1981-11-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the serious economic conditions faced today by all segments of Atlantic Canada's Fishing industry, namely, our inshore and offshore fishermen and processors, brought about by high inventories, high interest rates, lower sales prices for fish products and higher wage and fuel costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax-East (Mr. Forre-stall):
That this government take steps to negotiate the lowering of tariffs placed on Canadian fish exports by the European Economic Community so that Canadians are competitive with the preferential rates given by the European Economic Community to Norway and Iceland.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, more than
5,000	General Motors workers will be laid off this Monday, and more are expected to follow before Christmas. In January and February, traditionally the slowest months in the automobile industry, we are told to expect further slowdowns accompanied by even further lay-offs. Industrial unemployment now stands at a staggering 280,000, and considering that a crisis situation will soon be upon us, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That this House instructs the government to take immediate action to avert the coming crisis in the automobile industry and that it now recognize the urgent necessity of an industrial strategy for Canada and a short-term policy to assist the automobile industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam
Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas a nation, in drafting its constitution, should do so with respect and in a spirit of generosity towards its minorities; and whereas it is vital to recognize more fully and to protect Canada's duality, I move, seconded by the member for Missis-quoi (Mr. Bachand):
That this House invite forthwith the Premier of Ontario, William Davis, to introduce in the Ontario Legislature now in session, a resolution to the effect that Ontario recognizes the linguistic duality of Canada and requests that it be bound by sections 14(2), 18(2), 19(2) and 20(2), which would make it possible for all French-speaking Canadians-wherever they may reside in Canada- when coming to Ontario, to have access to that province's parliamentary and judicial institutions and government services in the same manner as all Englishspeaking Canadians have had access to the same institutions in Quebec for over 114 years.


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.


APPLICATION OF OVERRIDE PROVISION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that Section 33 of the proposed Constitution resolution would
13296

November 26, 1981
permit provincial and federal governments to override and deny fundamental rights to Canadians, including freedom of conscience and religion, freedom of the press, freedom of association, and the right to protect from discrimination against the physically and mentally disabled, ethnic and racial minorities, the elderly, and possibly women, and in view of the fact that the federal-provincial accord refused to protect these groups from possible discrimination, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House urge the Minister of Justice to propose amendments to the constitutional resolution, eliminating the possibility of Section 33, the override provision, applying at the very least within federal jurisdiction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, it is now apparent why the government's budget has turned into such an unmitigated disaster. Senior officials of the finance department have advised the Canadian Tax Foundation that budget preparation was "characterized by a totally inadequate group" in the Department of Finance, and that budget changes were designed to increase budget revenues. This House was told that equity was the main thrust of this budget. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to withdraw the budget and to take another run at it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that Canadian veterans presently face such critical problems as excessive pension delays, the Hong Kong parasites disease and abnormally low pension levels, as well as the fact that many phone books in Canada fail to list a Veterans Affairs general inquiry phone number, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That in light of the present crisis confronting the Department of Veterans Affairs, this House instruct the Minister of Veterans Affairs to ensure immediately that all future phone books across the country will list in the government blue pages a general inquiries number so that Canadian veterans can approach the government with their problems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Hundreds of thousands of Ontarians have French as their mother tongue, and it is only fair to ask that their cultural heritage and language rights should be protected. Considering the fact that the government of Ontario persists in refusing to recognize the right of Franco-Ontarians to communicate with their government and legislature and with their Ontario courts in the official language of their choice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That the House of Commons amend the constitutional resolution to make Section 133 of the British North America Act, in other words, Sections 16 to 20 and 22 of the constitutional resolution, applicable to Ontario, and to provide for entrenchment of the language rights of Franco-Ontarians in the Charter of Rights and our Constitution.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. member. Pursuant to 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.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the
November 26, 1981

House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
An agricultural exhibition will be held in Montreal in the next few days. The federal government has already contributed $50,000, plus an additional $46,000 as an incentive to farm producers to participate in this exhibition and conduct a seminar on farm produce exports to benefit the Quebec agrifood industry. We are shocked to learn that the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Jean Garon, has just asked the federal government to abstain from participating in this exhibition. I move, therefore, seconded by the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Gourde) as well as the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the House condemn the Quebec government and urge the Canadian government to make every effort to ensure the participation of the federal Department of Agriculture in this exhibition, since Quebec farm producers play an important part in feeding our society and should not become hostages to the Quebec Minister of Agriculture.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that some 2,588 Quebec businesses have gone bankrupt during the first ten months of 1981, incurring total losses of $354 million, in view of the fact that such a disaster has particularly affected the Quebec economy where 40 per cent of Canadian bankruptcies occurred since January 1, even though 74 Quebec members are sitting on the government side, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the House condemn the Minister of Finance for his inflationary and irresponsible budget and ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to meet with his Quebec counterpart so that both governments may work together to really promote and develop the small and medium-sized businesses that are still in operation.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA POST
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, the President of Canada Post Corporation has been presented with a brief from the Gift Packaging and Greeting Card Association of Canada demonstrating dramatically the decrease in business with each increase in postal rates. Now with the proposed huge unjustified increase all at once, the outlook for the Canadian greeting card industry is not bright. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Government of Canada instruct the President of Canada Post Corporation not to enact the outrageous increase in postal rates at this time of high inflation, high unemployment and slow economic growth, and thus give Canadians, for a change, a break.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who undoubtedly noted the massive lay-offs which were reported this week, on top of lay-offs which were reported in the auto industry last week. Would the minister indicate how he explains that imports of Japanese cars in the first nine months of this year are up 118 per cent, when he assured the House only last June that he had an agreement that such imports would not exceed 10 per cent over last year?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the understanding of the Japanese is that they would restrain the level of exports to Canada to
174,000	for the period April 1, 1981 to April 1, 1982. The arrangement does not begin until the fourth month of 1981. My hon. friend is not counting the right period.


An hon. Member:: You are not counting the cars.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That being the case, we have been in touch with the Japanese to confirm that they will be maintaining their forecast of the level of exports which I have mentioned. They have assured us, in talks with my officials and with the

November 26, 1981
Oral Questions
Secretary of State for External Affairs, that they expect to maintain that forecast.


LEVEL OF TRADE BETWEEN CANADA AND JAPAN
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Surely he noted that in the first nine months of this year Japanese imports were up 56 per cent. Exports to that country were down in the same period. This leaves only a slight surplus of trade between Canada and Japan. If he has noted that, would he indicate to the House what steps he has taken to curtail this exportation of jobs to other countries from Canada? In short, has he given any thought to taking steps to having some of these Japanese products manufactured in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have been working to encourage the Japanese to establish facilities here or to increase their purchases from Canadian companies. In fact the other day my hon. friend talked about the Mitsui company and the $1.5 billion worth of business it does here. He neglected to mention that this was a great trading company. The total volume he mentioned reflects both their exports from and imports into Canada. This particular company has been responsible for the sale of hundreds of millions of dollars of Canadian products in Japan and other countries.


John Horton McDermid: How much in manufactured goods?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: My hon. friend neglected to mention that at that particular point in time.


An hon. Member:: What about coal?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In any event, we are continuing our efforts to increase our share of exports to Japan to be more in the area of manufactured goods. We continue to have a surplus with that country. I am wondering what my hon. friend is saying. Is it that Conservative members from British Columbia and the western provinces want to prevent any Japanese cars coming into the country? I presume that is now their official policy.


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON EMPLOYMENT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, again my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who wishes to deal in the figures which I put on the record only a few days ago. He must know that in the top Canadian companies there are eleven Japanese firms doing sales in Canada of $5 billion, yet they collectively employ fewer than 2,000 Canadians. Would the minister indicate to the House how he intends to continue supporting a policy
whereby tens of thousands of Canadian jobs are being exported to other countries while our unemployed go without jobs, as is being demonstrated with GM, Ford, and other concerns every week?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are working to increase the number of manufacturing jobs in the country, as demonstrated by projects like the KHD diesel engine plant in Quebec where there are to be 1,300 jobs, and as demonstrated by the Burrard Yarrows shipyard expansion with its hundreds of jobs in British Columbia.


Mr. Crosbie:: What about the St. John's, Newfoundland shipyard?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is exemplified, as the hon. member says, by the Saint John, New Brunswick, shipyard expansion, with hundreds of jobs there. It is exemplified also in a company I visited yesterday in St. John's, Newfoundland, Ice Engineering Ltd., which with the help of the federal government is expanding its operations in the advanced technology offshore area.
We are working to expand the number of manufacturing jobs in this country. My hon. friend is saying that, in spite of the commitment that he claims to an open trading system, he wants to put blockages in the way which cannot help but inhibit our ability to create more manufacturing jobs by selling more manufactured goods to Japan and other countries around the world. What hypocrisy, Madam Speaker!


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, that answer is so much hogwash. Since the last budget, which the minister himself supports, there have been over 100,000 lay-offs or jobs lost in southwestern Ontario alone, in sectors such as the auto industry, at Admiral, and so on. The minister is telling us that he is doing such a tremendous job in creating jobs. Would he tell the 100,000 people unemployed in the last two weeks alone why they will continue to be unemployed during Christmas?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are very concerned about these lay-offs. The basic approach of the budget is to create a climate to encourage further investment and economic activity to help these people get back to work. A basic approach of the budget is to reinforce the movement to reduced interest rates, which has been very much a pattern of our activity since August. We are working to help get people back to work.
A major cause of lay-offs is the downturn in the economy of the United States, our major export market. This is something on which unfortunately, this government has no direct hold. Perhaps my hon. friend should go to his colleagues in the
November 26, 1981

United States who practise Reaganite economic policies, which they love, and tell them, as did Mr. Stockman in that government, that they are not on the right track in so far as it pertains to Canada and other western countries.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, in the auto industry alone in the last ten days there have been over 12,000 lay-offs, again in southwestern Ontario. The minister should know by now that he has failed dramatically in his agreement with Japan. Imports are increasing on a monthly basis. Last month they increased by over 45 per cent from the month before. He should know that the only answer really is to increase the Canadian content in all offshore imports, particularly those from Japan.
A year ago the minister told us that his goal was to increase the Canadian content in Japanese autos. The Canadian content at that time was less than 1 per cent. Today it is far less than 1 per cent. I should like to ask the minister where he has failed. Has he changed his goals? What specific action is he going to take to increase the Canadian content in our offshore imports, particularly those from Japan?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the unfortunate lay-offs in the auto industry are due principally to the fact that 80 per cent of our production is exported to the United States market. That market is very weak. The administration of that country has admitted that it is in a recession.
As well, the restraint undertaking that Japan has entered into is for a 12-month period extending from April 1 this year to April 1 next year. Basically we are six months into that period. We have been expressing our concerns to the Japanese about the level of exports and they confirm their intention of meeting the forecast figure of 174,000.
With respect to increasing Canadian content in imported vehicles, we are continuing our efforts. We are discussing various projects with the Japanese companies. We have achieved one initial success in the area of increasing Canadian content in imported vehicles by the arrangement we entered into with Volkswagen a few weeks ago, an arrangement which will mean an increase in Canadian content over a few years to 84 per cent in their vehicles imported to this country. That is a much higher level of content than is required for motor vehicles manufactured here. I look forward to this agreement and the some 1,500 jobs involved in it-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -across the country, as being the harbinger of similar agreements to come. We are making progress in the area of Canadian content-


An hon. Member:: Speech!
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and we intend to make more progress.


Miss MacDonald:: Ask the unemployed.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF FEDERAL SALES TAX ON CANADIAN MANUFACTURED CARS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, that was one of the longest recorded announcements this House has ever heard. I listened to the minister with care, but it took some doing to concentrate on that answer within that period of time. However, it has been announced that 5,000 workers will be laid off by GM in Ste. Therese, in Oshawa, and in other communities in Quebec and Ontario. The minister has not said one thing today which will provide an additional job for them before Christmas.
I would like to ask the minister something very specific. Since the price charged to Canadian consumers for cars produced in Canada remains substantially higher than the price charged for the same cars in the United States, will the minister remove the 9 per cent federal sales tax on cars on the condition that that tax saving be passed on to the consumer, and on the further condition that the North American producers of cars in Canada start charging Canadians the same price they charge Americans?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the Minister of Finance listened to that representation very attentively, and he is in the best position to deal with this important matter of tax policy. However, I will say, in addition, that what we have been doing to reinforce the trend to lower interest rates should be strengthening the market for Canadian built cars in this country. I hope that the market in the United States for the 80 per cent of our production in this country exported there will also be strengthened, thereby bringing further help to auto workers in this country.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will give up on him and try the smiling Minister of Finance.


REQUEST THAT CANADIAN AND AMERICAN PRICES BE EQUALIZED
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, cars produced in Oshawa, Windsor or St. Catharines are sold in the United States for prices which are in the neighbourhood of $1,500 or less than the prices in Canada. Will the Minister of Finance take immediate steps to stimulate the market in Canada, to produce jobs, and to reduce the federal sales tax on the condition that the producers in Canada charge Canadians the same prices as Americans for those cars?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, that proposal would be quite the wrong thing to do at the present time. The hon.

November 26, 1981
Oral Questions
member has been urging me and the government over the past number of months to take measures, and to develop an economic policy which would have the effect of reducing interest rates and inflation in this country; especially interest rates, from his point of view. That is the type of policy which I have adopted. I believe that if I accepted the hon. member's approach, I would be co-operating with a reversal of the downward trend in interest rate reduction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE EFFECT OF PRICE EQUALIZATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I confess, and I am prepared to take a short lecture from the Minister of Finance, that I did not understand the connection at all between what I asked him and what he answered. Would he explain to the House why charging Canadian consumers the same price for cars produced in Canada as for those which are sold in the United States would cause interest rates to go up in this country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think that if the honourable member will refer to his question he will find that he talked about his stimulating demand for automobile sales.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It was to that aspect of the question that I was directing my attention.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice; however, in his absence I would ask the question of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister advise the House if the Criminal Code of Canada will still be the governing law concerning abortion after the constitutional package becomes law?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Yes, Madam Speaker, it is quite clear in my mind that the criminal power still remains with the federal government. In the unlikely case where any court would say the contrary, we could always "notwithstand" that particular judgment and go ahead and act on abortion in the way that this-


Mrs. Mitchell:: Oh, great!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Oh, there is a lady over in the NDP who is worried. Now, what is her point of view?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: An hon. lady!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: She is from British Columbia.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Vancouver, too!


An hon. Member:: B.C. is insulted.


An hon. Member:: Go back to B.C.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Any time. I would be happy to go back to B.C.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why not retire there?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: What about retirement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Most British Columbians are grown up people. If they realize what kind of members they have sent here, they would change their minds very quickly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark:: Try it, Pierre.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Keep going. I think we are winning.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope members opposite keep thinking they are winning. We are very happy with this opposition. We would like them to stay there forever.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the essence of the question is whether this House continues to have the right to deal with abortion, Madam Speaker, the answer is yes. It will be the Parliament of Canada which will still be writing the Criminal Code, and members of this House will have the responsibility, and I wish them well, in dealing with the problem of abortion.


Mr. Nielsen:: Is that a promise?


FISHERIES
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As the minister knows, the United Fishermen's and Allied Worker's Union was before our committee today and Dr. Pearse, the author of the Pearse commission report on west coast fisheries, was before our committee the other night. Dr. Pearse was unable to give us any indication, either in his report or in his
November 26, 1981

testimony, of what shape the fishing fleet would take after the proposed buy-back program, in other words, how many vessels of whatever type or gear types would be left in the fleet. Can the minister tell us whether the government knows what type of fleet would be there after the buy-back?
If the government does not know, can the minister tell us whether it is appropriate to proceed at the present time with the royalty provisions, which Dr. Pearse recommended, until we all know, including the fishermen on the west coast, what kind of fleet the government has in mind after completion of the program?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I did meet at considerable length with Dr. Pearse and representatives of the union. We discussed these very issues. I might say to the hon. member that nobody disagrees that the fleet, whatever shape it takes, will be smaller. In other words, the catching capacity simply has gone beyond the bounds of the potential of the biology. For that reason, we should not lose the opportunity to start reducing the size of the fleet. I have not yet committed myself to a royalty program. This is part of the ongoing discussion and consultation that 1 hope to continue in my forthcoming trip to British Columbia in the next ten days. But surely no one 1 have heard has advocated that the fleet in the B.C. fishery should not be reduced.


CONSEQUENCES OF PROPOSED ROYALTY PROGRAM
John Allen Fraser: May I say through you, Madam Speaker, to the minister that we would be interested in knowing whether the government, or for that matter Dr. Pearse, has any studies which indicate what effect the proposed royalty program will have on individual fishermen on the west coast? In other words, before any royalty program is considered, can the government tell us what effect that program will have on the type of gear that will be taken out of the fleet? That is a legitimate and a proper question, and I ask the minister to address himself to it.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, 1 would hope that if a Crown corporation were created, the board of that corporation would examine that sort of question. I, too, would be worried if the market forces were left absolutely free in this case, that a lot of the small marginal fishermen would be eliminated by "la force des choses", as we say. For that reason I would think that the input from fishermen, through their organization and through their representation on any body to emanate from recommendations in the Pearse report, would be so important. I think it is a matter of judgment. Certainly everyone agrees that some large units should be removed from the fleet, otherwise the individual small fishermen will bear the brunt of the program.


IMPLEMENTATION OF 1982 GROUNDFISH MANAGEMENT PLAN
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Oral Questions
When the minister spoke recently to the Prince Edward Island Fishermen's Association, according to the press he stated that the 1982 groundfish management plan will likely exclude all but the older offshore trawlers and the inshore fishermen from fishing in the Gulf.
Since the minister's statement includes all types of fishermen, and in light of present unemployment in the industry, can the minister tell us whether he has decided how many fishermen, and how many boats, both large and small, he plans to license for the Gulf fishery in 1982? Also, can the minister tell us how many deep sea trawlers that are licensed in continental France will be permitted to fish in the Gulf next year, or have they been excluded from the Gulf along with all large Canadian trawlers?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, consultations with the industry representatives, the provinces and the federal government took place over the past week. I have not yet seen the final report from the advisory groundfish committee meeting.
The question of the French vessels is very simple. They are there by treaty with Canada. Surely the hon. member does not advocate that we break treaties. As for the larger units which were asked to fish in the new 200-mile limit, where they have been fishing profitably, I do not think their real problems will be solved by 5,000, 6,000 or 10,000 tonnes of fish from the Gulf, in direct competition with the small boat fishermen. If the committee has recommended some leniency in this matter, I have not yet been told of it.


CLOSURE OF NOVA SCOTIA INSHORE FISHERY AREA
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I have one brief supplementary question for the same minister. In light of the minister's answer at this moment, why did the minister arbitrarily close down the inshore fishery in Nova Scotia in the area slated on the charts as 4VN, tying up the fleet of 28-foot boats operating out of Neils Harbour, Dingwall and Ingonish, with the excuse that they had caught 112 per cent of their quota, while at the same time the minister left open area 4T adjacent to his New Brunswick constituency, where I am informed the fishermen have caught 145 per cent of their quota?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I expect the odd slander in this House, but I did not expect that one from the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: It is the truth.


Roméo LeBlanc: The decision as to when to close down quotas are made by my regional director and his staff. They are made on recommendations of the biologist. They are also made with some reference to what kind of fishery the fishermen have had in the past season. I assume that they made this decision for exactly the same reasons.

November 26, 1981
Oral Questions MARINE TRANSPORT


SHIPMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA COAL TO JAPAN
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, our party believes that Canadian resources should be transported in Canadian built and Canadian crewed ships, especially when it comes to the upcoming energy megaprojects. Does the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce know whether Federal Commerce and Navigation Ltd. is presently building two 150,000 tonne bulk carriers in Belgium, and another two in Korea, to ship coal from northeastern British Columbia to Japan? Is the minister aware of this fact, and will the minister tell the House that he is prepared to have Canadian resources shipped in Canadian ships?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I am generally aware of those plans. I strongly support the over-all principle of having more of our resources processed and upgraded here, using Canadian skills and Canadian services. That is one of the major objectives of our industrial and regional benefits program that we announced last August. Also, in that connection, I want to remind the House that just the day before yesterday Gulf announced the building of a number of ships in Canadian shipyards. That is the trend we want to encourage.


POSSIBLE USE OF CANADIAN SHIPS TO TRANSPORT ARCTIC GAS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, that answer of the minister's reminds me of the fading old crotchety philosopher king who said it is often those who live at the foot of great mountains who are the last to climb the mountains. Let me invite the minister to climb a mountain.
In the Arctic pilot project, it is proposed to ship arctic gas from Melville Island to the Strait of Canso or to Gros Cacou-na, to be transshipped to the United States or shipped to Europe. That is again going to be done with foreign ships. Is the minister prepared to bring down an industrial strategy which will ensure that transportation of our resources from these great energy projects will be carried out in Canadian built and Canadian crewed ships?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I do not think that all elements of the Arctic gas project have been confirmed and finalized as yet, and the matter regarding the ships to be used remains an important one to be gone into. I just want to remind the House that a basic objective of the industrial benefits policy which we announced a few months ago is to ensure a full and fair opportunity on a competitive basis to Canadian workers and companies in Canada, and as far as I am concerned this certainly includes Canadian ships.


AGRICULTURE
Marcel Dionne: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that a symposium on livestock feed is now being held at the Conference Centre in Ottawa and that Quebec is not represented, considering that the Minister of Agriculture has given the Salon de l'agriculture $96,000 on behalf of the Canadian Government and that the Quebec Minister has asked Ottawa to stay home, and finally considering that Agriculture Canada supports agriculture in Quebec to the tune of $247 million, I would ask the minister of Agriculture whether he intends to go, nevertheless, to the Salon de l'agri-culture which is being held in Montreal for Quebec producers of farm products and for the agro-food industry in general.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I did attend the forage symposium that took place in Ottawa. There were Quebec farmers in attendance who wanted to learn as much as they could about modern technology in the production of food for their livestock. We still intend to attend the trade symposium we are putting on at the Salon de l'agriculture in Montreal, regardless of what the minister of agriculture for Quebec wants. We have participated in this program. We have given $50,000 in outright grants for this organization, and $46,000 in prize money yearly.
The people who exhibit at the agricultural show are from all over eastern Canada, so this is not a show that is isolated to Quebec. We have met with the farmers and they still want us to go there, so we intend to be there next Wednesday.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and it concerns the victims of urea formaldehyde. Nearly 500,000 people are affected by this problem in Canada and the Minister has said previously that he was in favour of an investigation being held to find out who is really to blame. The fact remains that thousands of Canadians and Quebecers are having to cope with this problem. I therefore wish to ask the minister whether he is prepared to help these people, who otherwise have no way of protecting themselves, by recommending that a special fund be set up to help them finance the necessary improvements in their homes, and depending on the
November 26, 1981

results of the investigation, the government will still be able to recover these amounts as soon as it finds out who are the real culprits.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well that the Canadian government has already acted responsibly by setting up an information centre in Ottawa which provides advice free of charge to all the victims of this product and who are seeking assistance and information from the government. The government has initiated a series of tests in some 2,400 homes in Canada for the purpose of making a scientific assessment of the effects of this product.
The government is spending several hundred thousand dollars on research through the National Research Council, in order to find ways of dealing with the effects in question. We have already said this was only the first step in a series of measures to help the people concerned. Tomorrow morning in Montreal, I am meeting with an association formed by the victims of this product. We shall be discussing what they expect the government to do and I shall ask them what recommendations they would have for the Canadian Government and the provincial governments as well, that is, what steps they would recommend that both levels of government take to correct the situation.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the hon. minister. Once again, I know the minister will tell us that he has ordered a lot of investigations. He knows perfectly well that these several thousand people are faced with financial problems. Could the minister tell us today whether or not he intends to recommend that a special fund be set up to give them immediate assistance, considering the fact that these people cannot spend the winter in these homes? 1 feel that this would certainly help those concerned to ask pertinent questions tomorrow when they meet the minister. They need financial support, and could the minister tell us whether or not he intends to take immediate action, in view of the fact that the government stands to recover this expenditure as soon as the investigation has revealed who are the real culprits? In any case, if the government is to blame, recovery would be unnecessary.


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I think that finding the guilty party is not terribly important for the victims of this product. I feel the most important thing is to give them technical advice,-


Roch La Salle: Money!


André Ouellet: -and help them solve this problem. That is why I will meet with them and I will discuss the problem with the persons concerned and not with Don Quixote types like the member for Joliette, who try to act on behalf of the real victims of this situation. I prefer to meet the people concerned instead of talking about them with the member for Joliette.
Oral Questions


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that his traders and the Bank of Canada yesterday and this morning interfered with the market so that treasury bills today sold at only slightly less than they did last week. I am wondering how the minister can explain to this House why he has deliberately kept interest rates higher in Canada than in the United States, and why Canadian treasury bills sell for 50 per cent more than American treasury bills?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the Canadian bank rate has dropped rather rapidly, and at the present time is at the lowest level it has been in the last year. Today the bank rate experienced a further drop, so I do not believe the hon. member has much foundation to argue that the governor of the bank is restraining a drop in the Canadian bank rate. The evidence is there before him.


EFFECT OF GOVERNMENT ACTIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister will know that the activities of his traders, and the advice given to the Canadian market place by the major banks would indicate that if it were not for his interference in the market, Canadian interest rates today would be at least 1 per cent lower than they are now. I want to know from the minister why he continues to pretend he is allowing the Canadian dollar and interest rates to float in Canada when he is deliberately trading in the market in such a fashion as to keep rates higher here than they need be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member that there is no intention on the part of myself or the Bank of Canada to prevent orderly reductions in the Canadian bank rate. The hon. member knows that it has always been the policy of the Bank of Canada on the exchange market to attempt to even out fluctuations in the value of the dollar. Occasionally these fluctuations have to be evened out on the money market as well.
The trend is downward. The bank rate went down further today. It is at the lowest level in a year. I am very delighted that that trend will continue and that the hon. member believes that there is further room for a descent in the value of the Canadian bank rate. I hope that he attaches that improvement very directly to the budget which I presented.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

November 26, 1981
Oral Questions THE BUDGET


EFFECT ON RETIREMENT INCOME OF FARMERS
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It arises out of an answer given yesterday by the Minister of Agriculture. The minister will be aware of the very serious situation which exists in contract annuities with regard to farmers and the sale of their farms, cattle, or the sale of their machinery, in taking from many farmers the only retirement savings plan they have. The Minister of Agriculture said yesterday that he would submit in writing a presentation to the Minister of Finance that came from Members of Parliament, different farm groups and accountants. I am asking the Minister of Finance what he is prepared to do for the farmers who find themselves in a very difficult situation in regard to his budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, there have been a number of questions raised in the House about the impact of the elimination of the income-averaging annuities. As the hon. member knows, the intention is to replace that system with a more equitable one called forward averaging. I believe that the new system will prove in the long run to be better than the income-averaging annuity contract system which the hon. member has mentioned. I want to add, as has been mentioned previously by myself, that 1 am quite prepared to hear representations-


An hon. Member:: You are hearing them.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -from various interest groups with respect to the impact of these tax changes on their situation. I made that indication quite clear in a press release issued last week, and applied it directly to the possibility of transitional rules for interest deductibility.
I am quite prepared to receive the representations of the hon. member and of the Minister of Agriculture and others with a view to improving the proposals which, in due course, will be debated before the House of Commons. The hon. member realizes that all these measures will have to come before a committee of the whole House and they will have to be discussed in detail.
In the meantime I will be considering all representations that will be made with a view to ensuring that the equity, which is my objective, will be fully implemented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It would be a shorter answer if you tell us what you are not changing.


MULTICULTURALISM
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: My
question is for the Minister of State (Multiculturalism). As part of his personal war on the media he gave a speech in Toronto on November 9 in which he criticized ethnic stereotyping in the media. He cited a number of advertisements which he called conspicuous examples of this. Why did the minister, when he gave those examples, not mention the most conspicuous example? A federal government advertisement for "Shop Canadian", which features a tailor named Rinaldo who speaks in heavily accented English, is an advertisement which was approved when the minister was responsible for government advertising. In particular, will the minister assure that in the future, before he attacks the media, his own house is in order first?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Madam Speaker, I hope, without sounding pious, I know more about the media than does the hon. member, having worked in it for a number of years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: I probably spend more time defending the media than the hon. member. Certainly if there is a case of that kind of stereotyping with the particular advertisement he mentioned, I will look into it and talk to my colleague, the Secretary State, because that is wrong if it is happening.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS APPLICATION OF NEW FORMULA TO HAVE-NOT PROVINCES
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the minister's budget, the new formula for equalization payments to the have-not provinces-to the disadvantaged provinces-will be based on the capacity of Ontario to raise revenues, rather than on a national average as has been the case in the past.
Will the minister come clean with the House and admit that, should the economy of Ontario continue to decline, the effect of this new formula will be that fewer provinces will qualify for equalization payments, and those that do qualify will receive less? Will he admit that the effect of the new formula will be to deny have-not provinces much-needed revenue?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, that will not be the effect. Under the new formula that has been proposed to the provinces, equalization payments as a whole will be increased in the first year by 15 per cent. If the hon. member looks at the transfers to all the provinces under the new proposals which I
November 26, 1981

had made to the finance ministers, every province stands to benefit, including the province of Prince Edward Island. I think that is the most important point that can possibly be made at this time. Under the new system all provinces will gain each year, more and more and more. That is the reality.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Stan Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the phantom Western Development Fund. On budget day, in briefings conducted by the minister's staff, it was stated that $81 million in compensation payments to farmers for the Soviet grain embargo came from the Western Development Fund. The Minister of Agriculture has denied that fact, saying that the compensation fund came from his spending envelope and not from the fund. Can the minister straighten this out by telling us exactly where the funds came from for the embargo payments?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will be glad to look into that question. Obviously there is a conflict of information. I would like to look at what the Minister of Agriculture said, and discuss the matter with my officials. After checking into it, I will be glad to give the hon. member the information.


PURPOSE OF FUND
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, since the Western Development Fund did not appear in the supplementary estimates, could the minister again straighten this out for the House by tabling the planning and disbursement of these funds so we can be sure that the Western Development Fund is not a Liberal party vote-getting slush fund?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, there is no danger that it will become that. No such funds exist within the Liberal party. I believe I have laid out, rather fully, in the budget paper entitled "The Budget in More Detail", the reprofiled Western Development Fund, which is intended to support western transportation and assistance to the native people. I believe all those facts are set out in that particular paper.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
Hon. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. It is in the nature of a supplementary to a question asked a moment ago by my colleague from Hillsborough about equalization payments.
Business of the House
Is it the intention of the government to effect net savings in payments to the provinces under the new equalization formula? I understood the Minister of Finance to say that the answer to that would be no, but I would ask him to clarify that for me. If the answer is no, would he give a guarantee to the provinces which are eligible to receive equalization that they will receive no less than they would have received under the existing formula? If they do receive less, will the government make up the difference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, it is not possible to give that assurance. It has been demonstrated that the present formula for equalization is unworkable. The best proof of that is that in the course of this session it was necessary to bring in a special law in order to prevent Ontario from receiving equalization to which it was entitled under the equalization formula. Therefore, I would argue that a formula is defective if you have to exclude any particular province arbitrarily. That is why it was necessary to bring forward a new formula based on the Ontario standard, in the belief that the province of Ontario has the fiscal capacity to provide a reasonable standard of public service and that it is the job of equalization to ensure that all provinces have that reasonable standard. That is what we propose to do.
However, I would attempt to assure my hon. friend by telling him that, regardless of the change in the formula, the equalization payments for the first year of the new formula will increase by 15 per cent. I believe that is a rather substantial rate of growth in equalization payments that would occur to the provinces year over year.


PETITIONS
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-sixth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) on Wednesday, November 25, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader the usual Thursday question with respect to business of the House. He will recall that he had already indicated we would be continuing the fifth day of the

November 26, 1981
Business of the House
budget debate tomorrow. However, he has indicated to me that that might be changed as the order of business for tomorrow. At the same time, he might indicate what the business will be as far as he can into next week.
In addition, may I suggest to the government House leader that we in this party are prepared to vote now on the amendment to the resolution by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, subject to the following. Ordinarily the next speaker recognized in the debate would be a member from the government side. The usual rotation would bring the order of speaking back to this side. I am therefore suggesting that after the vote he agree that I be recognized immediately following the vote as the first speaker on the resumed debate. If that is agreed, we are prepared to vote immediately on the amendment by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Mr. Deans:: Madam Speaker, that is a very appealing suggestion. I have one minor problem that I am sure we can overcome. We have a subamendment we would like to move to Section 34 that would take perhaps 15 minutes. I would ask if we could alter the suggestion by the House leader for the official opposition to allow 15 minutes for us to move a subamendment to Section 34 and have the vote take place at, let us say, 3.20?


Mr. Epp:: Madam Speaker, could the House be made aware of the essence of the NDP subamendment?


Ian Deans: Yes, Madam Speaker, I will be happy to make hon. members aware of the essence of it. The essence is to put a consent clause in Section 34.


Erik Nielsen: Normally, as a matter of courtesy we would have been supplied with copies of the amendment. I wonder if we might have a copy of the proposed amendment by the NDP?


Ian Deans: Always wishing to be courteous, Madam Speaker, I would be delighted to provide a copy of the subamendment.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, meanwhile I could perhaps answer the first part of the question put by the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. Regarding the business of the House, for today, I can inform the House that tomorrow and next week, if necessary, we shall continue the debate on the constitutional resolution moved by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). I hope we shall be able to finish this evening or tomorrow. If we do not finish tomorrow, we shall probably resume the debate next week. In the circumstances, contrary to what I said last week, tomorrow's debate on the budget has been postponed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mrs. Eva Cote (Rimouski-Temiscouata):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (D), 1981-82
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (D) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1982 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.
Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, following the tabling of the estimates, I move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (D), 1981-1982, tabled this day, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present to the Honourable the House of Commons in Parliament assembled a petition on behalf of my constituents.
The petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth: That certain residents of Red Deer, Alberta, are concerned about high interest rates and demand government action to alleviate the burden on ordinary citizens.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that in your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their plea and that you might use the discretionary powers vested in your office to allow discussion and referral to committee at the earliest possible
November 26, 1981

moment. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty, honour and pleasure to present a petition sponsored by the Ad Hoc Committee on Canadian Women on the Constitution which, under the leadership of one of my constituents, Mrs. Elizabeth Carr of Don Mills, Ontario, has obtained literally overnight 300 signatures from Torontonians who believe that the legislative override clause now in the constitutional resolution should be removed. It will be my hope that the nine provinces which signed the constitutional accord will also agree to these petitions.


PUBLIC PETITIONS TO PARLIAMENT
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-642, respecting the presentation of petitions to Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, presently there is no requirement for the government to take any action in terms of either acknowledging or reacting to petitions. This bill sets out guidelines which would result in petitions being a more effective democratic instrument than they are at present.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-643, to amend the Combines Investigation Act (promotional coupons and savings stamps).


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member not have a statement?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,985, 2,986, 3,026, 3,052 and 3,266.
I would ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Parliament of Canada under the House of Commons program at page 32.24, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the government account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts of a value more than $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Yvon Pinard: The
subject matter of this question falls within the administrative responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons. This information could best be made available to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts by the Speaker upon request.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Parliament of Canada under the Library of Parliament at page 32.24, volume II of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, with particular reference to other types of services (a) how does the government account for the increase in expenditure for the item over that for 1978-79 (b) what was the name of each type of service (c) what was the amount paid for each type of service and, for contracts of a value more than $2,000, to whom was it paid?


Yvon Pinard: The
subject matter of this question falls within the administrative responsibility of the Speakers of the Senate and of the House of Commons.
See reply to question No. 2,985 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Canadian Transport Commission hold a hearing in Whitehorse, Yukon in September, 1981 to determine why the White Pass and Yukon route railway should have more time to instal warning lights on crossings and, if so, what was the cost to the taxpayer of the hearing?
2.	Had the warning lights already been installed in the spring of 1980 and had they been in operation since that time?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. As provided for in Section 53 of the National Transportation Act, a hearing was held in Whitehorse on September 16, 1981, concerning the crossing protection over the White Pass and Yukon route railway at 4th Avenue in the city of Whitehorse. The cost of the hearing was $717.

November 26, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	The signal protection was operational as of September, 1980. However, as a result of the hearing it has been determined that modifications to the protection will have to be made.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	With reference to section 10.24 of the 1980 Report of the Auditor General, has the Canadian Pension Commission, since the release of the report, developed formalized standards for work processes within their control and (a) if so, what are they (b) if not, at what stage is the process?
2.	(a) Did the Department of Veterans Affairs consider setting down firm time guidelines for pension application processing and, if so, on what date will they be imposed (b) will there be self-imposed sanctions for failure to meet the guidelines and (i) if not, for what reason (ii) if so, what are they and will they help to shorten processing time periods?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Section 10.118 of the 1980 Report of the Auditor General recommended that the Canadian Pension Commission formalize processing time standards, to the maximum extent practicable, in all areas of the pension adjudication process under its control. Formalized standards have not yet been developed.
(a)	Not applicable-see above.
(b)	A control system is now in operation which enables measurements of performance. Based on the information provided by this process control system, the commission is working towards establishing formal processing time standards to the extent practicable for those processes within its control.
2. (a) The commission has under consideration the establishment of time guidelines for processing pension applications. No firm date has been established for imposing such guidelines. The Auditor General has recognized that, because of the very wide variation between pension applications, the development of specific time guidelines for their processing may be virtually impossible. The commission is attempting to develop an over-all average target time for the processing of applications.
(b) Because each case is different, there can be no sanctions for not meeting an over-all average target date in individual cases. Over-all production will be closely monitored and appropriate action taken if the average target times are not met.


Mr. Nielsen: 1.	With reference to the recent hearing held on September 16, 1981 in Whitehorse, Yukon by officials of the Canadian Transport Commission, western division, regarding an application for extension by the White Pass and Yukon route railway, file 49135.13, for the installation of flashing lights in the city of Whitehorse (a) what was the cost of the hearing (b) what were the names of all employees of the western division of the commission who attended the hearing and what was the total cost incurred for their attendance?
2.	Was the installation completed on August 31, 1981 and, if so, what was the purpose of the hearing on September 16, 1981 to grant an extension of time in order to complete the installation on October 19, 1981?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Canadian Transport Commission
advises as follows: 1. (a) See answer to question No. 3,026 answered this day. (b) The western division of the commission was represented by Mr. B. Wolfe; costs were $717.
2. See reply to question No. 3,026 answered this day.


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


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, I have brought up the question of the written questions Nos. 2,035 and 2,519 on three previous occasions. Qn each occasion the parliamentary secretary has said: "I will take note of his representations and make inquiries". I wonder if the hon. member can tell us what kind of answer he gets to those inquiries?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I will take further note. I am still awaiting the response of my earlier inquiry.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I asked the parliamentary secretary last week to check into question No. 1,795 which I placed on the Order Paper over a year ago. It is a fairly routine matter. It asks: "Are private organizations receiving federal grants for research and development?" I wish the hon. member had given me some kind of an answer about what the department said. Are they providing grants for research or are they not providing grants for research?


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, again I will look into this matter and take note of the hon. member's representation.


Mr. Blackburn:: Madam Speaker, I, too, would like to ask the parliamentary secretary a question concerning question No. 2,250 which is in my name and goes back to March 13, 1981. This is the second time I have had to ask the parliamentary secretary why this question has not been answered. It may be a little sensitive for the Solicitor General, but I would like to remind the hon. member that the Solicitor General said he would give top priority to launching an investigation in this country to see if any former Nazi war criminals are in this country and what measures he would be prepared to take to bring them to prosecution and trial. I have now been waiting over eight months for a reply. I would respectfully ask the parliamentary secretary to get in touch with the Solicitor General so that this question can be answered and answered openly.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will pass on that representation to the minister.


Mr. Crosby:: Madam Speaker, on July 11, I placed a question on the Order Paper concerning one C. Arnold Patterson and his employment in the office of the Prime Minister, to date I have received no reply, although subsequent questions that I placed on the Order Paper have been answered. Madam Speaker, the matter has come to the fore because that same Mr. Patterson is now appearing before the CRTC seeking an application for a television licence for the City of Halifax. Part of the relevance of the question that has now come to the forefront about this same C. Arnold Patterson is that he may
November 26, 1981

have been guilty of a breach of conflict of interest provisions pertaining to employment in the Prime Minister's Office because of his involvement at that time in the broadcasting business.
1 think it is very important that this question be answered. It is a simple question and dates back in time to March of 1979 when similar questions were not answered. It seeks only factual information. It can be answered very briefly and very quickly. I wonder why the government does not see fit to answer this vital question.


David P. Smith: I will look into this matter and make a representation to the minister.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I understand that the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands will be moving the subamendment referred to a moment ago by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain. The hon. member said that the matter would take about 15 minutes.
If there is general agreement that immediately following the vote or votes I would be recognized as the first speaker on the resumption of the debate of the main resolution, we are prepared to agree to the motion being made and spoken to by the mover, that we have the right of response by one of our members, and then naturally the government would have the right of response through the minister, whom I assume would respond to it. Then the votes would both be taken on the proposed subamendment and upon the amendment of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Subject to those stipulations, we would be prepared to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain.


Yvon Pinard: Do you agree to that?


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, we have absolutely no objection to the situation as described by the House leader for the official opposition. We will be happy to have our amendment put as quickly as the Chair calls the order, and we can dispose of it as quickly as hon. members will allow the disposition to take place.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, now that my friends are agreed, I certainly do not want to break up this happy alliance, and we shall support the proposal made by the member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I do hope, however, that when the hon. member speaks after the vote on the amendement, we can then expect to have speeches of not more than twenty minutes, and
Business of the House
that if the member for Yukon moves an amendment, it will comply with the accord between the provinces and the federal government. I am not making this a formal condition, but it would show whether the Progressive Conservative Party is serious in its desire to expedite the debate so that we can complete it this week, or whether he is just trying to play for time.


Erik Nielsen: No, Madam Speaker, I hope that that was not a condition. The amendment that I would be proposing, when recognized immediately following the vote on both the subamendment and the amendment of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, would be calling for the deletion of Clause 41, subclause (1), paragraphs (e) and (f) of the resolution having reference to the extension of provincial boundaries northward and subjecting the creation of new provinces to the amending formula. That is the nature of our amendment.
What I have to say on behalf of this 40 per cent of Canada and these two territories would go beyond 20 minutes. I fully intend to use the 40 minutes to speak on behalf of those northern Canadians who have not yet been heard at all in this process.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it has become obvious that the amendment that the hon. member intends to move will not reflect the accord. It has also become obvious that the hon. member does not agree to 20 minutes speeches. This is a clear indication that the Tory party does not intend to have this debate end in a reasonable length of time. Nevertheless, we are willing to vote on the subamendment and on the amendment, as suggested by the hon. member for the Yukon.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to respond briefly to the comments of the Hon. President of the Privy Council and allay one fear which I read into them, and that is that the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Yukon would break the accord.


Yvon Pinard: Right.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I want to indicate to him that while he may have that fear-and I will not try to dissuade him otherwise-there has been work done regarding Section 41.


Erik Nielsen: We have been working.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I do not want to leave him with the impression that all the "t"s have been crossed and all the "i"s have been dotted. That work is still continuing. I would ask him not only for patience but also for the good will which we are, frankly, trying to show to see if we cannot resolve this issue in the Parliament of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: In the same way as it was done for women's rights and native rights.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Therefore, it would allow the people north of 60 the same good will and the same feeling toward a new Consti-

November 26, 1981
Business of the House
tution for Canada as we hope all Canadians will have when this matter is completed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not question the good faith of the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), but there have been incidents since this debate, which was supposed to last two days according to the previous agreement, was resumed. So many incidents, in fact, that we have the impression the Progressive Conservative Party is not interested in having this debate come to an end within a reasonable period of time.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, that is the first note of rancour which I have heard injected into the debate since it started a few short days ago.


John Horton McDermid: It is very unfair.


Erik Nielsen: I do not think the government House leader is justified in making a charge such as that, since we voted on one of the amendments yesterday, we will be voting on a new subamendment of which we had no knowledge until it was announced today, and we will be voting on the main amendment to the resolution of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. All of the offers to vote, both yesterday and today, have come from this party.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there could be 100 amendments and 100 subamendments. We on this side have always wanted, when dealing with amendments and subamendments, to respect the accord. I am saying that all attempts to move amendments and subamendments which go against the accord are a clear indication that there is not the will to conclude the debate in a reasonable length of time.


Erik Nielsen: Nonsense!


Yvon Pinard: We will have a better idea at the end of the
day.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I want to assure both the House leader of the government and the House leader of the official opposition that we would be quite prepared to sit down to work out any necessary arrangement to allow all outstanding amendments to be dealt with and for the final vote on the constitutional package to take place very quickly. I am available; I will be here all day today, tomorrow, Saturday and Sunday. If they need any help, they can give me a call.


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


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, now that is the kind of good faith and good will we expect from the Progressive Conservative Party. If the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party could show the same flexibility and the same good faith, I would have to take back what I said earlier. But if he does not, we shall draw our own conclusions.


Erik Nielsen: I really do not know what the Grit House leader has in mind when he says that.


Mr. Cousineau:: What is in your mind?


Erik Nielsen: I am on the record of yesterday as making two attempts to get the vote taken, the second of which was finally accepted. I am on the record of today as making an offer to vote on the main motion. That offer was not accepted. As I said, we were prepared to get it out of the way right after question period. What is causing the hold-up? It is another subamendment from those hon. fellows on my left. Who is acting in good faith here, when the suggestions are coming from this party?
The hon. minister knows, without being told by me now, that I am available at any time. Indeed, I have made some suggestions to him which he well knows on the score of arranging debate and voting on the amendment. I did that long ago.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: This sounds like kindergarten.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member will just stop his yapping and listen a minute, he might learn something. We are still available to conduct any meaningful negotiations in the spirit in which negotiations are normally carried on in House leaders' meetings, where discussions are kept confidential. I am sure we can work out an arrangement for handling the remainder of the debate. It is up to the government House leader to call House leaders' meetings. He knows that I am here every day and throughout the weekend as well.


Yvon Pinard: We have agreed to keep confidential what is discussed in House leaders' meetings.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Well done.


Yvon Pinard: What is not said cannot be kept confidential. The hon. member said that he made proposals to organize debate on the main resolution. I do not think I am betraying the secrecy of our meeting by saying that that is not my understanding. On the contrary; his contribution has been clearly established and defined by my hon. colleague of the NDP yesterday and today in the House.


Erik Nielsen: Your bedmate.


Yvon Pinard: If he is now considering discussing seriously the conclusion of the debate, not on subamendments or amendments but on the main resolution, in a reasonable length of time, it is good news for me. I am willing to discuss that with him right now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Any time, any time.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Anywhere, any place.


Erik Nielsen: Anywhere, any place, 24 hours a day.
November 26, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I should just like to say to those two cosy partners that I will not interfere with them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Often I feel that three is a crowd, but in this situation I do not at all. I point out that both subamendments on the motion have been from the little red rump, not from here.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I should just like to make one point about the cosy arrangement. I was not party to the discussions today between the House leader of the official opposition and the House leader of the government when they arranged what was put on the floor of the House by them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) is absolutely right. However, I did
The Constitution
inform him of my conversation with the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party.

In answer to the offer of the hon. member for Yukon, I am willing to meet him right now in my office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 25, consideration of the amended motion of Mr. Chretien:
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the . recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
CONSIDERANT :
que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a modifie a plusieurs reprises la Constitution du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-tement de celui-ci;	5
que, de par le statut d'Etat independant du Canada, il est legitime que les Canadiens aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur Constitution au Canada;
qu'il est souhaitable d'inscrire dans la 10 Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance de certains droits et libertes fondamentaux et d'y apporter d'autres modifications,
15 il est propose que soit presentee respectueu-sement a Sa Majeste la Reine l'adresse dont 15 la teneur suit :
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Majesty, requesting that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the U nited 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 congu :
November 26, 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 1'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 Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for and shall have the force of law in Canada	et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur
and shall come into force as provided in that	conformement a ses dispositions.
Act.	25
1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20 Adoption dc la cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada umneltede
2. No Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act, 1981 comes into force shall extend to Canada as part of its law.
2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Cessaiiondu Royaume-Uni apres 1'entree en vigueur de la 25 £,ur ie Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas Canada partie du droit du Canada.
3.	So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30	3. La partie de la version fran?aise de la
B, the French version of this Act is set out in	presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a force
Schedule A to this Act and has the same	de loi au Canada au meme titre que la 30
authority in Canada as the English version version anglaise correspondante.
thereof.
4.	This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi: Loi sur
Act.	le Canada.
Version
fran^aise
Titre abrege
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
The Constitution
SCHEDULE B	ANNEXE B
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981	LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981
PART I	PARTIE I

[Stage Direction]
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and	|. The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Canada4
*
* * * 15"" 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.

[Stage Direction]
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit :
Garantie des droits et libertes
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Droits et 5 libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 Canadaa" 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
Fundamental
freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- 10	2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales
tal freedoms:	suivantes :
Libertes
fondamentales
(o) 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
Democratic rights of citizens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
3.	Every citizen of Canada has the right to	3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote	20 D;oitsvote in an election of members of the House	et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede-	desdtoyens1
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciales.
to be qualified for membership therein.
4.	(1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre Mandat
legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assemblies legislatives Tsse^biLt"
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.
Continuation in special
circumstances
(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 specidle'
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 aulegislature 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 26, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
5.	There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
Mobility Rights
6.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
The Constitution
l'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre des communes ou de l'assemblee legislative.
5.	Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueiie nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5
5 douze mois.
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
6.	(1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Liberte de demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en circulat,on 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 L a lsstmtn resident of Canada has the right	lOau Canada ont le droit:
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(ft) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any 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 (ft) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.	25
Restriction
a) de se deplacer dans tout le pays et d'etablir leur residence dans toute province;
ft) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3)	Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe (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;
ft) aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25 de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
(4)	Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas Programmes de
pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou sociTie"0"
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has 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 and security of the person and the right not
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a ce droit qu en with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 vie-lib,crt«et
.	,	. ,	,	securite
la securite de sa personne; ll ne peut etre droit qu'en conformite
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 40 abusives.
Fouilles, perquisitions ou saisies
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la Detention ou
°	,,	[DOT]	, .	-	emprisonne-
40 detention ou 1 emprisonnement arbitrages. ment
trarily detained or imprisoned.
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
Arrest or detention
The Constitution
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(а)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(б)	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
10. Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation Arrestation ou .	..	.	detention
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 cas echeant, sa liberation.	10
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
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
(gj not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and (/) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the 45 lesser punishment.
11. Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affaires
t	/	criminelles et
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penales 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;
J) sauf s'il s'agit d'une infraction relevant de la justice militaire, de beneficier d'un proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prevue pour Tinfraction dont il est accuse 30 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave;
g)	de ne pas etre declare coupable en raison d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 35 tuait pas une infraction d'apres le droit interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n'avait pas de caractere criminel d'apres les principes generaux de droit reconnus par Tensemble des nations;	40
h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement acquitte, d'autre part de ne pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement 45 declare coupable et puni;
/) de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est
November 26, 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
12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
14.	A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
The Constitution
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.
13.	Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi- 5T«moignage
r	.	. [DOT]	„	j	[DOT]. . [DOT] *[DOT] -	incriminant
5 gnage incriminant qu ll donne ne soit utilise pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
10	14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent 10 interprete
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 interprete.	15
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-	Egaiitcdevant
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 101 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) Subsection (1) does not preclude any (2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet25Pr°grammesde law, program or activity that has as its object d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites sociTie' °n 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$ais et l'anglais sont les languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un status and equal rights and privileges as to	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant
their use in all institutions of the Parliament	a leur usage dans les institutions du Parleand government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
Langues officielles du Canada
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le fran?ais et 1'anglais sont les langues Lan^c^ ^ languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un Nouveau-1* equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-wick.	Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
(3) La presente charte ne limite pas le pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de 5 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de 5 statut ou d'usage du fran§ais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran$ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra-vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10
or French in any debates and other proceed- $ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de ings of the legislature of New Brunswick.	la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en fran$ais et en 15 versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes the legislature of New Brunswick shall be	rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla- 20
printed and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes
and both language versions are equally 20et publies en fran?ais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et cedes des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	25
19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament.
(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.
19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran?ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le 25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure qui en decoulent.	30
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran-?ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Brunswick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui en decoulent.	35
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 l'emploi du fran9ais ou de 1'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra-tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a 1'egard de tout autre bureau de ces institutions la ou, selon le cas :
a)	l'emploi du fran?ais ou de l'anglais fait
l'objet d'une demande importante;	45
b)	l'emploi du fran^ais et de l'anglais se justifie par la vocation du bureau.
Progression vers I'egalite
Travaux du Parlement
Travaux de la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick
Documents
parlementaires
Documents dc la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick
Procedures devant les tribunaux etablis par le Parlement
Procedures devant les tribunaux du Nouveau-Brunswick
Communications entre les administres et les institutions federates
November 26, 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 frangais 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 frangaise ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 5 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 Droiis 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 15before 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 autresnot English or French.	que le frangais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Droits a I'instruction dans la langue de la minor it e
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 (A) 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
-x ,	[DOT]	d'instrin
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et2U encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont regu leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en frangais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont regu cette instruction est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province,
ont, dans l'un ou l'autre cas, le droit d'y 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	Cominuite
has received or is receiving primary or	a regu ou regoit son instruction, au niveau	fangm-0'de 'asecondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en frangais 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 26, 1981
Application where numbers warrant
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justice into
disrepute
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
The Constitution
(3)	The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)	applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of 10 minority language instruction; and
(b)	includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided 15 out of public funds.
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana-diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite 5 francophone ou anglophone d'une province :
a)	s'exerce partout dans la province ou le nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics, de l'instruction dans la langue de la 10 minorite;
b)	comprend, lorsque le nombre de ces enfants le justifie, le droit de les faire instruire dans des etablissements d'ensei-gnement de la minorite linguistique finan- 15 ces sur les fonds publics.
Justification par le nombre
Enforcement
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola- Recours cn cas as guaranteed by this Charter, have been	tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui	droits et libertes
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.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsec- (2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au ^"^vabiMie tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was	paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des	preurequi C
obtained in a manner that infringed or 25	elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 ^°™"lrde
denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by	conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou	radmfnisTraiicnthis Charter, the evidence shall be excluded	libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces	deia justiceif it is established that, having regard to all	elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli,the circumstances, the admission of it in the	eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisaproceedings would bring the administration 30 tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi-30 of justice into disrepute.	nistration de la justice.
General
Dispositions generates
25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit certains droits et libertes ne porte pas atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux, issus de traites ou autres-des peuples35 autochtones du Canada, notamment :
a)	aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
b)	aux droits ou libertes acquis par reglement de revendications territoriales.	40
Maintien des droits et liberies des autochtones
25.	The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and	40
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26.	The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas Mbeues r°'$ C﻿November 26, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Multicultural
heritage
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
Application to territories and territorial authorities
Legislative powers not extended
Application of Charter
Exception
Exception where express declaration
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
The Constitution
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
27. Toute interpretation de la presente charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro-5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
Maintien du
patrimoine
culturel
28. Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
28. Independamment des autres dispositions de la presente charte, les droits et libertes qui y sont mentionnes sont garantis egale-lOment aux personnes des deux sexes.
Egalite de garantie des droits pour les deux sexes
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.
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.
Maintien des droits relatifs a certaines ecoles
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.
Application aux territoires
31.	Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
31.	La presente charte n'elargit pas les competences legislatives de quelque orga-nisme ou autorite que ce soit.
Non-elargissc-ment des competences legislatives
Application of Charter
Application de la charte
32. (1) This Charter applies	25
(a) to the Parliament and government of Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and	30
(ft) to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec-35 tion 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
32. (1) La presente charte s'applique :	25 APP|ica|'°n 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), l'ar- Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Fen-35 tree en vigueur du present article.
33.	(1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature	Derogation parprovince may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est	expresse'0"Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de may be, that the Act or a provision thereof	ses dispositions a effet independamment 40shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de 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 26, 1981
Operation of exception
Five year limilalion
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.
(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.
(2)	La loi ou la disposition qui fait l'objet d'unc declaration conforme au present article ct en vigueur a l'effet qu'elle aurait sauf la disposition en cause de la charte.
(3)	La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) cesse d'avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en vigueur.
Effet de la derogation
5 Duree de validite
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov- 10	(4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut Nouveiie
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au ioadopt,on 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 Duree de declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- va 1 1 c graphe (4).
Citation
Tit re
34.	This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
15	34. Titre de la presente partie:
canadienne des droits et libertes.
Charte 15 T'tre


[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 Fegalite 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 l'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 Icrvices publics 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 35en mesure d'assurer les services publics a un35 levels of taxation.	niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement
comparables.
November 26, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Majority of members


[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.
The Constitution PARTIE III

[Stage Direction]
36. (1) Dans l'annee suivant l'entree en	Conference
vigueur de la presente partie, le premier	constitutionministre 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-15ciper 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 des temto,res
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


[Stage Direction]
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- mutation 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 l'epoque, 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 26, 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 assemblies 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 lOrisolution adoptie a la majoriti des diputis, 10 to the issue of the proclamation to which the	sauf si cette assemblie, par risolution igaleamendment relates unless that legislative	ment adoptie a la majoriti, 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 risolution de disaccord visie au jfsv^"d paragraphe (3) peut etre rivoquie a tout 15 LSJL' moment, indipendamment de la date de la proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20	38. (1) La proclamation visie au paragra- Restriction
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration	phe 37(1) ne peut etre prise dans I'annie
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-	suivant l'adoption de la risolution a l'origine 20
tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la procidure de modification que si 1'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	semblie ligislative de chaque province a
each province has previously adopted a reso- 25 prialablement adopti une risolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de disaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visie au paragraphe 25 Mem 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 risolution a l'origine lution initiating the amendment procedure 30de la procidure de modification, thereunder.
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation subsection 37(1) that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformiment au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d'iducation ou dans d'autres domaines cultu-reasonable compensation to any province to rels, a un transfert de compitences ligislati-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- undmme 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 26, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
(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 egat a celui des senateurs par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre representee lors de l'entree en vigueur de la 5 presente partie;
c)	sous reserve de l'article 42, l'usage du frangais ou de l'anglais;
d)	la composition de la Cour supreme du
Canada;	10
e)	la modification de la presente partie.
41.	(1) Toute modification de la Constitu- Procedure tion du Canada portant sur les questions m^lcation suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-phe 37(1):	15
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 de 20 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 l'alinea 40d), 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).
42. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including
(a)	any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
(b)	any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons
42.	Les dispositions de la Constitution du 35 Modification; 35 Canada applicables a certaines provinces certain^ seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par provinces proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des 40 4Q communes et de l'assemblee legislative de chaque province concernee. Le present article s'applique notamment:
a)	aux changements du trace des frontie-res interprovinciales;	45
45 b) aux modifications des dispositions relatives a l'usage du fran?ais ou de fanglais dans une province.
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 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- Modification lature a competence exclusive pour modifier Tegisiauires 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 15 Possibilil6de dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre revoca '°n revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.
46. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada made by proclamation under section 37, 40, 41 or 42 may be made without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred and eighty days after the adoption by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.
20	46. (1) Dans les cas vises a Particle 37, 40,
41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut20 d'autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n'a pas adopte de resolution dans un delai de cent quatre-vingts jours suivant Padoption de celle 25 de la Chambre des communes et si cette derniere, apres Pexpiration du delai, adopte 25 une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens.
Modification sans resolution du Senat
(2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in subsection (1).
(2) Dans la computation du delai vise au Computation
[DOT]	\	du delai
paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est proroge ou dissous.	30
47. The Queen's Privy Council for 35 47. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le	Dre0™^,focn
Canada shall advise the Governor General to Canada demande au gouverneur general de	proc ,mdtlon
issue 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- 35 mation 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 26, 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]
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:
"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;
(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.
The Constitution PARTIE V

[Stage Direction]
49. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification de (anterieurement designee sous le titre: Acte constitution-de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) 5 mile de 1867 est modifiee par insertion, apres Particle 92,
5 de la rubrique et de Particle suivants :
«Ressources naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestieres et energie electrique
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque pro- Competence
.	/	*	.	i / * /*/ provinciate
vince a competence exclusive pour legite-rer dans les domaines suivants :	10
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.
(2)	La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiferer en ce qui con- provinces cerne Pexportation, 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.
(3)	Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas 35 p°"™rJtu atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- a c 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.
80106-14
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
(4) La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de taxation :
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.
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 pnm'l'rt>
annexe.	25
Existing powers or rights
(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."
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent Pouvoirsou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus r0lts '_,llslJ par la legislature ou le gouvernement d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*	30
Idem
50. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Schedule:
50. Ladite loi est en outre modifiee par idem adjonction de 1'annexe suivante :

[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
«SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres
1.	Pour l'application de Particle 92A :
a)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non renou vela- 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 26, 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 constitute de billots, de poteaux, de boislO 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.*
PART V[

[Stage Direction]
DISPOSITIONS GENfeRALES
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 Primau,a de la
..	j [DOT]	/	.	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
a)	la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la 20 presente loi;
b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figurant a l'annexe I;
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 Abrogation et
Column i of Schedule I are hereby repealed enumeres a la colonne 1 de l'annexe 1 sont I'OUVCJU 1 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 1 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'annexe I 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
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 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(l)(a) in respect of Quebec
Authorization of Quebec
The Constitution
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
Tindication 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.
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.
53. La partie III est abrogee un an apres Abrogation et 1 entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le qui en 5 gouverneur general peut, par proclamation 5 decouient 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.
10	54. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada 10 version
est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs ce^nTtextes delais, la version fran9aise des parties de la constitutionneis Constitution du Canada qui figurent a Pan-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 Pepoque a la modification des dispositions constitution-20 nelles qu'elle contient.	20
55. Where any portion of the Constitution 55. Les versions fran?aise 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 Padoption, dans le cadre de Particle 25 versions of that portion of the Constitution	54, d'une partie de la version	fran$aise de laare equally authoritative.	Constitution, cette partie	et la version
anglaise correspondante.
Versions fran^aise et anglaise de certains textes constitutionneis
56. The English and French versions this Act are equally authoritative.
of 56. Les versions frangaise et anglaise de la 30 presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
Versions fran?aise et anglaise de la presente loi
57.	Subject to section 58, this Act shall 57. Sous reserve de Particle 58, la presente Entree en
come into force on a day to be fixed by	loi entre en vigueur a la	date fixee par pro- v'8ueurproclamation issued by the Queen or the	clamation de la	Reine	ou du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Canada.	35
58.	(1) Paragraph 23(l)(a) shall come 58. (1) L'alinea 23(l)a) entre en vigueur 35 Entree en
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
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1)	(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe
shall be issued only where authorized by the	(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation 40
legislative assembly or government of	de Passemblee legislative ou du gouverne-
Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
vigueur ae I'alinea 23( I )a) pour le Quebec
Autorisation du
November 26, 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 1'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 Consli- 59. Titre abrege de la presente annexe :	Tllres
tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts Loi constitutionnelle de 198L, 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 26, 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,	Section 1 is repealed and the
34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1871."
6.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873
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,
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 26, 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 Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 remplace par ce qui suit:
«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.*
(2)	L'article 20 est abroge.
(3)	La categorie 1 de Particle
91	est abrogee.
(4)	La categorie 1 de Particle
92	est abrogee.
(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba et remplace par ce qui suit:
*Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba.*
(2)	L'article 20 est abroge.
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'tle-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873
L'article 1 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1871 place par ce qui suit:
«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.*
Conditions de l'adhesion de l'ile-du-Prince- Edouard
7.	Acte du Parlement du Canada, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (R.-U.)
8.	Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant dans l'Union tous les ter-ritoires et possessions britanniques dans l'Amerique du Nord, et les lies adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du Canada
Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
9. British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
Constitution Act, 1886
10.	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act,
1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)
11.	Canadian Speaker (Appointment of	The Act is repealed.
Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59
Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
12. The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3 (Can.)
Alberta Act
13. The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)
Saskatchewan Act
14. British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the 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 26, 1981	COMMONS DEBATES 13335 The Constitution ANNEXE I {suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne 1 Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
9. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1886 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1886.*
10. Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario) 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de l'Ontario)
11. Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien (nomination d'un suppleant) 1895, 2e session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
12. Acte de l'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 3 (Canada)	Loi sur l'Alberta
13. Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)	Loi sur la Saskatchewan
14. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1907 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1907.9
15. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1915 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1915.9
16. Acte de 1'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1930 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1930.9
17. Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)	Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931 quent au Canada: a)	Particle 4 est abroge; b)	le paragraphe 7(1) est abroge.
18. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1940 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1940.9
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 26, 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 26, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

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

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Concluded
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
29. British North America Act, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)
Section 3, as amended by 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. I), 1975."
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
30. British North America Act (No. 2), 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2). 1975."
Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975
And on the amendment thereto of The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as amended in the French version,-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.
November 26, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee
Colonne II Modification
Colonne III Nouveau titre
29. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Partie I (Canada)
L'article 3, modifie par Particle 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 n° 1 de 1975.*
30. Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975
place par ce qui suit:
[DOT]3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975.*
Et sur Pamendement, telle que modifiee, du ministre des Affaires indiennes et du Nord canadien,-Que le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 qui figure dans la motion du ministre de la Justice (Affaires gouverne-mentales, 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 reconnus et 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.
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
The Constitution
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Ottawa Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, there must be some mistake, because I do not think-I am very surprised to have the floor. Before 1 go on, Madam Speaker, could you tell me whether I am supposed to address the subamendment? Am I still allowed only twenty minutes, or have all agreements been waived?


Madam Speaker:: I would ask the Clerk to read again the order of the day, so that the hon. member will know what he is supposed to address.
(The Clerk read the motion again.)


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. I drew from what we just finished discussing that we had agreed to have the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) move his subamendment, to allow an opportunity for debate, and then to go to the vote. I understood that was agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I understood that too, but when hon. members do not rise I cannot recognize them. I am sorry, but the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) had risen before the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I did wait a few seconds because I had understood the agreement and there was no House order. If the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier wants to defer, because 1 think he has understood the wish of the House although an order was not made, perhaps he could make his speech at a later time. That was my understanding. However, I am in the hands of the House.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I understood earlier that we had come to a partial agreement to the effect that the NDP member would move a subamendment and make a short 15-minute speech, after which there would be one speaker for the Conservative Party and perhaps one from the Liberal Party, and that we would then vote both on the subamendment and the amendment, provided that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) could be recognized immediately afterwards. This is what we have agreed to. I thought that this was quite clear and that an order of the House had been made. What the House leaders are now going to discuss in my office concerns something else: shorter speeches and a vote on the main resolution within a very short time. That is what we want to
negotiate. It has nothing to do with the agreement which has already been made.
In these circumstances, I respectfully submit that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) might be recognized later on but that we must first comply with the earlier agreement.


Erik Nielsen: That is correct.


Madam Speaker:: That is exactly what I had understood, even though the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has made it quite clear. Certain conditions have been discussed, namely that the speeches be shortened and that the House agree to a number of things. That is why I did not officially ask the House if this were to be made an order. I can do so now. Does the House wish for the proposals explained by the hon. President of the Privy Council to be made an order of the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I simply wish to co-operate with the House. I do not want to delay the proceedings, but I have the clear impression that I never heard any public announcement of an agreement by one of the three negotiators. I had been recognized, but I am willing to let the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) speak before me. However, I reserve the right to speak after him or as soon as I can be recognized.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for yielding with good grace. The situation has not been clearly explained or understood. I tried to clairfy matters by asking that question just now. It seems to me that the reply was very clear and that the House now wishes to hear the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands. I certainly hope that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) will have an opportunity to express his views.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members for their courtesy in affording me the opportunity to speak at this time.
Last January when the aboriginal rights clause was first accepted by the constitutional committee, everyone present regarded it as a great step forward for the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada. While joining in the general euphoria of the moment, at that time I said that members of the New Democratic Party would be looking very closely at
November 26, 1981

the amending formula for that section. Subsequently, the Leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), obtained a promise from the government that the aboriginal and treaty rights clause would be fully entrenched, as it was, in Section 55(c) of the resolution which was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.
On Tuesday of this week the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) moved an amendment to include an aboriginal and treaty rights clause, but he did not include any formula for entrenchment or amendment. In the absence of any such formula the aboriginal people in the provinces are at the mercy of Section 42. Under that section those rights could be altered, amended or even extinguished by bilateral action of the federal government and individual provinces. Aboriginal rights in the Yukon and Northwest Territories could be altered or extinguished by the federal government acting unilaterally.
It is in this context that I wish to move an important amendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the motion of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be amended by adding thereto after Section 35(2) the following:
35(3) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada set out in this part may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the great seal of Canada only in accordance with the following procedure:
(a)	In the Yukon and Northwest Territories, when so authorized by resolution of a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate and House of Commons and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected;
(b)	In the provinces, when so authorized in accordance with Section 41 and with the consent of a majority of each of the aborignal peoples so affected. (4) For the purposes referred to in Subsection 3 consent of the aboriginal
peoples shall be obtained by a procedure determined by the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
For the record, Mr. Speaker, the minister's amendment appears on page 40 of today's Order Paper.
In assessing the importance of this amendment and the need for it, let us begin by reviewing the process we have followed thus far. All of us remember that last October, when the constitutional resolution was first tabled in this House, there was a completely inadequate recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms simply said that nothing would take away rights or freedoms that pertained to the native peoples of Canada. There was absolutely no positive recognition of what those rights might be.
We are aware of the Prime Minister's opposition to the recognition of aboriginal rights. In 1969 he said that, in his opinion, there was no such thing as aboriginal rights. The split decision of the Supreme Court of Canada regarding the case of the Nishgas in northern Brisith Columbia pointed out that there was very substantial legal opinion to the contrary, and he had to admit that maybe these people have more rights than he thought. As a result, the government came forward with a land claims policy but the narrow legalistic basis of this policy made it very difficult for many people to submit their claims and have them recognized.
The Constitution
In a memo submitted over the signature of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development there is a section entitled "Native Title Superseded by Law" which reads as follows:
It appears from an extensive historical and legal review that in settled areas of British Columbia, southern Quebec and Nova Scotia, native title has been superseded by law and as a consequence there is no basis under the 1973 policy for negotiating claims settlements in these areas.
This is the reality under which the native peoples have had to try to negotiate their settlements.
Last November I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if it were not possible to have a clause put in the constitutional resolution that would recognize aboriginal and treaty rights. In his answer he indicated very clearly his own opposition to that kind of recognition.
It seems that the Prime Minister delights in the fact that not all Indian, Inuit and Metis leaders are in perfect agreement concerning rights. He is constantly using this as an excuse for refusing to deal honestly with their concerns, instead of taking a constructive leadership role in bringing these people together, helping them to sort out their priorities and major concerns which could perhaps mesh with the government's concerns. The Prime Minister has delighted in his role as lord of disunity.
In any event, the resolution was referred to the constitutional committee. At that time representatives of different bands, tribal councils and provincial and national organizations came before the committee requesting recognition and entrenchment of their rights. As I said earlier, the government heard and responded to those on January 30. It was a high moment for all people in that committee who were present when a clause was finally inserted into the constitutional proposal which recognized and affirmed the aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
However, the aboriginal peoples were not completely satisfied. They wanted a consent clause. It was not that they wanted Clause 34, as it was, to be removed from that proposal; rather, they wanted to go further. They wanted a clause stating that these rights could only be changed or amended with their consent. I ask, was their concern somehow un-Canadian, irrational or out of line?
In recent months we have seen that the provinces are very concerned about their role in the amending formula. The amending formula in the earlier constitutional proposal was acceptable to many hon. members in this House. We felt that it was fair and reasonably flexible. However, it was not acceptable to the majority of the provinces in 1981, even though it had been ten years earlier. Therefore, the provinces went back to the federal government. They lobbied and they got a different amending formula.
If it was right for the provinces to insist upon an amending formula acceptable to them, surely it was a legitimate act for the aboriginal peoples to insist on an amending formula which was acceptable to them and which would protect their rights.

The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Douglas Manly: The New Democratic Party has always supported and worked for such a clause. We would like to see that, and that is the purpose of our amendment today. The aboriginal people have no sound reason to trust their rights either to the federal or the provincial governments. They want and need all possible protection because they can look back on a history of 440 years of lies, deceptions and broken promises in Canada.
When Jacques Cartier kidnapped Donnacona and other Iroquois and took them to France, he began the long, unsu-cessful policy of trying to assimilate the Indian people. When he returned to Canada in 1541, all the Indians who had gone to France had died. Instead of admitting this, Cartier lied and told the other Iroquois that their relatives were living like lords in France and did not want to return. This was the first recorded lie to Canada's aboriginal people. It was the first lie, but absolutely not the last. A cynic might suggest that Jacques Cartier laid the two cornerstones of Canadian Indian policy: forced assimilation and lies.
I would like to give two recent examples showing why the Indian people feel they cannot trust the government. First of all, let us look at the question of the B.C. Indian cut-off lands. Back in the early years of this century, the British Columbia government and the federal government appointed a joint commission known as the McKenna-McBride commission to look into the size of Indian reserves in British Columbia. One of the important conditions was that no changes were to be made in the size of reserves without Indian consent. That was contained in the terms of reference. However, in actual fact thousands of acres of prime land were taken away without such consent, affecting 34 reserves and 22 bands in British Columbia. The government's position has been that this act was legal because it was done by legally formalized orders in council.
The Indian people have struggled for 60 years in an attempt to obtain justice on the B.C. cut-off lands issue, and it is still not resolved. That does not give them any confidence in either the federal government or the provincial government of British Columbia.
Second, we can recall that just a year and a half ago the Prime Minister promised that native leaders would be able to participate in first ministers' conferences in all matters directly relating to them. A section in the constitutional resolution was even tabled and sent to the Supreme Court of Canada last year, and it is still there in the present resolution. It states that native leaders, leaders of the aboriginal peoples, would be invited to the first ministers' conference to participate in discussions respecting constitutional matters which would directly affect the aboriginal peoples. That was the very explicit intent.
When the first ministers' conference was held earlier this month, where were the leaders of the aboriginal peoples. They were waiting in Ottawa. They asked to be present but they were not invited. They were not invited to the kitchen where
all the deals were made. They were not even invited to the main conference room to get a chance to state their case. As a matter of fact, there was no public discussion of aboriginal rights at that meeting. The only exception was Saskatchewan, which tabled a counter proposal including the aboriginal rights proposal.
Perhaps we get an idea of what went on when we look at British Columbia's attitude. The Premier of British Columbia first said that the aboriginal rights clause was left out by oversight and that it had not really been discussed at all. However, last week he said: "Yes, we would be willing to reinsert the aboriginal and treaty rights clause if the federal government were willing to pick up the costs". In other words, it all boils down to money. As far as the Social Credit government of British Columbia is concerned, the matter of human rights has a price tag on it.
Right now there are several land claims outstanding in British Columbia. In addition to the Nishga claim, there are the claims of the Gitskan Carrier band, the Kitwancool band, the Association of United Tahltans and the Haisla Nation. The land claims of all of these people have been accepted by the Office of Native Claims for negotiation, subject to provincial participation. However, the province has not indicated any willingness to participate. Other B.C. land claims from the Haida, the Heiltsuk and the Nuu Chalh Nhuh are awaiting word as to their acceptance and they will face the same stone wall attitude from the provincial government, which does not want to recognize aboriginal rights because it will cost money. It will take away from its revenue.
British Columbia and other provinces are worried about the costs of recognizing aboriginal rights. I submit that it is a proper part of their job. There is a price tag to the recognition of rights, and provinces, very naturally, must consider the cost. However, we must condemn the cynical attitude of Premier Bennett and the Social Credit government, as they would only consent to an aboriginal rights clause if the federal government were willing to pick up the tab. Certainly there is a price and we must consider it; but we also must consider the opposite, which is a denial of basic justice. Perhaps the government of British Columbia would remember the fact that it has benefited from the wealth of the land taken from the Indian people of British Columbia. Other governments and provinces have benefited from the land which has been taken.
It is now unacceptable to say that a government will only recognize rights if it can be scot-free of any expense. However, in a larger sense, I believe that we need to move beyond the question of cost. In addition to considering the costs of this program, we need to consider the possibilities. We should ask what contribution the aboriginal peoples of Canada can make to our society if we give them half a chance. What possibilities are there to enrich everybody's life if these people are enabled take their full place in Canadian society? Already they have made great contributions to our society, but they have been stymied and hemmed in by lack of resources and the denial of their rights.
November 26, 1981

In concluding, I simply want to remind all hon. members of the importance of this act of patriation. I want to remind hon. members that the relationship of the Crown to the aboriginal peoples of Canada is a relationship that predates the relationship of the federal government to the provincial governments. It is important, therefore, that this relationship be placed on a sound basis within our Constitution. If we do not do that, we will have a Constitution that is tainted. We will have a Constitution that has written into it a denial of basic justice.
It was good to see what happened last week when people demanded that aboriginal rights be put back into the Constitution. However, we would have been happier if the word "existing" had not been included. But even more than that, we want to see protection of those rights and we want to see those rights guaranteed to the Indian people, the Metis people and the Inuit people of Canada with an amending formula that protects them and is not at the mercy of unilateral action by the federal government or at the mercy of bilateral action by the federal government and one provincial government. We want to see an amendment which gives these people a say in the continuation of their rights and any change contemplated to their rights.
I urge all hon. members to join members of our party in supporting this very important amendment.


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept just one question?


James Douglas Manly: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, I feel very happy about this amendment but I have one difficulty about putting something into a Constitution or into a very important legal document without consultation. Does the hon. member have a way to get consultation and either agreement or disagreement from the native people? The hon. member mentioned three groups, but I think we should add a fourth and separate the status from the non-status Indians. How do we legally get consultation and some kind of agreement or disagreement from the native people? Does the hon. member have a way to approach this?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in the constitutional proposal there is provision for the Prime Minister to invite leaders of the aboriginal peoples to meet with the first ministers. I presume that in a similar way the Prime Minister could meet with the leaders and draw up some acceptable formula which would enable the government to have the aboriginal peoples declare their interests on this aspect. The native peoples have different organizations. For instance, the Indian people are organized into bands by the federal government. Perhaps in that area it might be the band councils who would be responsible. The Metis people are organized differently and perhaps in that instance a referendum might be required.
In my view, this is a matter to be negotiated, as with the section that says there will be meetings between the Prime
The Constitution
Minister and the leaders of the aboriginal peoples to determine what future rights they may have.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, before I begin to speak on the amendment to the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), 1 must say to members of the House that this is quite a way to write a Constitution.
We have here a proposal. I am not trying to reflect on the member's intentions; I know the hon. member and I believe his intentions are honourable, but it is difficult, in debating the Constitution, to address this issue and be able to resolve it in half an hour or less. The cudgel sort of hangs over our head that if we cannot do it in half an hour or less, then we better get on to the next issue. That is just not the way to write a Constitution.
Frankly, I abhor the way this is being done. It is not fair to the people-not to members of the House because that is by the by, so to speak. I suggest that we spend a little more time and thought on a Constitution that Canadians will have to live and work with in the future. My comments will be made with that in mind.
It almost reminds me of the kind of situation that took place in the constitutional committee. We would have a proposal put to us and within five minutes we were supposed not only to debate the merits of it but also declare them. What we did, which I think was acceptable to all members of the committee, was to put forward our whole body of amendments. Then members could look at them over a period of time, they could get back to their caucuses, discuss them and come up with rational debate as to the merits or lack thereof on any given issue.
Again I say to the hon. member that in making my comments I am not in any way trying to reflect on his method, it was the only avenue he had. But I suggest to him and to all members of the House that what he suggested is not the best way to approach this whole question. I am not talking about the native questions but rather the matter of Constitutionmaking.
Having said that, the subamendment of the honourable member has a number of aspects in it which I believe go directly to the heart of the accord. That creates difficulties for all members of this House who want to see the accord preserved and eventually the final vote taken. The subamendment provides, following the salutation:
In the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, when so authorized by resolution of a two-thirds majority vote in the Senate and House of Commons-
I will just stop there for a minute. The amending formula in the resolution that is before us, specifically Section 37(1), sets out the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada, which is not a two thirds majority in the House of Commons or in the Senate. What is needed is a resolution of the Senate and the House of Commons, which I take to understand to mean 50 per cent plus one. That, I believe, is how this section is being interpreted. Yet for this purpose, and for this purpose only, there is to be a two thirds majority. That is simply

November 26, 1981
The Constitution
inconsistent with the resolution before us and the agreement that was made between the nine provinces and the Prime Minister of Canada. In that sense I do not believe we can accept the words "a two thirds majority". That is inconsistent with the accord before us.
Additionally, if we take a look at the honourable member's proposed Section 35(3)(a), after the words "of a two thirds majority vote in the Senate and House of Commons" it goes on to say:
-and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected-
During the time that I held the responsibility of minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-I see the honourable member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) is in the House and I know that he worked in the same way-we worked with the definition "the peoples involved". That was always difficult to determine. Who were the aboriginal peoples when you got down to the issue of, say, land claims? When you take a look at that section, Mr. Speaker, what would be the result? Consent of the majority of the peoples, that is the aboriginal peoples, but that leaves out the other peoples who live in those territories. While I have no difficulty personally in saying that the aboriginal peoples should be consulted, land claims only in those territories goes beyond just affecting the aboriginal peoples. These claims will affect the future of those territories and, therefore, the future and the lives of all people living in those territories.
If I could just give a practical example, Mr. Speaker, at the present time negotiations for a Yukon land claim are under way. I am pleased that those negotiations are going well. While the negotiations directly involve the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of the Yukon through the umbrella of the Council of Yukon Indians, the legislative assembly of the Yukon, while not being directly involved in the decision-making in the negotiations, is an integral part of the negotiations. Everyone in the Yukon knows that if that land claim is to be successful it will require an agreement. By that I do not mean a formal agreement but a mental agreement or an understanding that in fact the land claim will be to the benefit not only of the aboriginal peoples of the Yukon, but will represent another step forward in reaching the possibility of the Yukon taking its rightful place in the Canadian family.
With all due respect to the hon. member, I see some real difficulties that will be created, not only for the Yukon at this time but as well for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories in the future. While there is an aboriginal majority in the Northwest Territories which, by the way, is reflected in the legislative assembly of the Northwest Territories, problems will exist in terms of the definition of who aboriginal peoples are; and that was a factor, for example, in the COPE agreement in principle. There was a problem there.
There is a problem, for example, in that people who are living in the Northwest Territories who are covered by the COPE agreement in principle are the beneficiaries of the
Alaska claim. I am not trying to say these people are not entitled under these claims, but I am trying to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, and to all members of this House, that this amendment goes very deeply to the natural development and evolution that is now taking place in Canada north of 60. We are deeply concerned that we are almost inserting ourselves into the centre of that process by this amendment.
I said I would not be long, Mr. Speaker, and I do not want to take advantage of the patience the House has shown on these issues, but if you look at Section 41, to which the second part of the amendment refers, you will see that the amendment states in part:	<
In the provinces, when so authorized in accordance with Section 41 and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected-
I will not deal with the last part relating to the aboriginal peoples so affected, but Section 41 relates in part to the creation of new provinces; that is, the extension of the boundaries of the existing provinces and the creation of new provinces in the territories. It is the opinion and position of our party that we should go back to the position of 1871.
If you look at the resolution before us, Schedule I, the amendments of 1871, you will see that all that the resolution before us does is change the citation of the 1871 amendment. What it leaves in place is that the creation of new provinces in the territories shall be under the jurisdiction and responsibility of the federal government. That is why, when the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and other members of our party speak later on, we want to refer back to Section 41(e) and (f), and that is why we would like to see those parts taken out. If we were to vote for this amendment we would in fact be voting against that principle; that is, that we feel this matter should fall within federal jurisdiction rather than a shared jurisdiction between the federal government and the provinces of Canada.
Lastly, if you will just bear with me for one more minute, Mr. Speaker, if one goes back to the point the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands made-and he made a valid point when the talked about the aboriginal people feeling frustration in the sense that they had not received the rights they felt they had been given-you will note his reference to the cut-off lands in British Columbia. I want to tell him that during the time I had responsibility as minister we tried to get also question of those cut-off lands resolved. Quite frankly, I thought we had almost done so, but I regret this still has not been accomplished. I sincerely believe it was just a matter of pushing this over the side, so to speak, and getting it done. I agree with the member that it has to be done and it should have been done. However, with all respect, I do not see how his amendment would necessarily speed up that process at this stage. I think there has to be moral suasion on the part of all of us to encourage that kind of agreement.
Moving now to Section 36, which calls for a federal-provincial conference to be participated in by the federal government, the provincial governments and the aboriginal peoples, Section 36(2) reads:
The conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda an item respecting constitutional matters that directly affect the aborigi-
November 26, 1981

nal 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.
I know, with all the history we have that has taken us to this point, that an argument can be made as to whether the native peoples were treated fairly. I think hon. members in this House have expressed the belief that they were not. We are now at the point where we have this provision in the resolution, and quite frankly good faith has to prevail. What is needed is that definition which is called for in that item on the proposed agenda of that conference, and which I suggest is also called for by the hon. member's amendment. 1 have pointed out that there will be difficulty when this conference starts this defining process, and it will take time.
I spoke to some native people yesterday and pointed out that while I accept the argument that wrongs have been done in the past-and I frankly do not think members of this House want to be party to more wrongs-it is now incumbent upon native leaders, the federal government, provincial governments and members of this house to put together an agenda for that conference whereby not only will the definition be discussed but it will finally be concluded. We must take time to do that adequately and properly.
If I could issue one warning to the federal government, it would be this. I see that conference taking place with the federal government acting not only as chairman, but also as a participant, taking its responsibilities under Section 91(2)(iv) as trustee. This will leave the aboriginal peoples to make their claims not only to the provinces, but to the federal government. The federal government will be there not only in the role of chairman, but also as defending the rights of the aboriginal peoples, fulfilling the responsibilities every federal government has had to accept.
That is how 1 interpret Section 36, and while I commend the hon. member for the sincerity I believe he had in putting forward the subamendment, I suggest not only is it premature but that it also violates the Accord; and, frankly, I think it could do more damage than good in terms of present negotiations.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has had an opportunity to examine the subamendment offered by the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). The Chair can see a serious procedural problem in so far as the subamendment proposes an amending procedure in a part of the resolution dealing with aboriginal rights. It ought properly to be offered as an amendment in Part IV of the proposed act under the heading "Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada". I must therefore decline to accept the subamendment offered and suggest that it be moved at a later time.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
The Constitution


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay. In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the amendment carried.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House of an agreement reached by the party representatives, and 1 request that you ask for the unanimous consent of the House to ratify it. First, for the remainder of the debate on the resolution moved by the Minister of Justice, all speeches, whether on the amendments, subamendments or the main resolution, will be limited to 20 minutes, except that members moving an amendment or a subamendment will be entitled to 40 minutes.
We have also agreed to proceed in such a way as to be able ultimately to vote, at four o'clock tomorrow, on the amendment that the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) intends to move in a few moments. We have also agreed that if a Conservative member introduces an amendment regarding fiscal compensation, the floor would then be given to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, if he is in the House. We also agree that after voting on the amendment moved by the hon. member for the Yukon, the floor be given to a member of the Progressive Conservative Party. I think that just about covers the main points of the agreement we have reached.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I may not have received the entire translation. It is my understanding that part of the exception of the 20-minute rule would also be the leaders of the parties-


Yvon Pinard: Yes.


Erik Nielsen: -and that the subject matter of the amendment to be moved may be displaced by another-and 1 made that point. It may not be the fiscal compensation amendment but another one.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, in the event that it turns out that the Conservative Party does not move the fiscal compensation amendment, we reserve the right to move the amendment that would normally have flowed from that amendment as a subamendment to the amendment.
[ Translation]


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Carried.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, just so that we know what we are talking about in this debate and so that I do not forget to move the amendment when I come to the end of my remarks, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1981 be amended by striking out paragraphs (e) and (f) of subsection 41(1).
I have provided copies of the amendment to both the government House leader and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).
While the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) is in his seat, I want to set the record straight on something that he said yesterday when introducing the amendment which has just been disposed of. During the debate he said the leader of the government in the Yukon had, to a degree, supported the inclusion of those two subparagraphs, the subject of my amendment, in the resolution. At the time I believe I characteristically, and perhaps discourteously, shouted across the aisle "Rubbish". I have since established that that is precisely what it was.
As the minister knows, the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly passed a resolution. For the sake of placing it on record-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. If hon. members want to hold private meetings, perhaps they could retire behind the curtains and give the hon. member who has the floor a chance to be heard.


Erik Nielsen: The position of that assembly is stated as follows:
The Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories seeks the following amendments to the proposed Constitution of Canada in recognition of the special responsibility of the Government of Canada for the native peoples of the Northwest Territories and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government of Canada over the Territories.
The relevant paragraph is (2), which reads as follows:
The Legislative Assembly seeks the deletion of Clause 9(e)-
November 26, 1981

That would be 41(l)(e) of the resolution.
-of the amending formula in the proposed Constitution which provides for the extension of existing provinces into the territories. The Legislative Assembly sees this authority as an affront to its legislative authority and an infringement of the democratic rights of the people of the Northwest Territories.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there have been times in the past when I have complained about the sound system. Now I am complaining that it is not loud enough for me to be heard over the hubbub that is going on and the private conversations being held around the House. The matter we are debating is of deep concern to Canadians living above 60. I would be very grateful if hon. members would be courteous enough to allow those members who wish to listen to what I have to say to do so.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I will continue:
The Legislative Assembly requests that the power to alter boundaries be exercised as presently provided under the British North America Act, 1871.
(3) The Legislative Assembly also seeks the deletion of Clause 9(f)-
That would be 41(1 )(f) of the resolution before the House.
-from the amending formula in the proposed Constitution. This clause provides that notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces can only be achieved with the consent of Canada and at least two thirds of the provinces whose total population exceeds 50 per cent of the population of Canada. The Legislative Assembly's position is that the right to establish new provinces out of existing territories is vested in the federal Parliament by virtue of the British North America Act 1871 and this power should continue to reside in the Parliament of Canada.
In his remarks yesterday the minister indicated that the leader of the government in the Yukon was somehow in favour, to a degree, of the retention of these subparagraphs in the resolution. Today I received the text of the resolution passed unanimously in the Yukon Legislative Assembly by all members of the government party, all members of the official opposition, that is, the NDP in the Assembly, and, I might add, all members of the Liberal party in the Assembly.
The resolution passed November 23, 1981, some two days before the minister spoke, reads as follows:
MOVED BY: The Honourable C. W. Pearson
Leader of the Yukon Legislative Assembly seconded by: The Honourable Howard Tracey Minister of Justice
That the Yukon Legislative Assembly supports the efforts of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to have Clauses 41(1 )(e) and 41(l)(f) of the Constitution Act 1981 now before the House of Commons removed, and that this Legislature further seeks the inclusion in the Constitution Act 1981 of a Clause that will provide for the capability of new provinces to be created under similar circumstances to the BN A Act of 1871.
In other words, they do not want those subparagraphs in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Adjournment Motion


Erik Nielsen: I hope the minister will accept the official record of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and of the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly in establishing the position of those bodies with respect to the subject matter of this amendment.
The native peoples also support the deletion of these two subparagraphs from the constitutional resolution. That is the position of the Council of Yukon Indians and it is the position of the native organizations of the Northwest Territories.
I should like to quote from a position paper submitted by the Aboriginal Rights Coalition on November 12, 1981. On page 2, paragraph (9) reads as follows:
The future aspirations of aboriginal peoples towards provincehood in the Northwest and Yukon Territories must not be made subject to provincial consent.
I think that spells out their position very clearly.
We have just finished voting on an amendment introduced by the minister which reinstates aboriginal rights in our Constitution and describes those rights as existing rights. The native peoples of both territories feel they have an existing right, as they say in the paragraph 9 that 1 just read, to provincehood in the Northwest Territories and Yukon Territory. They have an existing right which is not subject to provincial consent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

["Order, please. I see from the clock in front of me that it is six o'clock. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.\nAt 6 p.m. the House took recess."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges)- Veterans Affairs-Processing of applications for disability pensions b) Terms of eligibility; the hon. member for Hamil-ton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)-Hazardous substances-Urea formaldehyde foam insulation-Compensation sought for home owners b) Request for government advice; the hon. member for Kootenay	East-Revelstoke-Railways-
Employees' hours of work.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers). Does

November 26, 1981
Opinion Polls
the House agree to stand all items under the heading of notices of motions (papers)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Shall all orders preceding No. 62 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester) moved: that Bill C-262, to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is certainly not the first time I have brought a bill before this House on this particular subject. As a matter of fact, it is at least the sixth time that this particular bill has been before Parliament in my name and has been debated. Prior to that, other hon. members in this House had felt the same way I feel about the publication of polls during election campaigns.
On one occasion, the government did take some specific action. My bill, and also one standing in the name of another hon. member were referred to the broadcasting committee, where we had a very long and useful discussion. At that time the committee came in with a recommendation that action be taken by the government which would eliminate the publication of opinion polls during actual election campaigns. The government did not move on that recommendation.

What I hope we might accomplish today, as far as this particular piece of legislation is concerned, is that it be referred to the appropriate standing committee of the House of Commons. The committee could then discuss the matter and come forth with a decision, expressing its views in relation to the matter of polls. If there were a supportive view from that committee regarding the banning of the publication of polls during election campaigns, appropriate legislation to put it into effect might then be forthcoming from the government.
At this moment, the only province in Canada which bans the publication of public opinion polls during election campaigns is the province of British Columbia. I have often used the example of the election of the Bennett government in British
Columbia which was predicted by no one because there were no polls to give guidance to the great fourth estate in coming up with conclusions.
However, that is only one example, and it is not the reason I believe public opinion polls should be banned from public discussion during election campaigns. What really gives me great concern is not the actual raw information which comes from polls, but the pollution resulting from experts on the media who speak only about numbers and never about issues during election campaigns. They put people into the position of playing numbers games, wondering who is ahead and who says who is ahead.
The greatest travesty of poll results which has ever been perpetrated upon the public was evident in the last election campaign in the United States. Pollsters in that country were on every network of radio and television, and reported in every newspaper one could imagine. They told the people of that country that the election between Ronald Reagan and President Jimmy Carter would be a cliff-hanger, too close to call, with less than 1 per cent dividing the opinions of the public. On election day, the end result was that the people in California did not have to bother going to the polls because the election was over before they even got there. For instance, the ABC network carried out a raw poll almost as soon as the TV debate was concluded. The poll stated more than just who the public felt was the winner of the debate; it stated that Ronald Reagan was the people's choice. However, even with all of this evidence, on November 3, the day before the election, the public was told that it was a toss-up, with Ronald Reagan one point ahead of Jimmy Carter. As it turned out, Ronald Reagan was not one point ahead of Jimmy Carter the next evening, he was nine points ahead. Even with all of the protectors the pollsters put into their predictions, they cannot, in justice, explain away the misdirection they gave to the United States public.
While I have never suggested the art of polling should be banned, nor that politicians and political parties should be deterred from using them at any time, I believe more strongly than ever that from the date an election campaign officially begins until it is finished, there should be no polling information made available to the public. What a change it would be for the electorate to make decisions based on leadership and programs rather than percentages!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Carman Coates: For years John Diefenbaker said that polls were for dogs, and they knew best how to use them. That is part of the truth. Winston Churchill also had a very low opinion of polls. He said, "Oh that God would deliver us from the opinion polls; if only people would make decisions on rightness and wrongness rather than public opinion". And so right he was.
An illustration of my concern is what happened to us in the last general election. My leader, the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), phoned me during that campaign because he knew I had spoken out against the publication of polls. He sought my assurance that I would reintroduce the
November 26, 1981

bill, as I had on many occasions in the past, because of the atrocities being committed against our party by all the instant experts in the media who knew what would happen. Of course, even in that election campaign, it did not happen.
In a country as mixed up as Canada, considering the different political persuasions of people in various regions, the publication of opinion polls could create terrible aberrations in poll results. For instance, in the last election campaign, where 74 Liberal members were elected in the province of Quebec, polling something like 70 per cent of the popular vote, how could one put that mix into a national poll and get any kind of a realistic assessment of what is happening in the country? One could not.
I was impressed with the fact that during the election campaign the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), himself, although I do not know his exact words, indicated his unhappiness with the manipulation of poll results to favour the instant experts who were telling the people what the results meant. We should really want to get down to discussing the democratic issues. The newspapers might jump on us and say we are trying to infringe on the freedom of the press if we prevent publication of poll results.
However, for one reason or another, people believe pollsters to be experts concerning what is happening, what will happen, how people will vote and how they think in the country. They sit there and talk about what is going on. I remember one election which was very close, I think it was the 1972 election. The CBC put on a program and brought all of its people from across the country. This was done after all advertising had been banned. The program went on the national network. There was no chance for our party to say anything and our party suffered on that particular occasion. These so-called experts from the CBC were polled. Without exception they stated that the Liberal government would be re-elected with a majority. They were all wrong. The government was re-elected but it won a minority and not a majority. There is no doubt in my mind that the intrusion by the media on that program into that election campaign had a major impact on the people who were still uncommitted and still in doubt. There were many doubts in that election campaign.
I do not think there is infringement on the freedom of the press if polls are banned. Instead, the banning of polls will force the reporters, who are being paid to write, is write stories about what is really happening in the country. These reporters will have to go out and do their job rather than rely upon numbers that are produced by one polling organization or the other as to how people are thinking and feeling. Writing is a reporter's job. Reporters should not fall back on the Gallup poll or some other polling organization for the background information they need to write their story. They should be out there among the people finding out what the people think.
If we do not have numbers games and we do not have polls, people will have to be questioned on the issues. When people are questioned on the issues, maybe they will realize what
Opinion Polls
election campaigns are all about. If ever there was an example where issues were not in question, it was the February 1980, federal election campaign. You could not find the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). You could not find out what the policies of the government were going to be either. We know now what they are, but we did not know then and we could not find out. There was nothing to talk about in that election campaign. There was no real debate, but there would have been had it not been for the fact that every week a new poll was released saying that the Conservative Party was 20 points behind, or something like that. That is great encouragement to the public to support our party in a given election campaign!
The shoe, of course, can be on the other foot. The other party can be in the same situation. We would have a much more realistic election campaign if we did not have the interference and intrusion of public opinion polls being released ad infinitum throughout an election campaign. People never get down to the issues while discussing numbers.
I hope this House at the conclusion of this discussion will give some consideration to referring this bill to an appropriate committee of the House so that we can really take a look at what can be done. People who are concerned with the issues can come before the appropriate committee to express their views, whether in relation to the infringement of freedom or whether in relation to the misinterpretation that is given to figures and the way they are determined.
I hope other members will participate in this debate. I hope they will give support at least to referring this bill to the appropriate standing committee of the House.
Mir. Gilbert Parent (Welland): Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to participate in this debate. I might preface my remarks by telling hon. members who are in the House that it is not often that I agree with the hon. member for Cumber-land-Colchester (Mr. Coates) but in this case I do. If not for the same reasons, I do agree in principle that the people of Canada in some way can be misled by the pollsters if these pollsters desire to do that.
Some time ago in Toronto I served on a panel. To say that I was one of the more unpopular panelists because of my stand on polls goes virtually without saying. 1 do not think it is "un-Liberal", if you will, to take this position. Questions that are asked by pollsters many times are so tailored that any kind of response can be elicited.
What would happen to the democratic process if we simply governed by polls? What would be the net effect on the people of Canada? Would this take away all of the incentive and interest for them to look at the issues of the day? Would it preclude any necessity on their part to inform themselves so that they could make intelligent decisions?
I must say to my dismay that polls taken over the years have been remarkably accurate many times. I think it was the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester who pointed out that in the 1948 American election it was predicted that the Republican candidate would win over the Democrat candidate, but this proved incorrect. However, hon. members will remember

November 26, 1981
Opinion Polls
that in 1948 we did not have as much immediate coverage by television. We had radio and newspapers. But television has immediate impact. Television stations take polls immediately after a speech is delivered. This happened not too long ago when a presidential candidate delivered a speech. Instant reaction was portrayed and it was done before people could digest what had been said. The commentators on the spot said the people of the country think this and that. But what they had done was to take a sampling of a few thousand people out of millions of people across the country.
[ Translation]
And I believe also that with polls carried out in this way, Mr. Speaker, just about any question can be asked. Many times questions asked by pollsters are so tailored that a specific response can be elicited. So with this kind of tool in the hands of pollsters who want to prove a point, the media and private industries can make the public believe anything. And we do have polls. Last week, they held a poll on the Grey Cup game. The team representing Western Canada was supposed to win by some twenty points. After the game, we realized that the score had been a lot closer than the pollsters had wanted us to believe.

I do not believe it is accurate to say that people are not influenced by polls. It would be nice to believe that all of the people of Canada could take the time to inform themselves about the issues on which they should inform themselves, whether it be an election or anything else. The fact is that many times those polls can be so doctored, and I use that term advisedly, as to bring about virtually any point of view the people who are conducting the polls want.
We saw this in respect of the Constitution. One of the questions regarding the Constitution was very simple: "Do you think that the provincial governments and the federal government should agree on a Constitution?" Naturally everyone in Canada would like us all to agree about virtually everything all the time in order to get along and be good fellows. The way that was interpreted was that unless there was agreement we should not go ahead with the Constitution. My opinion from talking to people across Canada is that many people, indeed, were in favour of our proceeding with this constitutional debate.
It is my belief that polls make up the minds of some people in this country, or that some people can be led by polls. In that sense, if that is not a miscarriage of the democratic process, surely it is undue influence of the electorate. They should be able to make up their own minds.
Should we be concerned about the cost of these polls? The cost in terms of dollars is not really that important to me because these polls are conducted by private groups, people who indeed make their living conducting polls and peddling them to whoever wants to read them. One can get polls on virtually everything in this day and age. What about the cost
of polls when individuals virtually give up, if not their right, their desire to look into the fundamental issues that are being discussed? This cost in democratic terms is one which is unbearable in any democracy. Would we indeed become a government run by pollsters and, if so, why should the people of a constituency elect a Member of Parliament, a member of a legislative assembly or, indeed, a member of a municipal council if all we have to do is call 200 or 2,000 people at any given time and hold a poll to determine an issue? When these polls involve people who are not as informed as they should be, or people who react on emotion as opposed to thinking the process through, I suggest that the cost is the abrogation of the rights we have and that we must exercise as citizens.
Let me digress for just a bit because I think this has to do with polls. I want to make known my views on the amount of time we take for our elections. I believe the issues can be put forward to the people of Canada in a much shorter time than we now allow. It was suggested during a debate here last spring that perhaps we should have a standing list of voters across Canada rather than making up a list just before election time. I would prefer to have a shorter campaign period than we now have. I would suggest that four weeks from the time a writ is issued would be sufficient, in this day of instant communication across the country, for people to make up their minds.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester said of the 1980 election that the people did not have a chance to bring forward the issues and discuss them thoroughly. I believe he said that "the Prime Minister could not be found". If he meant the Prime Minister of that time, I would agree with him because the then Prime Minister was a member of his own party. I guess we could say the same thing happened in 1979 when we did not have a vote for anyone, but rather a vote against certain things. Perhaps it could be said that people do not win elections, but that elections are lost for whatever reason.
I believe that polls, whatever they may be on, tend to be usurped by the media in order to get people excited. The hon. member pointed out that during the last election campaign the pollsters showed there was a 40-point spread between the parties. Did he say there was a 40-point spread between the parties? He suggested that because of this great spread-and I do not think it was that great-people tended to ask themselves why they should go out and work for the party or the candidate when the result had already been decided. I agree with the hon. member.
It is small wonder that at the last federal election we had 74 per cent or 75 per cent-shall I exaggerate-of the people of Canada exercise their franchise. Why would the people not come out and vote, exercising their democratic right in this country? Were they influenced by the pollsters to the extent they felt that this party was so far ahead and this one so far behind that they need not take the time to go out and vote, that it would mean nothing because the election had already been decided? The election had been decided then by whom?
November 26, 1981

Was it decided by the pollsters or by the media? I suggest that is unacceptable in a democratic society.
Let me point out also with regard to elections that 1 would personally be in favour of what they do in Australia. There, if you vote you get a certain tax rebate; I believe that is how they work it. If you do not vote, then whatever taxes you have to pay must be paid and there is no rebate at all. This encourages, and some would even say it forces, the people to get out and exercise their right to vote. This would give us a truer picture of the feelings of the people at the time of an election.
I am opposed to polls being published during an election campaign. My wish is that there would be no polls published from the time the writ is issued. We should have legislation on this particular matter. The matter should be studied by a committee. We should hear what the pollsters have to say about their part in the whole situation. I would ask that in the meantime, until we have legislation, the people who are involved in these polls-newspapers, television stations and research bureaux, wherever they are-should take the responsibility upon themselves to declare their own moratorium on the publication of poll, unless they really want to influence the people and not just report what the people are supposed to be thinking. If that were the case we would not run the risk of having government by pollsters rather than by the people through their elected Members of Parliament or their legislative assemblies.
I agree with the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester and I would urge that this bill be sent to committee, where there could be open and frank discussion by all the people concerned with these polls-the pollsters themselves, the people in public office and, indeed, people from the public at large. Then we could know what their views on the polls are and the effect they have on the voting process in Canada.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to say a few words about Bill C-262. I commend the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) for bringing this discussion to the House today.
The whole question of polling is something which has bothered and intrigued me for many years. It seems to me in a general way that what has happened, perhaps unwittingly on the part of pollsters, is that over the years they have actually usurped the right of citizens to think for themselves. I am not saying that they have done this deliberately but I suspect that what has happened, particularly among those members of the voting public who are not constantly interested in politics and may be undecided at election time, is that they suddenly find themselves unconsciously influenced by polls. 1 think this perhaps relates directly to the herd instinct that is in all of us; that one wants to go with the winner. If a person has not followed a local or national campaign for three or four weeks and has not studied the issues, or has not watched the television or listened to radio or gone to an all-candidates meeting or read about candidates' views in the newspapers, it becomes very easy for an uncommitted voter or, perhaps, a disinterested
Opinion Polls
voter who nonetheless is a good citizen to sit back and say, "Well, John Brown or the leader of this or that party is ahead in the polls by 6 per cent" and instinctively there is the urge to go along with the winner and to be on the winning team without giving any serious consideration to the issues.
I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to hon. members in the House, that over the years the polls have both relieved people of the responsibility of considering election issues for themselves and, on the other hand, swayed people toward voting in a way they would not have otherwise voted had they taken more time to consider the issues, the candidates and the leaders.
I am speaking in support of Bill C-262. Another problem I find with polls is that they tend to focus on the leaders-not just on the substance of the individuals but on their appearance as it is portrayed on television, radio or in public. Polls tend to simplify, perhaps even oversimplify a leader's potential or actual capabilities. The reason for this is that people today are very easily influenced by television, the most intimate medium of all. In many cases, the very people who are conducting the polls are often closely connected to the various broadcast networks. I believe that this only adds to the confusion, because when people are asked on television a simple question, such as what do they think of Mr. X as leader of Y party, the immediate concern of that person is how he or she looks on television. The same can be said for radio. Of course, that poll can be greatly distorted, and when an uncommitted voter sees that a certain party is ahead nationally by two, four or eight points, that perhaps is not really the case.
To return to my first comment, a double error is made in judgment. The herd instinct takes over. The uncommitted voter may see that a certain party will win, so they might as well vote for that candidate in their constituency. I believe that polling, in general, distorts election campaigns. I believe it is unfair to all parties, particularly parties at the local level where a candidate may be running well ahead of his opponent, yet his opponent's party is deemed to be well ahead in a poll and the candidate who is ahead suffers as a result.
If the government will eventually have the courage to introduce legislation based on Bill C-262 and it is passed into law, I suppose that the media will be on our backs. The pollsters may not, but the media will cry foul. They will say that this prohibits or limits freedom of the press.
Well, both hon. members who have spoken before me, I think, have made very good arguments to refute this. This bill does not in any way limit freedom of the press or freedom of expression. In fact, as one hon. member pointed out, it will make the media work harder. It will have to cover a campaign in the good, old-fashioned way of 40 or 50 years ago when leading print journalists used to follow the leaders in this country, the United States and Europe on election campaigns. These journalists went to all the meetings and had the time during the evening or during the night, whether they were on trains or buses or in a hotel room, to think about what had been said. I think they were able to come to a much more

November 26, 1981
Opinion Polls
educated conclusion because they had a longer time to think about what had been said.
Now that we are in the electronic age, I hope that a bill such as Bill C-262 will make the media slow down a bit, because instant wisdom from television is getting out of control. If Bill C-262 is passed into law some day, the media people will have to think more and analyse more before they begin typing or "mouthing off', as we might say, on television and radio.
Polls tend to package elections into just too neat a form. They take away a lot of the natural and human element of an election campaign. Therefore, I suggest that this bill proposed by the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester should be given a great deal of consideration, and I hope it will be sent to the appropriate committee and that the government will act on the recommendations of that committee.
1 see one major problem which has nothing to do with the drafting of this bill, that is that Canada has 3,000 miles of border between it and the United States and approximately 70 per cent of Canadians live within 60 miles of the United States border. I do not know how we would be able to prevent American pollsters or anyone else from taking polls and either print the results or, worse, broadcast them on American radio and television networks. I do not know how we can get around that problem. I envision a lot of pirating and high profits being made by taking so-called non-professional, non-profit commercial polls. For example, university students could be used to do a poll which would then be relayed down to Buffalo or Rochester from where those results could be broadcast. The vast majority of Canadians who own television sets can easily watch American television stations or listen to American radio.
It is one problem that should be dealt with and, of course, it is part and parcel of the larger and more important problem vis-a-vis the influence of American television on Canada. With the exception of that loophole, which I hope and expect can eventually be tightened up with a tremendous amount of effort on our part, I highly commend this piece of legislation.
I understand that this is the sixth time that this bill has been debated in the House. The government has obviously seen fit to talk it out on the five previous occasions. I understand that this is probably what they are about to do today, and that is usually the name of the game in private members' hour.
However, I would like to urge government members who are opposed to this bill or its coming on stream now to seriously consider within their own caucus, and certainly within cabinet, to allow a bill such as this to come before the House in the name of the government, or a government minister for a free and open debate and then to go to committee.
The government may be surprised by the fact that there would be fairly widespread support for this bill. Perhaps we could even have a free vote on this bill. The only problem I can see, if my information is correct, is that, notwithstanding what the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent) said a few moments ago, the Liberal Party of Canada has relied very heavily on polls taken at election time. I do not know whether
those polls are commissioned by the Liberal Party of Canada. I do not know whether they spend money commissioning them. I suspect they do. Maybe I will be enlightened in a few minutes and the answer will be no.
If the Liberal Party of Canada is heavily dependent on these private and very expensive polls, I suggest to the Liberal members in the House that they try to bring back a little more democracy into our politics, reduce the influence of the electronic media in politics, give people at least the opportunity that their grandfathers had to think for themselves at election time and not be overwhelmed by a numbers game that is not always accurate.
I hope that in our lifetime this will reach cabinet, come into the House for debate and be passed into law. I am afraid that if we do not get a handle on the situation now, the electronic media in the country and throughout the western world will some day, without our even being aware of it, take over virtually the entire electioneering that goes on in this part of the world. They have far too much influence on the voters. It should be left to the candidates. If we goof and make a mistake, we pay for it at the polls. Let us not be pre-judged by these professional pollsters, let the people judge us on our merits.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to participate in this debate and to support my colleague from Nova Scotia, the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester (Mr. Coates) who has presented Bill C-262 to the House for consideration. If I may begin where the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn) left off and point out that what we have for consideration is a reference of this bill to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. It is important that, if the House is not willing to consider the content of this bill in terms of passing it into law we at least take the opportunity to have the subject matter of the use of polls in relation to federal elections reviewed by a committee of the House.
We have in the debate to this moment heard from not only the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester, who represents the Progressive Conservative Party, but from the hon. member for Welland representing the Liberal Party and the hon. member for Brant representing the New Democratic Party. They all agree there is some real merit to the proposal. It is very difficult, in light of the expressions of that all-party support, to have the bill simply talked out so that it will no longer be considered in the House or committees of the House. I intend to yield the floor in sufficient time to allow the motion to refer Bill C-262 to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to be put to a vote.
Let me begin my remarks on Bill C-262 by referring to the principle that it involves. It involves the very important matter of freedom of speech and freedom of communication. We have before us at the present time the constitutional proposal. In that proposal as part of the Constitution Act, 1981, which the House will be asked to approve and enact into law through the
November 26, 1981

Parliament of the United Kingdom, there is a statement of fundamental freedoms. Section 2 of the Constitution Act reads:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	Freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	Freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom
of the press and other media of communications;
There is no question that across this nation the freedom to express one's views is of prime importance, but that has to be considered in the context of the real world. We recognize immediately that there are qualifications put on that freedom of expression and freedom of communication.
We have already recognized in a myriad of provisions in the Canada Elections Act that, in relation to a political campaign, there is not entirely freedom of expression in the ultimate sense of that concept; in particular, as other hon. members have pointed out, there are already restrictions on advertising. Candidates who seek elected office must indicate in their advertising the source of that advertising, who sponsored it and other forms of identification. There is a ban on advertising in the period immediately preceding an election. Under the Canada Elections Act, elections advertising is banned prior to the date of the election being announced. Therefore, we have it established clearly that there are already existing limitations on communication. I do not think any member of the House or any person in Canada would regard these limitations as unreasonable.
The hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester is asking the House to consider another restriction, a restriction which, in the opinion of the hon. member, as he so aptly expressed it in his speech when presenting this bill today, will advance in the ultimate the freedom of choice which all citizens ought to be able to exercise in a federal election.
The balancing of rights is the matter which the House has to consider in this and other measures that come before it. On one hand we have the right as citizens to freely express ourselves in the course of an election campaign and, on the other hand, the need to protect the secrecy of the ballot, and the need to allow all citizens to make an appropriate and proper choice in an election campaign.
This bill recognizes that the use of polls during an election campaign becomes an impediment in the exercise of free choice of the citizen to vote and exercise his or her franchise. How can that occur? That is to say, how can it come about that a citizen is impeded in the exercise of his or her free choice in an election campaign?
You learn something from time to time by listening to members debate in the House. In the course of his remarks, the hon. member for Welland came up with an excellent phrase, "undue influence". The phrase "undue influence" has been in the law for years. We recognize that concept in the matter of will-making. It is said that a testator who makes a will must have free choice and not be subjected to undue influence. Undue influence can be exercised by persons pressing the testator at the time he is making a will and influencing him to leave his property in a certain way or subject to certain
Opinion Polls
conditions. For centuries the law has said that if that kind of influence is exercised, the will should not be valid because it is not the act of the maker of the will. He would have been subject to undue influence.
That is what we are talking about when we support a measure such as the one contained in Bill C-262; namely, the use of polls in the election campaigns in the current environment becomes an undue influence, unduly influencing voters.
As I indicated, there are many ways in which a voter can be influenced in an election campaign. For example, we recognize that a voter might be influenced by the manner in which votes were cast in an advance poll. In some cases an advance poll is taken two weeks prior to an election. The results are not announced until polling day. Why not simply count the votes when the advance poll closes and make an announcement? The reason must be that this might improperly influence voters on polling day.
If a poll taken on a scientific base is an accurate indication of the view of the persons polled who constitute the voters in an election, that would act as a similar influence on the voters. Assuming it is accurate, it would not be unlike announcing the result of an advance poll which, of course, is prohibited under the Canada Elections Act. If one were to make the analogy between the advanced poll and the poll taken under scientific conditions, one would have the answer: The voters should not be given this kind of information because, similarly to announcing the result of the advance poll, it may act unduly to influence voters in an election campaign. That is one of many arguments that can be made.
To give some background to the matter, Mr. Speaker, we should consider polls as they are constituted at present. In past years, polls were really guess work. I think that is where the expression "straw polls" came from. It meant you threw straws into the air and judged the result by how and where the straws landed. Since then, Mr. Speaker, polls have been conducted on a more scientific basis. As a result of efforts of social scientists and statisticians, over the years, a reasonably accurate, in some cases a tremendously accurate method has been established for determining what people will do in certain circumstances. It not only applies to the electoral process, but it applies to a great many other things. Many manufacturers in marketing their product rely on information obtained from polls. I think it has been established fairly clearly, Mr. Speaker, that the scientific technique has been developed to the stage where polls can be very accurate.
It is quite possible and conceivable that individuals in Canada would take a poll result as being a definite indication of the outcome of an election. You may say, Mr. Speaker, what is wrong with that? Again, I think it disturbs the freedom of choice in an election campaign. It is the kind of interference with the principle and concept of the secrecy of the ballot. For example, one should not be allowed to look into the ballot box to see how the person who came before you voted, and at the same time one should not be given informa-

November 26, 1981
Opinion Polls
tion that may amount to the same thing; that is, one has advance notice or a preview of what will be the election count.
As I have said, the matter before the House is not simply the passage of the provision proposed by Bill C-262, which is the prohibition of the publication of polls during an election campaign, but, more important, it is the reference of this subject to a committee of the House. We do not have to decide the matter today; we merely have to decide whether the matter should be further explored. I think that is very important in the light of the scientific developments that have taken place. In a very short time, Mr. Speaker, polls will advance to the stage where people will regard them as a true and accurate indicator of an election result. I believe and suspect this is already happening.
In a recent election in Nova Scotia, in some cases poll results were announced that indicated one candidate was well ahead in the election campaign. In fact, when the polling day arrived, that candidate trailed another candidate by a considerable number of votes. I happened to be very involved in that election campaign, and I firmly and honestly believed that the publication of a poll did affect the outcome of our particular election.
The next question is to determine whether that is good or bad. The supporter of the candidate, of course, who eventually won that election, would think it is a good thing. Other persons would disagree with that. I happen to be one who disagrees with that.
In exercising the franchise in that particular constituency, I believe that the voters were influenced by that particular poll. Why am I mentioning this in the Parliament of Canada? It is because it subsequently came to light that the poll was not as accurate as it purported to be. In fact, it purported to be a scientific poll that was conducted under the auspices of a university professor who utilized his students in a particular statistics course. Subsequently I spoke with one of the students and was told that it was nothing of the kind, that the students were simply given the assignment of selecting persons and coming back with the results of their particular survey. Those results were tabulated and the total result was established and communicated. The reason Parliament should consider this matter, Mr. Speaker, is that it is the broad public concept that polls are now accurate, and that once that concept becomes recognized by the public, unscrupulous people will take advantage of that faith and will attempt to manipulate polls in such a way that it will affect the outcome of an election. That is reason enough to have this matter considered in Parliament.
Very recently-in fact, a few weeks ago-I had the opportunity to appear as a guest before the student parliament in Halifax, the Halifax-Dartmouth Regional Student Parliament. Interestingly enough, the topic of debate that day was the publication of polls. I had the opportunity to hear both sides of the question expressed very well. I noted that the students grasped very quickly the element of freedom of speech that is involved in this particular question and, at the same time, the need for sensible restrictions on the right to express and communicate freely to Canadians. When I addressed the
participants in that parliament afterwards, I could not help saying that I had considered the matter, as they had, and had come to the conclusion that in that particular situation, and bearing in mind the developments that had taken place, the balance had swung, in my view, in favour of at least considering the banning or prohibiting of the publication of polls during an election campaign, for some of the reasons 1 have just outlined. In my area we have a radio station called CFDR that has acquired what is known in the trade as a telephone computing device. That telephone computing device has been used to take polls in election campaigns. The results of the polls taken by that particular station have been communicated and published, particularly when the polls have supported a particular party. I will not draw any inferences, but I will say that the principal shareholder, the president, director and managing operator of that station, is none other than C. Arnold Patterson, who was press secretary to the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) for some months and who today is before the CRTC applying for another licence to operate a television station in the Halifax area.
If I had no other reason for wanting this matter to be considered by Parliament with a view to banning the publication of polls during an election campaign, there would be sufficient reason in that one instance. Here we have a political partisan who apparently owns a radio station, who has control of poll taking machinery and who publishes the results of that poll at his whim and at his desire.
Let me end my remarks so that we can vote on this issue by referring, as did the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester, to the words of the Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker. Mr. Diefenbaker said on many occasions that "the only poll that counts is the poll taken on election day". I believe we will preserve the dignity and the good sense of that remark by having this matter considered and banning the publication of polls in the manner suggested by my good friend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has expired, and I do now leave the chair-


An hon. Member:: Three minutes remains.


An hon. Member:: We do not consent to calling it six o'clock.


David P. Smith: Since there is no agreement to calling it six o'clock, I might make a few comments with regard to this bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I see from the clock in front of me that it is six o'clock. The hour provided for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
November 26, 1981


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien on the Constitution of Canada, as amended, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Nielsen (p. 13346).
Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for private members' hour, I was emphasizing the fact that we had just dealt with a resolution which entrenched in the reinstated Section 34 the right to existing aboriginal rights. That includes existing aboriginal rights in the two northern territories. I read to the House the native position with respect to their rights, in terms of their right to become a participant in a future Canadian province. We now have enshrined in Section 34 by a decision of the House the right to achieve provincial status without the overriding subjection to the so-called amending formula where seven provincial premiers must agree to the carving out of new provinces, together with in excess of 50 per cent of the population.
While I believe the government's acceptance of the April accord by the premiers as a basis for constitutional amendment improved that part of the charter by strengthening the consensus principle, it created a very serious and threatening problem for Canadian citizens living above the 60th parallel. For over half a century, and certainly as long as I have been living in the north-and it is not that long-the dream of provincial status has been the loadstone of northern hopes. It has been central to the vision of the north which sees the development of Yukon and the Northwest Territories as the best and brightest hope for Canada's future. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) accepted the inclusion of two clauses in the April accord relating to "the extension of existing provinces into the territories" and "notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces", he dealt a crushing blow to the hopes and aspirations of thousands of Canadian citizens resident above 60. He gave away what was not his to give away-the rights and privileges of Canadians of northern Canada above 60.
The clauses proposed by the provinces in the April accord did not become part of the constitutional package until accepted by the Prime Minister in November. They were bad in April; they are bad in November. They had their origin in 1976 when, I am informed, the premier most insistent upon the retention of those two clauses in what turned out to be the accord was the Premier of Nova Scotia. We have been creating movement in order to bring about accord for the deletion of these sections. It had not occurred to me at the time-but it does now-that in discussions with provincial governments and premiers we found that the premier of the province who insisted upon the inclusion of the clauses as we see them now was not the present Premier of Nova Scotia but the minister for amateur fitness and sport, or whatever it is; he is the minister for "Diamond Tooth Gertie". He was the man who
The Constitution
insisted upon the retention of this invidious proposal as far as it concerns the two northern territories.
I cannot hear the hon. Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola); I would dearly love to. I know she would not wish to extend her boundaries beyond those she enjoys now.


Mrs. Erola:: Oh, yes, I would.


Erik Nielsen: Nonetheless, I wish to become serious about this matter of deep concern to the northern territories. Never at any time did the governments of Yukon or of the Northwest Territories participate in putting together either the April accord or the latest arrangement from which the north was totally, resolutely and determinedly excluded. We were given the opportunity as governments in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories to appear as witnesses before the standing committee on a resolution which did not contain these two provisions. After the committee had finished its work and after it reported back to Parliament, there was a meeting of provincial premiers at which the elected legislatures of the two northern territories were not heard. They were not heard in April, they were not heard in November. Yet we are now confronted with two provisions in a resolution affecting the future forever and a day of Canadians, in which we in the north have not had any input; we have not been heard.
In my view, this was a rather cavalier treatment, of the kind to be expected, perhaps, by a Soviet government or one of its satellites. That is what it boils down to. The shutting out of these thousands of Canadian citizens in the north is something about which we are deeply resentful. These give-away clauses that open the door to provincial invasion of the north with the blessing of the federal government are found in the sections that are the subject of the amendment.
I submit to you and to the government, Mr. Speaker, that the government cannot barter away the rights of northern Canadians in order to secure a provincial consensus for the package-a consensus that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and other are working on and on which they are getting some movement so that the premiers now understand what is coming down. As far as the future of the Northwest Territories is concerned, they are coming around to the view that this is not right and coming around to agreement that these clauses should be deleted from both the moral and the legal point of view.
In the early stages of this debate, the Prime Minister talked about trading off rights for fish, trading off rights for oil, trading off rights for whatever. What are we doing if it is not trading off the rights of all Canadian citizens in northern Canada for the sake of consensus? This is an outright betrayal of the rights of northern Canadian citizens who live in a part of Canada where it is felt that the southern mentality stops at the 60th parallel.
There may be one or two exceptions, of course. I would be remiss and ungallant if I did not recognize-and I do so immediately-that one of those exceptions is the Minister of

November 26, 1981
The Constitution
State for Mines. If she is truly as happy-and it was a day for champagne-as when the House unanimously passed equal rights for male and female persons, then she should be ecstatic about the prospect of voting in favour of the motion which I have proposed with respect to the rights of northern Canadians, of whom she is one.
As it stands now, Section 146 of the British North America Act, followed by the 1871 Act, gives to the federal Parliament the exclusive jurisdiction to create new provinces. That includes the same process as that which created the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, Manitoba, and British Columbia, which was carved out of the Northwestern Territories as it was known in those days, without any provincial consultation or consensus. Yet the government wants us as a Parliament to barter away those rights in favour of the amending formula.
That is simply not right. It is another example of the rights of northern Canadians being trampled upon.
Arguments have been presented with respect to the effect of Bill C-48, the National Energy Program, whereby the federal government asserts Ottawa's right to northern resources as if the north were a mere department of government. This emphasizes unmistakably the need to bring about provincial status for Yukon and the Northwest Territories as quickly as possible.
I know that the Liberal philosophy and the Trudeau philosophy does not embrace that concept and never will. I point out, however, that they have an obligation to leave Parliament free to enjoy the jurisdiction with which it was originally endowed when that principle of creating new provinces was first established in 1867 and 1871.
For those who would argue numbers and money, I point out that the Northwest Territories, with 60,000 people, has a greater population than either Manitoba or British Columbia had in 1871 when they attained provincial status. Never was it contemplated, either in the BNA Act, the Yukon Act or any other relevant statute, that any of the existing provinces should extend their boundaries northward to gobble up the territories. That idea was First expressed by Premier Pattullo in 1935 in British Columbia and was reiterated by Premier W. A. C. Bennett. Later it was jumped on by Alberta and Saskatchewan. The reaction of northerners was a counterproposal to the effect, "Let's take our boundaries south 54-60, 56-40 or bust."
It is all for the expediency of consensus at a time when northern sections of existing provinces are, in many cases, desperately unhappy because of the inability of far-away provincial governments to understand and solve their problems. Neither the government of Yukon nor that of the Northwest Territories was permitted to participate in the negotiations which took place behind closed doors.
We were permitted in as observers. In the public sessions chairs were placed in the corner of the room for an elected representative of Yukon and of the Northwest Territories. They were not to be heard; they were not to speak on behalf of the people who elected them.
The attitude of the government is that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) speaks for Canadians in the north. I say, God help us if that is the attitude to be adopted here.
My objective today is to persuade the government of the inherent error in that kind of thinking, an error far too common in southern Canada where the official mindset is irrevocably programmed to the concept "From Sea to Sea". Except from members on this side, we never hear "throughout the country". We never hear "from sea to sea to sea"; we have three seas. I hear snickers from hon. members opposite.
I want to try to convince members that Canada is more, must be more than simply from sea unto sea; Canada is from sea unto sea unto sea. We are a nation with three seacoasts. All are important, and perhaps the most important in terms of Canada's future is the sea that borders on Canada's Arctic.
Commenting on the cavalier treatment accorded to northern Canadians, the Globe and Mail on Saturday, November 21, under the heading "Selling of the North" editorialized as follows:
The people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon-both natives and whites-have been used as bargaining counters in the constitutional argument between the Prime Minister and the premiers.
1 could not agree more. This was a blatant political sell-out of a kind for which the Prime Minister is becoming notorious. First, women's rights were sold out-we restored those; the credit goes here for restoring them.


An hon. Member:: Nice try!


An hon. Member:: That is the joke of the week!


Erik Nielsen: Let hon. members on my left, the bed partners of the hon. members opposite, rise and say that they are called chiefs.
The women were sold out, Mr. Speaker, and we were responsible for having their rights restored. I noticed with great gratitude today that members to my left voted for the restoration of Section 34 in the Constitution.
I will make another prediction. When those hon. members speak, they will speak in favour of this amendment. Let them say "nay" to it. They do not dare to do otherwise. If they had any conscience or morality on the other side, they would do the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Unless we are deemed to have less than the same democratic freedoms as southern Canadians, unless we are deemed to be different from any other Canadians, and unless we are deemed to be second-class Canadians, hon. members will support it; but I doubt it, notwithstanding the substantial movement that my friend, the hon. member for Provencher has caused to be made in bringing the premiers together, and, hopefully, they will support this amendment tomorrow.
November 26, 1981

I could go on and quote from The Globe and Mail editorial to which I referred, but I do not think that I will have time. What is happening here is a dastardly betrayal of the rights of the people of Yukon and Northwest Territories.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: You have got to rectify it.


Erik Nielsen: It is a dastardly betrayal. Certainly, the sooner provincial status is achieved and recognized by Parliament, the sooner will the people in our territories feel at long last that they are part of Canada and that they will be able to develop their resources for the benefit of all Canadians. I hear some cheeping from the hon. member for Birds Hill.


Mr. Blaikie:: Winnipeg-Birds Hill.


Erik Nielsen: If he wants to cheep, or if he wants to ask a question, I will gladly sit down and let him ask it, and I will answer it; but, otherwise, let him listen and learn. I invite him to come to Yukon and Northwest Territories.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have been there twice.


Erik Nielsen: For how long?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I have been there twice.


Erik Nielsen: For how long?


Mr. Taylor:: Fifteen minutes.


Erik Nielsen: I have lived there for 30 years, and if the hon. member will shut up and listen, he might learn something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It just goes to show that time does not mean a thing!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has the floor.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: We thought so, too.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I do not mind, sir. It livens up the debate to have these interjections. But if hon. members are really interested and really want to learn, they will listen and they might learn.


An hon. Member:: From you?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, from me, because I live there. I know what the people throughout the Northwest Territories and Yukon feel, native and white alike, and the hon. member does not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Over and over again, the people of the north have learned that as far as this government is concerned, they have no rights and, indeed, they do not exist. We have judicial
The Constitution
opinions which state just that, brought down by judges who, I might say, have been appointed to the Supreme Court by a Liberal government. We are mere colonials in the eyes of the government and of the law. That is a fact, and let hon. members speak against that when their turn comes in the debate. I will lay odds that the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) will say nothing less than what I am saying now.


Mr. Ittinuar:: I will say a lot more, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: He may do, and that will add to it, more than the interjections of the hon. members are adding to this debate.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I think you have got to them, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: So far as the north is concerned, our people, our Canadian citizens in the north, are being subjected to a policy of de-Canadianization by this government, which has been running all over the country shouting about its policy of Canadianization. The federal government must not be allowed to get away with the idea that after more than 100 years of confederation-building, the rules can be suddenly changed, and that we will be subjected to the whim of seven provincial Premiers-


An hon. Member:: Conservative.


Erik Nielsen: -and 50 per cent of the population. I am sorry, I could not hear the interjection. The hon. member asks, "Do you not trust the premiers?" Of course I trust all of our premiers. That is what this country is about. I am afraid the reason for the mess we are in right now is that the government over there does not trust the premiers of the country when they are purporting to speak on behalf of the people within their jurisdiction.


An hon. Member:: Nine of them trust us.


Erik Nielsen: The people of northern Canada have been treated as second-class and third-class citizens and have been allowed no more role in the constitutional negotiations affecting them than if they had resided in Ulan Bator. For the benefit of people like the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson), who probably does not know where Ulan Bator is, it happens to be in outer Mongolia. That is the way we sometimes feel in Yukon and Northwest Territories with respect to our treatment by this government. We are absolutely sick and tired of accepting colonial status, including the administration of bureaucrats thousands of miles away.
Imagine, Mr. Speaker, being a farmer-and I do not suggest for one moment that you are-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -and driving a team of horses with reins 4,000 miles long. That is what we have up there. The end of the reins are here. I will not say where the end of the horse is, but that is where we are.

November 26, 1981
The Constitution


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We know where the end of the horse is.


Erik Nielsen: Northerners must have the assurance that their future destiny will not be the subject of collusion and whim-but did I hear the unmentionable end of the horse from Newfoundland just interject?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: If I had to move a motion with any hope of acceptance tonight, it would be to create a referendum to establish two provinces in the north.
I see that my time is slipping by, and so is my speech. If any confirmation was needed of the destructiveness of the proposals regarding the Yukon and Northwest Territories, it is found in the lame and feeble explanation by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The simple fact is that the federal government picked up the proposal embodied in clauses (e) and (f) in Section 41(1) of the accord reached by the premiers in April. It is not strange or unusual to find that kind of thing happening. It is, however, more than strange to find the federal government embodying a principle in the Constitution-and I want to be serious for a moment here- which never before existed in any form; that is, a provincial veto over the formation of a province. The formation of a new province is a power belonging to the federal Parliament. It has always been thus. It does not belong to the government but to Parliament under the BNA Act.
The proposals to which the north objects are a complete reversal of constitutional practice which has existed for over 100 years. It is an indication that the government takes the same cavalier attitude to the powers of Parliament that it does to those of the provinces when its own interests are at stake.
The minister trotted out the statement that it is the federal government's recent practice to consult the provinces when considering the creation of a new province. First, consulting the provinces in any field at all is a new departure for this government. Second, it is a mind-boggling statement by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in answer to the question: what new provinces have been created recently?
As far as anyone is aware, the last time a new province was created was when Newfoundland entered confederation in 1949. Certainly that cannot be deemed to be a recent event, nor was the minister around to take part. I will not comment on where he might have been. Therefore, when he says that the government has recently consulted provinces about creating provinces, what is he talking about? What were those recent consultations? What provinces took part in those recent consultations? What possible new provinces were being discussed? Were they talking about a new province of Yukon, which is long overdue for provincehood? I very much doubt it; at least, not with that minister there, not with that Prime Minister there, not with that government there, not with those Liberals there. Is this why we have these new clauses which overturn
the practice of the past and take away a right that belongs to Parliament?
What have they been up to, sir? Is there some way we can get at the facts, facts which Canadians are entitled to know about this government's subterranean tunnels? Parliament creates new provinces, not the government and not the existing provinces. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia were created by Parliament through a joint address of both Parliaments. Some were colonies, some were territories. British Columbia was a colony. I might interject here that, there are many people who believe that this Parliament has never amended the BNA Act. We cannot do it, they say. How many people would be surprised if I told them it was done? It was done in 1952. How many hon. members know that?


Ian Deans: You just told us.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad the hon. member for Hamilton-Mountain (Mr. Deans) is listening. It is very gratifying and the information just might penetrate his mind.
The BNA Act was amended unilaterally by this Parliament in 1952 when, for the first time, a Member of Parliament was given a seat in this place for the Northwest Territories. A request was not made to Westminster to do this. It was done here. For those who believe, like the hon. member for Hamil-ton-Mountain when he was supporting the government in the initial resolution together with other members of his party, right down the line-


Ian Deans: Are you going to read and talk for 40 minutes?


Erik Nielsen: I might be asking for a minute or two more.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The bottom line of the argument is that a government cannot take away from the people of Canada the right to establish new provinces through Parliament. To do so is a travesty and a betrayal of a right enjoyed by Canada for over 100 years. The government must be aware of the Pandora's box it is opening with these proposals. First, it is putting off indefinitely the creation of new provinces by subjecting them to provincial veto.
Second, the government is opening the door to provincial intervention and invasion-there is no other word for it but invasion-of the territories now belonging to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
Third, the government is inviting a shambles in the administration of resources in those two territories. But that is not surprising to me. I am one of those who believe that the government creates disorder deliberately for its own purposes. It has created and fomented fiscal disorder in the budget, economic disorder in its interest rate policy, constitutional disorder in its tortuous and evasive method of putting together a Constitution for Canadians. This has created unbelievable
November 26, 1981

disorder in the oil and gas industry by setting up God knows what Crown corporation for what purpose, if not for massive state intervention. The policy of the government is one of creating confusion and disorder.
The people of the north are a special breed. They are Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They want the rights and privileges enjoyed by other Canadians, no more and no less but the same rights and privileges enjoyed by any other Canadian. They do not want to accept taxation without representation. They will not accept being used as pawns by a politically-minded government. They have chosen to accept hardship and inconvenience. They have chosen to make do with less than their fellow Canadians. They are an independent breed. They are people who stand on their own two feet. I have often called the people in the territories the last bastion of free enterprise in this socialistically torn country of ours.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: They laugh over there. Let them visit and get the feeling of the people of the north themselves. Let them ask their own member, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Why did the NDP win the last by-election?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Bird's eye would freeze to death if he ever went up there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Bird's eye would freeze in his own bird's nest if he went up there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: The northern people do not want to see the north turn into a gigantic reserve operated from Ottawa by people who, in the main, have never seen it.
Sir, 1 need a few moments more to complete my speech and I ask the indulgence of the House to do this.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired, but he may continue with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its indulgence.
Natives and whites are united on this issue. In this issue there are no natives and no whites; there are only northerners. We are united in fighting the southern Canadian mentality that the world ends at the 60th parallel or before. The world does not end there. It is a different world. Perhaps it is a world where climate is everything and where in most communities in
The Constitution
the Northwest Territories and the Yukon everything must be flown in. Perhaps it is the last frontier of our country.
Canada's future economic prospects depend on orderly development of northern resources for the benefit of all Canadians. That will come only if provincial administrations are given the task of dealing with conditions on the spot, conditions dealt with by the residents who are there and who know the conditions. The day has long gone when citizens of the north, native or European, will tolerate being a colony of the bureaucracy.
The future belongs to the north, and the north must be free to realize that future for the benefit of all Canadians.
Throughout these negotiations, the elected governments of the territories have been patronized, ignored, treated with indifference or contempt but, whatever else, never heard by their elected representatives.
The Mackenzie Valley, the Beaufort Sea, Melville Island, these are the passwords of the future. Northerners demand a voice in that future so they can speak for a Canadian point of view, a point of view formed by living and working in the north country.
We are the trustees of the future, and it is time that this fact was recognized here in the House and in the country. I hope that by tomorrow we will have that provincial accord which will delete these invidious provisions from the proposed Constitution, and I have every indication from the government that if we do have an assurance that there is that accord, the government will voluntarily support the amendments proposed by me.
With all my heart I hope that this will come about so that we do not take this terribly retrograde step which will forever doom every possibility of the Yukon or any other of our northern territories from ever becoming a province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of my comments will be to clarify my position on the proposed resolution for patriation of the Canadian constitution, because I feel it is essential at this point in the debate to explain exactly why I disagree with the motion. First of all, I want to make it quite clear that I am personally in favour of patriating the Canadian constitution. Our country will not be fully sovereign until it is able to decide for itself what its future is to be. Patriating our constitution to Canada will remove any lingering traces of colonialism, and from now on, Canadians will make their own decision. I am not opposed to the government's objectives in introducing this motion, nor am I objecting to the way it was done, although I would have preferred the Government of Quebec to have been a partner in the agreement that was concluded. The present situation is probably due to the ambiguity of the Supreme Court decision in which the Justices washed their hands of the whole thing simply tossing the ball back in the politicians' court. It is important to understand which constitutional provisions relate to the Charter of Rights. After establishing what the objectives
13360

November 26, 1981
The Constitution
of these provisions are, I will argue about the expected implementation of these provisions.
The main purpose of a constitution is to guarantee the rights of citizens beyond the reach of any political power. Furthermore, it should not be used to protect the rights of majorities but rather those of minorities, for the former, the majorities, protect themselves naturally through their numbers, through political influence and through the environment they create. That is why protection of the rights of the minorities cannot be left in the hands of the majorities, nor in those, for that matter, of the various legislative assemblies.
A constitution is in fact, Mr. Speaker, a social contract which binds a whole nation, and to which each citizen is subject. The latter element should ensure that each and every citizen enjoys respect and equality within the social body, regardless of his origin, opinions, language and beliefs. [Translation]
In the present constitutional resolution presented to the Parliament of Canada by the federal government, these rights will be entrenched in a charter of rights and freedoms. The charter is intended to be universal, above everything else. Its primary objective is to guarantee equal rights to all individuals throughout Canada. The rights in the charter include the right to fundamental freedoms and democratic rights, which are covered by Clauses 1 to 5, and with which 1 wholeheartedly agree. Clause 6 guarantees mobility rights and rights to gain livelyhood everywhere in Canada. Although I agree with the essence of this clause, we shall see that other constitutional provisions make it somewhat less than ironclad, and I would go so far as to say that in practice, its existence is threatened. Clauses 7 to 15 guarantee legal rights, and for the same reasons I gave concerning Clause 6, the implementation of these rights is also threatened throughout Canada. Clauses 16 to 22 deal with official languages, and it is said specifically that these provisions apply to the Parliament of Canada and to New Brunswick. The status of official languages in other provinces is regulated by earlier constitutional provisions in Section 133 of the British North America Act and Section 23 of the Manitoba Act. There, Mr. Speaker, we have the crux of the constitutional resolution. A direct consequence of the fact that the status of the French language is governed by such provisions is that all clauses in the charter starting with Clause 16 are, in effect, English only in seven out of 10 provinces. [English]
It is true that mobility rights and legal rights are guaranteed under the charter, but in reality are those rights guaranteed to French-speaking citizens if they cannot, except in three provinces, be tried in their own language, buy a house in their own language or register their will in their own language? Indeed, can they use their own language to carry on business, make transactions, sign contracts, etc? No, Mr. Speaker.

Clause 23 gives constitutional guarantees with respect to language educational rights, up to and including secondary school, in all provinces including Quebec. The wording of Clause 23 is not specific about the administration and control of minority language educational institutions. A liberal and broad interpretation will probably be necessary to establish that the legislators of this House, by applying the process in subparagraph 23(3)(b), and I quote:
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2)...
(A) 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.
That is the process, Mr. Speaker. With due respect to my friend Bill Davis, the premier of my province, there is still a glimmer of hope.
Not more than a week or two ago, my Canadian First Minister told me something I would like to read to you, in reply to a question I asked him on November 9. His answer was: "So I think that to start with, francophones outside Quebec should take time out to celebrate, but not too long", and I agree, Mr. Speaker, there is a glimmer of hope in the fact that a liberal interpretation of this clause may give us access to the administration and control of our educational institutions.

Of course, some will say that since the charter grants minority language education right, throughout the country, the rights of the francophones are, indeed, protected. However, the charter imposes a notion of quantity by specifying, quite ignobly, "where the number is sufficient to warrant"-that famous clause. What will this number be? Who will decide what is to be that number, the provinces concerned or the courts of justice? We can look forward to some tough battles on this question, Mr. Speaker, in the years to come.
Furthermore, in seven provinces out of ten, including my province of Ontario, a French-speaking citizen will not be able to use his mother tongue in the legislative assembly and courts since these rights will not be guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution. Can it truly be said that equal rights are guaranteed to all?

The irony of this situation can be readily appreciated. Since the Charter of Rights does not give access to legal and legislative institutions in the language of the linguistic minority in that Canadian province, parents will have to fight in English to obtain recognition of a minimum of the constitutional rights granted to them as francophones. This serious deficiency in the Charter of Rights makes it unacceptable in my opinion. We are told that the charter safeguards the rights of linguistic minorities, but it does so only partially. Minorities are given certain rights, but not the tools required to ensure that they are respected. That is why I disagree with this proposal, Mr. November 26, 1981

Speaker. The inclusion of a charter of rights reflects the desire to grant the same rights to all Canadians. Yet, these rights granted in the charter are denied in practice by other provisions. This is what I question. I am told that as a Frenchspeaking Canadian, I am given every right while, in fact, these rights can be exercised fully and completely only in three provinces. In its present version, our future Constitution will maintain the notion of two classes of citizens: those who have rights across the country, namely English Canadians, and those who have rights only in three provinces, namely Frenchspeaking Canadians.
Even the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was against this disparity of linguistic rights at the time. In reply to a question I asked in this House concerning the equality of linguistic rights, Mr. Trudeau replied, as reported on page 2642 of Hansard for January 29, 1979:
-I would insist on the fact that this bill of rights should and must include a bill of rights protecting official language minorities all over the country.
This commitment has been partly met and some of these rights are included in the charter. The problem therefore comes basically from Section 133 which, because of its exclusive application to Quebec, cancels out the total application of these rights in seven other Canadian provinces. Section 133 is the tool used by the English-speaking majority to have access to parliamentary and legal institutions through its minority. This means that all English-speaking Canadians can have access to the democratic institutions in their own language throughout the country, including Quebec, where they are in a minority, and I quite agree with that. However, the majority of the provinces, or seven out of ten, are refusing to grant French-speaking Canadians from Quebec and elsewhere the same right to access in their own language to legislative and legal institutions.
[English)
I am against this double standard in applying legislation in Canadian territory. I am truly embarrassed to realize that today, in 1981, the majority continues to impose itself, even where the members of its group are in a minority, and refuses to grant the same rights to the other linguistic community. I would feel much better if we abolished Section 133 of the British North America Act, thus putting an end to the preferential treatment afforded to the majority.
All provinces should be subjected to the application of such a provision, or it should be simply deleted as was proposed by the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on Canadian Unity. I believe that the arguments brought forward by that commission are the same as those I am advancing tonight.

Moreover, I am not the only one to hold that view. My colleagues of the Ontario branch of the Liberal Party of Canada unanimously passed the following proposal last fall. I
The Constitution
will spare you the preamble, but the resolution reads as follows:
... Resolved that this meeting of the Liberal Party of Canada (Ontario) firmly support the application of Section 133 of the Constitution to Ontario.

Even public opinion supports this position which seems to indicate that the population is often more awake than certain politicians would lead us to believe.
At the provincial level, an opinion poll commissioned by The Globe and Mail revealed that in Ontario more than 53 per cent of the population agree that the province of Ontario should be bound by Section 133. In my own riding of Ottawa-Vanier, this figure exceeds 66 per cent, according to an opinion poll taken in October, 1981. Over 83 per cent of the population in my riding demand that francophones outside Quebec be granted the same constitutional rights as those granted to the English-speaking minority in the province of Quebec, namely, a completely autonomous education system, which we do not have in Ontario, and the right to use their own language in the legislative assemblies and the courts. Under the present resolution this equality of treatment is denied francophones. For this equality to exist, Section 133 should either be made applicable to those provinces which are not bound by it, or be abolished in the provinces of Quebec and Manitoba.

Now who objects to that? The Ontario Premier, Mr. Davis, of course, and several of his provincial counterparts. The federal government was compelled by Mr. Davis to accept this way of thinking in order to get his support. At that time, since eight provinces out of ten rejected the patriation proposal, the Prime Minister had no choice. Besides, he stated at a recent press conference that nothing would please him more than to compel Ontario to recognize its francophones by forcing Section 133 on that province; but the interplay of political alliances prevented him from doing so. La Presse reported in its edition of Monday, November 23, the comments of Premier Davis who said, and I quote:
It is quite obvious that our strong objection to Ottawa's initial intention to review Section 133 of the Constitution in order to institutionalize bilingualism has led the Canadian government to give up that idea.
Mr. Davis, on the other hand, claims that Ontario should not be forced to grand francophones these rights, that Ontario would do it at its own pace, that is, slowly. Need I remind hon. members of all the battles fought by francophones in Ontario to get a few statutory privileges. Need I remind hon. members, to question the good will of Mr. Davis, of the painful clashes I witnessed as school trustee from 1966 to 1979? Sturgeon Falls in 1971-72, Cornwall in 1973, Elliot Lake in 1974, Windsor-Essex, Penetanguishene, and this is only in Ontario, Mr. Speaker, but I could mention similar battles now being fought all over Canada. Mr. Speaker, I should like to read the preamble of the Ontario legislation creating a French school in Essex. I think this preamble is quite eloquent about the legal recognition of francophones in Ontario. I quote:

November 26, 1981
The Constitution

An Act to require The Essex County Board of Education to provide a French-language Secondary School
Assented to July 12th, 1977
Whereas the French-language advisory committee of The Essex County Board of Education has, since 1969, consistently recommended that a French-language secondary school be provided; and whereas, upon such recommendation having been rejected by the Board in the year 1974, the Languages of Instruction Commission of Ontario recommended that the Board provide such a school; and whereas The Essex County Board of Education, having initially rejected the recommendation of the Commission, subsequently agreed in April, 1975 to proceed with construction of a French-language secondary school, but on and after the 23rd day of February, 1976 ceased to proceed therewith; and whereas a mediator appointed by order in council No. 1452/76 recommended in February, 1977 that the Board build such school, but the Board, on or about the 8th day of March, 1977, decided not to build the school and it is now apparent that no such school will be provided at this time; and whereas there are sufficient Frenchspeaking secondary school pupils resident in or adjacent to the area of jurisdiction of The Essex County Board of Education who have elected to be taught in the French language to warrant the provision of a French-language secondary school; and whereas the public interest, and in particular the interests of such French-speaking secondary school pupils, require that such a school be constructed;
Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Ontario, enacts as follows:
And the bill followed nine years after the formal recommendation, Mr. Speaker.

The meagre comfort we have obtained from the Ontario government over the past 100 years is the result of bitter fighting such as that I have just described. And Mr. Davis would have us believe that he will grant us additional rights when the Constitution will allow him not to. Let us not dream in colour, Mr. Speaker. One of the best ways to ensure that linguistic minorities enjoy these rights forever is to spell it out in the Constitution. Because the current resolution fails to do so, I must in all conscience voice my opposition. The resolution is incompleted and unfair to francophones. It will create two classes of citizens. It will create a checker board country of legal exemptions. I am sure we could do better, much better.
Another aspect of this resolution which reveals even more its real worth, is the presence in the Charter of a great many non obstante clauses. These clauses of course are the result of the negotiated compromise between the federal government and the nine provincial governments. However, if we reflect upon the result of that compromise we realize that this resolution is probably the only federal document which has to rely upon provincial jurisdiction or legislation to become operative. As I pointed out in an earlier speech, that is a good example of a situation where the government of Canada proposes and where provincial governments dispose. How then can we speak of a Canadian constitution? We should instead speak of a constitution of the Canadian provinces made possible through the federal government. Those numerous opting-out clauses leave us in a rather strange situation, Mr. Speaker. I see that you are about to rise. I do not know whether my time is up, but I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to finish my speech because I have only a few pages left to read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: Relevancy. Remember there is an amendment on the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank hon. members for their consent. I will speak for another three or four minutes at most.


An hon. Member:: Speak about the provincial territories. [Translation]


Jean-Robert Gauthier: To put it another way, a Canadian citizen anxious to travel in his own country will have to check very carefully, before leaving his province, how the constitution is interpreted in the provinces where he intends to stay. For instance, if he were to be arrested his legal rights might vary when he crosses a border. Faced with what may be a great number of rights which are applicable or not applicable, the least one can do is wonder whether one is still in the same country or in a federation of different countries. Despite this imbroglio of legal situations which might develop and which I find deplorable, I can fully appreciate the spirit of compromise and co-operation which paved the way for the present agreement. I am all the more pleased to see that this spirit of compromise is enduring, as we have noticed in the past two days. It is that same will to compromise which enabled the governments to return to the bargaining table and redefine a new constitutional agreement which now includes the right to equality for Canadian women and the acknowledgement in our constitution of the rights of the native people.
On these two issues, Mr. Speaker, I am in complete agreement with the position taken by the government of Canada. In view of these demonstrations of good will and of compliance with the true spirit of federalism, I seek the support of all members so that our Constitution will recognize, apart from the rights I just mentioned, the right for citizens of both official language groups to an equal treatment. In fact, Mr. Speaker, that simply means the implementation of the motion I introduced today under Standing Order 43 to ask that all provinces recognize the linguistic duality of Canada and be subjected to Section 17(2), 18(2), 19(2) and 20(2) of the resolution. That would establish in law the equality sought by both language groups. I therefore ask that the government and this House introduce an amendment to that effect, since I cannot do so for reasons of parliamentary procedure. I hope Mr. Speaker that I have made my position clear.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the amendment moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)
November 26, 1981

seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton on a point of order.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I was rising to speak in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar).


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, I am relatively happy to speak to this motion moved by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I wish it was unnecessary. It has been a concern since the first ministers' conference two and a half weeks ago, first brought to our attention with full impact by the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories. Certainly it is one that I, as one of the members aspiring for autonomy in the far north on an equal basis with the provinces, would wish to see deleted so we as northern people can proceed with plans in this respect.
It was inconceivable to northerners, both from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, that the premiers of the provinces could have deliberately agreed to expand their powers to the point of stealing what rightfully belongs to other people. This in itself is unconstitutional. I am sure, under the same circumstances, that all members of the House would react in the way that the assemblies of the two territories and all northern people have reacted.
Therefore this matter is certainly one that the federal New Democratic Party has been concerned with. The day before last the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) moved an amendment which I had the honour to second, stating that any changes to the boundaries or political status of the territories should be done only with the consent and participation of the people inhabiting those areas. This is only just. Every person in this country knows that. Most assuredly, the premiers knew that when they agreed to the November 5 accord.
I would like to quote from several documents that might help enlighten people. First, a resolution was passed unanimously in the Yukon Territorial Assembly which reads as follows:
The Yukon Legislative Assembly supports the efforts of the Legislative Assembly of the Northwest Territories to have clauses 41(e) and 41(f) of the Constitution Act, 1981 now before the House of Commons removed and that this legislature further seeks the inclusion in the Constitution Act, 1981 of a clause that will provide for the capability of new provinces to be created under similar circumstances to the British North America Act of 1871.
Second, a resolution was passed in December 1867 in this Parliament asking for jurisdiction over the northwestern territory and Rupert's Land, which states:
-to grant to the Parliament of Canada authority to legislate for their future welfare and good government; and we most humbly beg to express to Your Majesty that we are willing to assume the duties and obligations of government and legislation as regards those territories.
Further to that, I quote from the preamble to the Rupert's Land Act which outlined the terms under which the land transfer was made, which reads as follows:
The Constitution
-and to grant to the Parliament of Canada authority to legislate for their future welfare and good government upon the terms and conditions therein stated.
In light of that act, it is clear that the inclusion of Section 41(l)(e) and (0 is a violation of trust and an abdication of the federal government's responsibilities to the territories. By taking this power for themselves, the provinces have made an incursion into federal jurisdiction.
This means that under the powers given them by the inclusion of Section 41(e) and (f), for the first time in history provincial governments will be granted extraterritorial jurisdiction.
Section 41(1 )(f) will means that no new provinces can be established without the consent of at least two thirds of the provinces whose combined population exceeds one half of the total population of Canada and the federal Parliament. Therefore, for the Northwest Territories or the Yukon Territory to become a province, it will be necessary to have the consent of eight governments. This is a marked departure from the present law and past convention, where the authority to establish new provinces resided exclusively with the Parliament of Canada.
This is not acceptable. How would one of those provinces like to be under similar circumstances? I do not think it would like it. We can only assume that, having deleted the aboriginal and treaty rights section from the Constitution Act, 1981, the provinces would never allow northern peoples, no matter how far down the road, the right to look forward to the attainment of full, responsible government under the same conditions and privileges that other Canadians have enjoyed.
This is elitist thinking and repugnant to a society which calls itself democratic. It is repugnant to this party in view of the fact that it is the federal NDP policy to support the right of territorial peoples to self-determination.
In this regard, northern people are realists. We do not ask for provincial status now, but wish to have it when we are ready. We do not expect to own all the resources in the north. However, Bill C-48 takes care of that. Constitutionally, we do expect to have the right to the same political development that all other Canadians have enjoyed. For the moment, while we prepare for advancement in the political sphere, we wish to remain under federal jurisdiction. This jurisdiction was further confirmed under the British North America Act 1871 which, by the way, is included in Schedule I of the resolution. An oversight by the premiers? Perhaps.
To northerners the possibility of provincial takeovers leaves us feeling something akin to what Canadians would feel if the Constitution of the United States included provisions for extending state boundaries into Canada. In the north we have a national identity which is based on our loyalty to our country, but we also have another identity deeply rooted in the fact that we are northerners.
We do not wish to be annexed, and we particularly do not like the scenario of losing our status as residents of a territory through constitutional provisions which we had no part in developing. There were no territorial government representa-

The Constitution
tives present to defend the autonomy of territorial lands, and so Section 41(e) and (f) made its appearance in the Constitution.
The nine premiers, eight of them Tory I might add, who signed the constitutional accord naturally have a stake in leaving the way open to extending their boundaries, particularly considering the fact that the areas into which they would move are a resource developer's dream. Fossil fuel and mineral resources are considered to be in abundance in the north. The only surprising aspect of this development is that the federal government did not balk at the possibility of future loss of control over the Canada lands which the oil and gas act so ably ensured.
All Canadians would surely empathize with the situation which faces us in the north if they would consider their own reactions under similar circumstances. It is essential to future north-south relations in our own country that the northern territories be allowed to develop within the Canadian tradition in ways which fully involve us politically. The deletion of Section 41(e) and (f) is a small but essential step in this direction.


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise to take part in this historic debate. I am sure that all hon. members share in the sense of achievement that is represented in the resolution before the House. It is not every session, nor even every year or indeed every decade, that a subject of this significance is brought before Parliament. I do not believe there will be many such occasions in the future to discuss a matter as fundamental as the Constitution of a country itself, because it is not every year that amendments are brought forward to a matter as important as this.
Because of the historic achievements, I wish to pay particular tribute to those who have been most responsible, especially to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has presided with wisdom and grace over the whole process of constitutional discussions and who, I suggest, Mr. Speaker, will be recognized and acknowledged as the architect of a truly Canadian Constitution. I also pay tribute to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), and the provincial premiers and to all hon. members of the House who have debated and discussed this matter, not only in the House but also throughout the country. I also want to add commendations to the literally thousands of Canadians who have participated not only before the committee but in public discussion and who have made their contribution to this Canadian Constitution, because I know that all Canadians share in this achievement.
There is also another reason I am proud to take part in this debate. It is a very special reason. I am a resident of Prince Edward Island. In 1864, 117 years ago, the first meeting to discuss the concept of confederation of the British North American colonies was held in Prince Edward Island. I sat as a member of the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island for more than ten years, in a building called Province House,
known throughout Canada as the cradle of confederation. It is designated today as a national historic site. It was in that building, just down the hall from where the Legislative Assembly still meets, that the Charlottetown Conference was held.
Of that meeting, Sir John A. Macdonald said that if the Charlottetown conference had not been held, never, perhaps for a long series of years, would we have been able to bring confederation to a practical conclusion". As a distinguished Canadian historian, Peter Waite, correctly noted, the Charlottetown conference "Was more than a Canadian triumph; it was the first appearance of an authentic national spirit".
I think it is rather fitting, Mr. Speaker, that during these days when the logical culmination of that original conference is taking place, now as Parliament is taking steps to bring the Constitution to Canada, workmen are putting the finishing touches to the restoration of those confederation chambers in Charlottetown. The building, under Parks Canada, is being restored to the way it was at the time of the Charlottetown conference. It is rather interesting that as we put the finishing touches to this constitutional debate, the finishing touches are being put to the chambers where the idea of confereration itself first took root.
I may be forgiven a certain sense of pride as a Prince Edward Islander because the spirit of confederation really had its birth there. I think it is also useful to look at the resolution that is now before us in two ways. It is, as I said, the logical culmination of the original drafting of the British North America Act. No one in the House or in the country will disagree with the patriation of that act. I believe then, first of all, that we should look at this measure as the fulfilment of a broad range of historical imperatives. As the Minister of Justice so appropriately observed at the beginning of this debate in quoting the words of George Brown, the original Constitution was not a perfect document. Even with the measures that have now been incorporated into it, it is still not a perfect document. Yet it fulfills in many respects the spirit of the Fathers of Confederation. That spirit, those historical imperatives, saw a united Canada from sea to sea. There was a sense of cultural and linguistic diversities throughout the country and a respect for those diversities. There was a recognition of the special needs and the opportunities of each region.
While as a Maritimer I cannot say that the national policy served us extremely well, it is not because of the constitutional framework but because of the loss of that spirit of sharing which was inherent in the concept of confederation at the beginning. Perhaps the original framers were at fault for not including the guarantees. Perhaps the euphoria of nationbuilding obscured consideration of practical realities as they might and did emerge. In any case, I am happy to see that this resolution not only captures the original spirit of Canada from sea to sea but also confirms and incorporates the commitment of Parliament to those principles.
This brings me to my second point, Mr. Speaker. This step does not only represent the fulfilment of a process which began
November 26, 1981

more than a century ago, it also represents the beginning of a process, the laying of a foundation for the future of federalism in this country. Not only does it catch up to present realities, it is also forward looking. The entrenchment of native rights, the rights of women, the principle of equalization, embodies some very basic principles which have served this country well and will continue to serve it in the years ahead. It is more than a measure which reflects the state of our country, of our national psyche, at a given period in our history.
It is not simply a measure which is frozen in time. The resolution is both the fulfilment and the promise of the very framework of this country. It is a recognition, a reconfirmation of our confidence in the federalist system, a system which has served us well before and which will serve us better in the years ahead. It is a reconfirmation of a national spirit which was first conceived in Charlottetown, and it promises the opportunity for the continued evolution of the federal character of our country in response to future changes throughout society as a whole.
We talk about the nature of the resolution before us. Over the last number of months we have had a great deal of discussion about the general character of federalism and what it means to all of us. We heard discussions ranging from a preference for a strong federalist system to preference for what has been characterized as a system made up of a "community of communities" where a jurisdiction is transferred from one level of government to the other. In one area there is total jurisdiction for fisheries and in another area there is total jurisdiction for mineral resources, thus areas are abandoned and transferred from one level to the other.
It is very important within this process to ensure that we not only project the federalist system; it must also be changed and must respond to the changing society and country in which we live. I do not mean this in a narrow legalistic sense. I mean it must reflect the co-operative achievement of Canadians working together for a common goal. At the same time-it is clear that we must recognize the diversities of our great country. In fact, I have argued that, because of the unique circumstances of Prince Edward Island, special responses to its needs and opportunities were essential. But I also recognize that a precondition to all that, whether it be the capacity to respond to the diversities of regions or provinces or individuals, is the maintenance of a strong federal system which is crucial to the continued existence of the country.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms removes the prospect of the exercise of arbitrary political power interfering with the basic rights and freedoms of individuals, just as the entrenchment of the principle of equalization ensures that provinces such as Prince Edward Island will continue to play their legitimate role in the context of a strong federal system of government. On those grounds, I repeat that the resolution makes an assumption about the essential federal character of the country, which I fully endorse and support.
The Constitution
Throughout the entire constitutional discussions over the past decade or so-in fact over the past half century-the province I represent consistently addressed the need for a strong federal government to redress the imbalances among provinces which have existed. That principle was recognized in 1912 by Sir Wilfrid Laurier who was commenting in the House of Commons on a brief brought before the federal government by the province of Prince Edward Island. "The one reason for recognizing the case presented by Prince Edward Island which has impressed me", said Laurier, "and it is not a constitutional reason, it is not a legal reason, it is a simple question of equity ..."
I am proud to see the question of equity entrenched in the Constitution, not just as it applies to the provinces, but also as it applies to women, to native people, and to all individuals throughout the country. It would be a shame if that principle, that spirit of equity, were not shared by all governments and by the people they represent. At the risk of making an understatement, the Constitution is a good thing. But it will fail if its spirit and intent are not fully shared and endorsed by the people of Canada and their governments.
As Minister of Veterans Affairs I am deeply aware of the spirit of sacrifice on behalf of the principles of freedom, justice and equity which Canadians before us have made. We can be faithful to that spirit by supporting the resolution. It has been remarked that various enactments contained in the resolution will create a lot of business for lawyers as the legal applications are tested before the courts. I hope that is not the case, not because I want to see lawyers lose business but because it would seem a shame if the spirit and intent of the resolution were diminished by legalistic bickering. Yet, as I said at the outset, the constitutional package represents an excellent start in the process of enabling Canadians to determine the constitutional framework which best serves their needs, while embodying certain fundamental principles which are essential to the future wellbeing of the country and of all Canadians.
There are opportunities for further improvements, but I believe this package provides a sound base upon which to continue to work for the achievement of our common goals in the future. With the patriation of the Constitution, the process will now be in the hands of Canadian citizens.
In conclusion, this package represents not only the fulfilment of our historic aspirations as a country, but also the framework and the basis for our future growth as a nation and as a people. I commend the way in which it has redressed the deficiencies and also the way in which it has ensured the principles of equity and freedom in our future. The original agreement was not forged out of revolution but because reasonable people sat down together. Although it has taken more than a half a century to reach this point-which in itself speaks volumes about the Canadian experience-I believe historians will regard this package as one of the significant achievements of Canadian nationhood and statecraft. It is more than a constitutional package; it is a reaffirmation of our faith in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 26, 1981
The Constitution


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am conscious, when I rise in the House this evening, that I am following a very distinguished speech by a very distinguished member of the House, a former premier of Prince Edward Island and a former leader of the opposition in that chamber who sought refuge in this Chamber. Having been part of the life of Prince Edward Island during the period of time when he was seeking refuge here, I welcome the statesmanlike quality of the hon. member's contribution to the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: When I came into the Chamber tonight, I did not think I would be following a former premier and a former leader of the opposition. I am pleased that it was a person from other than central Canada.
He said something in his speech which has been brought home to me in the nine years I have been a member of the House of Commons, something which perhaps Canadians forget, that is that a solution which might be dreamed up by a government to apply nationally sometimes does not apply as appropriately in British Columbia or Prince Edward Island as it might in Ontario. What might be appropriate for the hon. member's part of Canada might not be appropriate in western Canada. This speaks to the great diversity of the nation and to the reason why the Fathers of Confederation made a great journey down the St. Lawrence by boat to Charlottetown in 1867 and made the happy return journey to Quebec. This speaks to the reason for having a federal system. We are different, we are different. If we do not realize this, we will miss something as Canadians.
This debate started off in the fall in dreadful rancour. If it meant anything at all as it moved from its stage in the fall to now, it was that somehow or other respect for the importance of the differences in Canada was seeping into the minds of hon. members of the House and of members of the Canadian public who were watching-the differences of region, of development, of language, of race, of time, and the differences in people coming to Canada for the first time. As a result of this debate I hope that, whatever else comes of it, we will begin again the process of understanding what Cartier and Macdonald began in 1867.
The hon. member spoke of confederation. What is confederation? It is a difficult term to describe. Certainly it is similar to a marriage. Certain things are written down and codified about the relationship of marriage, and those things are enforceable between husband and wife. If the husband does not live up to his obligations or his wife does not live up to her obligations in a marriage, the offended party can take the other to court and enforce those rights against the other.
But written words do not keep a marriage together nor do they keep a marriage alive. The things important to domestic peace in marriage are the things that are unwritten, the things that cannot be legislated, that are as simple and straightforward as they are profound. Those things are respect, understanding, love, sharing, compromise, trust and forgiveness. They are what grease the wheels of marriage. I have a feeling, Mr. Speaker, that they also grease the wheels of nationhood.
It has been the lack of those elements between the two levels of government in the last while that has caused so much trouble in the Canadian family.
If we have seen precious little of those virtues, then the brilliant judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada pointed the way to peace, to the state where we could begin to talk to each other, to where we were given a second chance as a country, and our leaders were given a second chance to begin again the search for the resolution of some of our difficulties.
Hon. members will recall that at the time of the judgment what was on the minds of us all was what the leaders of the country would do with that time. Would they squander it, begin again the exercise in confrontation that had gone before, or would they begin to talk to each other rather than at each other.
I think all of us in the House tonight can say to the Premiers, can say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), can say to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the others who were involved in those negotiations that they did not squander that time. We are now at the point in the debate where we are considering a new confederation for our country. This is what it amounts to.
The so-called "gang of eight" opposed to what was happening has become the "chorus of nine" in favour. Those who had opposed the very idea of entrenching a Charter of Rights and Freedoms of some kind in the Constitution of Canada are now consulting with ministers of the Crown, with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and with the hon. member for Pro-vencher (Mr. Epp), about how it should be improved. Such is the change in attitude.
Whereas the amending process was a stumbling block to agreement because it gave unnatural powers to the central provinces at the expense of others, somehow or other we have agreed upon the keystone of federalism, that is, the power to amend our Constitution ourselves.
I say to you that at the end of this exercise, Mr. Speaker, this document will go to Great Britain and we will have patriation. We will have the right to amend the Constitution here, again and again and again if we choose.
I listened tonight to the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) who spoke rather feelingly of what is a charter of rights and freedoms. If I quote him correctly, he said that a charter of rights in a Constitution is designed to protect the rights of minorities against majorities.
Hon. members may recall that last fall I said in the House that the rules of practice, what is in Beauchesne, what is in the parliamentary tomes, is that the majority does not necessarily have the right to rule. We protect minorities in the country; we have to protect minorities here.
I listened to the hon. member speak-he did not speak before in the debate-and tonight he spoke with feeling from
November 26, 1981

his own position. 1 could understand how he felt. I personally felt that way last fall. As I listened to him, I said to myself that he should have faith in this new beginning because this Constitution has within it the right of all of us as Canadians to participate in advancing rights. That is an important feature.
When the accord was reached, there were some who said that it should not be changed by Parliament. "Don't rock the boat" said the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). I suggest we have improved the boat. We have added equality of the sexes. We have had unanimous agreement today with respect to the rights of the native people.
We are now talking about an amendment, which I hope will be supported in the House and which I hope will meet with agreement, that will allow the people of the Northwest Territories and the people of Yukon, those people north of 60, to feel that their opportunity, when they want to exercise it, to become a province like Prince Edward Island, like Ontario, like Quebec, like Alberta and like British Columbia, is not taken away from them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think that is worthy of support. They want only to preserve the right to realize their future aspirations.
I have not travelled much, but I have been in the north several times and I can attest to the spirit of enterprise and the spirit of the future of the people in northern Canada. 1 think we in the House owe them passage of this amendment. I hope it can be done. I do not say anything tonight in a partisan sense, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister for Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) was kind enough to mention that all members of the House had contributed to bring us to the point at which we are now, and he is right. The resolution before us now is different; the amending formula is different; the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is different, and the differences in Canada are respected in this document.
The Supreme Court of Canada was allowed to function. It brought down a judgment which I say is a brilliant judgment, one that could not be picked apart. It gave the country a second chance. It said the government had a legal right to do what it wanted but to beware if it moved without substantial provincial support. It would be unconstitutional and, I think, divisive and damaging to the country. We have reached a new plateau.
In his kindness in paying tribute to all members of the House, the minister included the Leader of the Opposition. I hope hon. members will allow me to say something about my leader and his part in this process.
There would not have been renewed negotiations but for the steadfastness of the Leader of the Opposition who inspired a sense of commitment to the importance of consensus in the constitutional process.


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


Walter David Baker: There are many who may disagree with my leader. It is a free country; they can disagree with him if they want. Of course, he reserved the right to disagree with them. He believed in the importance of consensus, in understanding and compromise, and he fought for those things.
I say with as much modesty as I can muster that it was my party which led a battle in the House. It was not understood early in the battle that it was to delay the process, to delay a steamroller, which we honestly believed was wrong. Ultimately, the courts were allowed to decide and make that historic landmark judgment.
I was very proud to be the House leader of the party during that process. I must say that I am delighted not to be the House leader of the party today. When I listened to the point of order being argued today, I was delighted to be able to sit as an observer, because as my friends know, I have argued many points of order before. However, it was important. I do not say this in a partisan sense, looking back on it now, because it is the way things have evolved. However, hon. members will recall that this former resolution was to be in Britain by Christmas-


An hon. Member:: It will be.


Walter David Baker: -Christmas of 1980. It is best for the country that it was not there in 1980 because I believe-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -we would have done great damage. I want to pay tribute to my leader who, right from the outset, said where he stood and never changed his ground. In his speech the other day, he indicated the importance of having Quebec at the table of the accord. He said that we, as a party and as a Parliament, should grasp every opportunity to keep alive any chink of light there might be to have Quebec as part of that accord.
It is important to repeat again and again that there will be an empty chair at the table of confederation if the House approves this resolution. It is important that we keep that chink of light alive if we can because this is not the end of the constitutional process. This is, by virtue of the Constitution itself, the beginning of the constitutional process, a process which will go on as long as this country exists. All of us, everywhere, must try to keep that alive.
I do not know the attitude of the government of Quebec. However, I believe it is important that, whatever we do, we hold ourselves open to the people of Quebec. That is why my leader has proposed an amendment in terms of full compensation for opting out. That is important, as he stated so well to the people of Quebec. That is why I hope that in the discussions he is having there could be some settlement with respect to the issue of language.

November 26, 1981
The Constitution
I want to see the Canada clause adopted in that province. I am a Canadian. My children will grow up in this province as Canadians. I would like them to be able to go to that province. My friends on the other side shake their heads, suggesting that it may be impossible, and it may be; but my case is only that that chink of light should be kept alive if it is at all possible. Governments come and go. Public men come and go. As they come and go, attitudes change and societies evolve. Surely, we would want the society in Quebec or elsewhere to evolve so that, as the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier said, the override clause could be diminished so that rights would be completely entrenched, if they are there at all. This would mean there would be no opting out and there could be no absence from one chair at the table of confederation.
Your Honour can judge from what I say, that I am overjoyed that we have moved from the process of confrontation to one where I feel a great sense of coming together. I think it is important that the resolution go forward with the broadest support we can muster in the House of Commons. We have spent a great deal of time. I believe now, as I look back on it, that time has not been wasted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There are some things in this country that we must tackle, as they are very important to Canadians who may be watching this debate and wanting this debate to end quickly. I want it to end quickly. I want the government to be able to move quickly, regardless of what the vote may be in the House of Commons.
I believe we have demonstrated that Parliament is not the rubber stamp of federal-provincial conferences. We have now demonstrated, in at least two instances, that there is room to improve even their good work, that their work is likely the first word and not the last word, and that this is the Parliament of all Canadians.
I hope that hon. members of the House will approach the amendment put by my successor as House leader, my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), in the spirit in which he put it; namely, it is important that we keep the principle of equalization for women and for the aboriginal people of the country entrenched in our Constitution, and that people be allowed to move freely from province to province. Equally, people who want to form provinces, and people who want to protect the boundaries to protect their potential to form provinces, should have that right. That is why, as a person who has been a visitor north of 60,1 make a plea to my friends in the government to accept this reasonable amendment put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon.
In the dying days of the debate, I do not think I will participate in this constitutional debate any further. I appreciate the latitude that Your Honour has allowed me. I feel very much like the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier felt, as he had not participated in the debate either. I had the opportunity sooner. We will engage in many things, but none more profound than what we are concerned with now.
I want to thank my colleagues on all sides for their kind attention to what I had to say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to begin my remarks in the debate on this resolution by praising my predecessor, the distinguished hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). I listened to his speech and I was very impressed by the quality of his contribution to the debate. I did not expect anything else. I knew in advance that my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, would bring a constructive contribution to this debate. It is unfortunate that he could not inspire his colleague, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle).

It is a shame, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Joliette did not choose to make the kind of speech just held by his colleague from Nepean-Carleton. However, I would have liked to have heard from my respected colleague from Nepean-Carleton how he intends to convince Mr. Davis, the Premier of Ontario, to recognize minority rights in Ontario, as demanded by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), on the same terms as they are recognized in New Brunswick and Quebec. 1 hope that the member for Nepean-Carleton will be able to convince his colleagues and Mr. Davis that they would be well advised to do so. In fact, if national unity is the issue, Mr. Davis should be made to understand that the Progressive Conservative members in the House of Commons are supporting this petition being made by the members from Quebec on behalf of the people of the Province of Quebec. And contrary to the claims of our colleague from Joliette, although the Government of the Province of Quebec is not represented among the signatories to the agreement, Quebecers do not lack representation. And this, Mr. Speaker, is because the main architects of the new constitution are people from the Province of Quebec-I see that my colleague from Nepean-Carleton agrees. Since I have only a few minutes until ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker, before broaching points that are of particular concern to me, especially regarding the resolution, I wish to say a few words in praise of those who, in fact, have worked for months toward that historic moment when Canada and Canadians will have their own Canadian constitution, and I am, of course, referring to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
Mr. Speaker, Canada enjoys an enviable reputation in the rest of the world, and that is why the world is watching us today and why observers are anxious to see how Canadians are going to deal with the issue of getting a truly Canadian constitution, how they are going to convince Canadians from every part of the country that there are tremendous benefits in national unity and that Canadians should have a made-in-Canada constitution. The same observers, whether they are
November 26, 1981

from Europe, Asia or South America, will probably be very surprised to see how passionately involved Canadians have become in their country in the course of this debate. At the beginning of November the situation seemed to have reached an impasse, but then came incredibly rapid developments and we are now actually about to create a truly Canadian constitution. And this is thanks to the spirit of co-operation shown by all heads of provincial parties, all provincial first ministers, with one exception, of course, but with 74 members in the House of Commons, one can say that Quebec is amply represented and that the interests of Quebecers are in good hands. We have been doing this for years, Mr. Speaker. If there are 74 of us, it certainly did not happen by accident, and the reason is surely that the members from the province of Quebec are dedicated to defending the interests of Quebecers.
Of course, the Government of the province of Quebec was in a position where it could not sign this kind of agreement, for the simple reason that its number one priority and raison d'etre is to separate the province of Quebec from Canada. Would the party's militants agree to having their leader sign and become a Father of the Canadian Confederation? Imagine! I do not understand how anyone could entertain the thought that those people would be capable of coming to Ottawa in good faith and making a sincere contribution to advancing the case of Canada's Constitution. In fact, they made it quite clear that they thought it was a non-starter and that they were not interested. The whole point of their being there was to apply delaying tactics. Every time a solution seemed imminent, every time a problem was resolved, they managed to find other ways to obstruct the proceedings and to keep Canadians from getting their made-in-Canada constitution. Of course, that is part of their program. And that is how they keep the aspirations of their militants alive.
Mr. Speaker, today the Premier of the province of Quebec or perhaps I should say the provincial Premier of Quebec, is claiming that he has a veto right, which he himself had refused last April, when he acknowledged that he did not, in fact, have a right of veto. Besides, if he had been convinced that he had veto powers, he would not have found it necessary to go to the Supreme Court and ask them to decide whether two major provinces, with the Canadian Government, could ensure the patriation of our constitution with an amending formula and the Charter of Rights. If he had felt for a minute that he really had that veto right, he certainly would not have gone to the Supreme Court. Clearly Mr. Speaker, his arguments are frivolous.
I referred earlier to the contribution of the hon. member for Joliette, the Progressive Conservative member for Joliette. I had expected that his contribution to this debate would be inspired by loftier sentiments.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, he kept carping at his colleagues from Quebec. It is a nice thing in such an assembly to hear someone claim that only he can be right. This reminds me, Mr. The Constitution
Speaker, of that soldier who was marching out of step in a parade and saying: I am not out of step, all the others are. This is absolutely shocking and what I found most disappointing in his intervention was his lack of support for his leader. After hearing him, the first question you wanted to ask was this: Is his leader really sitting at the House of Commons or in the Quebec Legislative Assembly? And from his comments, to which we are unfortunately used, I infer that his leader is not sitting in this House but in Quebec. However, as a member of the federal Parliament addressing the constitutional proposal, it seems to me he should have supported his own leader, the leader of the federal Progressive Conservative Party in his efforts to convince his Quebec leader to sign the agreement, like his counterparts from the other provinces. But he did not, Mr. Speaker. He did not have the decency to praise his leader's commendable efforts to convince Premier Levesque, on behalf of the Quebec people, to support the resolution as suggested and supported by the other premiers. But he may also see some political advantage in trying to turn Quebecers' minds away from matters which are relevant to them. The longer the debate goes on, the better it is for him because there are problems Quebecers have and wish to discuss among themselves, for instance the gasoline tax increase, the National Holiday scandal, the high increases in electricity rates and many other matters, such as the scandals and the mismanagement at the Department of Education. Quebec, or at least the present provincial government is pleased that the debate is still going on in this place because it keeps the people's minds occupied in every province and especially in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, before calling it ten o'clock I would simply like to repeat how tiresome it is for us Quebecers that so much time is being spent on deciding to give ourselves a Canadian constitution. With your permission I will read a statement by one of my predecessors here in this House of Commons, the member for Labelle in the 1930s, Mr. Henri Bourassa, who upon returning from a trip-Mr. Speaker, I see that you want to call it ten o'clock, so I will wait until tomorrow to quote my colleague and predecessor, Mr. Henri Bourassa.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
November 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, on November 5 I directed a question, which appears at page 12533 of Hansard, to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Campbell) concerning the recent War Veterans Allowance Board decision that expanded the definition of the term "theatre of war", to include areas such as Newfoundland and Jamaica, thereby making previously ineligible veterans pensionable for war veterans allowance purposes.
I asked the minister whether the government would give consideration to broadening further the terms of eligibility for pension benefits to include those veterans who, through no fault of their own, were stationed in Canada during the war and were not given the opportunity to serve overseas and up to now have not been eligible for pension.
I thought perhaps the minister's answer was somewhat vague. He felt sure that the War Veterans Allowance Board would continue to look at ways and means of further extending those benefits to other veterans. Does this mean that the department will eventually recognize the valuable service of veterans stationed in Canada by extending pension benefits, and that it is just a matter of time before those veterans receive pensions?
I would suggest that veterans should not have to wait until the War Veterans Allowance Board is inclined or disposed to extend benefits. I believe the minister should take steps, through amending existing legislation, so that these veterans who would have gladly gone into front line service if called upon will receive the pensions they so rightly deserve. A change in legislation is what veterans need. So I ask the minister to do everything possible to introduce legislation to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act, and as soon as possible.
There is another area of concern to our veterans I should like to mention to the minister at this time. I refer to those World War II veterans taken prisoner in Hong Kong who contracted the parasite strongyloidosis. I hope the minister will give serious consideration to the adverse and long-lasting effects this parasite has had on veterans when looking at their applications for pensions.
Long delays in processing claims for benefits are another major concern of veterans. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) has brought this matter to the attention of the House before, that is, the serious delays veterans face when applying for pensions to which they are rightfully entitled. These points are major and pressing, and they are concerns expressed by veterans' associations. We all believe these concerns are very well founded.
I realize that the Minister of Veterans Affairs has only recently been elected to the House of Commons and that it
does take all of us a bit of time when first elected to get the feel of things around there. I feel confident, therefore, that the minister will be looking into those problems I have mentioned and will redress as soon as possible the injustices and inequities to all concerned veterans.


W. Bennett Campbell: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) has in fact raised three questions. He realizes I only have two and a half or three minutes to respond, so maybe I could address the question he raised initially, that is the question of the recent decision by the War Veterans Allowance Board to expand the benefits of war veterans allowance to those veterans who served in Newfoundland.
This involves, of course, not a change in legislation but merely a change in interpretation, in that it has been determined that veterans who were transported beyond the territorial waters of North and South America and the adjacent islands while on duty were considered to have served in a theatre of war. This ruling is merely, as you know, an expansion of the previous definition of "theatre of war" for the purpose of the War Veterans Allowance Act. This expansion of eligibility was possible within the criteria which are set out in existing legislation.
As I mentioned in response to the question from the hon. member, with the exception of those who served in both world wars and those who suffered some pensionable disability as a result of service during either war, the act requires that a veteran has served in an actual theatre of war to be eligible for an allowance. The Board continues to review all areas of service in order to ensure that all those who served in areas of war or theatres of war be given full access to the benefits of war veterans allowance.
On the other hand, in order to extend eligibility to those persons who served in Canada only during either wars, a change to the legislation would be required. That, Mr. Speaker, raises the question, as I mentioned in my answer to the hon. member, whether such a change would be acceptable, considering it would be contrary to the legislation as originally envisaged. It has always been considered that those who did serve in a theatre of war may have been affected in ways which are not readily apparent on medical examination. Therefore, those veterans have always been in a special category recognized by the Government of Canada.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES-UREA FORMALDEHYDE FOAM INSULATION-COMPENSATION SOUGHT FOR HOME OWNERS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, for many months now we on this side of the House have been trying to get answers from the government on the urea formaldehyde foam insulation crisis. I use the word "crisis"
November 26, 1981

advisedly because over the past few weeks especially, this UFFI mess has been developing into a monster of staggering proportions, a result of a gargantuan blunder by this government going back to the mid to late 1970s.
The mind boggles at the number of unanswered questions which only serve to raise more questions, more fears on the part of Canadians who were encouraged to instal urea formaldehyde foam insulation by the government, who were then warned by this same government that the substance might constitute a health hazard, who were then told that the foam was officially banned for health reasons by the government, and who now find that the government cannot appear to get its act together and come up with some positive answers, some hope, some way out of the predicament that it has put these home owners into in the first place.
The government officially banned urea formaldehyde foam insulation a year ago. What has happened since? The government has left hundreds of thousands of people hanging out to dry by ducking questions or running off in six different departmental directions. We have heard the latest chapter just in the last few days, that of lending and banking institutions becoming twitchy in terms of renewing mortgages for people who have UFFI in their homes.
I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. McCauley) in the House this evening. I do not envy him trying to answer some of the questions that are weighing so heavily on the minds of some half a million Canadians. But still, Mr. Speaker, I must put these questions to him because it is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) who acts as the government's umbrella spokesman on the UFFI crisis. The problem is that so far in the House, his umbrella has brought nothing but more bad luck to those with foam in their homes.
I cannot believe the previous answers that the minister has given in the House that it is not the Canadian government's fault that home owners used these products in the first place or that the government must not accept the blame now. Much of the blame, says the minister, lies with the provinces.
Therefore, one question I hope the parliamentary secretary will answer tonight is how the government can use the provinces as a scapegoat for this UFFI mess. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, which granted acceptance numbers for the foam's national use, is not provincial. The Canadian Home Insulation Program, CHIP, which promoted and paid Canadians to instal the foam with CMHC's approval, is not provincial. Health and Welfare Canada, which studied, then temporarily banned, then permanently banned the material, is not provincial. Energy, Mines and Resources and Consumer and Corporate Affairs officials who refused to recommend UFFI and, indeed, cautioned against its use, are not provincial.
Adjournment Debate
I hope the parliamentary secretary will not repeat the line that the provinces have to share a great deal of the blame for this mess and that Ottawa is not responsible, because if you can believe that, you will believe that Colonel Khadafy just graduated from the Dale Carnegie School of Public Relations.
While we are on the involvement of CHIP, Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the government start preparing lists of those homes financed under the CHIP program so that we can have exact numbers and addresses, and that these numbers and addresses of every home insulated under CHIP are available. This is imperative so that if, as, and when the government decides on compensation for those who need to remove the foam and then restore homes to their original condition, people will not have to wait another six months or so.
Let me come to another very serious dimension to this UFFI problem-one of the questions which must be answered- which has come to light only in the past 24 hours. We know that anywhere from 80,000 to 100,000 homes are affected in one way or another by UFFI. What about apartments? In its investigation of the UFFI matter, has the government considered the number of apartment buildings which may have foam in them? I know of at least two large apartment complexes where the presence of UFFI has been detected and indeed verified.
One tenant watched the foam being blown into his apartment building about three years ago. He began suffering a scratchy throat and put a humidifier in his apartment. When UFFI was banned, he went to his property manager to ask if the foam was in the building. When he got an evasive answer, he had the health department team in to test his apartment. The reading was just a touch below the federal Health and Welfare Department's proposed safety level. He informed the apartment owner, asked if any other tenants in that apartment building had testing done, and was told to keep his mouth shut and not inform the other tenants.
I have passed along the particulars of this situation in confidence to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and to the provincial ministry of health in Toronto. I do not feel it is fair to alarm other tenants in that building or to have them harassed. I only use this example to indicate that the UFFI program may yet be reaching a magnitude that not even this government is aware of.
I want to make one final point in this short presentation. Of course, not everyone who has UFFI in their homes or maybe apartment buildings will have problems, not now anyway. Nobody knows whether there could be cumulative effects down the road. It is the uncertainty, the fear of the unknown, the fact that this government, which has known about the UFFI problem for so long, has been offering precious little hope to Canadian home owners. Hope starts with positive information. That is what we need. I hope, on behalf of all

November 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate
those people we have been meeting across this country and who have been writing to my office, that positive information is what we get, beginning tonight, from the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to my good friend and colleague in the House, the hon. member for Hamilton Wentworth (Mr. Scott), whose admirable rhetoric sometimes gets in the way of the facts. I want to take this opportunity to set the record straight with respect to government initiatives relating to urea formaldehyde foam insulation. From the outset, this government has acted responsibly and speedily on this issue to ensure that the health of Canadians is protected.
Prior to November 1979, less than a handful of health-related complaints had been registered with the government against this product. An interdepartmental committee was set up to examine this issue in response to information emanating from other jurisdictions, namely the United States of America.
By September 1980 the government had received approximately 100 complaints, and an advisory committee of health experts was organized to examine the issue and report to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin). Based on the recommendation of this committee, the government acted promptly and banned UFFI under the Hazardous Products Act.
Since that date of less than a year ago, the government has continued to act responsively to home owners who require assistance and information. On June 15, 1981, the UFFI Information and Co-ordination Centre was established by the government to provide information to the public, administer a national testing survey and co-ordinate federal efforts. A toll-free telephone system was set up, which to date has responded to over 10,000 inquiries.
A series of information booklets has been written and disseminated to thousands of individuals. Further publications are planned. Important and promising research is under way which touches upon the use of neutralizers, the effectiveness of remedial measures and the structural effects of UFFI on homes.
On August 24 of this year the government announced that 2,400 homes would be tested to determine formaldehyde gas levels, with special priority given to home owners reporting medical problems. This survey is now completed and an analysis of the results is under way.
Unfortunately, due to the restraints of time, it is impossible for me to touch upon all the elements and history of this problem. I do, however, wish to comment on a particularly important facet, and that is the board of review which was established under the Hazardous Products Act. This board is conducting public hearings into the safety, history and use of UFFI. Thousands of pages of testimony have been recorded
and over 250 exhibits have been filed. Hearings have taken place in Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver. The board has heard virtually any individual wishing to present evidence, including consumers, federal and provincial government officials and members of the business and professional communities. As can be readily seen, Mr. Speaker, the government has reacted quickly to this situation by putting in place a program that responds to this very complex issue. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) has stated on several occasions that the government must have available valid, scientific data on which any further government action can be based.
The formulation and analysis of this data is being actively pursued.


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


RAILWAYS-EMPLOYEES HOURS OF WORK
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 1981, I asked a question of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). It dealt with the hours of work of railway employees, who have to work as much as eleven hours without rest. As reported in Hansard of November 6, 1981, at page 12599, the minister answered my question by saying:
-you and others would find me doing something that is not of my competence, of my jurisdiction.
I want to say that we are talking about the minister's jurisdiction. This is the second time I have asked this minister about this problem. Tonight I will try another approach. Tonight I will put the Minister of Transport on a unit on one of the Canadian railways. We will call the minister. He will be okay for duty. He will be waiting to be called to go to work. He could get up at eight o'clock in the morning and possibly wait six or eight hours to get his call. Finally, he will be called. He gets a two hour call. He will have his meal and then will go out to work. He will climb up on a unit, with one employee on the head-end and another one on the tail-end. His train could be anywhere from 10,000 to 14,000 tonnes. He will start on the way to his destination. I want to talk about the mountainous area. It could be snowing that evening. It could be snowing heavily when he starts out. He could be anywhere from the age of 40, 50, 60 or 65, as many of them are. He will start his journey on this train going through small communities. On this train he could be carrying dangerous commodities. He will be on that train for eight, nine or 10 hours. As the train gets going, we find it at the top of the grade, and there is a passenger train down the hill, with probably 500 passengers sitting down there waiting for this train to come. The minister will be watching the signals. Mind you, he will be on duty for ten hours, he will be on duty for unable to stop to eat because he must not delay his train. He will start down that grade. I will remind the
November 26, 1981

House of the fact that 500 passengers are sitting on the train. He has been on duty for ten hours. He is weary but his contract did not provide him with the opportunity to say, "I am tired". He has to carry on because the union agreement indicated that he must. The Minister of Transport has not brought in laws so that after eight hours he could say, "I am too tired, I cannot carry on." But the passengers have no contract. They are at his mercy. What about the small village down there all these explosives on the train? The people of the village do not have a contract.
The Minister of Transport has a responsibility to bring forward legislation which would indicate that an employee, after eight hours on duty, should be the judge of his own condition. It has nothing to do with the contract. It is only so that the employee can say he is not fit to carry on, or "I feel fine. It was only two or three hours. I feel good, I will take my train to its destination".
Surely the Minister of Transport has a responsibility to Canadians-to those in small communities, to passengers and to others. There are railway employees who are having heart attacks at 49 and 50 years of age. Some of them die, some are demoted. At this time there are 50 railway employees paying $500 contempt of court charges because of such concerns.


A. Daniel McKenzie: One hour on the road, then stop for breakfast.


Sidney James Parker: I am not suggesting anything like that. I am suggesting that there should be regulations covering someone who has completed eight hours of work, so that he can be a judge of his condition in deciding whether or not to carry on. This is my question. It has nothing to do with contracts or interference. It is the responsibility of the minister.
I will conclude with the following note. If the minister does not carry out his responsibility, it will be on his conscience. On top of this, he is allowing American trains to come into Canada. Those employees do not have union contracts or working agreements. They are coming into our country with no agreements, and they must work long hours. They are travelling through the same communities. It is a serious problem. The Minister of Transport has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our communities, of passengers on trains and of the public.


Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for
Adjournment Debate
Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker) for raising this question. I assure him that the Department of Labour is very much concerned with the situation.
In 1972, the then minister of labour appointed a commission of inquiry, pursuant to Section 62 of the Canada Labour Code, into employment practices related to a variety of classes of railway employees within the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada which are known collectively as the operating trades or running trades. When the commission reported to the minister on October 16, 1972, it recommended that these employees be exempted from the application of Sections 29 and 30 of the Canada Labour Code because the sections could not be reasonably applied to this class of employee. In consequence thereof, and following further study by the minister, regulation No. SOR-73-246 dated May 9, 1973 was promulgated in the Canada Gazette. In essence, the regulation exempted the cited classes of employees from the application of Sections 29 and 30 of Part III of the Canada Labour Code. For the purposes of these regulations, hours of work are scheduled and actually worked without regard to Section 31. of the code.
It should be noted that the classes of employees who are exempt from the application of the hours of work under the provision in Part III of the Canada Labour Code are generally engaged in work in which it would be impossible to demand crew changes at the end of any given eight-hour work period.
It is the practice in the railway industry, and has been for years and is recognized in the collective bargaining agreements, entered into by the railways with unions representing their employees, that these classes of employees are generally paid on a mileage basis according to a formula which recognizes an agreed upon average speed of the trains, etc. Therefore, the Minister of Transport was quite right in his response of November 6, wherein he said that this matter was a matter between the employees and the employers. In view of the exemption heretofore granted-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
At 10.26 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 27, 1981