1981-11-23

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That special status in this nation be entrenched for the Eskimos of Edmonton for their exceptional contribution on Sunday to Canadian football, and that honourable mention be accorded the Rough Riders of Ottawa for their courage, their skill, and their sportsmanship.


Madam Speaker:: I suppose the whole House agrees?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, aside from the great depression it is impossible to recall a time when Canadian agriculture has suffered such severe and devastating harm, and it is all due to the government's economic mismanagement. Farmers are dependent upon credit, and the high interest rate policy pursued by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has pushed farmers to the wall, to the point where farm bankruptcies have increased 139 per cent in two years. In light of this I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the Minister of Finance make long-term capital at a fixed rate of interest available to farmers.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamioops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to the small business community, including many small farming operations.
Since the government has now limited the use of Small Business Development Bonds to only those businesses and farms in financial difficulty, the number of which is rapidly becoming a majority, and since confusion exists as to just what is meant by "financial difficulty", and just when this new legislation is to become effective, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap):
That this House request the Minister of State for Small Businesses and the Minister of Agriculture to issue releases immediately to the financial and small-business communities clarifying the changes to the SBDB as they now relate to both small businesses and small farms.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, whereas the Liberal government's energy taxes hit farmers extra hard, and whereas the Liberal government's budget of November 12 abolished income averaging annuities and the capital gains tax reserve, both of which were used to preserve the family farm, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Agriculture speak soon in the budget debate to answer for his failure to prevent the above attacks on the farmers of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981

Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On Saturday, November 21, tens of thousands of demonstrators gathered on Parliament Hill to try to explain to the government the real impact of its high interest rate policy and years of poor economic planning. The response of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) was that the representations were "simplistic and naive". The minister responded by urging the provincial governments to "turn a deaf ear" to the 900,000 unemployed. We hope that the provinces are not as hard of hearing as the federal government.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That the Minister of Finance recognize the responsibility he shares for the policies and problems successive Liberal governments have created, and now produce policies that will return investment, jobs and hope for Canadians facing a severe recession.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Jack Burghardt (London West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. It seems that a prominent member of the Progressive Conservative Party, in fact a former national president of that party, none other than Dalton Camp, has endorsed the budget tabled last week by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You better watch out.


John O. (Jack) Burghardt: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House call upon Mr. Camp to come to Ottawa and hold meetings with his former protege, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, in order to instruct the latter on basic economics.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


APPLICATION OF TAX REMISSION FOR NORTHERN RESIDENTS- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Given the fact that in his recent budget the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) extended for one year the special tax remission for employees working in the north, and given the fact that this measure benefits only a certain proportion of the people in the north, namely, non-residents, and whereas all residents must bear the same highest cost of living in the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Finance take immediate steps to provide equal tax remissions to all residents of the Canadian north.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, the Americans have abandoned their metric board and the British have abandoned their metric board, and together they are major trading partners representing 86 per cent of our total trade. They have either reverted to or stayed on weights and measures in imperial while our government, which preaches restraint, grants our Metric Commission in Canada $12 million under supplementary estimates in 1982, including $3 million for salaries, and $2 million for forced implementation of metric in the retail food stores. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House condemn the government's mad plan to force metric on the people of Canada against their will, particularly in the retail food stores.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 23, 1981


MARINE TRANSPORT
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the same Standing Order and move, without preamble, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the Minister of Transport either rescind his decision to reduce the ferry service from North Sydney to Argentia, Newfoundland, by removing one of the two vessels now in use, thus crippling transport services to Newfoundland for tourists and Newfoundlanders alike, and creating further unemployment, or resign immediately and admit his abject failure to deal fairly or adequately, or at all, with the Atlantic area transportation problems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the more permanent closures in the forest industry in the last two weeks which have resulted in 850 more people being unemployed, and in view of the current lay-offs in the forest industry, which means one quarter of the workers in the forest industry of British Columbia are unemployed, as well as high rates of unemployment in the forest industry elsewhere in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House demand that the government immediately present the new initiatives for the forest sector promised in the budget and that these initiatives include emergency funding to enable the provinces to create employment in reforestation programs, and further, that these programs give preference to those forestry workers who have already lost their jobs as a result of the economic policies of this government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, in view of the importance of the fishing industry to this country and to the number of fishermen who could be laid off on the west coast as a result of recommendations that are
Oral Questions
before the present government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That this House be given a reference so that the Pearse Commission Report may be studied by the appropriate committee.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, agriculture needs help. Every month the obituary column cites increases in farm foreclosures and bankruptcies, to say nothing of the farmers who, frustrated and angry, just give up. Farmers are being told to sell some of their land to pay their debts, yet the land is their only means of survival. The budget, by eliminating the income averaging contract, and the government's white paper threatening 100 per cent capital gains tax, dampen the enthusiasm of the young and make the elderly afraid to retire. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That the Minister of Agriculture cut the interest rate, use the Stabilization Act, the Farm Credit Corporation Act and every other means available to save our farms now.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, on Saturday 100,000 Canadians participated in a dramatic demonstration of dissatisfaction with the current economic policies of the government. Clearly these Canadians feel that the budget made no attempt to address the present recession. This morning the heartless response of the Minister of Finance was "to turn a deaf ear to these pleas", the pleas of Canadians who are suffering greatly from high interest rates, inflation and unemployment.
13072

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Does that statement represent the sum total of the response of the government to these 100,000 Canadians and many other Canadians who are suffering so much from the policies of the government?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the budget statement, and in particular the economic development strategy tabled with it, demonstrate the intention of this government to work to strengthen the economy and to deal with the unemployment problems we have at this time. The basic thrust of the budget is to create a climate of greater stability in prices and interest rates. I think that in itself will have a major positive effect on over-all job creation across the country.


EFFECT OF BUDGET IN PRODUCTIVITY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, with that response the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has told us that he is totally out of touch with reality. The response of Canadians across the country is one of great disappointment and great dissatisfaction with what the budget is doing. The economic development program itself is down $2 billion compared with the projections of last year, so that is how much this government is doing.
The budget papers further show that Canadian productivity ranked dead last among the industrialized countries of the world in 1980 and in the period 1973 to 1980. The minister knows that this is one of the key factors leading to the higher unemployment rate we will see over the next five years, again according to the budget.
Why did the budget introduce specific actions which will reduce productivity because of the significant deterrent for Canadians to invest in new plant and equipment?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the hon. member speaks of productivity. I know of measures connected with it in the economic development document which are intended to enhance productivity. I refer to the commitments in it with respect to measures under the responsibility of my colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I refer also to the announcement in the document that we will be creating a new industrial opportunities program to enhance the capacity of the federal government to aid our industry in being more innovative and to aid it in its over-all development. These are major measures aimed at improving productivity. As usual, my hon. friend is quite wrong when he says that this budget ignores the need for a major thrust to improve Canadian productivity.


EFFECT OF BUDGET ON CANADIAN OWNERSHIP OF INDUSTRY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker,
I think I should ask the minister to reread that document. There is nothing new in it. It is a different packaging of things which had already been introduced by the government but
which were not doing the job. There are no new initiatives- and I think the minister should realize that-which will change this productivity thrust. The budget itself represents a major step backwards in efforts to increase Canadian ownership of our industry because of these new deterrents to investment. If I might refer these to the minister, ours is the only country in the world which proposes to tax life insurance. There is a proposal to change the rules on interest deductibility, which will be very negative for small businessmen and high technology companies.
Will the minister, who is now known as the defrocked minister of Canadian ownership, consider introducing alternative incentives to encourage Canadian ownership to offset these budget changes?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think it could be argued that the over-all reduction in income tax rates places more money in the hands of Canadians, and they will be able to use it for investment in productive activity in Canada. That is a major initiative in the budget which goes in exactly the opposite direction to what my hon. friend suggests is the approach of the budget. The Minister of Finance has said that he is willing to look at representations about the effect of the budget, and I can only repeat what he has said in that particular regard.
I think there is a number of initiatives connected with the budget which are intended to reinforce a movement not only to lower interest rates but also to over-all growth of the economy, and I think we all have to work to make sure that the budget achieves that.
With respect to Canadian ownership, we have confirmed our basic commitments in that regard. In particular, we are carrying forward the major thrust of Canadianization of the National Energy Program. I am surprised my hon. friend cries out about an alleged setback in Canadian ownership when he and his party have steadfastly opposed that basic idea of the National Energy Program. No wonder my hon. friend was defrocked by the Canadian people in the last election. They will do it again the next time they have a chance.


RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH JAPANESE GOVERNMENT
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my question is not to the hon. Barbie doll but to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, from whom we might get some kind of an answer. The minister recently visited Japan. Apparently his main purpose was to ask the Japanese government to urge the United States government to permit Canada to participate in the trade consultations proposed by the United States, between them, the European Community, and Japan.

The minister went to Japan with his begging bowl. Did the Japanese government promise to support Canada's position vigorously, that we be admitted to these talks with the three parties that are meeting and have met together? Have they agreed to press that?
Second, can the minister tell us whether the United States government has now withdrawn its objection to the participation of Canada in view of the government's surrender with reference to its election promises on FIRA, and the humiliation and emasculation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce? Has the U.S. government now withdrawn its objection? What is the position?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that the hon. gentleman is continuing his sometime interest in external affairs. However, he has mingled two very diverse questions. The focal point of my official visit to Japan was not, as the hon. member says, to deal with the question of the restricted trade talks, but was to urge more and freer trade between Canada and Japan, particularly to try to facilitate the entry of more Canadian manufactured and semi-manufactured products into Japan, and also to encourage Japanese investment in Canada, as well as to discuss multilateral issues.
The hon. gentleman is quite right in suggesting that I did discuss the question of the restricted trade talks with the Japanese government. I have to say that I got a somewhat different message from the two Japanese ministers with whom I discussed the question. One took the view that the matter should really be left to the United States. The other was more supportive in his response.
Coming to the other question of the hon. member, I do not know if it was a question on which he places greater stress or not, but he did slip it in at the end, the question of the American response to FIRA. The United States does not have any general objection to FIRA. They have made it clear they have no general objection to our policies either of Canadiani-zation or FIRA. Their problems are with certain very specific things which are done by the National Energy Program and by FIRA. We are having intensive discussions on those issues with the United States to try to assure them of the fairness of our procedures.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES ON CANADIAN PARTICIPATION IN TRADE TALKS
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my sporadic interest in external affairs is less damaging to Canada than the minister's constant interest in external affairs. The organ grinder is away and the monkey is being questioned in his place today. I will come back to the question.
Has the United States withdrawn its objections, not to FIRA-we know they are continuing-not general but specific objections to the participation of Canada in the trade talks with the European Community, Japan, and the United States, which the United States has proposed? The United States is punishing the minister and the government for some irritants it
Oral Questions
caused the United States. Because of the change announced in the budget on FIRA, because of the promise of good behaviour by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, have the U.S. authorities now withdrawn their objection? That is my question to the minister. Will he answer that?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, if that was the point the honourable member was trying to make in his previous question, I am glad he had a second try. In fact the United States has not taken a position as an administration with respect to the restricted trade talks which is in the direction the honourable member suggests. Indeed, Mr. Brock, who is the ambassador with special trade responsibilities, it seems to me had attempted to sponsor a previous meeting to which Canada was not invited. That meeting was cancelled by the President, I believe, because Canada was not invited. Therefore the general position of the U.S. administration on that, and with regard to many other things, appears to be understanding of and sympathetic with the Canadian position. We are doing our best from this side of the House to work out with them the particulars of difficulties which they may have with some points of our legislation and policy.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the acting Prime Minister. Since the budget, home owners have protested, farmers have protested, and small business men have protested the devastating effects of high interest rates. On Saturday the largest crowd in Canadian history assembled on Parliament Hill to demonstrate their outrage, and they demanded a change in the government's high interest rate policy. Is the government now prepared to listen to the people of Canada, representing every sector of the economic spectrum, and change its high interest rate policy?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I heard somebody referring to the fact that last Saturday there were no Liberal members present to witness the manifestations that took place in Ottawa. I want to emphasize the fact, so that the public will know, that it was at the very request of the CLC that meetings were organized on Thursday with ministers and different regional caucuses. That should be very clearly emphasized.


John Edward Broadbent: There were no politicians there.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I understand my hon. friend was there.


John Edward Broadbent: No.

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Anyway, some opposition members said a moment ago that there were no Liberal members at that particular meeting. I just wanted to make the public aware of the fact that there had been meetings with ministers and with Liberal Members of Parliament within the regional caucuses last Thursday. I just wanted to make sure this was known. These representations were heard by the Minister of Finance. The other day the minister responded to a question put by the hon. member from Hamilton, when he indicated his willingness to look into some of the suggestions made to him. Obviously this will continue in the future.


REQUEST FOR CHANGE IN GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if verbal fog were an economic solution, the contribution of the minister would have removed all economic problems for Canadians a long time ago. The Minister of Finance alluded to an effort that would be made by the banks to help home owners. That has already been turned down by the banks, I tell the minister. If the people who were protesting out in front of this building on Saturday have to renew their mortgages either this year or in 1982, the average increase will be $200 to $300 a month, and considering we have lost, since August alone, 50,000 jobs in lay-offs, when will the government simply stop pursuing its old policy and start listening to the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, there were measures taken in the budget at least to help mortgage renewers at this time. Since then there has been a substantial reduction in the interest rate; six points have been shaved from it in recent months. Obviously that situation is improving. If the government feels that more help is needed, the Minister of Finance will announce that in due course.


DIRECTION OF ECONOMIC POLICY
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I shall ask the minister the question again. Even with the current interest rate people renewing their mortgages will have to pay $200 to $300 a month more, which means a $200 to $300 a month decline in their standard of living. Considering that in the budget itself there is a forecast increase in unemployment not only for 1982 but for 1983 and 1984, and that there has been no change in the direction of economic policy, does the government ever plan to listen to the people of Canada, or will it go blindly on and do to this country what Margaret Thatcher has done in the United Kingdom?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously when the Minister of Finance wrote his
budget he was aware of all these facts. He was also aware that wages in Canada have increased for a great number of people and that there are a number of people who could not purchase homes and consequently do not face the problem of increased mortgage rates. These people should not be penalized in comparison with those people who thought they could afford homes at that time. Many in the first group will tell us that if interest rates should continue to go down they will obviously be in a much better position to face the problem they have now.


Mr. McDermid:: Except those who have renewed their mortgages at 21 per cent.


Jean-Luc Pepin: This is the general policy of the government-to reduce interest rates. Obviously some of the measures which are taken to achieve that objective are hurting some people, but generally speaking I think Canadians agree with the objectives of the budget.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is now estimated that by year's end the forest industry in the country will be down by 50 per cent, which will have the potential of 300,000 direct and indirect workers being unemployed for most of next year. Since this phenomenon is directly related to the government's deliberate policy of neglect, to its high interest rate policy and to its most recent budget policy, could the minister, who likes to believe in major thrusts, tell me whether the depletion of the $4 billion western resource fund is one of the major thrusts he has in place for helping this industry which is faced with a very serious problem? From where will he get the money to do the things he usually says he will do for the industry, in finding new markets and securing a resource base, if there is no longer any money left in the Western Development Fund?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, if I recall the budget correctly, it set out some very important ways in which the Western Development Fund will be used.


Some hon. Members:: Where is it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Moving more specifically to the hon. member's question, he seems to overlook the fact that the problem faced by the forest industry across Canada is due principally to the decline in the housing market in the United States and its interest rate policy, something over which this government certainly has no control, although as I have said in the past, many hon. members of the official opposition seem to have
November 23, 1981

originally delighted in the kinds of policies imposed by the Reagan administration in that country.
We will be continuing our effort to help the forest industry in British Columbia to find additional markets quite apart from the United States, through programs such as the Cooperative Overseas Marketing Development Program which we run jointly with the British Columbia Forest Products Council and the British Columbia provincial government. Just a few months ago we signed an agreement to increase our funding. The result of that program has been that, over less than ten years, there has been an increase in the export of British Columbia forest products to markets other than the United States, from some $200 million to close to $1 billion. I think this is an important record of co-operative effort by the industry, the federal government, and the province. I certainly intend to see that these efforts are continued.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that this is not only a problem which is serious in British Columbia. It is more serious there because 60 per cent of its total economy is based upon the forest industry, but it is a problem throughout the country. This most important industry is facing a very serious crisis. Regardless of what the minister says, they are not doing anything about it.


STRENGTH OF CANADIAN FOREST SERVICE
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the minister responsible for forestry. One problem the industry is facing of course is the incredible accelerating depletion of the resource base. The minister is fully aware of that. The only thing which depletes faster then the trees in the country is the number of the minister's officials in his department.


An hon. Member:: And the Western Development Fund.


Frank Oberle: It went from 2,400 ten years ago to merely 1,100 now. Recently on televison the minister described this situation as a crisis to which the government must address itself. What is he doing within his department? We know that he does not have any new money in the budget. What is he doing within his department to beef up the Canadian Forest Service to ensure that there is a stable resource base, not only for the industry but to avert very serious consequences in terms of the environment and the ecology? As our trees deplete, so does our fresh water and fresh air. What is the minister doing within his department to take hold of the situation and do something about it?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member knows, within the last year we have enhanced the standing of the forestry service. We appointed Mr. Les Reed as assistant deputy minister, which I think is a very positive step forward; indeed it is one for which the hon. member commended me. I believe the situation, as he correctly described me as saying, is one of crisis in the forest
Oral Questions
industry in relation to reforestation. This is a matter that is at the heart of the discussion paper I released at the end of September, which I hope hon. members have seen. It was the heart of our discussions with the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers.
I hope to be making announcements within the next two or three months about various aspects of our own responsibilities, particularly in relation to support of the training of highly skilled manpower, in terms of the improvement of our research effort, and other areas in which the federal government will be taking positive action of its own.
As I believe I explained to the hon. member in committee the other day, we have begun urgent consultation with each province to see how the provincial government and the federal government in each province can act together to create the context which will lead to the kind of reforestation which the hon. member and I would both like to see take place in Canada.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport. The minister knows that the Canadian Council of the Blind has for years encouraged, co-ordinated and developed a program of recreational curling and bowling for those people afflicted with a sight disability. In this year of the handicapped, how does the minister justify the discontinuance of the use of such moneys to aid the council in its activities?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I assure him that in this year of the disabled the department, within its means, had a number of special allocation programs. Every effort was made to utilize those dollars as equitably as possible for the various events organized for people afflicted with different types of disabilities. I take the hon. member's particular question as notice and will provide him with the details on the events into which he inquired.


HOSTING OF GREY CUP RECEPTION IN MONTREAL
Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. I understand from this group of people that the funding has been discontinued, as has the funding of Canadian gold medallist handicapped people for their participation in international sport. This being so, in this year of government restraint how does the minister justify the finding of moneys for the first time to host a reception in Montreal at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, promoted and developed by an American public relations group, giving the usual Grey Cup bash a government spending flavour, and staging not one but two Grey Cup shows

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
during the day? Will the minister follow the lead of the Minister of Finance and accept at least the responsibility for paying the cost of that Hyatt Regency guest reception?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, I was not sure to what the hon. member was leading with his first question.


An hon. Member:: Now you know.


Gerald Augustine Regan: I am most reluctant to spoil his fun, but I point out that the Government of Canada for the last five years, including the government with which the hon. member was associated, has been supportive of Grey Cup week. It has done that because of the fact that the Grey Cup probably constitutes the only unique national over-all sports event in this country. From the unity point of view it is extremely important for Canada. I hope the hon. member shares with me the pride that I feel in the 2,000 young Canadians who participated in the half-time show, a rather magnificent half-time show, during the Grey Cup game on Sunday.
I want to say further to the hon. member that the funds he refers to, which I think were utilized in promoting a very great and important Canadian event, were not funds that came from the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport. As I gather was the case in other years, the financing of what I consider to be very worth-while expenditures was undertaken by the Canadian Unity Information Office.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. In the past two years the minister has received two significant reports. One is the Levelton report entitled "Toward an Atlantic Coast Commercial Fisheries Licensing System" and the other is the Pearse report on the west coast fishing industry. The Levelton report indicates that speculation in licences constitutes one element of over-capitalization and that if some control over ownership is to be exercised, open transfer simply cannot be permitted. Dr. Pearse takes the opposite point of view. He adopts the view that "transferability permits flexible reallocation of the fishing privileges among those who can gain the most value from them which-"


Madam Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. member should ask a question, not quote at such length.


Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, has the minister now adopted a policy that will reflect the view of either Levelton or Pearse, and specifically, is he going to maintain the same transferability privileges that exist now, or will some attempt be made to
limit transferability and compensate those who have already invested heavily in licences?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the problem with inheriting situations is that you have to live with that realistically and you cannot take ideological stances. In certain provinces licences are not transferable at all. There is no value attached to them. They disappear with the holder. In other provinces they have been the subject of speculation. Dr. Pearse addressed this issue. He will appear before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry tomorrow, and I hope hon. members will have the chance to sound him out on why he came to certain conclusions. I do not think I would want to prejudge his conclusions before I have had the views of Parliament and of the industry, which I hope to have in the next eight or ten days.


REQUEST THAT FISHERMEN BE CONSULTED ON PROPOSED LANDING TAX
Edward Allan Miller: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comment that the minister will review the recommendations in the Pearse report. Another recommendation which will impact very heavily on the fishing industry is the attempt by Pearse to overcome those privileges by putting royalties on profits to the private sector so that the public will accrue some benefit.
In view of the difficulty that the fishing industry is experiencing right now in terms of meeting its expenses, I should like to ask the minister whether he will defer, for the time being, at least until he has an opportunity to confer in depth with the industry, any recommendation made by Pearse on a landing tax to fishermen? Will the minister guarantee the fishermen and this House that they will have full consultation before any precipitous step is taken on taxing fish landings to the Fishermen?


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, Madam Speaker, there will be full consultation. Certainly the hon. member would not want me to arrive at a conclusion before these consultations have taken place.


QUERY RESPECTING DETAILS OF PROPOSED CONSULTATION
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has just said that he would not want the hon. member to arrive at a conclusion until these discussions have taken place. I am speaking now of the interim recommendations of the Pearse report.
I should like to know from the minister how these discussions will take place. For instance, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union will appear before the committee for a couple of hours, and Dr. Pearse will appear before the committee for an hour or two. What other discussions are taking place?
November 23, 1981

Concern is growing on the west coast that some of the recommendations of Dr. Pearse may work a very serious hardship on the ordinary people in the fishing industry. I should like to know exactly what the minister means when he refers to consultation.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, surely the hon. member would not want the consultations to take place only in Ottawa. They will take place mainly in the province that is affected, which is British Columbia. That is what has already taken place. My officials have met with representatives of different sectors of the industry, and I will be meeting with representatives of the advisory council which was created by my predecessor. I hope there will be full discussion in these forums. I intend to be in the Prince Rupert area in the middle of December, and again I will meet with groups there.
I encourage full discussion of the report. My worry is that a lot of people are drawing conclusions from the opposition of one group to one recommendation in what is a very broad report. I would hope that everybody would keep an open mind and that we could arrive at conclusions on consensus if possible.


TIMETABLE FOR DISCUSSIONS
John Allen Fraser: I would remind the minister that a few days ago I asked about Dr. Pearse's report and I point out we all respect Dr. Pearse. I wanted to know what chance there would be for public discussion, and what chance there would be for discussion in front of the committee. The minister indicated that there would be both.
The minister also said that, in view of certain time requirements for the coming season, the government might have to move quickly on some of the recommendations. In general terms I think that is what the minister said.
What we want to know, Madam Speaker, is under what sort of time deadline are we operating. The concern has been brought to us by one group, the minister says. But that group represents an awful lot of individuals, a lot of people and families, and their concerns are very important to them. Under what time limit are we operating?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I would have to check the exact words but, as hon. members know, if some decisions are not made before the opening of the season next spring, then obviously there will be a one-year delay before making any changes. The industry advised that, if possible, we should have recommendations from Dr. Pearse early enough to look at them and see if some might be implemented before the 1982 season. That is what I hope to achieve.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. On October 23, 1981, the western wing of the Canadian Transport Commission ordered that the CNR and CPR, and I quote, "shall abandon the branch line from Rosedale to East Coulee" (8.8 miles)." Under what authority was this order made?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Canadian Transport Commission has that authority. After analysing a branch line it can either decide to put an end to it or it can decide to recommend a continuation. The decision is reviewable after five years. The Canadian Transport Commission can also recommend to me that a branch line should be incorporated in the basic network system up to the year 2000 and also that it be included in the branch line rehabilitation program. These are decisions for the minister to make, but the Canadian Transport Commission can make a recommendation.


LEGALITY OF ABANDONMENT ORDER
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, since there are millions of tons of coal in the East Coulee area, and Allied Chemicals Canada has a plant on the route, the decision by the CTC is difficult to understand. I would point out to the minister that in 1929 an act was passed by the Parliament of Canada under which Parliament confirmed an agreement between the CPR and the CNR, dated June, 1929, to operate this line "in perpetuity". This statute has never been repealed; it is still on the law books.
Has the CTC the authority to repeal statutes or to make orders contrary to the laws of Canada? I am sure the minister will answer no. Therefore, will the minister review this situation and have the said order rescinded, because it is completely contrary to the statute on the law books of Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am quite sure that the Canadian Transport Commission was aware of that legal document. My honourable friend suggests that I look into the matter further. I will. I cannot, however, commit myself to reversing a decision of the CTC. I am quite sure the CTC took the legal document he referred to into account.


PUBLIC WORKS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. The life

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
systems of a rather decrepit building here in Ottawa, Centennial Towers are gradually flickering out, such as the elevators and electrical system. This building is reported to be the latest instrument by which the government can extend its largesse to Robert Campeau, a needy builder of Liberal persuasion. Is the Minister of Public Works conversant with this proposed giveaway arrangement? If so, will the minister tell the House what the proposed value is of the package to Mr. Campeau? I have heard $40 million or $50 million, for a building worth $5 million or $6 million.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I can confirm that the Department of Public Works is negotiating with the Campeau Corporation on the continued use of the building. The negotiations will take into account any necessary changes that are required if the building continues to be used for government purposes.
I do not have the particulars of the cost of bringing the building up to government standards or to local standards. But any such contract, as I am sure the honourable member knows from previous experience, would have to be open to full scrutiny and scrutinized by Treasury Board as well.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT PROPOSAL
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: That is what worries me, Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: -when I look at les Terrasses de la Chau-diere and other of these past horror stories involving taxpayers' money. I understand that the proposed cost of renovations will be about $15 million, which costs will probably be recovered by Mr. Campeau in blended payments.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Since there are approximately 250,000 square feet of unused space in the Portage building, why is there such a great necessity to extend government largesse to Mr. Campeau? Is he too affected by this budget to that extent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I suppose the gentleman to whom the hon. member has referred as an officer of a corporation is subject to any general change in the budget that affects any corporation in Canada. In so far as the use of government buildings both in Hull and Ottawa is concerned, I can advise the hon. gentleman that, after a review of the accommodation needs of the various ministries in the government during the last year, a number are being studied for use in Ottawa and Hull. Announcements will probably be made within the next few months.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have some questions for the Minister of Public Works. I hope the minister will read page 5322 of Hansard for December 4, 1980. At that time I asked the minister about some 79,000 acres of Mirabel peripheral lands. The minister could not make up his mind then, and said that the cabinet document that had been leaked was going before a committee of the government last December 12. The industrial plans and parks have proved to be a complete failure and, by admission of the government's own internal review, the land is deteriorating.
Several groups joined forces last week, including 400 farmers who want to continue farming. Is the government now willing to respond to those farmers and other residents and, is it prepared to return that land to these people? The farmers are prepared to pay the price they received for this land so they can regain their livelihood and the region can begin to rebuild its economy-


An hon. Member:: Question, please.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: We only have until three o'clock, Les.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I am sure that with the research the hon. member has directed to this problem he will have seen that the government has set up a land corporation which is comprised of representatives who were suggested to us by various local organizations, including the local university. That corporation has been receiving submissions over the last few months, not only from farmers but from businesses, the local council, and all interested parties. A plan has been prepared and this will be presented to cabinet within the next two weeks.


REASONS FOR GOVERNMENT DELAY
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, the minister still cannot make up his mind. His own report states that local residents have suffered significant losses due to destabilization of the area. Why will the government not take immediate action, especially when studies on the situation, signed by the minister, recommend that the land be returned? These studies were completed over a year ago, the farmers are willing to pay for the land, and community leaders in the area say the delay is having a damaging effect. What is the government waiting for? Why is it waiting for this commission headed by one Jean-Pierre Goyer?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would like the hon. gentleman to have his researcher get my answer to the question he asked me last year. My answer was to the effect that was because of its impact on the local community and our wishes, as a government, to be sensitive to the local needs and designs of that plan, that we
November 23, 1981

asked for that kind of advice. I direct the hon. member to the answer I made last year.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Last week President Reagan made a speech that has been hailed as the most important speech of his presidency. In it he said that the United States would cancel plans to deploy new intermediate range nuclear missiles in Europe if the Soviet Union would dismantle comparable weapons trained on Europe. This initiative has been endorsed by NATO.
What action has the Canadian government taken to press the Soviet Union to respond with a positive, constructive proposal so that a favourable international climate can be established before arms negotiations begin next week in Geneva?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the initiative which President Reagan announced last week in general terms had been discussed with the NATO allies. We were and are fully in support of it. I have said publicly that I hoped the Soviet Union will respond. But before we could take steps of any kind, the general response from the Soviet Union tended to be an unfavourable one. We are consulting with our NATO allies as to the best form of pressure or demarche which collectively we can take.
I know the hon. gentleman realizes that talks between the Soviet Union and the United States will be commencing very shortly in Geneva. I do not know how much likelihood there is that we could influence the Soviet Union before that time, but I can assure him that we will be considering that question fully.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SUB-COMMITTEE
Douglas Roche: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the Canadian government establish a parliamentary sub-committee on disarmament so that the views of the public and parliamentarians can be gathered on the arms race, a race which is now costing in excess of $500 billion a year, and so that recommendations be made to the government prior to the United Nations special session on disarmament next June?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I would not recommend to my colleague, the government House leader, that we establish a special committee on disarmament. But I have offered to give
Point of Order-Miss Jewett
the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence an order of reference on this subject. As I understand it, they chose the reference on Latin America and the Caribbean last year over this one. Nevertheless my offer still stands, and I am prepared to do my best to persuade the House leader at any time to give a reference to the standing committee on the subject.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Export Finance Corporation of Canada Ltd. was federally incorporated on June 4, 1959, under a special act of Parliament. Would the minister inform this House on the success or failure of this corporation in meeting its objectives in Financing and facilitating exports and imports?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, of course it is not a simple matter to determine a corporation's ability or inability to achieve its objectives. As was mentioned by the hon. member this corporation was incorporated under a special act of Parliament, and therefore there is no legal or even political obligation that would allow us to make sure whether or not it is meeting its objectives successfully.
* *
*


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and thirty-fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) on Friday, November 20, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
*
* *


POINTS OF ORDER
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) did not intend to mislead the House in his last answer, but in fact

Privilege-Mr. Oberle
he did. As a member of the steering committee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, let me say there was no request from the minister that we should look into the question of disarmament. Indeed, we could have had a subcommittee on disarmament at the same time and-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order. I want to inform the House that I communicated with the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, I believe in writing, to offer him a reference on the subject of disarmament.


MR. PAPROSKI-GREY CUP GAME-REPLY OF MINISTER DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Steve Eugene Paproski: Madam Speaker, my point of order refers to the answer the minister in charge of fitness and amateur sport gave to my colleague, the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid). He intimated that we on this side of the House when we were in power had gone ahead and had a cocktail party or a bash-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that is not a point of order either.


PRIVILEGE
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I have a brief question of privilege on a matter which affects your jurisdiction over the affairs of the House of Commons.
As you know, resulting from a decision by the House of Commons to telecast the proceedings in the House most cable companies throughout the country are carrying the question period and some of the debates live. Unfortunately it has not been decided that the official translation, which is available to us in the House in a very efficient manner, should be made available in the same way to the cable companies; in other words, the debates are not simultaneously translated as they are broadcast in both English and in French.
I know this is a matter of privilege to all hon. members and people throughout the country, and I am wondering if you, Madam Speaker, would undertake to arrange for the translation to be carried by all cable companies that subscribe to the service.


Madam Speaker:: My impression is that all the deliberations of this House are simultaneously translated. However, if the hon. member knows of cases where that does not happen, I will be glad to look into it and I thank the hon. member for bringing this to my attention.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, even in the capital city Skyline Cablevision does not offer a translation with the service.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in his point of order, the hon. member who is leaving the chamber mentioned that Skyline Cablevision Ltd. does not broadcast the simultaneous translation of the proceedings of the House of Commons. As you know, in the City of Ottawa there are two cablevision companies who each have their own territory. In one part of Ottawa we do get the simultaneous translation and in the other the proceedings are broadcast as they take place on the floor of the House.
The hon. member has expressed an opinion. I beg to disagree with him, because for a francophone living, for instance in that part of Ottawa where Skyline Cablevision Ltd. rebroadcasts the proceedings, it is extremely annoying to have to listen to the English translation of what is said in French by the French-speaking members in this House. So I do not think it is a bad idea to have a few cable companies that merely rebroadcast the proceedings of the House in the language in which they actually take place, because otherwise, in the City of Ottawa, not a single francophone could watch the proceedings of the House of Commons in French, because there would always be either an English translation or the proceedings in English. So I feel the situation is quite satisfactory as it is now and that there is no cause for complaint.


Madam Speaker:: In fact, one could say that the proceedings of the House of Commons can be heard in three languages: French, English and the language of the proceedings of the House of Commons. And 1 thought the hon. member was referring to that situation. I shall look into it, but I think there is something to be said for this.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Ninth, tenth and eleventh reports of Standing Committee on Public Accounts-Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I would like to table the instrument of ratification exchanged by the United States and Canadian governments concerning submission to binding dispute settlement the delimitation of the maritime boundary in the Gulf of Maine.
Order Paper Questions
Members	$1,500 plus $200 per diem meeting fee
N.B.: In Halifax and Montreal, the port chief executive officer also held the post of chairman. It is NHB policy that the compensation which is received as port chief executive officer includes the remuneration which would have been received if he/she was port authority chairman only.
3. The level of compensation in 1981 is the same as in 1980 (see 2 above). In Montreal, the chairman is no longer concurrently port chief executive officer, and therefore receives standard chairman's compensation of $5,000 plus $200 per diem meeting fee.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 2,237, 2,246, 2,581, 3,058, 3,059, 3,255 and 3,263.



POSITIONS IN PORT AUTHORITIES


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What is the policy of the Department of Transport and the National Harbours Board with respect to appointments to port authorities in the port of (a) Montreal (b) Halifax (c) Saint John?
2.	Does the policy ensure representation of organized labour and shippers and other users of the ports on the port authorities?
3.	Who or which authority is responsible for the establishment of tariff rates and charges on cargo?
4.	Do the port authorities for the port of (a) Montreal (b) Halifax (c) Saint John perform a function with respect to the establishment of tariff rates and charges applicable to cargo and traffic through the ports?

Question No. 2,237-Mr. Crosby:
1.	What offices or positions are included in the port authorities for the port of (a) Halifax (b) Montreal (c) Saint John and what is the level of compensation in each case?
2.	In 1980, what amount was paid to the holder of an office in the port authorities for the port of (a) Halifax (b) Montreal (c) Saint John?
3.	What is the level of compensation for 1981 and is this an increase from 1980?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1. The following are the offices or positions included in the port authority for the port of: (a) Halifax: chairman, vicechairman, and members; (b) Montreal: chairman, vice-chairman, and members; (c) Saint John: chairman, vice-chairman (1980), and members.
See also answer to 3 below.
2. (a) Halifax: Chairman
Vice-chairman
Members
(b)	Montreal: Chairman
Vice-chairman
Members
(c)	Saint John: Chairman Vice-chairman
none (He received $12,000 in his post as port chief executive officer)
$2,000 plus $200 per diem meeting fee $1,500 plus $200 per diem meeting fee
none (He received $15,000 in his post as port chief executive officer)
$3,500 plus $200 per diem meeting fee $3,000 plus $200 per diem meeting fee
$3,500 plus $200 per diem meeting fee $2,000 plus $200 per diem meeting fee


Jean-Luc Pepin: The National Harbours Board advises as follows:
1.	The policy of the Minister of Transport with respect to appointments to port authorities in the ports of Montreal, Halifax and Saint John is to select and appoint, at pleasure for one calendar year, members who represent a broad cross-section of the business, shipping, industrial and labour sectors in the communities concerned.
2.	See answer to part 1 above.
3.	The National Harbours Board.
4.	No.



MR. JEAN-NOEL TREMBLAY

Mr. Cossitt: Were public funds ever paid to Mr. Jean-Noel Tremblay by the Department of Supply and Services or by any other branch of government and, if so, for which positions and on what dates did he hold the positions?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Communications and Energy, Mines and Resources as follows: Mr. Jean-Noel Tremblay was awarded two contracts for consulting services: one for the period November 1, 1977 to June 30, 1978, $20,000; the other for the period July 1, 1978 to June 30, 1979, $19,166.59; the former contract was issued by the Department of Communications, the latter by the Department of Supply and Services for the Department of Communications.
See EMR's reply to question No. 5 tabled February 24, 1981.

November 23, 1981
Order Paper Questions



DVA-CLIENTS FOR HEALTH CARE TRIAL PERIODS

Mr. McKenzie: With reference to section 10.47 of the 19S0 report of the Auditor General, has the Department of Veterans Affairs developed criteria for deciding which veteran clients should be selected for future health care trial periods?


Hon. W. Bennett Campbell (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: The initial trial period of the proposed health care policy which took place between November, 1979 and the summer of 1980 was undertaken to enable the health care teams to gain experience in the process of the program while at the same time providing services to clients in need of support. During that period judgments as to who were in need were largely medical and were made on an individual basis. It is not envisaged at this time that further health care trial periods will be held.



HOME SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Mr. McKenzie: With reference to section 10.48 of the 1980 report of the Auditor General, was a federal-provincial agreement reached with respect to home support programs and (a) if so, what are the terms and on what date will it be implemented (b) if not, what attempts are currently being made to reach one?


W. Bennett Campbell: The Auditor General's observations were based on a pilot project designed to test the operation of the aging veterans program. As a result of this testing, Veterans Affairs accepts the health care assessment of the province, and the doctor's report used by provincial authorities. There is, therefore, no requirement for federal-provincial agreements on this matter.



COST OF ORDER PAPER QUESTION

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the cost to the taxpayer (a) if the government answers a question on the Order Paper within two weeks to a month (b) if questions remain on the Order Paper for periods of six months to five years?
2.	For what reason does the government not answer all questions within approximately one month of their appearance on the Order Paper?


David P. Smith: 1. The only additional cost would be the printing of the question on the Order Paper for as long as it remains unanswered.
2.	Often the information requested in questions requires considerable research. When compiled, it must be translated
into the other official language. The government admits that it is often difficult to persuade officials to deal with these matters in an expeditious manner when some hon. members quite clearly overload the system with questions seeking information readily available by telephone or letter.



CANADIAN PENSION COMMISSION STAFF CUTS

Mr. Howie: Did the Canadian Pension Commission order staff cuts in their district offices across Canada and, if so (a) for what reason is this action being taken at this time (b) will this action impair attempts to speed up consideration of veterans' claims with respect to disability pensions?


W. Bennett Campbell: No. (a) Not applicable, (b) Not applicable.


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


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


Mr. Cook:: Madam Speaker, I rise in reference to the questions being answered. Question No. 2,347 was asked on April 3 of this year. The parliamentary secretary may be interested in knowing why the question was asked. There is a distinct possibility that the waterlot leases in Burrard Inlet are so unfair and so totally different from one waterlot to another that I can only presume that is the reason the question has not been answered. Could the parliamentary secretary please investigate and perhaps give me the answer?


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 20, 1981, consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien:
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
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,
A respectful address be presented to Her 15 il est propose que soit presentee respectueu-Majesty the Queen in the following words:	sement a Sa Majeste la Reine l'adresse dont 15
la teneur suit:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:	A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine,
Most Gracious Sovereign:	Tres Gracieuse Souveraine :
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the Nous, membres de la Chambre des com-House of Commons of Canada in Parliament 20 munes du Canada reunisen Parlement, fideles20 assembled, respectfully approach Your sujets de Votre Majeste, demandons respec-Majesty, requesting that you may graciously	tueusement a Votre Tres Gracieuse Majeste de
be pleased to cause to be laid before the	bien vouloirfaire deposer devant le Parlement
Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projet de loiainsicon^u : containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25 set forth:
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Constitution Act, 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title
The Constitution
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada
ANNEXE A-SCHEDULE A Loi donnant suite a une demande du Senat et
de la Chambre Canada
des communes du
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 considerant:
Majeste la Reine,
5 qu'a la demande et avec le consentement du Canada, le Parlement du Royaume-Uni est invite a adopter une loi visant a donner effet aux dispositions enoncees ci-apres et que le Senat et la Chambre des communes 10 10 du Canada reunis en Parlement ont presente une adresse demandant a Sa Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loi a cette fin,	15
15 sur l'avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis en Parlement, et par l'autorite de celui-ci, edicte:
1.	The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in 1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20 Adoption de la
Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for	cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada	n°J„Zuedeand 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
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.
Cessation du * pouvoir de
2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Royaume-Uni apres 1'entree en vigueur de la 25 ^g"re°erapour ie Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 ne font pas partie du droit du Canada.
Canada
3.	So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30	3. La partie de la version fran5aise 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
fransaise
Titre abrege
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and	1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and
Canada'*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 liberies
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Proit*el 5 libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 Canada 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
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- 10 tal freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 15
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and {d) freedom of association.
2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales Libertes
.	fondame
suivantes :
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°™^raliquesvote in an election of members of the House	et est eligible aux	elections legislatives fede- des citoyens
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 ^aaxnjdma'1 des
legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assembles legislatives assembles than five years from the date fixed for the	est de cinq ans a	compter de la date fixee25
return of the writs at a general election of its 25 pour le retour des	brefs relatifs aux elections
members.	generates correspondantes.
Continuation in special
circumstances
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu-invasion or insurrection, a House of Com-	nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut L
mons may be continued by Parliament and a	etre prolonge respectivement par le Parle- 30
legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au-legislature beyond five years if such con-	dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more	ou d'insurrection, reelles ou apprehendees,
than one-third of the members of the House	pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
The Constitution
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as 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.
Seance annuelle
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-nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 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 circulatl0n sortir.
(2)
Tout citoyen canadien et toute per- 10 Liberte
d'etablissement
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every
person who has the status of a permanent sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent resident of Canada has the right	10 au Canada ont le droit:
(a) to move to and take up residence in a) de se deplacer dans tout le pays et any province; and	d'etablir leur residence dans toute pro-
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in vince;	15
any province.	b) de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3) The rights specified in subsection (2) 15 are subject to
(a)	any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of 20 present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.	25
(3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Restriction (2) sont subordonnes :
a)	aux lois et usages d'application gene-rale en vigueur dans une province donnee, 20 s'ils n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province de residence anterieure ou actuelle;
b)	aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25 de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
(4)	Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas Programmes de elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou ^™|°t,on 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. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 Vie, liberte et
securite
7.	Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a ce droit qu'en conformite with the principles of fundamental justice. avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
8.	Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies40 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 trarily detained or imprisoned.	40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires. empnsonne-
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
Arrest or detention
10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.	10
10.	Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation Amestation 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;
(J) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;	30
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and
(j)	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:	Affa!re*r ^	%	criminelles eta)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penaies l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 15 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue d'un proces public et equitable;e)	de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause d'une mise en liberte assortie d'un caution- 25 nement raisonnable;
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;
j) de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
Interpreter
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Affirmative
action
programs
Official languages of Canada
Official languages of New Brunswick
The Constitution
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Everyone has the right not to be sub- 12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute jected to any cruel and unusual treatment or tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites. punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
13. Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi-5 gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
5 Temoignage incriminant
14. A party or witness in any proceedings 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.
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 1'assistance d'un interprete.	15
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
15. (1) Every individual is equal before 15	15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per- Egalite devant
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 20 tions fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale or mental or physical disability.	ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe,
1'age ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.
sonne et s'applique egalement a tous, et tous bcnlficect'16 e 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
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any (2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet 25 Programmes de law, program or activity that has as its object	d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites £™™°ti0n
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 franfais et l'anglais sont les	Langues
languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un	Canada0
status and equal rights and privileges as to	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35
their use in all institutions of the Parliament	a leur usage dans les institutions du Parleand government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le franqais et l'anglais sont les langues Langues languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un Nouveau-* equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-wick.	Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
(3) La presente charte ne limite pas le Progression vers pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de LgJ "e 5 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de 5 statut ou d'usage du frangais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le Travauxdii frangais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra- 'iru,1L vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of the legislature of New Brunswick.
10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10Trayaux deia
gais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de Nomeau^du la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.	Brunswick
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes ^ememaires of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement Pjr cmLnu,rL" in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en frangais et en 15 versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes the legislature of New Brunswick shall be	rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-20 du Nouveauprinted and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Brunswick
and both language versions are equally 20 et publies en frangais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	25
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.
19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le ^nt"erJs frangais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires tribunaux dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le etabiisparie 25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure ,ir ement qui en decoulent.	30
(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran-gais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont inbunaux du sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns- Nouveau-wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui runsw"' en decoulent.	3 5
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a l'emploi du frangais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra-tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou du gouvernement du Canada ou pour 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 :
Communications entre les administres et les institutions federates
(a) there is a significant demand for com- a) l'emploi du frangais ou de l'anglais fait munications with and services from that l'objet d'une demande importante; office in such language; or	40 b) l'emploi du frangais et de l'anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.
The Constitution
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
instruction
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
5	(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
droit a l'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec tout bureau des institutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
Communications entre les administres et les institutions du Nouveau-Brunswick
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.
21. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran?aise ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 5 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes d'une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada.
Maintien en vigueur de certaines dispositions
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour Droits preserves or derogates from any legal or customary	effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privileright or privilege acquired or enjoyed either	ges, anterieurs ou posterieurs a l'entree en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la presente charte et decoulant de Charter with respect to any language that is la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres not English or French.	que le fran^ais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
Droits a I'instruction dans la langue de la minorite
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 25 linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the 30 language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English
or French linguistic minority population of the province,
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :	Langue
.	,	.,	,	.	d'instrui
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 20 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re?u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fran9ais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont re9u cette instruction est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province,
ont, dans l'un ou l'autre cas, le droit d'y faire 30 have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue. that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant	Continuiie
has received or is receiving primary or	a re9u ou re9oit son instruction, au niveau	?angUPJ01 dc lasecondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en fran9ais ou en 35 d'instruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
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 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 finances sur les fonds publics.
Justification par le nombre
10
Enforcement
Re c ours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola- Recourscncas as guaranteed by this Charter, have been	tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui	droiuet Hbenes
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 ^ecevabrnte tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des preu^qui C obtained in a manner that infringed or 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 risqueraicnt de denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou radmfnisu-ation this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces deia justice if 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 utilisa-proceedings would bring the administration 30 tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi- 30 of justice into disrepute.	nistration de la justice.
General
Dispositions generates
Maintien des droits et libertes 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	^esdrouTet
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- 45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas	Hb/rTes ° S e
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
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
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
The Constitution
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
27.	This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
28.	Notwithstanding anything in this Charter except section 33, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27.	Toute interpretation de la presente charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro-
5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28.	Independamment des autres dispositions de la presente charte, exception faite de Particle 33, les droits et libertes qui y sont
lOmentionnes sont garantis egalement aux per- 10 sonnes des 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 15 autres ecoles confessionnelles.
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 20
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20 Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes. be.
31.	Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
31. La presente charte n'elargit pas les competences legislatives de quelque orga-nisme ou autorite que ce soit.	25
Maintien du
patrimoine
culture!
Egalite de garantie des droits pour les deux sexes
Maintien des droits relatifs a certaines ecoles
Application aux territoires
Non-elargisse-ment des competences legislatives
Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies	25
(a)	to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and	30
(b)	to the legislature and government of each province in respect of all matters within the authority of the legislature of each province.
(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), sec-35 tion 15 shall not have effect until three years after this section comes into force.
Application de la charte
32. (1) La presente charte s'applique :	Application de
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 territoi-30 res du Nord-Ouest;
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- 35 Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres l'en-tree en vigueur du present article.
33.	(1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature province may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de40 may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independamment shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de l'article 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of	articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte, ou de
Derogation par
declaration
expresse
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Operation of exception
Five year limitation
Re-enactment
Five year limitation
Citation
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
Commitment respecting public services
The Constitution
this Charter, or section 28 of this Charter in its application to discrimination based on sex referred to in section 15.
Particle 28 de cette charte dans son application a la discrimination fondee sur le sexe et mentionnee a Particle 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in (2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait Pobjet Effetdeia respect of which a declaration made under 5 d'une declaration conforme au present article 5 derog'itlon this section is in effect shall have such opera-	et en vigueur a Peffet qu'elle aurait sauf la
tion as it would have but for the provision of	disposition en cause de la charte.
this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1)	Dureede
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after lOcesse d'avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee	va' lte
it comes into force or on such earlier date as ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en 10 may be specified in the declaration.	vigueur.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov- (4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut ince may re-enact a declaration made under	adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au
subsection (1).	15 paragraphe (1).
Nouvelle
adoption
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
(5) Le paragraphe (3) s'applique a toute 15 de declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- va' lte graphe (4).
Citation
Tit re
34.	This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
34. Titre de la presente partie: Charte Titre canadienne des droits et libertes.


[Stage Direction]
35. (1) Without altering the legislative 20 authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and 25 the provincial governments, are committed to
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and 30
(c)	providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.
35.	(1) Sous reserve des competences 20 Engagements legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures i^ga'iit/des et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement chances et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-ments federal et provinciaux, s'engagent a :
a)	promouvoir 1'egalite des chances de 25 tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-etre;
b)	favoriser le developpement economique pour reduire l'inegalite des chances;
c)	fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un 30 niveau de qualite acceptable, les services publics essentiels.
(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
(2) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Canada prennent l'engagement de principe de faire des paiements de perequation pro-35 pres a donner aux gouvernements provinciaux des revenus suffisants pour les mettre en mesure d'assurer les services publics a un niveau de qualite et de fiscalite sensiblement comparables.	40
Engagement relatif aux services publics
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Majority of members
The Constitution


[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.
36. (1) Dans l'annee suivant l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie, le premier ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 5 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
Conference
constitutionnelle
(2) The conference convened under sub- (2) Sont placees a l'ordre du jour de la ^napaiMm section (1) shall have included in its agenda conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- autSnes an item respecting constitutional matters tions constitutionnelles qui interessent direc-that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of lOtement les peuples autochtones du Canada,
Canada, including the identification and notamment la determination et la definition 10 definition of the rights of those peoples to be	des droits de ces peuples a inscrire dans la
included in the Constitution of Canada, and	Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre
the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite du Canada invite leurs representants a parti-representatives of those peoples to participate 15ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions, in the discussions on that item.
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite 15 Participation invite elected representatives of the govern-	des representants elus des gouvernements du
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- modification neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, 25 autorisee a la fois :
a)	par des resolutions du Senat et de la Chambre des communes;
b)	par des resolutions des assemblies
legislatives d'au moins deux tiers des pro- 30 vinces dont la population confondue represente, selon le recensement general le plus recent a 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	Majorne 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
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
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 assemblees 5 legislatives du nombre requis de provinces. 5
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visee au paragraphe Disaccord tion (2) shall not have effect in a province	(2) est sans effet dans une province dont
the legislative assembly of which has	l'assemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution	proclamation, exprime son disaccord par une
supported by a majority of its members prior 10 resolution adoptee a la majorite des deputes, 10 to the issue of the proclamation to which the	sauf si cette assemblee, par resolution egaleamendment relates unless that legislative	ment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup-	disaccord et autorise la modification,
ported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. 15
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
(4) La resolution de disaccord visee au Levee du paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquee a tout 15desaccord moment, independamment de la date de la proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20	38. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra- Restriction
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration	phe 37(1) ne peut etre prise dans l'annee
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-	suivant l'adoption de la resolution a l'origine 20
tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la procedure de modification que si l'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	semblee legislative de chaque province a
each province has previously adopted a reso- 25 prealablement adopte une resolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de desaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe 25|dem under subsection 37(1) after the expiration	37(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l'adoption de la resolution a l'origine lution initiating the amendment procedure 30de la procedure de modification, thereunder.
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation subsection 37(1) that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformement au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d'education ou dans d'autres domaines cultu-reasonable compensation to any province to rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-which the amendment does not apply.	ves provinciales au Parlement.	35
40. An amendment to the Constitution of 40. Toute modification de la Constitution Consentement Canada in relation to the following matters 40 du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-	unanime
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, [DOT] 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;
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
The Constitution
(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;
(</) subject to paragraph 40(</), 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).
b)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de deputes au moins egal a celui des senateurs par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre representee lors de l'entree en vigueur de la 5 presente partie;
c)	sous reserve de Particle 42, l'usage du fran?ais 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 modification 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 certaines 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 40 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 l'anglais dans une province.
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
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 ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour 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-Senate and House of Commons.	ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des
communes.
Modification par le Parlement
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 legislature a competence exclusive pour modifier 10 la constitution de sa province.
Modification par les legislatures
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.
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 Possibili'e de dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre revoca"on revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.
46. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 20	46. (1) Dans les cas vises a Particle 37, 40, Modification
of Canada made by proclamation under sec- 41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut 20dauns^"lullon tion 37, 40, 41 or 42 may be made without a d'autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n'a pas resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue	adopte de resolution dans un delai de cent
of the proclamation if, within one hundred	quatre-vingts jours suivant Padoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the25de la Chambre des communes et si cette House of Commons of a resolution authoriz- derniere, apres Pexpiration du delai, adopte 25 ing its issue, the Senate has not adopted such une nouvelle resolution dans le meme sens, a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.	30
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au Computation gued or dissolved shall not be counted in	paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les	dudeiai
computing the one hundred and eighty day	periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est
period referred to in subsection (1).	proroge ou dissous.	30
47. The Queen's Privy Council for 35 47. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le	Demandede
Canada shall advise the Governor General to Canada demande au gouverneur general de	Proclamatlon
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.	40fication par proclamation.
48. A constitutional conference composed 48. Dans les quinze ans suivant l'entree en of the Prime Minister of Canada and the	vigueur de la presente partie, le premier
first ministers of the provinces shall be con-	ministre du Canada convoque une conference
vened by the Prime Minister of Canada constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 40 within fifteen years after this Part comes into 45 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du force to review the provisions of this Part.	reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitutionnelle
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
The Constitution


[Stage Direction]
Amendment to 49. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly CZT!s67°n named the British North America Act, 1867) is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 92 thereof, the following heading and section:

[Stage Direction]
49.	La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification de (anterieurement designee sous le titre: Acte constituuon-de l'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) 5 netiedei867 est modifiee par insertion, apres l'article 92,
5 de la rubrique et de l'article suivants :
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
Authority of Parliament
«Ressources naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestieres et energie electrique
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque province a competence exclusive pour legife-rer dans les domaines suivants :	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.
Competence
provinciate
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiferer en ce qui con- provinces cerne l'exportation, hors de la province, a destination d'une autre partie du Canada, 25 de la production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production d'energie electrique de la province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de 30 lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;	10
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production there- 15 from; and
(c)	development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.	20
(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry 25 resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies 30 exported to another part of Canada.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of 35 Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas 35p°uvoirdu atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- dr t'mcn 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.
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
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 :
(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 pnmaire* 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
....	[DOT]	j [DOT]. w.	droits existants
pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus par la legislature ou le gouvernement d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*	30
Idem
50.	The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Schedule:
50. Ladite loi est en outre modifiee par |dem adjonction de l'annexe suivante :

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this Act,	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

[Stage Direction]
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 renouvela- 35 ble:
(i)	soit le produit qui se presente sous la meme forme que lors de son extraction du milieu naturel,
(ii)	soit le produit non manufacture de40 la transformation, du raffinage ou de
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
Consequential
amendments
The Constitution
(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."
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 bois 10 d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[Stage Direction]
51. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 15 supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes 20
(a)	the Canada Act, including this Act;
(b)	the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule 1; 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.

[Stage Direction]
51. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la 15 Primauli de
-.	*	i ii	.	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
.	Canada
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 1 are hereby repealed enumeres a la colonne I de 1 annexe I sont amended to the extent indicated in abrogesou modifies dans la mesureindiquee a
or
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall	la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent en
continue as law in Canada under the names	vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous les
set out in Column III thereof.	35titres mentionnes a la colonne III.	35
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act, that refers to an enactment referred to in Schedule I by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in Schedule I may be cited as the Constitution Act fol-
(2) Tout texte legislatif ou reglementaire, sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention d'un texte legislatif ou decret figurant a l'annexe I par le titre indique a la colonne I est 40modifie par substitution a ce titre du titre 40 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
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Repeal and
consequential
amendments
French version of Constitution of Canada
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts
English and French versions of this Act
Commencement
Commencement of paragraph 23(l)(fl) in respect of Quebec
Authorization of Quebec
The Constitution
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
l'indication de l'annee de son adoption et eventuellement de son numero.
53. Part III is repealed on the day that is one year after this Part comes into force and this section may be repealed and this Act renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of Part III and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
53. La partie III est abrogee un an apres l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie et le 5 gouverneur general peut, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le present article et apporter en consequence de cette double abrogation les amenagements qui s'imposent a la presente loi.
Abrogation et modifications qui en 5 decoulent
54. A French version of the portions of the 10	54. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada 10 vision
Constitution of Canada referred to in	est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs	StSnTtextesSchedule I shall be prepared by the Minister	delais, la version frangaise des parties de la	constitutionneisof Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos-	Constitution du Canada qui figurent a l'ansible and, when any portion thereof sufficient	nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importanteto warrant action being taken has been so 15 est, des qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adop- 15 prepared, it shall be put forward for enact-	tion par proclamation du gouverneur generalment by proclamation issued by the Gover-	sous le grand sceau du Canada, conformenor General under the Great Seal of Canada	ment a la procedure applicable a l'epoque apursuant to the procedure then applicable to	la modification des dispositions constitutionan amendment of the same provisions of the20nelles qu'elle contient.	20
Constitution of Canada.
55. Where any portion of the Constitution 55. Les versions frangaise et anglaise des of Canada has been or is enacted in English	parties de la Constitution du	Canada adopand French or where a French version of any	tees dans ces deux langues	ont egalementportion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- 25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de ant to section 54, the English and French loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de l'article25 versions of that portion of the Constitution	54, d'une partie de la version	frangaise de laare equally authoritative.	Constitution, cette partie	et la version
anglaise correspondante.
Versions fransaise et anglaise de certains textes constitutionneis
56. The English and French versions of 56. Les versions frangaise et anglaise de la versions this Act are equally authoritative.	30 presente loi ont egalement force de loi.	30 ang'laiseVe'ia
presente loi
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall 57. Sous reserve de l'article 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-	Vlgucur
proclamation issued by the Queen or the	clamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Canada.	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 proclama-	raHn^a 23(i )a)fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or	tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general	p°ur Quebecthe 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 Autorisation dushall be issued only where authorized by the	(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation 40Qucbeclegislative assembly or government of	de l'assemblee legislative ou du gouverne-Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
November 23, 1981
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 Abrogation du date d'entree en vigueur de l'alinea 23(1 )a) Prcsemjrtic pour le Quebec, et la presente loi faire l'ob-jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et 5changements de numerotation qui en decou- 5 lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
59. This Act may be cited as the Consti- 59. Titre abrege de la presente annexe : tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts Loi constitutionnelle de 1981\ titre commun 10 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be 10 des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975 cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867	(n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constituto 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I
	to the

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


[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
1. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	(1)	L'article 1 est abroge et Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 remplace par ce qui suit: «1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.* (2)	L'article 20 est abroge. (3)	La categorie 1 de l'article 91	est abrogee. (4)	La categorie 1 de Particle 92	est abrogee.2. Acte pour amender et continuer D « -* - rl All vr a4 *haa4 a \/m 1 dUL 11 VvlllV-UV/UA Cl UCIIIC-IIUIO v IV, toria, chapitre trois, et pour etablir et constituer le gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Canada)	(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba ct remplace par ce cjui suit * [DOT]Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba.* (2)	L'article 20 est abroge.3. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin 1870	Decret en conseil sur la terre de Rupert et le territoire du Nord-Ouest4. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Colombie-Britannique, en date du 16 mai 1871	Conditions de l'adhesion de la Colombie-Britannique5. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	L'article 1 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1871 place par ce qui suit: «1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.y>6. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant l'ile-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873	Conditions de 1'adhesion de l'ile-du-Prince-Edouard7. Acte du Parlement du Canada, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du Canada8. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant dans l'Union tous les ter-ritoires et possessions britanniques dans l'Amerique du Nord, et les lies adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880	Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
November 23, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 -Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II Amendment
Column III 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.)
12.	The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw.
VII, c. 3 (Can.)
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
Alberta Act
13. The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)
Saskatchewan Act
14. British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
Constitution Act, 1907
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
Constitution Act, 1915
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
Constitution Act, 1930
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V,c. 4 (U.K.)
In so far as they apply to Canada,
(a)	section 4 is repealed; and
(b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
Statute of Westminster, 1931
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
Constitution Act, 1940
19. British North America Act, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
The Act is repealed.
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
9. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1886 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1886.*
10. Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario) 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de 1'Ontario)
11. Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien (nomination d'un suppleant) 1895, 2' session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
12. Acte de 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.*
15. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1915 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1915.*
16. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1930 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1930.*
17. Statut de Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)	Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931 quent au Canada : a)	l'article 4 est abroge; b)	le paragraphe 7(1) est abroge.
18. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1940 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1940.*
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 23, 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, 1960."
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 23, 1981	COMMONS DEBATES	13109
	ANNEXE I (suite) LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981		The Constitution
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre20.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (R.-U.)	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-place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi sur Terre-Neuve.*	Loi sur Terre-Neuve22.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.	23.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.	24.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)	La loi est abrogee.	25.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi consti-tutionnelle de I960.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 196026.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi consti-tutionnelle de 1964.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 196427.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle de 1965.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 196528.	Acte de PAmerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par le para-graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle de 1974.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 1974
November 23, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I
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 Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.) is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 1). 1975."
30. British North America Act (No. 2), 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975."
November 23, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
29. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par Particle Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975 31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975.*
30. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975 place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975.o
[Stage Direction]
November 23, 1981
The Constitution
Madam Speaker:: Just before we proceed, I want to tell the House that I have examined the amendment proposed by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), and I find it to be in order. I am prepared to read it to the House.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Madam Speaker:: Shall I dispense?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The right hon. member for Yellowhead, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, moves:
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes
28. Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
(b) by striking out subclause 33(1), and substituting the following:
Exception where express declaration
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, when we broke off debate on Friday I had indicated that I was happy to read into the record a telex from the Premier of Ontario with regard to that province's view of Section 28 and the protection in the charter for the treaty rights of our native people. It is amazing, sometimes, what happens over a weekend. In a way, I am rather happy to have had the break in the middle of my speech since I am equally proud to put into the record today what the attorney general of Ontario had to say over the weekend about Section 28. It has now been admitted by the attorney general of Ontario and the Premier of New Brunswick that the resolution before this House to make Section 28 subject to the override provisions was never discussed prior to the creation of the resolution and its introduction in this House. It was not on the table, and now that it is public I hope it will allow us to discuss it at length, as we proceed in this debate on that issue, precisely because of the importance that has been attached by members opposite, including the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), to the need to preserve the accord without amendment.
Aside from the fact that there are a number of amendments in the resolution that are, in fact, outside of what was discussed leading up to the November 5 accord, it is now becoming more clear that the amendment to Section 28, which is being used as a block by members opposite to the amendment which my leader has moved, was in fact also brought in after the accord was drawn. As this becomes more clear, I hope we will recognize the simple justice that returning to Section 28 will bring.
Before I continue my remarks which I started last week, I might also indicate my sadness, after listening to my Prime Minister-and I say that advisedly and only as a citizen- returning to the shotgun diplomacy style. I think most members of this House realize that in the middle of some very complex behind-the-scenes negotiations to try to bring everybody onside concerning the amendment to Section 28, as well as amendments to the rest of the charter which my leader has proposed, including what will become clearer-if it is not now public-about conversations with several people in the province of Quebec, that it is frustrating, using that word advisedly, to come back to this house in Ottawa to hear the Prime Minister indicate that as long as the amendment is decided on by tomorrow night, it is all right. That is another guillotine, Mr. Speaker.
At this point in the debate, it is worth reminding ourselves that it was this same Prime Minister who wished to impose this same guillotine and tried to impose it last year. It is the same Prime Minister who tries to impose this guillotine on these clauses who did not include these rights in the original document presented to the House of Commons. It is the same Prime Minister who fought the committee which tried to put these rights in. The Prime Minister is now arguing that these rights are not there because of the premiers whom he did not want to meet with in the first place.
It surely should be clear by now that the reasons for the amendments in the resolution relating to aboriginal rights, treaty rights and to women's rights are that they were taken out, apparently, in the meetings. It takes two to agree. Therefore, all attempts to portray the Premiers as the villains I hope will be rejected by the general public, because it took the Prime Minister of Canada to agree to remove those rights in order for the accord to get to this House of Commons. Let us not forget that.
As we continue this debate, which as I indicated I hope will not be unnecessarily long, I would like to make some general comments and then return to the specific matter of our amendments. I should also point out in that respect that as a
November 23, 1981

Canadian, I believe that any discussions this week which will help improve this charter can only be regarded as helpful by all of us in this House. I would like it to be clear on the record that if it requires more time in the back room to sort these problems out, I do not believe there is one member on this side of the House who is not prepared to see the debate lifted out of this House so we can continue with the budget. I would like to make that very clear at this time.
There will be an attempt made by some to argue that, because some of us are trying to improve the charter, we regard the resolution and its improvement as the priority of the Conservative Party. The priority of Canadians today is to get people back to work. In this country, the right to a job is equally important as the right to equality. If it is necessary for us to break off this debate so we may conclude the budget debate, which was the position put forward by our House leader last week, and since we have had no finality yet as to when we would be able to conclude the budget which we would like to see concluded as soon as possible, I am sure members on this side would not only support that but would regard concluding our economic package as very important.
I would like to refute a current view about what we have been through in the last year to 15 months. I think that just as important as to note the issues that our party is moving amendments on-which I will come to later-in that now that we have all had the direct experience of the difficulties of constitution-writing in our diverse federal state, this experience should give us cause to marvel at and be grateful for the sagacity and capacity of the fathers of our nationhood who more than 100 years ago had the ability to craft what until now has been the backbone of our written Constitution, the BNA Act.
Now that we may be so close to a totally made-in-Canada Constitution, it seems fitting to note that those who hold to the view that for all those years we have been fundamentally flawed, that we have been somehow eunuched as a nation, are wrong. It is precisely because of the wisdom of our forefathers that the exact opposite is true. Because of that wisdom, we have had a package of laws, conventions and co-operation which has allowed us to live together as well as we have while we have sought a consensus on how to take the next step, a consensus which reflects our essence as a federation, a consensus which in itself contains the way to amend our constitutional package in future in line with the reality and spirit of our federalism.
Some have argued that federalism could not work, that more meetings last year would not help to resolve the impasse, and that we could not wait any longer and our nationhood demanded severe unilateral action. When our party undertook to fight such radical unilateralism, a fight initiated by a decision which took guts and courage and a commitment to principle by the leader of our party, a decision in keeping with the traditional Canadian way of doing things-and I hope more Canadians will come to see these qualities as the highest qualification for the highest office in this land-there were some, notably those who think the world can best be governed
The Constitution
through a newspaper column rather than through the melee of politics, who thought we must either be kidding or that we were crazy, that we were suicidal or bent on self-destruction.
Time and the Supreme Court have shown the opposite. Time has shown that compromises can be found. Time has shown that consensus and agreement is possible if one wants it and is willing to work for it. Time, even since the first ministers' meeting and the accord which resulted from it, has shown that even further agreement is possible. I am referring to the ongoing attempts to protect the equality of women and men from the override provisions of Section 33 and of the hard work toward that end by so many women and some men in the last few days.
I mean no offence to others involved in those conversations if I mention in this House again the telegram that came from the Hon. John Buchanan of Nova Scotia as a direct result of the intense efforts of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: When our party fought for more time last fall and last winter, it was because we believe our underlying constitutional law, conventions and practice are fundamentally sound enough that we could afford to take the time to make change properly and get it right the first time, rather than rush ahead with who knows what possibly disastrous consequences. We thought that was, at the very least, what had been promised Quebecers in the spring of 1980, particularly federalists in the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we still believe this, and that is why it is important to amend Clause 39 so that a province wishing to retain the right to provide services in any area now under provincial jurisdiction will receive financial assistance if in the future this field of jurisdiction is transferred from the provinces to the federal government by constitutional amendment. It is not only fair and equitable that a province which continues to provide services receive reasonable compensation from Ottawa if the federal government provides and pays for these services in other provinces, but the omission of such a reasonable clause was probably the first of the three reasons mentioned why the Quebec government did not sign the agreement.

The amendment has the support of at least the eight provinces which originally dissented, including Quebec, and appears to be opposed only by the government here. Not only is it just, therefore, but its adoption by this House is critical if we are serious about trying to bring at least the people of Quebec into this historic moment.

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
[ Translation]
Whatever we might think about the sincerity of the commitment to federalism of the Premier of Quebec, I cannot overemphasize to those opposite the true fairness of the amendment which the Quebec premier as well as the other premiers consider so important. I cannot believe that anyone would seriously consider not offering an olive branch to the Quebec people when this is not only possible, but has the added advantage of strengthening the resolution without diminishing the support of the rest of the provinces.

Not only, therefore, is it just and reasonable, but it must be pointed out that, contrary to the views expressed last week by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), who argued that the amendment would somehow protect rich provinces which would be able to keep out socially beneficial programs, in fact it will do exactly the opposite. So that it is clear for those who listen or read Hansard, what the amendment says is that in the case of a constitutional amendment- in other words, an amendment which in future has the support of at least seven provinces, meaning that a majority of the provinces will already have decided that a program should be undertaken-contrary to the view of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in the circumstance where a province stays out it should be entitled to the right to be paid. The reason for that is to protect provinces which will be put in the position, without such protection, of having to cast votes at a constitutional conference without protection from whose who are better off than they are. That surely is the spirit of federalism.
I mentioned earlier that it is critical that Section 28 apply without limitations-if hon. members will excuse my view of this thing-so that men will at long last be guaranteed equal treatment with women under the law. Without that change let us be absolutely clear that the resolution would be deeply and fundamentally flawed, and without that change at least some will argue that the resolution will not deserve our support. Some will say that in addition to that change the compromise allowing legislatures to override, at least temporarily, court decisions which appear in a legislature's view to be inappropriate also eliminates a flaw.
When 1 started on Friday I made reference to my earlier experience at the municipal level with the Toronto Centre plan and the view of one critic that it must be good because it equally displeased everybody. I think that might be exactly true regarding the override provisions, but this compromise is typically and indisputably Canadian. Those who favour parliamentary supremacy will be able to say that that has been preserved, and perhaps it has been. Those who prefer the coded or entrenched protection of our individual rights will be able to say that that has been achieved, or almost so, and that political pressure will prevent too frequent use of the override. Like the Toronto plan, in other words, the change will equally displease everybody.
This is a difficult issue because it is an attempt to marry two important federalist principles. One is that there should be no
constitutional change without the consent of those affected; in other words, our provinces. The other is a desire to separate from government some of our freedoms for which there is in the law no final protection today because Parliaments may do what they wish.
I know my own view, and it is this. When we-and I- argued for the right of the provinces to consent, it never occurred to me that the answer the provinces would find would be the right to override basic freedoms. I would much have preferred, and would still prefer, a negotiated and, if necessary, an abbreviated list of individual freedoms agreed to by the provinces and by the federal government-thereby preserving the Canadian way-adopted by the governments as binding on themselves and therefore not subject to being overriden.
I believe government has now become so big that relying on political pressure to prevent a government from taking away our individual rights-and in this context I think particularly of the government opposite-is naive. Whether wiser negotiation by the federal government or a step by step approach moving simply to patriate with an agreed amending formula would have produced a happier result in this regard appears now to be a question for the historians, but one cannot help but wonder: what if?
If an important compromise has been reached on the charter, therefore, there nevertheless remain other flaws which should, and I hope will, be corrected. Here I think particularly of the refusal of too many governments and too many parties to include the right to property, a right which most Canadians regard as fundamental to their wellbeing. There is one other major flaw which can be corrected before this document is passed, since I am persuaded that the odds for getting property included are not very large. I am persuaded of that by those who are smiling at me; I sat and watched the neosocialists and the true socialists get together last year to prevent the inclusion of property, and I suspect they have not changed their view on that one bit.
One other major flaw that can and should be corrected before passage of this resolution is the resolution's failure to recognize native and aboriginal rights and treaty rights. Some will argue that too many provinces object to the inclusion of the old Section 34, although I am glad to see that that number shrinks every day. I repeat that it would be a shame if the personal timetable for this document of the Prime Minister were to prevent the movement, which appears to be growing, toward recognition of these rights from achieving its proper fruition.
Some will argue that too many provinces object to the inclusion of the old Section 34, which in fact only recognizes that treaties were signed and rights were created, as our common law has made so clear. To them and to those provinces I only say that the rights created by the Crown-which we now regard as our Queen-in treaties with our first peoples predate the provinces themselves and, while the provinces have legitimate concerns with regard to the interpretation of those treaties, the desire of some that our constitutional law not recognize that those rights exist is both impractical, given
November 23, 1981

existing court decisions, and, to put a kind face on it, less than noble. Just as this Parliament had a duty to protect the legitimate involvement of the provinces themselves in the development of a Canadian constitutional consensus, so this Parliament and other Parliaments have a duty to protect the treaty rights of those whose rights were created even before the rights of our Parliament were created.
I said I would not speak for very long today. It is not the wish of those on this side, as we will be indicating throughout, to delay unduly conclusion of the matter. It certainly is not mine. I indicated earlier I would prefer, if necessary, that we revert to the budget. However, I want in closing to deal with one or two matters.
I specifically refer to the argument being made by hon. members opposite, notably the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, who in their comments on Friday said that no amendments were possible because that would violate the spirit of the accord. Second, and this caused me the greatest problem, the phrase was used by the Minister of Justice on behalf of his government that "we must keep our word with the provinces". Suffice it to say that would be the first time in the entire history of the government that it kept its word on anything.
I am therefore loath to accept the argument from people who gave us wage and price controls, promised us no oil increases and said if there were they would quit if elected, that they are supposed to do what is asked of them because they wish to honour their word. On the other hand, it is possible that a lesson may be learned over there-that when they give their word, they should honour it. Maybe that lesson will be learned.
I now want to deal with the more important question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John William Bosley: Sometimes the other side does react. I am more than happy to be part of a group that makes them respond to concerns about keeping their word. Let me repeat to the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) that I hope that is something his party learns.
In closing, let me return briefly to the more important issue, the issue of moving amendments. The resolution adds matters outside the accord, notably the section applying what is called the Canada clauses on minority language rights. That would imply to me, given the argument that one cannot introduce amendments not described in the accord, that the government may introduce amendments or modify the accord but no one else may.
I suggest, as members from this side will be continually suggesting, that to try and say to members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition that they have no role to play in trying to improve a process or resolution is ludicrous. This document, as we will continue to indicate until it is corrected, is fundamentally flawed.
The Constitution
To ask members of the House of Commons in 1981 to support a document which not only does not recognize treaty and aboriginal rights but attempts to deny the fundamental justice that every Canadian subscribes to, namely the equality of our people, be they men or women, are so far behind the times that I guess if it were not actually before us, I would have said there was not a hope in heck that we would see it.
As I said at the beginning, this is historic; this is constitutional renewal. If we are going to go this route and if we are to proceed, it is to me and many member of my party critical that we honour the promises we made in the referendum in 1980. It is critical that we honour the expectations of Canadians and honour the traditions of the original writers of our constitutional law. Now that we are making change, because of the strength they gave to this country all those years, let us honour their commitment to Canada and to the people of Canada today and make sure we do it right with justice and honour the first time.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, members of this House need not be reminded by me of the historical significance of this debate to which the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) just made reference, nor of the remarkable consensus that has been forged between the diverse interests which are the very nature of Canada and, of course, of the importance of enshrining in our Constitution a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Nor need I remind hon. members of the compromises and the disappointments that compromises necessarily entail in order to reach a consensus. I suggest those kinds of compromises are necessary for the greater good consensus can bring.
The hon. member for Don Valley West mentioned the issue of sexual equality and aboriginal rights. These issues are very much alive, alive to the point where some members seem to suggest that they may vote against this resolution on that account. I have received representations from members of my constituency of St. Henri-Westmount requesting me to vote against the resolution on those grounds.
Let us all hope that these matters will be resolved before the resolution leaves this House. In any event, to those in the House who have negative feelings about the resolution on that account and to those members of the community who are not directly present here but who are asking us to reject the resolution on that account, I ask them to reflect upon the following.
What would be accomplished by defeating this resolution? Would a defeat of the resolution in its present form be a victory for sexual equality? Would a defeat in any way enhance the aboriginal rights to which the hon. member for Don Valley West just made reference? Would it accomplish anything other than to rekindle the constitutional haggling and debate which has lingered on for so many years? I ask hon. members to bear in mind that this resolution before us prejudices no one. It gives rights. It takes nothing away, it only adds. Most importantly, it adds a means of accomplishing further constitutional change here in Canada. This resolution provides Canadians with the tools to finish the job, to ensure

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
that the charter is improved to meet the legitimate concerns and demands of those who may require further protection. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, by voting against the resolution just because of a few shortcomings, we may very well undo all that has been achieved up to now, and raise the same feelings of bitterness again, and we shall not be helping those individuals and groups who failed to obtain what they wanted and hoped to obtain through the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They have not won yet, Mr. Speaker, but they have not lost. Perhaps such members who intend to vote against the resolution will indeed do so, safe in the knowledge that the resolution will be passed just the same, because enough fellow members will act responsibly to support a measure that is in the best interests of all Canadians, including those they claim to protect.

I suggest that to vote against this resolution because it does not contain enough would be an odd way indeed of advancing the cause of sexual equality or aboriginal rights. In my judgment it would be tantamount to a declaration that if some cannot have everything they want at this point in terms of this resolution, others should have nothing. I know that such is not the spirit or the motive of those who take issue with the resolution, but unfortunately that would be the result. That is what a vote against this resolution would be saying.
Surely it is a selfish gesture to deny the rights the charter contains to Canadians because the charter has certain defects, defects which I am the first to agree we should all strive to correct as soon as the Constitution is patriated from the United Kingdom. But the defects take nothing away. They are omissions. This is the very process of compromise, Mr. Speaker, that the Supreme Court of Canada has told us is an essential element of the constitutional convention. The convention has now been observed.
In this context, Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a subject of particular interest to English-speaking Quebecers. I have already quoted requests from constituents, asking me to vote against the resolution because of the shortcomings I have just mentioned and described. Many others have begged me not to support the motion because in their view, the language rights of English-speaking Quebec citizens are not adequately protected, compared with the protection given francophones outside Quebec.

For a moment I should like to discuss the issue of English education rights in the province of Quebec and, more precisely, why I have concluded that it is important, in fact essential, as an English-speaking Quebecer to support the resolution in its present form.
The basic and historic protection in Quebec for English language education derives from Section 93 of the British
North America Act. The provision in question guaranteed the right of dissent by a Protestant or Catholic minority, as the case may be, and the concomitant right to establish a separate school board, to pay separate taxes, if you like to effectively establish a separate school system founded on religious distinction. All those rights, of course, continue to exist. There is some authority for the view that language may also have been protected through the provisions of Section 93. That point has never been decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.
I now turn to Section 23 of the resolution before us. What is the effect of that article? It provides that citizens whose mother tongue is French or English can send their children to a school in the language of their mother tongue. That is the provision which I will deal with in a moment in regard to its non-application in the province of Quebec. It also provides that they can send their children to a school of the language in which either parent received his or her education in Canada.
This latter provision of Section 23 has come to be known as the "Canada clause", because it permits complete mobility within Canada by Canadian citizens. All provinces, except the province where my riding is located, have agreed to accept Section 23 in its entirety namely that the maternal language criterion would apply and the parents' language of instruction criterion would also apply.
The acceptance by the other nine provinces is most significant. It ensures protection for the French-speaking minority outside of Quebec which, for the first time in our history, is a major accomplishment. The acceptance of the mother tongue criterion is particularly significant for provinces other than Quebec because in the past there were few French minority language schools. Hence, the maternal language criterion is fundamental to ensuring the ongoing protecting of the French linguistic minority outside of the province of Quebec.
Within Quebec the situation is different. Because of Section 93 which I referred to a moment ago, English-speaking Quebecers have always had their schools. The criterion of the Canada clause provides protection to English-speaking Quebecers and to all citizens of Canada coming to Quebec from other provinces whose father or motfter, as the case may be, has taken primary education in English anywhere in Canada.
Clearly the maternal language provision, to which I made reference, would also be beneficial for Quebec. It would protect English speaking Canadians, naturalized citizens coming from other parts of the world, whose children might wish to attend English schools at the primary school level. That is where the maternal language provision would, in my view, be most significant. Unfortunately, for reasons which I will describe in a moment, it will apply in Quebec only when there is authorization either by the National Assembly or by the government of the province. The political reality is that such acceptance is unlikely under the present provincial government. That is the difference between the application of Section 23 in Quebec and its application in the rest of Canada.
Why would we agree to modify the application of Section 23 in the case of the province of Quebec? Why do I, as an English-speaking representative, representing a riding in
November 23, 1981

Quebec with a substantial English-speaking population, agree to support the resolution in its present form? My decision was taken only after weighing the long-term advantages and the disadvantages of the approach which I must say I instinctively and intellectually find most appealing; that is to say, that the clause should be imposed in its entirety. In the rational world of pure theory, Mr. Speaker, that would not only be the logical thing to do but I also suggest in today's world it would be the civilized thing to do.
However, in the real world with which we are confronted today in the province of Quebec, political prudence and wisdom dictate otherwise. We must not win a battle and lose the war. The war against separatism is still being waged. My colleagues from Quebec are convinced that the imposition of the mother tongue provision would be misunderstood, and it would provide substantial ammunition to the separatist movement.
The Canada clause is quite another matter. Mr. Levesque in 1977, at the conference of first ministers in St. Andrews, offered such an arrangement to each of the other provinces. I understand he reconfirmed that offer the following year in Montreal. The Canada clause derives from an idea of Mr. Levesque's own creation and the notion of reciprocity within the terms of the Canada clause contemplated by Article 86 of Bill 101. Therefore, the Canada clause is nothing new. This is not a provision to which Mr. Levesque could take exception on grounds of principle and nor could his separatist followers. Moreover, it also seems to be a provision which enjoys wide acceptance among members of the provincial Liberal Party.
This brings me to my second area of concern. Make no mistake about it, Mr. Speaker, we shall have another showdown with Mr. Levesque and his separatist government before the cloud of uncertainty that hangs over the province has finally dissipated. That showdown may take many forms; it may take the form of a referendum; it may take the form of a provincial election. Mr. Levesque and his colleagues will undoubtedly choose their time and place. When that hour is upon us, we will need the coalition of support that so successfully carried us to victory in the referendum of 1980. We will need the support of all Quebecers. Though many may be Quebec nationalists in one sense, they are total federalists. Some of these federalists have taken the position that nothing should be imposed on the province which in any way diminishes the powers of the National Assembly. Those representations have been made to me. While I respect those views, I am unwilling to support a constitutional resolution which does not impose the Canada clause as a minimum.
At the other end of the spectrum are those members of the English-speaking community who insist upon the application of Section 23 in its entirety, notwithstanding the fact that such a gesture will give further ammunition to the Parti Quebecois, for the reasons I have mentioned.
In addition, such an imposition might divide and irreparably damage the provincial Liberal Party itself. Our provincial
The Constitution
colleagues are essential to the coalition which must be forged to defeat effectively and definitively the Parti Quebecois and its separatist option. I would hope that the middle ground we have selected will provide a basis for that coalition and that Mr. Ryan, who frankly made a magnificent contribution to the referendum debate and for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration, will close ranks with us. Rather than fracture the ranks of Quebec federalists, I accept a compromise which invokes the Canada clause that adds to the rights of Englishspeaking Quebecers and will permit all federalists of whatever party stripe or affiliation to come together to fight separatism. Certainly I would prefer to have the mother tongue provisions of the first part of Section 23 apply, but I must also be sensitive to the political realities of the province of Quebec in the 1980s.
In the context of this linguistic issue, let me return to my opening comments. The resolution provides additional protection for the English-speaking minority in Quebec. It imposes the Canada clause, a clause which will guarantee that no further erosion can be made of the rights of the existing English-speaking community and that other English-speaking Canadians are able to come into Quebec and attend Englishspeaking schools by right. These protections do not now exist.
Further protections may be required, such as the mother tongue protection, but let us place such improvements in the same light as my earlier comments on aboriginal rights and the rights of sexual equality. When the Constitution has been patriated, let us make it a better Constitution than the one contained in the resolution before us. But let us not jeopardize the remarkable progress we have made and the additional rights we have acquired under the Canada clause which will apply in Quebec under this resolution. To vote against a resolution which provides greater protection than now exists for English-speaking Quebecers because there are further rights guaranteed to French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec would be at best a "dog in the manger" attitude. It would surely be the perfect example of the old adage-cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
order to camouflage the province's deplorable financial administration. Can one trust a government that is willing to spend millions of dollars of its taxpayers' money to satisfy the nationalistic urges of its ministers and purchase the Asbestos Corporation, a government that at the same time makes cutbacks worth one-half billion dollars in its social services? It is appalling!
Until the Levesque government stops sowing the seeds of discord in the business world at the provincial, Canadian and international level, Quebec is going to remain in its economic slump. One essential factor that could help us get out of the slump, Mr. Speaker, would be to see the end of this endless debate on the Constitution and have the assurance that Quebec will remain within a strong and united Canada.
In the interest of all Quebecers, Mr. Levesque should agree to the compromise solutions offered by Mr. Trudeau, but he has refused outright. These compromise solutions, which are supported by the federal members who speak on behalf of the interests and aspirations of Quebecers, are very reasonable and very substantial. For instance, in addition to a lack of financial resources in the province of Quebec, sometimes we also lack human resources. It often happens, Mr. Speaker, that we need engineers, scientific researchers, professors, and high technology experts. We need these people like any country, any province and any region needs them, to better achieve our industrial goals. We cannot do without them. Modernization and high technology industries are absolutely indispensable to the industrial future of our province, if we are to revamp the soft sectors of the economy, such as textiles and footwear. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the federal government has just earmarked more than $250 million for that purpose. These people are not going to take the place of Quebecers but they are going to create jobs in new enterprises, more profitable jobs in areas where we can compete at the world level. One example is the aerospace industry, where thanks to federal programs, Quebec already has the infrastructure in Quebec on which we can build further.
That is why Section 23, the so-called Canada clause, is so important. It is important because it says that if a Canadian citizen who comes to the province of Quebec was educated in English, he will have the right to send his children to an English school in the province of Quebec. This minimum protection is indispensable if we are to attract Canadians to Quebec in order to meet the needs that I have just mentioned. As I indicated before in English, Mr. Speaker, because at the St. Andrews' Conference in 1977, Mr. Levesque himself offered to enter into reciprocal agreements with the provinces that would guarantee schools for the francophone or anglophone minorities, as appropriate, the Canada clause in this resolution will, in fact, be entrenching Mr. Levesque's own concepts. So, Mr. Speaker, with the Canada clause we have an element that is extremely important to the economy of the province of Quebec.

In conclusion, if ever there was an example of the whole being greater than the sum of its parts, surely it is this country of ours-Canada. Our Fathers of Confederation had the foresight to pursue that dream, and a record of 114 years bears eloquent testimony to their conviction. Sir John A. Macdonald said the following shortly before his death:
If I had influence over the minds of the people of Canada, any power over their intellect, I would leave them with the legacy: Whatever you do adhere to the union-we are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest in the universe if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken. God and nature have made the two Canadas one-let no factious men be allowed to put them asunder.
I believe all hon. members of the House accept Sir John's challenge. We will not let factious men put Canada asunder. We will not permit factious men to rob generations of Canadians of this great legacy.
The adoption of the resolution before the House today, Mr. Speaker, is an important step in ensuring that Canada will remain greater than the sum of its parts for the benefit of all future generations of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, once again it is an honour to participate in the development of our Canadian Constitution. Before I begin my comments, 1 want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) who, prior to leaving the House this afternoon, indicated to me that he would not be present for my remarks. I understand he is engaged in the activity of telephoning various premiers, an activity which some of us have also engaged in over the last days, weeks and months. I can appreciate the work that lies before him today.
One hundred and sixteen years ago, the provincial Parliament of Canada engaged in a debate on the confederation of the British North American colonies. While it was the practical men such as Macdonald, Cartier, Brown and Galt who outlined the immediate advantages of the confederation scheme, it was Thomas D'Arcy McGee who outlined the general principle which was to be the foundation of the new nation. He said:
There is something in the frequent, fond recurrence of mankind to the federal principle, amongst the freest peoples, in their best times and worst dangers, which leads me to believe that it has a very deep hold in human nature itself-an excellent basis for a government to have.
In the one hundred and fourteenth year of the confederation which those men helped to create, Canadians have debated this same cornerstone of the Canadian nation-the federal principle.
On one side there have been those who have grown impatient with the federal process and who believed that federalism no longer worked. They felt that the merits of such measures as an entrenched charter of rights or a clarification of resource jurisdiction justified a departure from the Canadian tradition of seeking compromise and consensus on major constitutional issues.
November 23, 1981

On the other side there have been those who have fought for the maintenance of the federal principle. We believed that unilateral action was based on a false premise: that the federal system no longer worked and that progress could not be reached by compromise and consensus. We rejected that attitude completely.
On October 2, 1980 the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) recognized that the government's constitutional proposal offended the federal principle. Since that time, under his direction, the federal Progressive Conservative Party has fought the government at every step to ensure that the federal system would be protected. We were among those who believed that the federal system still could work if all our political leaders had the will to make it work.
On November 2 of this year, almost one year after the government's original deadline for debate on its unilateral action, an event occurred for which those of us who defended the federal principle had fought long and hard. Eleven political leaders of Canada who both represented and reflected the diversity of Canada met to discuss the constitutional resolution.
This meeting was made possible by the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that the government's original plans were unconstitutional. It is the conclusion of that meeting that we are discussing today. That decision occurred before the government's proposals were rushed off to Great Britain only because our party, under our leader, fought a long parliamentary battle last spring. Many Canadians may have forgotten that at that time we were told by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that we were wasting the taxpayers' money and that we should get on with the job, although it was a position that he had supported earlier.
In spite of it all, we remained determined to fight for the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to render its decision. We remained hopeful that Canada's first ministers would use the opportunity which we had provided them to meet once more.
On November 2 the first ministers did use that opportunity. And on November 5, Canada's political leaders restored our faith in the federal system. They proved that they could put aside their personal, political and sectional interests to reach a compromise for all Canadians. I suggest to hon. members that the same spirit must prevail in this House as well.
In defending the Canadian federal tradition of consensus, we were often accused of being naive or of failing to support such worthwhile measures as the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But we retained our faith in the nation, in the principle of federalism and in Canada's political leaders. And in the end, I believe we and all Canadians who held that view have been rewarded for that faith.
What, then, is the resolution before us and how does it compare to the old resolution? I believe that Canadians have been rewarded by a new constitutional resolution which is dramatically different from the one which we debated last fall, winter and through the spring.
Oral Questions
When speaking in those debates, I and other members of my party outlined four main objections to the government's proposal. Our primary objection was to the unilateral action of the federal government. The resolution before this Parliament today has the support of ten Canadian governments. It represents the result of compromises on all sides. As a result, Canadians will have a truly Canadian Constitution made in Canada through the Canadian tradition of consensus.
We also objected to the interim amending formula which would have subjected Canada to the tyranny of unanimity for several years. We believed such a complicated formula was unnecessary because agreement could be reached on a permanent way to amend the Constitution in the future if the federal and provincial governments met once more to discuss it.
The new resolution contains no interim amending formula. We must ask why that is so. It is because the agreement which we always believed was possible was reached.
The old resolution also had a permanent amending formula to which we objected. The outdated Victorian formula did not conform to the reality of the Canada of today nor, I suggest to hon. members, to the Canada of tomorrow. It did not treat the provinces equally and it provided central Canada with a permanent veto.
Since October 2 of last year, our party maintained that the so-called Vancouver consensus amending formula represented the reasonable basis for an agreement among all governments. The Vancouver formula had the advantages of treating provinces as equals and of being flexible while still protecting the diversity of Canada.
It is this formula, as adapted through intergovernmental co-operation, which is contained in the present resolution. I say to all hon. members that it was that amending formula, one which created different classes of provinces and therefore, by extension, different classes of citizens in Canada, that we fought so hard to have removed from the resolution. Those of us who do not come from central Canada felt it was time not only that we be given equal rights, but that we also be given the responsibility of contributing to the country on an equal basis.
Among the government's original proposals there was one feature which we regarded as highly dangerous and divisive. That was the referendum provision, controlled entirely by the federal government, which was open to potential abuse and would have created needless strife within the country. There are those who say it is the ultimate exercise of democracy, but if we look at the old resolution we will see that the manner in which it could be used would have led to division, strife and rancour rather than agreement. Canadians did not want a Constitution which might pit region against region and neighbour against neighbour. Canadians needed and wanted a Constitution which would unite them.
There is no provision for a permanent referendum anywhere in the present resolution. Canada's political leaders have indicated in their wisdom that such a dangerous and divisive

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
mechanism, a provision which like unilateral action reflected a distrust of the federal principle, was unnecessary.
Throughout the debate on the old resolution, our party offered a number of compromises which would have eliminated our major objections. But most of all, we asked that all our governments return to the bargaining table to discuss the constitutional proposals. When they finally did, Canada's governments removed the most objectionable sections from the old resolution and, I believe, crafted a completely new document of which Canadians should be proud.
The Constitution agreement reached by ten Canadian governments and opposition parties in this House produced a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in which all Canadians should take much pride.
The charter of Rights and Freedoms before the House today contains all the essential features which were developed by the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, with exceptions that I will come to later, in response to the representations of thousands of Canadians. Today those representations are crafted in a document which will enable the courts, Parliament and the legislatures actively to protect the rights of all Canadians.
The premiers' particular contribution was to introduce the concept of a legislative override. This is an important innovation which will strengthen the effectiveness of the charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is important that Canadians understand this innovation, particularly because some people are suggesting that this innovation has produced a "watered down" Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
No country in the world, not even Canada, enjoys a system which could perfectly guarantee our rights. The Parliament and legislatures of Canada are not perfect. They have done injustices to individuals and minority groups. But the Supreme Court of Canada is not infallible either. It is equally capable of making mistakes and doing an injustice to Canadians. In an imperfect world Canadians must choose between frail human institutions and decide which should hold the final authority.
A legislative override leaves the final authority, and only the final authority, with the people's elected representatives. You might then ask how that would work. Suppose a future Supreme Court decided that provincial legislation allowing prayers in public schools violated the charter, and specifically the freedom of religion provisions? A provincial legislature would have to decide whether this legislation was so important and so popular that it should still be enacted. It might feel that the court had misinterpreted the intentions of those who drafted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the popular will of the people.
Having decided that the legislation was important enough, Parliament or the legislature would have to state publicly that it would pass the legislation knowing that it conflicted with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Not only that, it would have to introduce the legislation knowing it would have to be passed and scrutinized again every five years. Obviously, a government would do this only when it felt that the legislation was very important and was supported by most people. This probably explains why legislative overrides have never been used by any of the provinces which include them in their bill of rights in Canada at the present time.
It is important that Canadians understand that Parliament or a provincial legislature would not be opting out of the guarantee of, in this example, freedom of religion. It would only be stating that this single piece of legislation should still be effective even if it conflicts with the freedom of religion. All Canadian governments have affirmed their commitment to protecting our traditional rights, such as freedom of religion and speech. Ten Canadian governments are also committed to guaranteeing more modern rights, and here I am thinking specifically of the rights of the mentally and physically disabled. It is that section which I believe puts our charter in the vanguard of a modern charter, so to speak, and I am pleased to see those provisions included.
The importance of the commitment of Canadian federal and provincial governments to the rights contained in the charter should not be underestimated. This commitment will open the way to progress in including further guarantees in the Constitution over which our party has expressed some concern. More importantly, all the work which was done, all lofty phrases which were inscribed, and all the promises which were made by all parties in this Parliament during the hearings of the Constitution committee would have been worthless without the full commitment of the provincial governments to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It was unthinkable, in my view, that we would have a charter of rights and freedoms and then we would have provinces saying from time to time that the charter would not apply in their province. How, for example, would one be able to opt out of rights?
There are a number of members who insist that a charter of Rights and Freedoms is a hollow document, that it cannot protect the rights of citizens. While I am one who cherishes the rights handed down through the English common law, I remain convinced that redress for violations of rights by government is made possible through the inclusion of a charter of rights and freedoms-the example of Japanese Americans who, while not protected by the charter of rights of the United States either, were given compensation after the war. Japanese Canadians have not been compensated to this day. I have one such person in my riding at the present time. What we have to fear is not the violation of our rights by our fellow citizens, but by the government itself.
Additionally, there are those who point to the U.S.S.R. and other dictatorships as having an entrenched charter of rights, and yet, despite this provision, violations of human rights goes on daily. How do we answer this charge?
I said that our government institutions are fallible because we as people are fallible. The difference between the U.S.S.R. and democracies though is apparent. Dictatorships use charters for propaganda purposes. They have no intention, either at home or internationally, to observe the rights they so piously adopt.
November 23, 1981

1 would now like to speak personally for a moment. My father and his family came to this country in the 1920s. They were given freedom. Yes, they were given that freedom without a charter. But many immigrants, because of the loss of country and status, see a charter as a symbol, as a written guarantee of the rights they so vigorously defend, charters can be empty of resolve. My uncle spent 22 years in a labour camp in the Soviet Gulag. My cousins to this day cannot return to the Ukraine where their family lived, but must remain in the so-called virgin lands. The rights in the U.S.S.R. are empty. Their charter is for propaganda purposes only. But let us not compare either the purpose or the action of the Soviet authorities with our country and the desire of its citizens to protect our basic rights.
On October 6, 1980 the Minister of Justice suggested that the government was completing the work of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker. Back then, nothing could have been further from the truth. Prime Minister Diefenbaker respected and loved Canada too much to have acted unilaterally in a way which would have affected the federal system. But I am also certain Prime Minister Diefenbaker dreamed of the day when all provincial governments would commit themselves to entrenching a bill of rights in the Constitution. Now Canada's first ministers have helped to fulfil that dream.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms affirms and extends the freedoms of all Canadians. It should be a source of pride to all Canadians for all generations to come.
If the first ministers drafted a document of which all Canadians should be proud, some people must be wondering why our party has suggested some changes to the accord. Perhaps it is because, as Sir John A. Macdonald once said of the American constitution:
To say that it has some defects is but to say that it is not the work of Omniscience, but of human intellect.
We must not forget that our first ministers met in a pressure packed period of four days and may not have had the opportunity to consider the full implications of some of the actions taken.
I am suggesting that Parliament has a role to play to ensure that the rights of all Canadians have been kept in mind and to provide, though it might be foreign to us in this chamber, "sober second thought" to their work. That there is room for change and "sober second thought" is obvious from the fact that the resolution which we are debating is not identical to the one which would have been produced by the constitutional accord.
A tremendous furor has been created over the application of the "notwithstanding clause" to the guarantee that rights should apply equally to men and women. A similar furor has surrounded the absence of the guarantee of aboriginal rights from the present resolution. Both of these outcries, on the part of women and on the part of the native peoples, have been perfectly justified. And it would now appear that both important segments of the Canadian federation will find a place in the final accord which this Parliament will approve. That is a hopeful sign.
Oral Questions
It is a hopeful sign because it indicates that many Canadians want to play a part in the agreements which are often reached by first ministers behind closed doors. They want to make sure that those agreements truly reflect the diversity of the Canadian federation. Canadians have shown that they want to be part of the process of constitutional change.
I want to speak for a moment about native rights. People sometimes ask me why I am interested in going beyond the entrenchment of the rights that are now in Section 25. One of the practical examples I have been using is as follows. Suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you have bought a quarter section of land but when you receive title you find that you receive title for that quarter section with one small omission: the back 40 acres are not included. Suddenly you find that instead of 160 acres you have only 120 acres, although the deal was for 160 acres.
There are many Indian people in Canada today whose treaties still are unfulfilled. They still have treaty entitlement. They are still cut off from lands in British Columbia, and there are treaties still to be signed north of 60. I say to Canadians, all we are asking is for a fair deal. We are asking them to apply this to themselves to see whether or not it would be acceptable to them if the agreements they had made were in fact different from the agreements they received in the end.
Also in reference to Section 28, this party, as proposed by my leader on Friday last, insists that Section 28, as it appeared in the resolution which came out of the joint committee, be restored in its full power.
There is a hopeful sign during these days and these hours when these negotiations take place that these agreements can be made and included as amendments to our constitutional proposals.
On Friday also the Minister of Justice suggested that every Member of Parliament should use gentle persuasion wherever possible to pave the way for a solution in the areas of disagreement. It is in this spirit, and not in a partisan way, that our party has been seeking a reconciliation in the areas I have mentioned of women's and native rights. Now is not the time for any party or person to trumpet their role in bringing about a potential consensus in these areas. It is a time for all of us quietly to play whatever role we can in bringing about these changes.
It is in this same spirit that members of our party have been seeking to make the constitutional accord acceptable to the people of, and perhaps the government of, Quebec. As a Canadian from the west, I can remember the isolation and alienation which we felt when the constitutional proposals were going to be imposed on us, proposals we thought were detrimental to our region and our people. I do not think we should forget now that the same sense of isolation could be felt by another important region of the country.
Under the direction of our leader, we have been seeking to make the constitutional proposals acceptable to the people of Quebec. That is the spirit in which we will propose the

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
amendment on financial compensation. That is the spirit in which today our leader has contacted the Premier of Quebec concerning minority language education provisions. The Leader of the Opposition has asked the Premier of Quebec for a clear commitment that his government will recognize the right of all Canadian citizens to minority language education. We are asking the Premier to take the essential first step, in guaranteeing these rights, after which would commit the government of Quebec to accept the rights of all Canadians to minority language education voluntarily.
All Canadians would like to see all regions involved in the final constitutional accord, and all Canadians feeling at home in this country. What we are seeking is a compromise which would make the accord acceptable to the government of Quebec.
Some members of the House, the press and of the public might say that is impossible. If that is the case, let us be sure that the people of Quebec realize that their government will reject all reasonable proposals. If, regrettably, that is the case, let us make it clear to the people of Quebec that they only appear to be isolated, isolated by a Quebec government which is more interested in deliberately asserting its separatist views than in working within the framework of the Canadian federation to reach a genuine agreement.
I want to spend some time, Mr. Speaker, speaking in reference to how the accord affects the people living north of 60, in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
The accord provides an amending formula which, I believe, requires modifications to meet the requirements of Canadians living north of 60. Many of us dream of the day when Canadians living in the Northwest Territories and the Yukon achieve full responsible government. That should happen today. I just cannot understand why we cannot have full responsibility for those territories today, why we cannot accept the concept that those who are elected must be responsible to those who elect them, and why we cannot remove the federal bureaucratic shackles that have existed for so long north of 60; but I guess change comes very slowly.
Having said that, we look forward to the day when they will achieve full responsible government, and once having achieved that government they eventually will make the decision on the advisability of attaining provincial status. The amending formula allows these citizens to make that judgment, as we see it now, without further change to the amending formula; that is, we are not restricted to the number of provinces needed under the amending formula, but rather to a mathematical formula. There is a section in the accord which I seriously believe brings into question the future of the people living north of 60, and that is Section 41, specifically Section 41(e).
As this Parliament takes a sober second look at the resolution, we might also want to consider the part of the constitutional resolution which will involve the provinces in the creation of new provinces out of Canadian territories. The power to create new provinces out of territories presently rests with the federal government. That is in Schedule 2 of the amendments to the British North America Act, 1871. According to the
resolution, this power will still rest with Parliament in part, but in another section, namely Section 41-the schedule is in conflict with Section 41-this power will rest with the federal and the provincial governments. This contradiction should be cleared up so that the intentions of the government in this matter are very clear to all concerned. I suggest to the Minister of Justice that he look at both the schedule and Section 41(e) to see if we cannot clarify that matter before the resolution has the final approval of this House.


Mr. Nielsen;: And Section 41(0


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My colleague, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), also refers to Section 41(0- I believe he will be speaking more specifically about the north later on in the debate.
As always when compromise is reached, one would like to see changes which cannot be achieved at the moment without jeopardizing the agreement itself. For example, the fact that property rights have been left out is of personal concern to me and I know to many colleagues on this side of the House at least. I urge the provinces to rethink their opposition to this provision. If rights relating to property can be included for other groups, such as natives, I would think that some way could also be found to guarantee property rights and yet allow provincial governments the administrative freedom to acquire property for the benefit of the general public.
I also want to issue a warning to this Parliament and future legislators regarding the absence of rights for the unborn. I am not speaking as a critic of my party but personally as a member of this House. The Minister of Justice and his officials argue that the charter is neutral on this issue. I pray that legislators and courts will not take away, because of this neutrality, the rights of the most defenseless in our society. If I have any disquiet today, Mr. Speaker, it is on that topic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In conclusion, the debate in this Parliament on the resolution is beginning to settle in the minds of all members of this House the fact that constitutional compromise is possible. When we have concluded this debate Canada will have a Constitution which contains all of the good features of the British North America Act which have served us well in the past. Canada will also be able to change its Constitution in Canada, and we will have entrenched a commitment to equalization, a fuller definition of provincial resource ownership, as well as the charter of Rights and Freedoms to which I referred earlier.
I am relieved that a debate which began in anger and which has created deep divisions in the country is ending in good will. I hope there are others like myself who have had their faith in the federal principle, upon which this nation was founded, rewarded, and I hope there are others whose faith in the principle has been restored.
November 23, 1981

There are many challenges to be overcome in the coming decades which will require the same Canadian tradition of consensus and compromise. It is time that we left division. It is time that we left the bitter words of the last year far behind us and start to face the challenges of the future.
Someone has said, and John A. Macdonald used to paraphrase it, that Canada is more than a mere geographical expression. All of us who have taken a look at Canada's geography know its geographical grandeur. Whether one sweeps from east to west to north or the other way around, one has been filled with awe with our country. Canada is more than a geographical expression. It is a land of people, people who in their own way each want to build a better Canada.
During the confederation debates in 1865, the Hon. George Etienne Cartier said:
I view the diversity of races in British North America in this way: we were of different races, not for the purpose of warring against each other, but in order to compete and emulate for the general welfare. This diversity is our strength.
The question might be asked, how do we repay those who laid the foundation of this country? Lord Tweedsmuir probably said it best when he said, "We can only pay one debt to the past, by putting the future in debt to ourselves". That, Mr. Speaker, has been our work and that should be our legacy.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker,
I am very proud at this moment to be a Canadian woman. Equality for myself and all Canadian women has ceased to be an elusive dream. Instead, it is taking on the shape of reality, moulded by generations. It is equality not according to the old maxim "As persons in matters of pains and penalties", but as persons in the matter of rights and equality. You can bet that we want full equality.
What is this equality that we women have been fighting for? How many generations of men and women have asked the question: What do women want? Well, for our grandmothers who were not even considered persons and who fought for the vote, and for our mothers who supplied the labour force during the war and since, and for our sisters and daughters and granddaughters, I will tell you what we want. We want the rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guaranteed equally to male and female persons. That means the original wording of Section 28:
Notwithstanding anything in this charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
It is that simple. We want the reference to Section 28 in the override clause, Section 33, deleted. The charter will then carry a forceful statement of equality. This will give the courts a strong direction that sex discrimination cases require their strictest scrutiny.
Oral Questions
For those who argue that affirmative action programs are jeopardized by the removal of Section 28 from Section 33, I remind them that the present constitutional proposals clearly state that affirmative action programs are not subject to the normal rules barring discrimination on the basis of sex.
To go back to some of the things which have happened to women in this country, I am sure there are many who are not aware of the fact that long before the era of the suffragists, women in Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick had been entitled to vote and hold office. Why? What happened? Simply because it had not occurred to anyone to make laws to prevent them from voting. Of course, you can guess what happened when this existed; legislation was enacted to remove that right.
It was not until April 25, 1940, with the capitulation of Quebec, which was the last province to give votes to women, that the injustice was overturned. It is curious to recall that in our so-called enlightened age it is almost impossible to believe that the late Senator Therese Casgrain as recently as 1970 became the only one of Canada's leading suffragists to hold federal office. I would like to think that Madame Casgrain, who died just three weeks ago, would be sitting in that gallery this afternoon, but I am sure that she is with us in spirit today.
Well, women got the vote and, as most women know, we who were busy building homes, feeding cattle, ploughing the fields and milking the cows-as my mother did-having babies and raising families, then had to fight for the right to be recognized as persons. Most of us in this House are familiar with the Persons' case, but I think it is worth while to go over it again. In 1928 five Alberta women, the "five persons" as they were later known, Henrietta Edwards, Irene Parlby, Louise McKinney, Nellie McClung and Emily Murphy, appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada to decide whether women were "qualified persons" who could be appointed to the Senate. Of course, the Supreme Court rejected this idea. The case was then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in England who accepted the idea that women were, indeed, persons. This now forms part of the constitutional law of this country.
However, this should serve to remind the men of this country that for decades, right up to the present time, women have participated and agonized in this constitutional exercise.
We look upon the events of the past year as events which have been controlled, to a large degree, by women themselves. They did not let the drafters of the Constitution forget. Back in February, 1981 many thousands of women told the federal government that equality must be guaranteed in any charter of Rights and Freedoms to be entrenched in the Constitution. The government agreed to this and a special guarantee. Section 28, was added to the charter in the general clause.
In April, 1981 this guarantee of equality for women and men was passed by all three parties in the House of Commons. Women thought that they had a guarantee that all laws in Canada would have to treat men and women in Canada equally. So there it was. We have the charter, standing the way we want it, clearly defined. The battle was won, we

November 23, 1981
Oral Questions
thought. However, it was not. Why? Because the provinces, the Supreme Court and the opposition parties put this government in the position of bargaining for consensus. The provinces changed the charter without consulting the people within the provincial boundaries.
We will recall, but I think it proper to remind this House and the people of Canada that it was the federal government that held constitutional hearings and an all-party committee sat for months. There were 303 witnesses, including individuals and groups, along with almost 1,000 briefs, letters and telegrams which were heard and received. The committee listened, responded and so developed a charter that did respond to the hearts and minds and needs of the people of Canada.
When it was found that the charter had changed, bowing to the pressure of the provincial premiers, the women looked up and said "No". Women, united as never before, said no. It was time to tell the provinces no. Much credit is due to special groups and dynamic individuals who I will name later on this afternoon, but the credit for speaking out goes to the women of Canada, women working both in and out of their homes, mothers, grandmothers and daughters and particularly the women of this House. I refer to the member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss Macdonald), the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney)-in fact, all the women on the opposite side of the House.
It goes without saying-but I think I should mention it- that the women on this side of the House have given tremendous support, particularly my close friend and colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), who is leading us into another major battle for pension reform, which is very much needed to ensure the economic security of the women of this nation.
I must also pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who displayed his total commitment and confidence when he appointed me as the minister responsible for the status of women.
We have also been supported all the way by those women members in the other place. I refer to Senators Bird, Rousseau and Neiman who have worked tirelessly in support of these efforts.
Who actually galvanized these women into action? Two groups provided the main thrust. The ad hoc committee, with women such as Pat Hacker, Lynda Ryan Nye, Rosemary Billings, Marylou McPhedran and countless others, and the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women-capably led by its president, Lucie Pepin, I am pleased to say-have provided an extremely powerful force in the past few weeks. Fortuitously, the council was meeting in Vancouver at the time of the signing of the final resolution, and it moved very quickly and very effectively. If there was any doubt about the strength and integrity of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status
of Women, those doubts have surely been dispelled by the events of the past ten days.
I would like to remind this House that the president of the advisory council, Lucie Pepin, and many of her provincial chapter councils, met this last weekend in Saskatchewan. These groups have managed to reach almost every Canadian woman and, I must say, it is working. This network-and we call it a network because that is what it is-went into action and the premiers heard from the women. Pressure continued to mount on each premier until, one by one, they fell. But will we have Saskatchewan? In order to adhere to the spirit of the accord, we must have all the provinces onside. I say to Saskatchewan, to the Premier of Saskatchewan, to the people of Saskatchewan: join us. I am convinced that reason and justice will prevail.
I must also say that much credit must go to a group of women which has worked largely behind the scenes for the past week or two. I refer to my department, Status of Women Canada, and its co-ordinator, Maureen O'Neil, who with a small but highly skilled staff have kept me and my colleagues informed of the implications of the various decisions and options offered throughout these negotiations.
On Friday the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) spoke of his background of growing up on a farm where women were equal. I share that background. I grew up on a farm, and I had the added advantage of growing up next door to an Indian reservation. This has helped me to understand the even greater injustices which have been done to native women. These women-including Sandra Lovelace, Jeanette Lavell and Mary Two Axe Early-must share equality with men under and before the law, a law for all Canadians.
Again I return to the Leader of the Opposition who, on Friday and on previous occasions, indicated his sensitivity to and understanding of this issue. This has been healthy for this country and for this House because during the past week, as never before, the men of this House have opened the doors and let the views of women in. Lest we think this has been a battle fought for and with women only, just this afternoon I received a letter from a senior citizen, and I am compelled to quote part of it:
I am a senior citizen war veteran who believes that I fought for a better world and society.
It is hard to understand that a minister had to be appointed to see that a Canadian's rights have to be upheld. There should be no question in our country of any Canadian being slighted on their rights. As I write this I am sorry to hear the radio news that there is a question of whether or not rights will be included in the Constitution. All Canadians must enjoy equal rights without questions being involved. It is a shame that any Member of Parliament should voice anything contrary.
Thank you for trying to make Canada equal for all citizens.
You will pardon us, Mr. Speaker, the women of Canada, if we are optimistic and hopeful and just a little bit cocky. We have come a long way, but there is one step to go.
I will close on that rather optimistic and perhaps light note because I think a little humour always helps us move along the way. I feel today very much as the quarterback of the Edmon-
November 23, 1981

ton Eskimos must have felt at about this same time yesterday. How can we lose? One final kick. We are still in the game.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. 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 Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-The Constitution-proposal that representatives of minorities attend conference; the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-appearance of Canadian pipers at Edinburgh International Tattoo, (b) Request that broadcast be shown in Canada; the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker)-The Budget-minister's awareness of effect.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Chretien respecting the Constitution of Canada, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Clark (p. 13050).
Mr. John Kushner (Calgary East):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured and privileged to speak in this historic debate on our Constitution. I am indeed very proud but, on the other hand, I am a very disappointed Member of Parliament. I am one of the most disappointed members in this House of Commons because the priorities of this government are wrong.
When I went to my constituency this past summer I was embarrassed because I was asked what I was doing about interest rates, jobs and the energy crisis. I was asked when we would come to some agreement or arrangement to get this country working again. What do Canadians have to do to get us to put our priorities in the proper order and to get us to address ourselves to the problems facing Canadians? Canadians are losing their homes and their jobs. What are we doing? We are talking about the Constitution rather than addressing ourselves to our country's needs.
Who can a person turn to when he is losing his home because of high interest rates? The government says it cannot
The Constitution
do anything about high interest rates because our rates are married to the rates in the United States. Are we saying that Canadians should write to Mr. Reagan, the President of the United States, to ask that the matter of high interest rates be addressed so that the needs of Canadians could be met? Or should we be saying that the Liberal government has completely lost control, which in fact it has? The fact is that bureaucrats are governing this country. Perhaps Canadians should be talking to bureaucrats instead of Members of Parliament because Members of Parliament have certainly lost control.
That is sad because we are living in a country of plenty. It is indeed one of the richest countries in the world. That is one reason my family emigrated from Poland to this country. We came here during the depression because of the freedom of opportunity. However, we have less freedom now than ever before. Some countries with the best charter or bill of rights or best constitution have less democracy and freedom than a country like ours.
The constitutional debate has not ploughed one field or created one job. If anything, it has caused a loss of business, jobs and opportunity for Canadians as far as revenue is concerned. This is because the government has not been addressing the needs of the country. It has been talking about the Constitution rather than dealing with the needs of this country. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is not staying home but rather leaving his toy, the Constitution, for members of Parliament to play with. The Constitution does not matter much to a Canadian who has lost his home or job. In fact, it does not matter at all.
This is not the end of the debate on the Constitution. It will be coming forward again, no question about it. The Prime Minister's intention with this toy, the Constitution, is to have his name inscribed in the history books because he brought the Constitution to Canada at all costs. Without question, it has been "at all costs" to those Canadians who have lost their businesses. That is the way I feel, as do those whom I represent.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the chairman of our Constitution committee, gave a lot of time, made many sacrifices and put in endless hours of effort to help make this Constitution work. It is hard to appreciate or to visualize the sacrifices this hon. member has made towards resolving this constitutional debate successfully.
There is more to Canada than just the French and English. I am neither French nor English but I am very much a Canadian. I have travelled in Quebec. It is beautiful. I do not have the words to express how hospitable and honest the people of Quebec are. I have not often missed the carnaval in Quebec city. I attend almost every year; it is great.
It is not the French people or the Quebecers who cause the problems. One man wants to become a Messiah and the other a hero. Divide and conquer; that is what is now happening. It is unfortunate because the economy of Quebec is not good.

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
Indeed, it is very bad. I only hope that the Prime Minister, who is a good friend of the Premier of Quebec, will once and for all try to resolve the problems in Quebec, get that province rolling again and the people there working.
Thousands of Quebecers left Quebec to go to western Canada. In fact, my neighbour across the street is from Quebec. He is happy to be in Alberta. His English is not very good. My French is not good either. However, we get along very well as neighbours. We understand each other.
These people have come to western Canada for the same reasons my family came to Canada. It was not necessarily by choice but through necessity in the hope of being able to make a better living. When some of us came to this country, we did not have so much as even a good suitcase. However, those people who came here have worked very hard. They were the pioneers who built this country to what it is today.
The constitutional debate has divided this country more than it ever was before. There has been no need for it. We should have been addressing the economy of this country. I am not against bringing the Constitution to Canada. It is a part of growing up. There is nothing wrong with that. No Canadian is against having the Constitution brought to Canada. However, if it is as complex as some have expressed, why should we bring it here? But this is not so.
We talk about convention, entrenchment and accord. Most Canadians do not even understand what these terms mean. We talk about conventions, traditions and practices. Why not make it so people understand? I will give an example. If we had a non-confidence motion today and the government was defeated, even though it is not provided in the Constitution, the government would resign and an election would be called. This is not in the Constitution; it is a tradition, a practice that is accepted.
As a Member of Parliament, I am very disappointed. If 1 had known what 1 know today, it is very questionable whether I would want to be a Member of Parliament and sit in this House. This government is manipulative. We see how the Constitution has been handled and how the government addresses itself to the economy of this country and making the country work. No wonder people are losing confidence in governments and Members of Parliament.
I remember the Prime Minister saying "We will wrestle inflation to the ground" and "The land is strong". I remember when there was hardly any separatism in Quebec or western Canada. We have it today. I remember the day when it was said that we should vote for Pierre Trudeau because he was the only one who can keep this country together. He is the only one who has divided this country and brought separatism not only to Quebec but even to western Canada.
I did not want to say all these things, but I think they had to be said because the people, and speaking especially on behalf on my constituents, if I may express myself, are sick and tired of this Constitution debate and this manipulation. It certainly was not a priority and it certainly is not a priority today either.
Without question I feel this is not the end but only the beginning, if Pierre Trudeau has his own way.
I will not take much more time but I would like to say a few words regarding my experience with governments. I was an alderman for about ten years in the city of Calgary. 1 held all the key positions there are. I have also been a school trustee and an educational bureaucrat at the same time. As well, I have served as an MLA in the Alberta legislature. I have seen people come and go in politics. I certainly do not have to read a book about politics and what makes it work. I have been involved with labour. At the age of 26 I was the president of the Calgary labour council. Speaking of labour, I do not know what the Canadian people have to do so that the Liberal government will get the message once and for all. When 50,000 people come to Parliament to demonstrate about the high interest rates, and they still cannot hear-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I would invite the hon. member to address his remarks to the Constitution debate, namely the amendment before the House.


John Kushner: Mr. Speaker, something has to be done about this. It is quite relevant to the Constitution. As I mentioned before, it is quite clear that we should be talking about the economy of the country, rather than debating the Constitution resolution. We should not be wasting our time. We have wasted the whole summer and all of the fall on this Constitution, rather than talking about the economy of this country.
People representing home owners from British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and the Canadian Labour Congress made representations to me last Friday. I asked them, "What would you expect us to do? What should we be doing? I am losing my home. I will be laid off. I have already received notice. These are only some of the things I was told. What do we need to do to get the government moving or doing something about our interest rates, so we do not lose our homes and get the construction industry moving again so people can afford to build and borrow money, which was the situation not that many years ago? The government is saying that it is more concerned with the Constitution and it cannot do anything about high interest rates. To whom should we refer?"
As I mentioned before, this government has completely lost control of governing. It no longer governs. The bureaucrats are governing this country. Should we be writing to the mortgage companies about the high interest rates? Should we be writing to the banks? Should we be writing to foreign countries? To whom do we refer? The government cannot do anything. One begins to wonder who is governing this country.
I cannot over-emphasize the fact that it is the bureaucrats governing this country. The Liberals have completely lost control and it is time they were booted out. Instead of talking about the Constitution, we should be talking about creating jobs and getting the economy moving again.
We have a majority government. We also have majority unemployment, majority interest rates and majority inflation. We have a dangerous situation in the way the government is functioning and practising. I do not know what is the next
November 23, 1981

move Canadians will be forced to make in order that the government can address itself to the needs of this country.
On Friday thousands of native people found it necessary to demonstrate on Parliament Hill in order to be recognized. They asked that their rights be entrenched in the Constitution, which rightfully should be done.
In conclusion, on one hand I am proud to have had the experience of serving as a Member of Parliament, and of doing my best to see that the interests of my constituents are heard. On the other hand, as I mentioned before, I am most embarrassed and most disappointed to be a Member of Parliament. The way the government has been treating Canadians is disgraceful in that it is not and has not been addressing itself to the needs of this country, but has been fiddling around with the Constitution. Not only has it not created one single job but it has actually cut jobs and it has not given any incentive to this country. Many Canadians have lost millions of dollars in revenue because the government has not faced its responsibility in governing this country.
The Prime Minister did not even have a mandate to deal with the Constitution. I have not received very many letters saying that the Constitution should be a priority, nor did Canadians ask for a change in the Constitution until the government started fiddling with it. The Constitution has served us very well for the last 100 years. I am not saying that we should not bring it back to Canada. I am not saying that at all. However, we should not be doing it in the form we are doing it now.
I shall not take too much more time because I know other members of the House of Commons will be speaking. But I should like to make it quite clear and go on record on this historical day as saying that for one thing I do support the Constitution coming to this country. However, I certainly do not support the way that the Prime Minister has been playing around with it, using it as a toy and as a smoke screen, rather than addressing himself to the economy of the country and finding solutions for the problems we face.


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I feel a great sense of pride and history as I stand in the House today to participate in the debate on the Constitution. I have not prepared a formal address, but I should like to pass on some of my over-all feelings about the necessity of addressing the Constitution at this point in time. I only had an opportunity to hear the closing remarks of the previous speaker, but perhaps I will use them as the launching point for some of the things I should like to say for the record today.
We have heard a great deal over the past year as to why we are bothering with constitutional matters when in reality we should be dealing with economic ones. I respectfully suggest that now is a most appropriate time to talk about the Constitution and to talk about it in an economic sense. We are going through a great evolution in Canada. We have come far in such a relatively short period of time as history goes, but I think we can go much farther as we resolve to be one Canada,
The Constitution
to be Canadians all, building an even stronger country which we can all enjoy.
To say that to deal with the Constitution now does not really relate to economic problems is inaccurate. We must determine what kind of a Canada we are and what kind of a Canada we want to be. I think Canadians through the constitutional dialogue-and that is exactly what it has turned out to be- have really asked themselves and each other some very difficult questions. They have come up with some very satisfactory answers through the period of discourse and dialogue. As we are about to send the Constitution to Westminster, to be returned to us, we now have a greater strength of purpose and a greater recognition that indeed we are Canadians from coast to coast, from sea to northern sea. It will make it much easier to govern the country. It will make it easier for the provinces to understand their part in building the country. Certainly it will help us as a federal Parliament to understand what we can and cannot do. But the prime consideration is that it reaffirms something we already knew, that we are one country.
The entire process of determining the Constitution has been remarkable. It started off in the eyes of some people as being the dream of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), his swan song. This is not so. The Prime Minister indicated to the country that it was time to resolve some of our fundamental problems and thoughts about ourselves. He mobilized the country on this subject. He did what he has done so well on many occasions-he exhibited leadership. He had a great deal of support, not only from the Liberal caucus which has made what happened so far a reality, but the support of Canadian people as well.
As we entered into this discussion, we heard a great deal of rumbling from the provinces because it was an uncomfortable subject. The people in some quarters really did not want to talk about it. After all, we would like to deal with matters that are easy to discuss and to resolve; thus we went into the constitutional discussion with mixed feelings. Some people were very enthusiastic because they felt a real need to resolve the Constitution, to patriate it and to produce an amending formula. Some people felt that at this point in time we needed to establish a charter of rights and freedoms. Some other people said, "I think I will have to give up something; I know it is important, I know it will be a long and hard pull, but I do not know if I am prepared for it".
Initially, for whatever reason, not everyone entered into the constitutional debate with a great deal of enthusiasm. But as it moved along, it moved along in the most remarkable manner. I do not know of any other constitutional experience in the world which has had so much public input, public scrutiny and legal scrutiny before the fact, as has the present resolution before the House. While there are things yet to be done, which hon. members on all sides would like to see reconciled, I have confidence in the people of Canada that they will be done. At least we have moved it to the point where we can say that very soon we will have the Constitution, the amending formula and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms-a beginning to do even more with the Constitution.

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
I should like to return to the area of leadership. As I mentioned earlier, despite the fact that this issue has been a trying experience for some to put it all together, it took the determination, vision and leadership qualities of my leader to bring it to the point where we all take pride in it. There was one game plan which did not quite work out. It went a different route, the committee became involved and so on, but all of us can feel that we have participated in one way or another at a particularly significant point in Canada's history. There was an extremely hardworking joint committee comprised of hon. members from both Houses, from all sides. We listened to 97 groups of witnesses. There were some 1,280 written submissions. There were over 267 hours of debate in committee alone. The earlier resolution had 67 amendments. This indicated that people were now taking the matter seriously. Then it went through the legal process, finally it came to the eleventh hour meeting of the premiers of the provinces, and the accord was reached-nine out of ten provinces agreed to Constitution. We regret that there was not a tenth signature on the accord, but we must remember that in essence Quebec agreed with what was going on. The fact that there were three unresolved items does not take away from the fact that in round figures a 99 per cent agreement was already there.
It became a partisan, political type of subject as opposed to one dealing with the concerns of Quebec. Quebecers have always been good Quebecers; time and again they have proved that they are good Canadians first. I honestly believe that the people of Quebec, if asked the question-and they have been in a poll-want this to happen. We are negotiating some very important and fundamental items which should be included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before the resolution leaves the country, I sincerely hope that those items will be included.
As I remarked earlier, this is a beginning, not an end. Even if those fundamental items that concern women's rights, that concern aboriginal and treaty rights, are not entrenched in the present charter as all members of the House have indicated they would like, we will at least have the mechanism to enter very quickly into further negotiations. In that way we can continue to build and improve upon this process. I am proud of a system that has allowed the Parliaments of this land, despite the fact that we had to take a hard look at what we were doing and how we were doing it, to come this far.
There have been many sincerely emotional moments in the debates that have taken place. There have been some frightening moments too, such as when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said, after the Supreme Court judgment was delivered, in effect, "Let's put this whole matter on the back burner because now we have time to think about it". I think he has recognized, judging from his subsequent actions and from the way he has behaved in the House, that there comes a moment when you either proceed with a matter of this sort or forget about it.
It would have been a terrible crime to have gone through that year of agony, that year of soul searching, in order to come up with a constitution-to have come that close and then have to say, "Let's forget that and repeat the process somewhere, some time-whenever." That is not happening, Mr. Speaker, I think there is a resolve on the part of members of the House to see that the work begun over a year ago is completed.
I said that I experienced a sense of history in being able to participate in this debate in my own small way. When one has a few grey hairs, one can remember an earlier time. I recall in what was then the city of Port Arthur, in the high schools, public schools and separate school, when we were asked to give our citizenship, that what was meant was our land of origin. We did not put down "Canadian citizen". We had to put down Italian, Scottish, English or whatever, but not "Canadian citizen". I remember very well my pride as a high school student in 1947 when the Citizenship Act was passed-by a Liberal government, I might add.
That was another part of the evolution, Mr. Speaker, saying "Let's define ourselves. Let's recognize that we are a people, that we are not a colony, that we are Canadians. We have fought wars and we have more than proved that we are building a country."
We finally adopted our own flag, not without a debate similar to the constitutional debate; but we now have a flag which we fly proudly and which identifies us to the world as a sovereign nation and as Canadians.
We went on to something else, which is not such a small thing, when we adopted the national anthem, "O Canada". Some day I hope that we will have a Canada Day.
Now we come to the nuts and bolts, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Constitution. I think the Canadian Constitution that is proposed is an excellent one. It is hailed by other people around the world as the best there is. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will do much to ensure our freedoms. I know that the opposition to this charter has been to the effect that to put something in writing does not necessarily enshrine it forever because people can do whatever they want with such things, but I think more highly of the Canadian people than that, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a resolve to honour the rights that are stated within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and I think that we will continue to improve upon it.
We will have patriation of the Constitution so that never again will we have to go to another Parliament to ask permission to change it. We will have an amending formula, which means that the work can continue without the frustration of wondering whether what we want will ever come about. We will have those things and, above all, there will be included in the package the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is a great country, Mr. Speaker, but we take so much for granted. If someone writing a novel described a country like Canada with its narrow fringe population along the border which is comfortable to live in, with its many regions, its many diversities, its people of two main cultures and the multicultur-
November 23, 1981

alism aspect, the reader would say that it could not work, that it is impossible to do all the things we want. Not only can it work, Mr. Speaker, it does work.
It is going to work much better because we have taken the time now to clear the way for the magnificent future that is just around the corner. I believe that we have been living better than anyone else in the world but there are greater things in store for us. Things will work much better because we have taken the time to look at ourselves, to define ourselves. We have come to the conclusion that we are one Canada, that we can work together. We will have our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms to back that up.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I too am grateful to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I believe this is the third occasion on which I have addressed myself to the question of the role of women in Canadian society and to the future equality of women with men in Canadian society. Therefore, like others, I am distressed to discover that what is called an "override clause" has been put in the equality of rights clause, Section 28.
With a lot of my colleagues, I was very glad that many features in the accord that was reached between the first ministers of the provinces and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) the other day are good ones, are progressive ones, are strong ones and are desirable ones. In that connection I was very happy to read that the new Premier of Manitoba had said that he will certainly not renege on francophone rights in that province or subject them to legislative approval.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: There are good things in this resolution, but it is almost heartbreaking to see the legislative override of some of the most fundamental and most important parts of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. When the proposal was put before the House of Commons I think we all felt that section 15, the equality of rights section outlawing discrimination on grounds of race, colour, religion, sex and so on, and its second component, the affirmative action provision encouraging legislatures to take affirmative action for disadvantaged groups, was one of the strongest parts of that charter. Perhaps it was because there were no women present, or perhaps it was because there were no black people present that the first ministers of this country crippled that section of the charter.
It is all very well to say that a specific act can discriminate only for five years, but to me that almost destroys the intent, the purpose, the symbolism and the substance of that section. To then go on and apparently subject Section 28-which the women of Canada strove so hard to get in the Constitution and which the House unanimously passed in April-to an overriding provision that a legislature or the Parliament of Canada could deny the very rights and freedoms referred to in this charter guaranteed equally to male and female persons and that the government would do this apparently as an oversight, that it had not really thought about Section 28, the section to
The Constitution
which Parliament gave a great deal of thought, adds insult to injury.
Hon. members will remember that the very day after the accord was signed I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether Section 28, the section guaranteeing women's equal rights with men, was included. I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the Prime Minister said:
I can only answer that my impression is that the clause would continue. I have not been involved in the drafting which went on between provincial and federal officials yesterday afternoon and, I believe, during the night as well.
He went on to say:
There were some deletions, and aboriginal rights was one of them. Maybe the other clause was another. I am not sure. I will have to check that, and that is why I say I will see what was done on the drafting over night.
A few days later a writer for La Presse said:

Questioned in that connection on the day following the constitutional conference by a NDP member, Miss Pauline Jewett, Mr. Trudeau admitted his lack of concern.
Mr. Trudeau remembered that he had sold off native rights. However, he only had a vague idea about women's rights. We know that women are rather unimportant. A mere bunch, I tell you-

It was, of course, tragic that Section 34 affirming the rights of the native peoples, the aboriginal peoples of Canada, was dropped. At least they were remembered long enough to be dropped. Women were not even remembered.
Let us take a look at what the provincial premiers have said in the few weeks since while struggling to get back on side. Their comments vary from that of the Premier of New Brunswick saying there had been no discussion at all of Section 28, that their intention in the accord was to have Section 28 remain intact, with no override, as a statement of the equal rights of women with men, to that of the Premier of Alberta saying, first, that he was not sure whether or not Section 28 had been discussed, and then saying later that he had not intended that it be subject to the limitation that we have been calling the override, which would take the guts right out of it. We find Premiers Bennett and Davis saying that it certainly was not their intention to take out that section, and we find the officials saying that "it had been a drafting error".
I think we might all come to the conclusion that no one seems to know whether they discussed this section, although the balance of the evidence seems to be that the first ministers did not discuss it. However, if they did discuss it, the impression most of them give is that they wanted Section 28 to remain intact, symbolically and substantively. No one has come forth publicly and said that this section was to be overriden as Section 15 was overriden.
I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to fellow members that we could appropriately, given this incredible confusion, pass the section in its original form in which we saw it in April. As I understand it, it is not part of the accord that it should be overriden, given what all of the premiers have said.

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
But what does this tell us about the position of Canadian women in society? Are we simply a detail, a drafting error? I noticed that we were recently blessed with the neanderthal wisdom on the editorial page of The Citizen of Ottawa. The editorial was headed "Fix the details later". The editorial reads:
The complaints by various women's and native organizations about the constitutional resolution now before Parliament are not sufficiently persuasive-
Let me emphasize the words "the complaints". We are talking about our very rights as human beings, in the case of women, the women's human right to equality, and in the case of the native peoples of Canada, their rights as the original peoples of this country. This editorial is talking about these as complaints. That is why a great many of us are distressed by the possibility that eviscerated Clause 28 will remain. Not a single member of this House, barring the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) who were the negotiators, should support Section 28 if this override remains in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Not a single member of this House should support it. But if any members do support it, do you know what they would be doing, Mr. Speaker? It would mean that we would be taking an enormous backward step, we would be denying the principle of equality of men and women. We would not have even the status quo. We would be going farther and farther backward.
I hope the minister responsible for the status of women agrees. I believe she does. I hope she does. She was not part of the negotiations. I do not know whether she asked, but she certainly did not know what had happened to Section 28. I hope that neither the minister responsible for the status of women, nor any woman nor indeed any member, would support this section unless the amended version that we are discussing today is brought in by the government itself on the ground that the cheapening of Section 28 was not intended in the accord.
For those who would argue that they can only accept the quality of women conditionally, I believe that they too are saying that they do not believe in the fundamental principle of equality of women with men. They are denying, as I said a moment ago, women's human right to equality. It is a goal to be achieved because we do not have it yet; it is a goal to be achieved in and of itself. That is how a lot of us see the original Section 28. We see this, as I say, symbolically as an expression of the equality in our society of men and women, their entitlement equally to the rights and freedoms in the charter. We see it that way, as I say, symbolically. We also see it as a section in its original form of enormously important substance, because we do not in fact have equality, and when I say "we" I mean women. We do not in fact have equality today. Therefore, Section 28 becomes a goal to achieve.
For those who worry that affirmative action programs would somehow be ruled out by Section 28, I can only say that as
long as an affirmative action program is a program that will help to achieve what is in Section 28 there is no conflict whatsoever, and Section 15(2) and Section 28 would be in harmony.
Similarly, if there is a discriminatory act under Section 15(1), and it is a positive act which is helping to achieve greater equality for those who do not have it now, then it too would fall within the ambit of the broad statement of equality in Section 28.
The fears then, it seems to me, although legitimately raised, are not legitimately founded. As a previous speaker said, there should be no taking of credit; every woman's group in Canada had a great deal to do with getting the paramountcy clause, as I call it, Clause 28, included in April. I personally think the former minister responsible for the status of women had a great deal to do with getting the clause in.


Miss MacDonald:: Right on.


An hon. Member:: He sure did.


Pauline Jewett: Every time he spoke, he turned another million Canadian women into feminists.


An hon. Member:: The Lloyd works in strange ways.


Pauline Jewett: While I am not going to single out, with that exception, who made such enormous contributions to the whole concept and principle of equality of the sexes, I must with sorrow express my regret that, with the exception of the present minister responsible for the status of women, and I am sure, although I do not know, the present Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), no other woman on the Liberal side has engaged in this battle. They were not present at the famous February convention. They were not present at rallies in the past two weeks through which we have been trying to get the clause restored in its purity, and they were not even present today, with one exception, when the minister responsible for the status of women spoke. Have the women of the party been speaking outside the House, holding rallies and organizing? I am very distressed to say they have not. It seems that they have become gagged. Even in Quebec-

Three days ago, an article appeared in the newspaper La Presse:
A gentle Yvette. The organizer of the Yvettes' movement, Mrs. Louise Robic, slightly worried the Liberals by insisting that the government account for its failing to entrench women's rights. Canadian women want to know what happened to their rights and freedoms... "A lot of women will be suffering from ulcers", she said.
What could have become a real dispute did not last long however because Mrs. Robic, as befits a good liberal, readily accepted, Mr. Chretien's arguments. And she added: Well, we must fight the provinces, not the women of Quebec or Canada.

What can we do? I said a moment ago that the constitutional accord, or much of it, was worked out in the kitchen between the Attorneys General of Saskatchewan and Ontario
November 23, 1981

and the federal Minister of Justice-if ever there was a time when a woman should have been in the kitchen!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Much of it was drawn up, as indeed the whole accord was, without giving that kind of thought to the needs and the rights of the native peoples, the disabled and certainly of women, and I guess that proves once again that much as others may sympathize-goodness knows, many men do- when they get down to their negotiating and dealing, they do not think of the other half of the population not represented, and they do not think of the disadvantaged. Those thoughts are not paramount.
Therefore, as far as women are concerned, we must once again have our own party develop affirmative action programs, and develop them now, with the party leaders at all levels and the committees in every constituency saying: We must have 50 per cent of our candidates women.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: That kind of action must be taken, and not just in the weak ridings. Since the kitchen-created Constitution was influenced enormously by officials, federal and provincial, only two of whom to my knowledge were women, clearly we must have an affirmative action program now in the federal public service of Canada to ensure that women are pulled up- and there are lots of bright women there-and put in positions of responsibility and authority. The federal government did it once, and rightly so, when it discovered that francophones constituted only 7 per cent or 8 per cent of the senior public service. The federal government did it just by saying: That will not do. 1 do not believe there was even a written edict; it was just the Prime Minister saying: That will not do. That is the kind of leadership women have not had from the men of Canada in the Liberal Party and government. There has to be affirmative action there. Clearly, it is in the senior ranks of politics and the bureaucracy that power resides.
Despite the evisceration of this document, the Supreme Court of Canada will still have a role to play, and it must also be changed. There must be women on the Supreme Court of Canada as well, and this has been argued before. That should be the next fight.
The lawyers who will be working to interpret this Constitution in various cases will, I am confident, be increasingly more balanced as more women graduate from law school. As I have said, the fact that there are more women graduating from law school is one of the most exciting things which has happened in recent years.
1 read an article today by Michele Landsberg of the Toronto Star entitled "Help wage war for women's equality". It is an excellent article and I recommend it to all Members of Parliament. In that article she suggests that there be a women's watchdog in Ottawa to protect our equality rights. Right now the best watchdog in Ottawa is the ad hoc committee. I would
The Constitution
also approve of that suggestion. I believe that until we have a strong if not equal, or perhaps for a period more than equal, representation in this House of Commons and in provincial legislatures, such as in Manitoba where women members constitute 12 per cent, and in the bureaucracies both federally and provincially, I do not believe we will be able to ensure that the indifference and neglect to the fundamental principle of equality of women will be seriously addressed. As I have said, I hope that the government will realize that since the dismantling of Clause 28, according to most of the premiers, was not part of the accord, it can proceed and we can proceed in Parliament.
It is true that it was neglect and indifference that made this so, but it provides us with a chance to benefit from it. We must remember, as the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said a moment ago, that as important as the two orders of government are in this country, because it is a federal system, it can be said there is a third order. That is the people of Canada who are represented by various groups and many organizations. During the last year, we have certainly seen that third order in operation, as far as the women of Canada are concerned. I wonder if the provincial premiers have ever read the marvellous briefs that were prepared for the Joint Committee on the Constitution by women's groups and other groups all across this country. I wonder if they know that there is a third order, which is the people of Canada represented by these diverse groups.
Finally, I submit that if we do not restore Section 28-and all of what I have said applies to Section 34 concerning the rights of the aboriginal people-it will go down not as an important day in Canadian history but as a day of infamy. I do not believe that is too strong a word to describe this.
I hope that when the women of Canada have 95 per cent of the representation in the House instead of the 5 per cent they now have, and when we hold 100 per cent of the premiers' places instead of none, and if, as may well be, we are pioneering a new constitutional accord, I hope and I am indeed confident that we will not treat the other half of the population with the indifference, injustice and complacency which so many of their number have inflicted upon us. That is a promise.


Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, as I would like to deliver my speech at one go, could I call it six o'clock. Consequently, I would be able to speak again when the House resumes at eight p.m.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: As it is six o'clock, I will leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 5.56 p.m. the House took recess.

November 23, 1981
The Constitution AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When the House recessed at six o'clock, the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Dionne) had the floor.


Marcel Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the least we can say
about this debate on the patriation of the Canadian Constitution is that it has taken on a major dimension. First, I wish to pay tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who has shown great determination as well as great flexibility in obtaining the agreement of nine provincial premiers for his plan to patriate our Constitution. It is with pride that I remind this House that it was a Liberal Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, who with courage and tenacity defended the proposal that gave our country a distinctive flag. His successor, again a Liberal leader, is helping to make the dream of so many Canadians, to patriate our own Constitution, come true at last.
I am convinced that history will keep this event alive in the memory of all Canadians for generations. However, I realize that at this stage, there is still a feeling of dissatisfaction. I am a Quebecer, and the government of my province has refused to agree to the plan to patriate our Constitution. I am disappointed, because during the three days when the Prime Minister of Canada and the ten provincial Premiers were meeting, there were a few moments when it seemed that this fifty-four year-old struggle, this quarrel that in a year had taken on gigantic proportions, would finally be resolved.
Like all observers, and especially as a Quebec Member of the Parliament of Canada, I was glad to hear the news given out Wednesday noon at the conference that there was finally agreement between Quebec and the Government of Canada, something we had spent ten years waiting for. And like everyone who was following the conference proceedings, I was disappointed to hear a few hours later that the agreement has failed. Later, we heard that there had been a flood of telephone calls at Premier Levesque's office in Quebec City. It seems these were from anti-Canadian elements who could not imagine Quebec otherwise than separated from the rest of Canada. What can you expect, Mr. Speaker, when people are subject for six months to deceitful propaganda, under the slogan: "Don't be had"? Of course people were going to think that if there was an agreement between Quebec and the Canadian Government, Quebec was going to get the short end of the stick. In any case, the people who were had were the people who believed this deceptive propaganda.
One must not forget that Quebecers have sent seventy-four Liberal members to Ottawa to defend their interests. Quebecers are represented by thirteen ministers in cabinet. Quebec's influence on the affairs of Canada is greater than ever before. That is why we, the seventy-four Quebec members of the caucus, asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to consider
the objections expressed by the delegation of the Province of Quebec. As a Quebecer and as a Canadian, I could appreciate the position taken by the Quebec Liberal Party in the National Assembly. In fact, it shows that in the National Assembly in Quebec City, there are elected representatives who will point out to the Pequistes that contrary to what they would have Quebecers believe, the Canadian Government is trying to get Quebec out of its isolation.
In a speech the Prime Minister delivered held in Quebec City on November 14, he showed that he was willing to take into consideration each of the objections expressed by Premier Levesque. He was asked to reconsider the matter again by us, the members of his caucus. In fact, with hindsight, it is hard to understand how the Quebec representatives at the conference in Ottawa managed to isolate themselves. It was supposedly to defend Quebec's interests that Premier Levesque joined the Premiers of seven other provinces, and so, if the eight provinces were agreed to oppose the federal government on a number of points, it would be normal for all eight provinces to agree to the patriation plan if those points ceased to exist. I was present at the Conference Centre in Ottawa on Thursday, when Prime Minister Trudeau and the Premiers of the nine provinces stated that they had reached an agreement. Witnessing this historical moment, I could hardly conceal my disappointment when Premier Levesque annonunced that he refused to sign the agreement, explaining that three major objections prevented him from giving his approval to the accord.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may be allowed to review each of the objections formulated by Mr. Levesque. The first one concerned the withdrawal of the compensation clause. Well, the next day, Quebecers were assured that Quebec would be able to benefit from the compensation clause in certain cases. The Quebec members asked the Prime Minister to be flexible, and he was. In fact, the Right Hon. Prime Minister clearly indicated on November 14 that he would agree to Quebec receiving fiscal compensation if they refused to participate in a federal program on grounds that it affected the French language or the French culture in Quebec. The Prime Minister of Canada agreed that if the nine English-speaking provinces were to decide to waive their jurisdiction with respect to post-secondary education, it would be normal for Quebec to refuse to agree to this measure and that it would receive fiscal compensation. Can Mr. Levesque be against that? On the other hand, if the federal government decides to set up a program which would benefit all Canadians and which would be financed by the richer provinces, the latter would have no right to refuse. At the present time, Quebec is certainly not a rich province, and if we were to develop a pension transfer program applicable throughout Canada, for instance, I believe that it would be in the interest of Quebecers for the rich provinces not to be able to opt out of this program. Since Quebecers would benefit from this program, how could they be against it?
November 23, 1981

Mr. Levesque's second objection concerns the mobility clause. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms will assert the principle of the' free movement of goods and individuals all across Canada. This is the basis of what could be called a Canadian common market. This principle is essential to the economic development of Quebec and the other provinces. Some have pointed out that workers from the other provinces could come and work in Quebec, but is it not a fact that thousands of workers from Quebec, Ontario and the Mari-times travel to Alberta to look for work? Experience has shown that whenever a province puts up barriers to protect its workers, its trade and its industry, the other provinces reciprocate.
We will recall the dispute between Ontario -and Quebec in connection with the building industry. Yet, the Prime Minister has told the Quebec government that he was willing to seek for other formulas to accommodate the legitimate concerns of a province. He has recognized that Newfoundland may take special steps in this regard as long as the unemployment rate remains higher in that province than in the rest of the country. The Prime Minister of Canada has thrown the ball into Mr. Levesque's court by saying that Quebec could take special action if it were literally invaded by English-speaking workers from other provinces. Can the Quebec premier reject this proposal? In case there remains a doubt in his mind, I am putting this question to the Quebec premier. He wants to replace Canadian federalism by some type of common market. Yet, Mr. Levesque should know that measures to restrict the free movement of goods and individuals are forbidden in the European market. There is neither relaxation nor special regime for anyone. All Canadians are equal. Our Canadian charter to which Mr. Levesque has so many objections is therefore finally more flexible in its application than the Treaty of Rome on which it is based. You will note that he does not refer to this example now as much as he used to.
I would like to know what he would reply to those Quebec workers who could get a job in Alberta but would not be able to do so because of provincial barriers. A worker of Ville de la Baie said to me that the Quebec government was holding Quebecers as hostages, but I told him that if the proposed charter is adopted, he can invoke the clause guaranteeing the mobility rights of workers.
Mr. Speaker, once the principle of the free movement of goods and individuals is no longer accepted in a country, then it no longer is a country. Finally, the last objection raised by Premier Levesque concerns the clause on education in the language of the minority. Mr. Speaker, the charter will put an end to the iniquities of which French-speaking Canadians in other provinces are victims. Because of the economic slowdown in Quebec, which is actually the responsibility of the Quebec government, thousands of Quebecers have had to leave Quebec
The Constitution
to find work in Alberta, for instance, as well as in other richer and more prosperous provinces.
That Quebecer will have the entrenched right to send his children to a French school. French-speaking citizens in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta will finally have the right to send their children to French schools. Is the Quebec Premier opposed to that? Would it be that we, Quebecers, did not fight long enough to obtain that for francophones in English-speaking provinces? Admittedly, Quebec has no lessons to learn on how to treat language minorities. However, the Prime Minister feels that Quebec could implement the Canada clause to ensure that schools do not become an anglicizing factor in Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity, mainly for the benefit of the people in my area, to quote the Canada clause, which entitles to education in the minority language. I shall give a textual quote, so that people realize what actually is in that clause.
Section 23 deals with the language of instruction and is often said to be unfair to the people in Quebec:
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province.
have the right to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in that language in that province.
(2)	Citizens of Canada of whom any child has received or is receiving primary or secondary school instruction in English or French in Canada, have the right to have all their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the same language.
(3)	The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)	applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of minority language instruction; and
(b)	includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided out of public funds.
This, Mr. Speaker, is the contents of Section 23 that is so controversial in areas such as mine. Mr. Speaker, how can Mr. Rene Levesque oppose such a proposal? As may be seen, Mr. Speaker, we were successful in the representations we, as members from Quebec, made to Prime Minister Trudeau that Quebec's goals be taken into account. The Prime Minister accommodated the PQ government and he yielded on every point. And we finally told ourselves that the PQ government could no more withhold their consent, since every obstacle had been put aside. But Premier Levesque answered with new demands in the form of an ultimatum. I think the leader of the Parti Quebecois finally will be seen by the people as he really is. He said he supported sovereignty-association, we learned this week he would drop the hyphenated association. In other

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
words, he is a separatist. The only surprising thing is that he took so long to admit it himself.
Mr. Speaker, there are other questions I would like to raise.
I would like to stress that Quebec isolated itself at the Quebec conference, when it proposed the Vancouver formula as opposed to the Victoria formula. I also suggest, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Morin himself proposed that formula in the names of the eight Canadian Premiers, and, of course, that formula today deprived Quebec of the right of veto that had always been recognized. As a member from Quebec, I am deeply disappointed at such an attitude because Quebec has been pursuing a course that isolates it more and more from the other provinces, and deliberately refuses to negotiate with the Canadian government. On the other hand, the people of Quebec cannot but realize that the Right Hon. Prime Minister has been very openminded and quite accommodating. Unfortunately we cannot say the same thing about the Premier of Quebec. What happened, in my opinion, is that the Parti Quebecois was taken over by the separatists who want Quebec to separate from Canada. That is why they will try to say that the others manoeuvred and plotted against them whereas they are the ones who isolated Quebec because that is what they want in the first place.
This is where we find the first tactical error of the PQ government. It was sure that the Ottawa conference would end in failure, it so grossly underestimated the pressure of public opinion on the seven premiers to reach an agreement with the government of Canada that from the outset it joined forces with anybody who was against the resolution. Watching them from Ottawa it was almost funny to see Premier Levesque plotting with Mr. Lyon, the former Manitoba premier who has never had much use for French Canadians. Had they been given the chance, I think that the PQ supporters would have enlisted Leonard Jones, the former mayor of Moncton. And yet, French culture and language had meant so much to PQ supporters they should have sided with Mr. Trudeau, Mr. De Bane, Mr. Joyal, Mr. Chretien and the 74 Quebec members. The position of our party on the question of upholding the rights of francophones in all provinces is clear. The electors of Quebec know where we stand and that is why they have given us their massive support since 1968.
No, the PQ strategists preferred to make a common front with people who had been very lukewarm about the rights of francophones in their own provinces. Indeed, perhaps this was right up their alley since Premier Levesque never did propose anything to improve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Did the premier of Quebec try to better the lot of francophones outside Quebec, at least those who reside in the provinces of his seven former allies? It seems to me that Premier Levesque should have insisted that Mr. Lyon, Mr. Peckford and Mr. Lougheed, the Premier of Alberta where so many Quebecers are going, agree to grant more rights to the francophones in
their provinces. Did Premier Levesque insist that Ontario recognize Section 133 so that province would acknowledge the rights of francophones? No, he was not even interested. For the first time in our history the government of Quebec, which prides itself for being the most nationalist, utterly disregarded French-speaking minorities outside Quebec. The Arabs, the Moslems and the Jews fight for their minorities, but not the PQ government. Well, the government of Canada will do just that.
In addition to that, we are going to fight for the interests of Quebecers. Of course there are nationalists who ask how and by what right the 74 Quebec members can fight for the interests of Quebecers. They are not asking by what right is the PQ government sulking by its lonesome self. They are not asking by what right does the culture minister refuse to attend a conference with his provincial counterparts. The PQ government has decided that it will boycott everything other than finance ministers' conferences. Up until now, the PQ has refused to take part in negotiations to improve upon the patriation proposal or the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Well, Mr. Speaker, the 74 members from Quebec, under our leader, the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau have decided to defend the interests of Quebecers and give them a better deal. The PQ refuses to stand up for the rights of Quebec. But, the opposition leader and his party in the National Assembly are prepared to do so. Editorials in Le Devoir and La Presse have urged Premier Levesque to defend the rights of his province and have even indicated that he has no other choice. Finally, we the 74 members from Quebec, have played our part in our party caucus. We continue to defend the interests of Quebec by formulating Canada's position with regard to the ten other provinces and by taking part in this phase of the debate.
I take exception to the PQ and its claim that it has the sole God-given right to defend the interests of Quebecers. Following a few scandals, people now realize that what comes from the Parti Quebecois does not necessarily come from heaven. The electorate is becoming aware that its interests with respect to constitutional matters were not well defended by the PQ and that they only have themselves to blame. We must remember that it was Premier Levesque, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, who gave up, on behalf of Quebecers, Quebec's traditional right to veto. It is not Prime Minister Trudeau nor the 74 Quebec Liberal MPs who deprived Quebec of its right to veto. No, it is the PQ who was quite happy to relinquish that right in order to please Messrs. Lyon, Bennett and Lougheed. They gave up Quebec's right of veto in order to join the gang.
Quebec's image as an important province and one of the oldest provinces has become a thing of the past, no thanks to the Pequistes.
Looking at these facts, one wonders whether the Pequistes are sulking. I think they are so ashamed of their stupid mistakes that they are afraid to come out into the open.
November 23, 1981

And meanwhile, the people in Quebec are starting to feel the adverse effects of the Parti Quebecois' poor administration. Taxes are too high in Quebec, and the provincial government is to blame. The separatist government has caused companies and their staff, which means big taxpayers, to leave the province. There are increasingly fewer businesses that are interested in settling in Quebec, and it might well be said, if it were not for the presence of Quebec members and Quebec ministers in the Parliament of Canada, things would be even worse than they already are.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I feel that Quebecers are going to realize that the separatist government has no valid reason for refusing to agree to the plan to patriate the Constitution. If the separatists feel that the accord is unacceptable, they will have to prove it. They will find out that the people in Quebec are not willing to be separated from Canada. They will also find out that Canada is more important than the separatist party.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: I am proud to be able to participate in this historic debate not only because our Constitution is the embodiment of our laws but because each one of us should be on record as to our true feelings related to this resolution. First, I should like to congratulate all members of the joint constitutional committee not only for their contributions but for the personal sacrifices they made. The committee sat for over 300 hours, held 106 meetings and heard 314 witnesses, and to add to this, spent countless hours of reading to which every member of the committee was committed. I would also like to pay special thanks to our committee members, headed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who worked diligently to present our case.
I would like to review some of the things which led up to the present dilemma we are facing. In Canada, the Canadian Constitution consists of the British North America Act, the Statute of Westminster 1931, numerous other acts, conventions, customs and traditions and rulings from the Supreme Court of Canada. The British North America Act, 1867, among other things set out the division of powers between the provinces and the federal government. Previous meetings which drafted this act set out the alternatives with which the Fathers of Confederation were confronted when they attempted to draft an act that would create a new nation. They had a choice of creating a nation which was legislative in form or a nation which was federal in form. By "legislative in form", I mean a nation which is run from one central government, with all other elected bodies subservient to the federal government. The other form is the federal system where the power is divided between the provinces and the federal government. The Fathers of Confederation chose the federal system. This federal union recognized equality of all provinces irrespective of population and size. At the meetings drafting the report which would be presented to the British Parliament, each founding province-Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-all had one vote. Also it is significant that the
The Constitution
British North America Act, as enacted by the British Parliament, upon the direction of Canadian provinces did not confer upon the federal government any power to amend the Constitution of Canada, even though each province was given power to amend its own constitution within its own sphere, except as regards the office of lieutenant-governor.
Down through the years many changes have been made to the British North America Act. At no time has the British Government ever refused a request by the Canadian Parliament to change the Constitution, although from time to time the British Parliament has made small changes in the presentation. The federal government indicated that the British Parliament has never passed an act submitted by one or more of the provinces, but on the other hand never have any provinces submitted changes to the British North America Act to the British Government. Also the Canadian government argued that it does not have to consult the provinces in order to present a resolution to the British Parliament, but in fact the Canadian government has never presented a resolution to the British government without the agreement of the provinces which would be affected, and history tells us that on numerous occasions the provinces have intervened to change or withhold proposed resolutions.
The obligation of the British Parliament is not only to deal with the resolution but to determine whether it is a proper resolution. It is not its intention to interfere with the meaning or thrust of what the resolution would do to Canadian people. However, its obligation is to consider whether it can properly accept the resolution. Also it is within the sphere of the British Parliament to vote against this resolution because in effect the resolution asks the British Parliament to enact an act of its own, within its own Parliament, on which only it can make a decision. We must understand clearly that only the British Parliament can decide whether it will pass a bill which affects its relationship with another sovereign nation.
Let me deal briefly with the events leading up to the dilemma we are in today. In other words, can we amend our Constitution and, if not, why not? It should be clearly understood that Canada is a sovereign nation, able to pass laws and to deal both internally and globally with other nations and other people. However, the British North America Act did not make any provision for amendment to the BN A Act other than that all amendments would be presented to the British Parliament and all amendments would, in turn, be considered by the British Parliament and voted upon in both House of Commons and the House of Lords. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, was a bill passed by the United Kingdom government to remove the last vestiges of colonialism. The Statute of Westminster, 1931, was an act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom which formally acknowledged the sovereign and co-equal constitutional status of the United Kingdom, Canada, Union of South Africa, Irish Free State, Newfoundland, Australia and New Zealand. The statute indicated in Section 2 that no future legislation introduced by the United Kingdom government would be enacted without the express request and
13136

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
consent of one of the previously mentioned nations. But in reality the prime purpose of the Statute of Westminster was to nullify the Colonial Laws Validity Act of 1865, which in itself prevented any of the dominions from enacting any changes to the constitutions which would be redundant to the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
It is interesting to look at events leading up to this statute. The first step toward the enactment of the Statute of Westminster dates from the imperial conference of 1926 when special consideration was given to various legislation of the dominions. A number of general principles were laid down, and it was agreed that a Commonwealth committee should be set up to inquire fully into these matters and to make recommendations to a subsequent conference of Commonwealth nations. In the autumn of 1929, the proposed committee met at a conference to discuss the Colonial Laws Validity Act, Dominion legislation, merchant shipping legislation and other minor items. It drafted a report which would in future contain many of the sections of the Statute of Westminster. The conference recalled that Canada alone among the Dominions had no power to amend its Constitution Act without legislation being passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom. Following the conference, the report was considered fully in many parts of the Commonwealth. In Ottawa a debate took place in May 1930, when the federal government asked the House of Commons for approval of the report. The document was subjected to careful scrutiny, and the Conservative opposition objected to it on the grounds that formal consent should be obtained from the provinces.
There were a number of items which were wrong with the report, such as its suggestion that provincial legislation should continue to be subject to the Colonial Laws Validity Act and to the legislative supremacy of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, while federal legislation was to be freed from the act. In the following September, shortly before the opening of the imperial conference called to consider the report of 1929, Howard Ferguson, the Premier of Ontario, forwarded to the then prime minister of Canada a letter accompanied by an elaborate memorandum. I should like to read the record of that letter and refer interested readers to the memorandum which dealt with the powers of the provinces vis-a-vis the federal government. By this time, however, a new federal Conservative government had been elected, so the letter and the memorandum were addressed to Prime Minister R. B. Bennett. It read:
My dear Mr. Prime Minister:
You will recall that in some discussions we have had with reference to the report of the imperial conference, and, in particular, the recommendations made in the report of 1929, I have endeavoured to make clear to you the attitude of the Province of Ontario.
The conference appears to have ignored the fact that the confederation of the provinces of Canada was brought about by the action of the provinces. Our Constitution is really the crystallization into law by an imperial statute of an agreement made by the provinces after full consultation and discussion. The province of Ontario holds strongly to the view that this agreement should not be altered without the consent of the parties to it.
On behalf of this province I desire to protest most vigorously against any steps being taken by the dominion government, or the imperial conference, to deal
with the provincial treaty until the matter has been submitted to the provinces and they have had ample time to give this subject proper consideration.
To pursue the course indicated by the report of 1929 will not only greatly disturb the present harmonious operation of our Constitution but I fear may seriously disrupt the whole structure of our confederation. Ontario is genuinely alarmed by the situation and I urgently urge upon you, representing the Dominion, and through you upon the imperial conference, that this whole matter be left in abeyance until it can be dealt with in a proper manner, and to the satisfaction of the parties to the original compact.
I am enclosing to you, herewith, a memorandum which embodies a brief from the story of Confederation, together with the views of a number of public men who are leaders in the movement; interpretation of the courts upon the status of the province; and the recent trend of the Dominion authorities upon the question.
With the story as a background I am sure that a perusal of the reports of the last two conferences will convince you that the provinces have ample ground for serious alarm.
Yours very truly
G. H. Ferguson,
Premier of Ontario
I submit that all school children should read that letter, Mr. Speaker, so that they may understand what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been trying to do for the last eight or ten months-in fact, for the last year.
Soon after the Premier of Ontario had written that letter, Quebec and a number of other provinces requested the federal government to refrain from any constitutional changes without consultation. A federal-provincial conference was held in April 1931 and it agreed unanimously to a draft report of a Statute of Westminster and agreed to a special Canadian clause which became Section 7 of that document. It reads as follows, in three parts:
1.	Nothing in this act shall be deemed to apply to the repeal, amendment or alteration of the BNA Acts, 1867 to 1930 or any order, rule or regulation made thereunder.
2.	The provisions of Section 2 of this act shall extend to laws made by any of the provinces of Canada and to the powers of the legislatures of such provinces.
3.	The powers conferred by this act upon the Parliament of Canada or upon the legislatures of the provinces shall be restricted to the enactment of laws in relation to matters within the competence of the Parliament of Canada or any of the legislatures of the provinces respectively.
Later, Prime Minister Bennett explained to the House of Commons why this conference was held. He said:
It is not necessary at this time to relate fully the attitude of the provinces, but they agreed that inasmuch as their constitutional rights as defined by the original act might be amended, in the opinion of the governments of those provinces, by this Parliament by a majority vote, they should have an opportunity before any such action was taken to present their views and make known their decisions.
In other words, the opinion of the provincial governments that their rights might be affected was therefore considered by the federal government of the day as sufficient grounds for provincial-federal consultations.
In June 1931 Prime Minister Bennett introduced a joint address to the U.K. government. It is interesting to note that at that time the Liberal opposition asked to make an amendment to have paragraph 2 and paragraph 3 of Section 7 reversed, but the Prime Minister stated that since the repre-
November 23, 1981

sentatives of the provinces had initialled the various sections, the federal government was honour-bound not to change a single letter.
In considering my case further, I refer to the Employment and Social Insurance Act of 1935. The first change in the Constitution, which affected the division of powers, took place in 1935 when the Conservative government passed the Employment and Social Insurance Act. The Liberal opposition opposed the bill because it thought the bill should have been made by an amendment to the Constitution and after consultation with the provinces.
Shortly after the new legislation was enacted, a general election was held and the Liberal Party came to power. One of its first actions in the fall of 1935 was to refer the bill to the Supreme Court of Canada for an advisory opinion. By a judgment on June 17, 1936 the act was declared to be ultra vires of the federal Parliament. At the opening of the session in 1938 the Speech from the Throne announced that the provinces were being consulted to make the Employment and Social Insurance Act an amendment to the British North America Act.
On June 25, 1940, Prime Minister Mackenzie King announced in the House that all nine provinces had assented to the proposed constitutional amendment. In speaking to the resolution, Prime Minister Mackenzie King, as reported at pages 1117 and 1118 of Hansard, 1940, said:
The difficult but most necessary part of the whole business was to get the consent of the several provinces. That has not been an easy matter.
He said further:
-we have avoided the raising of a very constitutional question, namely whether or not in amending the British North America Act it is absolutely necessary to secure the consent of all the provinces, or whether the consent of a certain number of the provinces would of itself be sufficient.
There have been other changes to the BNA Act, namely, changes to the Canadian Pension Plan, which the federal government was able to achieve with the consent of the provinces. Quebec was given the opportunity to opt out. This brings me up to the present time, Mr. Speaker. This resolution was originally brought forward on October 2, 1980. Since then the role of the opposition has been clearly identified.
What has been the role of the official opposition? First, it has been to ensure that there would be a full and objective debate in the House of Commons. We attempted to have that full debate, until the government brought in closure.
Second, we ensured that all Canadians would be aware of this event by having it televised. Hon. members will remember how the Liberals tried to prevent that.
Third, we ensured that interested citizens were allowed to appear before the Joint Committee on the Constitution. The committee hearing lasted for three months, and hon. members are well aware of the number of groups that were turned away by the Liberal members of the committee who were afraid of some of the things that were coming out. They wanted to close off debate so they stopped these groups from appearing before the joint committee.
The Constitution
Fourth, we attempted to ensure that the provinces would be consulted on the resolution. Everyone in the House remembers how the Prime Minister attempted to get the resolution through Parliament by December 1980, because he did not want the provinces to be consulted.
Fifth, it was the Conservative Party that ensured that the Supreme Court of Canada was allowed to pass judgment. It was not the Liberal Party nor the Liberal experts on the Constitution who sit on the other side who knew better but were prepared to sit quietly by. They did not do anything to bring this about. They did not care.
Sixth, the official opposition ensured that the federal government would reach agreement again with the provinces before bringing the revised resolution back to Parliament. We all remember how the Liberals squirmed and tried to get out of that. It is disgraceful how the Liberal members behaved during this significant event.
We on this side are prepared to vote for the resolution Mr. Speaker but I just want to mention a couple of problems with it.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mrs. Mitchell:: What about women?


Frederick William Wright: I hear the NDP rattling away down there. Will Canadians forget about the budget that the NDP are at least indirectly responsible for bringing about?
At present, if the government wishes to restrict our rights, it must enact legislation. Section 24 of the new resolution reads as follows:
Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
I always thought our rights were guaranteed, Mr. Speaker, but now it seems they are to be turned over to a court. The government is giving us those rights, and the courts can only interpret them. In other words, if the government takes those rights away, the courts are bound to interpret that, not to guarantee our rights.
My second point relates to property rights. All of us in the House know that the Liberal Party in order to get the New Democratic Party on its side voted against property rights. I would like to see how the NDP members will answer to their constituents at the next election, because that point will be brought before every New Democratic Party member across Canada. We can go back to 1933 when the NDP, then the CCF Party, through the Regina manifesto left out property rights. The Liberals also will have to pay for that in the next election.
I am concerned about Section 46. We know how people in the other place have waffled around. How they can go along with this provision when the Senate was set up to protect provincial rights puzzles me. Individuals in the Senate are supposed to represent the provinces. Once again this is an

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
illustration of how members from the other place are nothing but lackeys for the Liberal government. It is a place where the Liberal government puts political hacks. In reality, people in the other place should be representing their regions. The Liberal government has failed once again.
The majority of Canadians must be relieved that the Prime Minister has stopped beating them over the head with his concept of a revised Constitution. We in the official opposition agree with patriation. We have been consistent about that. We have not changed. We have not been all over the place, as have the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party. We have consistently said that the Vancouver formula, which was proposed by representatives of the Alberta government, was the proper formula. We did not say that it was cast in stone. But compared to the Victoria formula, the Vancouver formula was the best that had come forward, and we supported it.
We support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, I question some of the provisions of the charter of Rights and Freedoms in which a government is left with words such as "promptness" and "reasonableness" to indicate whether or n we can be put in jail and at what time we can be freed from jail. These words will decide whether a government is prompt and whether it is reasonable. We no longer have the rights; the government has those rights.
We are committed, all of us, to equalization in Canada no matter from which province we come. We are committed to sharing. No one had to tell us that before.
We are committed to the provincial ownership of resources. Heaven knows what this Liberal government would do if it could get hold of this country's resources. We need go look no further than the Post Office to see what the government does.
The timing of this resolution was not to our party's liking. We, along with most Canadians, would have preferred to have dealt with unemployment, inflation, high interest rates, better housing and other economic problems that are facing the country today. However, since we have had to deal with this resolution, it has been our party's determination to protect the Canadian federal system. We knew our responsibilities to the Canadian people, and they have been realized.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate, humbled by the importance and magnitude of the project that we are undertaking but filled with joy at participating in the final act of the attainment of majority for Canada and the law permitting the amendment of our constitutional document at home.
I wish that the official opposition had earlier been more concerned with substance than with the process which, in my view, might well have strengthened the negotiating stance taken by the federal government on behalf of all Canadians and might, in the end, have produced an even more positive result with regard to those concerns which are now being universally expressed as they pertain to certain absences from the resolution.
Even this evening, my friend, the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright), has once again returned to the old sop of
concerning himself with the process. He spoke of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) having banged heads in Canada to achieve his concept of the nation while, at the same time, he seemed somehow able to escape the inevitable logic of the fact that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his term must obviously have been attempting to do the same thing with respect to his concept of what this nation is all about.
I think that rather than pointing fingers at each other this evening, we would be taking this debate a step further by suggesting that positions were very strongly held on both sides of this House which, I hope as this debate draws to a close, will produce a resolution that does nothing but win a victory for Canada and for Canadians.
Notwithstanding the past, however, I wish to express my pleasure at the support now being shown for the substance of the resolution agreed upon by the Prime Minister and the Premiers which, with some reservations, is enjoying almost universal support.
Like many others, had I had my preference, I would have preferred a charter of rights and freedoms without the override, without the safety valve as it has been called. Nevertheless, I can accept the position of the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) that the override is a safety valve, that it is required to prevent absurdities and, indeed, will undoubtedly rarely be used. But I must at least remind hon. members that the effect of the override is once again to entrust the rights of our minorities to the benevolence and good will of parliaments and legislatures elected by the majorities which have, unfortunately, in the past been found wanting in the measure of compassion and caring necessary to treat our minorities with justice and equity.
The fact is, however, that the Canadian compromise which we now have before us and upon which the loyal opposition insisted, has resulted in the negotiation of a safety valve. I trust that we can count on ourselves and on future parliamentarians to be guardians of minority rights and to ensure that those clauses are so infrequently used that future amendments-and I am sure there will be some-will include the removal of non obstante clauses, or safety valves as they have been characterized.
But lest my comments be regarded by some as being too negative, let me say again that I am jubilant, personally and on behalf of my constituents that the Thirty-second Parliament is coming to grips with this last vestige of colonialism, and is bringing Canada of age.
Let me say as well that if I am jubilant at the event, I am ecstatic at the content and the substance. I suppose it would be correct to say that I am high on Canada this evening. I can stand here proudly and say that as a Canadian I have come of age, that I am a citizen of a country that has had enough faith in itself, its political system and its institutions to require that it have the right and obligation to amend its own basic governing legislation at home. In addition to that, the bringing home process has been accompanied by the creation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms envisaged by my colleagues and by the government, perfected and forged by the parlia-
November 23, 1981

mentary committee to which we all owe a debt of gratitude, and kept through much trial and heat, thanks to the persever-ence, vision and shared conviction that what was right should and must remain, all of which was shown by my colleagues on this side of the House. History will show, I am convinced, that when others would have abandoned principle for process, this party stood steadfast, resolute in its determination to provide a charter of rights and freedoms from which every Canadian present and future can benefit.


An hon. Member:: And they changed it.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: History will show that while some preached division, discord and failure, this party and those who support it held faithfully to the principle that the people themselves had expressed throughout, that is that patriation with an amending formula go together with a charter of rights and freedoms.
You will remember that there were many in this House who were prepared to throw that charter of rights and freedoms out with the bath water, who were prepared, as the debate continued, to deal only with patriation and, if necessary, to put in an amending formula but, if that was impossible, to deal only with patriation even without the amending formula. Throughout that debate we continued to say no, we must have the amending formula together with patriation; we must have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I agree with my hon. friend who says we changed it, but I ask him very sincerely, who required the change?


Mr. Gamble:: Everybody.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: He says that he speaks on behalf of everyone.


John Albert Gamble: I didn't say that.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I presume to speak on behalf of those people who sent me here, and I tell you that he does not speak for the people in Essex-Kent.
I need not enumerate the content and provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as others have done that already, but suffice it to say that bold new steps have been taken, new frontiers have been envisaged, and the course toward a new Canadian future has been set.
Speaking parochially for a moment, let me say that Essex-Kent, if any place in Canada, can claim to be as truly multicultural as the concept itself implies. A mixture of English, Scottish and Irish, later added to by French, and still more recently by German, Russian, Ukrainian, Portuguese, Lebanese, Japanese, Dutch, and even more recently by the Vietnamese and Laotian migration has created a mix that cried for recognition beyond the original concept of the founding races. I take great joy on behalf of my constituents who have for many years lived the principle now embodied in the words expressing the multicultural nature of our society, and I thank the drafters for those words.
The Constitution
May I say that I share the disappointment of all members of this House, and I trust it is all members, that as yet we have not settled the issue of sexual equality which I, as others, had hoped would also have been entrenched. It cannot be too often said that it is not this government that has stood in the past or that now stands in the way of an accord on this issue, and I join my voice with all others in this country in calling upon the remaining premier to recognize the necessity of joining his brother premiers in rectifying this unfortunate deletion to the charter.


An hon. Member:: How are you going to vote on it?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Mr. Speaker, the member asks how I am going to vote on it. I suggest to him that there is too much good in this resolution to be thrown out just because the agreement unfortunately leaves out certain portions that should be there. I agree with him, it should be there, but I am not one of those who feel that because something is absent the rest should be thrown out. I do not believe the rest of Canada feels that way either.
It is my hope and desire that a settlement will be achieved on the issue of native rights and on the question of Quebec's absence from the accord as well. Surely all members wish that. But again the same reasoning, in my view, applies. The difficulty we have is, having achieved so much, can we legitimately say that, because we have not achieved in these areas, all else must fail, all else be thrown out? I find it difficult to understand how someone can stand and suggest that because there is a certain portion missing we must lose everything else.
This puts me in mind of the child who goes out to play football, does not like the rules and says he is going to take his football home and the game must end. All should not be lost. We have gained so much and there is more to be gained, unquestionably. Surely we have provided the mechanism whereby more can be gained in the immediate, the short-term and the long-term future. Certainly it would be good to have perfection, but I suspect that even what we perceive as perfection, were we able to achieve it tonight, might not be perceived as that perfection a year, five years or ten years from now.
So to argue that I and others should not vote for the resolution as it stands or as it may be modified over the next few days, or even the next few hours as the discussion goes on, would be ridiculous in the extreme, and could surely be likened to the ostrich putting its head in the sand. I do not think that is what we are here for. I think we are here as practical politicians to achieve what can be achieved now and for the future, and to ensure that in fact the mechanisms we put in place are sufficiently flexible to allow more to be achieved if and when we can.
I think that my constituents can accept the offers that have been made to Quebec in an effort to induce that government to surmount its avowed separatist aims and to help forge a new Canada. As an aside I must say that I am proud to see the entrenchment of minority education rights across Canada since, as a member of a linguistic minority in my province, I know what pressures have been present that, but for this step,

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
must ultimately result in the eradication of the French language outside of Quebec.
This momentous accord is a giant step toward equality of our two founding races, and I urge upon my fellow Canadians in Quebec to support our actions to entrench what they have so willingly given without legislation for the past 100 years. I hope that even at this late hour that accord can be reached on the final obstacles and that the whole of the country will march to the sound of a new Canadian drummer; a new accord as we are trying to forge it this evening and in the next few days.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, let me say, without partisanship intended but with a great deal of pride in my party, that I as a Liberal have always held my head high in the recognition of the fact that I am a member of the party that brought to this nation such great social legislation as the Canada Pension Plan, family allowances, universal medicare, and 1 have been prouder still to see across this land a flag made Canada's by a great Liberal Prime Minister.
You will pardon me, Mr. Speaker, if I confess that with the resolution now before us I and those who support me will stand just a little taller, not only as Liberals, but as Canadians proud of our heritage, confident in our future and thankful today for the men and women of this government who have, on behalf of all Canadians, provided the tools for present and future Canadians to get on with and complete the job begun so well in 1867.
As I have said, there are those who have suggested that in fact the document is incomplete. In terms of a personal view, I would indicate that I wish we had been able to do something in respect of the unborn. I recognize the undertakings which have been given and I recognize the neutrality of the resolution so far as the unborn are concerned. I share the concern expressed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) in relation to what this and other legislatures will do regarding the unborn, those least able to protect themselves in our society. I would hope that that solid support for the unborn which comes from all sides of this House will emerge in a resolution dealing with another piece of legislation.


An hon. Member:: We had a resolution. You rejected it.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I hope that there will be continuing support for what the member across the way says he had, and I hope it will come from all parties, particularly the members of the New Democratic Party who will see the wisdom of coming forward with recommendations to the Minister of Justice to amend the Criminal Code to allow us, in fact, to protect the unborn.


An hon. Member:: It's a deal!


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I will hold him to that. I believe it is one of the most fundamental and important things we have to do in this Parliament. It is not something we can do with this resolution but, in my view, it is something which has to be done. I believe
that this was the wrong document with which to do it. I believe that if the good will that, in fact, is beginning to show through in this debate can be continued with respect to this issue, we can resolve that as well. I am particularly pleased that we are able to achieve what we have done this evening. What we are working toward this evening-


An hon. Member:: Talk about the resolution and the unborn.


An hon. Member:: Keep going. You have five minutes.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: When you find that members have such tremendous interest in hearing what you have to say, it is particularly gratifying, Mr. Speaker.
I have travelled through my constituency and across Canada, as I hope many of my colleagues have done, to find out what it is that Canadians want. I believe that what we are achieving is what was being sought. I am satisfied that the resolution, and particularly the charter of Rights and Freedoms, gives us the guarantees that Canadians were looking for.


An hon. Member:: You were unhappy a moment ago.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member does not seem to understand how one can be unhappy but at the same time pleased with what is achieved. It is very difficult to explain, but I will try again.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the resolution and the unborn.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Perhaps it would be easier, Mr. Speaker, if the member were in his own seat so we could have a question and answer period. Perhaps he would prefer to remain anonymous.
I suggest that notwithstanding his attempt to make light of this issue, a thinking member of this House could not accept this resolution as the be-all and end-all, could accept it as a finality of what we embarked upon a year ago, and knows that we as imperfect persons could not not have come up with perfection. We have come close, Mr. Speaker. I suspect that over the years, dealing with the foundation we have been able to achieve, historians will say that this Parliament has achieved something spectacular and that this was a moment in history of which Canadians can be very proud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to be able to inform the House that I have obtained from all provinces which are parties to the accord their agreement that Section 28 on the equality of men and women should apply without the override clause. In addition, I am happy to report to the House that all provinces have agreed to enshrine aboriginal rights in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) just said, what has just occurred does not constitute a point of order. Therefore, I
November 23, 1981

would suggest, that the courtesy be extended to the spokesmen for the opposition parties of allowing them to make a comment, and I will seek the unanimous consent of the House to permit representatives from each party who may wish to do so to make a comment. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) for that announcement. I want to say on behalf of our party that we are pleased that the amendment before us, namely, to restore Section 28 as we had developed that section in the constitutional committee has now received agreement from the nine provinces which signed the accord. I take it that it was the nine provinces that had signed the accord to which the minister if referring. With regard to aboriginal rights, I take it from the minister as well that it is a restoration of what we have come to know as Section 34. That is how I have understood the minister's comments.
On behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party, we are pleased that that is now fact. We always thought these provisions should have been restored. Obviously some changes will be needed in terms of technical changes in the resolution. Those can be worked out, Mr. Speaker, and I believe these two amendments should help to speed up passage of the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, as are most members in the House, I am always happy to hear good news. We trust that the news we have heard is, indeed, good news. I hope that the minor amendment which the minister has indicated to me might be included in one of the two sections is an amendment we can find acceptable.
For the moment, I would like to reserve a definite position until such time as I have read the actual wording of the amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Chair would normally expect to recognize those members who stand for the purpose of continuing the debate.


Peter Ittinuar: Mr. Speaker, like my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), I also would like to reserve my position on this amendment. I must congratulate, however, the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) for all the effort he has made on our behalf, the people of the north. I am also grateful to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), the leader of my party, and certainly the hon. Leader of the official opposition (Mr. Clark) for his kind words the other day.
I hope the wording that the Minister of Justice has arrived at will do justice to the efforts made by all the parties in the House as well as the efforts of many people in the country. This applies to the women's equality section as well as to the rights of the aboriginal people. 1 understand that the wording is very new but that, for the most part, the meaning of the
The Constitution
original section is there, and I congratulate the hon. Minister of Justice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, when I saw the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) come into the House tonight, I thought he was coming to hear my speech, which might be a little anti-climactic after the welcome announcement he made tonight. I would like to congratulate him and my good friend from Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) for the work which I know he spent on this program, as well as members of my party who are very concerned and involved in the discussions. It is certainly most welcome news. Tonight, I welcome the opportunity to speak during this important historical debate.
It is an exciting and challenging time in which we are Members of Parliament, and I consider it a privilege to be here at this time. As the Member of Parliament for an Ontario riding, Brampton-Georgetown, I must admit that the subject of the Constitution has been a difficult one for me to deal with. I represent federally the riding represented provincially by the Premier of Ontario. It was of great concern to me and many of my constituents that the Premier gave such absolute and unconditional support to the constitutional package initially set forth by the federal government, not so much because of the content of the resolution but because of the procedure which was proposed by the federal government, a procedure which was considered un-Canadian by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, a position upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada. I am very proud, however, that the premier initiated the compromise process by relinquishing the Ontario right of veto. I wish to thank him personally for starting the process that allowed consensus to be achieved.
I would also like to thank and congratulate all the first ministers for upholding the Canadian way. Although the consensus achieved left out one of the most vital partners of our confederation, the province of Quebec, I believe many Canadians are relieved that the consensus was achieved.
The dialogue on a new Constitution has, as we are often reminded by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), been going on for many years. He would have us believe that in the last 54 years Canadians have done nothing but argue about constitutional matters. Any intelligent, thinking person knows that is just not the case. Sporadic attempts have been made during that period to arrive at an acceptable amending formula to permit patriation. I would, however, congratulate the Prime Minister for, it seems, having achieved his dream, albeit an amended version of that dream.
Let us look for a moment at the procedures used to achieve that dream. The Prime Minister was willing to do anything, including alienating the provinces and suffering the possibility of separation, in order, reportedly, to end his political career with Canada's formal declaration of independence. The possi-

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
bility of his unilateral move was intolerable in a co-operative federalism.
When the original resolution was tabled, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) saw immediately the dangers of unilateral action and that there was more to the resolution than met the eye. It was a knowing and a courageous stand to admit that changes in constitutions change the relationships between people and their governments, and that unless these changes are agreed to, the very basis of our economic, social and cultural stability is jeopardized.
During discussions with many of my constituents it became very clear that they, like most Canadians, did not feel that the Prime Minister should restructure our Constitution and our federal system without the approval of the provinces. In the riding of Brampton-Georgetown, 83 per cent of constituents who were polled felt that provincial consent must be obtained-the consent of a significant majority of the provinces-and this feeling was very evident across the country. This feeling legitimized all attempts of the official opposition to block unilateral action. The fight to ensure Canadians were heard, the formation of a constitutional committee, the televising of proceedings, and the delaying of House proceedings on the question were due to the efforts of the official opposition. We fought long and hard to arouse public opinion, and I am proud of what we accomplished.
Our leader and our party fought for the Canadian way under a great deal of criticism and ridicule from the Liberals, but not for a minute do I apologize for our actions. I am reminded of something the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker once said: "God forbid that in this country we should apologize for standing for those things which made this nation great". If any of my colleagues across the floor feel that these measures were a waste of time, they had better, as some of the Liberals have done, reconsider why they were elected-to represent their constituents or to be unthinking sheep led by a master into whatever pasture he decides to take them, with no consideration for the effects on the people who put their trust in them?
The all-party agreement reached on April 8 in this House to defer final debate on the resolution until after a decision had been rendered by the Supreme Court of Canada on the appeals before it from the lower courts was, I think, welcomed by all. In its wisdom, the court affirmed what we as a party had been saying all along, and that is that the conventions, the customs and the practices making up part of our existing Constitution should not be overlooked.
I am sure that during the past year many Canadians have regarded the constitutional debate with a good deal of indifference, and I can appreciate that reaction. Unemployment, inflation, high interest rates and other bread and butter issues have had a more immediate impact on people's daily lives. Just last Saturday I marched with a group of concerned Bramp-tonians headed by two very courageous women, Kathy Dinley and Marlene Grant. Here on Parliament Hill they urged that the present constitutional matters be completed as quickly as possible and that work on economic matters take precedence. Two bus loads carrying a group of people independent of any
organization came to Ottawa. They also expressed how pleased they were that a consensus had been achieved and that the Canadian way prevailed.
The agreement to wait for the Supreme Court decision was reached because of an ever increasing awareness on the part of the Liberal Party that Canadians across the country were beginning to see through the attempts to change the fundamental nature of our country, and they were not in favour. For Canada's sake I am very happy that the Prime Minister saw fit to take another long, hard look at the precedent he was setting by forging ahead with a plan not condoned by the majority of provinces and not agreed to by a large majority of the people of Canada.
Confederation was arrived at by great statesmen setting aside their individual views and arriving at a consensus. Frustration and separatist sentiments have been widespread throughout our history, but no attempt at division has ever had the potential for breaking up this entire country in the same way that forging ahead without significant consensus would have had. In the words of Lord Acton, "The co-existence of several nations under the same state is the test, as well as the best security, of its freedoms." When Canada adopted its federal system of government, it did so with good reason. It was seen then, as it continues to be now, as the best way of reflecting our national duality and the need for regional local autonomy.
I would like to consider the position of Quebec for a moment. I said earlier that a very vital province has not seen fit to consent to the constitutional accord. The Quebec situation has been an overriding constitutional question for many years. It has, to my mind, been the chief factor in constitutional discussions which have occurred since 1963. Quebec's constitutional position has been deferred many times and, once again, the question has been left unanswered. This may be because of the unwillingness of the federal government or other provincial Premiers to negotiate further, or it may be due to the fact that the Quebec government involved in these constitutional negotiations is committed solely to separation. I do not really know, but it saddens me that Quebec is not a part of the consensus reached. It is a tragedy which I hope can be averted.
The Prime Minister has for years argued that there was an urgent need for constitutional change. The general feeling of the provinces other than Quebec was that there really was not an urgency; important but not urgent. Only after the Quebec referendum last year did most Canadians realize the frustration and the seriousness of Quebec's outlook on its role in Confederation. In May 1971, Claude Ryan urged that:
English Canada would be much wiser to look to the government of Quebec as the real interpreter of the French Canadian will,-
Keep in mind this was at the time of a Liberal government in Quebec.
-a government seen not through some temporary vacillation of Robert Bourassa but through a constant threat expressed in the major constitutional documents
November 23, 1981

since 1966. There will be found the essential elements, not necessarily of a solution, but for real negotiation. Until these are examined and accepted, no solution will be possible.
The official opposition party has put forward a proposition giving Quebec another opportunity to reconsider its position. If the availability of compensation to provinces which opt out is not accepted by the present Quebec government, it will be clear that the present representation of the province of Quebec is committed solely to separation. Whether or not the provincial government of Quebec actually represents the political will of Quebecers remains to be seen.
In April the Quebec government signed an accord with seven other premiers which included this provision. Did the Premier of Quebec sign the accord at that time because he believed this is what Quebecers want, or did he sign it just to embarrass the federal government, assuming that the accord would not be accepted? I can only hope that all sides of the negotiations bargain in good faith and continue to act in the best interests of Canadian unity. I ask all Quebecers to examine our position, and if they approve, if they want to take their rightful place in the federation, then let Premier Levesque and the Prime Minister of Canada know, act together to remain partners. I cannot envision a Canada without Quebec.
One major disappointment for me is to see a Canadian Constitution before us that does not contain property rights. To my way of thinking, the cornerstone of democracy is the right to own property. An investment in a piece of property gives one a feeling of security, "a piece of the rock" as one famous advertisement says, at owning a small part of this great country. Why not protect that right, a basic right of any democracy? The late President of the United States of America, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, said:
When some people declare that we care more for property rights than human rights I say that a property right is one of the human rights and if it is not sustained then all others will disappear.
I say amen to that and ask that this be on the top priority list when next the matter of constitutional amendments are discussed by the first ministers.
I would like for a moment to discuss a section of the charter which is of great concern to many of our legal and enforcement bodies. That section is 24(2), known as the exclusionary rule. The government has been accused of trying to Americanize Canadian rules of evidence and placing Canada in a constitutional straitjacket in terms of the evolution of our criminal law and procedures by entrenching a form of the American exclusionary rule of evidence.
The government, after a compromise was reached with the provinces in the summer of 1980, reversed its position, as it has been known to do sometimes, and in January, 1981, decided to adopt the exclusionary rule. Because of this decision and the concern expressed by many, the official opposition offered a compromise wording which was adopted by the joint committee.
However, this section continues to represent a concern, and I feel these concerns must be expressed and put on the record.
The Constitution
The possible problems with entrenchment of this rule were brought to my attention by many, including Chief Ackroyd of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force and by Chief Doug Burrows of the Peel Regional Police.
Section 24(2) sets a subjective standard for our courts. There is no jurisprudence in this area to guide our judiciary. It is interesting to note that although it is an American rule of evidence, it is not entrenched in the American Constitution. This rule can be changed by United States courts or Congress at any time. Why then is Canada heading in a direction which will involve a constitutional amendment if a change in this area becomes necessary?
Law reform commissions, both federal and provincial, have recommended that an exclusionary rule, or the type of clause that is present in the charter, be included in provincial and federal evidence acts. I know that some Crown attorneys and attorneys general, including the Ontario attorney general, feel that section 24(2) should not be entrenched but should possibly be adopted as an amendment to our evidence acts. In a letter dated March 20, 1981, the attorney general of Ontario wrote this to all Members of Parliament:
I would urge you to avoid the introduction into our criminal justice system of American concepts which have substantially undermined effective law enforcement in the United States while failing to enhance the rights of individual citizens.
When the government reversed its position in January and decided to adopt the exclusionary rule, there were no consultations by the federal government with the provinces. It is an area that civil libertarians feel must be included in the charter, but as put forth by the Canadian Police Association and many others, serious consideration must be given to the changes which this rule will cause in our criminal law system. They have asked each of us to consider a series of questions. I quote a few:
Do 1 want to change to a United States rule consistently rejected by the courts of Canada and England for 300 years and which has recently come under serious question in the United States and has been firmly rejected as unsound by three distinguished English Royal Commissions, the last as recent as December 1980?...
Does the exclusionary rule really control police and thereby protect civil liberties? Or, is it inferior to strong before-the-fact accountability coupled with prosecution and discipline of police after-the-fact, when deserved? ...
Do the women of Canada want to protect sexual attackers to the extent that even the slightest mistake by police in following the proper investigatory and arrest procedures will exclude relevant evidence and lead to an acquittal, even if the evidence of guilt is overwhelming?
A gory, not pleasant but true story of an incident which took place in California vividly demonstrates what could happen. A highway patrol in California pulled a car over and started to question the driver. He became very suspicious and asked the driver to open his trunk. The driver refused, the police patrol insisted, and the driver Finally opened his trunk. In the trunk the policeman found a dismembered body, a member of the driver's family. The driver pleaded guilty to the charge of murder and was convicted in a lower court. In an appeal court he was declared innocent and let go because the patrol officer did not have a proper search warrant to look in the trunk. That was because of the exclusionary rules of evidence that they

November 23, 1981
The Constitution
have in the United States. We do not want that here in this country.
I feel the public should be aware of these concerns being expressed by some Canadians. These concerns should be carefully examined once the Constitution returns to Canada, its final resting place.
I would like to comment briefly and commend the first ministers on the formal recognition of Canada's multicultural heritage, a heritage that has been a continuing and undisputed fibre of our history.
Canada has benefited from the diversity of its people. Because of this diversity, we are a richer nation, committed to living together in understanding and mutual appreciation.
In the early 1960s the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker from Prince Albert likened Canada to a garden. He said:
A garden . .. into which has been transplanted the hardiest and brightest flowers from many lands, each retaining in its new environment the best of the qualities for which it was loved and prized in its native land.
In my new responsibility as immigration spokesman, I have become in the past few months very aware of the fact that our attitudes towards immigrants and immigration are an important part of our multicultural ideology. Mr. Speaker, I hope my education in this area broadens my horizons even further. In this regard the charter does reflect the reality that is Canada.
In the past year and a half I have travelled extensively in Canada. The employment opportunities contained in the Committee of Employment Opportunities for the 80s gave me the chance to see in depth the Canada I did not know. I was very familiar with Ontario; but the rest of Canada was not well known to me. I had travelled to some extent in Canada but I never took the time to see it, and to really look at it.
I have walked on the stone beach at Stephenville, Newfoundland; amazed at the sight of the harbour of St. John's; driven and walked along the most beautiful Cabot Trail; slipped on the rocks at Peggy's Cove just trying to get that perfect picture; stood in the famous legislature in New Brunswick; visited with city council in Chicoutimi, Quebec; sang, ate and drank shoulder to shoulder with my fellow French-speaking Canadians in a wine cellar in old Montreal. Mr. Speaker smiles because he knows what I am talking about. I travelled Ontario from Fort Francis to Pelee Island; watched a flock of geese heading south with trees a brilliant yellow, the black storm ahead and the sun glistening off the frost somewhere between Brandon and Winnipeg; visited the little towns in Saskatchewan, such as Biggar, Perdue and even Lennie where my mother came from; travelled through breathtakingly beautiful Alberta to the tar sands in the north. I heard a native Canadian couple tell their story, the most articulate presentation I think I have ever had the pleasure of hearing. I watched the world junior softball championships in Edmonton. I flew a twin Otter from Fort McMurray to Yellowknife, walked the streets at midnight in broad daylight, skied the Rockies, got wet in Vancouver, and marvelled at the diversity of British
Columbia. From coast to coast and to the north it is Canada. Its beauty, its people, its resources make it the greatest nation in the world, and I, along with millions of Canadians, want to maintain its greatness. God help those who would attempt to destroy this greatness.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that there were many who said that a Constitutional accord would not be possible. God willing, Canada will have its Constitution. My prayer as a proud Canadian is that we will all be guided in the next few weeks and in future constitutional change to uphold the human and political freedoms that we tend to take for granted. I love this country. My dedication is to keep it strong economically and socially, and united from coast to coast.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: I rise tonight near the end of this great constitutional debate that has been causing so much difficulty in this country. With the news that has been given to us of the agreement reached on the two outstanding and most controversial subjects, there is very little that one could say. However, I feel I should take a few minutes to put on the record some thoughts with regard to a couple of matters on which I have personally been questioned on the effect of the constitutional resolution when it is passed.
First I should say, Mr. Speaker, as someone who came to this country some 40 years ago now, I liked what I saw. I spent some 15 months training in this country during the war. I liked it so much that when the war was over I wanted to come back. I did come back with my family. Although I travelled fairly extensively in Canada, I liked what I saw in Quebec. I settled in Quebec, and I have lived there ever since. I did not choose Quebec because I thought that I would be able to continue to speak the English language; in fact, quite the contrary. I assumed that I would probably be obliged to brush up on my French. However, that was not so. If I can interject here, somewhat to my disappointment that was not so. I continued to operate for some 10 or 15 years in the English language, even though I was in the construction industry, building from Trois-Rivieres, what we used to call Three Rivers, to Chicoutimi and throughout the province, and even in the capital city of Quebec. That was to change.
I think the big change came with Bill 22. Mr. Speaker, because you were a part of that action at that time, you will know that I as an individual did not speak against Bill 22, even though I felt there were some parts of that bill that I did not particularly like. However, over all I felt it was necessary that some action be taken to redress what was certainly an unacceptable situation in the province of Quebec.
I was somewhat unhappy when Bill 22 was replaced with Bill 101. However, even today we have learned to live with Bill 101. Life for the Anglos in the province of Quebec is not really all that bad.
However, as I said at the outset, I want to make a couple of comments on parts of the resolution on which I have been questioned. First I should like to comment upon the non
November 23, 1981

obstante override clause as it applies to the charter of Rights and Freedoms. The entire charter of Rights and Freedoms will be entrenched in the Constitution and no province will be able to opt out of any provision of the charter. The agreement signed by the Prime Minister and the nine Premiers does not emasculate the charter. Democratic rights, fundamental freedoms, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights and language rights are enshrined in the Constitution and apply across the country. What the premiers and the Prime Minister agreed to is a safety valve which is unlikely ever to be used except in non-controversial circumstances by Parliament or legislatures to override certain sections of the charter.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms adopted in 1975 contained an override clause which has been used several times. However, its use has been non-controversial and is instructive in looking at how the override may be applied in terms of the new constitutional charter. For example, despite the provision in the Quebec charter guaranteeing that everyone is equal before the law, the juries act indicates that a lawyer cannot be a member of a jury. Despite the guarantee of open trials in the Quebec charter, the youth protection act provides for circumstances where juvenile court may hold closed sessions. Despite the protection in the Quebec charter for the privileged doctor-patient relationship, the highway safety act requires a doctor to inform the license bureau of the name of the patient who is medically incapable of driving a motor vehicle. It is because of the history of the use of the override clause and because of the need for a safety valve to correct absurd situations without going through the difficulty of obtaining constitutional amendments that leading civil libertarians have welcomed its inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I should like to make a few comments on the subject of indirect taxation. The British North America Act gives the federal government the power to raise taxes by any means, including indirect taxation, but does not give the same power to the provinces. The provincial authority is contained in Section 92(2) of the BNA Act which indicates direct taxation within the provinces. Thus, under our present Constitution, provincial taxation powers are limited to the raising of a direct tax within the province for provincial purposes. In order to decide whether a tax was direct or indirect, the courts have adopted the John Stuart Mill definition of direct and indirect taxes. This means that a tax is held to be a direct tax when it is demanded from the very person who is intended to pay it. On the other hand, a tax is held to be an indirect tax when it is demanded from one person in the expectation and with the intention that he shall indemnify himself at the expense of another. Whenever a court has had to decide whether a tax was direct or indirect, it examined the tax in order to find out whether it met that definition. The purpose of the proposal is to free the provinces from the obligation to meet the direct tax test when they levy a tax on non-renewable resources.
In giving provinces the power to levy indirect taxes on non-renewable resources, we are giving provinces the power to levy a tax whose burden does not fall on the very person on
The Constitution
whom the tax is levied. This could mean that a tax levied on a non-renewable resource in a province might be paid by residents of another province, if the resource subject to tax were exported to the other province. However, an indirect tax in non-renewable resources should not discriminate between the province and other parts of Canada. Federal taxing powers would not be affected by the proposal. The federal government would retain the power to raise money by any mode or system of taxation on resources, as well as on any other goods or activities.
During all the constitutional discussions of the past several years, there was full agreement that, apart from resources, provinces should not be permitted to apply indirect taxes, the effects of which would be felt by persons outside the province imposing the tax. For example, it would not be fair for a province in which automobiles are manufactured to impose an indirect tax on such automobiles which would then have to be paid, not only by the residents of that province but by the residents of all provinces to which the automobiles were shipped. On the other hand, it was also agreed that non-renewable natural resources presented a special case. It was generally accepted by the provinces and by the federal government that provincial governments through any mode of taxation should be able to ensure that a fair return was received by the residents of the province which was disposing of the resource. It was agreed that provinces should be given indirect taxing powers, with the proviso that their tax laws could not discriminate between resources used in the province and those exported. In other words, an indirect tax by Saskatchewan on, say, potash would have to be the same, whether the potash was used by residents of Saskatchewan or shipped outside.
Another subject of considerable interest in the province of Quebec at the present time is the subject of denominational schools. I should like to make a few comments on the subject. Concerning religious guarantees in the Constitution, Section 93 of the British North America Act, 1867, is the only provision in the act which refers to such guarantees. Section 93(1) provides that no province may prejudicially affect rights or privileges with respect to denominational schools which existed at law in the provinces at the time of Confederation. However, the section does not make any reference to freedom of choice respecting language of education. Jurisprudence indicates that the rights and privileges guaranteed by Section 93(1) are those relating to the establishment of denominational schools and religious teaching therein. But the section does not prevent provinces from regulating the curriculum generally of such schools or prescribing the language of instruction to be used. A decision of the judicial committee of the Privy Council in 1916, in the case of Trustees of the Roman Catholic Separate Schools for the City of Ottawa v. MacKell, held that Ontario legislation which restricted the use of French as a language of instruction in the schools of that province was valid provincial legislation relating to education and not contrary to the provisions of Section 93. However, this does not mean that the provinces are free to prevent the establishment and operation of denominational schools and the teaching of

November 23, 1981
Adjournment Debate
denominational tenets, doctrines and practices in those schools. Quebec's charter of the French language, Bill 101, regulates the language of instruction in the schools of the province, but it does not address itself to the broader issue and, indeed, it could not constitutionally abrogate Section 93 guarantees.
Obviously I would have liked to have seen a lot more freedom in the language provisions in the constitutional resolution. I also fully agree that it is much better to arrive at a consensus, to arrive at a compromise. In that respect, perhaps unwillingly, but nevertheless I accept that the inclusion of the Canada clause is the best we can expect in the circumstances. May I call it ten o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member
for calling it ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on November 9,1 asked a question of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the Constitution. Since the beginning of the constitutional debate in this House, and certainly since the historical agreement between the federal government and the nine consenting provinces was signed, the contents of the charter of rights has continued to be the focus of political debate. If I am not mistaken, Mr. Speaker, I heard this evening that the issues of equal rights for women and native rights had been settled, at least from what we heard in this House earlier.
One very important issue, however, remains to be settled, that of the francophone minority outside Quebec. During this brief debate this evening, I should like to deal with the situation where we, francophones, living in provinces with an English majority, find ourselves in this federation, which is becoming for us a real maze of interpretations. Of course, I refer to the charter of rights, a charter which should be universally applied, but which, in this case, relinquishes the universality principle to the provincial legislatures by letting them determine how it will be implemented. Because of all these optional or "nothwithstanding" clauses, especially as concerns the provisions on basic freedom, legal guarantees and equal rights, this charter is probably the only federal document which will take its meaning from provincial jurisdictions and legislation.
In other words, the federal government proposed but the provinces dispose.
This means that the Canadian who wishes to travel in his own country will have to check carefully and practically every day how the various provinces interpret the Constitution before leaving his province for another. The legal guarantees of this Canadian, if arrested, for instance, could vary when he steps across a provincial border. At the limit, in view of this potential multitude of rights which apply or do not apply, we may wonder if we are still in the same country or in a federation of many countries.
A more detailed examination of the contents of this charter reveals that the clauses concerning linguistic rights and the right to education in the language of the minority are firm and universal clauses which are not subject to the opting-out principle. This means that the members of a linguistic minority of either official language may have their children educated in their own language at the elementary and secondary levels only where numbers warrant. As concerns the principles involved, while several premiers, such as Mr. Bennett and Mr. Davis, do not agree and say that Clause 23 will not change anything, I believe that this clause still provides guarantees which seem adequate at first glance. However, as one looks a bit further, one finds that in actual practice the reality is somewhat strange. Let us take an example. A group of French-language parents residing in one of the seven provinces not subject to Section 133, which gives access to legal and legislative institutions, file an application for a French school in their community. The school authorities, the school board answer that the application is turned down because the number of children does not warrant a French school in the area. The parents will then have to find the money, energy and support to go to court and pursue their rights at their own expense. The case will be heard in the provincial Supreme Court. And there lies the irony. Since the charter of rights does not recognize in that Canadian province the access to legal and legislative institutions in the minority language, these parents will have to fight in English for the recognition of the minimum constitutional rights granted them as Frenchspeaking citizens.
So this is in the charter of rights, a serious flaw that makes it in my view both unacceptable and utterly incomplete. Minorities are granted certain rights but not the tools needed to have them enforced. Even the Ontario Premier has no hesitation in recognizing that the charter of rights gives nothing more to French speaking residents in his province, and I refer you to a report published no later than today in the Montreal Paper la Presse, where Mr. Davis is quoted as making the statement utterly shocking to us Franco-Ontarians that there was nothing new there, the charter did not change much in the Ontario situation.
November 23, 1981

When he replied to a question I directed to him in the House on November 9, the Prime Minister recognized that the linguistic rights applied only to elementary and secondary schools. He stated that he was prepared to convene a federal-provincial conference of the type I had suggested to review the whole question following patriation. This is indeed a commendable and significant response. Yet, because 1 know a number of premiers, I am very much concerned about the outcome of such a meeting, but I remain optimistic about the possibility of it being held.
According to the information I have checked today, Mr. Speaker, of the nine provincial premiers-I should perhaps exclude Mr. Hatfield who is the only one who recognized fully the linguistic rights of both anglophones and francophones- two have replied: Mr. Hatfield, of course, and Mr. Blakeney, of Saskatchewan, who said: "If the others go, I will certainly go too". Naturally, there was no reply from Bill Davis, and I must say that I am very disappointed with the Ontario Premier's refusal. In Ontario, the province with the greatest minority of francophones-some 500,000 of them-I do not understand his refusal to take part in a federal-provincial conference which could be the perfect forum to consider and discuss in depth the last problem which remains to be settled in this country, that is, the treatment of francophone minorities outside Quebec. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, all members of this House congratulate the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his unremitting efforts to protect the rights of francophones outside of Quebec, for his tenacity and his eagerness to standup for the rights of francophones throughout Canada.
The hon. member has suggested a federal-provincial conference to enable francophone groups outside Quebec to state their grievances. He worked hard to get the provinces to agree to that meeting but in spite of his efforts, only two are in favour of such a meeting. Such a conference could only bring results if the provinces would agree to attend. Once again our efforts should be channelled towards that end. This being said, we have to recognize at the same time that the new constitution will do much for francophones outside Quebec. First bilingualism is made official at the federal level. Second both language groups are considered equal in every area: executive, legislative and legal. Third the right of linguistic minorities to education is recognized. I know well that in spite of all that, the hon. member as well as many others would rather see the rights of francophones outside Quebec given greater recognition. It must be recognized as well, however, that we have proved that with good will and co-operation between the
Adjournment Debate
federal and provincial governments, much can be accomplished. To wit, Mr. Speaker, the historial agreement the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) announced to the House 45 minutes ago, the agreement on women's rights and aboriginal rights. We all congratulate him. We are very proud to be Canadians.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-APPEARANCE OF CANADIAN PIPERS AT EDINBURGH INTERNATIONAL TATTOO. (B) REQUEST THAT BROADCAST BE SHOWN IN CANADA
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, on November 2, I asked the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), as minister responsible for reporting to this House for the CBC, if he would inquire why the CBC had refused to carry the TV program which had been made by the British Broadcasting Corporation of this year's Edinburgh Tattoo. The reason I asked that was that I wanted Canadians to see this year's tattoo because Canadians on that occasion were doubly honoured; first of all, by including a separate section dedicated to Canada entitled "Canadiana", a section which featured a team of about 100 Canadians drawn from across the country including pipers, drummers, Scottish and habitant dancers from all parts of Canada, and second, honoured by inviting a Canadian service officer, General Lewis, Commanding Officer Air Command, to take the salute in Edinburgh. This year's Tattoo, therefore, was a great event in Canadian terms. It was broadcast broadly in Britain and across Europe. Canada got a great boost in this particular event.
I was subsequently told by the minister that the CBC had not been offered the BBC videotape. I can now assure him, or the parliamentary secretary who will be replying, that this oversight has been remedied and a 75-minute version of the 90-minute Tattoo has been offered to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, and I and many more Canadians hope the deal will be closed and Canadians will have a chance to see this outstanding event; the way Canadians did their country proud by their performances.
I am told that the CBC is looking at a five-minute version of the Tattoo, but my view is that even to put on such an abbreviated version of a more than ten-minute participation in the tattoo would be an insult to those Canadians from all parts of Canada who were seen by about 250,000 who attended the Tattoo in Edinburgh, about six million British television viewers, and 50 million to 60 million viewers in Europe and Australia.
Canada's participation this year in this international festival has been in the works for about five years. It was treated by the BBC as a feature item. The show was designed to portray Canadian unity by featuring dancers from all across this land-Scottish pipers, Scottish dancers as well as folk dancers from Quebec. It was, I am told, a moving experience. Having paid for much of the Canadian group's expenses to go to Edinburgh, I contend that Canadians should now have the opportunity to see how well this team which they sponsored performed on their behalf.

November 23, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Last week, I sent to the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation a petition bearing the signatures of 107 members of this House of Commons and of the other place. I am hopeful that the minister will add these and possibly his signature to a request that the Canadian viewers have an opportunity to see this outstanding version of Canadian performance overseas by Canadian artists.


John Gerald (Jack) Masters: Mr. Speaker, 13 years ago Parliament declared in the Broadcasting Act that Canadians are, indeed, entitled to a varied and comprehensive choice of programming on the radio and television stations licensed in Canada. Because of this longstanding requirement, I welcome this opportunity to delineate the minister's position with respect to the selection of programming within the Canadian broadcasting system. This is particularly timely in view of the concern expressed in this House now and on previous occasions by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) about the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's apparent refusal to schedule a BBC program of the Edinburgh Festival.
I would first like to comment about the specific BBC program of the Edinburgh Festival in which members of the Canadian Militia played a prominent role this past summer. As the minister said in the House the other day, all Canadians are obviously impressed by and proud of the role of the militia at this international tattoo. Given the cultural heritage of many Canadians, such a program would undoubtedly be of interest to them. However, the responsibility for the choice of any specific program, including this one, rests with the individual licensees.
The minister did inquire as to whether or not the CBC had planned to schedule the program, and the corporation advised that the BBC did in fact prepare a 75-minute program, as has been pointed out, on the 1981 Edinburgh Tattoo which was telecast in Britain and Europe as part of the Eurovision agreement.
Apparently some Canadians understood that the program was carried in the United States and in Commonwealth areas. However, BBC Enterprises, the commercial arm of the BBC, did not select it for international distribution, and it was therefore not offered to the CBC or to any other television organization. Australia does have a tradition of carrying the BBC's coverage of the Tattoo at a later date, but the Australian Broadcasting Commission has not yet signed a contract with the BBC to show the 1981 Tattoo.
The CBC also advises that its programming officers are aware of the five-minute Canadian segment contained in the Tattoo and the participation of a Canadian composite pipe band in the massed bands, and they will be looking at the program with a view to determining where it could be appropriately scheduled. The minister also forwarded the hon. member's interest to Mr. Johnson, President of the CBC, for his consideration. The corporation will undoubtedly take comments such as these into consideration when planning its
future programming. However, I think it is timely to remind all hon. members that Parliament declared that government does not and should not involve itself in the selection of the programs provided by radio and television broadcasters, whether public or private.
The Broadcasting Act makes it clear that neither the CRTC nor the government are in a position to ensure that any station might schedule any particular program.
I would like to remind hon. members again that broadcasters do listen to their audience. The broadcaster has a vested interest in maintaining and building a loyal and contented audience, without which it would be impossible for him to carry on business. The minister, therefore, strongly encourages each and every Canadian to let their broadcasters know their desires and wishes in programming matters, as has already been done in this instance.


THE BUDGET-MINISTER'S AWARENESS OF EFFECT
Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I rise to set forth my dissatisfaction with the answer given to me by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to my question on November 19.
In my question, I exposed two budget changes which seriously injure family farm ownership and the passage of the family farm from one generation to the next.
Provisions in the budget abolish the income averaging annuity provisions and also abolish the capital gains tax reserve. The effect of this is to impose an immediate assessment with respect to capital gains on the sale of a farm.
The budget goes on to state that there are forwarding averaging provisions which are not satisfactory when the details of it are examined. It also provides that a farmer could spread the actual payment of capital gains tax over the next three years, with interest being leviable on the amounts. I simply say that that is not a satisfactory solution to the very real problem of passing farms on to the next generation.
As you may know, the farm practice is that when a farmer puts his whole life into a farm, it then becomes his pension plan. He does not make deductions, as people who are paid a salary do. When he passes that farm on, therefore, it is important to have a scheme whereby he can use the farm proceeds as a pension plan. Traditionally, that is done in two different ways. The first way is usually a sale for cash to a member of the next generation who has financed the purchase price through the Farm Credit Corporation, or the Alberta development corporation, or any number of financial institutions. The farmer, of course, immediately has all the cash. He takes that and purchases an income-averaging annuity and spreads that purchase price over ten or 15 years. A portion of the capital gains tax applies to his income in each of those years, and capital gains tax is paid. That works very well. The other mechanism used between generations is that the farm seller himself finances the deal by selling to his son or daughter by way of an agreement of sale or an outright sale with a mortgage back. In both these ways, a farmer is able to utilize
November 23, 1981

the provisions of the Income Tax Act, called the capital gains tax reserve. All that means is that if the payments are spread out over ten or 15 years, as each payment is received, the farmer declares in that year one-tenth or one-fifteenth of the capital gains tax, and it is paid to the government.
Without those provisions and under the budget the most the farmer can do is to have the entire tax assessed in the year of sale and to spread the payment out over three years, even though if he is financing the sale of the farm to a child-or a stranger for that matter-he will not be receiving those payments for ten or 15 years.
We know that the Farm Credit Corporation does not have sufficient money-nor do the provincial plans-to provide the capital necessary to transfer all of the farms in existence in this country to the next generation. There are some 330,000 farmers in this country. In the province of Ontario the average farm is less than 200 acres, which really is a small farm. Traditionally the sale proceeds from a farm have always been enough for a farmer to move into town, to purchase a small house and to have a nest egg on which to live out the rest of his years. Inflation in the cities is high. With respect to the city of Calgary or the city of Lethbridge, I know that if a farmer has a quarter section of land and sells it, he does not have sufficient money to purchase a home and to have a nest egg. Until now mortgages back or agreements of sale gave a person sufficient money to put a downpayment on a house and, as the payments came in, the farmer was able to pay the mortgage on his house plus the capital gains tax. Under the present provisions of the budget that will become impossible and, frankly, I think we will see a very real disruption which will be a disservice to the farm community.
The parliamentary secretary spends a lot of time in this House. I recall that the hon. member for Ottawa-Centre (Mr. Evans) was here at 6.15 one morning when I harangued the government. He certainly is faithful in that respect. I ask him to consider throwing away the speech which may have been prepared for him by government officials and to tell me frankly whether the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was really aware of the effect of these budget provisions on the farm family community. I know he is briefed by all sorts of different departmental officials. Clearly the budget provisions are designed to solve problems. I think there were abuses in some cases, but I submit that in this case there were no abuses. We need a response, and we need changes. Did the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) give any advice before these changes were put into the budget? If so, what was it? Since the budget has come out, has the Minister of Agriculture made representations to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the farm community similar to the ones I am now making?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some structured comments about the nature of the new provisions which are being introduced to offset the withdrawal
Adjournment Debate
of the income-averaging annuity contracts, the capital gains reserve provision and, indeed, the general-averaging provisions, but at the outset I would like to say to my friend, the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), that subsequent to the budget, the minister has received a great many representations, including the representations the hon. member made in his question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I was in Regina all last weekend talking to farmers at a Liberal party convention. I am sure I talked to more than 40 or 50 farmers who raised issues similar to those the hon. member has raised tonight. I was able to allay the concerns of a large number of those individuals with the explanations I was able to give with regard to the forward-averaging provision and other provisions that relate thereto. However, they were able to put in particular questions about forward-averaging provisions which I was not sure handled the problem. These have been brought back and referred directly to the minister for his consideration.
The minister, as he said in the House earlier, is willing to look into all those areas where problems are caused as a result of provisions proposed in the budget. He is prepared to be flexible with regard to matters of timing and so on.
The minister is aware of the kinds of concerns being expressed by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills. I am aware of them fully and I apprised the officials of the department of them this afternoon by relating to them the concerns raised with me by the farmers I talked to in Regina. The minister will be considering these upon his return from Halifax.
As the hon. member has indicated, these provisions for averaging were originally put in place to allow precisely for an averaging of an unusual lump of income over a period of time so that an individual would pay on average the standard tax rate to which his income would normally draw. The problem that arose was that in addition to the averaging provisions, there arose a problem of tax deferral, and in some cases tax deferral for very long periods of time, that was not intended by the original provisions. The three original provisions together tended to overlap a bit and caused some additional problems.
We believe that the forward averaging provision provides in the vast majority of cases not only an adequate averaging provision for Canadians, but also a superior averaging provision to those made available through the other mechanism. This is why the new measures were introduced. We believe they can be make made workable in a vast number of cases. The minister is willing to consider those cases where the forward averaging provision may present difficulties for Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted, accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.28 the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 24, 1981