1981-11-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian Labour Congress has graphically demonstrated the plight of the victims of the government's high interest rate policy by assembling a group of Canadian home owners who face mortgage foreclosure and loss of their homes. The Congress will join with consumers and other community groups involved in the Coalition Against High Interest Rates to focus further public attention on the dire results of the government's policy in a demonstration on Parliament Hill tomorrow. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to heed the warnings of the Canadian Coalition Against High Interest Rates, and others, by revising his fiscal policies and initiating effective action to lower interest rates, particularly on residential mortgages.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Like a deadly germ, exorbitantly high interest rates have been injected into the economic bloodstream of Agriculture Canada by the Liberal government and the banks and, like septicemia, it is poisoning Canada with farm bankruptcies, foreclosures, bred milk cows being sold for as low as $20, farmers being advised to sell their land to stay alive, life-dreams of men, women and children being dashed to the ground, and all the
federal government does is talk, talk, talk. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That Dr. Trudeau and Dr. Whelan use the medicine they have, the federal stabilization act, to inject new blood into the livestock industry before it dies of high interestitis disease. For God's sake, and I say that reverently, when will this Liberal government do something to save this industry?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The budget of November 12 has inflicted a major burden of taxation on retiring farmers for whom the sale of their farms or the sale of their cattle was the only retirement savings plan they had. This was eliminated in the budget, by taking away the income averaging annuity contract, placing the retirement of farmers in jeopardy. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Minister of Finance reverse his decision and re-introduce the provision of income averaging annuities into the budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Noting that there was unanimous consent given in this House yesterday to urge the government of Saskatchewan to accept the entrenchment of full equality for women in the constitutional accord, and noting that the two New Democratic governments in western Canada desire the entrenchment of treaty

November 20, 1981
and aboriginal rights, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House now give unanimous consent to urging the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition to contact his colleagues, Premier Lougheed and Premier Bennett, and urge them to accept entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty
rights in the same accord.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Miller:: The Tories said no.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There were noes.


Mr. Nielsen:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order-



[Stage Direction]
RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL RIGHTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43 Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan): Madam Speaker-
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order I may entertain later, but not during the time allocated for motions under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


Mr. Maltais:: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre):
That Canada's Parliament recognize aboriginal rights in the new Constitution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that instances have been reported on the prairies of grain hopper cars arriving at local elevators to be filled with grain, only to have it discovered that the hopper cars were already filled with grain, and through the method of placing questions on the order paper it has been established that some of these hopper cars were filled on the prairies, travelled 1,660 miles to the port of Vancouver and back to the prairies to be refilled while in fact they were still full, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):

That all CN Crown corporation trains be equipped with automatic wheel brake locking systems set to be activated when the trains enter the port of Vancouver and which will not release until the trains have been appropriately unloaded, and that the savings from this innovative system be used to provide prairie farmers with matching grants whereby they can pay, without actual costs, those demurrage charges that accrue from other government-run grain operations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the right of a Canadian to deduct from taxable income, interest paid on moneys borrowed for investment in Canada, has been one of very few federal incentives to create new jobs and new wealth in Canada, and the removal of this incentive will severely damage those who have already undertaken risk investments, lead to more lay-offs and even lower growth, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the House condemn the elimination of this incentive in the budget and demand its reinstatement, so that Canada will not become virtually the only country in the free world to so discourage investment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 20, 1981


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion similar to that proposed by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), to make sure there is no misunderstanding in this House. Noting that there was unanimous consent given in this House yesterday to urge the government of Saskatchewan to accept the entrenchment of full equality for women in the constitutional accord, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House now give unanimous consent to urging the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition to contact Premier Lougheed and Premier Bennett, and urge them to accept entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights in the
same accord.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), as usual, is a little behind the times. Had he looked on the table when coming into the opposition lobby today he would have seen a stack of press releases put out by the office of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), dealing with this matter. A telex was sent yesterday, not just to the premiers set out in his motion but, indeed, to all premiers. The text of that telex sets forth the spirit of the motion that he has moved and which the House has unanimously accepted. I might just read that text into the record, if I have the time.
This is the telex that the Leader of the Opposition sent to all provincial premiers:
The Progressive Conservative Party in Parliament will be offering certain amendments to the government's latest constitutional proposals. The amendments would increase substantially the support in Canada for a full constitutional settlement, within the spirit of the accord of November 5.
In order to meet the stated objections of the government of Quebec, we propose to reinstate the full financial compensation provisions of the April accord. The benefits of that would naturally be available to all provinces.
Further, we believe that it is not in the national interest to exclude from the resolution the reasonable and fair assurances to the aboriginal peoples which were contained in Section 34 of the previous resolution and which were supported overwhelmingly by all parties in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, time prevents me from reading the full text, but it deals with those matters, including equality of women, and so on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: It is now 11.15 a.m. I must interrupt the debate on this motion. However, if the House wishes, I can put the motion to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: The discussion is over. It is time for oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who undoubtedly is aware that for approximately 1,900 employees at Massey-Ferguson this is their last work day as a result of having been given notice of temporary lay-offs on Monday, for a period which will not end before February.
Would the minister indicate to the House, bearing in mind that his government has guaranteed various obligations for Massey-Ferguson to the tune of $125 million, and bearing in mind it will mean a total of 3,000 of the 6,400 work force in Canada of Massey-Ferguson will now be laid off, which is almost a 50 per cent lay-off in Canada compared with approximately an 18 per cent lay-off in the United States, and no lay-off whatsoever in Massey-Ferguson factories around the world with respect to some 20,000 other workers, why this lay-off is occurring?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, the plants in Canada make combines. The market for combines is particularly weak in the United States which is the main outlet for these products. The great bulk of these products is exported to the United States and, unfortunately, economic conditions there do not permit the level of sales of these combines which we would like to see.
The same thing is happening to the principal competitors of Massey-Ferguson, such as John Deere and International Harvester. They are laying off substantial numbers of people from their combines plants in that country as well. We are not happy about these lay-offs, but they seem to be a reflection of conditions in the principal market for the products made by the Massey-Ferguson plants in Canada.


LAY-OFFS INSTITUTED BY RCA VICTOR IN MIDLAND, ONT.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is again to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who undoubtedly is well aware of the fact that in

November 20, 1981
Oral Questions
an interview this morning an official of Massey-Ferguson said that their number one problem was high interest rates-not the impact of world market conditions that the minister has indicated.
I will put this further question to the minister. He is undoubtedly aware that at the RCA Victor plant in Midland, approximately 25 per cent of its work force of 1,200 people is now laid off. It is the main employer in the town of Midland. If the minister is aware of that, would he indicate why this type of lay-off is occurring, and would he not agree that it is also due to the high interest rate structure that his government has had in place for almost the last year?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this government has not created the high interest rate structure in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -a country whose economic policy the hon. member thinks is so tremendous, a country which provides the outlet for 80 per cent or more of the production of Massey-Ferguson plants in Canada. If I am not mistaken, Massey-Ferguson has in Canada, according to my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture, a program whereby it sells combines in Canada at a particularly low rate of interest, a competitive rate. But the real problem is with respect to the economic situation in the United States.
With respect to interest rates in Canada generally, as the Minister of Finance pointed out, interest rates in this country, if one looks at the bank rate, are lower than at any time since the end of last year. They have come down approximately six points since August of this year. Certainly this is a step in the right direction in the key area of interest rates in this country.
I wish there were further progress in the United States, a country whose economic policies the hon. member seems to think are so wonderful.


IMPORTATION OF PRODUCTS FROM JAPAN
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I am sure all of us would like to remind the minister that interest rates in this country are still higher than they were when he said he would resign if they were that high during a period in which he was in government.
Does the minister not feel that there is an inconsistency in the policy of the government which permits companies such as Mitsui to do $1.5 billion worth of business in Canada but to employ only 140 people in this country when, at the same time, concerns such as Admiral, RCA Victor, and many other companies are finding it extremely difficult to compete with such concerns and have to lay off thousands of Canadian workers? Why does the minister encourage the importation of goods from Japanese and other manufacturers while at the same time discouraging, through such devices as FIRA, the opening up of plants in Canada which might employ Canadians and avoid the lay-offs we are now experiencing?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is certainly showing an amazing example of trying to work both sides of the street at the same time. In other comments he complains about alleged government interference with the private sector. Today he is calling for even more interference in a system he thinks is working well.
We happen to be working with the Admiral company, with provincial governments, with workers and with potential purchasers of that company in an effort to work out a program to restore it to operation. We are pursuing efforts in that regard.
If my hon. friend is talking about unfair import practices on the part of Mitsui, I would be happy to review those practices with the Minister of National Revenue to see if they contravene our laws. However, one thing the hon. member seems to be calling for which does not seem to be consistent with his non-interventionist philosophy is a system of review of the performance of large multinationals. I thank the hon. member for supporting this very interesting concept.


THE BUDGET
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance regarding the ability to deduct from taxation the interest one pays on moneys borrowed for investment in Canada. I would like to raise with the minister the specific case of six young investors in Toronto who borrowed $100,000 last year to start a business. This business replaced an American business in Canada and now employs, through leverage, 200 Canadians in Montreal, Toronto, Burlington and London. They must decide in January whether to borrow the second $100,000 to which they committed themselves at the beginning. Their entire decision in the beginning was based on their ability to deduct interest costs.
Can the minister explain to me and to these investors why their desire to create wealth and jobs in Canada as of November 12 is regarded as immoral, and can he explain to the people whose jobs may be in jeopardy why that is a reasonable thing to do at this time?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased to know that the measure I am proposing will not have the damaging effects he believes it will have; nor will it have the damaging effects the several individuals the hon. member mentioned might believe it will have. For that reason I would be pleased to have detailed information so that I can analyse the case.
Many people do not seem to understand that individuals will still be able to deduct borrowing costs on any investment against investment income from any asset, not just against the income from the asset to which the borrowing relates, and it
November 20, 1981

seems to me that, unless I have much more information, that covers the point raised by the hon. member.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, it is stunning that the Minister of Finance simply does not understand that, to be successful, new businesses will not generate income in their first three to five years against which to write off interest.


REQUEST THAT IMPLEMENTATION DATE BE CHANGED
John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, if the minister is not prepared to consider reversing his position on this issue, as he did, with some help from us, on the MURB provisions earlier, with respect to the ability to deduct interest and the other tax incentives which have led Canadians to invest in Canada, will he at least consider grandfathering those investments so that Canadians who undertook risk in this country to try to put people back to work will not be forced to pay a tax penalty for trying to be good Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the point I have already made-which is still valid, despite the hon. member's comment-is that any excess of interest payment charges can be carried forward indefinitely and for deduction against investment income in future years. The case described by the hon. member is still covered by a feature that will permit those carrying charges to be carried forward against investment income in future years.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister made much of the phrase "fairness and equity" in his budget of November 12. Tomorrow, a large number of people will travel from all across Canada to Ottawa in order to express their concern about interest rates in particular, and the impact of high interest rates in general. Recognizing that there is a significant number of Canadians who signed mortgages at interest rate levels of 20, 21, and 22 per cent between the months of March and November of this year, will the minister take some action with the banks, or directly through government, to reduce that interest rate level to the current interest rate level that is available?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be pleased, as I am, to have observed the rather sharp drop in the bank rate recently and the drops in mortgage rates that have resulted. That is probably the best way to ensure that the burden on home owners will be reduced. 1 take note of the hon. member's question. It has a good deal of sense in it. Is there some way we can accommodate those persons who were in a sense caught in that period of very high interest rates? My
Oral Questions
understanding is that the financial institutions, particularly the banks, have attempted as much as possible to avoid entering into arrangements at those very high levels. I will certainly pursue that point to see whether something further can be done to ensure that those persons caught at very high levels might have their situation considered.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT COMMITMENT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the sensible attitude being shown by the minister. I point out to him that, although it may be in the mind of the minister that the banks and financial institutions have attempted to help those people, I can assure him, having spoken with at least one family yesterday who are being asked to sign at 21% per cent today, that the banks and financial intitutions are not really doing all they could. I simply ask that the minister make a commitment that there will be some action taken directly by government to require the banks to bring mortgage interest rates into line with current levels, or that the government itself take action to relieve this terrible burden on so many families.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have already announced a measure that, in my view, will prevent any family in this country from losing a home as a result of high interest rates. I am satisfied that that measure will have that effect. I know the hon. member wants to go further. I understand very clearly the point he is making because I discussed that very matter yesterday and attempted to determine to what extent individuals were caught in that high interest rate period and had entered into contracts. I will pursue the matter further. Certainly the case which the hon. member mentions in his question is one that ought to be looked at in the light of what is now a very substantial drop in interest rates. I intend to follow up that matter.


QUERY RESPECTING STABLE INTEREST RATE POLICY
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. I want to ask the minister what will be done for those workers who face the double jeopardy of high interest mortgage rates and lay-offs from their jobs. For example, what will the minister do for workers like Tony Brown, who is one of ten thousand IWA workers who have been laid off, who earns only about $930 a month with UIC payments and working every other week, and who tries to support a family of three? This man's mortgage will increase to $1,200 per month. Even with the mortgage deferral program he still would not have enough money to feed his family. I think the minister's previous statement really is not accurate.
12976

November 20, 1981
Oral Questions
What will the minister do to introduce a policy on stable mortgage interest rates? What will he do to stimulate jobs to have more construction for workers like Tony Brown?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows that it is quite impossible to examine individual cases during question period. It is impossible to do that. I had an experience earlier this week when a particular member raised a question and provided what appeared to be the details of a particular case, and when asked to provide the facts later was unable to do so in a way that would venture or provide a basis for an investigation.
I want to tell the hon. member that we did provide in the budget, first of all, for a program of assistance that will ensure that no family will lose their home as a result of high interest rates. That is the absolute fact.
The hon. member now adds a further question with respect to rental construction. We have provided in the budget very substantial sums of money to encourage rental construction in this country.
During last session and in this session the hon. member poured scorn on the existence of MURBs in the housing field. I was surprised that the hon. member, upon learning that we intend to drop MURBs at the beginning of next year, did not stand up and say, "Bravo".


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, it has been more than eleven months since the government officially banned urea formaldehyde foam insulation. In the meantime 100,000 home owners are worrying and wondering about what the government will do, and in many cases there is a sense of desperation about what has happened to their property values. Many of them are also facing serious health situations. About six different ministers in the government are handling this UFFI problem.
I want to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is responsible for CHIP, whether the Minister of State, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, was announcing government policy recently when he said that the Treasury Board had accepted the principle of evaluating dangers and compensating victims of UFFI? Since he made that statement, has he been able to convince his cabinet colleagues on the need for compensation for UFFI victims?

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, the minister responsible for this matter, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, was
present in the House all week and would have been able to answer this question, which, in fact, he already answered last week. I therefore have nothing to add to the reply given last week on the subject by my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ADVICE
Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I repeat that there are six government ministers who are looking into the question of UFFI. There is nothing contained in the budget in the way of contingency plans for emergency compensation.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs says in a letter to my colleagues:
-action required will be decided upon, once the results of the national testing survey, the recommendations of the Board of Review, and the findings of the Co-ordination Centre are available.
The nation-wide testing, Madam Speaker, was completed at the end of October. The Board of Review recommendations on UFFI will not be known until sometime in mid-winter.
I will direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. What are people supposed to do until the government gets its act together with regard to this UFFI matter? What advice does the government have for people who are getting sick? Are they supposed to take it upon themselves to remove this dangerous foam insulation?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, once more, I may refer my colleague to what has already been said on the subject by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister has informed the House that complaints were being investigated at the homes of people who had been particularly affected. These investigations have been or are being finalized, and whatever evidence we have gathered so far is now under scrutiny and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has indicated that he would publish this information as soon as possible and would then be in a position to indicate whether any other steps could be taken.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HIS EXCELLENCY JOSE CARLOS
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in our gallery of His Excellency Jose Carlos Ganjalves Viana, the Portuguese Secretary of State for Fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 20, 1981


CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the all too comfortable looking Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the minister, by order in council, has provided for hearings to abandon more railways on the prairies that were originally secure until 1985, and in view of the fact that the mandate of the CTC allows it only two options-one, is to abandon and, two, is to retain for five years-will the minister give consideration to an extension of that mandate for abandonment to five years, fifteen years, or into the permanent network? I ask the question in view of the fact that multi-million dollar investments cannot be made on the basis of five-year projections, such as grain elevators, building up of the road bed, or any other structures requiring that kind of expenditure.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the rehabilitation of branch lines in the west has reached quite an extensive level. At the moment the system is working quite well. The other day I was pleased to announce that we now have a detailed program for a period of three years. I was also pleased to put during the summer on behalf of the government, $45 million more in the next three years into that branch line rehabilitation program. Obviously there are limitations to the number of miles of lines that can be included in that system. The process of elimination must follow its normal course if we want to have a manageable situation. I do not know precisely what my hon. friend has in mind, but maybe he can elucidate that in his next question.


SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF MANDATE
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, what I am pointing out with respect to any abandonment of branch lines taking place in the normal course is that abandonment automatically happens at the end of a five-year extension. This means that the railway companies will not put in new ballast because of the amount of investment required, and no new grain elevators will be built because they require an investment of several millions of dollars each. Such investment will not be undertaken if only a five-year projection can be given. There must be greater security of investment provided.
Would the minister give consideration to changing the mandate of the Canadian Transport Commission so that instead of it having the option to postpone an abandonment for five years, it could postpone it for 15 years, or even transfer the branch line in question to the permanent network? In that way grain companies and railway companies could proceed with their investments, without concluding that at the end of five years, and a few hearings, abandonment would automatically take place because by that time the track would be so torn up that nothing else could happen. Would the minister consider making that kind of recommendation with respect to the Canadian Transport Commission?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend, generally speaking, is asking how the system operates at this time. When a line is abandoned or before the line is abandoned, the elevator companies are fully consulted as to their intent. A line is not abandoned without that process of consultation. Also, after which a decision is made, there is a five-year period of time when it can be reviewed by the CTC. It is complicated enough as it presently exists. I suggest that adding more complications to it would not be in the best interests of western grain producers.


RAILWAYS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: My question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. The budget outlined that there would be $1.3 billion spent over the next four years to improve western transportation. I should like to ask the minister two questions. First of all, can he assure this House that the $1.3 billion will not vanish like the $4 billion we heard in last year's budget? Will he advise the House whether he will be approaching the improvement of the transportation system on a comprehensive basis, or is it his intention to proceed on a project by project ad hoc basis? If a decision has not been made, could the minister indicate when such a decision will be taken by cabinet?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously I have to restrain myself in answering this question. There are two approaches. One is known as the comprehensive one which is the terminology used by the hon. member for Vegreville. It is also know as the system approach. The other approach is less pejoratively referred to as the special projects approach. I can only say for today that cabinet will very soon be seized of that choice and will have to make a decision as to the best possible use of the $1.3 billion which the distinguished Minister of Finance has made available for the maintenance of capacity in the main line in western Canada, a line that will be more and more double-tracked, as the Prime Minister indicated before.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I gather from the tone of the question that my hon. friend is already favourable to the comprehensive approach. Should that be so, I have a question to ask him. How many of his colleagues are in agreement with that?

November 20, 1981
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


REFINANCING OF CO-OPERATIVE IMPLEMENTS OF WINNIPEG
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the flowering Minister of Agriculture, regarding the refinancing of the farmer-owned, Winnipeg-based, Cooperative Implements Ltd. The minister is no doubt well aware of the $35 million refinancing package which is being put together for this western farm machinery company. It includes the assistance of the three prairie provinces, the organizations within the co-operative movement, and the owners of Co-operative Implements themselves, the farmers. Will the government be announcing its participation in this package, particularly in light of the assistance which was given to companies such as Massey-Ferguson, Chrysler and White?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member made comment about the flower I am wearing. This is because of the importance which Agriculture Canada places on the floral industry.


An hon. Member:: Is it real or plastic?


Eugene Whelan: It is very real. It is a very important industry. The chrysanthemum show has two more days to run at the Experimental Farm in Ottawa. If the hon. member wants to learn more about what is going on, let him go and see. I am sure he realizes that it always pays to advertise.
When the hon. member talks about Co-operative Implements, he should realize that it would have been closed over three years ago if it had not been for the action of the government in providing an interest-free loan for $7 million when the other people were not doing very much about it. We had to beg the provinces to come into it. We are negotiating with them on what we think is a very good program for Co-operative Implements. I am not sure whether or not it will go ahead, but we know that over-all there are 3,000 jobs involved and that the money we provided was $7 million interest free. That money, interest free, amounts to nearly $3 million, so we have already put $10 million into that program. We are prepared to ensure, to the best of our ability, that this plant stays in operation.


AMOUNT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, the minister's emblems extend to his speeches. By way of a supplementary question I should like to ask the minister to confirm that the amount of the federal government's support will be $14 million, which was requested, rather than the $7.5 million previously negotiated. This amount will ensure that Co-operative Implements will continue to operate. Given the support of $360 million to Massey-Ferguson, Chrysler and White, this seems like a paltry amount to keep a Canadian farmer-owned western implement company going.


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the first part of the hon. member's statement was
rather flowery. I am glad to see that he has come into the picture late concerning Co-operative Implements. I am glad he realizes that there is a Canadian farm implement manufacturing company which is doing a very good job, as far as I am concerned. Their projections have been even above target, in what they said they would do as far as production is concerned. They need some extra financing at this time.
The hon. member made a comparison with what we have done for Massey-Ferguson, Chrysler and White. I am very proud of what the government has done for those companies. But when he makes a comparison, let him be fair. We have actually given the money interest free to Co-operative Implements, which is significantly greater than just guaranteeing a loan; we are actually putting the money there. The provinces only have to do as much as we have done, and they will have no problems.


REQUEST FOR VACCINATION PROGRAM TO COMBAT RED MEASLES
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A disease which is seriously underrated by the public and also by some health workers, as far as morbidity is concerned, and one that can and does cause significant brain damage, is red measles. This serious virus infection is preventable by vaccination. The United States is committed to a national vaccination program, with a goal of completely eliminating the disease arising within that country by 1982. Does the Minister of National Health and Welfare have any plans to stimulate and co-ordinate such a program in Canada where the responsibility for health rests with the provinces?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the jurisdiction for implementing such health policy remains with the provincial health authorities. However, the fact is that the National Advisory Committee on Immunization which prepared guidelines for the eradication of measles in Canada strongly recommended that legislation be enacted in each of the ten provinces requiring measle immunization prior to school entry. Unfortunately it has not been implemented in some parts of Canada. I do not have the direct power to do it, so I guess an occasion such as this to tell the public is of value.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. He will recall that a couple of days ago I asked him how many provinces have not yet given their consent to withdrawing the
November 20, 1981

override provision to the equality clause, Section 28. Following question period the Prime Minister will recall that he intimated informally to me across the floor of the House of Commons that there were two such provinces. Then he intimated that, if that number were reduced to one, he might consider reinstating the clause as it was in the original, but that he could not do so if it were two or more provinces.
Seeing that there seems to be only one province now which is withholding its approval, I ask the Prime Minister most sincerely whether he would, in concert with eight provinces, agree to reinstate Section 28 to give full equality to male and female persons as it was in the original resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the hon. lady should have terminated her question by saying, "as it was in the original resolution, which the Tories did not support".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Not true.


Mr. Crombie:: Be serious.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There is very little time remaining in question period, and we would like to hear from a lot of questioners.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. lady is asking me a hypothetical question because I do not know how many provinces will in the end support the amendments to restore the charter to its original form, the way it had been proposed. I do not know how many provinces, in the end, will support: maybe all, maybe not all.
I would say the same thing about aboriginal rights. Maybe all will support the restoration of aboriginal rights, and maybe they will not. However, the question remains hypothetical in the sense that I cannot say in advance what the courts would have defined as a consensus of the provinces. We know that too did not appear to be enough. We know that ten is not necessary. I do not know how many provinces we would need to go to London in order that we would have established the constitutionality in a conventional sense of the demarche. I suppose that could only be settled by the courts.
If the question does arise, we will have to make up our minds on this side of the House if "x" number of provinces is enough or not. I hope we will not have to ask ourselves that question because I am sure the house will let any changes to the accord made on Thursday, two weeks ago, be made with the consent of the provinces. I think that is important.
I fail to understand what the laughter is about on that side of the House. Maybe I could have a supplementary question and try to deal with the question.
Oral Questions


QUERY RESPECTING NUMBER OF NON-CONSENTING PROVINCES
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question. The Prime Minister will remember, of course, that Section 28 was not in the proposals brought before the House a year ago this October, and presented by the Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: That section was added in April of this year with the consent and agreement of all parties of this House, because I think we all want to see that section carried out. Therefore, I really want to come back to the question that I posed to the Prime Minister and the information that I understood he conveyed to me the other day that, while two provinces would present some difficulty for him in undertaking to make any change to the clause as it now stands before the House, if that number were reduced to one he might consider it. I am asking him will he now consider that?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member makes a point that Section 28 was not in the charter when it was first introduced. She is right, of course, and she is right that many other changes in the charter were made following the introduction into this House in October of last year. She should be reminded of the process which caused that to happen.
We had a pretty good charter in the month of June, 1980. The Minister of Justice attempted to get provinces on side. I now think the House realizes how hard that is on some aspects of the charter and aboriginal rights.
The Minister of Justice, in an attempt to get the provinces on side, watered down that charter in many aspects in the hope of getting a consensus in September of 1980.
We did not get the consensus. Therefore we decided to act with just the authority of Parliament. Since Parliament was going to act on its own, at least in so far as our party and most of the New Democratic Party was concerned, we could afford to improve the charter.
I remind the hon. member of what position she and her party took at that time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members do not like to be reminded of that, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Siddon:: Answer the question!


An hon. Member:: You did the Canadian thing!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It was that we patriate the Constitution with an amending formula, and that then, after, we would write a charter in Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let's do that after, then!

November 20, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are going to patriate with an amending formula, and we are going to have a pretty good charter. But let us do what that party has urged all along. Let us, when the Constitution comes back, write a charter in Canada, and then we will get into the job together and do the parts that are not completed.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Let's do that!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely that was the position for the whole of last year, that we should write the charter in Canada. How can they now say, "Write it in this House of Commons, even if the provinces do not want to do this?" They have been saying the contrary to that for a year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: You changed your position. That's not what you said the other day.


FINANCE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance a question. Could he give us some clear indication of what he and his cabinet consider to be the difference between a progressive tax and a regressive tax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the existence of a progressive tax is obvious to everyone in the House. What I have been attempting to do is to ensure that there be some relationship between the size of a person's income and the tax burden which that person bears. What I found rather difficult to justify was that, because of the tax system, certain tax filers could entirely escape paying tax. I do not regard that to be a progressive tax system.


QUERY RESPECTING SYSTEM
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear that that is what the finance minister feels. Social scientists in Canada judged the Clark government budget to be the most progressive in the decade of the seventies.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: On the national accounts basis, page 73 of his supplementary document, it becomes clear to Canadians that indirect hidden taxes have doubled under his stewardship from $100 per family to over $200 per family per month, amounting to $2,500 a year in hidden taxes. Poor people, middle-income people and rich people pay the same. Is that progress, or is that the king of regression who sits in that chair across the House?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, obviously the social scientists were out of touch with Parliament-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and out of touch with the Canadian people. Maybe that should give all of us something to think about-


Mr. Huntington:: Let's have another election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -when we begin to quote social scientists. I presume that the hon. member is an advocate of a progressive tax system, from listening to his questions. Perhaps he ought to have a conversation with one of his colleagues in that party who, earlier in the question period, condemned me and the government for making some changes to the deductibility of interest expenses. Would he believe, the way the deductibility of interest expenses has been applied in the tax system-


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Still don't understand it, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -has been to permit high income earners in this country to reduce their tax to zero.


Thomas Edward Siddon: That's nonsense. Why do you tax them on money they didn't get?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Therefore, I ask the hon. member whether it is a progressive and fair tax system when very high income individuals can pay no taxes whatsoever, maybe for an indefinite period of time. That is what I have been attempting to remove from the tax system.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications, who knows that a recent Federal Communications Commission decision in the United States liberalized trans-border satellite signal delivery, and that that decision may have far reaching effects for both the Canadian TV viewers and also for Canadian business interests. The 1972 U.S.-Canada agreement, which prohibited the reception of foreign satellite signals, as the minister knows discriminated against people living in certain regions of the country where foreign American signals were not available, either off air or through microwave by cable.
I want to know when the minister intends to announce a new broadcast policy, a global one in terms of its regulation system, which will treat TV content requirements equally, regardless of what carriage options communities in northern and remote areas of Canada choose to employ.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
November 20,1981


Howard Edward Crosby: Whatever happened to Canadianization?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised a number of questions arising from some actions which have been taken fairly recently in matters dealing with the over-all broadcasting strategy which we are reviewing at the moment. It is quite obvious that since we have, indeed, asked a committee of eminent Canadians in the cultural field led, by Mr. Lou Applebaum from Toronto, and Mr. Jacques Hebert, to undertake a comprehensive review of federal cultural policy, that our over-all broadcasting policy review is subject to the publication of that report.
That group will be reporting initially within the next two weeks to give Canadians a report on what they have heard during hearings across the country. They will then be submitting a second report making specific recommendations. Those recommendations should be made public perhaps in March or April next year. We will then be reviewing broadcast policy in the light of the recommendations we will be receiving from that committee.
The hon. member also raised a question about the FCC. I should point out to the hon. member that the FCC decision to allow trans-border traffic, both television and business signals, is subject to the agreement of both governments.


TRANS-BORDER TRANSMISSION OF DATA
Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I do not know what the people of Canada are going to do while we wait for that cultural policy, because it is going to be a long time.
On the business side of it can the minister assure the House that he will not enter into any agreement with the Americans on trans-border data flows until he has a chance to study the footprints of the various systems, both in the U.S. and Canada, which are entirely different? The U.S. satellites hit our major population while Canadian satellite footprints do not hit the large business centres in the United States. Will he study the implications for job loss and all the other aspects of this kind of proposal coming from the satellite business system, which are immense? The American multinational corporations represent U.S. interest and not Canadian interests.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, the answer is yes, of course. That is one of the reasons why we are not rushing to change the 1972 agreement entered into between Canada and the United States. We want to ensure that, if there is any change in that agreement, for instance a change that would bring equalization of viewing opportunities across the country, the legitimate interests of Canada are taken into consideration, and that a good part of the revenues which flow out of the exchange of radio and television communications signals between both countries con-
Point of Order-Mr. Deans
tinues to accrue to Canadians, and continues to ensure a good base for jobs in the Canadian telecommunications industry.


GREY CUP GAME, 1981 CONGRATULATIONS TO PARTICIPATING TEAMS
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege. On Sunday in Montreal the Edmonton Eskimos and the Ottawa Rough Riders meet in the 1981 Grey Cup Game. It has become a great spectacle when Canadians join together in spirit by kicking a football rather than each other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William J. Yurko: Therefore, I am sure that all members of this House join with me today in congratulating members of the Ottawa Rough Riders and the Edmonton Eskimos football teams for their achievement in having won their respective divisions. We wish both teams well as they participate in this annual Grey Cup event, which has become a symbol of our sense of national unity.
I want to say that if I had not said something on this matter my son, who is attending the game, threatened that I would be used as the football!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, as a representative of the national capital area in which the Ottawa Rough Riders have their home, and in the spirit of the words expressed by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), and driving out of my soul all the partisanship I can for the moment, I want to associate myself completely with the remarks of the hon. member and to invite other hon. members to associate themselves with this sentiment in the usual way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I got the message from the House a long time ago that where sports were concerned I have to be extremely tolerant! I know the House wants to express its feelings by applauding both the Edmonton Eskimos and the Ottawa Rough Riders.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

November 20, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Deans


An hon. Member:: The poor Hamilton Tiger Cats.


Ian Deans: It would be a better spectacle if Hamilton were there.
At 11:15 a.m. today a debate was in progress on a motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) on aboriginal rights. Could you request the unanimous consent of the House to have the vote on that matter taken immediately?


Madam Speaker:: Of course, the Speaker can do anything the House asks her when it gives its unanimous consent. Does the House agree that I put this motion before it and then let the House vote on the matter without debate?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is learning the rules, albeit a little slowly.


Mr. Young:: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: I think the rules should be adhered to. The hon. member heard me read most of the text of a telex that was sent to the Premiers. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) will be speaking about the matters which were raised as soon as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has completed his remarks. I would urge the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and all members of his party to stay in the House to listen to those words of wisdom.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member's request?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I would ask guidance from the Chair with regard to a motion moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43 that was passed. This motion was put by a member on the government side which said, literally translated, that the Canadian Parliament recognize the rights of aboriginals in the new Constitution. How will that motion be disposed of?


Madam Speaker:: The motion has been disposed of. As a matter of fact, the House should not reflect on its actions which are final. The motion has been voted on.


James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order concerning the motion I moved, which was
seconded by my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I think it important that the native people of Canada know whether or not this House will take a vote and give unanimity to the motion that was before the House.


An hon. Member:: There was a vote.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Learn your rules.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. These motions have been dealt with by the House. The House may not reflect on these motions once they have been dealt with.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a final point of order. This relates directly to the point I have just raised. May I ask what now becomes of the motion to include aboriginal rights in the Constitution that was unanimously passed?


An hon. Member:: Did you not go to your classes?


Madam Speaker:: The motion has been transferred to Government Orders.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mark Willson Rose: Madam Speaker, I rise to present a petition signed by citizens from the riding of Mission-Port Moody protesting the massive increase in postal rates contemplated for January 1, 1982. My petitioners join thousands of other Canadians who can find no justification for the virtual doubling of postage charges without any guarantee of improved services or the expansion of home delivery. My petitioners pray that the government will listen and act upon their wishes.


THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
RESOLUTION RESPECTING CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 On the Order: Government Notices of Motions.
November 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
November 18, 1981 The Minister of Justice
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	de certains droits et libertes fondamentaux
and freedoms and to make other amend-	et d'y apporter d'autres modifications,
ments to that Constitution;
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:
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
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign:
A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, 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 devantle Parlement
Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure du Royaume-Uni un projet deloiainsicon?u : containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter 25 set forth:
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Constitution Act. 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title
S.O.	21(2)
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada

[Stage Direction]
Loi donnant suite a une demande du Senat et de la Chambre des communes du Canada
Whereas Canada has requested and consented to the enactment of an Act of the 5 Parliament of the United Kingdom to give effect to the provisions hereinafter set forth and the Senate and the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled have submitted an address to Her Majesty 10 requesting that Her Majesty may graciously be pleased to cause a Bill to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom for that purpose.
Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, considerant:	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 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
Be it therefore enacted by the Queen's 15 sur l'avis et du consentement des Lords spiri-Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the tuels et temporels et des Communes reunis advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual en Parlement, et par l'autorite de celui-ci, and Temporal, and Commons, in this present edicte :
Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:	20
1.	The Constitution Act, 1981 set out in 1. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1981, enon- 20 Adoption de ia
Schedule B to this Act is hereby enacted for	cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada
and shall have the force of law in Canada	et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur	/m/
and shall come into force as provided in that conformement a ses dispositions.
Act.	25
2.	No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Cessation du
Kingdom passed after the Constitution Act,	Royaume-Uni apres l'entree en	vigueur de	la 25 ^Xer^ur ie1981 comes into force shall extend to	Loi constitutionnelle de 1981	ne font pas CanadaCanada as part of its law.	partie du droit du Canada.3.	So far as it is not contained in Schedule 30	3. La partie de la version fran£aise de la	versionB, the French version of this Act is set out in	presente loi qui figure a l'annexe A a force	fran?a,seSchedule A to this Act and has the same	de loi au Canada au meme	titre que	la 30authority in Canada as the English version	version anglaise correspondante.
thereof.
4.
Act.
This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi: Loi sur
le Canada.
Titre abrege
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Rights and freedoms in Canada
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic rights of citizens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
Continuation in special
circumstances

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

[Stage Direction]
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms	Garantie des droits et libertes
1.	The Canadian Charter of Rights and 1. La Charte canadienne des droits et [^°'^se'u Freedoms guarantees the rights and free- 5 libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 canadl^ doms set out in it subject only to such sont enonces. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be que par une regie de droit, dans des limites demonstrably justified in a free and demo- qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification cratic society.	puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une
societe libre et democratique.	10
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 Liberies
. a	fondamentales
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
3.	Every citizen of Canada has the right to 3. Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote 20	;
vote in an election of members of the House et est eligible aux elections legislatives fede- descUoycns*1' of Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciates.
to be qualified for membership therein.
4.	(1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre "ax"^||des legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assemblies legislatives asscmbiccs^ 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.
(2)	In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- Prolongations invasion or insurrection, a House of Com-	nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut spec a es
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 20, 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
S.O.	21(2)
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as l'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix the case may be.	de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre
des communes ou de l'assemblee legislative.
5.	There shall be a sitting of Parliament 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueiie and of each legislature at least once every	nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5
twelve months.	5 douze mois.
Mobility Rights
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
6.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de	Liberte de
demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en circulatl0n sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a)	to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b)	to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
(2)	Tout citoyen canadien et toute per- 10 Liberte sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent d etabilS!,emenl 10 au Canada ont le droit:
a)	de se deplacer dans tout le pays et
d'etablir leur residence dans toute province;	15
b)	de gagner leur vie dans toute province.
(3)	The rights specified in subsection (2) 15 are subject to
(a)	any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of 20 present or previous residence; and
(b)	any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.	25
(3) Les droits mentionnes au paragraphe Restriction (2) sont subordonnes :
a)	aux lois et usages d'application gene-rale en vigueur dans une province donnee, 20 s'ils n'etablissent entre les personnes aucune distinction fondee principalement sur la province de residence anterieure ou actuelle;
b)	aux lois prevoyant de justes conditions 25 de residence en vue de l'obtention des services sociaux publics.
(4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not pre- (4) Les paragraphes (2) et (3) n'ont pas Programmes de elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou S°tl0n 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 30 socialement ou economiquement, si le taux the rate of employment in that province is d'emploi dans la province est inferieur a la below the rate of employment in Canada.	moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights
Garanties juridiques
7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 vie, libenfi et and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre	secur"e
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 Fouiiies, les fouiiies, les perquisitions ou les saisies 40 ^"s51110"5 011 abusives.
9.	Everyone has the right not to be arbi trarily detained or imprisoned.
9.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre la 40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires.
Detention ou emprisonne-ment
November 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
Arrest or detention
10.	Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
10.	Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation ou de detention :
Arrestation ou detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.	10
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;	5
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a l'assistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit;
c)	de faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, le cas echeant, sa liberation.	10
IT. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 20 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;	30
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and
(/) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the 45 lesser punishment.
11. Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affaires
/	criminell
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penaies I'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;
b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 15 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;
d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue d'un proces public et equitable;
e)	de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause d'une mise en liberte assortie d'un caution- 25 nement raisonnable;
f)	sauf s'il s'agit d'une infraction relevant de la justice militaire, de beneficier d'un proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prevue pour Tinfraction dont il est accuse 30 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave;
g)	de ne pas etre declare coupable en raison d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 35 tuait pas une infraction d'apres le droit interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n'avait pas de caractere criminel d'apres les principes generaux de droit reconnus par Tensemble des nations;	40
h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement acquitte, d'autre part de ne pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement 45 declare coupable et puni;
0 de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Tin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 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

[Stage Direction]
12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
14.	A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.
13.	Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi- 5T'moi8nase 5 gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise 'ncr,minarU
pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
10	14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent 10 interpreie
suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employee, soit parce qu'ils sont atteints de surdite, ont droit a l'assistance d'un inter-prete.	15
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per-sonne et s'applique egalement a tous, et tous ont droit a la meme protection et au meme benefice de la loi, independamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20 tions fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, Page ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.
Egalite devant la loi, egalite de benefice et protection egale de la loi
(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 sociTie' 0" the amelioration of conditions of disadvan- destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus taged individuals or groups including those 25 ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait that are disadvantaged because of race, na- de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30 age or mental or physical disability.	leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Official Languages of Canada
Langues officielles du Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le fran9ais et Panglais sont les languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un status and equal rights and privileges as to	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 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.
Langues officielles du Canada
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le fransais 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 Brunswiek leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
November 20, 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
S.O.	21(2)
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 Ugallle 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	Travauxdu
frangais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra-	arement
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-10^™*"*^"
gais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de Niveau™ U la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.	Brunswick
18.	(1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes D"u™ee^jres of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement par emenldircs 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 j^"n?se£'su^e the legislature of New Brunswick shall be	rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla- 20 dau Nouveau-''printed and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Brunswickand both language versions are equally 20et publies en frangais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loiet celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	2519.	(1) Either English or	French may be	19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le	Proceduresused by any person in, or in	any pleading in	frangais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires	tdbunauxor process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le	leby Parliament.	25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure Par ementqui en decoulent.	30(2) Either English or French may be used (2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran-by any person in, or in any pleading in or	gais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont	tribunaux duprocess issuing from, any	court of New	sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns-	Nouveau-Brunswick.	wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui BruniWlcken decoulent.	3520.	(1) Any member of the public in 30	20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a Communica^Canada has the right to communicate with,	l'emploi du frangais	ou de	l'anglais pour	adminStrfs"and to receive available services from, any	communiquer avec le	siege ou l'administra-	lfesdinrsl|'(!sutionshead or central office of an institution of the tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou e cra es Parliament or government of Canada in Eng- du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40 lish or French, and has the same right with 35	recevoir les services;	il a le	meme droit arespect to any other office of any such insti-	l'egard de tout autre	bureau	de ces institutution where	tions la ou, selon le cas :(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;	45office in such language; or	40	/,) l'emploi du frangais et de l'anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
instruction

[Stage Direction]
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New Brunswick has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any office of an institution of the legislature or government of New Brunswick in English or French.
5	(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
droit a l'emploi du fran?ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec tout bureau des institutions de la legislature ou du gouverne-ment ou pour en recevoir les services.
Communications entre les administres et les institutions du Nouveau-Brunswick
Maintien en vigueur de certaines dispositions
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 21. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour or derogates from any right, privilege or	effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran$aise
obligation with respect to the English and ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter French languages, or either of them, that atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations exists or is continued by virtue of any other 15 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes 10 provision of the Constitution of Canada.	d'une autre disposition de la Constitution du
Canada.
22.	Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour Droits preserves
or derogates from any legal or customary	effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privileright or privilege acquired or enjoyed either	ges, anterieurs ou posterieurs a l'entree en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la presente charte et decoulant de Charter with respect to any language that is la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres not English or French.	que le fran$ais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights
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,
Droits a Vinstruction dans la langue de la minorite
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :	Langue
\ j i	i	[DOT]	d'instrm
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 20 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re$u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fran$ais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont 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	Continuite
has received or is receiving primary or	a re?u ou re^oit son instruction, au niveau	fang^e'0'de 'asecondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en frangais ou en 35 ^instruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
November 20, 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
(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.

[Stage Direction]
(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,
10 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-
15 gnement de la minorite linguistique finances sur les fonds publics.
Justification par le nombre
10
Enforcement
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola-as guaranteed by this Charter, have been	tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui	droiis'etubenes
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 d'^menisde tion (1), a court concludes that evidence was paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des	6
obtained in a manner that infringed or 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by	conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou	radmfnisYrationthis Charter, the evidence shall be excluded	libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces	deia justiceif it is established that, having regard to all	elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli,the circumstances, the admission of it in the	eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisaproceedings would bring the administration 30 tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi-30 of justice into disrepute.	nistration de la justice.
General
Dispositions generates
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit	Maim^n^des^^
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-	certains droits et libertes ne porte pas	desautochiones
strued so as to abrogate or derogate from any atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux, aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 issus de traites ou autres - des peuples35 that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of autochtones du Canada, notamment:
Canada including	a) aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been	Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of	b) aUx droits ou libertes acquis par regle-
October 7, 1763; and	40 ment de revendications territoriales. 40
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- 45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas
Maintien des autres droits et libertes
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 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

[Stage Direction]
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27. This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
27. Toute interpretation de la presente charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro-5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
Maintien du
patrimoine
culturel
28. Notwithstanding anything in this 28. Independamment des autres disposi- Egaiitede Charter except section 33, the rights and	tions de la presente charte, exception faite de	drofts fwur iesfreedoms referred to in it are guaranteed	Particle 33, les droits et libertes qui y sont	deux sexesequally to male and female persons.	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 Maintien des ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile- certainestcoict ges 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.
Application aux territoires
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
Application of Charter
32. (1) This Charter applies	25
(а)	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
(б)	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.
31.	La presente charte n'elargit pas les Non-eiargissecompetences legislatives de quelque orga- ^mpdtences nisme ou autorite que ce soit.	25 legislatives
Application de la charte
32.	(1) La presente charte s'applique :	Application de
la charte
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-nent le territoire du Yukon et les 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), Par- 35 Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Pen-tree en vigueur du present article.
33.	(1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature	Derogation parprovince may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est	expresse0"Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de 40 may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independamment shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou desincluded in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of	articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte, ou de
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Operation of exception
Five year limitation
Re-enactment
Five year limitation
Citation
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
Commitment respecting public services
this Charter, or section 28 of this Charter in its application to discrimination based on sex referred to in section 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.

[Stage Direction]
l'article 28 de cette charte dans son application a la discrimination fondee sur le sexe et mentionnee a l'article 15.
(2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l'objet 5 d'une declaration conforme au present article et en vigueur a l'effet qu'elle aurait sauf la disposition en cause de la charte.
Effet de la ^ derogation
(3)	A declaration made under subsection (3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1)
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after lOcesse d'avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee 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).
Duree de validite
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 Dur"de declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- va 1 lte graphe (4).
Citation
34.	This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Titre
34. Titre de la presente partie: Charte Titre canadienne des droits et libertes.
PART II	PARTIE II
EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES PfeRfeQUATION ET INEGALITES REGIONALES
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 rlgaiitt 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 l'egalite des chances de25 tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-etre;
b)	favoriser le developpement economique pour reduire l'inegalite des chances;
c)	foumir 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-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.
Engagement relatif aux services publics
12994
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Majority of members

[Stage Direction]
36. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within one year after this Part comes into force.
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 Participation section (1) shall have included in its agenda conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- auttSuones 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 15 ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions, in the discussions on that item.
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite 15 Participation invite elected representatives of the govern-	des representants elus des gouvernements du des terntoires
ments of the Yukon Territory and the North-	territoire du Yukon et des territoires du
west Territories to participate in the discus-20 Nord-Ouest a participer aux travaux relatifs sions on any item on the agenda of the	a toute question placee a l'ordre du jour de la
conference convened under subsection (1)	conference visee au paragraphe (1) et qui, 20
that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister,	selon lui, interesse directement le territoire
directly affects the Yukon Territory and the	du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest.
Northwest Territories.	25
PART IV	PARTIE IV
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING	PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA	CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
37. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by	30
(a)	resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b)	resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces that have, in the aggregate, according to 35 the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
37. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut Procedure etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver- JlSkaUon 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 assembles
legislatives d'au moins deux tiers des pro- 30 vinces dont la population confondue represente, selon le recensement general le plus recent a l'epoque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces.	35
(2) An amendment made under subsection (2) Une modification faite conformement Majorite simple (1) that derogates from the legislative 40 au paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire a la powers, the proprietary rights or any other	competence legislative, aux droits de prorights or privileges of the legislature or gov-	priete ou a tous autres droits ou privileges
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Expression of dissent
Revocation of dissent
Restriction on proclamation
Idem
Compensation
Amendment by
unanimous
consent
eminent 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).
S.O.	21(2)
d'une legislature ou d'un gouvernement provincial exige une resolution adoptee a la majorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux et des deputes de chacune des assemblies 5 legislatives du nombre requis de provinces. 5
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visee au paragraphe Disaccord tion (2) shall not have effect in a province	(2) est sans effet dans une province dont
the legislative assembly of which has	l'assemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution	proclamation, exprime son disaccord par une
supported by a majority of its members prior 10 risolution adoptie a la majoriti des diputis, 10 to the issue of the proclamation to which the	sauf si cette assemblie, par risolution igaleamendment relates unless that legislative	ment adoptie a la majoriti, revient sur son
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup-	disaccord et autorise la modification,
ported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. 15
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
(4) La risolution de disaccord visie au Levee du paragraphe (3) peut etre rivoquie a tout 15desaccor moment, indipendamment de la date de la proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20	38. (1) La proclamation visie au paragra- Restriction
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration	phe 37(1) ne peut etre prise dans l'annie
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-	suivant l'adoption de la risolution a l'origine 20
tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la procidure de modification que si l'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	semblie ligislative de chaque province a
each province has previously adopted a reso- 25 prialablement adopti une risolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de disaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visie au paragraphe 25 Mem under subsection 37(1) after the expiration	37(1) ne peut itre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l'adoption de la risolution a l'origine lution initiating the amendment procedure 30de la procidure de modification, thereunder.
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation subsection 37(1) that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformiment au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d'iducation ou dans d'autres domaines cultu-reasonable compensation to any province to rels, a un transfert de compitences 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 consentemem Canada in relation to the following matters 40 du Canada portant sur les questions suivan- undmmc may be made by proclamation issued by the tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-Canada only where authorized by resolutions	risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la 40
of the Senate and House of Commons and of	Chambre des communes et de l'assemblee
the legislative assembly of each province:	45 legislative de chaque province :
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor	a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a	general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
province;
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces

[Stage Direction]
(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):
(u) the principle of proportionate 15 representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the
method of selecting Senators;	20
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	subject to paragraph 40(d), the 25 Supreme Court of Canada;
(e)	the extension of existing provinces into the territories; and
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces. 30
(2) Subsections 37(2) to (4) do not apply in respect of amendments in relation to matters referred to in subsection (1).
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 frangais ou de l'anglais;
d)	la composition de la Cour supreme du
Canada;	10
e)	la modification de la presente partie.
41.	(1) Toute modification de la Constitu- Procedure tion du Canada portant sur les questions 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 de20 selection des senateurs;
c)	le nombre des senateurs par lesquels
une province est habilitee a etre representee et les conditions de residence qu'ils doivent remplir;	25
d)	sous reserve de 1'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 35 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 40 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 resolu- 45 tions of the Senate and House of Commons
42.	Les dispositions de la Constitution du 35 Modification Canada applicables a certaines provinces ieftainet0 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 communes et de l'assemblee legislative de chaque province concernee. Le present article s'applique notamment:
a)	aux changements du trace des frontieres interprovinciales;	45
b)	aux modifications des dispositions relatives a l'usage du frangais ou de l'anglais dans une province.
November 20, 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
S.O.	21(2)
and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
43.	Subject to sections 40 and 41, Parlia- 43. Sous reserve des articles 40 et 41, le Modification ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour paarriement the Constitution of Canada in relation to the 5 modifier les dispositions de la Constitution executive government of Canada or the du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif fede- 5 Senate and House of Commons.	ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des
communes.
44.	Subject to section 40, the legislature 44. Sous reserve de l'article 40, une legis-	Modificationof each province may exclusively make laws	lature a competence exclusive pour modifier	f^isUturesamending the constitution of the province. 10 la constitution de sa province.	1045.	(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 Possibiiite dc dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre rev0Call0n 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 d Particle 37, 40, Modification
of Canada made by proclamation under sec- 41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut 20"unsena°lut °n 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 l'adoption 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 l'expiration 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 dudelai
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.	40 fication par proclamation.
48. A constitutional conference composed 48. Dans les quinze ans suivant l'entree en	Conference
of the Prime Minister of Canada and the	vigueur de la presente partie, le premier	cn""|Se'u lon
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. rdexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Amendment to Constitution Act. 1867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
Authority of Parliament
S.O.	21(2)

[Stage Direction]
49. The Constitution Act. 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act. 1867) is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 92 thereof, the following heading and section:
49. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modincation de (anterieurement designee sous le titre : Acte consluution-de VAmerique du Nord britannique, 1867) 5 mil* de 1867 est modifiee par insertion, apres l'article 92,
5 de la rubrique et de Farticle suivants :
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;	10
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production there-15 from; and
(c)	development, conservation and management of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.	20
(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry 25 resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies 30 exported to another part of Canada.
(3) Nothing in subsection (2) derogates from the authority of Parliament to enact laws in relation to the matters referred to in that subsection and, where such a law of 35 Parliament and a law of a province conflict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
Competence provinciate
a)	prospection des ressources naturelles non renouvelables de la province;
b)	exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la 15 province, y compris leur rythme de production primaire;
c)	amenagement, conservation et gestion des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la produc- 20 tion d'energie electrique.
(3)	Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas 35Pouvoirdu attemte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife-rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragraphe, les dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines l'emportant sur les dispositions incompatibles d'une loi 40 provinciale.
^Ressources naturelles non renouvelables, ressources forestieres et energie electrique
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque province a competence exclusive pour legife-rer dans les domaines suivants ;
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiferer en ce qui con- provinces cerne l'exportation, hors de la province, a destination d'une autre partie du Canada, 25 de la production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production d'energie electrique de la province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de 30 lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights

[Stage Direction]
(4) La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes ressources 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
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into 25 force of this section."
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent Pouvoirsou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus dr0lts existants par la legislature ou le gouvernement d'une province lors de Pentree en vigueur du present article.*	30
Idem
50. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto the following Schedule:
50. Ladite loi est en outre modifiee par idem adjonction de l'annexe suivante :

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources 1
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 Papplication 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 20, 1981
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
Consequential
amendments
S.O.	21(2)
(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 I; and
(c)	any amendment to any Act or order
referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).	25
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
DISPOSITIONS GfeNERALES
51. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la 15 Primaut'de la 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 ^ob™|aa^°tnj|er'es
Column I of Schedule 1 are hereby repealed enumeres a la colonne 1 de l'annexe 1 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'an-nexe I par le titre indique a la colonne I est 40modifie par substitution a ce titre du titre40 correspondant mentionne a la colonne III; tout Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britanni-que non mentionne a l'annexe I peut etre cite sous le titre de Loi conslitutionneUe suivi de
Modifications
correlatives
November 20, 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)(a)in respect of Quebec
Authorization of Quebec
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
S.O.	21(2)
1'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 Pentree en vigueur de la presente partie et le 5gouverneur 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 version
Constitution of Canada referred to in	est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs	^rtainTtettesSchedule I shall be prepared by the Minister	delais, la version fran?aise des parties de la	constitutionnelsof 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 Pepoque 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 fran$aise et anglaise des of Canada has been or is enacted in English	parties de la Constitution du	Canada adopand French or where a French version of any	tees dans ces deux langues	ont egalementportion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- 25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de ant to section 54, the English and French loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de Particle 25 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 fran^aise et anglaise de certains textes constitutionnels
56. The English and French versions of 56. Les versions fran?aise et anglaise de la versions this Act are equally authoritative.	30presente loi ont egalement force de loi. 30a^giSTdeia
presente loi
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall 57. Sous reserve de Particle 58, la presente Entree en come into force on a day to be fixed by	loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par pro-	Vlgueur
proclamation issued by the Queen or the	clamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur
Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Canada.	35
58. (1) Paragraph 23(1 )(a) shall come 58. (1) L'alinea 23(1 )a) entre en vigueur into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be	pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclamafixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or	tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general
the Governor General under the Great Seal sous le grand sceau du Canada, of Canada.	40
35 Entree en vigueur de I'alinea 23(1 )a) pour le Quebec
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1)	(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe Autorisation du
shall be issued only where authorized by the	(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation 40Quebec
legislative assembly or government of	de l'assemblee legislative ou du gouverne-
Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Repeal of this section
Short title and citations

[Stage Direction]
(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) Presem jrtlc e 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 belOdes lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975 cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867	(n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constituto 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the

[Stage Direction]
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
1. British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)
2. An Act to amend and continue the Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Can.)
(1)	Section 1 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1867."
(2)	Section 20 is repealed.
(3)	Class 1 of section 91 is repealed.
(4)	Class 1 of section 92 is repealed.
(1)	The long title is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Manitoba Act, 1870."
(2)	Section 20 is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1867
Manitoba Act, 1870
3.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June,
4.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May,
5.	British North America Act, 1871,	Section 1 is repealed and the
34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1871."
6.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873
7.	Parliament of Canada Act, 1875,
38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.)
8.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July,
Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Constitution Act, 1871
Prince Edward Island Terms of Union
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
S.O.	21(2)


[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 l'acte trente-deux et trente-trois Victoria, chapitre trois, et pour etablir et constituer le gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Canada)	(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba et remplace par ce qui suit: uLoi 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 1'adhesion de la Colombie-Britannique5. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	L'article 1 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1871 place par ce qui suit: «1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.*6. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant l'lle-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 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Item
Column I Act Affected
Column II Amendment
Column III New Name
9. British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.)
10.	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)
11.	Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)
12.	The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3 (Can.)
13.	The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)
14.	British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
19. British North America Act, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
The Act is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
Section 3 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
In so far as they apply to Canada,
(a)	section 4 is repealed; and
(b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
The Act is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1886
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
Alberta Act
Saskatchewan Act
Constitution Act, 1907
Constitution Act, 1915
Constitution Act, 1930
Statute of Westminster, 1931
Constitution Act, 1940
November 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
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 1886.0
10. Acte du Canada (limites d'Ontario) 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (frontiers de l'Ontario)
11. Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien (nomination d'un suppleant) 1895, 2e session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
12. Acte de l'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 3 (Canada)	Loi sur l'Alberta
13. Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)	Loi sur la Saskatchewan
14. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1907 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1907.o
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 19I5.o
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.O
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.O
19. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (R.-U.) 80106-4	La loi est abrogee.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
20. British North America Act, 1946,	The Act is repealed.
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
21. British North America Act, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Newfoundland Act following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Newfoundland Act."
22. British North America (No. 2) Act,	The Act is repealed.
1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
23. British North America Act, 1951,	The Act is repealed.
14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
24. British North America Act, 1952, 1	The Act is repealed.
Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)
25. British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1960 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, I960."
26. British North America Act, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1964 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1964."
21. 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 20, 1981	COMMONS DEBATES	13009
	ANNEXE I (suite) LOI CONSTITUTIONNELLE DE 1981		S.O. 21(2)
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 l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.	23.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.	24.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)	La loi est abrogee.	25.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I960.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 196026.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi consti-tutionnelle de 1964.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 196427.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I	L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:	Loi constitutionnelle de 1965(Canada)	«2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle de 1965.*	28.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par le para-graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitution-nelle de 1974.*	Loi constitutionnelle de 1974
November 20, 1981

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 -Concluded
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
29.	British North America Act, 1975,	Section 3, as amended by
23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Part I (Can.)	25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 31 (Can.)
is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. I), 1975."
Constitution Act (No. 1), 1975
30. British North America Act (No. 2), 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Can.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act (No. 2), 1975 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act (No. 2),
1975."
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
S.O.	21(2)
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.*
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Madam Speaker:: The notice of motion is transferred to government orders and ordered for consideration later today or at the next sitting of the House, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 21(2).



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['Agreed.']
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,540, 3,034 and 3,145.



Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister make a statement on May 26, 1981 that the security committee of the cabinet had met very few times, if any, since his government was returned to office and did he further state that he could not really recall that the committee had ever met and. if so (a) what is the purpose of having such a committee, (b) if no meetings were held, is it intended to leave the committee in existence or to abolish it, (c) will it be the policy in the future to have the committee meet on a regular basis in addition to any other special meetings that may be required?
2.	What are the names of all cabinet ministers who sit on the committee and what are the names and job designations of any others who perform services for the committee?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: 1. The
relevant remarks of the Prime Minister are set out in the minutes of proceedings and evidence of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates for the meeting of May 26, 1981. (a) The cabinet committee on security and intelligence meets at irregular intervals as required to deal with questions relating to security and intelligence, (b) Not applicable, (c) Arrangements concerning cabinet committees are kept under continuing review.
2.	As of the date of the question, the members of the cabinet committee on security and intelligence were as set out in the cabinet committee membership list tabled by the Prime Minister on July 10, 1980 and printed as an appendix to House of Commons Debates for that day. As of the date of the question, the names of the persons who performed services for the committee were as set out in the reply to question No. 2,609 answered July 7, 1981.


BETHUNE FOUNDATION
Mr. Gamble: 1.	What is the Bethune Foundation?
2.	Did the Canadian International Development Agency (ClDA) give the Bethune Foundation a grant of $7,923 in the Fiscal year 1979-80 and, if so, for what purpose?
3.	Does the Bethune Foundation in any way relate to Dr. Norman Bethune?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. According to information supplied by the foundation, the Bethune Foundation/La Fondation Bethune is a registered non-profit charitable organization. It was founded in 1971 and its objectives are: (a) to perpetuate the memory of Dr. Norman Bethune and his service to humanity, self-sacrifice, and spirit of co-operative internationalism, and to expand the knowledge of his contributions to society; (b) to encourage exchanges of professors and students between Canadian and other universities and educational institutions who will give leadership in the area of health and welfare and development, particularly in outlying areas, among native peoples, mining communities, etc.; (c) to establish trust funds and a foundation in the pursuit of the above objectives.
2.	CIDA made a contribution of $7,923 to the Bethune Foundation in fiscal year 1979-80 for the conference: "Bethune, His Times and Legacy". The conference was held at McGill University in Montreal. Specifically, the CIDA contribution was for the purpose of providing travel and per diem financing to bring two speakers from China who had intimate knowledge of Dr. Bethune's work in that country.
3.	See answer to 1 above.


CANADA FOOD GUIDE
Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	With reference to the pamphlet "Eat Better, Feel Great" (a) how many copies were ordered to be printed and in which languages (b) what was the cost (c) at what location was it printed and by what Firm or Firms (d) what methods were used to distribute the pamphlet and what was the cost of each method?
2.	(a) What is the "Canada Food Guide" (b) was the ''Canada Food Guide" distributed at the same time as the pamphlet and, if not, for what reason was reference made to it in the pamphlet without indicating how a copy could be obtained?
3.	Was the pamphlet directed to (a) the young (b) the elderly (c) the obese (d) pensioners (e) those who eat too much fat or use too much salt and, if not, to whom?
4.	What was the purpose behind (a) the pamphlet "Eat Better, Feel Great" (b) the brochure "Canada Food Guide"?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. (a) Approximately 8.5 million English copies and two million French copies of the pamphlet were printed, (b) Total production costs were
November 20, 1981

$218,353. (c) Printing was done in Montreal by Gazette Printing Company through Cockfield Brown Inc. (d) Eight million copies of the pamphlet are being distributed as a print insert in eight national magazines (French and English); in October, Today/Perspectives; Reader's Digest/Selection du Reader's Digest; and in November, Chatelaine/Chatelaine and TV Guide/Hebdo. Cost of distribution is estimated at $163,000. Distribution of additional copies will be done through programs within the department and in conjunction with other federal, provincial and local agencies.
2.	(a) "Canada's Food Guide" is a one-page nutrition education tool developed through collaborative federal-provincial efforts. Since 1977, over eight million copies of the Guide have been distributed largely in co-operation with provincial departments of health. In addition, information on Canada's Food Guide is expanded as needed, in teaching and information materials such as booklets, pamphlets and posters prepared by many agencies.
(b) Canada's Food Guide was not distributed at the same time as the pamphlet, since the pamphlet was designed to promote only the variety aspect of the Guide. The circle representing the four groups was included to remind the target group, young adults, of Canada's Food Guide which has been available to them for many years. In addition, distribution costs would have increased and it would have duplicated existing information.
3.	The pamphlet "Eat Better, Feel Great" is directed to young adults, 18 to 34 years of age, to encourage them to look at their own eating habits and consider changes. This can aid in preventing some of the overweight and poor nutrition habits in later years. Many programs across the country deal with the younger child but few exist which are related to the young adult target group. This group serves to bring about change in the food habits of children. The pamphlet will, of course, be read by others including the older age group and will help those who eat too much salt or fat. There are nutrition programs within the department which address problems such as overweight.
4.	(a) The "Eat Better, Feel Great" pamphlet is part of a national awareness program to promote health. It is designed to stimulate Canadians to examine their personal eating habits and to make positive changes. It is based on nutrition research in both scientific and applied health fields and was developed to implement the nutrition recommendations for Canadians.
(b) "Canada's Food Guide" was designed as an educational tool for working with the public or in student training. It is used by health workers, teachers, counsellors, the food industry and the media in presenting a sound and consistent mes-
Order Paper Questions
sage. It has been evaluated and is revised as required to best reflect recent scientific research and general eating patterns of Canadians. It is an example of successful collaborative efforts between federal and provincial governments.


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


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 2,732 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


GIFTS TO REPRESENTATIVES OF FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS
Mr. Beatty: 1.	Since March 1, 1980, what gifts of more than a $50 cost to the taxpayer were given by the government and its officials to representatives of foreign governments for their personal use or for the use of their families?
2.	In each case (a) what was the cost of the gift to the taxpayer (b) to whom was it given (c) on what date was it given and by whom (d) for what reason was it given?
3.	What is the policy of the government respecting gifts paid for by the government and given to representatives of foreign governments and how are Canadian officials informed of the policy?
Return tabled.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development) moved:: November 20, 1981
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
A respectful address be presented to Her Majesty the Queen in the following words:
CONSIDERANT :
que le Parlement du Royaume-Uni a modifie a plusieurs reprises la Constitution du Canada a la demande et avec le consen-tement de celui-ci;	5
que, de par le statut d'Etat independant du Canada, il est legitime que les Canadiens aient tout pouvoir pour modifier leur Constitution au Canada;
qu'il est souhaitable d'inscrire dans la 10 Constitution du Canada la reconnaissance de certains droits et libertes fondamentaux et d'y apporter d'autres modifications,
15 il est propose que soit presentee respectueu-sement a Sa Majeste la Reine 1'adresse dont 15 la teneur suit:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty: Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Majesty, requesting that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the Parliament of the United Kingdom a measure containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter25 set forth:
A Sa Tres Excellente Majeste la Reine, Tres Gracieuse Souveraine:
Nous, membres de la Chambre des communes du Canada reunis en Parlement, fideles20 sujets de Votre Majeste, demandons respec-tueusement a Votre Tres Gracieuse Majeste de bien vouloir faire deposer devant le Parlement du Royaume-Uni un projet de loiainsicongu :
November 20, 1981

November 20, 1981
Rights and freedoms in Canada
Fundamental
freedoms
Democratic rights of citizens
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
Continuation in special
circumstances
The Constitution


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

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

[Stage Direction]
Attendu que le Canada est fonde sur des principes qui reconnaissent la suprematie de Dieu et la primaute du droit:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Garantie des droits et libertes
1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
1. La Charte canadienne des droits et Droits et 5 libertes garantit les droits et libertes qui y 5 Canada31* sont enonces. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regie de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.	10
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen- 10	2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales
tal freedoms:	suivantes :
Libertes
fondamentales
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 15
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
a)	liberte de conscience et de religion;
b)	liberte de pensee, de croyance, d'opi-nion et d'expression, y compris la liberte 15 de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c)	liberte de reunion pacifique;
d)	liberte dissociation.
Democratic Rights
Droits democratiques
3.	Every citizen of Canada has the right to	3. Tout citoyen canadien	a le droit de vote	20 Droitsvote in an election of members of the House	et est eligible aux elections	legislatives fede-	derdu>ycnsUes
of Commons or of a legislative assembly and 20 rales ou provinciales.
to be qualified for membership therein.
4.	(1) No House of Commons and no 4. (1) Le mandat maximal de la Chambre Mandat legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assembles legislatives
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.
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- Prolongations invasion or insurrection, a House of Com-	nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut sp&,aies
mons may be continued by Parliament and a	etre prolonge respectivement par le Parle- 30
legislative assembly may be continued by the 30 ment ou par la legislature en question au-legislature beyond five years if such con-	dela de cinq ans en cas de guerre, d'invasion
tinuation is not opposed by the votes of more	ou d'insurrection, reelles ou apprehendees,
than one-third of the members of the House	pourvu que cette prolongation ne fasse pas
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be.
The Constitution
l'objet d'une opposition exprimee par les voix de plus du tiers des deputes de la Chambre des communes ou de l'assemblee legislative.
5.	There shall be a sitting of Parliament 5. Le Parlement et les legislatures tien- Seance annueiie and of each legislature at least once every	nent une seance au moins une fois tous les 5
twelve months.	5 douze mois.
Mobility Rights
Liberte de circulation et d'etablissement
6.	(1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
6. (1) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en sortir.
Liberte de circulation
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every (2) Tout citoyen canadien et toute per-10^t3bfissement person who has the status of a permanent sonne ayant le statut de resident permanent	ss
resident of Canada has the right	lOau 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	dc
elude any law, program or activity that has pour objet d'interdire les lois, programmes ou social" 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 30 socialement ou economiquement, si le taux the rate of employment in that province is d'emploi dans la province est inferieur a la below the rate of employment in Canada.	moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights	Garanties juridiques
7,	Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 viejiteneet
and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre	seciinle
to be deprived thereof except in accordance 35 porte atteinte a ce droit qu'en conformite with the principles of fundamental justice.	avec les principes de justice fondamentale.
8. Everyone has the right to be secure 8. Chacun a droit a la protection contre	^uill";
against unreasonable search or seizure.	les fouilles, les perquisitions ou les saisies 4U sajsjes
abusives.
9,	Everyone has the right not to be arbi- 9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la trarily detained or imprisoned.	40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires [DOT]	ment
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Arrest or detention
The Constitution
10.	Everyone has the right on arrest or 10. Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation detention	ou de detention :
Arrestation ou detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.	10
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;	5
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a l'assistance d'un avocat et d'etre informe de ce droit;
c)	de faire controler, par habeas corpus,
la legalite de sa detention et d'obtenir, le cas echeant, sa liberation.	10
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
II.	Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 20 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;	30
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(hi) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and (/) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the 45 lesser punishment.
11.	Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affaires
a)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penales l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;
b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;
c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 15 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;
d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue d'un proces public et equitable;
e)	de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause d'une mise en liberte assortie d'un caution- 25 nement raisonnable;
f)	sauf s'il s'agit d'une infraction relevant de la justice militaire, de beneficier d'un proces avec jury lorsque la peine maximale prevue pour Tinfraction dont il est accuse 30 est un emprisonnement de cinq ans ou une peine plus grave;
g)	de ne pas etre declare coupable en raison d'une action ou d'une omission qui, au moment ou elle est survenue, ne consti- 35 tuait pas une infraction d'apres le droit interne du Canada ou le droit international
et n'avait pas de caractere criminel d'apres les principes generaux de droit reconnus par Tensemble des nations;	40
h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement acquitte, d'autre part de ne pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement 45 declare coupable et puni;
0 de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne Fin-fraction dont il est declare coupable est
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Treatment or punishment
Self-crimination
Interpreter
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
Affirmative
action
programs
Official languages of Canada
Official languages of New Brunswick
12.	Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
13.	A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
14.	A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
The Constitution
modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.
12.	Chacun a droit a la protection contre Cruaute tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.
13. Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi- 5T*moignage
5.	. .	.	... ,		 >
incriminant
gnage incriminant qu ll donne ne soit utilise pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.
10	14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent 10 interprttc
suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue employee, soit parce qu'ils sont atteints de surdite, ont droit a l'assistance d'un inter-prete.	15
Equality Rights
Droits a Vegalite
15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
15	15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de per-	Egaiite deyant, ,	..	, ,	"	la loi, egaiite de
sonne et s applique egalement a tous, et tous benefice et ont droit a la meme protection et au meme protection egaie benefice de la loi, independamment de toute de la 101 discrimination, notamment des discrimina- 20 20tions fondees sur la race, l'origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l'age ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.
(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any (2) Le paragraphe (1) n'a pas pour effet 25 Programmes de law, program or activity that has as its object	d'interdire les lois, programmes ou activites sociaie' °n
the amelioration of conditions of disadvan-	destines a ameliorer la situation d'individus
taged individuals or groups including those 25 ou de groupes defavorises, notamment du fait that are disadvantaged because of race, na- de leur race, de leur origine nationale ou tional or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex,	ethnique, de leur couleur, de leur religion, de 30
age or mental or physical disability.	leur sexe, de leur age ou de leurs deficiences
mentales ou physiques.
Official Languages of Canada	Langues officielles du Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le fran?ais et I'anglais sont les languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un	Canada6
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 fran9ais et l'anglais sont les langues Langue^ ^ languages of New Brunswick and have 35 officielles du Nouveau-Brunswick; ils ont un Nouveau- U equality of status and equal rights and privi- statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick leges as to their use in all institutions of the a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
The Constitution
legislature and government of New Bruns- lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-wick.	Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.
(3) La presente charte ne limite pas le Progression vers pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de cgJ "e 5 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de 5 statut ou d'usage du fran9ais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use English or French in any debates and other proceedings of Parliament.
17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le	Travauxdu
fran^ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra-	aremcn
vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10T^vauxdeia
or French in any debates and other proceed-	§ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de Nouwau™dU
ings of the legislature of New Brunswick.	la Legislature du Nouveau-Brunswick.	Brunswick
18. (1) The statutes, records and journals 18. (1) Les lois, les archives, les comptes of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en fran?ais et en 15 versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.
Documents
parlementaires
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes Documents dc the legislature of New Brunswick shall be	rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla-20jfu
printed and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Brunswick
and both language versions are equally 20 et publies en fran9ais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et cedes des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	25
19. (1) Either English or French may be 19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le used by any person in, or in any pleading in	fran9ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires
or process issuing from, any court established dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le by Parliament.	25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure
qui en decoulent.
Procedures devant les tribunaux etablis par le Parlement
(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-9ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Brunswick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui en decoulent.
Procedures devant les tribunaux du Nouveau-Brunswick
20. (1) Any member of the public in Canada has the right to communicate with, and to receive available services from, any head or central office of an institution of the Parliament or government of Canada in English or French, and has the same right with respect to any other office of any such institution where
20. (1) Le public a, au Canada, droit a l'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou l'administra-tion centrale des institutions du Parlement ou du gouvernement du Canada ou pour en 40 recevoir les services; il a le meme droit a l'egard de tout autre bureau de ces institutions la ou, selon le cas :
Communications entre les administres et les institutions federates
(a) there is a significant demand for com-	a) 1'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais fait
munications with and services from that l'objet d'une demande importante;	45
office in such language; or	40 b) l'emploi du fran9ais et de l'anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Communications by public with New Brunswick institutions
Continuation of existing constitutional provisions
Rights and
privileges
preserved
Language of instruction
Continuity of
language
instruction
The Constitution
(b) due to the nature of the office, it is reasonable that communications with and services from that office be available in both English and French.
(2) Any member of the public in New 5	(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick,
Brunswick has the right to communicate droit a l'emploi du fran9ais ou de l'anglais with, and to receive available services from,	pour communiquer avec tout bureau des insany office of an institution of the legislature	titutions de la legislature ou du gouverneor government of New Brunswick in English ment ou pour en recevoir les services, or French.	10
Communications entre les administres et les institutions du Nouveau-Brunswick
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 21. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour or derogates from any right, privilege or	effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran?aise
obligation with respect to the English and ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter French languages, or either of them, that atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations exists or is continued by virtue of any other 15 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes 10 provision of the Constitution of Canada.	d'une autre disposition de la Constitution du
Canada.
Maintien en vigueur de certaines dispositions
22. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates 22. Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour Droits preserves or derogates from any legal or customary	effet de porter atteinte aux droits et privileright or privilege acquired or enjoyed either	ges, anterieurs ou posterieurs a l'entree en 15
before or after the coming into force of this 20 vigueur de la presente charte et decoulant de Charter with respect to any language that is	la loi ou de la coutume, des langues autres
not English or French.	que le fran?ais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights	Droits a Vinstruction dans la langue de la
minorite
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 25 linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the 30 language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of the province,
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :	Langue
destruction
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et20 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re?u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fran?ais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont 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	Continuite
has received or is receiving primary or	a re9u ou re90it son instruction, au niveau	|anguesecondary school instruction in English or 40 primaire ou secondaire, en fran9ais ou en 35 destruction French in Canada, have the right to have all	anglais au Canada ont le droit de faire instheir children receive primary and secondary	truire tous leurs enfants, aux niveaux prischool instruction in the same language.	maire et secondaire, dans la langue de cette
instruction.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Application where numbers warrant
Enforcement of guaranteed rights and freedoms
Exclusion of
evidence
bringing
administration
of justice into
disrepute
Aboriginal rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
Other rights and freedoms not affected by Charter
The Constitution
(3) The right of citizens of Canada under subsections (1) and (2) to have their children receive primary and secondary school instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province
(a)	applies wherever in the province the number of children of citizens who have such a right is sufficient to warrant the provision to them out of public funds of 10 minority language instruction; and
(b)	includes, where the number of those children so warrants, the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities provided 15 out of public funds.
(3) Le droit reconnu aux citoyens cana-diens par les paragraphes (1) et (2) de faire instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire et secondaire, dans la langue de la minorite 5 francophone ou anglophone d'une province :
a)	s'exerce partout dans la province ou le nombre des enfants des citoyens qui ont ce droit est suffisant pour justifier a leur endroit la prestation, sur les fonds publics, de l'instruction dans la langue de la 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
Recours
24. (1) Anyone whose rights or freedoms, 24. (1) Toute personne, victime de viola-as guaranteed by this Charter, have been	tion ou de negation des droits ou libertes qui
infringed or denied may apply to a court of	lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 20s'adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20 as the court considers appropriate and just in nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-the circumstances.	venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
Recours cn cas d'atteinte aux droits et libertes
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was obtained in a manner that infringed or denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded if it is established that, having regard to all the circumstances, the admission of it in the proceedings would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Irrecevabilite d'elements de
(2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des preuvequi 25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 risqueraicnt de conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou fadmfnfsTratioi libertes garantis par la presente charte, ces	deia justice
elements de preuve sont ecartes s'il est etabli, eu egard aux circonstances, que leur utilisa-30 tion est susceptible de deconsiderer l'admi-30 nistration de la justice.
General
25.	The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms 35 that pertain to the aboriginal peoples of Canada including
(a)	any rights or freedoms that have been
recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763; and	40
(b)	any rights or freedoms that may be acquired by the aboriginal peoples of Canada by way of land claims settlement.
26.	The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 26. Le fait que la presente charte garantit tain rights and freedoms shall not be con- 45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas
Dispositions generates
25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit certains droits et libertes ne porte pas atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux, issus de traites ou autres - des peuples 35 autochtones du Canada, notamment:
a)	aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la
Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
b)	aux droits ou libertes acquis par reglement de revendications territoriales.	40
Maintien des droits et libertes des autochtones
Maintien des autres droits et libertes
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Multicultural
heritage
Rights guaranteed equally to both sexes
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
Application to territories and territorial authorities
Legislative powers not extended
Application of Charter
Exception
Exception where express declaration
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
27.	This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.
28.	Notwithstanding anything in this Charter except section 33, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
29. Nothing in this Charter abrogates or derogates from any rights or privileges guaranteed by or under the Constitution of Canada in respect of denominational, separate or dissentient schools.
The Constitution
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27.	Toute interpretation de la presente Mainliendu charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro- SituTeT"6
5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28.	Independamment des autres disposi- ^gaiitede^ tions de la presente charte, exception faite de droftspouHes Particle 33, les droits et libertes qui y sont deux sexes
lOmentionnes sont garantis egalement aux per- 10 sonnes des deux sexes.
29.	Les dispositions de la presente charte Maintien des
.. . .	.	..	. ... droits relatifs a
ne portent pas attemte aux droits ou privue- certaines ecoies ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du Canada concernant les ecoies separees et 15 15 autres ecoies 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.
Application aux territoires
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
31. La presente charte n'elargit pas les [JJ""t"des8'sse competences legislatives de quelque orga- ™ompeiences nisme ou autorite que ce soit.	25 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
la charte
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-nent le territoire du Yukon et les 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), Ear- 35 Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres I'en-tree en vigueur du present article.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature	^criarat!o"par
province may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est	expresse
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case 40 expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de 40 may be, that the Act or a provision thereof ses dispositions a effet independamment shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of	articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte, ou de
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
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.
1'article 28 de cette charte dans son application a la discrimination fondee sur le sexe et mentionnee a l'article 15.
(2)	An Act or a provision of an Act in (2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l'objet
respect of which a declaration made under 5 d'une declaration conforme au present article this section is in effect shall have such opera-	et en vigueur a l'effet 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)
(1) shall cease to have effect five years after lOcesse d'avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee
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).
Effet de la ^ derogation
Duree de validite
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 Dur",de declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- Vd' lte graphe (4).
Citation
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Titre
34. Titre de la presente partie: canadienne des droits et libertes.
Charte Titre


[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 rlgalit/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 l'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
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
Majority of members

[Stage Direction]
The Constitution PARTIE III


[Stage Direction]
36. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within one year after this Part comes into force.
36. (1) Dans Fannee suivant Fentree en Conference
i i	*	.	.-i	[DOT]	constitution
vigueur de la presente partie, le premier ne|,e ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 5 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.	5
(2) The conference convened under sub- (2) Sont placees a l'ordre du jour de la section (1) shall have included in its agenda conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques-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 15 ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions, in the discussions on that item.
Participation des peuples autochtones
(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall (3) Le premier ministre du Canada invite 15 Participation invite elected representatives of the govern-	des representants elus des gouvernements du es temtoires
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 Fordre 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 Fepoque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces.	35
(2) An amendment made under subsection (2) Une modification faite conformement Majorite simple (1) that derogates from the legislative 40 au paragraphe (1) mais derogatoire a la powers, the proprietary rights or any other	competence legislative, aux droits de prorights or privileges of the legislature or gov-	priete ou a tous autres droits ou privileges
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Expression of dissent
Revocation of dissent
Restriction on proclamation
Idem
Compensation
Amendment by
unanimous
consent
The Constitution
ernment of a province shall require a resolution supported by a majority of the members of each of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies required under subsection (1).
d'une legislature ou d'un gouvernement provincial exige une resolution adoptee a la majorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux et des deputes de chacune des assemblies 5 legislatives du nombre requis de provinces. 5
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visee au paragraphe Disaccord tion (2) shall not have effect in a province	(2) est sans effet dans une province dont
the legislative assembly of which has	l'assemblee legislative a, avant la prise de la
expressed its dissent thereto by resolution	proclamation, exprime son disaccord par une
supported by a majority of its members prior lOrisolution adoptie a la majoriti des diputis, 10 to the issue of the proclamation to which the	sauf si cette assemblie, par risolution igaleamendment relates unless that legislative	ment adoptie a la majoriti, revient sur son
assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup-	disaccord et autorise la modification,
ported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment. 15
(4) A resolution of dissent made for the purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at any time before or after the issue of the proclamation to which it relates.
(4) La risolution de disaccord visie au Levee du paragraphe (3) peut etre rivoquie a tout 15 desau:or moment, indipendamment de la date de la proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte.
38. (1) A proclamation shall not be issued 20	38. (1) La proclamation visie au paragra- Restriction
under subsection 37(1) before the expiration	phe 37(1) ne peut itre prise dans l'annie
of one year from the adoption of the resolu-	suivant l'adoption de la risolution a l'origine 20
tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la procidure de modification que si l'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	sehiblie ligislative de chaque province a
each province has previously adopted a reso- 25 prialablement adopti une risolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de disaccord.
(2) A proclamation shall not be issued (2) La proclamation visie au paragraphe 25ldem under subsection 37(1) after the expiration	37(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant l'adoption de la risolution a l'origine lution initiating the amendment procedure 30de la procidure de modification, thereunder.
39. Where an amendment is made under 39. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation subsection 37(1) that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique 30
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformiment au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-35 paragraphe 37(1) et relative, en matiere latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide d'iducation ou dans d'autres domaines cultu-reasonable compensation to any province to rels, a un transfert de compitences 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- unamme may be made by proclamation issued by the tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur Governor General under the Great Seal of general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-Canada only where authorized by resolutions	risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la 40
of the Senate and House of Commons and of	Chambre des communes et de l'assemblee
the legislative assembly of each province:	45 legislative de chaque province :
(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor	a) la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur
General and the Lieutenant Governor of a	general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
province;
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
(b)	the right of a province to a number of
members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;	5
(c)	subject to section 42, the use of the English or the French language;
(d)	the composition of the Supreme Court of Canada; and
(e)	an amendment to this Part.	10
41. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 37(1):
(a)	the principle of proportionate 15 representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the
method of selecting Senators;	20
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	subject to paragraph 40(rf), 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
The Constitution
b)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de deputes au moins egal a celui des senateurs par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre representee lors de 1'entree en vigueur de la 5 presente partie;
c)	sous reserve de Particle 42, l'usage du fran?ais ou de 1'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 miration 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 40</), 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) Subsections 37(2) to (4) do not apply (2) Les paragraphes 37(2) a (4) ne s'appli- Exception in respect of amendments in relation to mat- quent pas aux questions mentionnees au ters referred to in subsection (1).	paragraphe (1).
42. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that 35 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 40 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 resolu- 45 tions of the Senate and House of Commons
42.	Les dispositions de la Constitution du 35 Modification a Canada applicables a certaines provinces cmamc^ 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 communes et de l'assemblee legislative de chaque province concernee. Le present article s'applique notamment:
a)	aux changements du trace des frontieres interprovinciales;	45
b)	aux modifications des dispositions relatives a l'usage du fransais ou de fanglais dans une province.
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Amendments by Parliament
Amendments by provincial legislatures
Initiation of amendment procedures
Revocation of authorization
Amendments without Senate resolution
Computation of period
Advice to issue proclamation
Constitutional
conference
The Constitution
and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
43.	Subject to sections 40 and 41, Parlia- 43. Sous reserve des articles 40 et 41, le Modification ment may exclusively make laws amending Parlement a competence exclusive pour pariemem the Constitution of Canada in relation to the 5 modifier les dispositions de la Constitution executive government of Canada or the du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif fede- 5 Senate and House of Commons.	ral, au Senat ou a la Chambre des
communes.
44.	Subject to section 40, the legislature 44. Sous reserve de Particle 40, une legis-	Modificationof each province may exclusively make laws	lature a competence exclusive pour modifier	legislaturesamending the constitution of the province. 10 la constitution de sa province.	1045.	(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 Possibiiiie de
' '	w	4	revocation
dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre 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, ^^'^soiunon
of Canada made by proclamation under sec- 41 ou 42, il peut etre passe outre au defaut 20"u"s^a°u'on 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 dud^a'3"0" gued or dissolved shall not be counted in	paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les u cai
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	Procamjtlon
issue a proclamation under this Part forth-	prendre, conformement a la presente partie,
with on the adoption of the resolutions	une proclamation des l'adoption des resolurequired for an amendment made by procla-	tions prevues par cette partie pour une modi- 35
mation under this Part.	40 fication par proclamation.
48.	A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within fifteen years after this Part comes into force to review the provisions of this Part.
48.	Dans les quinze ans suivant Pentree en vigueur de la presente partie, le premier ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers 40 ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitutionnelle
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Amendment to Constitution Act. 1867
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
Authority of Parliament

[Stage Direction]
49.	The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act, 1867) is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 92 thereof, the following heading and section:
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources, Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation
to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;	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.
The Constitution PARTIE V

[Stage Direction]
49. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification de (anterieurement designee sous le titre: Acte mnstitution-de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) 5 netted* 1867 est modifiee par insertion, apres 1'article 92,
5 de la rubrique et de Particle suivants :
Competence
provinciate
«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.
(2)	La legislature de chaque province a competence pour legiferer en ce qui con-cerne ('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.
(3)	Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas35p°"voird" atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- Pjrlemenl rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragraphe, les dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines 1'emportant sur
les dispositions incompatibles d'une loi 40 provinciale.
Exportation hors des provinces
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
Existing powers or rights
The Constitution
(4) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources 5 and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and
(b)	sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy 10 and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between pro-15 duction exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.
(5) The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the 20 Sixth Schedule.
(4)	La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes
d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de taxation :
a)	des ressources naturelles non renou- 5 velables et des ressources forestieres de
la province, ainsi que de la production primaire qui en est tiree;
b)	des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production 10 d'energie electrique, ainsi que de cette production meme.
Cette competence peut s'exercer indepen-damment du fait que la production en cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, 15 exportee hors de la province, mais les lois adoptees dans ces domaines ne peuvent autoriser ou prevoir une taxation qui eta-blisse une distinction entre la production exportee a destination d'une autre partie 20 du Canada et la production non exportee hors de la province.
(5)	L'expression «production primaire* a -Production le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme
annexe.	25
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into 25 force of this section."
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent Pouvoiraou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus r0l,s 'rX'!,tams 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 ldem adjonction de l'annexe suivante :

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources 1
1.	For the purposes of section 92A of this Act,	30
(a) production from a non-renewable natural resource is primary production therefrom if
(i) it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its 35 natural state, or
.SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres
1.	Pour l'application de Particle 92A : a) on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non 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
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
Consequential
amendments
(ii) it is a product resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is not a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil, refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refin- 5 ing gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and
(b) production from a forestry resource is primary production therefrom if it consists 10 of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or any other primary wood product, or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood."
The Constitution
l'affinage d'une ressource, a l'exception du produit du raffinage du petrole brut, du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-des derives du charbon ou du raffinage 5 d'un equivalent synthetique du petrole brut;
b) on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource forestiere la production constitute de billots, de poteaux, de bois 10 d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[Stage Direction]
51. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 15 supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes 20
(a)	the Canada Act, including this Act;
(b)	the Acts and orders referred to in
Schedule I; and
(c)	any amendment to any Act or order
referred to in paragraph (a) or (6).	25
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.
51. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la 15 Pnmaute de la loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada1"0" du les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre regie de droit.
(2)	La Constitution du Canada comprend :	constitution du
a)	la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la 20 presente loi;
b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figurant a l'annexe I;
c)	les modifications des textes legislatifs et des decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou 25 b).
(3)	La Constitution du Canada ne peut Modification etre modifiee que conformement aux pouvoirs conferes par elle.
52. (1) The enactments referred to in 30	52. (1) Les textes legislatifs et les decrets 30 Abrogationet
Column I of Schedule I are hereby repealed enumeres a la colonne 1 de 1'annexe I sont nouveaux ,ltre or amended to the extent indicated in	abrogesou modifies dans la mesure indiquee a
Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall	la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent en
continue as law in Canada under the names vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous les set out in Column III thereof.	35titres mentionnes a la colonne III.	35
(2) Every enactment, except the Canada Act, that refers to an enactment referred to in Schedule I by the name in Column I thereof is hereby amended by substituting for that name the corresponding name in Column III thereof, and any British North America Act not referred to in Schedule I may be cited as the Constitution Act fol-
(2) Tout texte legislatif ou reglementaire, Modifications sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention correlatlves d'un texte legislatif ou decret figurant a l'an-nexe I par le titre indique a la colonne I est 40modifie par substitution a ce titre du titre40 correspondant mentionne a la colonne III; tout Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britanni-que non mentionne a l'annexe I peut etre cite sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
Repeal and
consequential
amendments
French version of Constitution of Canada
English and French versions of certain constitutional texts
English and French versions of this Act
Commencement
Commencement of paragraph 23(1)(a) in respect of Quebec
Authorization of Quebec
The Constitution
lowed by the year and number, if any, of its Pindication de l'annee de son adoption et enactment.	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 Pentree en vigueur de la presente partie et le 5gouverneur 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 version^ ^Constitution of Canada referred to in	est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs	certains textesSchedule I shall be prepared by the Minister	delais, la version fran?aise des parties de la	constitutionneisof Justice of Canada as expeditiously as pos-	Constitution du Canada qui figurent a Pansible 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 Pepoque apursuant to the procedure then applicable to	la modification des dispositions constitutionan amendment of the same provisions of the 20 nelles qu'elle contient.	20
Constitution of Canada.
55.	Where any portion of the Constitution 55. Les versions fran$aise et anglaise des	etof Canada has been or is enacted in English	parties de la Constitution du Canada adop-	anglaise deand French or where a French version of any	tees dans ces deux langues ont egalement	conlTitut'ion'neiportion of the Constitution is enacted pursu- 25 force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de const,tutlonne ant to section 54, the English and French loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de Particle 25 versions of that portion of the Constitution	54, d'une partie de la version fran9aise de laare equally authoritative.	Constitution, cette partie et la version
anglaise correspondante.
56.	The English and French versions of 56. Les versions fran?aise et anglaise de la version ^ this Act are equally authoritative.	30 presente loi ont egalement force de loi.	30 angiaise de la
presente loi
57. Subject to section 58, this Act shall come into force on a day to be fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
57. Sous reserve de Particle 58, la presente loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Entree en vigueur
58.(1) Paragraph 23(l)(a) shall come 58. (1) L'alinea 23(l)<z) entre en vigueur 35 Entree^ into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be	pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclama-	rSln&i 23(1 )a)fixed by proclamation issued by the Queen or	tion de la Reine ou du gouverneur general	pour ie 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 Q"V^ationdushall be issued only where authorized by the	(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation 40 ue eclegislative assembly or government of	de Passemblee legislative ou du gouverne-Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Repeal of this section
Short title and citations
(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.
59. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1981.
The Constitution
(3) Le present article peut etre abroge a la date d'entree en vigueur de l'alinea 23(1 )a) pour le Quebec, et la presente loi faire l'ob-jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et 5changements de numerotation qui en decou- 5 lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.	*
59. Titre abrege de la presente annexe: Loi constitutionnelle de 1981\ titre commun 10 10 des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975 (n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
Abrogation du present article
Titres
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I
	to the

[Stage Direction]
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
1. British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)	(1)	Section 1 is repealed and Constitution Act, 1867 the following substituted therefor: "1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1867." (2)	Section 20 is repealed. (3)	Class 1 of section 91 is repealed. (4)	Class 1 of section 92 is repealed.2. An Act to amend and continue the Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Can.)	(1)	The long title is repealed Manitoba Act, 1870 and the following substituted therefor: "Manitoba Act, 1870." (2)	Section 20 is repealed.3. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June, 1870	Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order4. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May, 1871	British Columbia Terms of Union5. British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	Section 1 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1871 following substituted therefor: "1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1871."6. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873	Prince Edward Island Terms of Union7. Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.)	Parliament of Canada Act, 18758. Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July, 1880	Adjacent Territories Order
November 20, 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 Particle 91	est abrogee. (4)	La categorie 1 de Particle 92	est abrogee.2. Acte pour amender et continuer l'acte trente-deux et trente-trois Victoria, chapitre trois, et pour etablir et constituer le gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Canada)	(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba et remplace par ce qui suit: «Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba.* (2)	L'article 20 est abroge.3. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin 1870	Decret en conseil sur la terre de Rupert et le territoire du Nord-Ouest4. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Colombie-Britannique, en date du 16 mai 1871	Conditions de l'adhesion de la Colombie-Britannique5. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)	L'article 1 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1871 place par ce qui suit: «1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1871.*6. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant l'ile-du-Prince-Edouard, en date du 26 juin 1873	Conditions de l'adhesion de l'lle-du-Prince-Edouard7. Acte du Parlement du Canada, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (R.-U.)	Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du Canada8. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant dans l'Union tous les ter-ritoires et possessions britanniques dans l'Amerique du Nord, et les ties adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880	Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
November 20, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981-Continued
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II Amendment
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."
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.)
13.	The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)
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."
Column III New Name
Constitution Act, 1886
Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
Alberta Act Saskatchewan Act Constitution Act, 1907
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1915 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1930 following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
In so far as they apply to Statute of Westminster, 1931 Canada,
(a) section 4 is repealed; and {b) subsection 7(1) is repealed.
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1940 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
19. British North America Act, 1943,	The Act is repealed.
6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)
November 20, 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 (frontiers de l'Ontario)
11. Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien (nomination d'un suppleant) 1895, 2e session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
12. Acte de l'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 3 (Canada)	Loi sur l'Alberta
13. Acte de la Saskatchewan, 1905, 4-5 Ed. VII, c. 42 (Canada)	Loi sur la Saskatchewan
14. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1907, 7 Ed. VII, c. 11 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1907 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1907.*
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 20, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column III New Name
20. British North America Act, 1946,	The Act is repealed.
9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)
Item
Column I Act Affected
Column II Amendment
21. British North America Act, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)
Section 3 is repealed and the Newfoundland Act following substituted therefor:
"3. This Act may be cited as the Newfoundland Act."
22. British North America (No. 2) Act,	The Act is repealed.
1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)
23. British North America Act, 1951,	The Act is repealed.
14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)
24. British North America Act, 1952, 1	The Act is repealed.
Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)
25. British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1960 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, I960."
26. British North America Act, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1964 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1964"
27. British North America Act, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)
Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1965 following substituted therefor:
"2. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1965."
28. British North America Act, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part I (Can.)
Section 3, as amended by Constitution Act, 1974 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1)
(Can.) is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1974."
November 20, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee	Colonne II Colonne III Modification Nouveau titre
20. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
21. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (R.-U.)	L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi sur Terre-Neuve place par ce qui suit: «3. Titre abrege : Loi sur Terre-Neuve.*
22. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
23. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)	La loi est abrogee.
24. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)	La loi est abrogee.
25. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1960 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de I960.*
26. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1964 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1964.*
27. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 2 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle de 1965 place par ce qui suit: «2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1965.*
28. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)	L'article 3, modifie par le para- Loi constitutionnelle de 1974 graphe 38(1) de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et remplace par ce qui suit : «3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle de 1974.*
13040
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 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 20, 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.*
[Stage Direction]
November 20, 1981
The Constitution
He said: Madam Speaker, in introducing the resolution preceding confederation in the Parliament of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald stated:
The whole scheme of confederation, as propounded by the conference, as agreed to and sanctioned by the Canadian government, and as now presented for the consideration of the people and the legislature, bears upon its face the marks of compromise. Of necessity there must have been a great deal of mutual concession. If we had not felt that we were bound to set aside our private opinions on matters of detail, if we had not felt ourselves bound to look at what was practicable, not obstinately rejecting the opinions of others nor adhering to our own; if we had not met in a spirit of conciliation, we never would have succeeded.
It is with pride that I am able today to introduce a constitutional resolution supported by all governments who believe in a strong and united Canada.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The resolution before this House is the product of a consensus among governments; but, equally important, it reflects the values, aspirations, the hopes and dreams of an overwhelming majority of Canadians.
Before I explain the content of the resolution, I want to pay tribute to the members of my caucus and to my colleagues in the cabinet for their collaboration, their advice and their total support over the last 18 months. I want to pay a particular tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for this historic achievement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I want to thank other members of the House of Commons for their constructive advice and support. I want also to pay tribute to my colleagues in provincial governments who worked hard to achieve consensus two weeks ago. I want to thank the thousands of Canadians who contributed so much to the work of the parliamentary committee. And I want to point out to Canadians the role of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), who spent a year telling us that process is more important than substance. I am sure that in this debate he will criticize the substance resulting from the process.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In 1865, George Brown told the Parliament of Canada:
The whole great ends of this confederation may not be realized in the lifetime of many who now hear me. We imagine not that such a structure can be built in a month or in a year. What we propose now is but to lay the foundations of the structure, to set in motion the governmental machinery that will one day, we trust, extend from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
Today we have the opportunity to complete and expand that structure. The resolution before this House provides for the patriation of the Constitution. After 114 years, Canada will finally have achieved its full legal independence. No longer will it be necessary to go to the Parliament of another country to amend our Constitution.

The resolution provides as well for an amending formula, that is, a mechanism which will enable us to make future changes to our Constitution. This is extremely important because today marks the end of one stage of constitutional reform and the beginning of another. The second stage of constitutional reform will deal with changes in our national institutions so that there is better regional input in the workings of the national government; it will deal with the securing of the Canadian economic union and with the division of powers.
Of course it will deal with the constitutional recognition of the rights of our native peoples. I am anxious that this process get underway as soon as possible because it is part of our commitment not only to the people of Quebec and to native peoples but to all Canadians.
An amending formula makes that process easier. The resolution provides that in the future, amendments to the constitution will be made with the approval of seven provinces representing fifty per cent of the population. If, however, an amendment takes away provincial powers, privileges or proprietary rights, it will not apply in a province whose legislature expresses its dissent. I will speak later about the issue of fiscal compensation for those provinces which opt out.
For a few matters including the monarchy, the composition of the Supreme Court, and certain language rights, the consent of Parliament and all provincial legislatures will be required. [English]
I want now to turn to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important at the outset to understand that the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be entrenched in the Constitution and that no province will be able to opt out of any provision of the charter. The agreement signed by the Prime Minister and nine Premiers does not emasculate the charter. Democratic rights, fundamental freedoms, mobility rights, legal rights, equality rights and language rights are all enshrined in the Constitution and apply across the land.
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 purpose of an override clause is to provide the flexibility that is required to ensure that legislatures rather than judges have the final say on important matters of public policy.
The override clause in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will require that a law state specifically that part or all of it
November 20, 1981

applies, notwithstanding a particular section of the charter in the Constitution. Such an override automatically expires after five years unless specifically renewed by a legislature. The effect of this provision is, first, that it will be politically very difficult for a government to introduce without very good reason a measure which applies notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the Constitution. Second, a sunset provision of five years provides a degree of control on the use of an override clause in allowing public debate on the desirability of continuing the deliberations further.
It is important to remember that the concept of an override clause is not new in Canada. Experience has demonstrated that such a clause is rarely used and, when used, it is usually not controversial. The Alberta bill of rights was enacted in 1972 and includes an override clause. The Saskatchewan human rights code of 1979 also has an override provision. Neither has ever been used.
The Canadian Bill of Rights, enacted in 1960 by Mr. Diefenbaker, also contains an override provision. In 20 years, it has only been used once.
The Quebec charter of rights and freedoms adopted in 1975 contains an override clause which has been used several times. However, it has never successfully been used in a controversial manner. What is interesting in the Quebec experience is that the first draft of Bill 101 would have applied notwithstanding the Quebec charter of rights and freedoms. In this controversial area public pressure forced the Quebec government to delete the clause from the bill.
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 three leading civil libertarians have welcomed its inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Allan Borovoy, general counsel to the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, was quoted in the Montreal Gazette of November 7 as saying: "Our reaction is one of great relief. They did not emasculate the charter." He went on to say:
The process is a rather ingenious marriage of a bill of rights notion and a parliamentary democracy. The result is a strong charter with an escape valve for the legislatures. The "notwithstanding" clause will be a red flag for opposition parties and the press. That will make it politically difficult for a government to override the Charter. Political difficulty is a reasonable safeguard for the charter.
Gordon Fairweather, who is well known in this House and is the Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, said this: "I'm in no mood for nitpicking today; I'm feeling tremendously upbeat". That quote is from the Montreal Gazette, November 7, 1981. Mr. Fairweather said that the override clause will become as dead from lack of use as a clause in the British North America Act that, at least in theory, still enables Ottawa to disallow provincial legislation. Referring to long standing provincial opposition to entrenched rights, Mr. Fairweather said: "The gang of no has become the gang of yes!"


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


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Professor Walter Tarnopolsky is a past-president of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and an international expert on bills of rights. His view is that the override clause "is really not such a bad idea, and could have a great many advantages". That quote is from The Globe and Mail, November 9, 1981.
It should be clear, in conclusion, that the compromise reached by the Prime Minister with the nine Premiers maintains the principle of a full, complete and effective constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not exclude rights which have previously been guaranteed. In fact, the charter has been improved because unforeseen situations will be able to be corrected without the need to seek constitutional amendment. For those who remain concerned about the override clause, let me remind them that it has been said that "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance". Pressure groups must remain vigilant and we are seeing such vigilance now from women who are arguing for the removal of the override clause in Section 28 and the aboriginal people who are fighting for the reinstatement of their rights. I will say more about that in a moment.
So, what does this Charter of Rights and Freedoms do? First, it protects fundamental freedoms common to all Canadians, such as freedom of speech, of religion, of the press and freedom to vote and to hold office.
Second, it guarantees the freedom of Canadians to establish residence and seek a job anywhere in Canada without regard to provincial borders. It establishes one Canadian citizenship rather than ten provincial citizenships. But it recognizes the need for special measures to be taken to protect local residents in provinces whose rate of employment is below the national average.
Third, the charter guarantees legal rights of Canadians. It sets out protection against arbitrary arrest, against unreasonable search and seizures. It enumerates the rights of an accused to be defended by counsel, to have a fair trial, not to be forced to testify against oneself. It ensures that where evidence is obtained illegally, it shall not be used where, by doing so, the administration of justice will be brought into disrepute.
Fourth, the charter enumerates equality rights. In this area the government is taking bold steps forward in order to ensure the equality of women before and under the law. I know some would have hoped that we could do even better, and I hope we can in the next few days. The ball is now squarely in the court of Premier Blakeney. This government and the party I belong to are confident we can and must succeed. But we also know that we must not break the accord or all will be lost. I am sure that the efforts of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) who is responsible for the status of women will bring about the result that is the desire of every member of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: No one can deny that this constitutional charter marks very substantial progress. If its provisions are

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
not perfect, they are infinitely better than the protection for women in, for example, the American constitution.
In addition, the charter specifically prohibits discrimination against those with physical or mental disabilities. This is a great achievement which makes Canada a world leader in the International Year of the Disabled. Much credit should be given to the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) and to other members of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Fifth, the charter deals with language rights and I will speak to this in a few minutes.
Finally, the charter makes specific reference to the multicultural nature of our society. At the time of confederation, our forefathers established a new country based on two great cultures, the English and the French. Over the last 114 years, Canada has been enriched by the contribution of immigrants from the four corners of the earth. Because Canada prides itself on not being a melting pot, we are establishing today that the charter "shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians". As far as the government is concerned, the multicultural heritage of Canadians is such an important fabric of our nation that it must be reflected in our Constitution.
I want to speak now to my fellow Quebecers, and I want to tell them that it is essential to distinguish between the interests of Quebec and the interests of the parti Quebecois. The people of Quebec, whenever they have been asked to choose, have always come out clearly for Canada, and so we have chosen to listen to those who ran as federalists and were elected to serve Quebec in this house as opposed to those members of the government of Quebec who act as separatists after they are elected, but who can only get elected when they promise not to bring about separation during their mandate.
I want to say that I regret very much that Premier Levesque agreed to give up the Quebec veto. The loss of the veto is not recuperable, but the interests of Quebec have been protected in this resolution by the work of the 74 federal liberal members in this house and by the constructive suggestions of the Leader of the Quebec Liberal Party.
What then does the resolution do to protect the duality of Canada? First, it guarantees in the Constitution the rights of francophones to schools in the nine English-speaking provinces. This is extremely important as a protection for our minorities who for generations have fought for their rights. But it is equally important for the thousands of francophone Quebecers who each year since the Parti Quebecois has come to power have moved to other parts of Canada.
Second, the resolution guarantees the rights of Englishspeaking Canadians to educate their children in English in Quebec. This merely enshrines in the constitution what Quebec has done of its own free will for over one hundred years. Even if the Parti Quebecois opposes this constitutional guarantee being extended to the anglophone minority, the great majority of Quebecers see it as fair and just. Quebecers have never wanted to abuse the rights of the anglophone minority, and I believe that today, now that we have finally obtained education rights for francophone minorities in the nine other provinces, they will agree that it is only fair and just that we should do the same for the anglophone minority in Quebec, as we have been doing for that part 114 years.
Third, the resolution provides that where Quebec opts out of a constitutional amendment giving power to Ottawa in matters of education or other cultural matters, fiscal compensation will be paid. This was suggested by Mr. Ryan and was subsequently supported and imposed on Cabinet by the Quebec caucus.
Fourth, the resolution guarantees bilingualism at the federal level in the Parliament of Canada, in the institutions of the federal government, and in the services of the federal government. Here, I wish to point out that the manner in which bilingualism is to be entrenched in the Constitution in the future ensures that even a majority of this Parliament and of all the other provinces will not be enough to change this provision without the consent of the Province of Quebec. In fact, we have given Quebec a veto in this respect.
We have been accused of betraying Quebec, of threatening the French language, of taking away Quebec's ability to control its own economy. If there has been a betrayal, the guilty one is Rene Levesque for giving up the veto. Nothing in the resolution threatens the French language. Instead the resolution strengthens French across Canada. In Quebec, it does nothing to affect the provisions of Bill 101 with respect to the language of work, the language of the professions, or other matters relating to French as the official language of Quebec. As far as the economy is concerned, the resolution cannot be blamed for Mr. Parizeau's last budget.
As Quebecers we must choose between the objectives of the Parti Quebecois and the challenge of belonging to a country that spans a continent. As for me, I adopt the words of Laurier:
"We are French Canadians, but our country is not confined to the territory over-shadowed by the Citadel of Quebec; our country is Canada; it is the fertile lands bordered by the Bay of Fundy, the Valley of the St. Lawrence, the regions of the Great Lakes, the Prairies of the West, the Rocky Mountains, the lands washed by the famous ocean where breezes are said to be as sweet as the breezes of the Mediterranean, our fellow-countrymen are not only those in whose veins runs the blood of France.
They are all those, whatever their race or whatever their language, whom the fortunes of war, the chances of fate, or their own choice have brought among us. As far as I am concerned, those are my fellow countrymen. I am a Canadian. The rights of my fellow countrymen of different origins are as dear to me, as sacred to me, as the rights of my own race. What I claim for us is an equal place
November 20, 1981

in the sun, an equal share of justice, of liberty; that share we have it; we have it amply, and what we claim for ourselves, we are anxious to grant to others.

I want to speak now about native peoples. No one is sorrier than I that it was not possible two weeks ago to agree to entrench in the Constitution the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights. Our failure to do so was a consequence of a process which required the making of compromises. But I would be less than honest if I did not say that the cause of the constitutional recognition of aboriginal rights was not helped by the fact that leaders of the native peoples have spent a great deal of time and energy lobbying against the section in the previous resolution which they now seem to like.
I do want to point out that there is no change in the provision of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with reference to native rights. Section 25 states that nothing in the charter shall be construed so as "to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the original peoples of Canada".
It is the old Section 34, which was not part of the charter, which is not in the resolution before the House. Many of us both on this side of the House and on the other side of the House are very sorry about that, and probably the most sorry is my friend the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), who has worked so hard from the beginning to make sure we had this in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He worked with me and with the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar). However, we have succeeded in including in the resolution a provision which requires the holding of a constitutional conference within a year to deal with the subject of constitutional recognition of the rights of the native peoples. I hope native leaders will come to that conference with a well-defined position.
Some have suggested the immediate application of Section 34 to the federal government and matters under federal jurisdiction. The government is prepared to act immediately on this suggestion if the leaders of the National Indian Brotherhood, the Native Council of Canada and the Inuit Committee on National Issues indicate their support for it by Tuesday, November 24. If such support is not forthcoming by the deadline, the government will keep the same proposal on the table for the purposes of all future negotiations on the identification of the rights of the aboriginal peoples.
The government would prefer that the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights be fully reinstated in the resolution but cannot do so without the consent of the nine provinces which are parties to the accord. I know that native leaders have attempted to obtain this consent, so far without success. Many provinces have now informed us that they would agree to be bound by Section 34. I hope this means that in the next two or three days the other parties to the accord will agree to be bound so that we can have a speedy and satisfactory resolution of this issue.


John Edward Broadbent: You just need one more.
The Constitution


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I was on the telephone all day yesterday, part of last night and this morning. All members of Parliament can be useful in this regard, not by trying to gain political points but by doing our duty, if we believe firmly in this. We have to put gentle pressure on all the provinces, and I am sure that with the movement there is now we can do that. If hon. members are in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario or any other provinces, they should do their homework. I think it is coming, but don't rock the boat!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: They should not try to gain some political advantage. The native groups of Canada and others have been very effective. It is my view that it is the wish of all Canadians that we reinstate Section 34 in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is the view of Canadians that having given our word when we signed the accord, we have to keep it. I want to affirm in this House that we will not impose it on the provinces if they do not want it. There is a mechanism that will permit us to do that eventually. Since the Government of Canada gave its word, it has the duty to respect that. I am sure the provinces understand the message of Canadians and are about to tell us that we will go to London with the entrenchment of both the women's rights in Section 28 and the native rights in the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know the hon. member for Nunatsiaq today must rightly be disappointed that the resolution as introduced does not enshrine aboriginal rights. I hope that we succeed in enshrining aboriginal and treaty rights in relation to federal matters immediately. I hope that the eight remaining provinces agree to be bound immediately, but if we have to wait a year to reach a consensus with the provinces for all of Canada, the wait will be less important than the fact that we intend to succeed.
I do not have time to talk about the elements of the resolution dealing with equalization or about the extension of provincial jurisdiction over national resources. Others will speak to these items during this debate. I merely want to conclude by quoting the words of George Brown in the confederation debates:
No Constitution ever framed was without defect; no amount of talent and wisdom and integrity combined in preparing such a scheme could have placed it beyond the reach of criticism. To assert, then, that our scheme is without fault, would be folly. It was necessarily the work of concession; not one of the thirty-three framers but had, on some points, to yield his opinions; and, for myself, I freely admit that I struggled earnestly, for days together, to have portions of the scheme amended. But admitting all this-admitting all the difficulties that beset us-admitting frankly that defects in the measure exists- I say that, taking the scheme as a whole, it has my cordial, enthusiastic support, without hesitation or reservation. I believe it will accomplish all, and more than all, that we, who have fought so long ever hoped to see accomplished. It will lay the foundations deep and strong of a powerful and prosperous people.

November 20, 1981
The Constitution

Madam Speaker, finally, I must say, to you and to the other members of this House, that it is unfortunate that we did not obtain the agreement of the tenth province, the province of Quebec. I feel that the Premier of Quebec had a duty here to forget his party and to act as the representative of the province of Quebec. There are only three clauses that separate us. Considerable progress has been made on two of the clauses, and if misgivings still exist, we are prepared to discuss them. Considerable gains have been made in the last two days, both with respect to Section 28, which guarantees the equality of men and women in the Constitution, and in our present discussion on the entrenchment of aboriginal rights in the Constitution. In the days to come we could still find common ground for agreement, which would enable Quebec to join the rest of Canada on the day we give our country a new Constitution, the day when we shall achieve a new level of maturity in this country, when people will have equal rights and when we can be different while at the same time sharing the responsibilities and privileges of being Canadians.

Today is a great day for Canada. We will have a better country. There will be more justice, more friendship, more sharing in our land. Canada, as I have said so many times, is a great country. When we have finished our work, it will be a greater country of which we can all be proud. Today we are making sure this country will survive. It is a worthy cause. For all of us, nothing is better than Canada. Vive le Canada!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I want to begin with two brief remarks. I say this genuinely in respect for the parliamentary tradition. I regret that on this matter that goes so much to the heart of what Canada is about and touches so directly the concerns of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), particularly on one of those rare days when I have something good to say about him, the Prime Minister has chosen to leave this House before I have the opportunity as Leader of the Official Opposition to respond to the introduction of the resolution by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).
I understand he is busy. We are all busy. This is a matter which has commanded his attention for some time. I would have hoped that his respect for the institution of Parliament would have been such that he might have been prepared to stay. Does the Minister of Justice-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I would like to make a suggestion to the Leader of the Opposition. Rather than split his speech in two, he could postpone his speech until two o'clock. The Prime Minister could be here. It would then not be necessary to debate this problem. I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will be making an important speech and we should not force him to split it in two.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am simply interested in my audience. If I will have the benefit of speaking to the Prime Minister when we come back, I will call it one o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: This House stands adjourned until two o'clock.
At 12.48 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Madam Speaker:: When the House adjourned the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had the floor.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, naturally, to rise in this debate. I think in our minds over the past several months there was some doubt as to whether or not this stage of the debate would ever occur. I think all of us who have faith in Canada are pleased that we were able to force respect for the Supreme Court of Canada, for our Parliament and for the processes of Canadian legislation to the extent that it has resulted in this new, very much improved resolution before the House of Commons. It has afforded members of the House the opportunity to make further improvements to a resolution much improved over the one that was dealt with through the last several years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not intend this to be a partisan speech at all, Madam Speaker.
I would ask the Minister of Justice and members of Parliament not to seek partisan gain in this debate. I think that would be advice that all of us would endorse. The minister should not seek too frequently to blame others, whether they are provinces, native groups or others, for deficiencies in the resolution that is before the House of Commons. If the minister engages too much in that, I think there will be the temptation on the part of others to engage in a tone of debate that will not be helpful in advancing our processes here.
This is not another phase in the constitutional debate. This is very much a new phase. There is now a much different atmosphere in the country. Everyone taking part in the debate bears some of the scars of compromise, and there is nothing at all dishonourable about that. Compromise is the way we make Canada work. However, to end with compromise, one must start with principle.
I understand the Prime Minister will be arriving soon. I wish the Prime Minister were here when on one of those few occasions in the House I will pay tribute to him. I think the last time was when he promised to leave. I will not spend too much of my time in the debate in praise of the Prime Minister, but I would like to say that I will not soon forgive him for some of the consequences resulting from his methods with regard to the Constitution. I think it is appropriate that this
November 20, 1981

House should recognize the depth of his commitment to his goals, and the skill and the passion that he exercised in pursuit of them. All of the members of this House desire that the Constitution of Canada be brought home with an amending formula.
The Prime Minister introduced the resolution that brought us this far and brought a flexibility to make that initiative acceptable to most of the other partners in confederation. 1 want to congratulate the Prime Minister both for his determination that we have always known him to have, and for the flexibility, which I have to confess we were surprised to find, and the flexibility, I should say, we hope will continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
As for the Conservative Party, even though the Prime Minister introduced this resolution to the House, we kept it here and allowed the Canadian system of Parliament, the Canadian system of the courts and the Canadian system of a first ministers' conference to improve significantly the document with which we began.
As the country knows, the Prime Minister and I have different views of our country. History will judge whether this resolution better reflects his view or mine. Those are questions that will be determined later.
The question for today is whether the combination of determination and compromise which brought us this far can be extended to allow us to continue to progress in this phase of the Constitution debate. While it is true we have made progress, it is also true there is much more to do and it is particularly true that the Parliament of Canada has the duty to improve this resolution.

While offering my congratulations, Madam Speaker, I would like to say some words in praise of the Premiers of the English-speaking provinces.
[Editor's Note: And the Prime Minister having entered the Chamber.]
Sir, you have just missed the only words of encouragement and approval I shall probably ever address to you in my career-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You can always repeat them!


Charles Joseph Clark: No, never! Opportunity only knocks once! But I would like to say some words in praise of the premiers of the English-speaking provinces who voluntarily exercised their own freedom of decision in a truly Canadian spirit by recognizing minority language educational rights in their provinces. Naturally, we shall have to wait and see how this commitment is put into practice, and it will be interesting to see how generously the provincial governments will interpret the words "where the number so warrants". The premiers of the nine provinces where French is the minority language have agreed to this extremely important principle. As a Canadian who has
The Constitution
been fortunate enough to be exposed to both languages, I wish to congratulate the premiers on their foresight.
[DOT] (WO)

At this stage of the debate of the resolution, there are three specific amendments which my party proposes to introduce. There may be more later after further consideration of the implications of the resolution and consideration of proposals which may come, for example, from spokesmen of the people of Quebec. It is not our intention to extend the debate unduly, but it is our hope that everyone in the House will work constructively to bring the country together.
Our first amendment, which I will move later today, will reinstate, without qualification, the guarantee in Section 28 of the equality of male and female persons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The House will not be surprised that my amendment in this case will be introduced by my good friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). The present resolution will allow Parliament or a legislature to treat women as less equal than men, or men as less equal than women. We intend that the rights and freedoms set forth in all the provisions of the resolution will be guaranteed equally to male and female persons. I will elaborate on our reasons later.
The second amendment we propose would restore in the resolution the guarantees of aboriginal title which had been affirmed by Parliament, either in the language contained in Section 34 of the first resolution or in very similar language. Again I will elaborate on our reasons later, but I say to my friends in the New Democratic Party that before I came down to the House for question period this morning I received some encouragement to make a telephone call. I have made that telephone call, and I am given to understand that there may be communication between the premier of a province and the Prime Minister of Canada regarding some movement which might be made on that matter later in the day.
The third amendment would restore to the resolution the precise language accepted by Quebec and seven other provinces in the agreement signed in April known as the April Accord respecting compensation for provinces that opt out of constitutional changes which deprive them of rights those provinces have traditionally enjoyed.
[Translation[
We have been considering the resolution in detail since we received it this Wednesday, and three comments are in order. First of all, we would like to pursue our in-depth study. We would like to bear the opinions of, and consult with, people whose interests are not adequately represented in the resolution, and we want to make specific amendments to improve the resolution where possible. My second comment is that today, we are not dealing exclusively with the agreement signed by the ten first ministers on November 5, since the resolution goes

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
further than the agreement. I am happy with the changes that have been made, with the exception of those concerning the equality of men and women, but it cannot be argued that Parliament is bound by this agreement. The government was not bound by the agreement and neither is Parliament. My third comment is, more specifically, that the Parliament of Canada has a fundamental duty to find ways of persuading Quebec to participate in this agreement. My party will introduce amendments to improve the contents of the resolution, but the absence of Quebec affects its very foundation. Aside from the question of how effective the resolution can be if Quebec does not participate, I believe we all agree that it would be far better if Quebec were also included. The government has shown the same attitude with respect to the new Sections 39 and 58. It has, in fact, been my opinion since the agreement was tabled in tlie House. We must all work together to make the Constitution reflect the interests of all Canadians.

The Minister of Justice spoke during his remarks of the amending formula. I will not comment upon the acts of acrobatics that he had to contemplate to speak so favourably of an amending formula which he condemned so vigorously not many months ago. Of course, the amending formula has been before the House previously, precisely on October 22 last year, when I proposed the amending formula along with patriation as a means to bring our Constitution home. I do not intend to comment on the fact that other parties are now embracing what they once rejected, but rather I want to comment quite seriously on the regrettable irony that a proposal which has been around so long was studied so little by people who pretend to be constitutional experts. Simply because the federal government expressed disapproval, respected commentators suspended their own judgment of the merits of the Vancouver amending formula.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps if they had taken this formula more seriously some time ago, its advantages would have been evident earlier and advocated earlier than was in fact the case. I raise this because there is a similar danger that normally thoughtful members of the House or of the public or normally thoughtful commentators might also accept unexamined some of the other assumptions of the government's present case. One must remember that on a constitutional matter the government's assumptions have been proven wrong consistently- proven wrong by public opinion, proven wrong by Parliament, proven wrong by the Supreme Court of Canada, and proven wrong by the provinces. At the very least their assumptions deserve careful scrutiny, and most particularly that is the case when the Constitution, the unity and perhaps the future of the country are at stake.
I suggest that one false assumption is the suggestion that initiatives by Parliament will unravel and doom the accord signed by the ten first ministers two weeks ago. There is
absolutely no evidence that individual premiers or provinces are so opposed to the equality of men and women, to the concept of aboriginal title and to the idea of just compensation for the provinces, that Parliament's actions in Parliament's jurisdiction will cause any province to pull out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Indeed, many of us and many Canadians believe Parliament is here precisely for the purpose of acting in Parliament's jurisdiction. We are a deliberative and legislative body, not a rubber stamp for a prime minister or for premiers. That obligation to act is most profound in fields where Parliament is the sole or crucial custodian of vital national interests, such as the state of our aboriginal people or the unity of our divided nation.
For years my party and I have argued for a country where the provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament were both strong. Having made that case, we do not now propose to abandon our duty as the federal Parliament simply because the provinces have exercised their duty. The debt of our special obligation to Canada's original people is clear and unchallengeable.
I suggest there is also a special duty in today's circumstances to heal the division the premiers and the Prime Minister left between the rest of Canada and the province of Quebec. One could argue that the recent divisions within Quebec or about Quebec have been fought within the French Canadian family, between the francophone Premier of Quebec and the francophone Prime Minister, both from the province of Quebec. Today, however, the division is quite different. On one side is the Canadian government and the nine provinces where Francophones are a minority; on the other side, by accident or by design, is the one province where Francophones are the majority. That is the division of which separatists have dreamed. That can very easily be portrayed as the rejection of the French minority by the non-French majority in the country.
Madam Speaker and my colleagues in the House, only one agency can bridge that gap with authority, doing so in the name of all of Canada, and that is this Parliament, where Canadians of non-French origin constitute the majority, but where all of us, of whatever origin, are determined to build an accord large enough for the people of Quebec to feel comfortably at home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If there was ever a time for the national Parliament to speak and act for the nation, now is that time. Instead of being silent and afraid to act, we should be creative, seeking to build on the progress of the last 12 months. Just as most first ministers were prepared to put down personal prejudice in the national interest, so too, I hope, might we rise above partisan, personal or regional interest to find solutions for our country, Canada.
November 20, 1981

This Parliament is one of the partners in confederation. We have acted effectively regarding the whole resolution. The other partners, the premiers, have acted creatively after the Supreme Court decision. Now it is up to us to act again, creatively and constructively, in Canada's interest.
The other assumption which requires careful and serious scrutiny is the view that the present government of Quebec wants no agreement. I will suggest a test which may make them show their true colours. However, whatever the motive of the government of Quebec, the people of Quebec may want a just Canadian solution, and may want it ardently enough to force the Parti Quebecois to put the people of Quebec first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course, on this question we must be realists. I have been a realist concerning this matter since the day the constitutional debate began, a day when most people said the action of the Prime Minister was unstoppable. That very realism requires that we analyse and not merely blindly accept the argument that the present Quebec government will never agree to anything. As I will argue later, it has already agreed to the April accord, but it did so with seven other provinces of Canada. However, it is fair to assume that it will agree only if the people of Quebec force it to agree or support it in that agreement.
Therefore, as the Parliament of the whole country, as the Parliament which can be the last agency to bring our whole nation together, our attention should be paid to the people of Quebec-and not just the government of Quebec. Our standard, when we vote and speak in this House, should be whether provisions in this resolution or amendments to this resolution help the people of Quebec to stay comfortably within our common country, Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I indicated that the first amendment we wanted to introduce, the one which I will be introducing today, relates to the equality of male and female persons. I would like to speak about that for a moment. When representatives of the federal and provincial governments met, they agreed that certain rights set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms should be limited by Section 33 of the new resolution by the non obstante clause. In the accord which was tabled in this House of Commons by the Prime Minister on November 5, the non obstante clause did not apply to Section 28, which guaranteed the equality of male and female persons. I believe that is an uncontested version of what happened, both in the conference and afterward.
Indeed, what happened, to the best of our ability to reconstruct it, is that after the Prime Minister came to Parliament and the Premiers went home, the officials of both levels of government got together and decided to apply the non obstante clause to Section 28. The government, in this amendment and resolution, has unfortunately accepted the officials' amendment and has not acted on the accord which was reached by 10
The Constitution
of the 11 first ministers when they met here in early November. As a consequence of the change brought to this matter by officials, Section 28 is subject to Section 33. A limit is placed upon the equality of male and female persons which was not explicitly intended to be so placed by the 11 first ministers of Canada when they met in conference in November in the capital of the country.
In recent days there has apparently been some dramatic shifting of opinion on the question. In one case, we learned that at least one Premier had not been informed of the exact nature of the work being undertaken by his officials and the position being ascribed to his government by his officials. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), brought that matter directly to the attention of the Premier of Nova Scotia. I should say, in passing, that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did so at her own initiative and that of her party and, without the benefit of advice from the government, brought that to the attention of the premier of the province of Nova Scotia. When he understood what was at issue, he immediately indicated his willingness to have Section 28 stand without limitation and expressed his willingness to associate himself, along with other Premiers and certainly along with his party, with the idea of the equality of treatment of male and female persons. Therefore, that changed.
We are not sure what is happening in the province of Saskatchewan. At last report, the New Democratic Premier of the province of Saskatchewan, that spokesman for rights in that party of rights, was proposing to trade rights for rights.


An hon. Member:: Don't go so low.


Charles Joseph Clark: "Do not go so low," someone suggests from the New Democratic benches. If those hon. members are interested in speaking for principle, let me suggest that they get up from the House, suffer the loss of hearing a few minutes of my speech, call Roy Romanow, call Allan Blakeney, and tell them to stop playing games with rights and to give us unanimous agreement so that male and female persons can be treated equally under the constitutional proposals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I want to deal with the substance of what we are proposing. The substance of our amendment guarantees that men and women will have equal access to the rights and freedoms set out in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms proposed in this resolution. Some of those rights and freedoms will already be limited by the application of Section 33. However, where they exist they will exist absolutely equally for women and for men. That is the purpose of the amendment I am introducing, seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. That is an amendment which I hope will commend itself to this whole House, so that this whole House can go on record as supporting the guarantee of equal treatment of male and female persons in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 20, 1981
The Constitution


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me elaborate briefly for a moment. Two years ago, as prime minister, when statements were still made on motions, if Your Honour can remember that far back-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -I had the opportunity to make a statement on motions marking the fiftieth anniversary of the Person's case in Canada. The Person's case, as this House will recall, was a case brought by five courageous women who, I am pleased to say, came from my province of Alberta and believed that it was absolutely unacceptable that interpretations of the Supreme Court of Canada should prevent women from being interpreted as persons in a way which would not allow them to be appointed to the Senate. One might ask why they would ever want to be appointed there; but certainly, their case was that if anyone were to be appointed there, they should have as much right to be appointed as men. They raised the case, they fought the case and they won the case. From that point in the late 1920s and early 1930s, we achieved a very significant movement forward toward equality of status of male and female persons.
I make the point that while the symbolic battle was won with Senator Cairine Wilson being named to the Senate, we had only begun to approach the issue. The Senate was the symbol. The issue was inequality. The symbol has been repaired. The inequality persists.
I will not spend long on this point because too many of us, to our shame, know that if we have a daughter, as I do, she will not have the opportunity in this country to play hockey if she chooses to do so in the same way that a male child might have.
We know that women are denied equal rights to use the training they acquire, whether professional training-


Monique Bégin: They can play ringette.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you play hockey, Monique?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, they can play ringette. That is right. They can play something else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not want to get into partisan debates so 1 will not comment on my continuing surprise at the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What I am going to say, I say also as someone who is occasionally guilty of the infraction myself. Nothing demonstrates the point I am trying to make more dramatically than matters about which this House jokes or titters most often. They usually relate in one way or another to the status of women. For instance, the dispute as to whether my colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, should
be called an hon. lady when I am called an hon. member. That sort of thing indicates that prejudice runs deep, even in this House where we are supposed to stand and fight against prejudice.
That, I believe, makes the case very clearly and very dramatically why, even though we have espoused the goal of equality, we need to take that step one point further. What must be put right into the Constitution of Canada is the guarantee that male and female persons will be treated equally in relation to the rights and freedoms of Canadians. That will be another step forward, as was the Person's case some 50 years ago which guaranteed in daily practice, where wages were paid and people were hired, that female persons were to be treated equally with male persons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: this House and in this country, that the Parliament of Canada cannot wait forever for that kind of agreement. Parliament has a duty to act.
I want to speak for a moment, if I might, of the nature of that duty, the nature of our responsibility to the aboriginal people of the country. One in this nationalist age would be reluctant to quote a poet from the United States, except perhaps in the case of aboriginal title, because the aboriginals were here before the United States or Canada was, before the forty-ninth parallel meant anything more than another widening in the trees. I am struck by the words of Robert Frost when speaking of Americans, Canadians, people who came late to this continent. He said:
The land was ours before we were the lands.
Mr. Frost was speaking of the white population, not the natives. The land of this continent belonged to, was used by, the original people well before the concept of land took root as something that was possessed and parcelled out. Land, to the natives, was where you lived, where you worked and where you took your nature. It was heritage, not just territory. In a very real sense, land and people were the same.
We took that away, we who came later. We took it away as an inevitable consequence of our civilization and the compensation we offered was often meagre, often mean, sometimes nothing at all. But the original people were here before our civilization. Our treatment, our meagre, mean treatment of them, has increased our obligation, not diminished it.
We cannot reverse history, but we can take account of it. A minimum step must be for this Parliament to put in a document that deals with the rights of our people and to acknowledge at least the particular rights of our first people to draw their life and their culture from what we made our land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to discuss a third amendment we want to move. It is said that under no circumstances will the present Premier of Quebec accept the constitutional agreement. Whether or not this is true, it is significant that in April, the Government of Quebec, together with the premiers of seven other provinces, signed a very important constitutional agreement, namely the April accord, which basically contained the Vancouver amending formula we are discussing in the House today. So, in April, Quebec took the extraordinary step of giving up its veto right, yes, its veto right, thereby agreeing that the constitution could be changed without its consent. Quebec did not give up its veto right for nothing. It was offered in exchange for a reasonable guarantee of fiscal compensation for provinces who choose to opt out, that is, who decide not to go along with a constitutional amendment. It is common knowledge that this guarantee of full fiscal compensation was the only reason why Quebec signed the accord. It was also common knowledge that if the guarantee were withdrawn, Quebec would reject the accord, so that taking this compensation out of the accord was tantamount to forcing
The Constitution
Quebec to withdraw. At this point I do not care who deleted the compensation clause, but whoever is responsible did, in fact, force Quebec's hand. I do, however, want to rebuild this agreement, and it makes sense to start with the guarantee that has always been the essential condition for Quebec's participation, the full compensation guarantee. That is why I feel that compensation is the crucial factor, for all of us who hope to produce an agreement that all the provinces, including Quebec, will agree to sign. It must be said, to the federal government's credit, that it has gone part of the way; it has offered compensation with respect to certain provincial powers, namely, those concerning education and other cultural matters. However, this is only part of the guarantee, it is less than the guarantee in the April accord.
If we want a truly Canadian agreement with all partners participating, we must offer everything in November that was offered in April; and if the government of Quebec says no today to something it accepted in April, then it stands accused by its own actions of putting its independantiste ideology ahead of the interests of the people of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker and colleagues in this House of Commons, colleagues who want to have a Constitution and an accord to which all of our people can be party, let us give it the choice. Indeed, if you will, let us force the government of the province of Quebec to make that choice. Let us force it to justify rejecting in November what it accepted in April.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The present resolution does not do that. The present resolution allows the PQ government of Quebec to take an easy way out, to say it had more in April than it has in November. Why not take that argument away from Quebec? Why give it that argument which it can use, if that is its desire, to stay out of the constitutional accord? Why not force it to make the choice? The only way to force it is by making in November the same offer the government of Quebec signed in April. That seems to me to be elemental logic. That seems to me to be a very effective way of seeing exactly where the Parti Quebecois government does stand, and of seeing whether there is an opportunity for this Parliament to act in a way which will bring Quebec in and serve the interests of the people of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are seized here not simply with the question of giving the government of Quebec a choice and forcing it to face it; we are also dealing here with the opportunity to give Canada the chance of an agreement in which all partners can join. To give Canada a chance, as I have indicated, we will

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
propose an amendment to guarantee any province that opts out fully what was guaranteed in the April accord.
I want to speak for a moment about the amending formula, opting out and the compensation question. If it is accepted that in areas of jurisdiction, strictly limited by Section 37, that might be transferred from the provinces to the federal government, a province should be able to decline to opt in, it follows that such an option must be a real option.
It is worth reminding hon. members of the House of the real nature of this amending formula, because it has not yet been fully understood. It is a formula that combines the required features of flexibility and equal treatment of provinces. I commend the Premier of Ontario for his very real flexibility in agreeing to allow such a concept to be recognized by the removal of any provincial veto. The formula allows changes to be made when it is demonstrated that such changes are needed. At the same time, it ensures that changes are not made without due consideration. Seven provinces must agree to an amendment, they must have among them at least a majority of the population, and if the federal government does not want to agree it can stop it on its own.
It is a formula that recognizes the fact that in Canada there are identities and problems unique to one province or region. It allows those problems to be met and those identities to be expressed without preventing the development of a national will. In certain limited cases, a maximum of three provinces could decline to opt in to amendments that would take from them rights and powers they have held since confederation. That is what the formula means.
What our amendment means is that that right would not have to be bought; that right would be there with compensation included. It would not have to be bought by a province that wanted to exercise it. A legislature would be free to decide if the people of the province would be best served by jurisdiction being transferred to Ottawa or retained by the province.
Madam Speaker, colleagues in this House of Commons and Canadians who want to help and heal our country, let me make the point that if that is to be a free decision, no province should be forced to incur a financial penalty. That is simple justice. That is the simple justice that is denied by this proposal. That is the simple justice that was approved by the Premier of Saskatchewan when he signed the April accord. And that is the simple justice I suggest should be approved by the Parliament of Canada now so we can ensure that the right of opting out includes the right to do so freely, and not with a requirement to buy what we call a right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, that amendment will be introduced later in this debate by another of my colleagues. I would have introduced it today if the rules of the House permitted.
They allow only one amendment to be introduced today, so we will consequently introduce this and the amendment respecting aboriginal rights later.
What we are doing now in what I hope is a genuine, non-partisan way is discussing-


Mr. Benjamin:: It sure sounded like it.


Charles Joseph Clark: I hear from the NDP. I would repeat, if the NDP has things to say, particularly Mr. Benjamin from Regina, let him say them to his premier.
We are discussing the Constitution of our country in a way that most of us feel is non-partisan. Because it is our country, and because the questions are so basic to our rights, to our future, to our unity and to our vision of our country, all of us are affected personally. When I say all of us are affected personally, I am not simply speaking of members of Parliament who sit in this House or the members of the other place; I am speaking of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens across the country, some of whom are demonstrating now around legislatures in various parts of the country.
I am speaking of people who came in hundreds and wanted to come in thousands to appear before the special committee that looked into the first resolution, Canadians from the length and breadth of the land, from sea to sea to my seatmate's northern sea, who worried, talked and thought about our Constitution during the last year. This ordeal has been wearing on all of us, but I think what this process has done, among other things, is made the Constitution much more human and much more real to many more Canadians.
If 1 might ask the indulgence of the House for a moment, I want to speak briefly in a personal way. This month is the beginning of my tenth year in this Parliament. Like others who are here I came to the House of Commons with certain goals and bearing certain prejudices. One of my prejudices, one of those I was fortunate to learn at home, is that there are no differences in the capacities and potential of men and women. I grew up in a farm community, and on farms men and women work equally. I grew up in a town during wartime, at a time when many of the men were away. They were not at home to run the businesses so the women ran and often ran them better. If there was a question of equality after the men came home, it was whether they were as good as their wives were at running the businesses.
The hard reality, however, that we have all encountered is that barriers do stand in the way of women, barriers that do not stand in the way of men. I personally am proud to be able to play some small role, with the introduction of the amendment today, in trying to bring those barriers down and trying to move us, in law and in thought, toward that kind of equality which exists in fact, if one regards the capacities and potential of male and female persons in this country.
I grew up, Madam Speaker, with native people, not as a legal concept but as neighbours to people like me; native people who lived not far away from my town. One of the first accomplishments that I can remember as a private member in a minority Parliament during 1972 to 1974, a time when committees were able to do something, is when I, along with
November 20, 1981

my colleague from Kingston and the Islands and my colleague from Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), were able, with the help of the New Democratic Party members at the time, to have accepted for the first time a resolution by a committee, which was subsequently accepted by this whole House of Commons, which recognized the legitimacy of aboriginal title and rights in this country.
From my background of having known native people in my earliest days and having been involved in the defence of their rights since my time in Parliament, I certainly cannot be neutral on that question now, and my party does not intend to be neutral. It is for that reason that we have moved this amendment on aboriginal title.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As for Quebec-

-I am the most bilingual citizen of High River, Alberta, and I have had a chance to learn not only the language but also something of the nature of the people of Quebec.

I cannot think of my country without Quebec and I have to say that I believe that is the position of virtually every member of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: However, it is not good enough to be here to think good thoughts. We are here to act. That is what we were elected to do by our constituents across the country and that is our obligation.
I have the honour in this House to be the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. There is, perhaps, a special obligation on me, as there is on the Prime Minister and certain other officers of the House, to take that responsibility with a particular seriousness. But that responsibility falls upon all of us. It is, perhaps, particularly because of my disinterest in some of these questions that I can move some of the amendments and speak to them as I have today. I am obviously not a woman-one of the 52 per cent majority which women constitute in this country; I am among the minority. I am not a Canadian of Inuit, Indian or aboriginal ancestry. I am not a Quebecer, except in spirit. Perhaps I have a special capacity, a special quality, to come here to ask others who are not native, women, Quebecers-and if they are Quebecers, not supporters of the Parti Quebecois-to recognize the tremendous importance to Canada of having a Constitution which will respect the rights and equality of women, underline the rights of the aboriginal people, and be large enough to include and make the people of Quebec feel comfortably at home.
That is the purpose of our amendment and that is the purpose of our party. That. I hope, will be the result of our deliberations and our debate on this resolution which is now before us.


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


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sure members of the House will appreciate that, because of the drafting technicalities, it is important that I reserve judgment on the acceptability of this motion.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, for more than 100 years we, as a nation, have been in pursuit of a completely autonomous nationhood. For more than 100 years this goal has eluded us. In these days we are now approaching success at last. In short, the final stage of the process is under way.
Since the birth of our movement as a party in the 1930s, we, along with others, have been in the forefront in advocating the need for an independent Constitution, a charter of rights and a working amending formula to meet the needs of the future evolution of our country. We have also said that the uniqueness and grandeur of the province of Quebec must forever be a cherished and crucial consideration in constitutional change. Quebec is not and never will be a province just like the others. It adds in its vitality, its architecture, by its composers, filmmakers and poets, a richness and diversity for which all Canadians can be thankful.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Finally, in recent years our party has become aware, at long last, of the moral claims of Canadian women and the native people of our land. It would be nice to be able to say that politicians, not only in our party but other parties, have been aware of the concerns of women and native people for many years and, indeed, decades. But that would do injustice to the truth. We all know that in this Parliament and in the legislatures across the country the concerns of the native people and the legitimate claims of Canadians women have been on the political agenda for all too short a time in our history.
In approaching constitutional change, then, we have these concerns and these values. When the process of constitutional change began in a serious way last fall, we said, along with others, that now is the time to act and create a fully independent Canada within a political framework that would make possible the creation of a society that is at once just and exciting, a society that is at the same time peaceful and humane.
As we all know, the process has not been an easy one. It has not been, to put it euphemistically, without tension. These tensions have revealed themselves in all our regions, in all our institutions and in all our political parties. I emphasize that this situation has occurred during every period of our history since the birth pains of nationhood were being experienced. There was no reason for Canada to have been an exception and we were not.
Earlier today the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) appropriately paid tribute to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the first ministers who met not long ago to develop a new accord. I want to join, on behalf of my colleagues, with the Minister of Justice in paying tribute to those men, representing

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
all the parties of Canada and all the regions of Canada, for the sincere and good results, on the whole, that they produced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) alluded to the particular role members of his party played in the development of the constitutional change process which has brought us to today's debate. I think it would be understandable in this context, without doing it in any boastful sense, if I underlined a few contributions to this process which have been made by my party. I am very proud of the role we played in improving the content of the original resolution. Specifically I single out the following contributions of the New Democratic Party, without which certain provisions in the resolution would not have been included. I noted with interest that two of the key amendments to which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) referred-and which he wants put back in the resolution-were the precise amendments the New Democratic Party insisted upon and obtained in the first resolution last spring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The first of these contributions I want to mention-because I think it is very important, given the regional nature of Canada-was that as a result of early discussions, broad new powers were given to the provincial governments over the development, control and management of their resources.
The second was our writing and insistence upon the acceptance of Section 28 in the original resolution which gave paramountcy to the equality of men and women. That was a product of the New Democratic Party of Canada and was finally accepted, I am pleased to say, by all parties in this House.
The third was the writing and insistence upon of Section 34 which recognized treaty and aboriginal rights. That was moved by one of my colleagues. It was written by the New Democratic Party, submitted and finally agreed to by all members in the House.
I am proud of the role my party played on those two important questions at this point in our history affecting the women of Canada and our native people. I have noted that as part of the process of the development of the Constitution the other parties went along with these suggestions.
As we all know, following the debate which took place last spring and following the decisions reached by certain courts, it became the strong view on this side of the House that the final vote on the resolution had to wait until the Supreme Court of Canada made a final judgment on the resolution. That judgment contained two messages. It said it was strictly legal but, on the other hand, it pointed out that broader consensus for constitutional change ought to be found. This process eventually took place and, as I have noted, the premiers and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) deserve credit for what they achieved.
The amending formula was changed. The absolute veto for the Senate was dropped, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was modified to make it blend with our parliamentary tradition.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You favoured all those things?


John Edward Broadbent: I will deal with that in a minute. I would be less than honest if I said that my colleagues and I were perfectly happy with all these things. We would have preferred that the original charter be binding universally without exception across Canada. That was our first preference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Nonetheless, as a number of civil liberties authorities have said, over-all in the context of serious compromise what we still have remains a good charter of rights. As the Minister of Justice has said, certain rights will remain absolute. Among those over which legislatures may pass laws the onus is upon those legislatures to pass specific legislation to justify such transgressions, and such negating laws would have to be renewed every five years. Thus, opposition parties and especially private interest groups in our society must remain vigilant.
In the early part of the last century a great French writer, Alexis de Tocqueville, wrote what was perhaps the most profound study of American society, and one of the distinguishing features he singled out about North American society was the vitality of interest groups and the creative input they had in making a democratic society with individual liberties possible. The kind of charter we now have before us will indeed permit legislatures on a five year renewal basis to undermine certain equalities if they wish, so it is mandatory that all of us who concern ourselves with civil liberties keep the pressure on at all times.

Madam Speaker, there is a most notable absentee among the signatories of that constitutional resolution. One cannot ignore the absence of Quebec at those negotiations. It is most unfortunate that Quebec was unable to agree with the other governments. We must recognize the uniqueness of the province of Quebec as I said earlier. Quebec, as a distinct society, is entitled to a special place within the Canadian community. However, it must be recognized however that the constitutional resolution before us partly confirms this. It was high time! It is not necessary to prove that Quebec is different from the other provinces, it is obvious.
This resolution, for the first time in the history of Canada, is a step in that direction. It is a beginning rather than the end of a process. I was pleased and even relieved to learn that the Prime Minister had amended the constitutional resolution. Thus Quebec will be entitled to some compensation if it ever wanted to opt out of any cultural or educational programs that the other provinces wanted to entrust to Ottawa. For legitimate and reasonable reasons, Quebec must control and administer those areas.
November 20, 1981



However, in this context I want to say that the proposal which has just been made by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is not one that is acceptable to us. The suggestion that in all domains where there is constitutional change approved by the constitutional amending process which would enable a province to opt out and obtain financial compensation in so doing would indeed create, in terms of all kinds of social programs, a checkerboard Canada. That is a view which we would not put up with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is one thing to recognize, as we ought to, the unique nature of the province of Quebec. It is one thing to recognize the unique qualities of Quebec-and I give credit to the government at last for doing this-in the cultural and educational domains require special consideration, but it is quite another thing for us to say that as a general principle for all provinces all new ideas like medicare, if proposed and accepted by constitutional amendment, could be rejected with compensation. Then the rich provinces could retain the money while the rest of the provinces would have medicare. I say to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada that we would never have had medicare in Canada as a national program if that had been in effect at the time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would be the last to want to interrupt the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent)-


Ian Deans: Why are you doing it, then?


Charles Joseph Clark: -nor would I want him to commit himself to a position without perhaps fully understanding it. The example of medicare that he has just used would not be prohibited by the amendment we have brought forward. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, naturally, may make the decisions he wishes to make. However, I would hope that before he finally and absolutely commits his party, he might provide us with an opportunity to go through with him in detail what has been proposed so if there is an opportunity to extend an amendment that would bring in Quebec, he will judge that on the basis of proper information.


John Edward Broadbent: We can have a longer discussion on that point in future. I stand by what I said. The agreement that has been achieved would, by amending the Constitutipn, enable one province to opt out of that and obtain financial compensation. I listened to the Leader of the Opposition with great care and will read with even greater care what he has had to say. Certainly the preliminary reaction would be that social programs involving constitutional change could lead to the richer, provinces opting out all along the line, leaving the poorer provinces to pay.
I will continue with the main points I want to make concerning the province of Quebec at this point in my comments.
The Constitution

English schools are no longer open to one and all in Quebec. The children of immigrants will have to attend French schools. As well, only Canadians who have attended English primary schools in Canada will be allowed to send their children to English schools in Quebec. Those amendments reflect greater respect for the distinctive character of Quebec. There is still room for improvement. For instance, arrangements ought to be made with respect to mobility should migratory movements appreciably alter Quebec's population balance. Quebec is already a distinct society in fact. I have in mind here the legal system and the Quebec Pension Plan in particular. That is good for Quebec and for Canada as a whole. Finally, Madam Speaker, francophones outside Quebec will gain recognition of their rights to education in all provinces of Canada. After 114 years, there is still progress to be made so that within a relatively short time francophones outside Quebec may be able to control their educational and social institutions just as anglophones do theirs in Quebec.

I want to note in this context that I am pleased to be able to send my daughter to a French language school which opened two years ago. For the first time we have a French language public school in the province of Ontario. There were Catholic schools teaching in the French language. Finally, the province of Ontario in the city of Ottawa is making French language available in the public system. Francophones all across our land must have that right.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want now to turn to two fundamental matters which must be of concern to all Canadians, namely equality of the sexes and the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. Before doing so, I want to say that when completed in a just form, I would like this resolution, particularly the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to hang on the wall of every classroom in every school in every region of Canada. I do not say this because I believe in propaganda. I say it because I believe constitutions are fundamentally about rights, rights are fundamentally about people and people from childhood on must be encouraged to acquire a deep understanding of their own liberties as well as an even deeper appreciation of the liberties of others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Turning now to this document, I ask in all seriousness, would we want children anywhere in Canada to read a document which says, "Men and women are equal except when a group of politicians say they are not"? That is what is in this document. It is neither good for young boys nor for young girls.
In our culture at this time, this kind of symbolism can mean only one thing. It does not mean that males can be discriminated against as well as females. Everyone in this chamber and everyone in Canada knows that it means it is accept-

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
able to discriminate against women, against young women, against girls. We find that totally offensive in this year of 1981.
In changing the original resolution with this act, we have taken a step backward, reversing completely the progress we had made in recent years. The progress toward achieving greater equality for women has, to understate it, not been exactly exciting. However, we have made and have been making up until this document some changes. However, when we put into a constitutional document written in 1981 the principle of inequality, what are we doing? We are not simply pausing or stalling; we are turning things backwards, we are institutionalizing inequality, and we cannot accept that.
We must restore the original positive wording of Section 28 which ensures the paramountcy of the principle that men and women are equal. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned his intention of moving an amendment. We had the same proposal, so it would be totally redundant for us to do that. I simply indicate that the amendment will have our full support, if for no other reason than that in the original document we wrote it in the first place.
I want to turn now to aboriginal children in the same schools, looking at the same document. Consider the children in Old Crow, Inuvik, on the reserves or in schools in the cities of western Canada where many of our native people have come in recent years. What would those young Indian children think when looking at that document on the wall, given their heritage, especially when they know that this land was once their land? How did they lose it? They lost it by violence, treaties or trickery. They know in their bones that is what happened to them as a people in the northern part of North America, and with much more violence in the southern part. It is impossible for a white person to put himself in the skull of a young Indian child and know what is going on in his or her mind. What will happen when they hear, as they will in their schools, about this process and when they see the kind of documents we know will be sent out that will be put on the school walls in Old Crow or in Inuvik? In this context, I would like to say I was at a meeting in Alberta a week ago with Indian leaders. I heard a whole series of them. Many of them I had met previously. I agree with what the Minister of Justice and Attorney General said, because-and I want to say that in passing-some of the leadership in the Indian community is no better or worse, I suspect, than the leadership in the political parties of Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And in the CLC.


John Edward Broadbent: And in the CLC, I will agree with the Prime Minister. I would also ask him to agree with me that the same is true of the Chamber of Commerce as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The point I want to make is that, having sat for an hour over breakfast and listened to the Indian leaders- and I heard the legal arguments before-I agree with them. But perhaps because I heard them before, I was not overly moved. There was an older man there who had kept silent. He was not one of the young, educated Indian lawyers nor, for all I know, was he one of the chiefs. I apologize to him through the House if he was in fact one of the chiefs of one of the bands from Alberta. Just before we broke for breakfast he spoke to me in a very low voice. He said, "I don't know what you are going to do in Ottawa. I don't know if we're going to get our rights, as I think we should have had them-"-and he was an older man-"-but I do know that my grandchildren will be very upset if we don't get our treaty rights". Then there was complete silence. That is all he had to say. He did not say it in a threatening tone, nor as a political bottom line, nor with animosity. There was almost a sense of pathos about what he did have to say, Madam Speaker. If I understood him correctly, he was saying, "My generation of Indians has had it. We have gone through it and we did not get the rights." He said to me as a white Canadian politician, "You have to think of the young Indians who are coming along."
That is my special plea today, Madam Speaker. It is a plea I am making in the House of Commons and to the premiers. I have talked to more than the majority of them during the past ten days. I know there are more than the majority of the premiers who are willing to entrench aboriginal and treaty rights. I know we are short of one or two premiers. I say that they must come forward so that we can send this document to England so that it will provide justice for our native people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I will not be moving an amendment on this subject today because one of our subsequent speakers will do that, Madam Speaker. The obvious force of the points that I have just made is that Clause 34 as written in the original resolution should be restored to the document before the House.
I want to conclude by saying that it is very rare in politics that a nation or a group of politicians is given the opportunity to make a historic decision that can be both practical and decent, that can be at once just and prudent. We in Canada are now on the threshold of such a decision. To follow through, we must now fully entrench treaty and aboriginal rights.
A number of us have already said that the resolution before us is not perfect but it is good and requires improvement. The improvement, in my judgment, would add integrity to Parliament's treatment of men and women and to our treatment of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
In the final analysis, national unity is not about federal-provincial relations, or the relations between different regions as abstract entities; it is about people. All of the people must be treated with integrity in this document. National unity, when we talk about provinces, is one thing. National unity, when we talk about the relationships of people, is what really counts.
I want to conclude by saying that national unity without integrity is not possible. I hope our goal in this debate, before the final vote is taken, is to achieve that national integrity.
[ Translation]


Mr. D. M. Collenette (York-East):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad to speak in such a historic debate. I have been saying
November 20, 1981

for years that the renewal of the Constitution is the most important question in the country, and I am deeply grateful to our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who has worked without respite. Mr. Speaker, I believe that when future generations will look back they will readily acknowledge the greatness of this Prime Minister who has so firmly urged Canadians to face this challenge. So now we must answer the question as to whether we, as Canadians, have risen to the occasion.

That is my message this afternoon, that is my small, modest contribution to this great constitutional debate. Have we been equal to the challenge that has been laid before us? This is a time of joyous outpouring. We will soon forward this resolution to Her Majesty. With the passage of the enabling legislation at Westminster and the subsequent proclamation here in Canada, we will at last have our own Constitution. We will end the anomaly of being a major power in the world, a major independent country with its Constitution residing in another country. This process has a particularly relevant meaning for me because I came with my family from Great Britain some 20 to 25 years ago and I have always found it somewhat incongruous that the country that I knew and learned about in my education as a young boy was really not independent and had not really attained the last vestige of independence. It is particularly touching for me to have been a participant as a Member of Parliament at this significant time in our history, when we are at last making Canada fully and truly independent in every sense of the word.
The proclamation of these changes will finally give us in this country a way to amend our Constitution. It will also give us a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is cause for joy. However, our joy must be tempered by the knowledge of what might have been. To follow on the comments made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I must say that what was the best charter of rights, in his words, is still an excellent Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We all have reason to be proud of the charter, but improvements still must be made. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), as well as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), touched upon the need to make improvements, to go forward. By passage of this resolution constitutional change will not be over. It is but another phase in the ongoing constitutional development in the history of the nation.
There are many purists in the House. I was one who, along with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with just about everyone on this side of the House as well as many members on the opposition side, believed that fundamental rights and freedoms were so sacrosanct and so inviolate that they should be entrenched in a constitution beyond the temporal winds of legislators such as ourselves. We have heard many speeches in
The Constitution
the debate from hon. members who have described Canadian legislatures and indeed this Parliament-of course I am thinking of the ignominious incident in the Second World War dealing with Japanese Canadians-as not having been the best guarantors of individual rights. This is why the charter which has emerged over the past year in debate in the House and through the participation of thousands of Canadians was such a noble document. It proposed that all basic freedoms and rights would be entrenched in the Constitution free of any legislative qualification.
The constitutional accord which was signed two weeks ago after much deliberation entrenches rights. However, fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights are subject to a provincial or federal legislative override. In addition, as has been pointed out, our original intentions as expressed in the original resolution in the House on the question of native's and women's rights have not yet come to fruition. They were not included in the constitutional accord. Indeed this is a glaring, startling and regrettable omission which we must all resolve to correct, whether it is to be corrected in the days which follow in debate in the House or whether it is to be corrected after patriation with the new amending formula which will be at our disposal.
We must address these questions. It has been argued with some justice that it will be difficult to override the charter, that the charter will provide an imperative for our courts that will make it very, very difficult for any legislature to tamper with the provisions relating to rights or to pass any legislation which would derogate from those rights. I shall not rest, and I am sure there are others in the House and in the country who will not rest until we achieve, once and for all, the complete entrenchment of these rights from any legislative sanction. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, first of all let us look at one of the main reasons why constitutional reform was so important for Canada, namely the entrenchment of the constitutional guarantees which ensure the survival of the French language and culture. As an English-speaking Canadian, I must admit that I am not proud of the way French-speaking Canadians have been treated for many decades. The two major examples of the shameful treatment of the French minority by the English majority have already been outlined during this debate. They happened in Manitoba in 1890 and in Ontario in 1912. There have been many other such cases, the most recent one being the air traffic controllers strike in 1976. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it was the ambivalence of English-speaking Canadians which showed once more that francophones cannot rely on the good will and the generosity of the legislators to guarantee their language rights.
Mr. Speaker, the survival and the promotion of the French language are important concerns for the Liberal Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Quebec, and of course, the Parti Quebecois. However, the latter believes, because of its destructive and reactionary ethnically-based prejudice, that the pro-

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
tection of the French language requires cutting back of some of the rights of the English minority established in Quebec. This contemptible nationalism has brought even more urgency to the need for linguistic guarantees, and the attitude of Mr. Levesque and his friends during the recent constitutional talks has emphasized the dishonesty of such a policy.
The former protector of the French language is now turning his back on the French minorities outside Quebec. This agitator has betrayed his provincial colleagues by refusing to sign the constitutional accord. This fanatic, whose slogan is Je me souviens, has abandoned his own province by renouncing to the veto of Quebec. Why is this, Mr. Speaker? Because this man and his party are determined to sabotage Confederation whatever the cost, even at the risk of weakening the position of their own province in future constitutional debates. If Quebec is now alone, Mr. Speaker, the Quebec premier is to blame. [English]
This is why I am so happy, even in perhaps the most modest way, that we have entrenched French language rights in the constitutional Accord, that we will at once be making our peace with those of our French-speaking brothers and sisters who have gone before us, who suffered discrimination and found that their language and culture were suppressed. My only sadness is that we have not quite given in this resolution the same rights to the English minority of Quebec; almost but not quite. But I believe what we have done for the English minority in Quebec will go a long way toward ensuring that the rights of English-speaking Quebecers will be safeguarded in the years ahead. It is my hope-and I think it is the hope of everyone in the chamber-that at some point, hopefully very soon in the future, when there will be an end to the independent party in Quebec, a federalist party once again will be in power, will come into the accord and join the other nine provinces and the federal government to preserve these rights and to entrench them for all Canadians.
I would be remiss if I did not say a few words about Section 133 of the present British North America Act and about my profound regret that the Premier of my province, notwithstanding the fact that he showed great vision in trying to reach a new constitutional accord, notwithstanding the fact that he supported our party which introduced the original resolution, has failed to extend these basic rights to the province of Ontario. That is something else for which we as Ontarians should fight in the years ahead. At the provincial level, and even at this level, by using the power of our influence as Members of Parliament, we should prevail upon the government of Ontario and upon subsequent governments or premiers of Ontario to make this last great gesture in the name of language equality in this country.
I just want to reflect on the process that we have gone through in the last year or so. I have been very caught up in that process and, like many hon. members on both sides of the House, have worked extremely hard both day and night, because this was not just another piece of legislation and not
just another parliamentary act. This was something more profound. Very seldom in the lifetime of an individual can he or she make or hope to make some contribution to history. All of us in this chamber have made such a contribution in the past year, despite the differences in our opinions. I think it is a testimony to the greatness of our parliamentary tradition that we were able to come to an agreement in this country without bloodshed, without brother and sister fighting against each other, and without civil strife.
Let us look at other countries in the world to see how they acquired their constitutions. Even Great Britain went through some bloody times, going back to Cromwell, going back to the chartist movement in the 1830s, and the social protests in that country during the development of their constitution.
We have indeed been fortunate. We should indeed be proud that we have been civilized enough in this country to fight with every last ounce of our strength, but with words and not physically, not fighting with each other in a manner which would cause irreversible bitterness. That is why the process which went on in the last year was so rewarding and monumental.
I think especially of the deliberations of the Joint Special Committee on the Constitution. Day in and day out, this committee's deliberations showed that democracy was indeed alive and well in our country. Many Canadians and many groups were represented and were able to express their point of view. Hundreds of briefs were received. The televising of those committee deliberations had a lot to do with provoking thought on the part of individual Canadians who otherwise would not have involved themselves with this question. We then saw the matter go to the Supreme Court. I would not want to reflect on judicial decisions, however, I must say that the decision that the original constitutional resolution was not constitutional in the convential sense must be accepted. I think that the Supreme Court really did not address the problem of the definition of proper conventions. It said that there had to be consent of the provinces.
However, I want to draw Your Honour's attention to a statement made by the noted constitutional professor, the late E. V. Dicey, in his well known work entitled "The Law of the Constitution". He stated that "the fundamental dogma of modern constitutionalism" is that "the legal sovereignty of Parliament is subordinate to the political sovereignty of the nation". The Supreme Court of Canada asserted that the original resolution, as I stated, was not constitutional in the conventional sense and that the political sovereignty of the nation was defined as a substantial consensus among the provincial and federal governments.
As an individual Canadian, I am offended that convention is defined in those terms. It is for that reason that I have always been of the view-and I stated it in the House many years ago in a debate on a referendum bill, Bill C-9, in the second session of the Thirtieth Parliament-that political sovereignty should be defined as the will of the people as expressed by themselves rather than by elected politicians.
November 20, 1981

It is my belief that in order to determine the rules of the game and to determine the rules which will govern us as a people, as distinct from moral issues and other questions, we should consult the people via the referendum mechanism. It is not an idea which would be unique to Canada. I just look at what has happened in Great Britain in recent years, where there have been two such referenda, one on entry into the Common Market and the other on questions of devolution of powers for Scotland and Wales. Therefore, one cannot argue that referenda are not in the British parliamentary tradition.
It is significant that the offer of a referendum was made by the Prime Minister during the negotiations, and it was turned down by many of the provinces. I regret that. What we saw was that the Canadian way, as described by the Leader of the Opposition and many of the provinces, really was the wheeling and dealing among elected politicians and elected governments to determine the rules by which the public and the people of Canada would live. Indeed, one may describe this Canadian way as one which permits some degree of moral cynicism.. I am prompted here to reflect upon some of the thoughts of the late American theologian, Reinhold Niebuhr. In his classical defence of democracy, entitled "The Children of Light and the Children of Darkness", he identified the powers of will and persuasion, the forces in society. It was Mr. Niebuhr who said that we may well designate the moral cynics who know no law beyond their own will and interest with a scriptural designation of "children of this world" or "children of darkness". Those who believe that self-interest should be brought under the discipline of a higher law could then be termed "the children of light".
He defines the children of light as those who seek to bring self interest under the discipline of this more universal law and in harmony with the more universal good. One does not want to get overly metaphysical in this very practical constitutional debate, but I think we must view what has gone on in the last little while with some disquietude that, in a sense, the will of the people themselves has been excluded and that there were those who could not put aside their own self-interest and could not seek a higher vision of what Canada was to become in the next century. However, in a sense, they settled for something which is good but which could have been infinitely better.
That is why I fihd it somewhat distasteful at the moment to see this continual bartering of rights, this continual trading off of native rights or women's rights. Surely the protection of those rights can stand or fall on their own merits. I suppose that I will leave this place a happy person-whether after the next election or whenever-because I was able to play some small role in the historic development of this country in the bringing in of a new Constitution. However, I would exhort all of us to be, in Reinhold Niebuhr's words, "children of light". Let us put aside our self-interest and our petty divisions. Let us try to go beyond ourselves and see the greater view. Let us see the new vision of Canada. Let us try to attain that vision. We can start the attainment of that vision by trying to realize our original objectives.
The Constitution
What we have before us now is good. It is great. It is a source of great joy. But it could have been better.
I am reminded of a story we studied in high school written by Robert Louis Stevenson. I believe the title of the story was El Dorado. In life one must always be searching and grasping for a new ideal. We must have a new goal. I entreat members of the House of Commons to see as their goal the complete restoration of the charter of rights as it was originally intended in the resolution so that all Canadians may live in dignity and harmony.
I would exhort all of those who read the House of Commons debates and all those Canadians who follow the issues of the day not to let their politicians off the hook. We have triumphed, yes, but we could have done better.
Let us hope that in the days, the months and the years ahead we will finally achieve our complete goal, the complete entrenchment of the basic rights notwithstanding the notwithstanding clauses, so they can stand by themselves all time and enshrined for oblivious to political change. That is what I am pledging to work for in my remaining time as a member of Parliament. I hope that my colleagues feel the same way.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John William Bosley: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my remarks I want to say to the honourable member who has just finished speaking that it would be nice for once if someone on the government benches would admit that we viewed the Supreme Court decision on television. It is difficult to listen to members on the other side almost claiming credit for a resulting process for which all Canadian fought.
Before I came here in 1979, it was my privilege to represent many of the people I now represent at the municipal level of government. During that time I had the honour to be involved, along with others, several of whom are now members in this House representing all sides, in the creation and implementation of a bold new urban plan for the city of Toronto. That plan from start to finish took several years. It involved dozens of compromises, the creative co-operation of literally hundreds of citizens in Toronto and thousands of hours of meetings. At the end, one Toronto wag commented that the plan was perfect and typically Toronto. It had to be good because it displeased everybody equally.
When I left municipal politics to seek this office, I did so with a question mark in my mind. Those members who are familiar with the mind-set peculiar to municipal councillors that the sun rises and sets on one's municipality, perhaps can best understand the doubt as to whether life in the House could ever be as stimulating as municipal work or whether any project here could ever be as important and challenging as our new plan was.
I rise today just a few days short of three years since I left municipal affairs to participate in this debate, a debate essentially about another plan, the proposed new plan for Canada's constitutional future.

November 20, 1981
The Constitution
1 can only say that this experience, the experience of being part of our constitutional renewal, has been in so many ways the highlight of my so far short public career. I want to try to express to you, Sir, to my party, to the House and, most important, to the people who sent me here, my intense feeling of gratitude for the privilege of being here at this historic time.
This promises to be an emotional debate. Earlier speakers members at various times showed through their tears the emotion they felt. I do not expect to have that effect on members, but I can say this, that however one views this resolution, whatever one's political bias, there can be no doubt that the importance of this date for Canada is felt on all sides of the House.
The writing of constitutions must be among the most noble and important work in which people's elected representatives engage. I am here in some measure because the previous member for Don Valley West, Mr. Jim Gillies chose not to run. Perhaps with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I might read into the record his favourite quote. He used it always to advise his constituents, now my constituents, on matters of importance. It seems this quote has merit in our discussions today. The quote will be familiar to many people here. It goes like this:
Make no little plans: They have no magic to stir men's blood-make big plans, aim high in hope and work.
The philosophy behind those words continues something along the line of: "Aim high in your hopes and dreams remembering that our grandchildren will probably do things that we never dreamed of. Let your watchword be justice and your beacon be hope."
Let us be clear and sure that the spirit in which we approach this debate is exactly that: hope for justice for all Canadians, including women, men, our native people and all Canadians, especially the people of Quebec.
Let us also be clear that this debate must not delay dealing with the other urgent problems this country faces, and our unreasonable delay would serve no one.
There are several matters I want to raise in this debate. We are, however, approaching four o'clock and I would like to make sure that I put something on the record before I proceed to deal with what I think are absolutely vital questions in this debate, specifically the issues of equality of men and women, the issue of the protection of the treaty rights of our aboriginal people, and the amendments which my leader proposed earlier today.
We received a telex in which I believe the House will be interested because quite a bit of admirable discussion has taken place about attempting to persuade premiers to come on side with native rights and men's and women's rights. This telex came from the Premier of Ontario, the Hon. William G. Davis. It was addressed to the Right Hon. Joe Clark and to Duke Redbird, president, Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association, Native Council of Canada offices. To those who want to know where Ontario stands, I can say it stands foursquare behind the entrenchment of the rights of the
aboriginal peoples and for Section 28 unamended. I will quote for the record from the telex. It reads, in part:
Ontario remains committed to the accord signed on November 5. However, to the extent there is significant opportunity prior to the end of the debate in Ottawa to influence those who do not support the current provisions for women's rights and the inclusion of aboriginal rights, we will be endeavouring to do so.
It continues:
We do express our sincere regret that aboriginal rights were excluded from that agreement. ...
It concludes:
We remain committed to the principle of entrenching rights for both women and native peoples.
Let there be no mistake about where Ontario stands.
I propose to continue that argument when I am next allowed to rise, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills, notices of motions and private bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS

[Stage Direction]
Public Bills Nos. 1 to 59 inclusive allowed to stand by unanimous consent.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin) moved:: That Bill C-259, to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (renewable energy), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, private members' hour is getting the attention it always gets in the House, but I do recognize that many members are very busy.
I bring this bill forward today as one of a series I want to present to the House which deal with renewable energy. This is a subject in respect of which we would require very minor amendments to a number of acts in order to allow us to proceed toward energy self-sufficiency in this nation more quickly than is presently the case. I have considered a number of acts and I have presented simple amendments by way of private member's bills which I think would greatly assist us in moving toward the use of more renewable energy fuels in our nation.
This bill has to do with the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Its purpose is to extend the objects and powers of the Canadian
November 20, 1981

Wheat Board so as to allow it to purchase and market surplus or deteriorating grain for eventual use in the production of fuel alcohol.
This bill would amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act in such a way that the board would be able to purchase surplus grains in years of surplus as well as grains that for some reason do not meet the requirements of the Canadian Wheat Board for sale for human or animal consumption. This maybe because of the presence of certain weed seeds, or for either human or livestock consumption.
In the situation as it exists today a farmer cannot sell that grain to an elevator agent who is buying for the Wheat Board if that grain is rejected for one of the reasons I have outlined. However, we have the capacity and the technology to produce alcohol from those types of grains. By allowing the Wheat Board to become involved, we would enable farmers to sell these types of grains to their elevator agents on an equitable basis rather than having to find their own markets.
The other important aspect of this is that many of the plants capable of producing alcohol-at present we only have one in Canada-may not be situated in areas where frost may have produced large amounts of grain with a high nitrate content. With the adoption of this measure, agents could buy that grain and easily ship it to the existing plant in Manitoba, or others that hopefully will either be built or converted in the future to the production of alcohol.
If we look at past years we will find that we have had surpluses of these types of grains in Canada. Let me go back as far as 1967. I would note that the Canadian Wheat Board considers eight million metric tons of wheat as a normal carry-over, the kind of carry-over that must be maintained to ensure self-sufficiency in our nation should we experience a total crop failure. This would allow to continue year by year without a break, so to speak, in the pipeline system.
In 1967 we had a carry-over of 18 million metric tons. This meant some ten million metric tons of surplus. In 1968 we had a carry-over of 23 million metric tons; in 1969 we had the largest surplus in our history of 27 million metric tons; in 1970 we had 19 million metric tons; in 1971 we had 15.5 million metric tons; in 1972 we had 10 million metric tons, and the same in 1973. In those years we had substantial surpluses. This inhibited our farmers to a great extent in obtaining the kinds of returns they needed in order to continue this production on their farms.
Had this measure been in place at that time, perhaps the Wheat Board could have helped our farmers in a domestic way to alleviate their problems in relation to production surpluses.
In the early 1970s, 1972 and 1973 we had a huge surplus of barley on the prairies. Many of us who are farmers remember selling barley at three bushels for a dollar. One might say it is nice to have a surplus, and it is. However, the government has an obligation to our farmers to attempt to market these surpluses in any manner possible.
Today we are inhibited by our transportation system. The difficulty arises not because of the lack of world markets for
Canadian Wheat Board Act
our grain, but rather because we do not have an adequate transportation or port system to handle the grains presently grown on the prairies. This bill would allow the Wheat Board to assist the farmers in coming years until the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) commits the $1.5 billion he has promised. I must say to that minister that this money is desperately needed for those improvements that should be started today so that within four years we can move to a quota system on our tracks, and I would plead with the minister to make every effort to provide that money.
We have the ability to produce certain grains with tremendous yields in various regions of our country. I could use as an example the Lethbridge area where substantial irrigation has and is taking place and we can now produce soft white spring wheats at the rate of 125 bushels per acre and up. Often we have not had a market for these grains, even though we were producing them, and they jammed elevators in the area. Farmers had great quantities stored on their farms. The government was unable to sell this grain and we ended up putting it into our foreign aid programs. That is an admirable use, but these quantities of grains could be used for fuel alcohol production. Following alcohol production the protein could be used for human or animal consumption.
I recall there being a substantial frost in Saskatchewan two years ago and many farmers only had a three-bushel quota for number three utility wheat for the entire crop year. They had to carry that wheat over for some considerable time before being able to market it. That type of grain could very easily be used for the production of alcohol.
What I am trying to point out is that there is a need in this country for this kind of legislation so that the Wheat Board could assist us in times of surplus and at times when we have grades of grain that are not fit for human or animal consumption. I am hoping that members of this House will find this bill important enough, although it may not be drafted perfectly, to send it to the committee for further study and recommendation.
A draft paper on alcohol fuels, which was used as a background piece for the 1980 discussion paper on liquid fuel options, indicated that a concerted federal and provincial effort could result in fuel alcohol production of some 600 million gallons per year by 1990, if we get started today. This would be the equivalent of 400 million gallons of gasoline or 5 per cent of the projected gasoline requirement for this country.
Many people have been reluctant to have countries commit what is called human food to the production of alcohol because they believe the byproduct is unusable. This is not the case. In fact, the fermentation process really only converts the starches and sugars into alcohol and the protein is the byproduct. It can serve as an excellent animal feed and can be recycled, with proper methods, into an excellent food for humans as well. In fact, the rich protein byproduct feed for animals is even more effective than if they were fed wheat, barley or oats before it had been put through that process.

November 20, 1981
Canadian Wheat Board Act
There have been tests done on this in the United States. In one case, the byproducts from corn, the mash that was offered, had more protein and vitamins than it had before it was put through the fermentation process. Through the experimentation that was done, it was found that the growth rate efficiency for animals was 13 per cent greater than if they were fed feed which had not gone through the fermentation process. I believe further experiments will show that this is a fact.
In the State of Kansas a $15 million plant has been designed to produce 5.5 million gallons of alcohol per year, 200 per cent proof, plus 15,000 tons of liquid carbon dioxide, plus a byproduct to finish feed 30,000 heads of cattle. It is operating very well.
We have one plant in Canada. In Minnedosa, Manitoba, the Mohawk Oil Company has converted a former Gooderham and Worts distillery to fuel alcohol production. The conversions were designed by an Austrian firm. This firm has developed many plants around the world, including a 20 million gallon plant in the state of Missouri.
The Mohawk plant follows in the wake of about ten United States distilleries which have been converted from producing beverage to the production of fuel alcohol. The technology and the equipment remain virtually the same for the production but the efficiency is greater because the alcohol does not have to be as distilled for consumption in cars as it is for human consumption. It is expected that Mohawk will have a $17 million to $22 million per year capacity and the fuel will be made from locally grown barley and grains.
If Mohawk is as successful as we believe it would be, my bill would encourage the construction of another plant and the use of surplus grains from other regions that are not fit for human consumption for the production of alcohol. This would be of assistance to this plant in going ahead with the construction of a second plant and hopefully would encourage production in Saskatchewan and Alberta as well. The government of Alberta assisted Manitoba to convert this plant, and immediately upon giving the plant a production licence, the government eliminated the road taxes on this fuel.
In a few years fuel alcohol plants will have no difficulty in competing with gasoline prices. At the present time this type of incentive is needed if fuel alcohol is to become competitive.
We also have the potential to produce alcohol from a number of other materials. People who are familiar with this area will know that the Jerusalem artichoke is the most productive, and sugar beets, which grow very well in southern Alberta in irrigation areas, are close behind. While wheat is not the most efficient, it is abundant in this nation. Potatoes, of which there is a surplus in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island can also be used. Farmers there would be willing to produce more potatoes if they were given an opportunity to sell them for the production of alcohol. We have the ability to produce alcohol from much of the produce that farmers grow in Canada. Also, experimental farms in Ontario have produced a type of poplar tree which grows very quickly and can be converted into ethyl alcohol. Although I am only presenting one bill, I could present many more which would
assist farmers in producing crops which would be capable of producing alcohol.
Many other countries around the world are far ahead of Canada in the production of fuel alcohol. The United States has, particularly since the embargo on oil, forged ahead in providing incentives for plants and private industry to develop fuel alcohol production. For example, producers in the United States are eligible for alcohol fuels entitlement from the department of energy. These are loan guarantees given to alcohol plants as well as investment tax credits to individuals who wish to produce fuel alcohol. In addition, there are substantial funds for research and development-an increase from $3 million in 1977 to $25 million this year.
Brazil, which also suffered from the oil embargo, produces 5 per cent of its fuel from alcohol and hopes to increase that substantially in the years to come. In 1980 Brazil exported
70,000	tons of soybeans. In the near future they will not be exporting any because they will be putting them into alcohol production to meet their own desperate needs.
The Dutch have designed, through their applied sciences, a device which enables cars to run on any mixture of gas and alcohol and even on pure alcohol. The refinements in this industry are progressing rapidly and the capacity for Canada to learn from that technology is real.
There is also substantial use of alcohol fuels in Sweden, New Zealand, Australia and Japan. This proves that many countries are moving rapidly forward in this area, and I believe Canada should keep pace.
A task force was established this year which did an excellent job in the area of renewable energy. I would like to quote my hon. friend for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), who was a member of the parliamentary task force on energy alternatives. He said:
Our committee was struck by the potential for alcohol to extend our current supplies of gasoline in a 10 per cent blend with no need to modify the engine. The committee recommended that the government should go beyond its proposal for fuel alcohol regulations and should allow alcohol to be sold to retailers.
We have an inhibiting factor present in our country at this time. When Bill C-57 was before the House last year, many of our members argued very strenuously for some amendments. The difficulty we face in Canada today is that the government only allows experimentation licences to individuals which are renewable for only one year. After that year the equipment has to be destroyed. The licence should be extended to five years to give these individuals a chance to refine their product and increase their capacity. We also believe that instead of research being done on a limited, personal use basis, the bond should be extended so that individuals could establish larger plants which could offer economies of scale and enable joint effort projects among a number of farmers to be undertaken. In this way they could refine their yearly and daily production quotas. While there is a movement to reduce the bond from $200,000 to $10,000, there is still a lot of room to allow for expansion in the fuel alcohol area.
In conclusion, I would like to see the House seriously consider this bill and allow it to go to committee for further
November 20, 1981

study so that farm groups and various others could attend and encourage Members of Parliament to move in this direction and allow the Wheat Board to get fully involved in this area.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this bill and I congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) for bringing it forward. I appreciate the fact that in bringing this bill forward he suggested the extension of the powers of the Canadian Wheat Board so that it could control the movement of grains used for this particular reason.
The history of the Canadian Wheat Board is very interesting. It has benefited farmers in the past and will continue to do so. It was established in 1935. It was operating prior to that, but in 1935 it was given the power to handle wheat and in 1949 the power to handle oats and barley. The circumstances in existence at the time the board was formed are similar to the circumstances today. Prior to 1935 it was quite possible for a farmer to sell grain at one price in the fall and at a different price in the spring. I remember very well my father's selling grain for 75 cents a bushel in October and holding as much as he could until March when he would get $1.50 a bushel for it. By virtue of the organization of the board and its sales policies this has been evened out so that in this situation a farmer would probably get $1 a bushel the whole year.
There was another reason for the setting up of the Canadian Wheat Board. It is a reason why the board still exists and why its powers should be extended. That reason is the continued existence of the grain exchange. The grain exchange does today what it was doing back in 1929. The grain exchange claimed to be the farmer's friend and to give him a better return for his grain. It claimed to be the consumer's friend, as it claimed it could sell grain cheaper than it could be sold in any other way. However, in the process of buying grain and selling grain the grain exchange makes money, and it has never been able to explain to me whether it took that money from the consumer or the farmer. There is no added value in the handling of grain by the grain exchange. The exchange added nothing to the grain, so it took money either from the consumer or the farmer.
The establishment of the Canadian Wheat Board and the extension of powers to it continue to be of value. I am glad to see that the hon. member for Wetaskiwin endorses orderly marketing, which has served Canadian farmers well. If we can extend that principle to other products and for other reasons, we should do so.
In the last few months serious attempts have been made to undermine the orderly marketing process. Attacks have been made by what I call flunkey large corporations. It pains me to say this of such a prestigious organization, but one of the flunkeys has turned out to be the Economic Council of Canada. This prestigious organization blew its credibility and possibly much of its effective work by using spurious and unsound arguments and half truths about orderly marketing. The council has been aided in this by another flunkey-and
Canadian Wheat Board Act
again it pains me to say this-the CBC. In the last year in the presentations "What Bread Basket," "Against the Grain" and "The Game of Monopoly" this prestigious organization has succeeded in giving a biased picture of farm life, of grain transportation and of orderly marketing.
This government has allowed the food industry to be dominated by five large corporations. If the government is going to allow that, it should at least even out the odds somewhat by establishing and promoting marketing boards wherever possible. Surprisingly, people like Frank Warnock, who used to be the head of Loeb, supports this position, and I will refer to a newspaper article in this respect. It reads:
Warnock cited the power of those five "who virtually dominate the retail food market" and said any government that allows that must also allow farmers to form marketing boards to protect their interests.
Again I must congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin for recognizing the value of orderly marketing. I hope he will lead his party to support the extended use of the Canadian Wheat Board.
To get a little closer to the subject matter of Bill C-259, it deals with the sale of surplus and deteriorating wheat for use in the production of alcohol. In addressing the question of using food for the purpose of producing byproducts such as fuel alcohol, there are serious ethical and moral problems which must be addressed as a matter of policy. The hon. member used the term "surpluses" in respect of a particular year. If that grain-or that food-was really surplus, it would still be around, and whenever there is hunger in the world there is no such thing as a surplus of food. It was not too long ago that serious opposition was mounted in my province of Saskatchewan to using locally grown malting barley in a malt plant from which beer would ultimately be produced. This opposition was based on moral grounds. There are substantial numbers of people in Saskatchewan and other parts of Canada who believe it is immoral to use food grain for brewing and alcoholic distillation. There is a similar argument about fuel alcohol, and it is a compelling one.
Large scale fuel alcohol and gasohol operations are rapidly being built in the United States, as the hon. member indicated. I recognize that the grain used is surplus or deteriorating grain, but there is still a question as to what happens to large potential food supplies which are diverted to other purposes, even if the byproducts retain a high nutrient value. The answer, of course, is that the price of available stocks goes up.
The director of the United States National Alcohol Fuels Commission has conceded that the United States target of four billion gallons of alcohol from corn would increase the price of corn by 6.6 cents per bushel.
No producer objects to high prices, but some producers wonder if they can ever produce enough food to feed the world. They seem to be producing surpluses, yet millions are starving because their countries cannot afford to buy food grains. This is another aspect of the ethical dilemma we have. In the face of increasing petroleum fuel prices, food grains may become more valuable as alcohol stock than as food.

November 20, 1981
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Right now there is a question in the United States as to whether the use of corn for alcohol will ultimately see its price rise over wheat, and huge U.S. wheat surpluses which have played a major part in international wheat trade in recent years will be retained in the United States. They will not be put on to the export market. If this happens, what will happen to the food supply of the world? This is a rather daunting picture. U.S. wheat exports now feed much of the world. They will quite possibly be removed by the use of corn to produce alcohol.
As some hon. members know, United States wheat exports for the 1981-82 crop year were 49.7 million tonnes, an increase of 18.2 million tonnes or 58 per cent over four years ago, and more than the exports of the other four major grain exporters, Canada, Argentina, Australia and the European Economic Community, in total. Given the kind of possibility which would eliminate United States grain from the food export market, Canada must make a deliberate political decision, not a market decision, on where our food grain can best be used.
Alcohol production here is still in its commercial infancy, but the patterns will be set now and will be difficult to reverse in later years. Given the pressure on potential food supplies, is it not better to start a fuel alcohol plant using some of the materials the hon. member mentioned, such as wood, crop residues and high carbohydrate non-food materials? Then food grains could be added, but only under conditions of deterioration which would be a total loss under any other circumstances.
Already the Saskatchewan government has made a pioneering effort in the commercial alcohol area, as has a plant in Manitoba. A research contract in connection with the Federated Co-operatives for a pilot ethanol plant is the first step. The research part of the agreement calls for investigation of crop residues and wood as an alcohol feedstock.
Some of the fastest growing trees, such as poplar on the prairies, could well be the basis of part of this beginning industry. I was happy to hear the hon. member for Wetaskiwin allude to these as possible sources for the production of alcohol. Obviously this is a question which needs far more examination and planning before it takes its final form. Too often a plant is built and the raw materials are available for only a very short time.
The Canadian Wheat Board would be an excellent vehicle for determining available grain supplies for such a venture. As a central selling agency, the board can do much to plan and shape a fuel alcohol industry in Canada. However, the board is ultimately an administrative agency, one that is charged specifically with providing farmers with the best prices in the selling of their grains. Thus a political decision must be taken, and taken in Parliament, as to how the broader use of alcohol-source materials can best be deployed. Maybe this should not be the responsibility of the wheat board.
I hope that the government speaker on this bill will give us some information on what the state of government planning is
on this important subject. We on this side of the House always express the hope that the government will have considered something that goes a bit beyond what is happening today.
Too often, I am afraid, the response of the government consists of a few off-topic notes which are suitably garbled by the government spokesman and constitute nothing more than a slap in the face of Parliament and what is the democratic process in Canada. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin deserves better. He has brought forward a serious proposal which deserves every consideration by the government, the House, the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Department of Agriculture and the Canadian Wheat Board.
I look forward to the government's response as an indication of how it intends to respond to an initiative which I and the New Democratic Party support because it not only exceeds the scope of the most effective government agency in grain marketing, of which I approve, but also addresses itself to a question which has tremendous implications for all Canadians in the future. How we get our fuel in the next few years will be very pertinent to the way in which we live.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to private members' Bill C-259, an Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the government would not support the amendments to the Canadian Wheat Board Act proposed in this bill for a number of reasons.
The Canadian Wheat Board already has the legal authority to take delivery of, to handle, distribute, and so forth, grain for the purpose of producing fuel alcohol. In fact, a company has been established in Manitoba, Mohawk Oil Company, which is at present producing fuel alcohol from grain. This company has had discussions with the Canadian Wheat Board on its requirements and how deliveries of grain for this purpose would be fitted in with administration of the Canadian Wheat Board Act and regulations.
The Minnedosa Company has been granted permission to buy off-board grain as an elevator and account to the board accordingly. It will be buying off-board grain directly from producers. This makes it possible for grain of the type described in this bill to be purchased, if they wish to do so. They may also purchase off-board stocks from out of country elevators if they can find suppliers.
Since its requirements are feed grain, purchases are made off-board and do not fall under the board's quota system. There has to be a notation made in the permit book to meet the administrative regulations of these off-board quotas. Deliveries are made from grains grown in Manitoba and since the byproducts in addition to the fuel alcohol are also sold in Manitoba, this operation is deemed to be intra-provincial and therefore outside the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act. Nevertheless, the plant is operating and in compliance with quota regulations under the Canadian Wheat Board Act for off-board deliveries, and there is no hindrance to its operations.
November 20, 1981

Recently, interest has bee expressed by a group of Albertans in establishing a grain-based fuel alcohol plant in that province. They have also approached the Canadian Wheat Board on this. This group has been informed that arrangements identical to those made for the Manitoba company would also be made for them. These arrangements would be to designate the plant as a licenced delivery point under the terms of the Canada Grain Act. Then under the terms of the Canadian Wheat Board Act, the plant would be empowered to take delivery of grains and make the necessary notation in producers' permit books, recording deliveries of off-board grains and reporting such deliveries to the board in accordance with the board's statistical requirements under the act.
The suggestion made by the hon. member who introduced this legislation is that infested and contaminated grain must have an outlet in order to facilitate the production of grain based fuel alcohol. The Canadian Grain Commission, whose responsibility it is to ensure that grain moving into commercial channels meets with Canada's stringent quality and health requirements, advises that infested and contaminated grains, when detected, are isolated and actions to fumigate or decontaminate are taken so that the grain can be allowed to be sold commercially. Commercial sale, of course, means that the producer receives an ordinary return for his product rather than being forced to destroy the grain or otherwise dispose of it at a loss. In any case, in terms of the Canadian experience, the quantities of infested and contaminated grain actually entering commercial channels are exceedingly small. Such quantities would not form an adequate base to supply a plant or plants producing fuel alcohol from grain.
The Canadian government is aware and informed of work that has gone into the development of gasohol, a blend of ethyl alcohol and gasoline. The U.S. has had a major program in existence for several years, which has been very costly and appears to be less than successful. It has been a subsidized program. Some of the problems are as follows: One, energy input is greater than energy output-in other words,- it requires more energy to produce a gallon of alcohol than you can get out of that gallon; two, a product with a high starch content such as corn is preferable as yields of alcohol are greater; three, the cost of ethyl alcohol is wholly dependent on the cost of raw materials. Therefore, the finished gasohol is also dependent on raw material costs. Four, an economically-sized plant should produce a large quantity of alcohol. Some plants produce up to 10 million gallons, while others produce 50 million gallons of alcohol. It would require 23 million bushels of grain to produce 50 million gallons of alcohol. Five, supplies of low quality grain are unpredictable. Therefore, supplies of necessary cheap raw material would also be unpredictable.
There is also a suggestion in the bill that surplus grain must be made available through the Canadian Wheat Board for the production of fuel alcohol or ethanol. As the hon. member must be aware, the Canadian Wheat Board does not feel that such surpluses exist or will exist in the future. It would seem
Canadian Wheat Board Act
appropriate for me to read into the record a statement made by the Canadian Wheat Board about its proposed target for shipments in the 1981-82 crop year.
The Canadian Wheat Board announces its export targets for 1981-82 as follows:
-The Canadian Wheat Board today announced an export target of 26 million tonnes of western Canadian grains, oil seeds, and products for the 1981-82 crop year.
The target represents an increase of more than 13 per cent over the previous record set in 1979-80, and is in line with the longer term objective of 30 million tonnes by 1985-86.
The board said ... that western grain growers have presented a challenge to the grain handling and marketing system by producing a record harvest. The western Canadian crop... is estimated by Statistics Canada in ... forecast at more than 41 million tonnes, surpassing the previous record output by some 3 million tonnes, or about seven per cent.
Last Wednesday at the Saskatchewan wheat pools annual meeting it was reported that, indeed, we had a record prairie gain harvest of 41.8 million tonnes, which is only 13 per cent short of the target for 1985. The Canadian Wheat Board plans to export 26 million tonnes of grain products this year, only 15 per cent less than its projected target of 30 million tonnes in 1985.
The inference in this proposed legislation is that by giving the legal power to the Canadian Wheat Board to market such grains, a plant producing fuel alcohol from grain would obtain a low cost raw material in sufficient quantities that would sustain the production of ethanol on a commercial basis. The Canadian Wheat Board was established as a producer's marketing board to sell on behalf of farmers in western Canada to their best advantage. This bill, with its basic intention of getting the Canadian Wheat Board involved in supplying western grains for the production of fuel, would not work to the advantage of the company or companies concerned as the Canadian Wheat Board would constantly try to seek the highest price for grain in both the domestic and export markets.
Canada, with its enviable record as a producer of quality grains, does not set out to produce low grades which might be suitable for use as a fuel. In fact, over the past 25 years, over 76 per cent of Canada Western Red Spring Wheats have graded either number one or number two. The Canadian Wheat Board's press release of October 16 on the subject of record quantity of grain supplies available in the 1981-82 crop year would seem to be noteworthy. It reads:
-a Canadian Wheat Board survey-
-forecasts and has determined from its-
-country elevator managers ... that farmers in western Canada have a record quantity of grain supplies, with above average quality, available for delivery this year.
According to the survey, farmers have 39,676,000 tonnes of the six major grains available for delivery.
The important thing is above average quality. The top two grains combined account for 82 per cent of the total Canada Western Red Spring Wheat supplies compared to the 25 year average of 76 per cent.

November 20, 1981
Canadian Wheat Board Act
Supplies of No. 3 Canadian Red Wheat were estimated at
2.587.000	tonnes, while Canada feed was estimated at only
182.000	tonnes, which is down from 1,804,000 tonnes from last year. I am trying to indicate by this that there is very little low grade wheat available for the production of gasohol.
The Canadian Wheat Board was consulted and they suggested the concept and application of these amendments would raise many difficulties among them. Under the Canada Grain Act, infested or out-of-condition grain can only enter or be discharged from an elevator with the approval and by order of the Canadian Grain Commission. If this is done, the bin and equipment used must subsequently be fumigated as must railway cars and terminals handling it. If trucks are used to transport this grain, they must also be fumigated before carrying other proper grain. Infested grain, when found on a farm, is usually not in a large quantity. The practice has been for the owner of such grain to sell it to nearby feeders or other purchasers in ways that do not involve the ordinary commercial grain handling system. The board has the power to buy infested or out-of-condition grain if it so wishes, but the board has never knowingly made such purchases except for out-ofcondition grain in the tough and damp categories which can be conditioned by blending or drying. It would be better to leave the present practices in operation and allow the producers of such grain as the bill describes to dispose of it as it has been in the past, with the additional alternative of selling to a methanol plant in the manner described.
Before concluding, therefore, let me say that the government does not feel that the Canadian Wheat Board Act need be amended as set out in the bill. A firm which is already producing fuel alcohol is receiving quantities of grain off-board directly from producers by truck. The arrangement is apparently to the satisfaction of the company, the producers and the board. The quantities of infested, out-of-condition or low grade grain are never very large. Empowering the board to take delivery and dispose of such grains would not be very practical and the administrative costs could be substantial. Low-grade wheats tend to remain outside the usual market channels. They are fed to animals or are disposed of by producers. The small quantities of infested and contaminated grain which might possibly enter the system are rigidly controlled and are not permitted to move through regular commercial channels when detected. It is the opinion of the Canadian Wheat Board that it would be better to leave the present practices in operation to allow producers to dispose of low-grade, infected, contaminated or out-of-condition grain as they have in the past.
The car unloads at Thunder Bay have steadily increased. We will be able to reach record highs of delivery of grain in the current crop year. The car unloads at Thunder Bay this week demonstrate that there has been a real pick-up since the strike. In the week ending November 14, on the west coast there were 2,593 car unloads and at Thunder Bay, 6,989, for a total of 9,582 car unloads this week as compared to 7,676 at the same time last year.
What is of more concern to western farmers is the transportation and the availability of equipment to move grain to market and to export. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is taking all necessary steps with Mr. Radke of the Grain Transportation Authority to ensure that the grain transportation system is able to move 26 million tonnes to export position this year. The terminals at Vancouver will have to handle 20 per cent more grain than the record set last year, while at Thunder Bay handlings will have to be about 16 per cent better than any previous record there. Total exports to November 4 from all ports were 2.6 per cent ahead of Thunder Bay early in the crop year. To quote from a telegram which I received, Mr. Radke said:
The short-term outlook in transportation is good and recent steps toward financing a new terminal at Prince Rupert, along with commitments to purchase six new lake freighters, promise even greater capacity.
Mr. Radke also recommended that the Canadian Wheat Board or the Canadian government acquire additional hopper cars in the next three years. This is one of the matters with which the Minister of Transport will deal.
By giving these examples I am trying to say that we have fine quality wheat. It is all needed for export, it is all being sold. There is little of it to be disposed of, in the manner of contaminated or spoiled wheat, for the production of gasohol. There is no need to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act at this time to provide gasohol plants in either Manitoba or Alberta. It is possible under the current system, with the present regulations and authority of the Canadian Wheat Board, to do so. For this reason the government urges the House not to agree to the amendments proposed in Bill C-259.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to talk out this bill because it is an excellent one. I congratulate the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger) for introducing it. The entire address read by the parliamentary secretary-and I emphasize "read"-is most dismaying. It shows a lack of desire to do anything new-do not rock the ship, do not do anything the Canadian Wheat Board or the government does not want to do. He did not say that the farmers did not want to do it. Farmers should be given an opportunity. The Canadian Wheat Board has annual meetings. It would be logical for the Wheat Board to give the farmers who produce wheat an opportunity to do it.
A few years ago a good field of soft wheat was lost in the Medicine Hat area because there was no place for it. The hon. member for Wetaskiwin is not saying that they should interfere with the good, high protein wheat; not at all. This can be done-there is always some spoiled wheat.
In connection with the lack of food and the immorality of using wheat for alcohol production, at the present time there is a method of taking out the high protein, leaving the basic food product. It is not a case of doing this or that. The wheat board has never challenged farmers to produce more wheat or differ-
November 20, 1981

ent types of wheat. We are not living in a stagnant world. If that attitude had prevailed years ago, we would still be plowing our fields with oxen and riding around in buggies. The government should become involved in research. It should realize that there are advances to be made and that this bill would be an advance. I think the farmers of western Canada would go for it. We are not asking them to give up growing good wheat. We are asking that the other wheat be used. Let us establish another industry. It would mean more jobs. There are a million people unemployed because the government has no initiative. It does not want to turn to research, it does not want to rock the boat. It wants to leave everything the way it is. This is why we are going backwards. It is the old turkey dance-one step forward and about five steps backward. This bill should be passed. Farmers should be given an opportunity to say whether they want to do it or not.
[ Translation]


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to speak to this bill because I know the hon. member who introduced it is very interested in renewable energy. Now,
Canadian Wheat Board Act
after reading the bill as well as several press releases, I cannot help but object to the bill itself.
This bill, Mr. Speaker, referred to as the Bill to Amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act, is aimed at extending the objects and powers of the Canadian Wheat Board so as to allow it to purchase and market surplus or deteriorating grain for eventual use in the production of fuel alcohol, or farm ethanol, as this surplus is called. Now, I do not think that a country like Canada, which has an excellent reputation as a top quality wheat producer, would purposely produce wheat for the production of fuel alcohol. For the last 25 years Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.

It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, November 23, 1981