that the tracts of land set aside were valuable to us. Therefore, we took certain of those parcels on behalf of governments. The cutoff lands in British Columbia are a perfect example. Of course, the natives reacted with realistic suspicion at the time. We entered into the James Bay agreement because we needed a power source, and it became immediately important to settle aboriginal rights. That was also the case with respect to the Beaufort Sea. We wanted to build a pipeline from the Yukon, through Alberta, to the United States; suddenly it became important to deal with the concept of aboriginal rights.
Basically Indian people were immature politically, but they are moving very rapidly to gain political maturity. They virtually had no weapons because they faced a different kind of law from that to which they were accustomed. We imposed our law. They faced a massive culture shock, deplorable living conditions, alcoholism, poverty and unemployment. Now they are faced with being dealt a blow as far as their rights are concerned. Their rights are first in the Constitution, then out of the Constitution. Now they are back in again and one word is included which is causing great concern.
When we give a group of people with such a history some hope that finally an amendment will be placed in the Constitution which will give them some assurance of equal rights and of what are aboriginal rights, and then they find it taken out, is it any wonder they reacted in the manner they did? A strong and courageous voice has developed. Native people marched on the Hill. They displayed a conduct which I wish many other groups would display when marching on the Hill, speaking for their rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 25, 1981


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: This is why I am angry when I hear people complain that the reason the rights were removed was because native people could not agree among themselves whether or not Section 34 should be included. They never stated that. They stated that because of the definition clause it was not enough, that it may not mean anything more than they have at the present time. All they have been requesting over the months is something more specific to define legitimate aboriginal rights. Because of that concern and, as I said before, genuine mistrust, is it any wonder they would ask for more as far as recognition of aboriginal rights is concerned? No wonder anger, panic and cynicism engulfed native people when they learned they had been dropped from the charter. At least it is understandable. To them it was the latest in a long line of broken promises. They felt angry and betrayed when they were dropped from the charter. We now find that they are legitimately suspicious of the new word "existing" contained in the amendment.
This word has taken us all by surprise. Many of us are attempting to define it, to find out what it really means. The Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) assured us that it in no way changed the meaning of the text of the amendment before us. It is the same now, with the word "existing", as it was before without the word.
We in our party feel that it is essential to reinstate Section 34, which is now Section 35. We are pleased that that is the case, but we also realize the tremendous importance which is being placed upon the federal government, provincial governments and native people of the land to define what these rights are. If we are to be faced with another impediment, another word such as "existing", it only makes a conference so much more important.
Because of the manner in which the resolution has been drafted and because Section 36 has been included, it is imperative for the House, since nine provinces have signed the accord and there was the unanimous movement of the House to have native rights placed in the Constitution before, to place the heavy burden of faith and hope of aboriginal peoples upon the conference; it is a tremendous undertaking. I know the preparation for the conference will be very important, but it also places upon us as legislators and upon the provinces that signed the accord the obligation to deal in a fair, proper and legitimate manner with the definition of aboriginal rights. That will be the most important part of the conference.
Would it not have been better for the conference to have taken place before, so that we would know with what we are dealing and would not have to flounder about trying to find the meaning of words? Would it not have been better to place before the House the hope that aboriginal rights would be adequately dealt with and adequately defined? We would then not have to return to the House time and time again to question whether or not promises were kept.
It reminds me of the James Bay situation. We signed an agreement to take over certain lands. We included in the agreement various terms of justice which were supposed to be
The Constitution
upheld, such as housing and health care. Various moneys were to be paid to eliminate the term "aboriginal rights". Now we find the government is living up to the letter of the law, the meaning of words, but not up to the spirit of the agreement which the aboriginal people of the area and we as members of the committee felt we had discussed in specific terms. We feel we showed some spirit and some reason by which the agreement should have taken place. When we now look at the wording, is it any wonder that native people are justly concerned, organized and lobbying us to do the right thing?
I know time goes very quickly and I have much more I should like to say.
However, I must state that since 1973 this party has stood formally in this House for aboriginal rights.
In 1973 a motion was moved in committee by the member who is now the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). I will read just one sentence from his motion, as follows:
-publicly accept and endorse the said concept of aboriginal title.
That was supported by the two opposition parties at that time. We stand by that, Mr. Speaker, and we have shown this by our intention to move an amendment which we are pleased, through the accord with the provinces, the government has been able to move. Last week when it seemed that aboriginal rights would not be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, my colleagues and I were deeply disturbed. That is why we chose at that time to reintroduce the motion on Section 34.
When the Constitution is finally patriated and Canadians have their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and have a just method of amending the Constitution in Canada, how sad it would have been if not all Canadians could share in the pride and happiness of that event. How tragic it would have been if one group of Canadians felt that they had been excluded and if that group should have been the aboriginal peoples. That situation would have been unacceptable to more than the native peoples; it would have been unacceptable to this national Parliament and this nation.
The time is now right for us to act responsibly by entrenching aboriginal rights in the Canadian Constitution, thus putting an end to the injustices of history, of which none of us is proud, and replacing them with a positive change-with an act of good faith. That good faith must come from the provinces, the federal government and the native peoples if we are ever to solve this problem. I hope that will be soon, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Mr. Speaker, not only is it a pleasure for me to rise, but I appreciate being able to participate in this debate today. It is of course a historic occasion, particularly on Saint Catherine's Day which gives a very special meaning to the debate. Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 25, 1981
The Constitution
Speaker, 1 was in the House last Friday when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) introduced the amended resolution. 1 felt there was in this House a consensus the likes of which I had never seen before on such a basic question. Naturally it took quite some time to reach an agreement, but the events of last Friday really warmed one's heart because all members on both sides of the House readily accepted the promises made by the Minister of Justice.
If we consider the role played by the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker, we really have to extend our congratulations to him for what he did and for his contribution to the events we are witnessing now. He was the chief negotiator for the government, he worked long and very hard and never gave up, Mr. Speaker, until he had finally completed this arduous task. 1 have also read in yesterday's Hansard the remarks made concerning the aboriginal rights and the answers given by the Minister of Justice. I find it difficult to understand why members opposite should raise objections about one additional word, the word which means the existing aboriginal rights, that is to say those which are confirmed by Canadian history. Indeed, if we are talking about aboriginal rights, about treaty rights, it is because those rights do exist.
We cannot expect the creation of ancestral or aboriginal rights in the near future because, after all, when we are talking about the nature of ancestral rights we imply that those rights used to belong to our ancestors and since they are no longer with us the rights must have belonged to those ancestors who, of course, have since died. Considering that we cannot talk about future rights, I do not see anything wrong with that additional word. If it was added, as the Minister of Justice has already said, it was indeed to make explicit something which was already implied in Section 34 when it was inserted in the first constitutional proposal. The word "existing" has now been added simply to meet the requirements of certain provinces that wanted a more specific wording. Moreover, when we say that we are grateful to the Minister of Justice, it is obvious that the architect of the constitutional proposal, its principal mover, namely the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), deserves the thanks of all Canadians for the efforts he has put in this project. It is because of his foresight, his sense of history, his love of justice, his persistence and his patience that we now have before us a constitutional proposal of such scope.
The contribution of the New Democractic Party, and especially of its leader, should be singled out because last year, when we were looking for support, it was the New Democratic Party and its leader who gave us that alliance, that support which proved essential to maintain the principles included in the constitutional proposal. The leader of the NDP showed a lot of courage because he did not have the support of all his caucus, and we know that there were divisions within that group for some time. He held on and even confronted his own members. We are also all indebted to the premiers of the anglophone provinces. They have helped us achieve the final
consensus and they have also agreed to the compromises which were essential to achieve it. I am personally grateful to them for having agreed to Section 23 of the Charter of Rights. As you know, Mr. Speaker, Section 23 is very sensitive because it guarantees the educational rights of francophones outside Quebec.
As recently as 12 months ago, who would have believed that the English-speaking provinces and their governments would agree to submit freely to the requirements of Section 23 and to relinquish part of their jurisdiction in the field of education as provided in Section 23? For my part, I would not have believed it, because of my long experience of the manner in which francophone minorities outside Quebec were dealt with. I have already told the House of my experience at school when I was unable to attend a French secondary school in Ontario. Since all this has already been put on the record of the House, I will not repeat it. However, Mr. Speaker, I had another experience as a young lawyer in Toronto. I was then approached by French-Canadian parents from Midland, in Simcoe county, who wanted French language education in that county, not even at the secondary level, only at the primary level. At that time, you had to apply to the separate school board for this right. Our request was turned down. I then went before the separate school board in Simcoe county in Ontario, where there is a large proportion of francophones, to ask for French schooling. Our request was firmly denied. The members of the school board were very nice and very polite, but they were under no obligation to recognize these rights which we had always considered as ours. When I was a young lad, we, Franco-Ontarians thought that we had a right to be educated in our mother tongue. But that right was not clearly expressed in the Constitution. What we have done now is to precisely spell it out.
Furthermore, with regard to secondary education, when I was in Toronto, I sat on the advisory committee on French language whose purpose was the establishment of a French high school. That took four years of hard work, Mr. Speaker. In a large city like Toronto, where there are two million people and 60,000 French Canadians, there was a real need for such a school. Yet that process took four years. I have also seen the frustration experienced in communities throughout Ontario when they tried to set up French schools. Why? Because this came under the local school boards and not the provincial government as such. Everything was almost in complete chaos. Yet, all that is past now because Section 23 recognizes minority language rights. Despite the reservations some may have, I am quite pleased with the "where numbers warrant" provision. Rights are guaranteed but there has to be enough students to justify the setting up of French classes or of a French school. What pleases me is the fact that the "where numbers warrant" provision will be interpreted generously by anglophone provinces, precisely because they have accepted Section 23. They
November 25, 1981

will therefore be willing to give a generous interpretation to that provision so that as many students as possible can exercise that right.
The second reason why I am not too concerned with the "where numbers warrant" provision in Section 23 is that it will be up to the courts to enforce it. In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) expressed the hope that provinces would be generous in their interpretation of that section. I hope so too. But he forgot to add that if provinces are not generous in their interpretation, that is not the end of it, since reference will be made to the courts for their interpretation, and those courts will be bound by Sections 16 to 20 of the Charter. It is precisely in Sections 16 to 20 that for the first time in our history, the official status of both French and English is entrenched. Therefore, when French minorities in anglophone provinces ask for French education, at either grade school or high school level, they can expect to have the same rights, in the final analysis, as the English majority of those same provinces.
Indeed, if a French community wants a French school, the criteria used, as far as numbers are concerned, will be the same as would be applied for an English community asking for an English school. That is normal. It is clear and understandable. That is precisely how the court will interpret this provision. No discrimination will be made between a rural and an urban region, because the criteria applied to a rural community for English schools are the same as those applied to an urban community, and the same goes for French communities. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I see no problem with the "where numbers warrant" provision. Of course, I would have preferred that the phrase be deleted, but it was not possible and there it is. French groups outside Quebec might now find an interpretation to that phrase in favour of the establishment of French schools throughout English Canada to serve French Canadians that would like to attend them. Mr. Speaker, I was therefore somewhat shaken by the fact that the province of Quebec dropped us francophones outside Quebec, and for once that English-speaking provinces had been generous, they did not also agree to Section 23. Of course, this is disastrous. They did not expect either that English-speaking provinces would agree to Section 23. And they were taken by surprise when the conclusion was reached on French minority rights outside Quebec. They had no reply, although they had undertaken in 1977 to grant equivalent rights to English minorities in their own province. They did not act accordingly.
In addition, I would be less than honest were I not disappointed that Ontario did not choose to follow New Brunswick's example in agreeing to Sections 16 to 20 of the constitutional charter. I hope they will do so in the near future. I can assure that in my capacity as a government member of this House, I will keep on pressing the government to agree to that actual section, not Section 133 because it is not enough, but Sections 16 to 20 of the new Charter of Rights. Just the same, I must
The Constitution
point out, Mr. Speaker, that last weekend there was a meeting of the association of French-speaking members of the legal profession in Ontario for the purpose of giving French-speaking lawyers in Ontario the opportunity to compare notes so that they will be ready to practice in the French courts that are being established in Ontario. As you are aware, we have already amended the Criminal Code to provide for French language court proceedings in Ontario, and this is already in place. Also, the province of Ontario has designated a number of areas, including my own, as areas where French language courts are to be established in order that court proceedings can go on in French, not only in criminal matters but also in civil matters.
Some would have wished that government had forced Sections 16 to 20 on the province of Ontario. However, I read yesterday in the newspaper Le Droit an editorial that I would like to share with this House, because I agree with it and I also feel it is very informative, and I quote:
But can the federal government be blamed for not going still further? Should it get involved more deeply into exclusive provincial domains? Already the Quebec government is indignant because school safeguards granted religious groups 114 years ago are extended to language groups. Any consensus between the provinces would then be impossible.
Two options are open to the Federation of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec. In effect, the editorial attacked the Federation, which is fighting for the adoption of Section 133 in Ontario.
The FFHQ is left with two possibilities. First, it could do its utmost to convince Pierre Trudeau to strike a heavy linguistic blow and in total defiance of the provinces, to unilaterally introduce in Westminster an omnibus constitutional motion with the sole support of the federal Liberals and I even doubt that they would all agree to it. It would be political suicide to disregard provincial jurisdictions for the sake of coast to coast bilingualism. Second, the FFHQ could get ready for the second phase of the constitutional reform where provincial jurisdictions and political institutions will be specifically discussed.
Mr. Speaker, I must say at once that I agree with the editorial. Secondly, 1 think it gives a proper direction to the FFHQ which, with all other French-speaking institutions in various English-speaking provinces, should change its policy and instead of zeroing in on the amendments made to the Canadian constitution, they should try to inform the various provincial governments, to prepare various French minority groups for their application to governments, and school authorities, to draw up files to assist public authorities unfamiliar with minority language education. They should begin to educate public authorities in English-speaking provinces with a view to enabling them to adjust when they show some reluctance. They should also indicate to French-speaking minorities how to take advantage of Section 24, which allows them to go to court to have their rights confirmed.
As I have said before, I would have liked to see the whole package in force in English-speaking provinces. However it is impossible! Back home, however, we say that a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. We know that the bird we have in hand is a big one. We also know that we must protect it and

November 25, 1981
The Constitution
use it to try to catch the one in the bush. That bird in the bush we will certainly catch, because we are indeed very determined to do so. What is great about the constitutional package is that for the first time the right to education for francophones is clearly spelled out and enshrined. It never had been before. There used to be separate school systems; now, French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and English-speaking Canadians within Quebec are clearly identified as linguistic minorities. Mr. Speaker, this will allow all Canadians, whether French or English speaking, to choose freely the place they like most and may want to call home.
Mr. Speaker, we owe a tremendous debt of gratitude especially to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who, as I indicated earlier, has not only elaborated a framework for the future of Canada on the basis of its past history, but succeeded in securing the consensus of all Canadians on his action. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that no Canadian will ever be too grateful for that. I, for one, thank you for granting me a few additional seconds, Mr. Speaker, and I say to you that the times all Canadians are living now are most favourable and promising.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have a few moments to participate in this part of the constitutional debate which concerns the rights and privileges of our native peoples in their own country. The longer we carry on this discussion about the Constitution, the more evident it becomes that we were right when we said we should patriate the Constitution, that we should agree on an amending formula and then bring the Constitution home to broaden the discussion about other matters. These include the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, matters which profoundly affect individuals, matters which profoundly affect the relationship between the individual and the state and matters which affect individual groups in our society, such as our native people.
Our native people do have a very special position in our society in Canada. They are aboriginal people. They have been in this country since time immemorial. Not only that, they have made a valuable and important contribution to this country. Our aboriginal people have played an important part in our early history and in the evolution of what we now consider a great and important nation in a community of nations in the world. It is said that had it not been for the Indians, the province of Ontario may not have been an English province. It is said that if it were not the residents in the Arctic and their traditional rights and pursuits, we would have had no justification to proclaim sovereignty in the Arctic.
Certainly all of us know that had it not been for the Metis and Louis Riel in Manitoba, that part of the country may not be as it is today.
In 1973 this party achieved in this House the recognition of the concept of aboriginal rights for the first time. Before that and certainly since then the courts have tried to come to grips with the definition of "aboriginal rights". If one takes a look at
the proclamation of 1763, aboriginal rights have something to do with property. No one doubts that. But are aboriginal rights only to do with property? What about cultural rights? What about religious rights? Some courts say that aboriginal rights only concern property rights. But if aboriginal rights have something to do with religious and cultural rights, why did we allow the missionaries to take our native peoples to the river to baptize them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost?
That certainly was not a solution to their problem. They have their own religion and they have their own culture. Their culture is one that cannot co-exist with the western civilization because it is something quite different. Their culture is one which moves in harmony with nature whereas the culture and basis of western civilization is a culture that has taken upon itself to manage nature to its best advantage. Therefore, the native culture and the western culture cannot co-exist.
If we were to give our native people some cultural integrity, we would have to back that up with constitutional rights. Everything else means assimilation and integration. We would be lying to our native people if we told them that we were not asking them to assimilate and to integrate by not protecting their cultural rights. I have already said their culture cannot co-exist with that of the western culture in our Constitution. It is for that reason that natives in our country need special protection.
Natives are not the only group that needs special protection. In Quebec there are the special circumstances of the French culture and language. That is why some of us have now agreed that there needs to be special protection and recognition in the Constitution of the reality that there are six million Frenchspeaking persons in North America and 260 million Englishspeaking persons. This is a special problem which requires special consideration. That is why I am saying native people deserve and must have special protection in the Constitution.
What should that protection be? Is it good enough just to say that we will recognize and affirm the concept of aboriginal rights when we have not taken the time to give a definition to that concept? What is the rush now? We have an accord to patriate the Constitution and an amending formula. Why can we not sit down and define aboriginal rights, which we recognize do exist, before we take the final step? The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) tell us there is no need for that because they are deeply committed to sit down with the aboriginal peoples and talk about their rights and put a definition on those rights as soon as the Constitution is patriated. If I were the Prime Minister I would have no problem agreeing with that, but 1 am not the Prime Minister; nor was I the Prime Minister or an agent of Her Majesty the Queen when the treaties which were never kept were signed.
If we look back 80, 100 or 200 years when the treaties were signed, at least we asked the native people to sit down and discuss what was being signed. Some of these treaties were
November 25, 1981

peace treaties because the natives were at war with the settlers who were moving on to their land and arrangements had to be made to keep the peace. Not only that, the government said that whatever was agreed to, whether it be a box of shells, a Hudson Bay blanket or a medical chest, would be written down and signed.
That is not so with this Constitution. The Constitution will be brought back, the government will sit down with the native peoples and talk about the future of their culture and language, but there will no longer be any consent or signature required. The nine Premiers and the Prime Minister will decide and say: "We are your guardians forever; we do not need your signature any longer". That is why I am saying that this Constitution cannot work without a consent clause, because natives have special problems. These problems cannot be compared with women's rights or other political rights. There must be a consent clause as there was at the time we were negotiating the treaties.
Many members have discussed this crucial word "existing", which, as they say, is totally meaningless, if you listen to the advice of the Minister of Justice and the Crown counsels. This word "existing", which is now the subject of this amendment, was inserted by the Minister of Justice. The minister told us yesterday that we do not have to worry about a thing because it is totally meaningless. If I know anything about law, Mr. Speaker, it is that legislatures are not supposed to put meaningless language into law. Logic tells me that if the word is meaningless, then it should be taken out.
I say that it is dishonest for the Minister of Justice to stand in the House and say that the word "existing" is meaningless, because if it were it would be his duty to take that word out. It is not for us to give the Supreme Court language in our fundamental law that is meaningless. You know as well as 1 do, Mr. Speaker, that the words "existing rights" are not at all meaningless.
The premiers have decided among themselves that the native people are getting everything to which they are entitled now and nothing else. The status quo is what the native peoples will be dealing with. The premiers say: "If the status quo is property rights, we will find them some property somewhere to hunt and fish until we need that property for drilling and developing resources. Then we will find somewhere to push them, farther away, somewhere where the rats and caribou are." If "existing rights" means cultural and language rights or religious rights, they certainly do not exist right now so there is little hope for those rights to exist in the future.
I feel very deeply and emotionally about this issue. I find it very difficult to reconcile what we are doing here with my conscience. I cannot believe that this national disgrace should be allowed to exist for another hundred years. I cannot believe that we should continue to make ourselves the target for condemnation by international tribunals to which our native peoples have found access. These tribunals have agreed with our native peoples that they are being treated as second-class citizens and that we have commited an act of cultural and
The Constitution
religious genocide. I cannot believe that this nation, as proud and rich as it is, can afford to let that kind of disgrace continue in the future.
1 suggest that we must take steps today to correct this imbalance. I question the integrity of those who have asked to have the word "existing" added to the resolution. I question the integrity of those who will not give the native people at this crucial time in our history the right to consent to matters which affect no one else but themselves, to consent to changes in our fundamental law which will have no effect on anyone but them. What this means is that we are no more sincere in coming to grips with the very special rights of our aboriginal people in this country than we were when we signed the initial treaties.
1 do not have any faith in the conferences that are to be conducted for the purpose of putting a definition on the term "aboriginal rights". We have recent examples of why there should be doubt and mistrust. We only have to look at the James Bay agreement for an example. It is not so long ago that we sat here and talked about that. There were just a few of us in the House who sounded warning signals at that time and we were right. The treaty was signed and then forgotten about. These meetings will continue, Mr. Speaker, and the native peoples will be able to participate, but the decisions about their lives, their future and their culture and religion will be made by people who have very little understanding, if any, of the real problems of our two cultures. Our two cultures can only co-exist if one develops respect for the other. The rights of these cultures must be entrenched in the basic law of the country.
If we cannot have any faith in what the premiers are going to do after the Constitution is patriated, certainly the courts have been given a clear direction regarding what they are to do. They are to legislate the status quo since the words "existing rights" are in the Constitution. Existing rights have not helped our native peoples achieve self-determination in the future.
If we are not prepared to accept the status quo, I say let us defeat this amendment. I find myself in a very difficult position because we have been told that unless this word stays in the resolution, the accord could be fractured. Well, I will not develop any pride in our Constitution if my neighbours have to live in abject poverty and deprivation, as the native peoples whom I represent in Parliament do and as they have done for the past 300 years since the white man took over their land.
I cannot be proud of my country when that kind of situation exists. I will find it difficult to consent to something like this and I would go so far as to say that I do not care if this accord is broken or not. I am ashamed of what we have done to our native peoples in the past and I will fight for them in the future, as I am now.

November 25, 1981
The Constitution


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, over a year ago I told the minister responsible for the constitutional reform that J intended to take part in this historic debate. Finally, after an incredibly long debate in this House and after over 500 hours of proceedings and public hearings at the joint committee, I finally have the honour to share my vision of our country and of our constitutional charter with the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, during the past year, I may have prepared as many as three speeches to be delivered in this House. I believe that if they had been delivered at the time they were written they would surely have seemed quite relevant.
The events being what they are, those speeches are no longer relevant and I had to write a new one in the past few days. The political conditions have so drastically been altered, Mr. Speaker, that you will understand why my comments are particularly directed to Quebecers. In my previous speeches, I had never questioned the necessity under the present political circumstances of a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Moreover I had examined at length the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on November 4, 1950. And if you will allow me one digression, Mr. Speaker, I would say that our charter, although there is no such provision at present, will in the future require not only a commission of human rights but also a special court such as the European Court of Human Rights to ensure the enforcement of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that as far as the contents of the charter are concerned with the recognition of native rights and sexual equality, it is a greatly improved paper. It is now a much more valuable resolution than it was last week and it can be favourably compared with any charter, especially the European Convention.
The most important fact this day, on November 25, Mr. Speaker, is that we are on the verge of voting in the Parliament of Canada on a constitutional resolution patriating our Constitution to which has been added an amending formula and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I must admit that in spite of the fact that I am certain that Canada will be a greater country once the resolution is passed and our constitution is patriated, I must say that as a federal member representing a Quebec constituency, I am disappointed and sorry that Quebec, on account of its separatist government, is not a party to this agreement. Not only as a Member of Parliament but also as a Quebecer I had to decide what kind of Canada I wanted for today and especially which one I wanted for my children. And my choice is clear: I choose our motion, our constitutional resolution which is, in my view, a true Canadian vision that has nothing to do, of course, with that of Rene Levesque and his separatist government.
1 want a Canada which will be far greater for having a Constitution which recognizes and exemplifies our national identity. When I attended the Saint-Jean seminary in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, they used to teach Greek philosophy, and especially Aristotle, and I remember that in one of his books, Aristotle had this to say about constitutions, which is quite relevant to what we have before us today, and I quote:
A good constitution must express the identity of a nation and also promote the establishment and stability of a just and orderly society.
But in expressing its vision for the future, Mr. Speaker, a good constitution for Canada must recognize the successes and failures of our past history, that is, a Constitution committed to the ideals of tolerance, diversity and dissidence, a vision that is affected as much by the deportation of the Acadian people as by the French school issue in Manitoba, as much by Louis Riel's rebellion as by the involvement of the Canadian Armed Forces in peacekeeping duties, as much by the detention of Canadians of Japanese descent during World War II as by Canada's international image as a peace-loving country. Mr. Speaker, we need a Constitution which reflects fundamental values and reiterate the truly Canadian views expressed by Sir Wilfrid Laurier when he wrote, and I quote:
I will devote my whole life to achieving reconciliation, harmony and understanding among the various elements of our country.
I think that we are indeed very lucky that our Prime Minister is a worthy successor to Laurier in word and deed. He had to be a very courageous and ambitious man, Mr. Speaker, to attempt, after 54 years of repeated failures, such a giant constitutional step forward. It would have been easy for him to abandon or postpone the constitutional reform, and only a leader who really understands Canada, our country, its differences and needs, could also understand that the time to act and move forward had come if one believed in the future of Canada. Finally, Mr. Speaker, we will have a constitution that we can call our own.
Only a few days before the dramatic breakthrough of November 4, a book appeared in Canada which summarizes my vision of our country. As indicated by the very title of this book, "Fragile Freedoms", by Justice Thomas Berger, who is well known in Canada for his tolerance and far-sightedness, our fundamental freedoms have long been very fragile realities for minority and dissident groups in Canada, and although this alone could warrant the entrenchment of a charter of rights, my position differs from that of Mr. Levesque on another point, and it is the extreme importance of having rights and freedoms granted to all Canadians. That is why I unreservedly support this excerpt from Justice Berger's book, and I quote: [English]
If every Canadian is not to enjoy freedom of conscience, of speech, of religion, of association and assembly, as necessary incidents of citizens, and the federal state does not include express provisions for the safeguarding of fundamental freedoms throughout Canada, freedoms common to every citizen and enforceable equally in every province, then what is the point of our remaining together? What is the common bond-what are the common values-that hold us together?
November 25, 1981

[ Translation]
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the separatist government in Quebec claims that no common values are strong enough to justify Quebec's presence within confederation, and that over the short term, as far as it is concerned, the only thing of value might be an economic association. Mr. Speaker, with that kind of principle or policy, it would indeed have been amazing for Mr. Rene Levesque to sign the constitutional agreement with the Canadian government, regardless of what offers were made. The unanimous agreement of the ten provinces and the central government, the government of Canada, on a series of common values that would serve as the very foundation of federalism, would be in obvious contradiction with the description of Mr. Levesque, the one he refers to so often and which he quoted repeatedly in his book "Option Quebec", in which he compares Quebec and Canada to two scorpions in the same bottle. It therefore seems obvious that Mr. Levesque and his separatist party are prisoners of their own rhetoric.
Mr. Speaker, is there then such a thing as a possible and acceptable constitutional pact? I must confess that, to my mind, there cannot be any for Mr. Levesque. He and his separatist government have failed the test of good faith. I have no intention, Mr. Speaker, of repeating the gesture of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, in Quebec, two weeks ago, threw him a line. But the door was opened on November 4 last. Today, even as I am speaking, it is still open and will continue to be even after the final vote is taken on the resolution. And if it is, Mr. Speaker, at this time when we are so close to the vote, when we are fed up to the gills with constitutional talk, that is because the people of Quebec, those who send us here to Ottawa and those who elected Mr. Levesque in Quebec want to keep it open, want the talks and negotiations to resume. Still, the Quebecers are those who bear the brunt of the door that remains closed in the separatist camp, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Levesque made three objections to the Canadian agreement signed on last November 4. I should like to dwell briefly on the one that strikes me as the most fundamental in terms of the vision I have of Canada. What obviously flies in the face of the philosophy of the Parti Quebecois are the mobility clauses as they would apply to Quebec. And yet, there is no doubt the people of Quebec will benefit from them. Maybe more than any other province, because unfortunately, we have seen in recent years provincial legislatures pass legislation restricting manpower mobility. It is also obvious that in the very short term all provinces would have had to pass such legislation with the result that workers would have been prisoners within their own province, their only consolation being that their fellow workers in their province would have shared their lot.
What are we proposing, Mr. Speaker? We are proposing that all Canadian workers, and especially Quebec workers, whenever they cannot find employment in Quebec, could move to greener pastures, in Alberta or elsewhere, in order to get
The Constitution
some work, to earn a living, to have their children educated in French, and to return to Quebec some day if they wanted to. Of course, those workers who stay in Quebec, precisely because of the amendment proposed by the province of Newfoundland in a genuine spirit of federation, would be protected here as long as the province did not have full employment, and thus the province of Quebec is now protected. On its face, this makes so much sense and it is so evident we must ask why the PQ is against it. Well, it is clear their opposition stems from the fact that this stands for a united Canada, an open Canada while they want a closed-in Quebec, an isolated Quebec. That kind of Canada the separatists cannot accept. What is at stake is the lot of all Canadians, including Quebecers. That lot must be improved, at the cost of entering into an agreement with the Canadian government. And this is something the Quebec government is not willing to do.
The references to us Quebec Members of Parliament being traitors, bums, gangsters and thieves point to a lack of arguments and a reliance on rhetoric. It is ignoring public opinion, Mr. Speaker, because the population is fed up with family quarrels, because all that bickering and aggravation are going on between Quebecers.
But let me conclude by quoting Laurier once more, because this explains why Levesque cannot sign, and expresses our challenge, as Members of Parliament from Quebec and I quote:
We are French Canadians, but our country is not confined to the territory overshadowed by the Citadel of Quebec; our country is Canada; it is the fertile lands bordered by the Bay of Fundy, The Valley of the St. Lawrence, the regions of the Great Lakes, the prairies of the west, the Rocky Mountains, the lands washed by the famous ocean where breezes are said to be as sweet as the breezes of the Mediterranean, our fellow-countrymen are not only those in whose veins runs the blood of France.
They are all those, whatever their race or whatever their language, whom the fortunes of war, the chances of fate, or their own choice have brought among us. As far as I am concerned, those are my fellow-countrymen. 1 am a Canadian. The rights of my fellow-countrymen of different origins are as dear to me, as sacred to me, as the rights of my own race. What 1 claim for us is an equal place in the sun, an equal share of justice, of liberty; that share we have it; we have it amply, and what we claim for ourselves, we are anxious to grant to others.
Well, Mr. Speaker, that is our role here. Such a role Mr. Levesque and his government would deny us. They are jealous indeed because they are truly isolated. They are locked in. And I want to ensure all the constituents of Laprairie and all Quebecers that once this resolution is passed, it will only be a starting point because every day, with a Constitution that will be here in Canada where it may be amended freely, we are going to strive together to improve the lot of all Canadians, and this includes all Quebecers.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, when I was first elected to the House of Commons in 1957, almost a quarter of a century ago, my leader, the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, displayed the same deep sense of

November 25, 1981
The Constitution
commitment for fundamental rights and freedoms of individual Canadians as has been projected by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). Mr. Deifenbaker's commitment to a Bill of Rights for Canadians came from his ethnic background and personal experience as a lawyer and politician. It was Mr. Deifenbaker's lifelong ambition to make Canadians who are not of English or French extraction comfortable as Canadians.
The present Prime Minister has indicated by his words and actions the same type of commitment and concern for Canadians of French origin. I know what a special day it was for Mr. Diefenbaker and for Canadians when the Bill of Rights was introduced in the House of Commons on July 1, 1960, and again when it was proclaimed on August 10, 1960, but the Bill of Rights never realized its full potential as the protective statute it was meant to be, much to the chagrin and frustration of Mr. Diefenbaker.
First, it was a federal statute and thus did not relate to provincial affairs unless provinces passed enabling statutes. Some did, others did not. Second, the Bill of Rights was never given the priority consideration Mr. Diefenbaker had hoped and anticipated it would receive by the Supreme Court of Canada.
There were examples where it was a protection to Canadians, such as the Drybones case, but all too often the protections offered individual Canadians were ignored by the Supreme Court in the decisions that august body rendered.
Because these are facts, it pleases me that we will have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our Constitution that touches both the federal and provincial governments. While that charter might not be perfection, it is the beginning of something very special in the area of rights and freedoms that will be built upon in a truly democratic way as Canada moves forward to find its rightful place in the sun.
November 4, 1981, was a historic day of monumental significance for the maturity of Canada and Canadians. Almost since the last general election there has been an urgency of purpose on the part of the Prime Minister to conceive a new Constitution for Canada. Many will argue, and there is much evidence to support such arguments, that we sacrificed much from an economic viability point of view to reach this moment in our history. Such arguments, however, cannot dilute the special significance of this debate. We have come of age in a special way.
There were times leading up to the agreement of November 4 when I feared for this nation's future. To be very honest, I was a pessimist about a final agreement in Canada. I hated to imagine what might transpire in London were such an accord not achieved. The achievement of agreement between the federal government and nine of the ten provinces of Canada was a victory for the maturity of our nation and its people, and not for any single individual in this nation.
However, it must be recognized that the stubborn persistence of the Prime Minister made it happen. It must also be
recognized that the Prime Minister proved himself a most able negotiator in his dealings with the ten provincial Premiers.
It must also be recognized that my leader made a very special, significant and courageous contribution to this achievement. There were many times, especially in the final months of 1980 and again during the committee hearings and the debate that followed in this chamber, before the resolution was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, when my leader could have taken different, more popular stands. But he persisted, and in many ways was the catalyst that kept it moving until we had this document before us.
The premiers, in representing the different views of our very large nation, made it happen because they were willing to compromise, which is the art of politics, with the Prime Minister. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has been the workhorse for the Prime Minister in seeing that the flesh was put on the skeleton when deals were made. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) from our party acquitted himself with distinction in his special efforts to achieve the compromise that finally became the accord.
I came from a town and county in Nova Scotia that has contributed much to the history of the nation. The first member from Cumberland, which was the constituency I First represented in Parliament, was Sir Charles Tupper. Sir Charles Tupper was joined by three others from Cumberland, namely, Dickey, McCully and Chandler as Fathers of Confederation, in conceiving this nation.
1 would suggest to the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) that taking stands on significant matters can sometimes prove to be a very heavy burden. I have some appreciation of how he has felt during this long debate on the Constitution because of his commitment to a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I might tell the hon. member that Sir Charles Tupper, who was premier of Nova Scotia and made the decision to have Nova Scotia join in the confederation of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Upper and Lower Canada, found that in Nova Scotia he was one of three MPs elected to Parliament in 1867, with 16 Liberal MPs opposed to confederation elected in the other seats. Sir Charles also found he unleashed the anger of Joseph Howe, a not insignificant force in the politics of our nation at that time.
1 believe that John Diefenbaker would have championed this constitutional accord because it is the firm evidence that we believe in ourselves and in our future destiny. We are involved in a unique and historic happening that will not return again to our nation.
For those who feel it is not the perfect document, and it is not, I say, do not be concerned, because when this resolution is passed by Westminster we will have a Constitution in our nation that can be improved upon because, included in that Constitution, is an amending formula that guarantees the Canadian Constitution will not become a sterile document only amendable by the Supreme Court of Canada but will reflect the attitudes and desires of Canadians through their elected representatives, either federal or provincial.
November 25, 1981

I say to my colleague from the province of Quebec who has just finished his speech that I really feel for the members from the province of Quebec at this particular juncture in our history because, by and large, they support the Prime Minister in his special commitment to produce a new Canadian Constitution and, at the same time, they have a government in their province that opposes the objectives of a new kind of Canada for Canadians. I can well understand why the Premier of the province of Quebec would find arguments with every word and phrase in that constitutional accord that has been agreed upon, arguments why he should not sign it. It is because the whole aspect of that accord is opposed to his philosophy on the place of Quebec in future on the continent of North America. They are in the vanguard in ensuring that the people of the province of Quebec have the opportunity tomorrow, if not today, to become full partners in the confederation of Canada. No matter what Mr. Levesque thinks of where his province should be heading, I believe there will be a different government in that province tomorrow and there will be the opportunity for the people of that province to join with the rest of Canada in the signing of this accord. That is my attitude, Mr. Speaker.
I think that this Constitution is much larger than any political party. It is a special feeling that every individual must have about his own nation. While it is not the perfect document, in my opinion, it is a very unique Canadian document, unlike any other constitution in the world. We should recognize it as a signal achievement. This debate and this resolution instil a new sense of pride in me when I say I am a Canadian.
As well, it pleases me, as President of the John G. Diefen-baker Memorial Foundation, to know that while this debate is taking place in the House, our foundation will be holding its first annual meeting in this building. While we cannot have John Diefenbaker with us to provide the inspirational message he always managed on historic occasions, we will be able to pay tribute to the special contribution he made to the building of this nation.
In conclusion I would like to say to the members of the present government, as President of the John G. Diefenbaker Memorial Foundation, that I thank them for their consideration and reconsideration in relation to Mr. Diefenbaker's home in Rockliffe Park, which he bequeathed to the nation. In the first instance, the government believed it could not accept the house because of many other commitments it had made to Mr. Diefenbaker in his life but, on reflection and reconsideration it has agreed to accept it as a historic site and a museum for future generations of Canadians, and has agreed to ask the foundation to implement and carry out the operation of that home as a historic site and museum. I can say to you, Mr. Speaker, the foundation accepts that responsibility with a great deal of pride and pleasure. As one who has been here for a long time, I can only say that I deeply regret that John Diefenbaker is not with us today. I am sure he would consider this a very special and unique debate that will be forever an important factor in the lives not only of Canadians today but of Canadians, tomorrow.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
The Constitution


Mr. Blais:: No.


Erik Nielsen: Did I hear the Minister of Supply and Services saying no?


Jean-Jacques Blais: I was commenting on a private conversation.


Erik Nielsen: I rose on a point of order which I think will be pleasing to the government, especially the government House leader. In order to expedite the debate and the hopeful early conclusion of debate on the resolution, we in this party are now prepared to vote at once on the subamendment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted to vote 20 minutes from now, as soon as the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) has completed his speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will take the silence as some indication that the last proposal was agreed to.


Erik Nielsen: No, it was not, Mr. Speaker. We are prepared to vote at once, if the Chair can obtain the consent of all parties; I am sure you will get it from the government side.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, we are quite willing to vote anytime. Clearly enough the New Democrats are indicating that they would prefer contributing one more speaker. Therefore, we are not denying consent. In these circumstances, we are agreeable. I do not think they are.


Erik Nielsen: You gesture, Mr. Speaker; we are still prepared to vote at once.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It is evident to the Chair that there is no agreement, but the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is encouraging the Chair to put the question to the House. Is there unanimous consent to proceed to the vote immediately?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, originally I had many concerns about the process of patriating the Canadian Constitution. Certainly the original package has changed over the many months the House of Commons and the people of Canada have been intensely involved in the patriation process. My original concerns were about the unilateralism of the process versus co-operative federalism of the provinces working together to form one country. I had concerns about the package as well, in terms of provincial ownership of resources, the amending formula, the referendum and the Senate veto. Also I was concerned about native rights from the beginning.

November 25, 1981
The Constitution
We have reached this point in the debate, and I am limited to 20 minutes. I should like to dwell on the subject of the subamendment and the amendment concerning native rights which are now included in the package once again. Also I have another concern with regard to the province of Quebec. I should like very much for the Quebecois to be part of the agreement. 1 hope the Liberal members of that province truly represent the people in what they are doing. I hope there will in fact be an accord across Canada and that we will remain one country. It saddens me deeply to think that Quebec is not part of the accord.
When I speak of Indian and Metis people, let me make it clear that I refer to treaty Indians, non-status Indians, the Inuit and the Metis. Unless I state otherwise, when I speak of Indian and Metis people this is what I actually mean. I was shocked when the accord came back on November 5 and the recognition of the aboriginal rights of native people in the country had been removed. I am pleased to a large extent that we will now place it back in the charter.
One particular area of concern to me is the word "existing" which is being included in the resolution as it now stands. If the word "existing" does not mean anything, if it is there just to make more explicit the meaning of the section in the resolution, if it does not change anything, it is important as a matter of principle to have it removed, especially because of the distrust Indian and Metis people have for governments which have dealt with them over a number of years, going back to the first treaties that were signed and the many promises that were broken.
In the part of Saskatchewan which 1 represent, there are 17 Indian reserves, and approximately 50 per cent of the population of the northern part of my riding consists of Metis people. From living in the area and having worked closely with Indian and Metis people, I know they have very special rights which have been recognized. I am referring to their historical rights, to scripts, to the affirmative action programs in various parts of Canada, to statutes, treaties and to the royal proclamation of 1763. It is not a matter of them not having rights. The real problem is that over the years an economic base has never been formed. There has never been a political will-and I say this in a non-partisan manner-to bring those rights to the forefront and to develop the needed economic bases so that the people of whom we are speaking today can live with some pride and dignity.
Over the years great institutions were developed which were supposed to take care of Indian and Metis people. Those great institutions have failed. In fact, they placed Indian people into a position of reliance upon our system. We have dominated them. We have passed out money to appease their feelings and at times to keep them quiet. This has caused a great reaction in the white community. Many people in the white community are upset by the amounts of money and by the rights given to Indian and Metis people, but they do not understand that all that giving was not helping. It has only oppressed Indian and Metis people in Canada, and made them regress.
I have mentioned that the word "existing" should be removed. I feel very strongly about this. It is a principle of law, of statutory interpretation, that every word in a statute-and in this case it is the Constitution-has meaning and must be considered by the courts when something comes before them. If this word remains, I am sure the judges will have to say that the word is there because the legislators or the parliamentarians, the people who put it into the Constitution, the governing law of the land, wanted it there. It may mean a variety of things. For example, the Metis people are not recognized by the federal Department of Justice as having any rights. If the courts look at the interpretation of the Department of Justice without looking at the historic rights, the land scripts and other rights of Metis people, the Metis could very well have no rights left under the Constitution as it stands now with the inclusion of the word "existing". In order to clarify it or to make it explicit in terms of the way I am speaking today, the word should be deleted.
I think there are things which should have happened before we became involved in the constitutional process. As has been mentioned by other hon. members, the talks with Indian and Metis people should have taken place before the constitutional resolution was drafted. The provincial and federal governments tried to impose some type of rights without adequate consultation and the consent of the aboriginal people, the first peoples of the land.
Now I should like to refer to a point which was just brought to my attention. Today the Newfoundland legislature brought in a resolution to keep the word "existing" in that section of the constitutional resolution. I was informed a few moments ago that Premier Brian Peckford introduced the resolution in the Newfoundland assembly and it was defeated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Keith Anguish: There might be accord from the premiers but there is certainly not accord from all governments. The Liberals and some Conservatives in Newfoundland defeated the resolution today. This should bear heavily upon the minds of the parliamentarians who will be voting on this resolution in less than an hour.
I should like to deal with the items that I feel should have been included in Section 36 but were put in the background. We should lay down some principles which govern the discussions, meetings or consent-findings meetings, with Indian and Metis people within the period of a year after the Constitution comes back home. Those governing principles should define who the treaty Indian people are, who the Inuit are, who the Metis are, who the non-status Indians of this country are. They should determine what the rights of these groups are so that we can come to some kind of fair settlement and live with these groups in harmony. As a social democrat and as a New Democrat I believe they should have some right of self-determination. 1 also believe that is the way most Canadians would want the issue resolved.
November 25, 1981

It must be made clear that the Metis people are in fact Indian people. That should be stressed in the governing Section 91(24) of the British North America Act. We should recognize the Metis people and the non-status Indians as Indians in the language of the statutes that we put through the House.
Also, the following principles should prevail at the meetings provided for in Section 36. These principles were authorized and approved by the Joint Council of the National Indian Brotherhood. They read:
1.	The aboriginal title, aboriginal rights and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada, including:
(a)	all rights recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7th, 1763;
(b)	all rights recognized in treaties between the Crown and nations or tribes of
Indians in Canada ensuring the Spiritual concept of Treaties;
(c)	all rights acquired by aboriginal peoples in settlements or agreements with
the Crown on aboriginal rights and title;
are hereby recognized, confirmed, ratified and sanctioned.
2.	"Aboriginal people" means the First Nations or Tribes of Indians in Canada and each Nation having the right to define its own Citizenship.
3.	Those parts of the Royal Proclamation of October 7th, 1763, providing for the rights of the Nations or tribes of Indians are legally and politically binding on the Canadian and British Parliaments.
4.	No Law of Canada or of the Provinces, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution of Canada, shall hereafter be construed or applied so as to abrogate, abridge or diminish the rights specified in Sections 1 and 3 of this Part.
5.	(a) The Parliament and Government of Canada shall be committed to the negotiation of the full realization and implementation of the rights specified in Sections 1 and 3 of this Part.
(b)	Such negotiations shall be internationally supervised, if the aboriginal peoples parties to those negotiations so request.
(c)	Such negotiations, and any agreements concluded thereby, shall be with the full participation and the full consent of aboriginal peoples affected.
6.	Any amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any constitutional matters which affect the aboriginal peoples, including the identification or definition of the rights of any of those peoples, shall be made only with the consent of the governing Council, Grand Council, or Assembly of the aboriginal peoples affected by such amendment, identification or definition.
7.	A Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Protection Office shall be established.
1 think it is imperative that the Government of Canada and we as parliamentarians take action on this, Mr. Speaker. The Indian and Metis people in this country have had rights for many years but one would hardly realize this to see them on the reserve or in the urban native settings where alcoholism runs high and unemployment is such a disaster that it is not included in the Statistics Canada unemployment reports. Today, Indian babies are being born with a fetal alcohol syndrome as high as 50 per cent. This must have a disastrous effect on the education of these children and the way they will proceed through life. An aboriginal rights protection office should be established so that there is political will and an economic base is established to fulfil those rights and aspirations of the Indian and native people. They must be fulfilled with some authority and by a specific group responsible for those obligations.
The Constitution
The document goes on as follows:
8.	A declaration that Indian Governmental powers and responsibilities exist as a permanent, integral fact in the Canadian policy.
That should happen within the year following patriation. The document continues:
9.	All pre-confederation, post-confederation treaties and treaties executed outside the present boundaries of Canada but which apply to the Indian Nations of Canada are international treaty agreements between sovereign nations. Any changes to the treaties requires the consent of the two parties to the treaties, who are the Indian Governments representing Indian Nations and the Crown represented by the British Government, the Canadian Government is only a third party and cannot initiate any changes.
That refers to agreements that have already been made. Those things should be clear in our minds as Canadian politicians when the resolution returns to this country. Those things should be included for the protection of the Indian and Metis people in order to overcome some of the atrocities committed over the years and to put respect and self-determination back into the hands of the Indian and Metis people.
So far we have failed to do this, Mr. Speaker, but a good place to start would be to remove the word "existing" from the resolution by voting for the subamendment. If that word means nothing, then we should remove it as an indication of our trust. If the word "existing" means something, then that should be established too. I have tried to point out that the interpretations of the courts may differ. The Indian, and especially the Metis people, may have to go to court to establish that they have rights before they can enter the negotiating process in which they determine what they want in the year following patriation. 1 think the word should be removed in order to clarify the situation.
We have reached the point where we must restore the trust that has been eroded over the years between ourselves and the Indian and Metis people. Earlier today, a Conservative member spoke of smoking the peace-pipe together, talking about concerns, and then signing a document. But that trust has been lost over the years. At the present time there is very little trust between the Indian and Metis people and the predominantly white government in Canada.
That must be changed, Mr. Speaker. Let us change it now by deleting the word "existing" from the resolution. Let us approach the negotiations following the patriation of the Constitution with a political will to return to the hands of the native and aboriginal peoples the right of self-determination, the right to guide their own destiny and to have the Indians and Metis work with the rest of Canada as they work in harmony together.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mrs. Ursula Appoloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is 114 years since the Fathers of Confederation laid aside seemingly irreconcilable differences in the larger interests of the union of this country. The country itself was born, despite differences, and it grew in defiance of geography. Throughout the years, the plea for unity has become almost stale with frequent usage. The coin may be common, but it certainly is not debased.

November 25, 1981
The Constitution
When other countries laboured in blood and fratricidal strife for their very survival, Canadians struggled in controversy and frequently acrimonious debate.
However, if there was one outstanding quality which kept us together, surely it was the quality of faith, the faith of successive leaders that Canadians could prove to the world that a nation such as this, born in strife, diverse in its origins, speaking two languages and representing the embodiment of several great cultures, can survive and prosper. That faith has been tested on many occasions. There were those who questioned our will to survive as a nation. There were others who, recognizing the bone and the muscle of nationhood, queried whether or not we possessed the spirit of nationhood. The spirit of nationhood had to be embodied in a sense of patriotism which would put Canada ahead of its parts; and, for a fleeting period, that emotion was palpably evident in the year that marked Canada's centennial.
Finally, we had a distinctive, truly Canadian flag which became the symbol which helped erase the image and the idea of any kind of hyphenated Canadian. However, even the adoption of a distinctive flag was not sufficient to instil in all Canadians a sense of common purpose, a deep sense of pride in their country, and an abiding faith in its destiny. To a certain extent, Canada was a nation in search of an identity. After all, what did it really mean and what does it really mean to be a Canadian? Now, for the first time in 114 years, we are finally in a position to at least partially answer that question, an answer which probably would not have been supplied through the process of simple patriation.
Finally, we are able to establish in our own minds and in the minds of the rest of the world, the kind of people we really are, the vision of a country we intend Canada to be, and our deep commitment and loyalty to that country and to the principles by which we govern ourselves.
I have noticed, among some members of the public, and even of the media, a certain impatience that Parliament should devote so much time to constitutional matters when economic matters are so very pressing. My feeling is that unless we proclaim our determination to survive as a country, to live together, to work together and to build together a worth-while nation, we will be constantly assailed by economic forces to which the very lack of cohesion would leave us particularly vulnerable.
Finally, and in an awesome endeavour demanding a sense of responsibility which the importance of the question deserves, we are about to achieve that cohesion. However, even as I sense the euphoria of the moment, I am conscious-as, indeed, are all hon. members of the House-of the absence of one voice from the proclamation of common purpose. What is that purpose? It is to build a truly Canadian nation in which all its people will be known by their tolerance, fairness and determination to uphold the dignity and to acknowledge the intrinsic value of every man and every woman. It is on these very attributes of tolerance and fairness that I wish to dwell as I
believe they are the hallmark of the constitutional proposal now before us.
Perhaps I am in a unique position to be objective in analysing the Canadian identity for the simple reason that I am probably the newest Canadian in the entire House, inasmuch as citizenship was conferred on me only 11 years ago. Therefore, I am Canadian not by birth but very definitely by conviction. Unlike some people, I had a choice of countries to which I could have emigrated, and each of them probably could have offered me an equal amount of economic opportunity.
Why, then, did I specifically choose Canada? Fundamentally, it was because of my faith in Canada as an open, free, tolerant country which refused to remain prisoner of its own past but which was capable of reconciling the past with the present in one vibrant, throbbing hope for the future. I choose it too because of its immense size and the sense of grandeur, adventure and rich variety which that size denoted. In geography alone it offered me more wealth than any treasure trove of which I had ever read or dreamed. I believed that Canada would welcome me and my family, not despite our cultural background but, perhaps, even because of it. I believed that diversity was considered to be a challenge and even an asset rather than a pitiable or even contemptible liability. I believed that the only restrictions imposed on myself and on all members of my family were those of good common sense, our own ability and our own willingness to work.
My private faith in Canada and in the Canadian way of life has been fully justified. The daughter of a women who had to join the suffragette movement in order to obtain the right to vote is now, herself, a member of Parliament. The sister of a fully qualified veterinarian, denied a prominent government position because of his faith, can now proudly, and without fear of reprisal, claim from government benches, "I am a Catholic".
My personal odyssey through four countries has no doubt given me a perspective of freedom unseen by many who so blithely take freedom for granted. However, the same odyssey gave me an insight into other sections of the document now under debate when fate conspired to deprive me of some of my abilities. For years, I joined the ranks of handicapped people. This charter is eloquent testimony to the fact that a broken body does not denote a broken spirit. Human worth and dignity cannot and must not be governed by the outward condition or appearance.
Therefore, drawn to the freedom, tolerance and boundless opportunity which, for me, spelled Canada, 1 applied for and was granted Canadian citizenship. I so well remember the day on which I became a Canadian citizen because, for me, it was an occasion which prompted a very deep sense of marvel and gratitude and, at the same time, a particularly strong sense of responsibility toward the country which had so fully accepted me. However, even as I rejoiced that my own personal faith in Canada had been amply justified, I soon realized that many of the freedoms which I had enjoyed had been denied to others, because the freedom I had experienced came not from a
November 25, 1981

constitutional guarantee but merely from tradition. We all know that tradition cannot too often be broken.
Whereas my freedom had come with a sense of good fortune, I was determined, because it was my responsibility, to guarantee the freedoms of people who would come after me. Therefore, it was not a kind of Russian roulette where one wonders who will be free and who will not. On this momentous occasion, we are on the brink of guaranteeing those freedoms, not just to me but to all who come after us, and 1 am very, very proud of that.
Again, as a new Canadian, I spoke of the vastness of this country which had attracted me, the wealth and the diversity of it. As a new Canadian at the time of the referendum in Quebec, I was shattered. First of all, I marvelled. 1 thought, "How can people, born with this immense wealth, want to get rid of it and make the country smaller? How could people want to live only in a province and not in a great big country?"
I could not understand, for many, many months-perhaps I do not understand even to this day-those people who would want to make Canada smaller. I remember also that at that time, particularly in the House, we feared for the future of our country. We feared for Canada. I in recent days realized the analogy of what has happened. In Quebec the quiet women got together in what we now call the Yvette movement. Quietly and systematically they won over the male leaders of Quebec and made them accept the Canadian situation. That was a tremendous triumph for the women of Quebec. It was a tremendous triumph for all of Canada. I refer to that because what happened in the last few days has been woman power. We have achieved equality of the sexes in this Constitution. It is not really thanks to a few individual, isolated men who happen to be premiers of provinces, it is mainly due to the work of women who felt, just as I do, about the integrity and the intrinsic value of the human person.
If I can, I would like to direct my plea to the women in Quebec in particular to repeat what they did. The Yvette movement gave us and the rest of Canada the idea in the first place of sticking together to ensure that we can have a united country. I ask the women in Quebec now to please help us once again. I ask them to get all their power together to ensure that their leaders give to them the same equality that our leaders have done in the rest of Canada. I am sure they can do that.
I urge the immigrants of Quebec-and here again I can only speak to them in English-to use their power. They came to Canada with the same aspirations that I have. We are guaranteeing the rights that people like me enjoy. I want the immigrants in Quebec to realize that. 1 want them to go to Mr. Levesque to ask him what he is doing. I want them to ask him if he is not robbing them of their rights.
Now I want to speak directly to the women of Quebec. If they will forgive me, I shall try my fractured French to address them in their language.
The Constitution

1 too am a woman. I too am a mother whose aspirations are the same as yours for our children. I too am a Canadian. So, I invite you to join me in making sure that the whole Canadian family has a future filled with hope, tolerance and unlimited potential.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It arises out of comments made by the hon. member for The Batt-lefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish). I know members of the House would want accuracy to prevail. While I do not have the verbatim account of what the hon. member said, I believe that he made the point that the house of assembly in Newfoundland today voted or decided that if the word "existing" in Section 34 were not deleted, the assembly could not support Section 34. I want to tell the House and the hon. member-


James Ross Fulton: That is not what he said.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: 1 think what is important is that I do mention what happened, Mr. Speaker. There was an attempt to have the motion introduced, and the opposition did not give consent. It was on that basis that the motion did not go forward.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Anguish) whom I expect to finish the issue.


Douglas Keith Anguish: Mr. Speaker, I want the context of my speech to be accurate. At this time I will not withdraw what I said in my address this afternoon. However, if events over the next days prove that what I said was inaccurate, I will certainly stand up in the House at the appropriate time and withdraw any inaccurate statement I might have made. I do appreciate what the hon. member is trying to do.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, I feel especially privileged to take part in this constitutional debate in this House of Commons, the highest court of the Canadian realm. Without a doubt, of all the multitude of issues which have occupied the time, attention, talents and emotions of members over the past century, this issue has by far the greatest implications. The debate, which has been the preoccupation of the House despite obvious more pressing economic concerns, will define the future direction and complexion of this Canada of ours for all time to come. This is the ominous and vital context in which the whole Constitution matter must be judged.
As individuals, our characters are formed from the amalgam of all the inputs and actions which have gone into our development to this point. We are the product of parental guidance, of education, of spiritual conviction, of environment, of the influence of friends and of our community.
Similarly, Canada's character as a nation has been formed by our experience and traditions in living together as a federation. The substance of the original constitutional proposal was an attempt to repudiate the essential elements of the character

November 25, 1981
The Constitution
of Canada, the elements of experience in partnership and equality which are so essential in a federal state.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) took the highroad approach to this debate when he addressed the House last Friday. His comments and observations were compelling, made the more so by his stated intention to refrain from politically inspired rhetoric. That speech had a quality and depth befiting a national leader as he lay before the House and the nation the issues and the position of this party on some of the unresolved irritants to domestic peace and unity.
It is possible that I will wander from the highroad example of my leader. You see, I am an angry and not so young man. I am angry about what this and previous Liberal administrations have done to our nation, about what they have done and what they are still attempting to do. I am not alone in my resentment. I would think that never in the life of this nation has there been such widespread and justified unrest.
We have seen the anger of the native peoples of Canada and the anger of the women of Canada. It is hoped that the constitutional amendments announced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) will have soothed those angers and will provide the framework under which fair and equitable resolutions can be achieved.
This would be our wish, particularly for the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I, like all Members of Parliament, have received letters and personal representations from native people expressing their resentment or, as the tribal director of the Shuswap nation tribal council put it appropriately: "1 wish to convey my disheartened feelings." One letter especially gripped me. It was from the Nicola Valley Indian Fellowship, a group trying to improve the educational status of children within their care.
Barney Shackelly, the pastor, wrote in part as follows:
All we ask is that you and your party deal justly with this so-called new Constitution and be merciful unto the native peoples of our land, so-called Canada. Sincerely in Christ, Barney Shackelly, Pastor.
I trust that this constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights will mark the point from which native people can begin to feel they are being justly treated, but that it will also mark the point at which native people will feel full partners in society, receiving due recognition and-I think this is important-accepting a full position in the creative responsibility toward development of the total Canadian society, being prepared to live within the rules of society which attempts to produce the fairness and justice for all which native people have found lacking to date.
It is a situation which Parliament and the provincial legislatures are now attempting to redress. It would be tragic indeed if friction such as now exists in mobile home parks on the West Bank Indian Reserve were allowed to create blockage to the growing spirit of goodwill and supportive favour between aboriginal and other Canadians. Hopefully this will receive impetus from the supportive words and actions of all members of the House.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in his speech to the House last Friday put our party's position on aboriginal rights in the proper perspective when he said:
.. . the original people were here before our civilization. Our treatment, our meagre, mean treatment of them, has increased our obligation, not diminished it.
We cannot reverse history, but we can take account of it. A minimum step must be for this Parliament to put in a document that deals with the rights of our people and to acknowledge at least the particular rights of our first people to draw their life and their culture from what we made our land.
Now we still have with us the anger of the territorial government focusing on constitutional provisions which are seen as leaving them vulnerable to the ambitions of other jurisdictions and which fail to address their aspirations to develop into full partnership arrangements. This also must be addressed by the Governments of Canada under the authority now vested in the Constitution of our nation to produce changes and improvements in Canada through the process of negotiation, compromise and reconciliation, recognizing always the unique political situation occupied by the vast area of northern Canada.
We see the anger of labour as expressed in their march on Parliament Hill last Saturday. We have seen the anger of Canadians who are losing homes and businesses because of high interest rates. We have seen the anger of western Canadians take form in WestFed and other separatist-motivated organizations. This is an angry, resentful nation, and the very people who formed the Government of Canada, who are the root cause of the economic mischief that befalls Canada, had the effrontery in October, 1980, and through the months of constitutional debate to say to the nation, "Look, Canada, we alone have the knowledge of what is good for you. We alone possess constitutional wisdom. Premiers are unwise. Liberal Members of Parliament are omnipotent. In Canada's interests we are going it alone." This was the message that Liberal folly delivered to the nation in October, 1980. What pomposity from a government which has brought economic disaster to so many!
The anger of which I spoke was reflected in conversations with my constituents last weekend in Okanagan-Similkameen. Everywhere I went, the same was true. Businessmen, home owners, investors were hurt, frustrated and incredulous that disasters like this could happen to them in Canada.
How can the government face the people with an attitude of constitutional superiority when its direction for Canada over the past decade reveals a record of economic failure? The road to socializing Canada with ever-increasing government interference in the economic life of the nation and in the individual lives of Canadians was to have its great quantum forward leap through the Prime Minister's own personally conceived constitution. Thank God this was at least partially forestalled.
On January 20, 1981, at the meeting of the constitutional committee, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), in presenting our party's proposed amendment to a bad government initiative, said the following:
Mr. Chairman, in presenting our proposed amendments to the government's resolution, we do so in the knowledge that it is the popular will of Canadians that our Constitution rest in this country. It is also the popular will that we have a
November 25, 1981

Charter of Rights and Freedoms for the Canadian people embedded in the Constitution.
The Progressive Conservative Party's position in these matters reflects the popular will. The desire to enhance our freedoms is based on the strong traditions of our party. It was this party, through the vision and leadership of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, which gave Canadians their first Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights gave expression to the full citizenship Canadians desired. No longer were they hyphenated Canadians. The sovereignty of God over the nation was expressed. The family was recognized as the cornerstone of our society. The right to own personal property, so often denied in other countries, was guaranteed. Those principles are valid today; all amendments to the charter rest on that foundation.
The hon. member went on to say:
... we have listened to Canadians, and believe we have also listened to colleagues on both sides of this table. I believe the acceptance of our suggestions will save us from constitutional chaos and deepening national division.
It is unfortunate that it took a Supreme Court decision plus the outcry of the people, plus the concentrated effort of the official opposition in the House and in the Senate to cause the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Liberal members opposite to abandon their unilateralist role in the matter of the Canadian Constitution.
Western Canadians in particular were incensed by an amending formula which would have entrenched second and third-class status upon the provinces in which they hold citizenship, a citizenship which they hold dear, just as they hold dear their allegiance to Canada.
In the February, 1981, issue of The Presbyterian Record, Lloyd Robertson, who is anchorman on the CTV eleven o'clock newscast, wrote an article entitled "Viewing the West". In part, this is what he wrote:
At this time in the west, one reality overwhelms all others. In spite of the strident voices of the protest leaders, the vast majority of westerners are Canadians first. They are not greedy or unpatriotic. They will tell you repeatedly that all they want is a fair deal. It will take a long time and much more disenchantment to bring the majority close to the breaking point of separation. Nevertheless the seeds of discontent are there. They can be blown away by understanding, friendship and good old Canadian compromise.
So wrote Lloyd Robertson in February, 1981.
The truth of Mr. Robertson's conviction that the majority of westerners are Canadians first is evidenced by the accord reached in which premiers from the west, the centre and the Atlantic put the interests of Canada before narrow provincial ambitions. We applaud that spirit of compromise and accommodation which resulted in the resolution which is the subject of our debate in the House today.
I am proud that the Premier of British Columbia played such a distinguished role in producing the climate in which compromise was possible.
On February 9, 1981, as a member of the constitutional committee meeting in room 200 of the West Block, I had the opportunity to speak on behalf of the constituents I represent and the party to which I am proud to belong. At that time I said in part:
The Constitution of Canada should by its very nature be a unifying, inspiring document which should raise in all Canadians the passion of patriotic fervour; and I am appalled that this most significant action in the history of Canada's
The Constitution
Parliament should be the instrument by which discord and discontent is focused and intensified across Canada.
I went on to say:
It is with acute sadness and a degree of despair, I might say, that I must tell you that what has been done, and more especially the way it has been done, is totally unacceptable.
The announcement that the first ministers of Canada had reached an accord was a milestone in Canadian history which brought forth a great sigh of relief from Canadians from coast to coast. The more recent refinements and additions to that accord can only increase the level of satisfaction. I have shared in that immediate reaction, not because what was created by the Prime Minister and the premiers was perfect; quite the contrary, there are many Canadians, myself included, who have very grave reservations about this resolution. Those reservations extend far beyond the process employed by the government in its headlong reach for constitutional change, with all the many implications for change to the very character of Canada itself. These reservations extend indeed to the content itself.
I can do no better than to refer each hon. member here to the speech in the House yesterday by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), whose factual and comprehensive review of the resolution should be compulsory reading for all hon. members, most specifically those hon. members opposite whose euphoric description of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and what it offers to Canadians is based on a distortion of the present reality in Canada with regard to individual rights and freedoms. No country has a better record of respect for the individual than has our Canada. My analysis is that the charter mainly marks a new day for rights in Canada to the extent that the charter's provisions put into the hands of the courts, rather than the elected legislatures, the future direction of social policies in Canada. The hon. member for Saskatoon West said last night:
We will soon realize that the composition of the courts and the political and social beliefs of our judges will be an extremely important factor in the determination of the rights and prerogatives of citizens and institutions in the country. Indeed, the power of appointment of judges from time to time will be of immense importance in the ultimate determination and interpretation of fundamental rights in Canada.
I concur in that fully.
With the end of the constitutional confusion now in sight, where do we as a nation go from here? We have to be optimistic. We have very much going for us. We have to be optimistic because we will have a Canadian Constitution resident in Canada with an amending formula which recognizes the reality of Canada and respects the role of the provinces in the composition of our nation. We have to be optimistic because we have an amending formula which will preclude the type of arbitrary change which so recently threatened national unity and composure.
I know that time is moving fast and that I have only a few minutes left. Let me just say in closing that an hour ago we offered to vote on the subamendment, and I suggest that we move to that vote immediately.

November 25, 1981
The Constitution


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Once again 1 make the same offer to call the vote on the subamendment now.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was prepared to have the vote called 40 minutes ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on the amendment to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the subamendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


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


Madam Speaker:: The amendment to the amendment is defeated. Motion (Mr. Fulton) negatived.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I believe there is agreement among the parties. In the French version of the amendment the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) moved yesterday, the word "reconnus" was omitted in Section 35(1). Only the word "confirmes" appeared. By unanimous consent of the House, we should like the word "reconnus" to be added to the French text, at line 3 of Section 35(1).
November 25, 1981


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, we agree.


Ian Deans: We also agree, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: If everyone agrees, it is so ordered.
The Constitution
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 26, 1981