1981-12-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Statistics Canada has confirmed what everybody, other than those in the ivory tower who advise the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), already knew, that this country is in a mammoth recession. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
That the Prime Minister direct the Minister of Finance to withdraw the budget immediately and change the economic direction of the country, discharge from the public service his ivory tower dreamers, and produce a new budget to get this country back on the rails before this House recesses for Christmas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND THAT NEW BUDGET BE INTRODUCED-MOTION UNDER
Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Today we learn that the government's bureaucracy has finally got the message that the country is headed for economic disaster. Hopefully the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has Finally got the message that his budget is counterproductive and obsolete. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That this House demand from this government a new budget which will provide for the needs of ordinary Canadians, that is, jobs, homes, and protection against high interest rates and inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[ Translation]


EMPLOYMENT
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas according to Statistics Canada, the unemployment rate in Quebec has shown a dramatic increase of 44 per cent compared to previous months, and whereas Quebec alone has 36 per cent of the unemployed in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the House ask the government to set up special programs in order to provide assistance in areas most seriously affected in Quebec.


Madam Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), observing the collapse of his budget and the onset of the worst economic climate in this country for decades, apparently seems to have copped out of the House of Commons question period. He is unavailable today, and his office is unwilling to disclose his whereabouts for tomorrow. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the government arrange to provide this academic expatriate and economic illiterate with an on-the-job training program to overcome the fact that his budget was prepared by his bureaucrats without very much input or understanding by the minister, and at least arrange to have him appear regularly in the House of Commons for questioning about the budget's disastrous, ongoing effects on Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981

Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I believe this motion will gain the unanimous support of this House.
Vladimir Tsukerman is a Soviet refusenik who has been condemned by the Russian courts to three years in a labour camp. He had been participating in a peaceful protest against the refusal of the Soviet authorities to grant him permission to emigrate to Israel. He has been separated from his wife and child since 1978.
Whereas Mr. Tsukerman's right to leave the U.S.S.R. is in accordance with the provisions of both Soviet law and the Helsinki Final Act, and whereas he is now being further harassed by the authorities, who have moved him from the labour camp to prison without explanation, and whereas Mrs. Tsukerman is in Ottawa today seeking the assistance of Canadians and is presently in the Speaker's Gallery, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House instruct the government to express to the Soviet authorities its profound regret at this unlawful and inhumane treatment of Mr. Vladimir Tsukerman, that he be permitted immediate reunification with his wife and child, and that the Soviet Union respect its international human rights obligations.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to. '

Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The budget of November 12, 1981, is a disaster for lower and middle-income Canadians who are relying on their life insurance contracts to protect their dependants or to supplement their income in retirement. The proposal to tax the build-up of accrued investment income on a policy or annuity every three years will result in a tax being levied on a value which cannot be received except by surrendering the policy and thereby losing the intended benefits. In view of the fact that the arbitrary application of the accrual tax concept to both insurance and annuity contracts will mean that a large supply of long-term capital for national development will disappear, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That the above-mentioned budget proposal be withdrawn.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the media this weekend brought to light the unhappiness of a Liberal candidate in Spadina who has become an habitual loser and has publicly complained that the Liberal Party is not far enough left, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That this House suggest to the loser that he go to 323 College Street, Spadina, the federal constituency office in Spadina, which is now under new management, and pick up a copy of a more progressive policy for Canadians and apply for membership in a more progressive party.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, yesterday the price of gasoline and heating oil increased by a further two cents a gallon. Since the last election the prices of these two items have increased by as much as 75 cents a gallon and 50 cents a gallon respectively. In view of the government's abject failure to live up to its election promise to keep fuel price increases to a reasonable level, which would not decimate consumers' income, and in view of the absence from the budget of any measures to protect householders from punitive home heating costs this winter, I move:
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to alter once again the proposed budget to include energy tax credits for middle and low-income earners.
December 1, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, whereas most good things come in threes, and in order to complete the self-immolation of the group currently masquerading as the Liberal Party of Canada, begun last year by their constitutional unilateralism and continued this year with a disastrous budget, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the government be encouraged to take the third step apparently now under discussion, that is, that the Prime Minister resign, to be succeeded at least temporarily by the Minister of Finance, it being the view of the House that the dishonesty and economic stupidity shown by the minister in his budget show him to be perfectly suited to Fill the present Prime Minister's shoes.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE BUDGET
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the government withdraw from the budget those elements which will reduce the level of investments in Canada, the interest deductibility provisions, and thereby improve the number of job opportunities that renewed investment in the Canadian economy is bound to create.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions THE ENVIRONMENT


LEGISLATION DEALING WITH COASTAL AND OFFSHORE MARINE POLLUTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Ministry of the Environment was aware of an oil spill in the Canadian Arctic in September, 1980, and whereas weather conditions and government indecisiveness prevented clean-up action for nine months, and even then it could only act by invoking a force majeure situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the government withdraw Bill C-48 and only reintroduce it when its provisions for environmental standards and pollution compensation are improved, and further that the government bring in immediate revisions to the Canada Shipping Act that will improve the guidelines and contingency plans for dealing with coastal and offshore marine pollution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, if I can get his attention. The Prime Minister is surely aware that we are now in a recession. Just six weeks ago the Prime Minister said the economy was strong, when in fact at that time we were already in the recession that we have today. Clearly this indicates that the budget was prepared with a distinct lack of understanding about the current state of the economy. For that reason I would ask him to explain to the House today how he can justify not withdrawing this budget and introducing a new one which addresses the clear economic problems of recession, lay-offs, and further bankruptcies.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is not repeating the substance of what 1 said. I said that the economy had been very strong in the seventies and had been strong in the past three quarters, which is true. The Minister of Finance said explicitly that that sustained growth would not continue. It was in that knowledge and that belief that he made his present budget.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Where is he?

December 1, 1981
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It remains true, Madam Speaker, that when I was speaking and when the budget was made, we had three successive quarters which, on a yearly basis, placed Canada at the head of the OECD countries in terms of growth only after Japan. That remains true in spite of the figures which were released yesterday. It is likely that by the end of this year, as forecast by the OECD, we will have a growth rate in real terms which will be stronger than every other OECD country with the exception of Japan.
This does not mean that the minister was not right when he said that this sustained growth would not continue and that there is very serious economic difficulty ahead. That is why he brought down the budget that he did.


Mr. Nielsen:: Where is the Minister of Finance?


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF ENERGY TAX CREDIT PROGRAM
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, if the minister brought down that budget knowing that we are in a recession and knowing that we have just had the largest single drop in the economy in 30 years, if the minister brought down that budget knowing what he does from the figures today, he should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Where is he?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Prime Minister again showed over the weekend, in a radio interview, that he is still out of touch with the real world, or else he is misleading Canadians because he said in the interview which I heard that 12 million Canadians had their taxes reduced and that 800,000 Canadians had their taxes increased. This statement totally ignores the fact that all Canadians are going to be paying $1,400 per family per year for the next five years for increased energy taxes. Therefore many Canadians will have their taxes increased for that reason. Will the government consider introducing an energy tax credit in a new budget, in order to alleviate the impact of these huge tax increases on low-income Canadians and those Canadians who are being put out of work because of the recession?


Erik Nielsen: Where is the Minister of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am amazed at the hon. member who is quoting these figures about the taxes. It was quite clear from what I said that I was talking about the budget and the effect of the budget on taxes. Now, the member is talking about taxes on energy which were established well before the budget and which have nothing to do with the budget itself.


Mr. Clark:: The same people pay them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And the same people mix the two ideas, I say to the Leader of the Opposition, when they ask a question.


Charles Joseph Clark: The same citizens.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why I do not think these questions are honest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where is the Minister of Finance?


An hon. Member:: He has not been here for six days. He must be hiding from Mr. Coutts.


REQUEST THAT COMPLEX BUDGET PROVISIONS BE WITHDRAWN
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question would have been for the Minister of Finance, but he is not in the House today and he has not been in the House for Five out of the last seven days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He is hiding.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Obviously the minister has not the guts to face questions from the opposition who are speaking for Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Last week, in narrowly defeating the Liberal policy conference resolution calling upon the Minister of Finance to withdraw the budget, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said that Canadians do not understand the budget, that it is too complex. Will the Prime Minister instruct the Minister of Finance to listen to his fellow Liberals and withdraw those parts of the budget which Canadians do find so complex so that they can advise the minister on its complexities, to enable him to understand just what impact it is having on the economy and the increasing number of unemployed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member opposite is attacking the Minister of Finance for not being here and is suspecting that he lacks courage. I just want to tell the House that the Minister of Finance many months ago had accepted an invitation to speak on St. Andrew's Day in St. Andrew's, Scotland-


An hon. Member:: For five days?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -which I think, for some members of this House, is an honourable occupation and an honourable occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: Is Walter Gordon there too?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: St. Andrew is the patron saint of the Ukrainians, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see that the event does not cause much interest on the other side, so I will sit down.
December 1, 1981


GOVERNMENT AWARENESS OF STATE OF ECONOMY
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, in the continuing absence of the Minister of Finance I will address my question to the Prime Minister, who recently told British Columbians that they are "terribly unaware" of what is happening to this country. Since October figures show that housing starts are at a 20-year low, the number of people unemployed is at a record high, the number of farm bankruptcies is 150 per cent higher than in the same period in 1979, and auto sales are at their lowest level in five years, why was the government so unaware that the country is experiencing the worst recession in the last 30 years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just answered in response to the previous question that, far from being unaware, the Minister of Finance had indicated that there are going to be very difficult times ahead, and that is why he has a stimulative budget before the House now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: You are more out of touch than I thought.


Mr. McGrath:: How can you say that with a straight face, Pierre?


Mr. Epp:: Maybe Coutts will give you another line.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: These guffaws indicate the degree to which hon. members opposite are ignorant of what the budget contains. Not so many days ago one member of their party was reproaching us about the size of the deficit. When we have a deficit of the size of $10 billion to $12 billion, it is hard to see how hon. members opposite can guffaw as though that were not a stimulative budget. I wish they would get their act together.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister's answer reminds me that one of his constituents from Mount Royal wrote to me and said, "If you and I did what these people propose, it would be called grand larceny and we would get 20
years in jail."


THE BUDGET
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I would like to address a supplementary question to the Minister of State for Finance. If his colleagues would be quiet, possibly the minister could hear my question.
The minister recently assured high priced NHL hockey players that they will be as well off under the new forwardaveraging provisions of the budget as they were under the old income-averaging provisions. Can the minister make the same commitment to other Canadians who use these averaging provisions, such as farmers, civil servants approaching retirement, and people who have been using these measures? Will
Oral Questions
he assure them that they are just as well off today as they were before this budget?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, the forward-averaging formula proposed in the budget should be considered in conjunction with the reduction in marginal tax rates, because the two provisions combined enable the taxpayer who wants to take advantage of income-averaging to realize considerable benefits, while at the same time, paying a more equitable share of income tax, compared to the situation which existed under other past provisions.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Having reversed himself after one election on the question of wage and price controls, and in view of his complete reversal after a subsequent election promise on the issue of low interest rates, I suggest to the Prime Minister that he is in no position to lecture hon. members on this side of the House on the question of honesty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Since the Prime Minister has now managed, through a persistent policy of high interest rates, to put the state of the Canadian economy at its worst level in 30 years, will he now admit to the House that the budget brought in by the absent Minister of Finance is completely out of date, and will he assure us that he will bring in a new budget before Christmas to give Canadians some hope?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member should involve himself in a suggestion that there was dishonesty because of a question which was asked of me by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. If the hon. member would like to join this public disagreement here, he is quite welcome. In terms of reversing oneself, I know of no one in this House who has reversed himself more often on the constitutional question than the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Good shot, Pierre!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would admit that that was not because of a lack of honesty. It was because of a lack of courage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 1, 1981
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: You have been kicked out of bed, Ed.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT'S ECONOMIC PRIORITIES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we are back to the Prime Minister's high level of debate. First he questions the integrity of members. Now he is back to his old macho level of challenging someone in terms of courage. Just for once we on this side of the House would like the government to answer honestly questions that are put to them honestly about problems of the Canadian economy. Considering that the man who lost the recent Spadina byelection is now saying to the Prime Minister that there should be a complete reversal of their economic priorities in order to accord with the priorities of the man who won that byelection, I would like to ask the Prime Minister this question. Will he admit that, if he does not change his economic priorities, the Liberal Party as a whole will suffer the same fate as Jim Coutts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if that were the future which were attending us, I doubt whether the hon. member would be asking us to change our policy. It is because he knows our policy is good that he is asking us to change it.


PLIGHT OF VANCOUVER HOME OWNER
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister should go back to reading his briefing notes. He has his glasses back on. Just once we would like to see whether we can elicit some concern from the government. Yesterday a citizen in Vancouver spoke to a New Democratic Party commission outlining the following reality. His total family income is $40 more on a monthly basis than his mortgage payment. Since the government has brought in a budget that gives, to upper-income Canadians in the top two categories, thousands of dollars in tax reductions, and peanuts to those at the bottom, what is the Prime Minister prepared to do now to help that Vancouver family which represents hundreds of thousands of Canadians right across the country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Public Works has repeatedly invited members of this House to submit such cases to him. If the facts are as recited by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, there would be something in the budget to prevent this person from having any foreclosure affect him.
The hon. member again raises the question of tax reductions to the rich. I point out to him the figures that were quoted by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, which are exact. This budget reduces taxes for 12 million taxpayers. For another 3,500,000 taxpayers the taxes will be about the same. Taxes increased as a result of this budget for fewer than 800,000 people. If the hon. member wants to find specific cases where some loopholes are still used by taxpayers, that is fine. He then should support the government which is plugging a lot of those
loopholes. But I know that is too much to expect. The New Democratic Party is unable to support progress, providing that progress is not dictated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Mr. Hees:: Pierre, you used to be so close.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I know we used to be so close, George. I even wanted them in my cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There is one thing which is characteristic of that party, whether it holds the balance of power or not, and that is that it is incapable of taking its responsibilities. It prefers to remain in the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, when it comes to the NDP, the Prime Minister loves them and he leaves them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I have a question that is directed to the Minister of Transport. The government yesterday ran this full page, full coloured advertisement in The Globe and Mail, which congratulates the government on its transportation policies.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member knows that he is not allowed to exhibit documents in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, it was just too good to pass up though. As the minister will know, in addition to congratulating the government on its policy, it also gives a picture of virtually every transport system that he is cutting off at the present time. How does the minister justify the wasteful expenditure of $16,000 for this advertisement, when at the very same time he is cutting back on service to Canadians on the grounds that he does not have the money?
December 1, 1981


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I had a very fast look at that page. Unless I am mistaken, my own picture is not even there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: The obvious reason we took that page is that this is a special supplement on the part of the Financial Post with regard to transportation in Canada.


An hon. Member:: Of The Globe and Mail.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Of The Globe and Mail. On many occasions members of this House on all sides regret that the public, at large, is not sufficiently informed of services provided by the Government of Canada. Obviously this is an effort to remedy that situation.


CANADIAN UNITY
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. At the present time the government is asking for a further $8.9 million for an advertising campaign for the Canadian Unity Information Office, dealing with the Constitution. I shall ask the Prime Minister a question with regard to the government's priorities. How does he justify spending a further almost $9 million advertising the Constitution, at a time when ordinary Canadians are losing their homes, their businesses, and their farms because of the government's policies?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General informs me that this morning he was present in committee to defend his estimates and that he did not have a single question on this type of spending. I wish the hon. member had thought of asking his question this morning in committee.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I received a notice this morning from the American national metric council to the effect that the metric board in the United States has been ordered to disband. President Reagan said that "it has walked its last kilometre". My question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Given the fact that there is a $40 billion expenditure taking place in the United States, and they have seen the wisdom of abandoning this forced march to metric, and in view of the fact that the Cattlemen's Association in the west has refused to convert to
Oral Questions
metric and the government has agreed to call off the regulations, will the minister agree to save the independent dealers, the grocery stores across this nation hundreds of millions of dollars, and call off the forced march to metric in the interest of business?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, it would have been more interesting for the members of the House if the information given by the hon. member in his preamble had been complete. The hon. member should have mentioned in the preamble to his question that the Reagan Administration has proposed to get rid of all federal councils, commissions and related agencies and to integrate them in the various departments as they are called in the United States.
The hon. member is probably aware that during the last few months the American metric commission was in existence before it became part of the Department of Commerce, the Reagan administration increased the commission's budget.


COST OF PROGRAM
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, that simply is not true. Since the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism wishes to speak for the small business community across this nation, how could he justify paying $300,000 out in subestimates to the dealers and merchants in Peterborough, Kamloops, and Sherbrooke, Quebec, to switch back to imperial measure, at a time when he is forcing the rest of Canada to convert to metric? Is he setting up a $10 billion account to put them back to imperial, when they cannot trade with the United States, which country intends to stay on imperial maybe forever?


Charles Lapointe: The reason is quite simple, Madam Speaker. It is simply because the previous government, because of its shortsighted approach, had postponed a measure that was already being implemented. Therefore, in all fairness we wanted to help the owners of grocery stores in Sherbrooke, Kamloops and Peterborough to get through that period without penalizing them for the delay caused by the previous government.

December 1, 1981
Oral Questions FINANCE


INQUIRY WHY ONTARIO WAS CHOSEN AS BASIS TO ESTABLISH EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS
Mrs. Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet (Roberval):: Madam Speaker, my question is further to a question concerning equalization payments which was asked in the House last week by my colleague from Montmorency-Orleans. My question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. Could the minister inform the House why Ontario was selected as the standard for calculating equalization payments and also what the basis is for this proposal?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the members of this House will recall that last year, the House passed Bill C-24, one of whose aims was, if I remember correctly, to exclude Ontario, which had become eligible for equalization payments, from receiving such payments. Taking Ontario as the standard means that Ontario becomes the cutoff point and therefore is not eligible for equalization payments-this is acknowledged by the government of Ontario. It also means that the standard reference is a province where content and nature of the tax base are comparable to the situation in other provinces that are entitled to equalization payments, and these payments will bring their revenues up to levels comparable to those in the province of Ontario. We feel that by taking Ontario as the standard, we are fulfilling a twofold purpose; that is, we are enhancing the equity of the equalization system and correcting a number of problems that have been pointed out by the provinces in the past.


EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS-LOSSES SUSTAINED BY PROVINCES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the Minister of State for Finance inform the House today or tomorrow, exactly how much provinces such as New Brunswick, Quebec and Nova Scotia as well as other provinces that are now eligible for equalization payments, are losing as a result of the change in the equalization standard? Can the minister give exact figures from year to year?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I am sorry to say to the Leader of the Opposition that I did not bring the stacks of files where I would have been able to Find the year-to-year figures for payments made during the last five years. However, if we consider the entire payment system, the provinces themselves have, in fact, asked for changes to be made in the formula. We are doing everything we can to respond to the critical comments of the other provinces with respect to this formula. One member told me, for instance, that Mr. Parizeau himself was indignant that Ontario should be entitled to equalization payments. Other provinces suggested broadening the tax base by
adding 100 per cent of revenues from natural resources. Others again wanted to add municipal taxes. We are changing the formulas, and this will benefit the equalization system, because it will make for a more equitable system. Even the provinces have admitted as much. As far as giving exact figures for each province, I am not in a position to do so at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, can the minister confirm in the House today that the rates and levels of equalization payments for provinces such as New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Quebec will be reduced as a result of the change in standard, using Ontario as a reference?


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, the basic change in the equalization rules will enable provinces who are eligible to continue to receive billions of dollars under this program, and the federal government will continue to meet its commitment, which is entrenched in the Constitution, to provide provinces in financial difficulty with equalization payments. The provinces will see their payments increase over the next five years compared to the amounts they have received during the past five years.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. I think every acknowledged expert in the field of housing, both public and private, agrees that we require something in the order of 210,000 units per year in order to meet the housing requirements of Canada. This year we may reach 165,000 units. If we were to build only the housing which is acknowledged as necessary, we could create 110,000 jobs this year over and above the numbers now in existence. Will the Prime Minister direct the government to undertake whatever steps are necessary to begin the needed housing starts and to create employment all across the country which would be beneficial to every Canadian family?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the budget which is presently being discussed by the House there is an allocation of some hundreds of millions of dollars to meet shelter needs, either by constructing housing or ensuring the building of rental units. I am sure the hon. member and other hon. members of the House could find more ways to spend more money and to create more houses. As I said earlier, the question is that we are already in a budgetary deficit situation of more than $10 billion.


Erik Nielsen: You did it.
December 1, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This was done because we believed and continue to believe in the importance of a stimulative budget. The question is: how much more can we afford to go into deficit, if we do not want to cause an increase in the rate of inflation and a further deterioration of the economy?


REQUEST FOR INCREASED INVESTMENT
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Given that we know we need the housing, given that we know people are unemployed, and given that we know that those unemployed are in fact a drain on the economy-they have to receive money from somewhere in order to live, and they would rather work-surely it makes more sense to invest some money in housing now, money which will be recoverable through the payment of mortgages? It would put people to work in Canada today so that they could try to build for the future, rather than saddle them with untold debts and put them in positions where they would be unable to provide for their own needs. Why will the Prime Minister not take a more positive approach to this dilemma?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure what form of monetary or fiscal policy the hon. member is advocating. But certainly, when he says that surely we should invest more money, he should ask himself where the money will come from. It will come either from increased taxes or increased borrowing.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member's backbenchers have a lot of the answers. I wish they would convey them to the questioner so that he could then ask his questions.


An hon. Member:: We have.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And he would not listen to you; well, try again.


Mr. Rae:: You are the one who does not listen.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member's backbencher tells us that he tried his best to convey to the questioner some sense of economic policy. That is what I am attempting to do as well. 1 wish I could have the help of the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He will recall that last August an increase in the cost of new fighter aircraft of over $1 billion was announced, yet there is no supplementary estimate to cover any part of this increase. Can the minister tell us how he intends to find this extra $1 billion without reducing other programs and thus delaying the
Oral Questions
frigate program? Our need for ship replacements is becoming more noticeable daily.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the former minister of national defence should know that capital expenditure of defence is well planned for years ahead. We expected that inflation and other factors would increase the cost of some of our capital expenditures. Every year we conduct a review and an evaluation of the cost of our equipment program. It is not only fighter aircraft or frigates; it is everything we buy. This is why the Department of National Defence has a special economic model to forecast the impact that inflation will have on what we purchase. Everything is looked at every year and this is included in each budget. I thought the former minister of national defence would rise to congratulate the government for the level of importance it gives to the defence budget. We will be able with this budget to fulfil all of our commitments to NATO and to the defence of Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE PURCHASE OF BRITISH FRIGATES
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, the people in NATO from whom I hear are not pleased about us being down to three ships afloat at the present time. The minister should be concerned about the state of our naval vessels. I should like to refer to one particular example. One ship which has recently had its life extended by an extensive refit is the Saguenay. This ship was one of the eight found to have severe boiler problems with cracks in its boilers; eight ships have cracks in their boilers and eight others are being examined for this condition. Has the minister considered making use of the British program where they are willing to sell up to 17 frigates at greatly reduced prices, so that we could use them as a stopgap measure to get us over the very difficult period ahead?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that, at the moment, according to the information I have, we have eight ships on the east coast and four ships on the west coast available and operational.


Charles Joseph Clark: Are they above or below the water?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: One is the "Good Ship Lollipop".


Mr. Lamontagne:: Perhaps we would be in a better posture as far as the navy is concerned-


Mr. Crosbie:: If we had one.


Maurice Lamontagne: -if the Conservative government when it was in power for nine months had taken decisions, but it did not.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

December 1, 1981
Oral Questions


Maurice Lamontagne: As far as NATO is concerned, they seem very pleased with our efforts concerning the 3 per cent real growth in defence spending. We are trying to reach that objective, depending upon the economy of the country and upon what we can realistically do. I think we are making a very good effort. I am very glad that we will again be able to fulfil all our commitments as far as Canadian security and NATO are concerned.


POSSIBILITY OF LEASING EQUIPMENT FROM UNITED STATES
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is supplementary and is directed to the same minister. In light of reports that our Canadian Armed Forces are seriously understaffed and poorly equipped, with some vehicles older than their drivers, in view of the impending closure of our excellent fighter aircraft base at Chatham, New Brunswick, and having only 19 Leopard tanks in all Canada, has the minister had any discussions with our American allies about leasing military equipment which approaches the state of the art in modern warfare and, thus, stretch the defence dollar further to provide more badly needed equipment and to free up dollars for more military personnel and better facilities? What is the minister's reaction to this proposition?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, it is true that some components of our equipment are somewhat obsolete, and that is why we are gradually replacing them, be they tanks, frigates or aircraft. As to borrowing or leasing equipment from other countries, I think that is out of the question. We have enough equipment to meet our current requirements. With respect to tanks, I should point out that we do not need them here in Canada. We do keep 17 or 19 tanks for training here in Canada, but of course most of them are needed in Germany in case of a possible conflict. Therefore, we do not have to keep hundreds of tanks here in case of conflict. There is no danger on this side of the ocean.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of National Defence.


Walter David Baker: No tanks.


Douglas Charles Neil: The minister must be aware of the effect of the budget on those Armed Forces personnel who are retiring or who are about to retire. Until November 12, when the budget was handed down, severance pay could be placed in incomeaveraging annuity certificates, the annuity payments being
used to supplement superannuation. Under the changes in the budget, a serviceman may no longer purchase IAACs. The result is that several thousands of dollars of severance pay are now taxed away immediately. I would like to ask the minister if he has made or intends to make representations to the Minister of Finance, to have this unfair provision withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, I think the question of pensions for the Armed Forces is a question which is related to defence, of course; but it is also clearly related to the entire policy of the government concerning pensions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Maurice Lamontagne: I realize that the hon. member is talking about severance pay. This is a question which will have to be discussed. I think that what the hon. gentleman has asked today has also been asked by many of our people who are retiring from the forces. It will certainly be studied in co-operation with the Minister of Finance and other ministers.


BANK OF CANADA
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance, and is with regard to the lowering of reserve requirements by the Bank of Canada, on the part of the chartered banks. Even though that is very welcome at this time of tight money, would the minister use his powers, and the powers of the Minister of Finance to ensure that at least the additional revenues which will accrue because of the extra credit will be used to reduce interest rates rather than further increase the profits of the banks? I think these interest rates are excessive-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Paul Edmund McRae: and the spread between the treasury bill rate and the prime rate is one which should be reduced.


Pierre Bussières: Madam Speaker, I will relay the comments of the hon. member to the Minister of Finance who, I am sure, will consider them very carefully.
December 1, 1981


STATUS OF WOMEN
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. To help ensure that women do attain equality in Canadian society, a principle and a goal about to be established in the new Canadian Constitution by virtue of the now restored Section 28, can the Prime Minister respond to the letter I wrote to him a few weeks ago, which his office acknowledged with interest, calling for the establishment of an all-party standing committee of the House of Commons to deal with all issues affecting women, and, as I said in my letter, to monitor the progress of Canadian women toward true equality? The importance of such a committee cannot, I think, be exaggerated. Would the Prime Minister not agree?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would agree that the hon. member's letter should be more than acknowledged, and should receive a substantive answer. I will see that that is done. I apologize for not yet being acquainted with the content of the letter. However, I do know how this House usually deals with requests for the setting up of yet another standing committee or another ad hoc committee. It is a matter which I refer to our House leader, who, in conjunction with the Whip, tries to see if we can find yet another standing committee which hon. members will be able to attend and still discharge their duties in the House. However, I will certainly ask that that be considered.


REQUEST THAT IMMEDIATE ATTENTION BE PAID TO ISSUES
Pauline Jewett: I am
sorry the Prime Minister said "yet another committee". The fact is that women's issues are scattered abroad in about a dozen or more standing committees. It is essential, at this time, that they be brought together to make Parliament responsible for these issues.
I would ask the Prime Minister, in view of the fact that the Indian Act and the necessary amendments to it will be postponed, yet again, for another year, much to the distress of his own minister responsible for the Status of Women, does he not think that we need to pay attention now-not a year or two years down the line-to all the issues affecting women, if we really believe what we have established in Section 28?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, certainly, if this government and this party are not already engaged in that process, we will be continuing consultations and our review of the law as it may be affected by the new Charter in these particular affirmations of rights.


Pauline Jewett: You need a watchdog.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The work goes on. We will not wait for a year to begin studying this question, and I hope the hon. member's party will not, either.


Pauline Jewett: Well, you're waiting. It says so in the paper. Talk to Munro.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture, but it should more properly be directed to the Minister of Finance. However, he is not here today.


An hon. Member:: Or yesterday.


Leonard J. Gustafson: My question concerns annuities for farmers which were removed from the budget, representing their lifetime earnings from the sale of their farms, the sale of their cattle, or the sale of their machinery. Has the minister received any answer to the request which he informed the House that he made to the Minister of Finance concerning this very serious area? Thousands of letters have crossed the desks of Members of Parliament concerning this serious situation relating to farmers. Has the Minister of Agriculture received any recognition from the Minister of Finance, or any answer relating to this situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that submissions are still being made to the Minister of Finance concerning this aspect and other aspects of the budget. They are to be considered, as the Minister of Finance said, in due time.


HOUSING
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. The minister responsible for housing, in his travels across Canada, has been making various suggestions to Canadians on how to get into housing. Yesterday, in Nova Scotia, he said that young Canadians should consider using orange crates to furnish their dream homes.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the dream of many young Canadians to own their own homes is unrealistic, and whether in fact they should resort to the kinds of actions that the minister has been suggesting to them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, no dream is unrealistic. Everyone should be able to dream what they want. However, when one places one's

December 1, 1981
Petitions
dreams outside the possibility of fulfilling them, one must accept a certain measure of frustration. 1 do not think that the Government of Canada or the Canadian nation can guarantee or should guarantee to every Canadian, of whatever age or of whatever condition, that each of them can own a house. I believe it is the Bible which says we have to work and earn our bread-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: By the sweat of our brow.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -by the sweat of our brow. The hon. member, who is an expert on God, should be reading the Bible, which says that.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What's a shame about that?


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Madam Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. I have in my hand a motion which was introduced last night in the British House of Commons by four British Members of Parliament from the various political parties, which reads as follows:
That this House calls upon the government to urge the Government of Canada riot to ask this House to enact a Canadian Constitution which has appended to it a charter of rights which is seriously defective, which is in breach of the international covenant of civil and political rights, of which both Canada and the United Kingdom are signatories, and which is strenuously opposed, both by the Indian nations of Canada to whom the Crown is bound by treaty obligations, and by the province of Quebec whose French-speaking population comprises a quarter of the population of Canada.
Has the Prime Minister received a copy of this motion, If so, how does he intend to deal with it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that reminds me somewhat of the previous question about dreaming.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the one hundred and forty-first report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) on Monday, November 30, 1981, and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, the executive assistant to the government House leader was kind enough to inform me with respect to the business of the House for the next two weeks. However, I would like confirmation from the government House leader in that connection.
I am having difficulty, Madam Speaker, because of the various private conversations that are going on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Could I ask hon. members to resume their seats, please?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I was informed that we will be continuing with the Constitution debate for the remainder of today and tomorrow, that we will be dealing with Bill C-48 on Thursday, and Friday, December 4, will be an allotted day.
On December 7 and December 9 of next week we will be dealing with the fifth and sixth days of the budget debate. December 10 will be an allotted day. Should we not be finished with Bill C-48 on Thursday, December 3, we will continue debate on that bill on December 8. If that debate is not finished on December 8, debate on Bill C-48 will continue on December 11.
I ask the government House leader whether I have the information accurately. When he answers that question, could he indicate whether he has given any consideration to the date upon which the House will be rising for the Christmas recess?


John Carnell Crosbie: No recess this year.


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, with regard to the first question, the information given by one of my assistants to the assistant of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is almost fully accurate. To set the record straight for the benefit of the hon. member, I would like to confirm that Friday will be an allotted day and that tomorrow, after the historical vote, we shall resume the debate on Bill C-48 which has been going on for quite a long time and has now reached the third reading stage. If we cannot dipose of Bill C-48 tomorrow afternoon before six o'clock, it will be considered again on Thursday. As for the business for next week, it has not yet been decided. I shall make the usual announcement on Thursday after the question period, but I can readily say to the opposition that the last allotted day for this supply period will be next Thursday, December 10. As for the second question concerning the date of the Chirstmas recess, I have not yet thought about it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have one brief follow-up question for the government House leader. If Bill C-48 is concluded some time during the day of Thursday, December 3, has the government any business to disclose to the House for the remainder of that day?


Yvon Pinard: Bill C-78, Madam Speaker.
December 1, 1981


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I always like to hear about these things.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: Would it be possible to work out an arrangement whereby information is distributed equably?
However, I have a question on another matter. The House order under which we are currently operating, as I recall, superseded an agreement that we had for 20-minute speeches for the balance of the debate. Are we still operating under the assumption that speeches will be limited to 20 minutes for the balance of the debate on the constitutional amendment?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it seems obvious to me that the order of the House made before the most recent one still applies. Consequently, there is still a 20-minute time limit on speeches except for those by the mover of an amendment or party leaders. The fact that we agreed to end the debate and that this agreement does not mention the length of speeches does not invalidate the previous order concerning the length of speeches. Therefore, in my humble interpretation, the length of speeches is still limited to 20 minutes.


Madam Speaker:: Is it clear that speeches will be limited to 20 minutes? It is not all that clear in the order. Does the House now confirm that speeches will be limited to 20 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I seldom find myself in agreement with the government House leader on matters of this nature, but I am afraid that I must concur with his interpretation that the pre-existing House order stands and is not superseded in any way by the House order agreed to last Friday.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, I would hope that were the case. But it says quite clearly in the House order "notwithstanding any Standing Order or other order". I assumed that referred to the agreement. However, I suppose I could be wrong, but I do not think so.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it says "notwithstanding any previous order or Standing Order". That applies only to the subject matter of the House order. There is nothing in the new House order relating to the length of speeches. Therefore, the previous House order dealing with that is still in existence and still applies.
Point of Order-Mr. Lawrence POINTS OF ORDER


MR. LAWRENCE-USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICES
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly and regretfully on a point of order concerning a matter pertaining to constituency offices of hon. members. My understanding is that there is either a rule, a regulation, a guideline, an understanding, or, at the very least, a spirit involved in the operation of constituency offices which would prevent them from being used for any political partisan activity.
Today, prior to question period, under the guise of a motion moved under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) stood in his place and openly, and I think quite flagrantly, committed a violation of that spirit or agreement regarding constituency offices.
Unless I seriously misunderstood the hon. member for Spadina, he indicated that not only was political propaganda available in his own constituency office, but indeed he was eager to have at least one individual come into that constituency office to sign an application for political party membership.
I believe this is a matter which falls under your exclusive jurisdiction, Madam Speaker; it is not a matter about which I can raise a question with the ministry. How can I forcefully, openly and publicly bring this matter to your attention?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, if I may comment on this point of order, I would be most happy to clear up the misunderstanding which the hon. member has raised. He has suggested that he may not have understood me properly. In fact, he did not. I was very careful to observe the rule or the spirit of which he spoke.
I suggested that a person could get a more progressive policy statement-my words were "a copy of a more progressive policy for Canadians"-if they came to the constituency office. I think that is quite a reasonable thing to suggest. I am sure that every constituency office, of whatever persuasion, undertakes to give the best statements it has regarding the affairs of Canada.
As to applying for membership in a more progressive party, I of course avoided giving any indication to which party he might apply, and I also avoided suggesting that anyone at the office would accept his application. But the fact is, Madam Speaker, we have many people coming to the constituency office in Spadina in all kinds of need and we do not turn anybody away. We attempt to give them some kind of direction as to where they can go to get the help that we cannot give. In this case I would certainly indicate to a person in such need where he could go to find a more progressive party than the Liberal Party.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that the matter which the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) has raised has been dealt with in the House and the House did not give its unanimous consent to that motion. Therefore, the

December 1, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Skelly
matter has been dealt with; as for bringing it out publicly, I guess the hon. member has done that.
I must remind members that the use they make of their constituency offices, of course, is subject to the rules, and this involves really administrative matters rather than matters of procedure. Members have the responsibility of using their offices for the purposes for which they exist, and they are accountable for the use of those offices.


MR. SKELLY-ABSENCE FROM HOUSE OF MINISTER OF FINANCE
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on another point of order. I should just like to call to the attention of the House Standing Order 5, which states that a member shall be in attendance, sitting in the House, unless he has otherwise obtained leave. I would point out that there has been a great deal of difficulty for members in this House who wish to convey and clarify matters relating to the budget. They have faced extreme difficulty in that the minister has been absent for some six of the 13 days since he presented his budget.
It is my opinion that this is a shameful situation which makes things very difficult for elected members. I suggest that this House should call to the attention of the minister that we do require his presence here to answer for some of the more disturbing aspects of this particular budget. There are many people in this country who are facing very serious problems as a result of the budget, and it is not the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) who is responsible. So l wonder if this matter might be brought to the minister's attention.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in this regard, I think that it would be unfair not to mention the well-known fact that we have a Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) who is doing a tremendous job and who provides very complete and very responsible answers. If the hon. member has any reason to complain about the propriety of the replies provided by the Minister of State for Finance, I would ask him to have the courage to say exactly on what point he received an incomplete or inaccurate answer. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is one of the ministers who is most regularly present in the House of Commons. If he has been absent these last few days, his absence was well explained by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during question period. However, the hon. member is exceedingly well served because, whenever the Minister of Finance must be unavoidably absent from the House, he is very well seconded by a Minister of State for Finance and a devoted parliamentary secretary who make it their duty to provide full and accurate answers to all questions on financial matters.


Madam Speaker:: First of all, I do not think that it is appropriate for members of the House to comment on the absence of any of their colleagues. It is up to the colleague in
question to determine whether his duty as a member, or as a minister in this case, requires that he be away from or in the House. And he has the responsibility to do his duty wherever he believes that it is most required. The hon. members must not comment on the absence of any other member, and they must especially not refer to Standing Order 5, which, as the hon. member has noted, indeed provides that every member is bound to attend the service of the House. However, I must remind the hon. member, as I was quickly reminded earlier myself, that one of my predecessors stated that this rule was outdated. If it is, I wonder why it was not taken out when our rules and procedures were reviewed. However, in any case, I imagine that my predecessor stated that this Standing Order could no longer apply because of the fact that the duties of the members have become extremely varied today and because members must travel very frequently.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
miss Macdonald-the constitution-request for
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I wish to present a petition to the House sponsored by the Ad Hoc Committee of Canadian Women on the Constitution. This petition requests the removal of Section 33, the overriding clause, from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It has been signed by 27 petitioners who feel that Members of Parliament should delete Section 33 in order to guarantee to Canadians their basic rights and freedoms.
[ Translation]


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of 5,631 of my constituents who have referred to me, through the organization "Developpement et paix" of Vau-dreuil-Soulanges, a petition asking that the Canadian government denounce the inequities of which the defenders of human rights in Guatemala are the constant victims. They ask that the Canadian government protest to the government of Guatemala, that it urge the UN Human Rights Commission to conduct an investigation in Guatemala and that it forgo any direct or indirect assistance to that country.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, I wish to lay upon the Table of the House a petition bearing the names of 380 citizens of the province of New Brunswick and other
December 1, 1981

regions of Canada who just did not get the message, and do not understand that by now they are supposed to be thankful that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has cut them off from any form of decent rail transportation to the rest of Canada.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of my constituents. The purpose of this petition, signed by members of the Bertin household in the city of Port Colborne, is to indicate to the government that urea formaldehyde foam insulation in their home is apparently causing them physical harm. The nature of the petition is to demand that the government reimburse those home owners in Canada who have insulated their homes with UFFI for the removal of the insulation and for the installation of another acceptable kind of insulation.
The petitioners hope, Madam Speaker, that following your examination of their petition you will find the petition in order, sense the urgency and desperation of their plea, and that you might use the discretionary power vested in your office to allow discussion and referral to committee at the earliest possible moment.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), to move a motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely the report just released by Statistics Canada showing that the Canadian economy has suffered the worst economic slump in 30 years, thus making the current government budget and its forecast completely obsolete and requiring, therefore, an immediate new job-creation budget in order to avoid what will become the worst winter for Canadians since the depression of the 1930s.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the difficulty I see which confronts even your consideration of whether or not the matter is urgent enough to be the subject of a motion under Standing Order 26, in view of the fact that the House order of last Friday is in place.
Ordinarily a motion under Standing Order 26, if it is accepted, supersedes all other business and is dealt with at eight o'clock. I would like to quote from the House order made last Friday and which appears at page 13433 of Hansard for November 27, a House order which was agreed to by the New Democratic Party through their acting House leader, the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), wherein it stipulates:
That the motion of the Minister of Justice for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen concerning the Constitution of Canada (Government Orders, Government Business, No. 56)-
And here is where the most important words occur, Madam Speaker, to which I wish to refer you:
-notwithstanding any Standing or other Order-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must remind the hon. member that the Speaker has to deal with this matter immediately the motion is moved. The question is dealt with by the Speaker without debate. I will deal with it. I will not deal with it on a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: I am not debating it at all, Madam Speaker. I am raising a very serious point of order which I suggest prevents you from doing precisely what you say you intend to do, namely, that the House order that was unanimously accepted by all three parties stipulates that, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders, Government Order No. 56 be disposed of. Part of the disposition that the House has ordered should happen, notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders, shall be that this day will be taken up by the Constitution as well as tomorrow, up until three o'clock.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the House order of last Friday is operative notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders. Since the motion is made under Standing Order 26, no matter how much we may be in sympathy with it-and we are-we are prohibited by the very order of the House from dealing with the matter; and with great respect I suggest that you, Madam Speaker, are prohibited by that House order from even considering the matter that has been put forward, which ordinarily you would do.


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I would draw your attention to what I consider to be a slight deviation from the point made by the House leader of the official opposition. Standing Order 26(9) states:
If it is determined that the member may proceed,-
That is, if the Speaker determines that the member may proceed.
-the motion shall stand over until 8 p.m. on that day, provided that Mr. Speaker, at his discretion-
I assume that means his or hers.
-may direct that the motion shall be set down for consideration on the following sitting day at an hour specified by him.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that we would be quite content to have it set down for tomorrow.

December 1, 1981


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I do not often agree with the House Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party. But as concerns his interpretation of the House order, I agree with him that the most recent order has priority over all Standing Orders and that Standing Order 26 therefore does not apply. I agree with his interpretation of the House order concerning the application of the Standing Orders. In any case, I believe that we should end this discussion and obey the provisions of Standing Order 26(4) which states the following:
Mr. Speaker shall decide, without any debate, whether or not the matter is proper to be discussed.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I cannot accept the last submission made by the government House leader because it would set a very undesirable precedent if the Chair proceeded in the face of a House order which is so explicit about suspending other Standing Orders and preventing your consideration of whether or not the matter is urgent.
If that kind of precedent were to be set now, if you were to consider it anyway, it would mean that any subsequent House order such as this, which all parties agreed would suspend existing Standing Orders, would not be worth the passage in the House. I would strongly suggest, Madam Speaker, that you accept my submission that this House order does in fact supersede all other Standing Orders and prevents the Chair from even considering the matter.


Madam Speaker:: The point made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is a good one. Indeed, as Speaker, I feel bound by the order of the House which determines the business for today, and tomorrow to a certain extent, and his point is well taken.
However, Standing Order 26(9), as was pointed out by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans), would give me the discretion, if I accepted the urgency of the matter, to set the debate for the following sitting at a specified hour. Therefore, I think the two points are quite valid.
The hon. member is shaking his head. I am saying that he is quite right that I am bound by that order of the House; but I have the other indication that Standing Order 26(9) tells me that I may take it under consideration, and because I am bound by the order of the House, that urgent debate could not possibly occur today. I would have to set it for another time.
Both hon. members are right in their interpretation of the Standing Orders and therefore I feel I must rule on the request for an urgent debate. I must tell the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) that although the subject matter of his application is, of course, very important and of concern to all hon. members, I think I can say it is of a continuing nature and it is difficult to see how I could allow a debate under Standing Order 26. This is particularly relevant when one realizes that the House still has two days remaining to debate the budget, during which debate such a matter can be brought
up and will eventually come to a vote on the motion to accept the budget. This is a very efficient way of dealing with this urgent matter.
In addition, there will also be opportunities on the allotted days remaining in the current supply period in which members may bring up this subject for discussion.
I think my predecessor has ruled quite clearly and indicated consistently that debates under Standing Order 26 cannot take place in circumstances such as these, and for these reasons I have to rule out the application made by the hon. member for Oshawa.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are answered by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,648, 2,755, 2,756, 2,757, 2,762, 2,763, 2,764, 2,774, 2,775, 2,776, 2,777, 2,778, 2,780, 2,781, 2,788, 2,798, 2,799, 2,800, 2,801, 2,964, 2,965, 2,966, 3,123 and 3,168.


Mr. Neil: 1.	Does the government carry out any retail food price surveys other than those of the Department of Agriculture and Statistics Canada?
2.	Does the government fund any consumer organization which carries out a similar survey?
3.	Is consideration being given to utilizing the same survey staff for both the Department of Agriculture survey and the Statistics Canada survey in order to reduce costs and, if not, for what reason?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports:
1.	In so far as Statistics Canada is aware, only itself and Agriculture Canada carry out regular retail food price surveys.
2.	In so far as Statistics Canada is aware, no consumer organization is funded to carry out a similar survey.
3.	Statistics Canada and Agriculture Canada have discussions underway on the relationships between their respective surveys.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of C. Anderson, 375 Brock Street, Brockville, Ontario among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that this individual is president of the Leeds-Grenville Liberal Association?
2.	Did this political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?
December 1, 1981


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that C. Anderson is president of the Leeds-Grenville Liberal Association is a matter of public record.
2. The contacts are appointed by the minister responsible for Statistics Canada.
See reply to question No. 2,000 answered April 2, 1981.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Senator D. Wood, Suite 322, 1255 Laird Blvd., Montreal in the constituency of Mount Royal among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is a member of the Senate and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did this political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that Senator D. Wood is a member of the Senate and that her party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of the Hon. Jack Horner, Pollackville, Alberta in the constituency of Crowfoot among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that Mr. Horner is a former cabinet minister?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that the Hon. Jack Horner is a former cabinet minister is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2.343 which includes the name of Mr. Ross Milne, 32 Richmond Dr., Brampton, Ontario among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he was the former Member of Parliament for the constituency of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: I. The
fact that Mr. Ross Milne was the former Member of Parliament for the constituency of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of P. G. Carroll, R.R. No. 1, Dunrobin, Ontario among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that this person was the former Liberal candidate for the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton in the 1979 and 1980 federal elections?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that P. G. Carroll was the former Liberal candidate for the constituency of Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton in the 1979 and 1980 federal elections is a matter of public record.
Order Paper Questions
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of C. Morris, R.R. No. 2, Simcoe, Ontario in the constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that this person was the past president of the Liberal Association for the constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that C. Morris was the past president of the Liberal Association for the constituency of Haldimand-Norfolk is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343, which includes the name of Mr. Doug Sirrs, Box 6060, Wetaskiwin, Alberta in the constituency of Wetaskiwin among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is the president of the Liberal Association for the constituency of Wetaskiwin?
2.	Did political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that Mr. Doug Sirrs is the president of the Liberal Association for the constituency of Wetaskiwin is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. T. Lefebvre, Davidson, Comte Pontiac, Quebec among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that Mr. T. Lefebvre is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. J. Campbell of 582 90th Ave., LaSalle, Quebec among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of LaSalle and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. J. Campbell is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of LaSalle and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.
13552

December 1, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. J. L. Leduc of 56 Rue Champoux, Sorel, Quebec among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Richelieu and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. J. L. Leduc is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Richelieu and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2.	See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. R. Simmons among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Burin-St. George's and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that Mr. R. Simmons is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Burin-St. George's and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. Bob Daudlin among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Essex-Kent and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. Bob Daudlin is the Member of Parliament for the constituency of Essex-Kent and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. G. Craig, R.R. No. 1, Walton, Ontario among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he was a candidate in the February 1980 general election for the constituency of Huron-Bruce and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did such political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. G. Graig was a candidate in the February, 1980 general election for the constituency of Huron-Bruce and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mrs. I. Dunn, 235 St. Andrews St., Victoria, British Columbia among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981
census, is the government aware that she is a member of the Liberal Association in the constituency of Victoria?
2. Did such political affiliation play a part in her appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that Mrs. I. Dunn is a member of the Liberal Association in the constituency of Victoria is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. J. A. Hennebury, 3 Howley Ave., St. John's, Newfoundland among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he was a candidate in the 1980 general election in the constituency of St. John's West and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did this political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. J. A. Hennebury was a candidate in the 1980 general election in the constituency of St. John's West and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. E. Bishop, 17 Montague, St. John's, Newfoundland among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he was a candidate in the 1980 general election in the constituency of St. John's East and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did this political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. E. Bishop was a candidate in the 1980 general election in the constituency of St. John's East and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mr. J. Kinley, 80 Victoria Road, Lunenberg, Nova Scotia among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that he ran against the present member for South Shore in the past three federal elections and that his party affiliation is Liberal?
2.	Did this political affiliation play a part in his appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The fact that Mr. J. Kinley ran against the present member for South Shore in the past three federal elections and that his party affiliation is Liberal is a matter of public record.
2. See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. With reference to the answer to question No. 2,343 which includes the name of Mrs. M. Gelfant, 1510 W. 36th St., Vancouver, British Columbia among the names and addresses of contacts used by Statistics Canada for the 1981 census, is the government aware that she is the wife of the Prime Minister's personal dentist?
December 1, 1981

2. Did this affiliation play a part in her appointment by Statistics Canada and, if so, what part?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The
fact that Mrs. M. Gelfant is the wife of the Prime Minister's personal dentist is a matter of public record.
2.	See reply to question No. 2,755 answered this day.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Transport in footnote No. 20 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances were the handheld radio telephones lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the handheld radio telephones?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The handheld radio telephones were stolen in a break and entry into the Low Point, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia light station. This building was being used as an operations centre during the early spring/summer 1979, in connection with the Kurdistan oil spill clean-up operations. The RCMP were informed but were not able to determine the name(s) of the person or persons responsible for the break and entry.
(a)	Unknown.
(b)	No.
(c)	No.
(d)	Yes.
(e)	During the balance of the Kurdistan clean-up operations at Low Point, two watchmen were hired for the operations building, new locks were fitted, and the RCMP were requested to increase their patrols of Transport Canada property.
2.	Handheld radio telephones are used by field operations personnel in remote locations, on oil slick lickers, on cleanup of oil from beaches, when servicing and repairing communications towers and other equipment, during land surveys, and in other work situations when direct voice contact cannot be made.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Transport in footnote No. 20 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the Zodiac boat lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the Department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the Zodiac boat?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. This inflatable boat was on the wharf at Sorel, P.Q. near the marine emergency office and it disap-
Order Paper Questions
peared during a weekend. It was verified that the watchman had not seen anyone on the wharf. A report was made immediately to the Sorel police but no results were obtained. The provincial police inspected a ship in Sept-iles because part of the crew had docked in Sorel in a boat during the weekend that the theft had taken place.
(a)	Unknown.
(b)	No.
(c)	No.
(d)	No.
(e)	No valuable equipment is left on the wharf.
2.	The boat was used for marine emergency operations.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of Transport in footnote No. 20 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the scaffolding lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such a loss does not recur and, if so, what were they?
2.	What use does the department make of the scaffolding?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. The scaffolding was stolen at Longueuil, P.Q., at night-time, during the period the lighthouse at Traverse Longue Pointe was being constructed. Although the Longueuil police were given a statement their subsequent inquiry did not produce any result.
(a)	Unknown.
(b)	No.
(c)	No.
(d)	No, because other scaffolding was available.
(e)	The only means of ensuring that a similar situation would not occur during lighthouse construction would be to engage a night watchman. However, experience has shown it is not profitable to do so.
2. The department uses scaffolding for lighthouse construction.


Mr. Clarke: 1.	During the period 1970-80 did the Federal Business Development Bank acquire shares or other ownership interest in any other corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and, if so, what was the (a) name of the corporation, limited liability company or unincorporated company and any subsidiaries thereof (b) percentage of equity acquired (c) cost of acquisition (d) book value of the acquisition?
2.	Does the Federal Business Development Bank have a plan to change the present portion of ownership in any of these enterprises and, if so, what is the plan?

December 1, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as the
Federal Business Development Bank is concerned:
1.	The Federal Business Development Bank or its predecessor, the Industrial Development Bank, have not created any subsidiaries during the period 1970-80. However, in the normal course of providing its financial assistance to Canadian businesses, it occasionally makes equity investments in Canadian businesses. Because of the confidential nature of these transactions, we are not in a position to divulge the names of the corporations into which the bank has invested. However, the annual financial statements of the Federal Business Development Bank, which are widely distributed and available to any Canadian, contain statistical information on these investment activities. The bank does not seek control of the companies in which it invests and the percentage of equity acquired by the bank normally varies from 10 per cent to 40 per cent for an average participation of some 25-30 per cent. The latest annual audited financial statements at March 31, 1981 indicate that the FBDB had, at that date, 152 investment customers representing a total investment of $43,762,000 or an average amount per customer of $288,000. The present overall book value of these investments is not appreciably different from the over-all cost of acquisition. During the ten-year period from 1970 to 1980, the bank, through its equity investment activities, provided approximately $64 million of equity funds to some 260 different companies.
2.	The FBDB does not specifically seek to increase its ownership position in the companies in which it has invested. It usually tries to divest as soon as the principal objectives set by the company and the bank at the time of investment have been met. Divestiture will most often be achieved through the company or the shareholder buying back the bank's position.


Mr. Nickerson: During recent years were government vessels, such as Canadian Coast Guard ships, on several occasions unable to tie up at the government dock in Yellowknife, Northwest Territories because it was blocked by private craft and, if so, what plans does the government have to alleviate the problem, while at the same time allowing private vessels to use the dock when it is not required for official use?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Regional officials of Transport Canada are aware that government vessels have been inconvenienced because berthing space has not been available at the government wharf in Yellowknife. This wharf has been unsupervised for at least seven years, owing to the difficulty in attracting wharfinger personnel to a position with such low revenue potential. Although the city of Yellowknife was approached in
August, 1980 to determine whether they would consider leasing the wharf, they showed no interest in such an arrangement.
Possible actions to alleviate problems include the posting of signs limiting the length of time a vessel may berth at the wharf, and designating a berth for vessels actively engaged in loading and unloading goods and people. However, these measures require enforcement on a continuing basis. Although Transport Canada regional officials will continue to monitor the situation at Yellowknife, if is unlikely that significant improvements will be seen until the services of a wharfinger can be retained.


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


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Mr. Young:: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary when he expects to be able to give me answers to the written questions on the Order Paper Nos. 3,380 to 3,438, which concern recommendations made in the "Obstacles" report. At the time the question was first asked in the House by myself on October 27, as recorded at page 12211 of Hansard, the minister indicated that it would be possible to provide answers on the following day.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could give me an indication as to when I can expect answers to those questions.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I shall make inquiries on behalf of the hon. member and, hopefully, we will have the replies soon.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, November 30, consideration of the amended motion of Mr. Chretien:
December I, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
THAT, WHEREAS in the past certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada have been made by the Parliament of the United Kingdom at the request and with the consent of Canada;	5
AND WHEREAS it is in accord with the status of Canada as an independent state that Canadians be able to amend their Constitution in Canada in all respects;
AND WHEREAS it is also desirable to 10 provide in the Constitution of Canada for the recognition of certain fundamental rights and freedoms and to make other amendments to that Constitution;
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:
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 Majestede be pleased to cause to be laid before the	bien vouloirfaire deposer devant le Parlement
Parliament of the U nited Kingdom a measure	du Royaume-U ni un projet de loi ainsi conpu :
containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter25 set forth:
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
Constitution Act. 1981 enacted
Termination of power to legislate for Canada
French version
Short title
The Constitution
An Act to give effect to a request by the Senate and House of Commons of Canada

[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 AdoP>'°n de ia
Schedule B to this Act is	hereby enacted for	cee a l'annexe B, est edictee pour le Canada	Uo^eltedeand shall have the force	of law in Canada	et y a force de loi. Elle entre en vigueur	/*#/and shall come into force	as provided in that	conformement a ses dispositions.Act.	252.	No Act of the Parliament of the United 2. Les lois adoptees par le Parlement du Cessation duKingdom passed after the Constitution Act,	Royaume-Uni apres l'entree en vigueur de la 25 ^r^'e^pour le1981 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. This Act may be cited as the Canada 35	4. Titre abrege de la presente loi: Loi sur
Act.	le Canada.
Titre abrege
December 1, 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]
The Constitution ANNEXE B

[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 Canada™ sont enonces. Ils ne peuvent etre restreints que par une regie de droit, dans des limites qui soient raisonnables et dont la justification puisse se demontrer dans le cadre d'une societe libre et democratique.	10
Fundamental Freedoms
Libertes fondamentales
2. Everyone has the following fundamen-10	2. Chacun a les libertes fondamentales
tal freedoms:	suivantes :
(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 de la presse et des autres moyens de communication;
c)	liberte de reunion pacifique;
d)	liberte dissociation.
Libertes
fondamentales
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 tede-	dcscitoyens
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 ^aa"'^|dcs
legislative assembly shall continue for longer des communes et des assemblies legislatives assemblies than five years from the date fixed for the	est de cinq ans a compter de la date fixee	25
return of the writs at a general election of its	25 pour le retour des brefs relatifs aux elections
members.	generates correspondantes.
(2)	In time of real or apprehended war, (2) Le mandat de la Chambre des commu- f^°anifstl0ns invasion or insurrection, a House of Com-	nes ou celui d'une assemblee legislative peut
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]
December 1, 1981
Annual sitting of legislative bodies
Mobility of citizens
Rights to move and gain livelihood
Limitation
Affirmative
action
programs
Life, liberty and security of person
Search or seizure
Detention or imprisonment
The Constitution
of Commons or the legislative assembly, as 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-and of each legislature at least once every	nent une seance au moins une fois tous les
twelve months.	5 douze mois.
Seance annuelle
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 Liberie de demeurer au Canada, d'y entrer ou d'en ur''uldllon sortir.
(2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(а)	to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(б)	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 etabiissement 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 as its object the amelioration in a province of activites destines a ameliorer, dans une pro- 30 conditions of individuals in that province who vince, la situation d'individus defavorises are socially or economically disadvantaged if 30socialement ou economiquement, si le taux the rate of employment in that province is d'emploi dans la province est inferieur a la below the rate of employment in Canada.	moyenne nationale.
Legal Rights	Garanties juridiques
7.	Everyone has the right to life, liberty 7. Chacun a droit a la vie, a la liberte et a 35 vje. liberte et
and security of the person and the right not la securite de sa personne; il ne peut etre	securite
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	Fouiiies.
against unreasonable search or seizure.	les fouiiies, les perquisitions ou les saisies 40^",|s'1'ons"u
abusives.
9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
9. Chacun a droit a la protection contre la 40 detention ou l'emprisonnement arbitraires.
Detention ou emprisonne-ment
December I, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Arrest or detention
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters
10.	Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a)	to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b)	to retain and instruct counsel without 5 delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c)	to have the validity of the detention
determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.	10
11.	Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a)	to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b)	to be tried within a reasonable time; 15
(c)	not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d)	to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public 20 hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e)	not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(/) except in the case of an offence under 25 military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;	30
(g)	not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the gen- 35 eral principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h)	if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to 40 be tried or punished for it again; and
(/') 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.
The Constitution
10.	Chacun a le droit, en cas d'arrestation Arresiation ou
,	.	detention
ou de detention :
a)	d'etre informe dans les plus brefs delais
des motifs de son arrestation ou de sa detention;	5
b)	d'avoir recours sans delai a 1'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
11.	Tout inculpe a le droit:	Affa!re*'	f .	criminelles eta)	d'etre informe sans delai anormal de penaies l'infraction precise qu'on lui reproche;b)	d'etre juge dans un delai raisonnable;c)	de ne pas etre contraint de temoigner 15 contre lui-meme dans toute poursuite intentee contre lui pour l'infraction qu'on lui reproche;d)	d'etre presume innocent tant qu'il n'est pas declare coupable, conformement a la 20 loi, par un tribunal independant et impartial a Tissue d'un proces public et equitable;e)	de ne pas etre prive sans juste cause d'une mise en liberte assortie d'un caution- 25 nement raisonnable;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 enraison 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;	40h)	d'une part de ne pas etre juge de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete d6finitivement acquitte, d'autre part de ne pas etre juge ni puni de nouveau pour une infraction dont il a ete definitivement 45 declare coupable et puni;
/) de beneficier de la peine la moins severe, lorsque la peine qui sanctionne l'infraction dont il est declare coupable est
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
	The Constitution	modifiee entre le moment de la perpetration de l'infraction et celui de la sentence.	
Treatment or punishment	12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.	12. Chacun a droit a la protection contre tous traitements ou peines cruels et inusites.	CruauteSelf-crimina- tion	13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.	13. Chacun a droit a ce qu'aucun temoi-5 gnage incriminant qu'il donne ne soit utilise pour l'incriminer dans d'autres procedures, sauf lors de poursuites pour parjure ou pour temoignages contradictoires.	5 Temoignage incriminantInterpreter	14. A party or witness in any proceedings 10 14. La partie ou le temoin qui ne peuvent 10 interpret who does not understand or speak the lan- suivre les procedures, soit parce qu'ils ne guage in which the proceedings are conduct- comprennent pas ou ne parlent pas la langue ed or who is deaf has the right to the assist- employee, soit parce qu'ils sont atteints de ance of an interpreter. surdite, ont droit a l'assistance d'un inter- prete. 15	
Equality Rights
Droits a I'egalite
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law
15.	(1) Every individual is equal before 1 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 2 or mental or physical disability.
5	15. (1) La loi ne fait acception de personne 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, l'age ou les deficiences mentales ou physiques.
Egalite devant la loi, egalite dc benefice ct protection egale de la loi
Affirmative
action
programs
(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 ^™|°tlon
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
Official languages of Canada
16. (1) English and French are the official 16. (1) Le fran$ais et 1'anglais sont les languages of Canada and have equality of 30 langues officielles du Canada; ils ont un status and equal rights and privileges as to	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 35
their use in all institutions of the Parliament	a leur usage dans les institutions du Parleand government of Canada.	ment et du gouvernement du Canada.
Langues officielles du Canada
Official languages of
New Brunswick '«"6"6"	1'"'" muiumciv CMC na.v UJ umwwiw uu m/un,ou-uiuiunn,*, 113 urn Ull Nouveauequality of status and equal rights and privi-	statut et des droits et privileges egaux quant 40 Brunswick
leges as to their use in all institutions of the	a leur usage dans les institutions de la Legis-
(2) English and French are the official (2) Le fran?ais et 1'anglais sont les langues	Langues
Innnno	rtf NJ.. \ i	Druncuiirtl* , n/i krti.a t ^ rtffirtiall ar 11 NT nmiart 11 Drimnifirtl/. il. rtnt .m	officiei leS du
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Advancement of status and use
Proceedings of Parliament
Proceedings of New Brunswick legislature
Parliamentary statutes and records
New Brunswick statutes and records
Proceedings in courts
established by Parliament
Proceedings in New Brunswick courts
Communications by public with federal institutions
legislature and government of New Brunswick.
The Constitution
lature et du gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick.
(3) Nothing in this Charter limits the (3) La presente charte ne limite pas le f!™8["sionvers authority of Parliament or a legislature to pouvoir du Parlement et des legislatures de LgJ ,tL advance the equality of status or use of Eng- 5 favoriser la progression vers l'egalite de 5 lish and French.	statut ou d'usage du fran?ais et de l'anglais.
17. (1) Everyone has the right to use Eng- 17. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le	£a™*ndtu
lish or French in any debates and other	fran$ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et tra-	Jr,-mcn
proceedings of Parliament.	vaux du Parlement.
(2) Everyone has the right to use English 10	(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran- 10 ^gi^ure du
or French in any debates and other proceed-	$ais ou l'anglais dans les debats et travaux de	Nouveauings 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 Da^"™n"'asires of Parliament shall be printed and published rendus et les proces-verbaux du Parlement pjr emen aire!>
in English and French and both language 15 sont imprimes et publies en fransais et enl5 versions are equally authoritative.	anglais, les deux versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.
(2) The statutes, records and journals of (2) Les lois, les archives, les comptes the legislature of New Brunswick shall be	rendus et les proces-verbaux de la Legisla- 20 du Nouveauprinted and published in English and French	ture du Nouveau-Brunswick sont imprimes Brunswick
and both language versions are equally 20 et publies en fran?ais et en anglais, les deux authoritative.	versions des lois ayant egalement force de loi
et celles des autres documents ayant meme valeur.	25
19. (1) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court established by Parliament.
19. (1) Chacun a le droit d'employer le ^ranUef fran?ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires mbunaux dont sont saisis les tribunaux etablis par le etabiis par le 25 Parlement et dans tous les actes de procedure ar emen qui en decoulent.	30
(2) Either English or French may be used by any person in, or in any pleading in or process issuing from, any court of New Brunswick.
(2) Chacun a le droit d'employer le fran-5ais ou l'anglais dans toutes les affaires dont tribunaux du sont saisis les tribunaux du Nouveau-Bruns- Nouveau-wick et dans tous les actes de procedure qui runsw,c en decoulent.	35
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 fran?ais ou de l'anglais pour communiquer avec le siege ou ('administration 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) l'emploi du fran?ais ou de 1'anglais fait munications with and services from that l'objet d'une demande importante; office in such language; or	40 h) 1'emploi du fran?ais et de l'anglais se
justifie par la vocation du bureau.
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
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.
Communications entre les administres et les institutions du Nouvcau-Brunswick
(2) Any member of the public in New 5 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.	10
(2) Le public a, au Nouveau-Brunswick, droit a l'empioi 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.
21. Nothing in sections 16 to 20 abrogates or derogates from any right, privilege or obligation with respect to the English and French languages, or either of them, that exists or is continued by virtue of any other provision of the Constitution of Canada.
21.	Les articles 16 a 20 n'ont pas pour	Maimienen
effet, en ce qui a trait a la langue fran9aise	cSies*
ou anglaise ou a ces deux langues, de porter dispositions atteinte aux droits, privileges ou obligations 15 qui existent ou sont maintenus aux termes 10 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 fran9ais ou l'anglais.
Minority Language Educational Rights	Droits a I'instruction dans la langue de la
minorite
23. (1) Citizens of Canada
(a)	whose first language learned and still understood is that of the English or French 25 linguistic minority population of the province in which they reside, or
(b)	who have received their primary school instruction in Canada in English or French and reside in a province where the 30 language in which they received that instruction is the language of the English
or French linguistic minority population of the province,
23. (1) Les citoyens canadiens :	Langue
,	.	,	,	,	.	d'instruction
a)	dont la premiere langue apprise et 20 encore comprise est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province ou ils resident,
b)	qui ont re9u leur instruction, au niveau primaire, en fran9ais ou en anglais au 25 Canada et qui resident dans une province ou la langue dans laquelle ils ont re9U cette instruction est celle de la minorite francophone ou anglophone de la province,
ont, dans l'un ou I'autre cas, le droit d'y faire 30 have the right to have their children receive 35 instruire leurs enfants, aux niveaux primaire primary and secondary school instruction in et secondaire, dans cette langue. that language in that province.
(2) Citizens of Canada of whom any child (2) Les citoyens canadiens dont un enfant	Continuiie
has received or is receiving primary or	a re9u ou re9oit son instruction, au niveau	fa'gUpeloide'secondary school instruction in English or40primaire ou secondaire, en fran9ais ou en35destruction 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.
December 1, 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 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.
The Constitution
(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	droits'et libertes
infringed or denied may apply to a court of	lui sont garantis par la presente charte, peut
competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy 20s'adresser a un tribunal competent pour obte- 20 as the court considers appropriate and just in nir la reparation que le tribunal estime con-the circumstances.	venable et juste eu egard aux circonstances.
(2) Where, in proceedings under subsection (1), a court concludes that evidence was
obtained in a manner that infringed or
denied any rights or freedoms guaranteed by
this Charter, the evidence shall be excluded
if it is established that, having regard to all
the circumstances, the admission of it in the
proceedings would bring the administration
of justice into disrepute.
(2) Lorsque, dans une instance visee au paragraphe (1), le tribunal a conclu que des
Irrecevabilite d'elements de preuve qui
25 elements de preuve ont ete obtenus dans des 25 risqueraient de conditions qui portent atteinte aux droits ou	rad miration
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
Dispositions generates
25. The guarantee in this Charter of cer- 25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit	^j£srt&
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-	certains droits et libertes ne porte pas	desautochioneT
strued 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	Ma,nt,'-n des
tain rights and freedoms shall not be con-45 certains droits et libertes ne constitue pas	libertes
25. Le fait que la presente charte garantit certains droits et libertes ne porte pas atteinte aux droits ou libertes - ancestraux, issus de traites ou autres - des peuples35 autochtones du Canada, notamment:
a)	aux droits ou libertes reconnus par la Proclamation royale du 7 octobre 1763;
b)	aux droits ou libertes acquis par reglement de revendications territoriales.	40
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
Multicultural
heritage
Rights guaranteed equally to both
sexes
Rights respecting certain schools preserved
Application to territories and territorial authorities
Legislative powers not extended
Application of Charter
Exception
Exception where express declaration
The Constitution
strued as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.
une negation des autres droits ou libertes qui existent au Canada.
27.	This Charter shall be interpreted in a 27. Toute interpretation de la presente Maintiendu manner consistent with the preservation and charte doit concorder avec l'objectif de pro- culmreT"6 enhancement of the multicultural heritage of 5 mouvoir le maintien et la valorisation du 5 Canadians.	patrimoine multiculturel des Canadiens.
28.	Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.
28. Independamment des autres dispositions de la presente charte, les droits et libertes qui y sont mentionnes sont garantis egale-lOment aux personnes des deux sexes.	10
29.	Nothing in this Charter abrogates or 29. Les dispositions de la presente charte derogates from any rights or privileges guar- ne portent pas atteinte aux droits ou privile-anteed by or under the Constitution of	ges garantis en vertu de la Constitution du
Canada in respect of denominational, sepa-	Canada concernant les ecoles separees et
rate or dissentient schools.	15 autres ecoles confessionnelles.	15
Egalite dc garantic des droits pour les deux sexes
Maintien dcs droits rclatifs a ccrtaines ecoles
30. A reference in this Charter to a province or to the legislative assembly or legislature of a province shall be deemed to include a reference to the Yukon Territory and the
30. Dans la presente charte, les dispositions qui visent les provinces, leur legislature ou leur assemblee legislative visent egale-ment le territoire du Yukon, les territoires du
Application aux territoires
Northwest Territories, or to the appropriate 20Nord-Ouest ou leurs autorites legislatives 20
legislative authority thereof, as the case may competentes.
be.
31. Nothing in this Charter extends the legislative powers of any body or authority.
31. La presente charte n'elargit pas les competences legislatives de quelque orga-nisme ou autorite que ce soit.
Non-elargisse-ment dcs competences legislatives
Application of Charter
Application de la charte
32. (1) This Charter applies	25
(a)	to the Parliament and government of
Canada in respect of all matters within the authority of Parliament including all matters relating to the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories; and	30
(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.
32. (1) La presente charte s'applique :	25 Application dc
la charte
a)	au Parlement et au gouvernement du
Canada, pour tous les domaines relevant du Parlement, y compris ceux qui concer-nent le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest;	30
b)	a la legislature et au gouvernement de chaque province, pour tous les domaines relevant de cette legislature.
(2) Par derogation au paragraphe (1), Far- Restriction tide 15 n'a d'effet que trois ans apres Fen-35 tree en vigueur du present article.
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a 33. (1) Le Parlement ou la legislature	Derogation par
province may expressly declare in an Act of	d'une province peut adopter une loi ou il est	expressc'0
Parliament or of the legislature, as the case40expressement declare que celle-ci ou une de may be, that the Act or a provision thereof	ses dispositions a effet independamment 40
shall operate notwithstanding a provision	d'une disposition donnee de Particle 2 ou des
included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of articles 7 a 15 de la presente charte. this Charter.
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Operation of exception
Five year limitation
Re-enactment
Five year limitation
Citation
Recognition of existing aboriginal and treaty rights
Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"
Commitment to promote equal opportunities
(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.
The Constitution
(2) La loi ou la disposition qui fait l'objet 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 (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(3) La declaration visee au paragraphe (1) 5Durecde cesse d avoir effet a la date qui y est precisee ou, au plus tard, cinq ans apres son entree en vigueur.
(4) Parliament or a legislature of a prov- 10	(4) Le Parlement ou une legislature peut Nouvelle
ince may re-enact a declaration made under adopter de nouveau une declaration visee au 10a optlon subsection (1).	paragraphe (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
(5) Le paragraphe (3) s'applique a toute D"r",de declaration adoptee sous le regime du para- va 1 'e graphe (4).
Citation
Tit re
34. This Part may be cited as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
15	34. Titre de la presente partie : Charte 15 Tilre
canadienne des droits et libertes.


[Stage Direction]
35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.
35. (1) Les droits existants - ancestraux ou issus de traites - des peuples autochtones du Canada sont reconnus et confirmes.
Confirmation des droits existants des peuples autochtones
(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of 20	(2) Dans la presente loi, «peuples autoch-20 Definition de
Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and	tones du Canada# s'entend notamment des awochumesdu
Metis peoples of Canada.	Indiens, des Inuit et des Metis du Canada. Canada.
part in


[Stage Direction]
36. (1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with 25 respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the 30 well-being of Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of
reasonable quality to all Canadians.	35
36.	(1) Sous reserve des competences	Engagements
legislatives du Parlement et des legislatures	iTga'iit/des
et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement 25 chances et les legislatures, ainsi que les gouverne-ments federal et provinciaux, s'engagent a :
a)	promouvoir l'egalite des chances de
tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-etre;	30
b)	favoriser le developpement economique pour reduire l'inegalite des chances;
c)	fournir a tous les Canadiens, a un
niveau de qualite acceptable, les services publics essentiels.	35
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
Commitment respecting public services
Constitutional
conference
Participation of
aboriginal
peoples
Participation of territories
General procedure for amending Constitution of Canada
The Constitution
(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 provin-5ciaux 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


[Stage Direction]
37.	(1) A constitutional conference com- 37. (1) Dans l'annee suivant l'entree en Conference posed of the Prime Minister of Canada and	vigueur de la presente partie, le premier 10 n°"|*tltutlon
the first ministers of the provinces shall be 10 ministre du Canada convoque une conference convened by the Prime Minister of Canada	constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers
within one year after this Part comes into	ministres provinciaux et lui-meme.
force.
(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 15 conference visee au paragraphe (1) les ques- 15 auto^ThtC'nes an item respecting constitutional matters tions constitutionnelles qui interessent direc-that directly affect the aboriginal peoples of	tement les peuples autochtones du Canada,
Canada, including the identification and	notamment la determination et la definition
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 20Constitution du Canada. Le premier ministre 20 the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite du Canada invite leurs representants a parti-representatives of those peoples to participate ciper aux travaux relatifs a ces questions, in the discussions on that item.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of the conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
(3)	Le premier ministre du Canada invite 25 des representants elus des gouvernements du territoire du Yukon et des territoires du 25 Nord-Ouest a participer aux travaux relatifs a toute question placee a l'ordre du jour de la conference visee au paragraphe (1) et qui, 30selon lui, interesse directement le territoire du Yukon et les territoires du Nord-Ouest. 30
Participation des territoires

[Stage Direction]
PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING	PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA
CONSTITUTION OF CANADA	CONSTITUTION DU CANADA
38.	(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
(a)	resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and
(b)	resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least two-thirds of the provinces
38. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut etre modifiee par proclamation du gouver-neur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisee a la fois :
a)	par des resolutions du Senat et de la 35 Chambre des communes;
b)	par des resolutions des assemblies legislatives d'au moins deux tiers des provinces dont la population confondue repre-
Procedure normale de modification
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Majority of members
Expression of dissent
Revocation of dissent
Restriction on proclamation
Idem
Compensation
Amendment by
unanimous
consent
The Constitution
that have, in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, at least fifty per cent of the population of all the provinces.
sente, selon le recensement general le plus recent a l'epoque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces.
(2) An amendment made under subsection 5	(2) Une modification faite conformement 5 Majoritcsimple
(1) that derogates from the legislative	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 privilegesernment of a province shall require a resolu-	d'une legislature ou d'un gouvernement protion supported by a majority of the members 1 Ovincial exige une resolution adoptee a la 10 of each of the Senate, the House of Com- majorite des senateurs, des deputes federaux mons and the legislative assemblies required et des deputes de chacune des assemblees under subsection (1).	legislatives du nombre requis de provinces.
(3) An amendment referred to in subsec- (3) La modification visee au paragraphe D6saccord tion (2) shall not have effect in a province 15 (2) est sans effet dans une province dont 15 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 resolution adoptee a la majorite des deputes, to the issue of the proclamation to which the sauf si cette assemblee, par resolution egale-amendment relates unless that legislative 20 ment adoptee a la majorite, revient sur son 20 assembly, subsequently, by resolution sup- disaccord et autorise la modification, ported by a majority of its members, revokes its dissent and authorizes the amendment.
(4)	A resolution of dissent made for the (4) La resolution de disaccord visee au Lcveedu purposes of subsection (3) may be revoked at 25 paragraphe (3) peut etre revoquee a tout any time before or after the issue of the moment, independamment de la date de la proclamation to which it relates.	proclamation a laquelle elle se rapporte. 25 39 40 4139.	(1) A proclamation shall not be issued 39. (1) La proclamation visee au paragra- Restriction under subsection 38(1) before the expiration phe 38(1) ne peut etre prise dans l'annee of one year from the adoption of the resolu-30suivant l'adoption de la resolution a l'origine tion initiating the amendment procedure	de la procedure de modification que si 1'asthereunder, unless the legislative assembly of	semblee legislative de chaque province a 30each province has previously adopted a reso- prealablement adopte une resolution d'agre-lution of assent or dissent.	ment ou de desaccord.(2) A proclamation shall not be issued 35	(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe	Idcmunder subsection 38(1) after the expiration	38(1) ne peut etre prise que dans les trois ans
of three years from the adoption of the reso- suivant 1'adoption de la resolution a 1 origine35 lution initiating the amendment procedure de la procedure de modification, thereunder.
40.	Where an amendment is made under 40	40. Le Canada fournit une juste compen- Compensation
subsection 38(1) that transfers provincial	sation aux provinces auxquelles ne s'applique
legislative powers relating to education or	pas une modification faite conformement au
other cultural matters from provincial legis-	paragraphe 38(1) et relative, en matiere40
latures to Parliament, Canada shall provide	d'education ou dans d autres domaines cultureasonable compensation to any province to45rels, a un transfert de competences legislati-which the amendment does not apply.	ves provinciales au Parlement.
41.	An amendment to the Constitution of 41. Toute modification de la Constitution Consentement Canada in relation to the following matters du Canada portant sur les questions suivan- 45
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
Amendment by
general
procedure
Exception
Amendment of provisions relating to some but not all provinces
The Constitution
may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province:
(a)	the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b)	the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not 10 less than the number of Senators by which the province is entitled to be represented at the time this Part comes into force;
(c)	subject to section 43, 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.
tes se fait par proclamation du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-risee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des communes et de 1'assemblee 5 legislative de chaque province :	5
a)	la charge de Reine, celle de gouverneur general et celle de lieutenant-gouverneur;
b)	le droit d'une province d'avoir a la Chambre des communes un nombre de deputes au moins egal a celui des senateurs 10 par lesquels elle est habilitee a etre representee lors de l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie;
c)	sous reserve de 1'article 43, l'usage du
15 fran$ais ou de l'anglais;	15
d)	la composition de la Cour supreme du
Canada;
e)	la modification de la presente partie.
42. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 42. (1) Toute modification de la Constitu- Procedure of Canada in relation to the following mat- 20 tion du Canada portant sur les questions 20 mcJdtfkaiion ters may be made only in accordance with suivantes se fait conformement au paragra-subsection 38(1):	phe38(l):
(a)	the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the 25 Constitution of Canada;
(b)	the powers of the Senate and the method of selecting Senators;
(c)	the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the 30 Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators;
(d)	subject to paragraph 41(d), the Supreme Court of Canada;
(e)	the extension of existing provinces into 35 the territories; and
(/) notwithstanding any other law or practice, the establishment of new provinces.
a)	le principe de la representation propor-tionnelle des provinces a la Chambre des communes prevu par la Constitution du 25 Canada;
b)	les pouvoirs du Senat et le mode de selection des senateurs;
c)	le nombre des senateurs par lesquels une province est habilitee a etre represen- 30 tee et les conditions de residence qu'ils doivent remplir;
d)	sous reserve de l'alinea 4Id), la Cour supreme du Canada;
e)	le rattachement aux provinces existan-35 tes de tout ou partie des territoires;
f)	par derogation a toute autre loi ou usage, la creation de provinces.
(2) Subsections 38(2) to (4) do not apply (2) Les paragraphes 38(2) a (4) ne s'appli- Exception in respect of amendments in relation to mat-40quent pas aux questions mentionnees au40 ters referred to in subsection (1).	paragraphe (1).
43. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces, including	45
(a) any alteration to boundaries between provinces, and
43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du Modification Canada applicables a certaines provinces ceftaine^ seulement ne peuvent etre modifiees que par provinces proclamation du gouverneur general sous le45 grand sceau du Canada, autorisee par des resolutions du Senat, de la Chambre des
December 1, 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
(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies.
The Constitution
communes et de Passemblee legislative de chaque province concernee. Le present article s'applique notamment:
a)	aux changements du trace des frontie-
5 res interprovinciales;	5
b)	aux modifications des dispositions relatives a l'usage du fran$ais ou de l'anglais dans une province.
44. Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parlia- 10 ment may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.
44. Sous reserve des articles 41 et 42, le 10 Modification Parlement a competence exclusive pour Parlement modifier les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada relatives au pouvoir executif federal, au Senat ou a la Chambre des communes.	15
45.	Subject to section 41, the legislature 15	45. Sous reserve de Particle	41, une legis-	Modificationof each province may exclusively make laws	lature a competence exclusive	pour modifier	legislatures
amending the constitution of the province. la constitution de sa province.
46. (1) The procedures for amendment	46. (1) L'initiative des procedures de	'nr^^es
under sections 38, 41, 42 and 43 may be	modification visees aux articles 38, 41, 42 et 20 proce urL
initiated either by the Senate or the House of 20	43 appartient au Senat, a la	Chambre des
Commons or by the legislative assembly of a communes ou a une assemblee legislative.
province.
(2) A resolution of assent made for the	(2) Une resolution d'agrement adoptee	p^di^de
purposes of this Part may be revoked at any dans le cadre de la presente partie peut etre time before the issue of a proclamation 25 revoquee a tout moment avant la date de la 25 authorized by it.	proclamation qu'elle autorise.
47. (1) An amendment to the Constitution 47. (1) Dans les cas vises a Particle 38, 41, of Canada made by proclamation under sec-	42 ou 43, il peut etre passe outre au defaut
tion 38, 41, 42 or 43 may be made without a	d'autorisation du Senat si celui-ci n'a pas
resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue 30 adopte de resolution dans un delai de cent 30 of the proclamation if, within one hundred	quatre-vingts jours suivant Padoption de celle
and eighty days after the adoption by the	de la Chambre des communes et si cette
House of Commons of a resolution authoriz-	derniere, apres Pexpiration du delai, adopte
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 35 expiration of that period, the House of Commons again adopts the resolution.
Modification sans resolution du Senat
(2) Any period when Parliament is proro- (2) Dans la computation du delai vise au 35 ju0^"|atio" gued or dissolved shall not be counted in paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptees les computing the one hundred and eighty day 40periodes pendant lesquelles le Parlement est period referred to in subsection (1).	proroge ou dissous.
48. The Queen's Privy Council for 48. Le Conseil prive de la Reine pour le °™,a^t?0en Canada shall advise the Governor General to	Canada demande au gouverneur general de 40
issue a proclamation under this Part forth- prendre, conformement a la presente partie, with on the adoption of the resolutions 45 une proclamation des Padoption des resolu-
[Stage Direction]
December I, 1981
The Constitution
required for an amendment made by procla- tions prevues par cette partie pour une modi-mation under this Part.	fication par proclamation.
Constitutional
conference
49. 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.
49. Dans les quinze ans suivant l'entree en vigueur de la presente partie, le premier 5 ministre du Canada convoque une conference constitutionnelle reunissant les premiers ministres provinciaux et lui-meme, en vue du reexamen des dispositions de cette partie.
Conference
constitutionnelle


[Stage Direction]
Amendment to Constitution Act, 1867
50. The Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly 50. La Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 Modification de named the British North America Act, 1867) 10 (anterieurement designee sous le titre : Acte 10 tomtit uiion-is amended by adding thereto, immediately de I'Amerique du Nord britannique, 1867) nettedeistS7 after section 92 thereof, the following head- est modifiee par insertion, apres Particle 92, ing and section:	de la rubrique et de Particle suivants :
"Non-Renewable Natural Resources,	«Ressources naturelles non renouvelables,
Forestry Resources and Electrical Energy ressources forestieres et energie electrique
Laws respecting
non-renewable
natural
resources,
forestry
resources and
electrical
energy
Export from provinces of resources
92A. (1) La legislature de chaque pro- Competence vince a competence exclusive pour legife- 15 Provinc,ale rer dans les domaines suivants :
92A. (1) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation 15 to
(a)	exploration for non-renewable natural resources in the province;
(b)	development, conservation and management of non-renewable natural 20 resources and forestry resources in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and
(c)	development, conservation and man- 25 agement of sites and facilities in the province for the generation and production of electrical energy.
(2) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the export from 30 the province to another part of Canada of the primary production from non-renewable natural resources and forestry resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the 35 generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for discrimination in prices or in supplies exported to another part of Canada.
a)	prospection des ressources naturelles non renouvelables de la province;
b)	exploitation, conservation et gestion des ressources naturelles non renouvela- 20 bles et des ressources forestieres de la province, y compris leur rythme de production primaire;
c)	amenagement, conservation et gestion des emplacements et des installa- 25 tions de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique.
(2) La legislature de chaque province a Exportation competence pour legiferer en ce qui con- provinces cerne l'exportation, hors de la province, a 30 destination d'une autre partie du Canada, 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 35 province, sous reserve de ne pas adopter de lois autorisant ou prevoyant des disparites de prix ou des disparites dans les exportations destinees a une autre partie du Canada.	40
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Authority of Parliament
Taxation of resources
"Primary
production"
(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 Parliament and a law of a province con- 5 flict, the law of Parliament prevails to the extent of the conflict.
(4)	In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the raising of money by any mode or system of taxation 10 in respect of
(a)	non-renewable natural resources
and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom, and	15
(b)	sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the production therefrom,
whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province, but 20 such laws may not authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production not exported from the province.	25
(5) The expression "primary production" has the meaning assigned by the Sixth Schedule.
The Constitution
(3) Le paragraphe (2) ne porte pas Pouvoirdu atteinte au pouvoir du Parlement de legife- Pjrlcmcm rer dans les domaines vises a ce paragraphe, les dispositions d'une loi du Parlement adoptee dans ces domaines l'emportant sur 5 les dispositions incompatibles d'une loi provinciate.
(4)	La legislature de chaque province a Taxation des competence pour prelever des sommes
d'argent par tout mode ou systeme de 10 taxation :
a)	des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres de la province, ainsi que de la production primaire qui en est tiree;	15
b)	des emplacements et des installations de la province destines a la production d'energie electrique, ainsi que de cette production meme.
Cette competence peut s'exercer indepen- 20 damment du fait que la production en cause soit ou non, en totalite ou en partie, exportee hors de la province, mais les lois adoptees dans ces domaines ne peuvent autoriser ou prevoir une taxation qui eta- 25 blisse une distinction entre la production exportee a destination d'une autre partie du Canada et la production non exportee hors de la province.
(5)	L'expression «production primaire* a 30-Produc,ion le sens qui lui est donne dans la sixieme pnmJ'r<:" annexe.
Existing powers or rights
(6) Nothing in subsections (1) to (5) derogates from any powers or rights that a 30 legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of this section."
(6) Les paragraphes (1) a (5) ne portent Pouvoirsou pas atteinte aux pouvoirs ou droits detenus par la legislature ou le gouvernement 35 d'une province lors de l'entree en vigueur du present article.*
Idem
51. The said Act is further amended by 51. Ladite loi est en outre modifiee par ldcm adding thereto the following Schedule:	35 adjonction de l'annexe suivante :

[Stage Direction]
Primary Production from Non-Renewable Natural Resources and Forestry Resources
1. For the purposes of section 92A of this Act,
«SIXIEME ANNEXE
Production primaire tiree des ressources naturelles non renouvelables et des ressources forestieres
1. Pour l'application de Particle 92A :	40
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
Primacy of Constitution of Canada
Constitution of Canada
Amendments to Constitution of Canada
Repeals and new names
The Constitution
(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 5 natural state, or
(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, 10 refining upgraded heavy crude oil, refining gases or liquids derived from coal or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and
(b)	production from a forestry resource is 15 primary production therefrom if it consists
of sawlogs, poles, lumber, wood chips, sawdust or any other primary wood product, or wood pulp, and is not a product manufactured from wood."	20

[Stage Direction]
52, (1) The Constitution of Canada is the 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.	25
(2) The Constitution of Canada includes {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 30 referred to in paragraph (a) or (b).
(3) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada shall be made only in accordance with the authority contained in the Constitution of Canada.	35
53. (1) The enactments referred to in Column I of Schedule 1 are hereby repealed or amended to the extent indicated in Column II thereof and, unless repealed, shall continue as law in Canada under the names 40 set out in Column III thereof.
a)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource naturelle non renouvela-ble :
(i)	soit le produit qui se presente sous la meme forme que lors de son extraction 5 du milieu naturel,
(ii)	soit le produit non manufacture de
la transformation, du raffinage ou de l'affinage d'une ressource, a l'exception du produit du raffinage du petrole brut, 10 du raffinage du petrole brut lourd ame-liore, du raffinage des gaz ou des liqui-des derives du charbon ou du raffinage d'un equivalent synthetique du petrole brut;	15
b)	on entend par production primaire tiree d'une ressource forestiere la production constitute de billots, de poteaux, de bois d'oeuvre, de copeaux, de sciure ou d'autre produit primaire du bois, ou de pate de 20 bois, a l'exception d'un produit manufacture en bois.*


[Stage Direction]
52. (1) La Constitution du Canada est la Primautedeia loi supreme du Canada; elle rend inoperantes Canada1110"dl les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre 25 regie de droit.
(2)	La Constitution du Canada comprend :	Constitution du
a)	la Loi sur le Canada, y compris la presente loi;
b)	les textes legislatifs et les decrets figu- 30 rant a l'annexe I;
c)	les modifications des textes legislatifs et des decrets mentionnes aux alineas a) ou b).
(3)	La Constitution du Canada ne peut 35 Modification etre modifiee que conformement aux pouvoirs conferes par elle.
53. (1) Les textes legislatifs et les decrets Abrogation et enumeres a la colonne I de l'annexe I sont nouvcaux tlirc abroges ou modifies dans la mesure indiquee 40 a la colonne II. Sauf abrogation, ils restent en vigueur en tant que lois du Canada sous les titres mentionnes a la colonne III.
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Consequential
amendments
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
(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 followed by the year and number, if any, of its enactment.
The Constitution
(2) Tout texte legislatif ou reglementaire, Modifications sauf la Loi sur le Canada, qui fait mention corrcljllvcs d'un texte legislatif ou decret figurant a l'an-nexe I par le titre indique a la colonne I est 5modifie par substitution a ce titre du titre 5 correspondant mentionne a la colonne III; tout Acte de PAmerique du Nord britanni-que non mentionne a Pannexe I peut etre cite sous le titre de Loi constitutionnelle suivi de 101'indication de l'annee de son adoption et 10 eventuellement de son numero.
54. Part IV 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 IV and this section, by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
54. La partie IV est abrogee un an apres Pentree en vigueur de la presente partie et le gouverneur general peut, par proclamation sous le grand sceau du Canada, abroger le 15 present article et apporter en consequence de cette double abrogation les amenagements qui s'imposent a la presente loi.
Abrogation et modifications qui cn decoulent
55. A French version of the portions of the Constitution of Canada referred to in Schedule I shall be prepared by the Minister of Justice of Canada as expeditiously as possible and, when any portion thereof sufficient to warrant action being taken has been so prepared, it shall be put forward for enactment by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada pursuant to the procedure then applicable to an amendment of the same provisions of the Constitution of Canada.
55. Le ministre de la Justice du Canada est charge de rediger, dans les meilleurs20 delais, la version fran?aise des parties de la Constitution du Canada qui figurent a Pan-nexe I; toute partie suffisamment importante est, des qu'elle est prete, deposee pour adoption par proclamation du gouverneur general 25 sous le grand sceau du Canada, conforme-ment a la procedure applicable a Pepoque a la modification des dispositions constitution-nelles qu'elle contient.
Version fran^aise de certains textes constitutionnels
56.	Where any portion of the Constitution 30 of Canada has been or is enacted in English and French or where a French version of any portion of the Constitution is enacted pursuant to section 55, the English and French versions of that portion of the Constitution 35 are equally authoritative.
57.	The English and French versions of this Act are equally authoritative.
certains textes constitutionnels
56. Les versions fran$aise et anglaise des 30 Versions parties de la Constitution du Canada adop- angiaiseYe tees dans ces deux langues ont egalement force de loi. En outre, ont egalement force de loi, des l'adoption, dans le cadre de Particle 55, d'une partie de la version fran9aise de la 35 Constitution, cette partie et la version anglaise correspondante.
57. Les versions fran^aise et anglaise de la presente loi ont egalement force de loi.
Versions fran5aise et anglaise de la presente loi
58.	Subject to section 59, this Act shall 58. Sous reserve de Particle 59, la presente 40 Entree en come into force on a day to be fixed by 40 loi entre en vigueur a la date fixee par proproclamation 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. 59
59.	(1) Paragraph 23(1 )(a) shall come 59. (1) L'alinea 23(1 )a) entre en vigueur
into force in respect of Quebec on a day to be 45 pour le Quebec a la date fixee par proclama- 45 |\f|jnisa 23(1)0)
pour le Quebec
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
Authorization of Quebec
Repeal of this section
The Constitution
fixed 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.
(2) A proclamation under subsection (1)	(2) La proclamation visee au paragraphe	Automation du
shall be issued only where authorized by the 5(1) ne peut etre prise qu'apres autorisation ut ^ legislative assembly or government of de I'assemblee legislative ou du gouverne- 5 Quebec.	ment du Quebec.
(3) This section may be repealed on the day paragraph 23(1 )(a) comes into force in respect of Quebec and this Act amended and renumbered, consequential upon the repeal of this section, by proclamation issued by the Queen or the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
(3) Le present article peut etre abroge a la date d'entree en vigueur de l'alinea 23(1 )a)
10 pour le Quebec, et la presente loi faire l'ob-jet, des cette abrogation, des modifications et 10 changements de numerotation qui en decou-lent, par proclamation de la Reine ou du gouverneur general sous le grand sceau du Canada.
Abrogation du present article
short title and 60. This Act may be cited as the Consti- 15	60. Titre abrege de la presente annexe : 15 Ti,res
tution Act, 1981, and the Constitution Acts	Loi constitutionnelle de 1981\ titre commun
1867 to 1975 (No. 2) and this Act may be	des lois constitutionnelles de 1867 a 1975
cited together as the Constitution Acts, 1867	(n° 2) et de la presente loi: Lois constituto 1981.	tionnelles de 1867 a 1981.
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the

[Stage Direction]
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
1. British North America Act, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)
2. An Act to amend and continue the Act 32-33 Victoria chapter 3; and to establish and provide for the Government of the Province of Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Can.)
(1)	Section 1 is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as
the Constitution Act, 1867."
(2)	Section 20 is repealed.
(3) Class 1 of section 91 is repealed.
(4) Class 1 of section 92 is repealed.
(1)	The long title is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"Manitoba Act, 1870."
(2)	Section 20 is repealed.
Constitution Act, 1867
Manitoba Act, 1870
3.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Rupert's Land and the North-Western Territory into the union, dated the 23rd day of June,
4.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting British Columbia into the Union, dated the 16th day of May,
5.	British North America Act, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)
6.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting Prince Edward Island into the Union, dated the 26th day of June, 1873
7.	Parliament of Canada Act, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (U.K.)
8.	Order of Her Majesty in Council admitting all British possessions and Territories in North America and islands adjacent thereto into the Union, dated the 31st day of July, 1880
Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order
British Columbia Terms of Union
Section 1 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1871 following substituted therefor:
"1. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1871."
Prince Edward Island Terms of Union
Parliament of Canada Act, 1875
Adjacent Territories Order
December 1, 1981

[Stage Direction]
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I	Colonne II	Colonne IIILoi visee	Modification	Nouveau titre
1. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1867, 30-31 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)
2.	Acte pour amender et continuer l'acte trente-deux et trente-trois Victoria, chapitre trois, et pour etablir et constituer le gouvernement de la province de Manitoba, 1870, 33 Viet., c. 3 (Canada)
3.	Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Terre de Rupert et le Territoire du Nord-Ouest, en date du 23 juin 1870
(1)	L'article 1 est abroge et Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 remplace par ce qui suit:
«1. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle de 1867.*
(2)	L'article 20 est abroge.
(3)	La categorie 1 de Particle
91	est abrogee.
(4)	La categorie 1 de Particle
92	est abrogee.
(1)	Le titre complet est abroge Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba et remplace par ce qui suit:
a Loi de 1870 sur le Manitoba.*
(2)	L'article 20 est abroge.
Decret en conseil sur la terre de Rupert et le territoire du Nord-Ouest
4. Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant la Colombie-Britannique, en date du 16 mai 1871
Conditions de l'adhesion de la Colombie-Britannique
5. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1871, 34-35 Viet., c. 28 (R.-U.)
L'article 1 est abroge et remplace 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
Loi constitutionnelle de 1871
Conditions de l'adhesion de l'ile-du-Prince- Edouard
7.	Acte du Parlement du Canada, 1875, 38-39 Viet., c. 38 (R.-U.)
8.	Arrete en conseil de Sa Majeste admettant dans l'Union tous les ter-ritoires et possessions britanniques dans l'Amerique du Nord, et les lies adjacentes a ces territoires et possessions, en date du 31 juillet 1880
Loi de 1875 sur le Parlement du Canada
Decret en conseil sur les territoires adjacents
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 -Continued
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
9. British North America Act, 1886, 49-50 Viet., c. 35 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1886 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1886."
10. Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889, 52-53 Viet., c. 28 (U.K.)	Canada (Ontario Boundary) Act, 1889
11. Canadian Speaker (Appointment of Deputy) Act, 1895, 2nd Sess., 59 Viet., c. 3 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
12. The Alberta Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 3 (Can.)	Alberta Act
13. The Saskatchewan Act, 1905, 4-5 Edw. VII, c. 42 (Can.)	Saskatchewan Act
14. British North America Act, 1907, 7 Edw. VII, c. 11 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1907 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1907."
15. British North America Act, 1915, 5-6 Geo. V, c. 45 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1915 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1915."
16. British North America Act, 1930, 20-21 Geo. V, c. 26 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1930 following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1930."
17. Statute of Westminster, 1931, 22 Geo. V, c. 4 (U.K.)	In so far as they apply to Statute of Westminster, 1931 Canada, (a)	section 4 is repealed; and (b)	subsection 7(1) is repealed.
18. British North America Act, 1940, 3-4 Geo. VI, c. 36 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1940 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1940."
19. British North America Act, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
December 1, 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.)
11.	Acte concernant l'Orateur canadien	La loi est abrogee.
(nomination d'un suppleant) 1895,
2e session, 59 Viet., c. 3 (R.-U.)
12.	Acte de 1'Alberta, 1905, 4-5 Ed.
VII, c. 3 (Canada)
Loi de 1889 sur le Canada (fron-tieres de l'Ontario)
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	Dans la mesure ou ils s'appli- Statut de Westminster de 1931
Geo. V, c. 4 (R.-U.)	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-	La loi est abrogee.
nique, 1943, 6-7 Geo. VI, c. 30 (R.-U.)
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
The Constitution	SCHEDULE I to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981- Continued
Column I Item Act Affected	Column II Column III Amendment New Name
20. British North America Act, 1946, 9-10 Geo. VI, c. 63 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
21. British North America Act, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (U.K.)	Section 3 is repealed and the Newfoundland Act following substituted therefor: "3. This Act may be cited as the Newfoundland Act."
22. British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
23. British North America Act, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (U.K.)	The Act is repealed.
24. British North America Act, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Can.)	The Act is repealed.
25. British North America Act, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1960 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1960."
26. British North America Act, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (U.K.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1964 following substituted therefor: "2. This Act may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1964."
27. British North America Act, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Part I (Can.)	Section 2 is repealed and the Constitution Act, 1965 following substituted therefor: "2. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1965."
28. British North America Act, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Part I (Can.)	Section 3, as amended by Constitution Act, 1974 25-26 Eliz. II, c. 28, s. 38(1) (Can.), is repealed and the following substituted therefor: "3. This Part may be cited as the Constitution Act, 1974."
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (suite)

[Stage Direction]
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.)21.	Acte de I'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1949, 12-13 Geo. VI, c. 22 (R.-U.)22.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique (N° 2), 1949, 13 Geo. VI, c. 81 (R.-U.)23.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1951, 14-15 Geo. VI, c. 32 (R.-U.)24.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1952, 1 Eliz. II, c. 15 (Canada)25.	Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1960, 9 Eliz. II, c. 2 (R.-U.)
26. Acte de 1'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1964, 12-13 Eliz. II, c. 73 (R.-U.)
27. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1965, 14 Eliz. II, c. 4, Partie I (Canada)
28. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1974, 23 Eliz. II, c. 13, Partie I (Canada)
La loi est abrogee.
L'article 3 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit :
«3. Titre abrege : Loi sur Terre-Neuve.*
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogee.
La loi est abrogee.
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionals de I960.*
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionals de 1964.*
L'article 2 est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
«2. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionals de 1965.*
Loi sur Terre-Neuve
Loi constitutionnelle de 1960
Loi constitutionnelle de 1964
Loi constitutionnelle de 1965
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 constitutionals de 1974.*
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 1981
The Constitution

[Stage Direction]
to the
CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 -Concluded
Column I
Item	Act Affected
Column II	Column III
Amendment	New Name
29. British North America Act, 1975,	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. 1), 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."
And on the amendment of Mr. Epp, seconded by Miss MacDonald,-That the proposed Constitution Act 1981 be amended by striking out Section 40 and substituting the following therefor:
"40. In the event that a province dissents from an amendment conferring legislative jurisdiction on Parliament, the Government of Canada shall provide reasonable compensation to the government of that province, taking into account the per capita costs to exercise that jurisdiction in the provinces which have approved the amendment."
And on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. Broadbent, seconded by Mr. Deans,-That the amendment be amended by striking out, in the first line, the words "a province" and substituting the words "the province of Quebec".
December 1, 1981
[Stage Direction]
The Constitution
ANNEXE I (fin)

[Stage Direction]
Colonne I Loi visee
Colonne II Modification
Colonne III Nouveau titre
29. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 28, Partie I (Canada)
31 de la loi 25-26 Elizabeth II, c. 28 (Canada), est abroge et rem-place par ce qui suit:
L'article 3, modifie par Particle Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975
«3. Titre abrege de la presente partie : Loi constitutionnelle n° 1 de 1975.0
30. Acte de l'Amerique du Nord britan-nique n° 2, 1975, 23-24 Eliz. II, c. 53 (Canada)
place par ce qui suit:
«3. Titre abrege : Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975.*
L'article 3 est abroge et rem- Loi constitutionnelle n° 2 de 1975
Sur Pamendement de M. Epp, appuye par M"e MacDonald,-Qu'on modifie le projet de Loi constitutionnelle de 1981 en retranchant Particle 40 et en le rempla-?ant par ce qui suit:
«40. Si une province n'est pas d'accord sur une modification qui donne competence legislative au Par-lement, le gouvernement du Canada doit indemniser raisonnablement le gouvernement de cette province, compte tenu du cout per capita de Pexercice de cette competence dans les provinces qui ont approuve la modification.*
Et sur le sous-amendement de M. Broadbent, appuye par M. Deans,-Qu'on modifie Pamendement, a la premiere ligne, en retranchant les mots «une province* et en les rempla$ant par les mots «la province de Quebec*.
13584
[Stage Direction]
December 1, 198]
The Constitution
Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Madam Speaker, although it may seem that all has been said that could be said about the Constitution and the draft resolution before the House, I feel it is important at this stage in the debate to recall the context of our representation and to analyse again some of the aspects of the decision we are about to make. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I shall go back to the objectives that guided the government in its decision to proceed with the patriation of the Constitution, because I feel it is of the utmost importance that Canadians should remember what those objectives were.
I shall also touch on some aspects of the contents of our resolution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, more specifically, on how they affect the quality of life of Canadians. However, I should not wish to continue my speech without mentioning the significant contribution made by some 300 people who, on behalf of their groups, told the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada about their vision of our country. And how could I forget the excellent work done by the members of this committee and especially by the co-chairmen, Senator Harry Hayes and the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal), the member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Each in their own way, they have put their mark on one of the most decisive changes that has taken place in this country during the past 100 years.
Mr. Speaker, I should now like to express in this House some thoughts I have had following our consideration of the draft resolution and the speeches we have heard in the House and in various areas in the country. During the past months we have seen at least two schools of thought regarding the manner in which Government in Canada is defined and structured. There are those who would like to have this country consist of independent units-sovereign, to all intents and purposes-and that is the position taken by the government of the province of Quebec. Our country would then be no more and no less than the sum of its parts. That is more or less the view taken by the leaders of that province.
Fortunately, there are also those, and I am sure they are more numerous, who sincerely believe that Canada is not, and should never be, merely the sum of its parts. We belong to those who refuse to let this country become a fortuitous juxtaposition of regions, linked only by the opportunistic needs of the moment. To us, Canada is an entity with regional particularities which are to be considered, certainly, but Canada is, above all, a nation. And a nation must be able to exist as such, notwithstanding its different units, and to exist, a nation must have a national government. That, is the concept of Canada our draft resolution wishes to express, and it is supported by nine provincial premiers and by the vast majority of Canadians, notwithstanding the electoral or patently chauvinistic considerations of the Premier of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, these two positions are confronting each other in this country today. And these are the forces that for 54 years have prevented our country from throwing off the shackles of the British North America Act. And it is because we had to rid ourselves of this anachronism which has frustrated our efforts for 54 years, and because no agreement existed and no agreement could be found, that we decided to proceed with the patriation of the Canadian Constitution. Some will say we are doing this unilaterally, but since the last federal-provincial conference in Ottawa, Canadians have been able to witness the flexibility of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who instead of forcing the provincial premiers to accept the Victoria amending formula, which he preferred, bowed to the demands of the provincial consensus which opted for the Vancouver formula, but without the fiscal compensation demanded by the provinces, a decision that was made for perfectly acceptable reasons. As a consequence, rich provinces were allowed to opt out of a federal program requested by most provinces and, in addition to opting out, which is allowed under the Vancouver formula, they demanded fiscal compensation and, as several of my colleagues have already pointed out, it would probably mean the end of our social programs such as medicare, old age security or unemployment insurance. Let us take unemployment insurance, for example. Can you imagine what would have happened if compensation had been paid under that agreement supposing that provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario had opted out of the program and had been compensated besides, under the so-called Vancouver amending formula? Quebec or the maritimes would never had been able to pay for a similar program, an unemployment insurance scheme as we know it today, and provide benefits as generous as those paid at present.
It is to retain those advantages that before agreeing to some of the proposals put forward by the parties opposite, we have to accept what the Minister of State said yesterday in the House, namely, that extensive studies should be carried out so that in future negotiations or at future federal-provincial meetings, such matters might be considered. Therefore, we intend to patriate our Constitution and take that opportunity to make some amendments, the most important of which are undoubtedly the clauses dealing with natural resources, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as the amending formula. Let us see first how a Charter of Rights and Freedoms is entrenched in the Constitution. It seems to me that by doing so, we are only complying with the wishes of most Canadians and following the example of some Canadian provinces. In that regard, it seems strange that, though all the premiers agreed on the principles the charter is meant to protect, several of them opposed their being enshrined in the Canadian Constitution.
We want it to be impossible in the future for legislators to change, the most fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens according to political circumstances. And to those who tell us, especially in Quebec, that our charter is too general in nature, we say that it embodies what we consider to
December 1, 1981

be the basic minimum, that nothing is keeping the provinces from doing more. As for the effects of that charter on Bill 101 in Quebec, which have brought bitter complaints from some of the top brass in the Parti Quebecois, let us see what they really are. First, the real purpose of the charter is to protect a principle on which all provincial premiers agreed in Montreal in 1978, including Mr. Levesque, and I quote:
That every child of the francophone or anglophone minority has the right to receive primary and secondary school instruction in his own tongue in every province wherever numbers justify it.
In Quebec, Bill 101 stipulates that the language of instruction for the children of that province is French, except for children one of whose parents went to an English primary school in Quebec. So, Section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms alters Bill 101 slightly in that it gives a parent who is a Canadian citizen and whose first language is English the right to send his children to English schools. Immigrants, even those whose mother tongue is English, can no longer avail themselves of that clause which applies, as I said, to Canadian citizens only.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are a few changes which the charter will bring to Quebec Bill 101. As the elected representative of a Quebec constituency, I am delighted with these changes basically for two reasons. First of all, I am sure that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not in any way affect the thoroughly French character of Quebec society, but on the contrary will to a certain extent ensure the continued existence and development of the French language in North America. That is a consideration of the utmost importance for me as well as for the other members of the Quebec caucus, in spite of what the PQ representatives would like Quebecers to believe. I should like to quote part of what the Minister of State stated yesterday in the House:
The Quebec challenge is not to ensure that the French language and culture will prevail in Quebec. That goal has already been reached. According to official figures, 86.2 per cent of young Quebecers are now in the French education system; the number of students in English schools declined from 250,000 before 1975 to the current 168,000, a 33 per cent drop over six years. Even with the "Canada clause", the invasion of Quebec by English-speaking Canadians from other provinces is not to be feared any more. Indeed, the opposite will happen. So,
So, I fully agree with this position of the Minister of State. I sincerely believe that the fear some are trying to instil into us as Quebecers is unfounded. The other reason I am delighted with the terms of the charter is that Section 23, among others, will certainly restore the economic situation in Montreal to a certain extent and here is why. If head offices have been leaving Montreal-and as everybody is aware, they have since 1977, Mr. Speaker-it is because corporations thinks Bill 101 is unduly restrictive to Canadians who are moving to Quebec. As their English-speaking officials realized they could no longer send their children to English schools, following their transfer to Montreal or elsewhere in Quebec, many would
The Constitution
refuse any transfer to Quebec and still do. The situation was unpleasant for some companies. That is why they decided to move their head offices out of Quebec. So I am confident that the charter will help counter this job drain resulting from companies which have been relocating outside Quebec since 1977. Mr. Speaker, I read an article on that issue in Le Devoir of November 18 where the concerns of the minister responsible in Quebec, Mr. Laurin, were expressed with respect to the help given to immigrants or at least to those who may come from the U.S. to set up companies here. Allow me to quote from an editorial by Jean-Pierre Proulx published in Le Devoir of November 18. I quote:
How can one explain this unbelievable arrangement? It is fairly easy to imagine how things went. The Department of Trade and Commerce naturally wants to attract new business to Quebec. In our U.S. representations, officers from T. & C.
-the Department of Trade and Commerce-
-and the trade commissioners who go down there occasionally, try to persuade companies that their managers are better off in Quebec if they apply for permanent resident status, since many benefits would be provided for them such as: social security, free schooling for their children, low university tuition fees, opportunity for sitting on the company's board, etc.
But then they are asked:
"What about the language of education?" ... "What about Bill 101?"
That is the question government officers would rather avoid. They have no choice but to say:
French schools. They try to show the benefits of the system, but they are not always very convincing.
Exceptions can be made. And that is what Mr. Laurin tries to do, he tries to make exceptions so that those executives can come to Quebec and send their children to English schools, he tries to get around Bill 101. Now, with the Constitution, residents from outside Quebec but who are Canadian will not have to try to get around Bill 101, and once and for all they will have access to English schools.
In addition, we must keep in mind that the constitutional proposal confirms once and for all the equality of English and French within every institution under the jurisdiction of the Canadian Parliament. In other words, all the other provisions of Bill 101 are maintained, namely, those concerning the working language, those concerning the language of advertising, the language of trades and the language of the professions. The essential aspects of Bill 101 are not only maintained but indeed confirmed by the Canadian constitutional project.
The agreement on the new Constitution which the Parti Quebecois government refuses to endorse would certainly be quite an advantage for all men and women in Quebec. But the PQ government, whose option is still the independence of Quebec, has absolutely no interest in compromising with its partners in the Canadian federation. But Quebecers do know where their interests lie because, whether we like it or not, we

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
have every reason to believe that once and for all our project will put an end to all those 54 years of sterile rifts and constitutional status quo. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people have shown enough patience and they are congratulating us.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add some comments on this very important resolution, especially now that we have an opportunity to seriously consider an amendment that, in my view at least, would enable us to initiate or to continue, or, depending on the parties concerned, simply to reopen or to pursue, absolutely essential negotiations with the government of my province.
I was listening just now to comments made by a member from the island of Montreal. It is true that most members in the House always wonder why the member for Joliette does not hold the same views as the members on the other side of this House. I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker, to report comments and remarks that I, too, have heard in the province of Quebec. I am not going to discuss the arguments put forward by the previous speaker, but I would simply like to say that it is pretty far-fetched to claim that this resolution is going to achieve what we have all been trying to achieve, namely, national unity and national harmony. This problem is not going to be settled, considering what is happening, what has happened and what can be expected to happen. We must persevere, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I am speaking today to this amendment, and I want to take this opportunity to ask my colleagues from Quebec to think about the impact of an agreement without Quebec. It was mentioned, and the House leader (Mr. Pinard) also mentioned, that we would have a historic vote tomorrow. Well, today, for Canadians and all my colleagues and my friends in Quebec, there will also be a historic vote, because the vote we are going to have today may help us to get out of this impasse and to achieve a rapprochement with Quebec on this agreement. In any case, the outcome will depend on the good will of the members in this House.
On April 16 of this year, and I think everyone will agree, an agreement was reached by eight provinces. Granted, the federal government was not a party to this agreement. It is recognized that the province of Quebec exchanged or, in the view of some people, abandoned, its veto right for the clause on compensation. It was on that condition that Quebec relinquished a tradition, according to some, a veto right, according to others. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has been making fun of most Quebecers who thought that we had a veto right. In a speech he made not long ago, the minister himself accused Quebec of making the mistake of giving up its veto right, and now he turns around and says that Quebec never had a veto right or that the provinces never had a veto right. If nonsense were a fatal disease, Mr. Speaker, the minister would not have made it to the House this week. And so, on Friday, I think, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) hastily told us that he was not taking any chances, and that if hon. members continued to propose amendments or try to make certain changes, this would jeopardize the agreement.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, everyone admits that there is no danger that the agreement will be broken, particularly with respect to that proposal. That was the wish of the premiers in April, as I have said. The two provinces not represented did not have any objection to all that. To my mind, there is no possibility that the agreement signed by the ten governments will be broken. It would be enough if the Right Hon. the Prime Minister were to show good will as well. On November 5 last, the Prime Minister of Canada, quite distressed, stated that he regretted the disagreement on the part of Quebec. But he also said, and I remember that very well, Mr. Speaker, that he hoped he would find solutions so that Quebec would be party to this agreement before sending it to London. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I dream, I believe and I still wish that Quebec will sign the agreement. Perhaps both sides have expressed doubts about the good faith of the government of Quebec, but who could prove it in fact? Has Quebec shown enough good faith? I do not know whether it has or not but I do know that the government here in the House and the Primer Minister whose responsibility it is to prove it has, have not done so.
I believe that if one side made a mistake, it was made in Ottawa and it was quite obvious. During the evening of November 5, the Prime Minister of Canada tried to convince Canadians and Quebecers alike by telling them, I think, that there may be room for closer ties and agreements. But as far as I know, never did the Prime Minister of Canada make a special effort to contact the Premier of Quebec. It would have been interesting to see the reaction of the Premier of Quebec, it would have been interesting to see Quebecers at least, to allow Quebecers to judge the good or bad faith of their own government. Of course the officials had lengthy exchanges, there was dialogue through the mass media, but I do not think there was any personal contact, and that is what I regret on behalf of all Canadians and all Quebecers. Under the circumstances I remember very well that, the same day, I think, our leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Clark) made a speech and took that opportunity to urge the Prime Minister of Canada to show his good faith, pointing out to him his responsibilities as Prime Minister of Canada. He asked him to do whatever was necessary to get Quebec back into the fold and to find those solutions to convince Quebec that it should sign the agreement, because we are indeed talking about a very important agreement for the future of the Canadian people. As my leader said, and I remember that very well, it would have been quite interesting to see the reaction of the Quebec government.
I am quite prepared to take an objective approach to the resolution, but I certainly disagree with the charge that the government of Quebec has acted in bad faith because I know that the necessary steps were not taken here in Ottawa. And I am wondering how it is that, out of 70-odd members, there were not at least a few to decide to go the extra mile than just be content with making accusations. If the government of Quebec showed a negative attitude, it is unforgivable that the federal government should have done the same because the
December 1, 1981

central government has a role to play, namely to establish closer ties among the provinces. As a Quebecer, I cannot be satisfied with nor can I accept that agreement among nine provinces. No, 1 think that the historical vote we are going to have today might be more important than the one slated for tomorrow, Mr. Speaker.
Under the circumstances, thanks to the initiatives taken by our leader that were noticed and understood by our other colleagues, we put forward proposals and amendments to bring about a breakthrough and an understanding and, hopefully, an agreement with the Quebec government. I submit the Progressive Conservative Party acted responsibly on behalf of the nation. This is what responsibility is all about in a political party. Our committee on the Constitution did some hard work, and I am most happy to support the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). It is in line with the equity touted by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) in his budget a few days ago. It reflects a sense of justice, it would go along the lines of that just society that this government never envisaged over the last 15 years.
For very different reasons referred to yesterday by the hon. member for Provencher, the provinces could give unanimous support to the amendment we are moving today. My colleagues will have an opportunity to speak for other provinces, and I wholeheartedly support the points made yesterday by my colleague from Provencher. But as far as Quebec is concerned this is vital, Mr. Speaker. I think my colleagues from Quebec are also aware of this. I realize the Prime Minister is not in total agreement, indeed he does not agree at all. But to what extent should they attempt in these final moments to bring the Prime Minister to his senses and to make him realize the importance of Quebec's participation in that accord before the London expedition is launched? The Minister of State (Mr. Joyal) made some comments on that yesterday, and I was pleased that he did not oppose the principle of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Provencher. Subject to certain constraints, as I can well imagine, he attempted to reassure us when he said: "Well now, maybe not in the first stage, but this could happen in the second stage, when this Constitution comes back and those amendments are all followed up." Well, it is very difficult to bank on the good intentions-which I am not questioning-expressed by the hon. member for Rosemont, the Minister of State. However, that is not good enough.
Mr. Speaker, all the members from Quebec are aware of this. The problem will not be solved by rejecting it outright, as did the Right Hon. Prime Minister on Friday when he said: "I will accept no amendment until the final vote!" Is that the just society he was talking about when he became Prime Minister in 1968? How can we stand idly by when we are allowed no discussion, no amendments? He said so in so many words! But government members should feel much more outraged than myself about that. None of these members would have cause or would have the right to move an amendment, even if it eventually allowed us to throw some light on our discussions. That is the height of arrogance, Mr. Speaker! We are being
The Constitution
told: Move any amendments you want, they will be rejected, even if they are worthwhile! That is not good enough, Mr. Speaker, not good enough indeed! We object to this procedure as parliamentarians, and I hope some people in my province will seize this last opportunity today to at least meet the first condition which the Quebec Premier considered essential when he refused to sign the agreement.
The Prime Minister of Canada said recently in Quebec City about the decision of the Supreme Court: We are now acting within the law; we are acting within the Constitution. It remains to be seen whether or not we are acting equitably. The rejection of all the amendments tabled since last Friday certainly does not reflect the just society nor the equity that should be shown by any government respectful of its people. Of course, as concerns this amendment which is especially important to the Quebec government and constitutes an essential condition for the Quebec government, I must repeat to my colleagues from Quebec what I said last Tuesday. Every one of us has always supported our governments in Quebec, at least since 1 have had the right to vote and as long as I can recall, every one of us in Quebec, whether Liberal or Conservative, whether Grit or Tory, has always congratulated our governments on opposing any federal intrusion in areas as vital as those which we are now discussing.
It is interesting to note that on these specific points, as my colleagues from Quebec are well aware, people like Lesage, Johnson, Duplessis, Bourassa and so on would have reacted in the same manner to the amendment now before us, for the same reasons and regardless of the philosophy or the program of their political party. No Quebec Premier, whether Tory or Liberal, would have tolerated the attitude and the decision facing us today. He would have congratulated the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and the hon. member for Provencher on suggesting a solution which is proper, acceptable and necessary when all risks are considered and it is our firm intention to build a just society and a country where everyone may live well and comfortably. All these former premiers would have done exactly what the Quebec government is doing now. And if this Parliament was to react positively to this amendment and if, as a result, the Quebec government was likely to be embarrassed, I believe that a great majority of Quebecers would endorse this proposal. Those who deliberately show ill will in any case would be placed in an even more embarrassing situation if they did not respond to that.
We are already getting indications from the Quebec government that this proposal is vital, essential and, at the very least, a first step in the right direction. How futile, that my party should have proposed it instead of the government which should have assumed its responsibilities. In any event, the government did nothing to help us on this side of the House to draw Quebec closer and induce it to sign this agreement which, according to Mr. Ryan, cannot be a Canadian agreement without the participation of Quebec. We are not dealing here with the separatists only. Mr. Ryan speaks on behalf of

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
thousands of Liberals. He does not agree either with the resolution as a whole. 1 would not say that he is as adamant as Mr. Levesque but he certainly does not agree with the resolution as it now stands.
Under those circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I shall take this opportunity, once more today, to ask those 70 or so hon. members from my province to view this amendment as a positive step, a partial solution to the problem Canada and the government are facing at this time. I am sure Quebecers will be watching the vote very closely today on this amendment, which is of special value and significance to me as a Quebecer, as well as to others. And the generosity of this amendment, which responds to the concern of all the provinces is, in my opinion, consistent with this justice and equity of all the provinces. I could even think in terms of my own home town and say, well, I do not want the others to get this benefit too. I suggest that we are demonstrating equity and justice-not charity-when we ask that this amendment apply to all the provinces, and we rely also on our provincial premiers. To those who might be concerned about possible abuse, I say that they have a very poor idea of these premiers' fair play.
We rely on the other provinces concerning this amendment, and I hope that the hon. members from Quebec especially will help us compel the government to accept this amendment, because it provides an element of solution and makes a compromise possible in our common endeavour. 1 know that the hon. members from Quebec would be delighted to see the Quebec government sign this accord. Is it possible that one of the provinces which signed this document some 114 years ago be absent from such an important resolution? I hope Quebecers will not permit anybody to call them traitors on this amendment because it is of utmost importance to the future of Quebec, to the future of Canada, and if this amendment is lost, I wonder why we would continue this debate which is essential to the future of Canada. This resolution is quite imperfect, but without this amendment, I do not think that a Quebecer worthy of the name could continue saying anything good about this resolution.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, it is with very mixed emotions that I address the resolution before the House this afternoon. On one hand-


Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet) on a point of order.


Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet: Mr. Speaker, I indicated that I had a question of privilege and I do not think you heard me. I want to ask the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle),
through you Mr. Speaker, if he would accept two questions on the points he just raised.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately, the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has used up all his time. Such questions may be asked with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet: The hon. member for Joliette has referred to the good faith of the PQ government and to the more or less bad faith of the Canadian government. I wonder whether he could point out to me one instance where the PQ has shown good faith during the constitutional negotiations? That is my first question.
Second, when he suggests that the government refuses to assume its responsibilities with respect to new amendments at this point, I wonder whether the hon. member for Joliette is aware of the telegram which Mr. Bennett, the spokesman for the provinces, forwarded last week on potential amendments to the Charter. Accordingly, I would like thim to be aware of the fact that it is not the Canadian government which is rejecting new amendments-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Roberval has asked her questions, does the hon. member for Joliette want to answer?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I was not trying to prove that the government of Quebec was showing any good faith, I merely said that there are people who are questioning its good faith. I did not condemn that, nor am I saying that they should not, besides, that is something I could not do.
As I said, I know that in Ottawa there has been no evidence of good will, since it was up to the Prime Minister of Canada to contact the Quebec Premier, but he failed to do so and the Minister of Justice merely ridiculed, criticized and laughed at the Quebec government. He has shown disrespect to a provincial government, whatever may be its political stance.
With regard to amendments, Mr. Bennett from British Columbia stated that a telegram was sent to the Prime Minister of Canada, but 1 have a feeling that the Prime Minister of Canada tried to warn us before receiving that telegram and that anyhow the British Columbia Premier was agreeable to the compensation formula. I think that it would have been easy for him to answer affirmatively if the Prime Minister of Canada had then seriously considered the amendment now before us.


Suzanne Beauchamp-Niquet: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In my opinion, the member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) has made some entirely false statements which I would like him to withdraw.
December 1, 1981


Roch La Salle: No way!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I was about to say, it is with very mixed emotions that I address this constitutional resolution this afternoon. On the one hand, I am pleased that we have an agreement to proceed with patriation, an amending formula and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are many good clauses in the resolution which I support. As hon. members know, I have been a strong proponent of patriation, a Canadian Constitution and a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a long time. Hon. members can read my speech in this House of March 12 this year, when I gave full-hearted support to the resolution which was then before us.
On the other hand, I am not happy at all with the revised charter, with the new amending formula, the new wording which applies to the charter, and the new wording on aboriginal rights. In particular, I am not pleased with the introduction of the "notwithstanding" clause into the charter, a so-called override clause, and, in particular, as it would apply to Section 2, fundamental freedoms, and Section 15, the equality clause. For me, these two clauses were key ones which I think would have helped protect Canadians on many issues which are not foreseen today.
Second, I was opposed to the introduction of the word "existing" in the aboriginal rights clause. I voted for the amendment to eliminate that word from that particular guarantee clause for our aboriginal people. It is my opinion that the addition of the word "existing" will lead to confusion and ambiguity and cannot help but limit the application of those protections for our native peoples.
I am also concerned that there is no veto power for the province of Quebec. In our original resolution, we did have such a power. We do not have it now. I think we have always recognized that Quebec, as the only province with a Frenchspeaking majority, should have that protection in dealing with amendments put forward by other provinces. It seems to me that the amendment put forward by the NDP in this debate would go a long way to getting support among the people in the province of Quebec, if not from the Quebec government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Nevertheless, if it was only for those clauses, despite their tainted nature, I could probably have voted for the resolution, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), holding my nose, because although imperfect, that type of Constitution is better than none at all. I say "if only for those clauses", because there is another clause which is so offensive to me and so unacceptable that I cannot vote for the resolution; that is, Section 59. I maintain that Section 59 is a discriminatory clause in a resolution which is supposed to do away with discrimination. That clause states that some of the protections contained in the minority language education provisions in Section 23 should not apply to the anglophones in Quebec.
The Constitution
The question of language rights is one of the most fundamental and basic issues to me, my people and my electorate. I must say that language rights are probably the most fundamental questions for both anglophones and francophones in this country. It is the issue on which most emotions are expressed. It is the issue on which most Canadians, when those rights are being attacked, will go to the battlements.
It is interesting to note that, of all the rights which are purported to be protected in this Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the constitutional proposal, the only ones which are under attack at the present time by the people I represent are their language rights. This type of discriminatory clause comes about at a time when the signs of the people of my province are being taken down, when their social, educational and business institutions are under attack, when they are being squeezed, when they cannot get answers from the Quebec government in their own language, and so on. I say that those measures are the responsibility of the provincial government; but this backward step on behalf of the federal government comes at the same time these other things are happening.
Before the accord of November 5, the Prime Minister, along with the cabinet, the entire Liberal Party and our Liberal caucus, were prepared to go to England for patriation with Section 23 applying to all provinces, with the support of only two provinces behind them, Ontario and New Brunswick. At that time we stood firm that Section 23 and the other articles would apply, in their untainted form, to all provinces. I can recall the Prime Minister, other ministers, members of my caucus and myself saying that we would not compromise on principle as the Supreme Court had stated that we had the legal right to do what we were doing, and that while we were willing to improve the charter, we would not compromise and move backwards.
However, now, with nine provinces supporting, we have compromised and we are moving backwards. I want to remind the House that when the resolution was first introduced in this House in October of 1980, the very basis of the protections for minority language rights in education was mother tongue. It was not where one received one's education; it was mother tongue. The so-called Canada clause, Clause 23(1 )(b), was only added later on, during the hearings at the committee stage, and was accepted by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) in late January, last winter. I forget the exact date. However, the original basis that this government put forward for protecting language rights in education was mother tongue, the language first learned and still understood.
The reasons given for this concession by my caucus, which I have not been able to convince them to abandon, are that this concession is necessary if we are to avoid tipping the balance in Quebec in favour of separatism. I simply cannot accept the argument that guaranteeing access to English schools for anglophones, based on their mother tongue, will tip the balance in favour of separation in any separation referendum, especially when those same rights have been guaranteed to

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
francophones outside of Quebec. I simply cannot buy that argument.
That is the stated argument in favour of the concession, but it seems to me that there is an unstated argument which is the real reason for the concession; that is, that as an unfortunate result of the accord of November 5, we ended up with nine anglophone provinces supporting the accord and only Quebec in disagreement, which gave Mr. Levesque the freedom to return to Quebec and state that the English-speaking provinces were ganging up on Quebec. I reject that argument. I do not believe for one minute that the English-speaking provinces were ganging up on Quebec. As a matter of fact, Mr. Levesque was the first to abandon his allies by almost going along with the Prime Minister on a referendum formula the day before.
However, in any case, the real reason is that that sort of result in the constitutional conference was very convenient for Mr. Levesque in fuelling the political storm that he wanted to press for his independence option. Nothing could have been better for him, from his political point of view, than to end up with a situation where nine English provinces, or so-called English majority provinces, were on one side with Quebec on the other. I do not know how he manipulated it, but he ended up with that, to his advantage.
Now, because of that situation, which was not this government's doing, nor the Prime Minister's doing-it was not anyone's doing but Mr. Levesque's-we are making concessions to Quebec. There is no use making them to Mr. Levesque; he would not accept anything but the right to separate. However, we are making those concessions on the backs of my constituents, which I think is unreasonable and unnecessary.
When I first heard rumours that the government might weaken its protection for minority language rights in education, on October 23 before the federal-provincial conference I put a question in this House. This matter was headlined in the Montreal Gazette and in the Ottawa paper, The Citizen, stating that the government might weaken its provisions for minority language rights. I asked the Minister of Justice on October 23, 1981 if that was correct. The Minister of Justice replied, as reported in Hansard at page 12115, as follows:
Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister said was that if there is any suggestion to improve on the charter, it will be welcome.
He went on to say:
The goals are well known. We think it is about time that we had equality in schooling across the land for Canadians who speak English in Quebec and for Canadians who speak French in the rest of Canada.
That is what the Minister of Justice said on October 23 but which he does not stand for now. Because I was not satisfied and because I thought there might be implications to the answer that I did not see, I put that question to the government in the adjournment debate and I pursued it again after the constitutional conference on November 9. I elaborated on the question, stating firmly that we should not retreat on minority language rights, either in the English-speaking provinces or in Quebec. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Peterson) replied, as reported in Hansard for November 9, 1981 at page 12682:
The federal government has always supported, and continues to support, the principle of granting minority language education rights equally throughout this country. This is not the time that we intend to back off from that principle.
The government backed off a few days afterwards.
I want to make it clear that what I am going to support in this House is what this party has supported for the past year. I am not supporting some new radical idea by insisting on the full application of Section 23 to all provinces in Canada. That is what we all supported before November 5. It was supported by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the caucus and the party. It is a position that we have supported for over 16 years, ever since I have been here, both under the present Prime Minister and under the Right Hon. Lester Pearson. It goes back to the recommendations made in the bilingualism and biculturalism commission report in the early years of Mr. Pearson's mandate.
I want to quote a few other things which are very interesting. When the Prime Minister introduced the resolution on October 2, 1980, here is what he said:
Every Canadian will be guaranteed the right to move freely to any part of Canada-
He went on to say:
And, inseparable from that, the right of parents, be they English-speaking or French-speaking, to have their children educated in their own official language will be assured. Each and every premier, in Montreal in 1978, committed himself to the principle that "each child of the French-speaking or English-speaking minority is entitled to an education in his or her language in the primary or secondary school in each province wherever numbers warrant". We will put that agreement of the provinces, the agreement of the premiers into the Constitution.
When the Prime Minister entered the debate on the original resolution on March 21, 1981, he said this in speaking about Section 23:
I now come to the language issue.
He went on to say:
-under our original Constitution in 1867, the federal government... not only had the right but also the obligation to protect minorities in the area of education.
Referring to the British North America Act, he said:
Under subsections 93(3) and 93(4), we now have the right to legislate in educational matters so as to protect minorities. Indeed, those minorities were then defined in terms of religion, whereas we now tend to define them in terms of language, and we know the historical reasons for that change. But the principle was there; the Fathers of Confederation-and that is the most beautiful and noblest aspect of our tradition-said: It is up to you in the federal government to protect in the field of minority language education.
He went on to say that in effect that was what he was doing by putting Section 23 in the Constitution.
A document entitled "A Time for Action" which was published in 1978, put forward the constitutional proposals which the Prime Minister had suggested at that time. The government, approved by the cabinet-I was in the cabinet at that time and I can recall approving-said this at page 9:
December 1, 1981

The renewal of the federation must guarantee the linguistic equality of its two major communities, the English-speaking and the French-speaking, and assure that Canadian institutions exist to help each group to prosper.
Further down page 9 we find these words:
__it does mean that the equality of our two official languages must be recognized and guaranteed, and that the practical implications of the equality must be accepted.
On page 22 of "A Time for Action" we Find:
The government will be putting forward its proposals for a Charier of Rights and Freedoms.
Further on in the same paragraph we find:
-would provide new protection for minority language rights. The government has expressed on many occasions its profound conviction that the citizens of Canada, whether they speak English or French, should be able, in those situations where numbers warrant, to receive basic government services and schooling for their children in their language. The Charter would be intended to provide a permanent constitutional guarantee that fair and reasonable treatment will always prevail.
I could go on quoting the Prime Minister on this particular subject. When we introduced Bill C-60 in 1978, the Prime Minister intervened in the debate and said words similar to those I have just quoted. Those who are interested can look at Hansard for June 27, 1978, at page 6785.
Another interesting document is one entitled "Position of the Federal Government with Regard to Quebec's Bill 101." This document was put out by the federal cabinet on October 6, 1977. We Find in Clause 1 the following:
Bill 101 is of concern to the federal Government because it will adversely affect:
(a) the unity of Canada and the development of equal rights for the two official languages;
In Clause 2 we Find the following:
The federal government considers that Bill 101 is inconsistent with the federal government's concept of a Canada in which the rights of all official language minorities in the country, whether anglophones in Quebec or francophones in other provinces, would be fully respected.
In Clause 3 we find:
The federal government is committed to the maintenance in Quebec of a society which is primarily French-speaking in character.
The clause goes on to say:
However, it believes this can be done by positive steps without coercion and without restrictions on the rights of the English minority in the province.
That is what the cabinet said in 1977 with respect to Bill 101. On the second page of this document, Clause 6 reads:
More specifically, the federal government totally opposes those provisions of Bill 101 which:
(a) deny the equal official status of French and English in that part of Canada formed by Quebec;-
In Clause 6(c) we read:
(c) deprive all Quebecers, except certain anglophones, of the right to choose freely the language of education of their children.
Again I will not have time to quote the government and the Prime Minister on every occasion they backed the principle that I am backing today. But I refer you as well, Mr. Speaker, to a document called "A National Understanding-The Official Languages of Canada". This document was approved and released by cabinet on June 21, 1977. In it similar statements
The Constitution
are made with respect to equality of language rights for anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside of Quebec. Also we have the report of the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution of Canada. I was a member of this committee. Several members of today's cabinet were also members. This same principle was approved.
Going back to 1968 when Mr. Pearson was prime minister and the present Prime Minister was minister of justice, other such documents were published. One of these documents is entitled "Federalism for the Future". What I am trying to demonstrate is that what I am supporting has been the longstanding policy of the party and that Section 59 goes against that policy. It is stated at page 18 of that document:
In a country such as ours, with its two founding linguistic groups, the preservation of individual rights also must mean the guarantee of the linguistic rights of both groups. For language is at once the extension of the individual personality and an indispensable tool of social organization: fail to recognize the linguistic rights of either French or English-speaking Canadians and their will to preserve Canada will be seriously weakened, if not destroyed.
The other document came out in 1969 at the constitutional conference of 1969 and is entitled "The Constitution and the People of Canada". I cannot Find the exact quotation, but it goes on to say the same thing.
I have here Book I, the First edition of the Report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, and at page 123, recommendation 9, which was the beginning of much of this, states:
Therefore, we recommend that the right of Canadian parents to have their children educated in the official language of their choice be recognized in the educational systems, the degree of implementation to depend on the concentration of the minority population.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue only with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There appears to be unanimous consent.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the House leader was kind enough to tell me that he would give me extra time if that was necessary, but I will not abuse that privilege.
While I am making a strong plea today for the protection of the anglophone minority in Quebec in matters of education, I want to make clear that I have always been and still am a very strong supporter of francophone rights in Quebec and across Canada. I was and still am a strong proponent of applying Section 133 of the BNA Act in Ontario. I have spoken in favour of that in our caucus and in this House on several occasions.
When the problems arose with les gens de 1'air, I supported bilingualism for air trafFic controllers and for people flying aircraft in this country. When there was a question of expanding the French television and radio network throughout

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
Canada and there were difficulties in the west in certain cities, I spoke in the west in favour of granting channels and stations to our French Canadian populations in those areas. I supported bilingual labelling and other measures of bilingualism all over this country.
I believe, and I think most English-speaking Quebecers believe, that every reasonable step must be taken to assure the individual and collective rights of French-speaking Canadians, not only to survive but to prosper and grow; but as the Prime Minister has said, and I have just quoted him, you do not do this by restricting the right of others. That is what I think is being done in this resolution.
I want to remind hon. members, and I realize that my time is up and I do not really have time to pursue this argument in its fullness, that anglophones in Quebec are not a small group and we are not recently in Quebec. We have been there for over 200 years, and in many parts of Quebec we were the first Europeans to settle in places such as the eastern townships, in certain counties and in northern or new Quebec. We are not all of British origin. We are of many origins, we are of many religions and we are of many colours. We are Catholics, Protestants, Jewish, we are white, yellow and black, we are not all bosses and we do not all live in Westmount. We come from many, many places and from many, many backgrounds.
I have to state that because some people will say to me: "You know, you have had it too good for so long". Many of us, I think two thirds, who are anglophones in Quebec never had it that good. Some of my colleagues with whom I have discussed this privately have said: "We had to give up Section 23(1 )(a) for the province of Quebec and for Quebec anglophones because it is too difficult to administer and would entail tests". All I can say to that argument is that we had it there before November 5 and I never heard that argument once. We still have it for all the other provinces in Canada and I have not heard the argument once with respect to them.
I have also heard it stated in response to my argument that francophones in Quebec, because of Bill 101, cannot send their children to English schools and we are not protecting that right in the Constitution. The rights that are being protected in the Constitution are minority rights. The francophones in Quebec are in the majority. They elect the governments there, including the government that is there now and which put into place that provision that they cannot go to English schools; but majorities can take care of themselves while minorities cannot. They are continually in a position of being outvoted by majorities.
Another argument which has been made to me is: "Warren, you are only concerned about a very small group of anglophones. We are only leaving out maybe three thousand or four thousand people; they are the only ones who might suffer as a result of this." I thought we had an entrenched bill of rights to deal with small groups of people.
I can recall the Minister of Justice saying in the committee that we needed this entrenched bill of rights to deal with small groups like Japanese Canadians, Jehovah's Witnesses, Dukho-bors and certain small political parties who were discriminated
against by majorities in legislation-whether they were political parties, religious groups, linguistic groups, ethnic groups or whatever small groups. Even though there are only three or four thousand, that is enough for me. I thought that was the basis for a charter of rights, to guarantee those minority rights.
Finally, some are saying: "Well, you know, we are really only affecting your grandchildren, and so on; the present law in Quebec will protect you. Bill 101 protects you because you can get a certificate under Bill 101 that will allow you to send your children to French schools and then to English schools, and so on."
Once again, we said a charter of rights entrenched in the Constitution was necessary because provincial legislatures and Parliaments can vary ordinary laws from day to day and from month to month and nothing will stop them except the majorities which they have in their Houses. To say on the one hand that we need a charter of rights to protect minorities against ordinary legislative measures, and on the other hand that we can rely on a clause in Bill 101, is to me a contradiction. I must say that the particular clause they are referring to in Bill 101 does not protect minorities.
In the last week I have had many English-speaking Canadians in Montreal telephone me to tell me they were sent to French-speaking schools in Montreal when they were children, some for only two or three years, and now want to send their children to English schools but cannot do so. They even put them into English schools and they were forced out. That is the kind of thing I want to do away with, and that is the kind of thing the full protection of Section 23 would help.
I tried to convince my colleagues, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice, of certain amendments. My first choice for an amendment would be to strike out Section 59 altogether and allow Section 23 to apply to all provinces in Canada, as it was going to do before November 5. That was not agreeable to anyone, or to very few people.
Secondly, I was willing to compromise. I said: Okay, let us have an amendment that will protect all those Canadians residing in Quebec now, giving them the full protection of Section 23. At least they are there now and have had those rights to protect them. That was not acceptable.
Then I said: Okay, let us use the principle that is in the Official Languages Act. Let us apply the full protection of Section 23 to all those Canadians residing in Quebec who live in counties with a minority anglophone population of 10 per cent. That is the principle you will find in the Official Languages Act. That was not acceptable.
Then I said: Look, I am willing to sit down with anybody to discuss other formulas for amendment, or mechanisms that would guarantee and assure the francophone majority of Quebec but at the same time protect the anglophone minority. I want to protect both. Obviously I got nowhere and I am now left with a situation in which tomorrow we are going to vote on a Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms which originally was to do away with discrimination and protect
December 1, 1981

minorities, but which has in it Section 59 which discriminates against the anglophone minority in Quebec with respect to education. Section 59 is a discriminatory provision in that it provides that parts of Section 23 will not apply to the anglophone minority in Quebec.
For me and my electors, Section 59 is a betrayal of all that I have ever supported and stood for in this House, and I have quoted passages supporting that going back 15 years. If it continues to be like that tomorrow at three o'clock, unfortunately I will have to vote against it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I begin by heartily congratulating the previous speaker, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand) for his impassioned speech. To my mind, he spoke with considerable eloquence, reason and force. It is refreshing to see someone on that side of the House speak with an element of independence and openmindedness.
For my part, I am pleased to participate in this, the final stage of debate in Parliament on the patriation of the Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Today is the second occasion on which I have spoken in the House of Commons on this subject. The first occasion was on October 20, 1980, just after the government introduced its resolution. I also felt privileged to participate in the work of the Special Joint Committee of the House of Commons and Senate on the Constitution, in particular when the then premier of my province, the Hon. Angus MacLean, presented a brief on behalf of Prince Edward Island.
Much has happened to the government's constitutional resolution since it was forced through Parliament by closure about a year ago. I think most of the changes have been for the better. Indeed, the package has been transformed-I do not think the word "transformed" is too strong to use in this context-from an odious document which would have violated the principles on which our system of government is based, into an instrument of constitutional reform that is a credit to the country.
If I may say so, the Progressive Conservative Party deserves a lot of the credit for that transformation. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is especially deserving of praise because it was his constructive opposition to the government's course that prevented the country from being saddled with a new Constitution which would have done irreparable damage to both parliamentary supremacy in this country and to our federal system of government.
Let it not be forgotten that had the Supreme Court been denied the time it needed to render its landmark decision on the constitutionality of the government's original resolution before Parliament passed it, not after, the matter would have been disposed of many weeks ago. The final product would have reflected neither widespread support across the country nor a consensus among the 11 governments of the land, both of
The Constitution
which the package now enjoys. In fact, we may well have ended up with something akin to what I would call an illegitimate constitution in the sense that, lacking both public and official support, it would thus not have had the moral authority required to make it workable. It is to the lasting credit of the Leader of the Opposition that he provided the creative and constructive leadership necessary to stall the government long enough to allow the emergence of a genuine consensus in the country, triggered by the Supreme Court decision.
I would be the first to agree that the final package will be flawed in many respects. But whatever flaws may remain in the resolution at the end of the debate tomorrow, the package will nevertheless carry with it the backing of most Canadians through their provincial governments and through their representatives in both Houses of Parliament. The Progressive Conservative Members of Parliament have made a very valuable contribution to making that possible.
Certainly the new Constitution will be much more compatible with the nature of our country and with the nature of our parliamentary institutions because the PC party in Parliament and across the country took certain steps. It mobilized public opinion against the government's ill-conceived constitutional proposals. It ensured that there would be a full and fair and reasoned debate in Parliament. It fought to avoid having the constitutional proposals rammed through Parliament and rushed to Westminster last December before they could be considered in Canada. Finally, it encouraged all Canadians in every province of Canada to return to the bargaining table to seek a truly Canadian compromise.
In the same spirit, the PC party is proposing the amendment on provincial fiscal compensation now before Parliament in an effort to enlarge and broaden the national consensus on the Constitution so as to embrace the one province-Quebec-not yet reconciled to the package. Quebec's population of approximately 6,340,000 constitutes about 25 per cent of the total population of Canada. In terms of sheer numbers, that fact alone should cause Canadians to be concerned about Quebec's absence from the national consensus. Given that Quebec is the homeland of one of the two founding peoples of Canada, our concern should border on alarm.
I will leave it to the lawyers among us-and there are many in the House-and perhaps also to the courts-presumably the Supreme Court-to decide whether or not Quebec actually has a constitutional veto, a veto over future constitutional changes including the ones which we are now contemplating.
However that question may be answered, no matter what the Supreme Court or anyone else decides on that question, none of us can ignore that Quebec's opposition to what we are doing threatens the very survival of our country. It helps not a whit, in my opinion, to say, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has said in the House and outside Parliament, that the Premier of Quebec is acting insanely and without the support of his own people within the province of Quebec. Clearly Mr. Levesque's position is not outrageously out of whack with majority opinion in Quebec, and in my view may

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
well be closer to majority opinion in Quebec than the Minister of Justice is in his own stance.
In any event, one cannot easily distinguish between contempt for the concern of a provincial premier, and contempt for the people who elected him to be their spokesman. Due respect for the opinions of the people of a province requires respect also for the views of their premier and his government which was freely and democratically chosen. By ignoring, even snubbing, Mr. Levesque at this crucial stage of the constitutional renewal process, the federal government may be driving yet another wedge between the people of Quebec and their national government here in Ottawa, as well as between one group of Canadians, Quebecers, and all other Canadians. In so doing, the federal government may be forcing Quebec into exactly the kind of enclave the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at least pretends he entered politics to prevent.
Several previous speakers from my party have already dealt in some detail with the amendment on fiscal compensation which we are proposing. I do not wish to repeat their explanations or their arguments; that would be redundant. Suffice it to say that the amendment would change the constitutional resolution so as to guarantee the right of any province-not just Quebec but any province-to be fully compensated should it decide not to participate in a constitutional amendment which would undermine, through the aggrandizement of federal power, the authority or rights it has traditionally exercised and enjoyed. The fact that the constitutional resolution does not now contain the provision we are contemplating in our amendment is a major stumbling block to the inclusion of Quebec in the national consensus. I think it behooves us on all sides of the House and in every party to do everything reasonable, everything practical and everything possible to accommodate the legitimate concern of Quebec on this vital matter.
However, though the amendment may well stem from the desire of my colleagues and me to respond in a meaningful way to Quebec's concern, other provinces cherish their special circumstances every bit as much as Quebec does. The fiscal compensation proposal would therefore be equally important to them. In the case of my own province, Prince Edward Island, the smallest province in the country, I can envision many circumstances under which the government of Prince Edward Island might consider it imperative to preserve its integrity and its autonomy as a separate province of Canada by opting out of an amendment which would transfer a given authority from the provincial level of government to the federal Parliament. An amendment affecting the province's right to regulate non-resident ownership of land is a case in point which comes immediately to mind. In circumstances like that it would be the smallest provinces-the poorest provinces such as Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick-which could least afford to exercise their right to opt out if fiscal compensation were not guaranteed in the Constitution. If compensation were not provided or not guaranteed, the right to opt out would be academic. It would
be theoretical in the absence of the fiscal capacity to exercise it. The right would exist purely on paper.
Certainly it would be prohibitively expensive for Prince Edward Island-and I use that only as an example-and, I expect, for all other Atlantic provinces, to opt out of a national program and then not only have to contribute its share of the cost of that national program but also have to pay the full cost of its own program in the same area.
The fiscal compensation guarantee called for in my party's amendment would effectively eliminate that double jeopardy. To my mind, the amendment adds an element of flexibility to the constitutional resolution which respects the manifold heterogeneity and diversity of the country. As the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) stated eloquently in the House yesterday-and I am glad to see him here for the debate today:
Opting out and financial compensation provide a protection for the unique character of every province, a uniqueness which was recognized by the founding Fathers of Confederation, not only because of the special character of the province of Quebec ... but also because of the special characters of the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, and Ontario; and ... the special conditions prevailing in the provinces which entered confederation after the original four.
I think it is notable that that sentiment, which means so much to the provinces on the Atlantic sea coast, should be uttered by a member of this House from the west.
I can appreciate the concerns of those hon. members who fear that giving every province the right to opt out of certain types of constitutional amendments with full fiscal compensation might seem an open invitation to provinces to withdraw from national initiatives, thus creating the checkerboard federalism against which the Prime Minister frequently rails. But I believe, and I think this is supported by history, that the practice of opting out-and we in Canada have been living with it for some time now, certainly throughout the sixties and since then-demonstrates that the potential for abuse is much less than is feared. The federal government's powers of moral suasion, especially through its unlimited spending authority and spending power, are strong enough to encourage provinces not to take advantage of the system any more than is absolutely essential to their respective legitimate interests.
I urge the lederal government and those on the Liberal benches opposite who are not in the cabinet to be openminded about this amendment. From the beginning of the constitutional debate last year-we are practically celebrating the anniversary now-the government's major failure has been to be too dogmatic and even downright bullheaded. It has approached the whole constitutional exercise as though it were a Cartesian exercise; everything had to conform to legal and mathematical concepts and schedules removed from the real world of people, problems and traditions. Only when the government was forced by circumstances, especially the Supreme Court ruling, did it bend, did it give, and did it demonstrate an element of flexibility. The government argued and believe strongly, almost a priori-and I credit the government for this-that the provinces could never agree on a fundamental rewriting of the Constitution, and it acted accordingly, with predictably disastrous results. The government was proved wrong by cir-
December 1, 1981

cumstances. The provinces demonstrated the flexibility that the federal government said was not possible.
The government also said the Vancouver formula was unworkable and could not be contemplated. It was proved wrong again in that instance. Now that same formula, the Vancouver formula, has turned out to be the creative proposal which made possible the federal-provincial accord which is the basis of the constitutional resolution we are now about to pass.
Let us not close our minds in the same fashion to this other proposal, this amendment my party is putting forward now. It is a proposal intended to reconcile all Canadians not yet reconciled to the new Constitution at this, the final stage in the patriation process.
The constitutional amendment we have before us is not a complex one, but it is one which begs an element of flexibility to pass. All of us would gain a great deal by exercising now the required degree of flexibility which made possible so much progress to date. The Progressive Conservative Party's contribution to the debate all along has been to bring to bear on the constitutional question flexibility, reason and an understanding of the workings of modern federalism. Our amendment is presented in the same spirit. The final product will be much more compatible with the spirit of federalism and with our parliamentary institutions because all of us achieved a real measure of success by that standard. I remain convinced that Quebec could yet be won over; if not now, then before long. It is vital that all Canadians, Quebec included, feel they recognize themselves in the new Constitution.
[DOT] (noo)
In conclusion, may I say that everyone involved in the constitutional exercise this past year can take pride in what has been crafted. Although not perfect, it is far superior to the package originally proposed. We have struck a happy compromise between the fashionable desire for a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that is intellectually satisfying but badly flawed in terms of workability, on the one hand, and, on the other, the goal of ensuring that our political system avoids the rigidities that all too often go hand in hand with entrenched rights. I think we now have a constitutional package that will help protect people's basic rights without at the same time undermining the importance of conventions which in some cases are even more important than anything we might write into laws, let alone entrench.
Consistent with the Canadian practice of flexibility and compromise and consistent with doing what is possible, let us reach out this one last time on the eve of our historic vote tomorrow to bring Quebec with us as we forge a new Constitution for us and for future generations of Canadians.
Passage of the amendment before us may not in itself achieve the goal I have mentioned, but it would signal our common desire to at least try. Even if we should fail, our attempt would constitute a most fitting way to bring our historic debate to a conclusion.
The Constitution



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser)-Fisheries-Condition of Atlantic fishing industry, (b) Reported proposal to reduce number for exporters, (c) Pre-budget discussions; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Federal-provincial Fiscal arrangements- Equalization payments to provinces; the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight)-The budget- Provisions affecting income averaging annuities, (b) Request for postponement of provisions.
The hon. parliamentary secretary to Minister of Labour (Mr. Yanakis) has the floor.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the amended motion of Mr. Chretien respecting the Constitution of Canada, the amendment thereto of Mr. Epp (p. 13492) and the subamendment of Mr. Broadbent (p. 13497).
Mr. Antonio Yanakis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be taking part in this debate at a historic moment in the existence of this country. I was in the House Friday, November 20 of this year, when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) presented the amended patriation resolution. I, too, felt that there was in this House a consensus that I have never seen before on such a fundamental issue. I could not continue these comments without some words of praise for the major architect of the plan to patriate the Constitution, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) who, through his insight, his sense of history, his love for justice and his perseverance and patience has made it possible for us to have a constitutional resolution with the scope of the motion being considered in the House today.
The Minister of Justice should also be congratulated on his perseverance during the lengthy negotiations he conducted with the leaders of our ten provinces. His objective was to do what no one had done before since the Act of Confederation, namely, to obtain the consensus of nine provinces. Those who

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
are quick to criticize and feel that the patriation resolution does not go far enough in protecting the rights of all Canadians, should read again what George Brown said in 1865 before 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, Mr. Speaker, history is repeating itself. We now have an opportunity to make that structure a reality, according to the resolution now before the House. After 114 years, Canada will at last become fully independent. And we shall subsequently be able to make improvements to our Constitution without having to go through the British Parliament. This week, in two unanimous votes in this House, we succeeded in entrenching in this resolution the equality of men and women and the recognition of aboriginal rights.
That recognition, Mr. Speaker, had been deleted from the original resolution at the last federal-provincial conference which resulted in the accord signed by nine provinces, and it was deleted supposedly because the premiers wanted to clarify the situation. Fortunately, as a result of incessant lobbying of the provincial governments by these two groups, the Minister of Justice managed to get a consensus among nine provinces, demonstrating once more the maturity of our country.
I would have liked to see included in the draft resolution a number of other amendments that would have an impact on the daily life of various groups in our society, such as the handicapped, the disadvantaged and others, and especially an amendment to our legislatiqn on abortion in order to protect the unborn child against any attempts to infringe on its right to life. Of course, there is no end to the debate on such controversial subjects, nor is it easy to reach a consensus among the members on both sides of the House and to obtain the agreement of the provinces that signed the patriation plan. Unfortunately, we shall have to leave it up to the legislators and the provincial authorities to gradually improve the Charter, once it is in Canadian hands.
History is, in fact, repeating itself Mr. Speaker, because in 1931, Henri Bourassa, the then member for La belle, gave upon his return from a conference in London, an account of some comments made by a member of the British House of Commons, and I quote:
To be perfectly frank, we are rather tired of all this talk about the independence of the dominions, and it is high time you people in Canada, Australia and elsewhere start to prove that you are really worthy of the concessions we are prepared to make. On the other hand, if you are afraid of some minor consequences this might have in your own provinces, you cannot expect us to have more respect for you than you have for yourselves.
Surely, the time will come when wisdom and self-respect in the Dominion or in the provinces will have reached a level where, with the concerted efforts of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures, we shall be able to formulate measures with a view to exercising the right to amend our own Constitution.
The time is today, Mr. Speaker, or within the next 24 hours, when we shall vote on this resolution after over a year of debate. During this debate, the Tories have shown as much fatalism and created as much fear and as much discussion throughout the country as they did in 1964 during the debate on the Canadian flag which now identifies Canadians and Canada throughout the world. According to them, this flag would divide Canadians, but it has now created more unity among Canadians and it is the symbol of our pride.
The patriation of our Constitution will give us another opportunity to be proud and to celebrate on Canada Day next July 1. However, Mr. Speaker, even though this Parliament will vote in a few hours on the resolution to patriate our Constitution with an amending formula and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I must admit that as a federal Member of Parliament representing a Quebec constituency, I am disappointed and saddened to see that Quebec, because of its government, is not party to the agreement. The Quebec government has chosen to isolate itself from the rest of Canada, but not because the Quebecers wished it, considering that they clearly showed during the referendum of 1980 that they wanted to remain a part of Canada. The Levesque government has chosen to ignore the views of Quebecers. Quebecers have been betrayed, and I know that the responsible citizens of Quebec will make the Levesque government pay for it the next time they go to the polls. How can the PQ government assume a separatist attitude when it has been elected following promises not to seek separation during its term of office?
After five years of a Parti Quebecois government, we in Quebec have the most unstable economy since the beginning of the Canadian federation. If we look at the latest figures we find a deficit of nearly $3.5 billion, an unemployment rate reaching 10.8 per cent, the highest in Canada, especially among younger people, and an alarming number of plant shut-downs. Such is the price we have to pay for a government which is deluding itself. Mr. Speaker, the constitutional resolution now before us is the fruit of constant efforts by the Prime Minister and the premiers and by all the social groups which had a chance to appear before the Constitution committee which sat for many weeks to listen to the representations that all these people wanted to make to members on both sides of the House, who gave these matters their constant attention. Mr. Speaker, we have a charter which we should be proud of because it guarantees the rights and the freedoms of all Canadians.
Democratic rights, fundamental freedoms, mobility rights, legal rights and linguistic rights are all enshrined in the Constitution and apply from one end of the country to the other. This charter is not perfect, but it is a compromise which will need improvements over the years. Mr. Speaker, in introducing the resolution preceding confederation in the Parliament of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald stated:
December 1, 1981

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.
This resolution reflects the values, the aspirations, the hopes and the dreams of the majority of Canadians. Aristotle, the famous Greek tribune and philosopher, said this, and I quote:
A good constitution must express the identity of the nation and promote as well the validity and stability of a just and well-ordered society.
I believe we are very lucky to have as Prime Minister a man who is a worthy successor to the great Canadian Liberals who led this country, among others Laurier, King, St. Laurent and Pearson. Ever since he became Prime Minister in 1968 he has been working relentlessly to achieve something which no other prime minister had managed to do in 54 years of endless failures. The easy way out would have been to give up on the constitutional reform or put if off to a later date, and only a leader who truly understands Canada, our country with all its differences and needs, could see why we had to make progress if we believe in Canada.
If the Parti Quebecois government still refuses to endorse the proposal to patriate the Constitution it is because it does not have the vision of the great Canadians who led this country. In conclusion, may I be allowed to quote 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 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.
Mr. Speaker, that is our role here as Liberal members. That place in the sun we want as well for the people of Quebec who, for all practical purposes, are now isolated and all alone. Mr. Speaker, I want to assure all the electors of the riding of Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere that in the future I will do everything along with my colleagues so that Quebecers will choose a government which will join the other provinces with a view to benefiting from the advantages and the wealth that this great country has in store for all Canadians.


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, this is the last day to debate in the House of Commons, as everyone
The Constitution
knows, the proposal to patriate the Canadian Constitution with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms and an amending formula. We are approaching the moment when Canada will become a constitutionally independent country. I want to say now how historically privileged I feel to have been able to take part in this process and how equally privileged I feel today to be able to comment in these final stages of the debate.
Since October, 1980, when this long and difficult process began following the proposal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for unilateral action, I have learned a lot about Canadian politics, about Canadian federalism, about my own party and about my colleagues and their parties. I think it has been a tremendous learning experience for every hon. member, although exceedingly painful at times, as is often the case with human growth.
If I might be allowed a comment at this point, the debate was not often what it could have been, in my view. The strongly held views of people with differing opinions were often held up to ridicule and made out to be something other than they really were. People who opposed a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, at least those who opposed it out of the long and legitimate tradition of parliamentary supremacy and common law, were often falsely caricatured, I believe, as enemies of freedom. People who supported unilateral action or unilateral patriation out of a genuine sense of urgency that this be done were often made out to be arrogant and uncaring conspirators who somehow were trying to foist a unitary state on Canada. One issue was played off against another. If one did not like the amending formula, one was against independence. Or if one thought it was as good as any other formula that had ever been presented, one was selling out certain regions of the country.
I say this by way of collective self-criticism, something we Members of Parliament should do more of, it would seem to me. In the final analysis, I do not think that we generally conducted ourselves in such a way as to help Canadians as much as we could have to understand what was really going on, what was really at stake and what significant changes were being contemplated in the life of our country.
Perhaps this is just the nature of politics, but I hope not. I fervently hope that the political process is capable of producing higher levels of debate than the great Canadian Constitution debate would have sometimes indicated, although there were high moments.
The problem, it seems to me, is one of respecting differences among us. Canada is a land of many linguistic and many cultural traditions. We have often heard this said. It is also a land of many different political traditions. It is just not the case that some Canadians are right and other Canadians are wrong. There is a range of perceptions in this country which must be given full respect. Of course, there are others which do not deserve such respect.
I am not saying that all views are equal to one another, but rather that there is a core of differing ideas about, and images of, this country which, if possible, should be reflected in the Constitution of Canada.

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
Our differences should be respected. We have quite appropriately done a lot of talking about respecting rights in this debate, while showing little or no respect for the differences among us. We have had precious little to say about other concepts which, in my view, are necessary to the existence of an authentic human community. I am referring to concepts such as responsibilities and obligations-the responsibilities of individual Canadians one for each other and the responsibilities of individual Canadians for the community, through their governments and other institutions, for the well-being of people socially, environmentally and politically.
But this was all outside the parameters of the debate to begin with. In a sense, what we have always had before us in this debate is a proposal finally to entrench the best political ideas of the now waning liberal era-that is, the rights of individuals versus the state and the rights of minorities. We do not make light of these victories. They are victories that people in my party and those involved in the political tradition in which I stand have long fought for. But they will not suffice by themselves to carry us into the post-industrial society of the twenty-first century, because an appropriate individualism in the liberal era has been accompanied always by an inappropriate individualism, indeed atomism, in our notions of the economy and of society as a whole. Because this is the case, we are in desperate need of recovering and recreating a sense of the whole, of the common good, and of society as an organic reality in which certain values as well as rights are respected.
In this respect I should like to say something about the significance of the public support demonstrated for the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights in Canada. This public support exceeds the limited wording and limited support found in the resolution as a result of the inclusion of the adjective "existing" in front of the concept of aboriginal rights. This public support is significant because a significant thrust of the now waning great industrial liberal era-and I am always using "liberal" in the small "1" sense- has been the urge to assimilate and homogenize all peoples into one big happy family of consuming and producing economic units.
Members of all political parties, at least the old line ones, have participated in this general vision of society. The aboriginal rights clause is one of the few places in the act before us where liberalism is transcended and a way is pointed into the future and away from the past, a past full of wrong relationships with the native people of Canada. Hopefully it points toward a future which will finally see a right relationship grow up between native and non-native Canadians.
To a great extent our historic approach to native people was conditioned by the absolutism of western Christianity and its missionary zeal for conforming everyone to its way of life. But like the Christian Jews in the Book of Acts who thought that Greeks would have to be circumcised in order to become Christians, western Christianity thought that the gospel meant that the Indians, and indeed everyone else, would have to become something other than themselves. Coupled with a not
unrelated economic and military expansionism, we get the recipe for the type of attitude with which native people were met when confronted with traders, settlers and finally industrialists.
The situation in which we find ourselves today is quite different. In my view, it is one full of potential. Native people are beginning to recover a lost sense of self-esteem after having their culture looked down upon for many years. White people are no longer so confident that their ways are all that great. As the meaningless violence, pollution and shattered economic dreams become worse and worse, many non-native Canadians are coming to doubt whether the way of life they wanted to impose upon everyone, in the name of Christianity or in the name of its secular synonym, "progress" is not something which is fatally flawed, something from which we need to be freed.
We can obtain that help, in so far as we recognize the need for it, in a number of ways. One way to obtain it is from people who are not identical to us and can, therefore, tell us something about ourselves that we need to hear. Native people are such people, in so far as they have roots in a culture which was and is quite different from ours. This is not to say that all native people are eloquent critics of modern society. Indeed, some would mistakenly like to be like us, but many have resisted and rebelled against that in our industrialized and mechanical way of life which they found to be inhuman and harmful to mother earth and indeed to human life.
This resistance has often been despairing and self-destructive, but now it has an opportunity to become a creative and critical resistance, with political status which calls upon nonnative Canadians to listen for our own good as well as the good of native people. As we move into the post-industrial era, whatever that might mean-and there is great debate about its meaning-we will need the advice of futurists, of philosophers and, we in the New Democratic Party contend, of democratic socialists. Also we will need the help of people with pre-industrial perspectives, something which, unlike Europe, non-native Canadians lack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: We in this party look to the recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights as a step in this important direction.
In the same way I think what has been happening in Quebec must be understood in this light. The Quebecois are reaching out for a way to be a community, to be an identifiable people, and to have a chance to do and to be something unique by getting off the slippery slope leading to the North American melting pot. They want their uniqueness as not just another province recognized; they want to use their uniqueness in the service of the larger human community.
We in this party want them to do this. We believe they can do this within the larger context of Canadian federalism. It is to that end that we have moved an amendment to the motion of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which
December 1, 1981

recognizes the uniqueness of Quebec within Canada and allows it to contribute to, and be a part of, the Canadian future.
I, like many other English-speaking Canadians, have felt somewhat like a spectator to the great battle raging within the hearts and souls of our French-speaking fellow Canadians. But if it be okay for the Prime Minister to come out and lecture those of us in the west, perhaps my humble advice will be heeded.
There are growing numbers of Canadians who see in the aspirations of Quebec people not the stubborn obstinacy of people who will not give in to the inevitable and who make life miserable for everyone else, to put it most negatively, but they see in those aspirations a local example or instance of something happening all over the globe, where people are trying to ground themselves and their sense of community in something more meaningful than the global consumer society, whether metropolis or hinterland. People seeking this renewed sense of community will be a regressive step only if we do not see it for what it is and affirm it. Particularity must find its place in the universality that must also come if the planet is to survive. The problem is falsely put, I believe, if it is put in such a way that we must choose between tribalism and uniformity. In this respect, Canada has a sombre responsibility. If we fail in dealing with this human problem, with all the good will and abundance that we have at our disposal, then who, I ask, can succeed? We must succeed.
In so far as the constitutional accord of November 5, as amended in the House to reinclude stronger protections for the equality of men and women, and the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Indian, Inuit and Metis does this, it deserves our support. It is not the divisive document that it once might have been. Although we will never know, because it never went ahead. But this new document does not represent a victory for one side and a loss for the other. It is imperfect. However, it is worth voting for, in my opinion.
Only time will tell if it will live up to its expectations. However, without constitutional political reform, that is to say, without reform of the Senate and the House of Commons giving the regions more power at the centre, without economic reform, and without social and economic justice, this document will not be enough. Without an independent Canadian economy, this document will only be the shell of a yet unrealized independence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Canada has a long way to go. We in this party will continue to work for these and other things that remain undone, like seeing that aboriginal rights are defined in a profound way, as opposed to a narrow, legalistic way. This we will be doing when we have the opportunity to move an amendment relating to the consent of aboriginal peoples to constitutional amendments affecting their rights.
Nevertheless, I think many hon. members would agree with me that there is a need to share with the Canadian people the
The Constitution
feeling of relief that an agreement has been reached and that we have come this far. I also hope there is a willingness on the part of the Canadian people to forgive people of differing views and also politicians for sometimes seeming to be obsessed with the Constitution, because constitutions are and will be important, and this Constitution is important. I, for one, am glad that, all things considered, we took the time that we did.
I am confident that history will record that the contribution of my party, the New Democratic Party and its members, was a constructive and a helpful one, that our hearts were in the right place and thus we, along with others, can once again lay claim to a formative role in the future of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: During the course of this debate we have heard, quite rightly, of the vital social and cultural forces which have shaped our country since its inception. In contemplating a new Constitution, we have heard of the moral and legal responsibilities which we in this House must accept regarding, for example, the status of linguistic minorities, women and aboriginal peoples. Moreover, we have been eloquently reminded of our responsibility to the larger concept of our nationhood, to the very scheme which created a nation of two founding peoples. That concept expressed the kind of Canada that we not only wish to have, but which we must have if we are to face the future both united and strong. For over a century hon. members of the House in realizing this have attempted to create a nation based on cultural and linguistic justice. However, from the beginning they went further and also recognized the economic necessity behind the movement to union.
Confederation was, of course, achieved in the midst of a particular set of circumstances. Social, political and economic conditions of the mid-nineteenth century naturally constituted the starting point for the architects of confederation. As one might expect, their historic efforts bear the mark of their own time. The strengths and weaknesses of the federal structure which they created cannot be explained without considering the circumstances of its birth.
As hindsight demonstrates, some of those circumstances were peculiar to the turbulent era of the 1860s; but, in several ways, they have something in common with those of today. In 1867, Canada was in a period of great transformation, much as it is today. At the time of the confederation agreement, we were moving from water transport to the railway, from frontier self-sufficiency to the greater mutual dependence of industrial diversification, from colonialism to the nation-state. Economic factors in the movement toward confederation were rooted in the new economy of steam and railways. The British North American colonies were strung out across a huge continent divided by mountains, rivers, lakes and prairies. The union, it seemed, would really be possible only once the railway had been built. Intercolonial railways were the necessary physical basis of confederation; but at the same time confederation

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
appeared to be the necessary political basis for intercolonial railways. Those who wanted either one or the other were inclined to a plan by which both could be achieved.
In every colony of British North America, the construction of railways inspired hopes for economic prosperity; but the debts incurred in the process, in turn, created new burdens. Moreover, the imminent abrogation of the reciprocity trade agreement with the United States underlined the need for greater internal trade within British North America. Our predecessors looked to the south and saw territorial expansionism, profound political upheaval and an aggressive economic competitor. They looked across the Atlantic and saw the weakening of the imperial connection. Those forces hastened confederation in spite of all colonial rivalries, differences and ambitions. The necessity for economic union had become clear.
Today, the movement to renew our Constitution also has economic roots. Today, we are linked by a sophisticated transport system, an increasingly innovative and complex economy, an economy of high technology and massive industrial and resource projects requiring the collective ingenuity and effort of all Canadians. We are, however, still divided by mountains of sorts, those artificial barriers which we have created amongst ourselves, barriers which can limit the realization of the full benefits of a true economic union.
Macdonald, Cartier, Langevin and Tupper were obviously not soothsayers. They could not anticipate the more diverse and extensive governmental responsibilities of our time. Macdonald, however, had no pretensions about the immutability of the original confederation agreement. He saw it as a skeleton, a framework which would not bind us down. Yet that elasticity, which was one of the most valuable characteristics of the agreement, has been eroded over the years, a victim of federal-provincial, social, political and economic divisions. Macdonald's concept of Canada was of a strong, united economic entity, a common market, one where all citizens could benefit equally from the free flow of goods, services, capital and labour.
We now have the opportunity to consolidate Macdonald's vision by meeting the demands of new economic challenges, challenges of telecommunications, industrial diversification, resource management and environmental protection within a renewed Canadian common market for the benefit of all of our citizens.
While the social ramifications of our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms are evident and have been much discussed, what has not been equally recognized is its economic importance. Those who have recently argued that they would prefer to concentrate wholly upon the current economic concerns rather than bringing the Canadian Constitution home with an embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms would do well to examine that charter more carefully. With the recent energy agreements with the western provinces, Canada stands on the threshold of the greatest wave of capital investment in its history. If Canada is to have full meaning, all Canadians must have the opportunity to share in the material benefits of our future economic growth. The mobility rights in the charter can
do much to provide that necessary equality of opportunity. Equally, the pending surge of investment will be greater if it can be carried forward against a background of a clearly understood Constitution. Uncertainty, whether commercial or governmental, is not an easy bedfellow of investment.
The realization of our full economic potential can only be achieved if large capital investment is matched with greater productivity and more Canadian sourcing of goods and services. But achieving the maximum benefits will be possible only to the degree that the Canadian federation is a true common market. In several important respects, it has become less so over time.
John A. Macdonald was quite certain about the right of Canadians to live and work anywhere. "We are one country", he said, "and we go from one province to another as we do from one town to another".
Today one half of all Canadians move every five years, one in 20 moving to another province. But this fundamental need of Canadians, living in a vast and, in many respects, undeveloped territory has been neglected by some provincial governments. In their eagerness to secure the benefits of local industrial development for the people of their provinces, they have, with notable ingenuity, erected arbitrary barriers to the flow of manpower, capital, goods and services within our country.
The British North America Act appears to rule out any obstacles to the free movement of goods within Canada, yet provincial contrivance and past judicial interpretation, largely in London, has succeeded in limiting even that essential element of our common market. Capital has also been hindered in its efforts to seek investment opportunities by certain provincial regulations of particularly myopic character. The result of all this is that many provincial regulations now weaken our common market, reducing the gains that could otherwise be made by, for example, greater industrial specialization. In short, we are ourselves hindering the realization of our true economic potential by restrictions which, paradoxically, would be impossible in the European Community today.
Labour and capital are not being used as efficiently as possible. Examples of provincial barriers to mobility are readily at hand. They limit the freedom of Canadians to work anywhere in Canada. Certain areas of the country with unusually high unemployment should be allowed positive work-related programs for their citizens, but without inhibiting equal access of all Canadians to employment.
Elimination of these barriers under our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms will provide Canadian industry with longer production runs, greater opportunity to supply the world-scale markets of megaprojects and to compete more effectively abroad. Canadian industry has typically been at an international disadvantage in terms of size, partly as a result of the high degree of foreign control. Its development is only further stunted by the internal distortions and barriers which we have erected among ourselves.

December 1, 1981
It becomes quite clear that John A. Macdonald's hopes for an economic union, providing for the unrestricted movement of capital, goods and labour, have fallen victim to the vagaries of time. The integration of the Canadian economic union remains to be completed. The free circulation of goods, services, capital and workers has not yet been assured. The Constitution of 1867 has been unable to accommodate economic programs necessitated by consequent progress in virtually every field of economic endeavour.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, history has repeated itself. Several forces associated with economic transition that led to the union of the British North American colonies are in some respects similar to the ones confronting us today. Clearly, economic changes inherent in our age demand the strengthening of our economic union.
But before we can strengthen the fibre of our economic union, we must ask why provincial governments have created these defensive barriers? The answer, it seems, lies in their notion of their respective provinces' historial place within the Canadian economic union. Many of the difficulties encountered as the national government has attempted to ensure the success of the national economy have contributed to an attitude of grievance and, in time, to a particular interpretation of our history. This sense of grievance has been evident in both the maritimes and the west where I was born and raised.
Some westerners, for example, have argued that the protective tariff in Macdonald's national policy, freight rates and the question of natural resource control all illustrate the inequitable nature of the economic relations that have existed between the western hinterland and the central Canadian region. Some who embrace that view of our history have contended that the policies which formed the backbone of our original economic union have been deliberately used to retard western development to the benefit of the more densely populated and economically diversified central region. This situation, in turn, they have argued, has historically kept the western region dependent upon central Canada. Partly as a response to this belief, some provincial premiers have recently erected the barriers already mentioned.
Indeed, the west, like the maritimes, has had to face the realities of an imperfect union, as in some sense have all regions of Canada. While complaints about the historic nature of the union and consequent responses are understandable, they are not entirely fair for they see just one side of history. I agree with Professor Careless when he suggests that "Western problems have to be judged in the light of the fuller Canadian record; regions are not closed entities, embattled armies of us against them, but interlinked communities in broad national and international frames."
The regional view of the west within confederation expresses one-sided judgments. The protective tariff, for example, was one part of an over-all national policy aimed at creating a Canadian union, including the west, by fostering a more diversified economy with a broader home market, an economy that would not be absorbed by an expansionist United States. Moreover, the development of the western region clearly
The Constitution
depended in part on the capital generated by the older industrial central Canadian region. Undoubtedly, Macdonald and his contemporaries considered the west an area to be developed under the direction of the national government, but could the Fathers of Confederation think otherwise when a western regional community had yet to be created? Moreover, the regional view of economic union fails to consider the fact that industrial progress in central Canada was well under way before an important western market existed. Western metropolitan centres, not unlike those of the east, have in fact greatly benefited by protection of past Canadian economic policy.
The early federal control over the natural resources of the western provinces have left unhappy memories in the minds of some, memories which have resurfaced recently. It should be emphasized, however, that, given the limited western settlement and the difficulties of governing the west in the early years, central resource control was both justifiable and effective. Today, that control lies largely within the legislature of each province. The recent agreements between the producing provinces and the Government of Canada affirm that principle, but do so in a way which will not only greatly benefit the west but all regions of Canada.
It is simply a truism to state that the building of our economic union has been made possible largely by the economic mobility which has prevailed through most of our history.
Our constitutional task facing us today is to ensure that Canada is a country without internal barriers. Accordingly, a guarantee of mobility that is included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the only way that we can assure ourselves of the prosperity and sustained economic growth that we all seek.
Many of the historical impediments to regional economic development seem to be eroding with new technology, the accumulation of capital and the realization of the importance of research and development. In Western Canada, natural resources have made possible the more rapid establishment of a diversified industrial base. Many decades ago, the transition from sail to steam retarded the economic development of the Atlantic region. Today, that region benefits from the advances of technology associated with the exploitation of its various maritime resources. Quebec too is witnessing the transformation of its economy through technological innovation. In Ontario, research and development are creating new products and industries which benefit all Canadians and which can compete in the international marketplace.
In our over-all economic possibilities, nature is on the side of Canada. It would indeed be an irrecoverable loss for both the regions and the larger Canadian union if the benefits of these great developments were to be confined merely to the province of their birth. The national economy, so important to the thinking of the Fathers of Confederation, would have realized far less than its original promise.
To accept the view that a true economic common market is unrealistic or irrelevant to Canada's future is to question one

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
essence of the initial move toward confederation. It is not the extent of a country, Alexander Galt claimed, but the diversity of its economic interests which is the real guarantor of greater prosperity. We in this Elouse must now provide the necessary unity to allow those diversities to interact and to achieve their full potential.
The constitutional guarantee of our economic union, to be embodied to a substantial degree in our new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, must suit the Canada of today and tomorrow. It is also essential in a more symbolic way. To both foreign and domestic investors, reassurance about the fundamental character of the Canadian economic union will help to provide the impetus to the next stage of our economic growth, which in turn will do much to resolve the economic and social uncertainties before us.
The constitutional proposal which we are now considering, motivated by the social, political and economic circumstances of our own time, will set the building blocks for a new Canada, the Canada of the twenty-first century. "Whatever you do" said John Macdonald, "adhere to the union. We are a great country, and shall become one of the greatest... if we preserve it; we shall sink into insignificance and adversity if we suffer it to be broken." Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to call it six o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there consent to call it six o'clock as requested by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I think I understand clearly the hon. member's intention, and that is that he calls attention to the fact he has been recognized. Ele will have the floor at eight o'clock, barring points of order or questions of privilege.
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.55 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) had the floor.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, Canada is a wonderful country. It has tremendous potential, tremendous natural resources and a robust, working people. There is every reason for Canada to be one of the great nations of the world.
When a country changes its constitution it has the opportunity to provide for and meet the needs of its people-Canadians in this case-in the modern world. It presents a further challenge to effect greater achievements.
The changing of a constitution could present a grave danger if it is done in the wrong manner. It could result in the country breaking up.
Tonight I would like to deal with a short review of what has happened in regard to constitutional change in Canada. I want to start by saying that the people of Canada should, and I say this reverently, thank God for men like the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) as well as the Progressive Conservative Party. Without our party the Constitution would have been brought home a long time ago and by now the country would probably be separated into three segments. That is what was happening when this constitutional resolution was first brought in. So divisive was the approach to constitutional change taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that millions feared we would never again be a united Canada, if indeed we continued to have a Canada at all.
The Trudeau package would have broken the country up or created a unitary state. In clear language, it would have created a socialist republic.
The struggle that ensued in the House and throughout Canada proved the worth of the British parliamentary system. When the Prime Minister announced his constitutional package on October 2, it was a unilateral package in a country which had never been used to unilateral policies. It had an amending formula which had been secured ten years before without support from many parts of the provinces, even though some premiers had signed it. It also contained a charter of rights. When the Prime Minister announced his constitutional proposal, there appeared to be a feeling among many people that this was the package which was to go to Westminster. The Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) jumped on the bandwagon and supported it. He thought it was wonderful. However, the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party stood up and said it was a dangerous and divisive package, and that message went across the nation and was talked about in our homes and at our work.
The Prime Minister wanted to get to Westminster as quickly as possible to have his constitutional package signed before the people of Canada really knew what was in it. But the leader of our party stopped him in his tracks at every turn before the Prime Minister was able to get to the airport.
The Prime Minister set many deadlines, and I will deal with a few of those deadlines now to illustrate what actually happened. The Prime Minister was going to send the package to England in May and have it back before the summer recess. In June of 1980 he indicated he was going to have it back by July 1. The Leader of the New Democratic Party was urging him to move it faster. The Prime Minister was going to go as fast as he could. Had it not been for the official opposition in the House, the resolution would have been over there and back. However, he had to keep changing his deadlines because
December 1, 1981

more and more people of Canada were finding out what the package contained.
On November 11 the Prime Minister said we would have it on July 1 of the next year. On April 1, 1981, he said he would have it on July 1, 1981. Ele kept setting deadlines. Instead of trying to get input from the people of Canada, he endeavoured to push the package through.
A committee was set up, and closure was imposed. I was astounded by one part of a speech made by a parliamentary secretary yesterday when he said his sister or some other relative was in the gallery on the night of the closure and that she felt terrible. We all felt terrible because we were dealing with a document which offered this country freedom of speech, yet the government was closing off debate and refusing scores of our members an opportunity to speak by saying we could not talk about the Constitution of Canada. It was a very sad picture.
I say again that I am glad there were men who were ready to stand up to that, and the Progressive Conservative Party stood up to it.
I want to deal with a few of the items that were in the package at that time. The committee was going to have some nice, cosy little chats but, because of the force of the combined opposition, the government had to permit television, had to hear groups from across the country-the disabled, the Indians, the women and many others-and had to allow them to come and make representations. We stopped hon. members opposite in their tracks in that respect too.
Gradually people started to find out what was in that package. They knew about the unilateral action. The Prime Minister was proceeding without the consent of the provinces and without any consensus. He used the excuse that he was frustrated after 54 years-and that reference to 54 years was a misstatement too. Much progress had been made in those 54 years. The charter had never been mentioned until very recent years. It was an addendum.
Unilateral action was bad enough, but then the Victoria amending formula was suddenly presented to the premiers in 1971 in Victoria. Like the Premier of Alberta, all the premiers were convinced that they should sign on the spot without reference to their legislatures or their cabinets. That was how the federal government obtained their signatures. It was no wonder that when the Premier of Quebec got home and talked to his cabinet, he immediately said, "Take my signature off'. We owe Quebec a great deal for that act because this country was saved from being divided. With it, the people of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba would have been second-class citizens. The people of the maritimes would have been second-class citizens. Only Quebec and Ontario would have had the power of veto for all time regardless of what their populations would be. That was the formula which would have gone to England in 1971, as if it had the support of the people. It had the support of a few men who were talked
The Constitution
into it, without reference to their cabinets or their legislatures. That could never happen again.
Freedom of the press was included in the charter of fundamental rights and freedoms but, oh, no, we cannot include property rights because they are under provincial jurisdiction pursuant to the BNA Act. Well, so is education a provincial responsibility under the BNA Act, but there was no hesitation whatsoever in putting language of instruction in the charter. Mobility rights were also included. It would almost make me laugh if it were not so sad. For years hundreds of people from the maritimes, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and British Columbia have been coming to Alberta and working. I do not know of any who were driven out. Even those who could not speak the language came, and they have jobs. I spoke to many of them at Fort McMurray, and they were glad to get jobs out there. There is no discrimination because they came from other provinces. There might have been some in Ontario and Quebec or there might have been some problem in the maritimes, but there certainly was not in western Canada.
Hon. members opposite talk about what a wonderful thing it will be that mobility rights will be included in the Constitution, but I look at Quebec and see that one cannot hold a job if one does not speak French. What good are mobility rights to people in western Canada who speak only English? They are no good at all. This is a backhanded way of saying we are doing something in the charter. Mobility rights will be meaningless unless we can speak French when we go to Quebec, at least under the present laws, which are illegal.


Mr. Caccia:: Shame on you.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Just try to get a job there today. Many people are leaving there, many Canadians of French origin are leaving there because they object to what is going on. I talked to one in Calgary just the other day. He became fed up. If this government wants to promote unity across the country, why does it allow favouritism in one province?


Charles L. Caccia: What favouritism?


Gordon Edward Taylor: The Quebec government is stopping people from putting up English signs and stopping them from working if they speak English, and the government here does nothing. Hon. members opposite talk nicely, as the Minister of Labour (Mr. Caccia) is doing now-he is chattering away to himself-but it did not take the Liberal government long a few years ago to declare the policies of the Alberta government ultra vires. Oh, no, it did that almost overnight, but the policies of Quebec which are ultra vires the BNA Act go on and on. This is not right at all. Hon. members opposite should not try to tell me it is.
I do not believe people should have special privileges. The section on the language of instruction will not make any difference in the province of Alberta. In Alberta a student can progress from grade one to university in the French language if he wants to do so. We do not stop people from putting up French signs. We do not stop them from putting up Ukrainian signs or Polish signs, but in Quebec there is a rule that English

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
signs cannot be put up, this in a country which is predominantly English. Forcing all signs to be in French is completely wrong.
With respect to special privileges, we introduced an amendment to make compensation payable to everyone on the same conditions. The New Democratic Party introduced a subamendment proposing that we pay only Quebec. That is special status. That was what the original charter did, too. It provided for special status for one or two provinces and did not worry about the rest because their populations were not large enough. The people of Canada did not go for that. Hundreds of people in Ontario and Quebec do not go for it either.
I do not agree at all with the New Democratic Party subamendment respecting compensation on the basis of special privilege. We have fought for the equal status of every province, and one province should not have special consideration. There is too much special consideration already. Hon. members in the Liberal Party have been buying their continued power. No wonder the people vote Liberal time after time.
Let us look at what the Liberal Party does with DREE grants. In 1981 Newfoundland received $3.5 million; Prince Ed v'ard Island, $1.2 million; Nova Scotia, $5.9 million; and New Brunswick, $18.5 million. These are all have-not provinces. Quebec received $70 million; Ontario, $8.9 million; Manitoba, $3.4 million; Saskatchewan, $2.5 million; Alberta, nothing at all; British Columbia, $1.3 million; and Yukon, nothing at all. The total amount received over 13 years by Newfoundland was $28 million; Prince Edward Island, $20 million; Nova Scotia, $75 million; New Brunswick, $100 million; Quebec, $494 million; Ontario $88 million; Manitoba, $83 million; Saskatchewan, $29 million; Alberta, $35 million; British Columbia, $10 million; and Yukon, $.1 million.
It is clear that hon. members opposite keep buying their way back into Parliament. There has been favouritism and special status. I do not go for that at all. I did not like favouritism when I was in school, and I do not like it in the nation, either.
The government refused to include property rights. Everyone in this land wants to own property. I know the British North America Act says that. It also says that education is a provincial responsibility. There is no difficulty putting in language, none at all. There are other items in the charter. What was it like then? There was unilateral action. What is it like now after the struggle in Parliament and throughout the country? Now we have consensus.
The Prime Minister did not want this to go before the Supreme Court of Canada. He said many times that would not be done. However, he was forced to do it by the will of the people. The opposition put up a fight and insisted on it. We had to carry out a filibuster to do so, but we did it for the good of this country. Now we have consensus. The Liberal members are now trying to take credit for the consensus. We would not have had it had this resolution not gone to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We now have an amending formula, not the Victoria one with its veto but one with equality for the provinces, one with consensus. At least seven provinces must consent in order to change the Constitution. There was to be no reference to the Supreme Court, but it was referred. There was no equality for women. There is now equality for men and women in the charter. There were no aboriginal rights in the original charter. They were taken out. They are now back in, albeit with no definition. I hope the government is not trying to fool our aboriginal people by holding out a carrot: aboriginal rights without definition. We have asked the government to define these rights and to be fair to our native people. The Indian people in particular have suffered for a long time in this country. They should not be fooled. I hope they will not be.
There was no opting out before. Now there is. There was a nice cosy deal between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the New Democratic Party with regard to natural resources. Now the provinces are not getting what they already had under the British North America Act. However, the premiers did not fall for that. In the new package, provincial ownership is confirmed. There is a "notwithstanding" clause as well.
I said that this is a wonderful country. I am going to support this charter. However, it does not deal with abortion. I wish that protection were given to unborn children. It does not do anything with regard to capital punishment. This country is rampant with criminals. The police are not able to do their jobs.
Yes, Canada is a wonderful country, but it is going down the tube. We are killing incentive, driving out investment, discouraging savings for retirement or building a house. Farmers cannot even get a mortgage. Millions are unemployed. Our new Constitution will not solve any of these problems. What we need is a fresh government with new policies that will let free enterprise work in this country.
The Constitution is a different package now. I intend to support it. When it comes back with a new amending formula, we will be able to make changes in order to prevent abortion on demand, killing of unborn children, and murderers being let off scot-free or put in prison for only ten years or so. I am going to support the package on the strength of the idea that with the new amending formula we will be able to make changes when it comes to this country.
I again want to pay tribute to the leader of this party, the hon. member for Provencher and other members, particularly at the committee stage. I pay tribute to all those in this party who stood behind our leaders who carried out such a valiant fight. It was worth while. We now have a package we can send to Westminster.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency-Orleans):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House for a little over seven years, and I have never heard anything as stupid as the comments just made by my colleague from Bow River who, to a degree most unusual in this House, has been making a spectacle of his ignorance. I suggest he take the figures he was quoting for

December 1, 1981
DREE grants and divide them by the population of each province, a very simple mathematical operation, and he will see that Quebec is not getting more than its fair share.
Mr. Speaker, at the end of the constitutional conference at the beginning of November this year, the Premier of Quebec gave three reasons why he felt that Quebec could not sign the accord entered into by the federal government and the nine other provinces of Canada. First, he mentioned his disagreement with Section 6 of the draft resolution which dealt with mobility rights. Second, he indicated his disagreement with Section 23 which, he felt, would seriously restrict Quebec's constitutional powers with respect to education. Third, he did not agree with the absence of fiscal compensation from the amending formula.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the issue of mobility rights warrants a lengthy discourse. I fail to understand why anyone would object to the entrenchment of such a clause in the Charter of Rights. Why, in the Common Market, workers can move freely from one sovereign state to another sovereign state, while here in Canada, there are any number of barriers that prevent Canadian citizens from moving from one Canadian province to another, all within the same country. I feel that this objection is not well founded and is basically an expression of the separatist leanings of the Quebec government. I do not intend to dwell further on Section 6. Personally, if this were the only problem, 1 would unreservedly support the resolution which is now before the House.
Now, regarding the second objection made by the government of Quebec and which concerns the minority language educational rights guaranteed under Section 23, that is an entirely different matter. Basically, Mr. Speaker, what we must ask ourselves if we want to consider this issue seriously is: Does Section 23 truly guarantee that francophones outside Quebec and anglophones living in Quebec will have the same rights? Curiously enough, if one merely reads the wording of Section 23, it would seem that the section is more favourable to francophones outside Quebec, because under Section 23, any person with French as his mother tongue, whether that person was educated in Canada or outside Canada, would be able to go to French schools outside Quebec. While in the case of anglophones in Quebec, because of the restriction included in Section 59, it would be necessary to have been educated in English in Canada.
But in practice, Mr. Speaker, what are the real facts? In practice, I think that true equality will not stem from that section, if only because the where-the-number-so-warrants restriction will cause a lot more problems to French-speaking people outside Quebec than to English-speaking Quebecers. It is simply a matter of being somewhat familiar with the geographical distribution of French-speaking Canadians outside Quebec and to be aware of the concentration of English-
The Constitution
speaking Canadians in the western part of Quebec to realize that in the case of English-speaking residents of Quebec, the where-the-number-so-warrants restriction will not be a source of major problems since, in any event, even outside the greater Montreal area, the entire structure is already in place. One of my colleagues told me that in a certain village of the Gaspe area they have one English school for 15 families. With respect to French-speaking people outside Quebec, everything will be left to the discretion or interpretation of the courts, and we have no guarantee that their interpretation will meet the needs of French-speaking Canadians. I will come back to that later on, Mr. Speaker.
Second, Section 23 does not give French-speaking people outside Quebec the possibility of getting organized or of setting up their own structures which they will be able to control themselves, namely, school boards. We are all fully aware of the 35 per cent of French-speaking Ottawans who, for years now, have been complaining and urging the government of Ontario to allow them to control their own institutions. The answer has always been the same-no. Compare that with the situation prevailing in Quebec, and I would suggest that nobody can argue the contrary.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, the French-Canadian Association of Ontario sent a letter to the members and the senators of the Canadian Parliament. I will not read it because I may run out of time. In it they stated just how essential it was to guarantee their future in Ontario, more particularly in the Ottawa area, and to what extent it was also possible to find a satisfactory formula to enshrine that right in the Constitution. Mr. Speaker, I think that by putting the Canada clause in the Constitution we are asking Quebec to take a certain risk. Well, the province could take that risk or pay the extra costs to the extent that they would be offset by equivalent benefits for French-speaking people outside Quebec. It was with that in mind that I wrote to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on November 17 to propose a draft of Section 23 whose result would have been to use the treatment reserved for the English minority in Quebec as a standard to define the rights of French-speaking people outside Quebec.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, our French-speaking brothers outside Quebec have good reasons to be concerned. Indeed, whether it is the Federation of Francophones Outside Quebec, the French-Canadian Association of Ontario, the Association of French Canadians of Alberta or the Association of French Canadians of Saskatchewan, they are the people who have to live in those conditions every day, and I think they are in an ideal position to assess the situation and the kind of life they lead in Canada. And all those people tirelessly repeated again last week that they had come to Ottawa to let us know that Section 23 does not do them justice.
Other statements are also of course a cause for concern. For instance, after the ratification of the agreement by the ten, Premier Bill Bennett went back to British Columbia and

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
replied to someone who mentioned that the school rights of francophones had been entrenched in the Constitution: you know, what we have done basically is simply to entrench what we are already doing. And what are they doing in British Columbia? In about ten schools, there are French, classes, not French schools, but simply French classes. This means that when the children go out in the schoolyard, they must speak English. Of course, in such conditions, the school becomes a marvellous assimilation tool. But the last straw, Mr. Speaker, was the publication of a letter written by the Ontario Premier to a woman voter in which he said that, basically, the inclusion of Section 23 in this resolution was not designed to change anything at all in Ontario-Heaven forbid-but rather to counter what was being done in Quebec both under Bill 22 of Mr. Bourassa's Liberal government and under Bill 101 of the Parti Quebecois government.
In the face of such statements, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have every reason to be at the very least sceptical and to have serious doubts about the equality which is supposedly reflected in this Section 23. Of course, paragraph 23.(1 )(n) now provides for an opting-in alternative, which in a sense is a step in the right direction, but I realize the potential unfairness to our anglophones who have shown their good will. What is somewhat paradoxical, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that it will finally be the anglophones who have shown good will by sending their children to French schools who will have to pay the price of this section. Personally, this makes me sad.
Mr. Speaker, I suggested two solutions to this problem in a letter to the Prime Minister. Since it was agreed to let the notwithstanding clause apply to the provisions of the Constitution which concern the basic freedoms, the legal guarantees and equal rights in order to alleviate the concerns of some provinces, I suggested to the Prime Minister that this also apply to linguistic rights. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if this clause can apply to such important issues as the right to life, the right to security and all the basic freedoms that are traditionally included in charters of rights throughout the western world-the notwithstanding clause applies to all these issues; the only matters to which it does not apply are Section 23, Section 6 and the democratic rights-it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the same could be done for linguistic rights. Or does this mean that in this country, we have linguistic rights, or first-class rights, and certain other rights, or second-class rights?
We have serious cause for reflection on this matter. It seems to me that in return, Quebec could have promised to amend Bill 101 and replace the Quebec clause by the Canada clause. This would have put linguistic rights on the same footing as the other rights, it would have maintained Quebec's jurisdiction over educational matters and would also have reassured Quebec anglophones. I believe this would have been an honourable compromise because, at the moment, the Canada clause does not pose any problem for the francophone majority
in Quebec. There might be 5,000 more anglophones in the English school system in Quebec out of a population of
185,000,	which represents from 2Vi per cent to 3 per cent more anglophones students in the English school system. This would have caused no problem. In the long run, it would have been an insurance policy for Quebec because the supremacy of the Quebec National Assembly would have been maintained in case, which is most unlikely, present conditions should change in Quebec for any reason and this province should become, which is not impossible, the Alberta of the year 2000 with the immigration of a great number of workers from other provinces in Canada. In such a case, the Quebec government would have all the flexibility and all the powers required to remedy the situation.
Anyhow, even if the Pequiste government had refused to make such a commitment, the coming into power of a federalist party at the next election, the Quebec Liberal party, would have allowed us to do that and I can assure you that under the present political circumstances in Quebec, there is every likelihood that the Parti Quebecois will be defeated. Mr. Speaker, the time allotted to me is running short so that I will now deal with the amending formula. Such as we know it, the amending formula gives a veto right which is theoretical with a financial compensation restricted to educational and cultural matters. In all other areas, it would be difficult for a province such as Quebec to resist centralization if ever the other provinces, seven, eight or nine of them, wanted it. For example, it could happen that seven, eight or nine provinces decide that from now on housing would strictly come under federal jurisdiction. In such a case, the Quebec government could choose to keep its jurisdiction or take the risk of financially penalizing its taxpayers who, if Quebec decided to stick to its principles and jurisdictions, would have to keep paying their taxes to the federal government to Finance programs in seven or eight other provinces and, moreover, if Quebec wanted to provide the same services in the province, then additional taxes would have to be paid.
Mr. Speaker, is that an amending formula with financial compensation, what is so often called shortsighted separatism?
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that with the financial compensation or the opting out, there was never any question of removing federal powers to give them to the provinces. On the contrary, it is essentially a defensive measure to enable a province such as Quebec to preserve its present constitutional powers. It is said that it would create a balkan-ized Canada. We should never forget, Mr. Speaker, that anyhow, in extreme cases, the federal government has a veto right and that under the amending formula, it could always object.
Mr. Speaker, are the poorer provinces threatened in any way? At this point, a distinction must be made between financial and fiscal compensation. In the case of Fiscal compensation, I agree that because total tax points differ from one
December 1, 1981

province to another, there might be some danger, but in the case of financial compensation which is based essentially on the following criterion, that is, the amount the federal government would have spent in the province availing itself of the right to opt out, there should be no problem.
Mr. Speaker, time flies and I should like to speak of the negotiations per se. I feel that the time is almost up, as we say, that down deep in the heart of all Quebecers, there lies a secret wish. They dream of the day when their two great political idols, the two bright stars of Quebec's political sky, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Quebec Premier, make peace, shake hands and start solving the problems of concern to Quebecers. I appeal to all, Mr. Speaker. Some will say I am being naive, I know, but I think history will have more to say about the contribution of those two men if they settle their differences because, as you know, the storm is gathering over the horizon. Even more serious problems will have to be resolved. The time has come to solve those constitutional problems because, whether it be the international or the economic situation, tomorrow we will have to concentrate exclusively on bread and butter issues. And, Mr. Speaker, there will be much disappointment. I am afraid Quebecers have lost this war through attrition. What I mean is that Quebecers are so bored with all these talks about the Constitution that they are ready to let us do whatever we feel like doing. And that is the reason Quebecers have not opposed this resolution the way they should have. People truly believe that once the constitutional issue is settled-if I may really use the word "settled" in this context, for a great many things could be said about this-we will be able to quickly solve the other problems which concern them.
I should like to conclude by saying that during the few remaining hours-we can no longer say weeks or days-we must do everything possible. I think that there is a strong possibility that reason will prevail in this country, and that Canadians and Quebecers would be extremely grateful to their elected representatives who could finally shake hands and who would direct the action of their respective governments more toward bread and butter issues.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) would accept a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The time of the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos) has expired. Accordingly I would seek the unanimous consent of the House for there to be an exchange of questions and answers. Is it agreed that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) may ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
The Constitution


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the hon. member's speech and with a great deal of sympathy for what he had to say. It struck me that there was a fundamental contradiction in what he was suggesting. In the first half of his speech he emphasized the importance of the minority rights of francophones outside the province of Quebec, with which I am in complete agreement. Therefore, if he is so much concerned with the rights of francophones outside the province of Quebec-
[ Translation]
-why is he willing to let the rights to education in the minority language be subject to the notwithstanding clause, since that would not actually protect the rights of the French minority groups which is one on the things we gained and achieved with Section 23?


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, the answer is quite simple. I gave the interpretation which the Premier of British Columbia, for instance, lends to Section 23, and we know what the Premier of Ontario thinks of that section, so that actually if Section 23 is subjected to a notwithstanding clause the results will be about the same with regard to the minorities outside Quebec. I would very much appreciate it if the hon. member were to personally intervene and use his influence as future leader of the Ontario NDP at Queen's Park to get the Premier of Ontario to finally provide justice to Ontario's French-speaking minority, especially in the Ottawa area where they represent 35 per cent of the population. We cannot say that it is a very small minority. In Quebec's case, a notwithstanding clause would allow the National Assembly to maintain its legislative authority and as you know, you do not have to worry about Quebec, history'shows our degree of tolerance.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, I join the debate in its concluding moments with the hope, which I am sure all hon. members have, for a successful constitutional future for Canada.
I would like to start by suggesting to the hon. member for Montmorency-Orleans (Mr. Duclos), who spoke previously, that he should interpret the comments made by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) in the context of the effort that the hon. member for Bow River had made to bring forward to the House, a point of view which is indeed shared by many people in Canada for historic reasons. His effort was honest, and he made an attempt to bring those issues forward to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: In coming to these concluding moments, I think that most of us will agree that the resolution as it stands before us now asks as many questions as it answers. As time goes on and as history views us, we may indeed see many problems which are not now obvious and many difficulties which are not

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
now apparent. In spite of that, I think most of us would like to offer congratulations at this time to all those who have taken part in this debate, with particular reference to the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gary Michael Gurbin: -and with particular reference and best wishes to the hon. member for Hochelega-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal).
While we have in the House a certain sense of having done our part, having participated in this debate, the country at large undoubtedly feels a sense of relief. That sense of relief is best illustrated in a letter sent to me by one of my constituents. It expresses a peculiar kind of relief and contains a slight contradiction. However, I would like to quote a short paragraph from the letter, which reads as follows:
One might have hoped that the government might have addressed itself to economic and unemployment problems in recent years rather than to the Constitution except that, to have done so, on its dreary track record might have led us over the brink of economic disaster instead of simply up to it where we now teeter.
In a way, that is kind of a backhanded comment; but it is a comment which 1 think really illustrates the mood of the people, certainly the mood among my constituents and, I suggest, the mood of the people in Ontario and other provinces. It is the kind of thing which suggests that there has been a "notwithstanding" clause which is far more important in the country at large than the "notwithstanding" clause that the premiers have put in the Constitution, a clause which relates to the charter. In other words, the country has a genuine hope and an honest desire to see a constitution for Canadians that is made in Canada, one that is our very own. However, notwithstanding that, many people in Canada have identified their feeling that other issues are also very important and could have been dealt with in the long period of time we have taken to deal with the Constitution.
As others have said repeatedly, the original resolution was brought forward to the House last October. We had two basic problems with that resolution. We had a problem in terms of the process, and we had a problem in terms of the substance of the charter which was presented to us in the first instance. The original resolution suggested a unilateral federal action. It was a process which, over the past year or more has been modified and on which the government has been seen to be accommodating. We have indeed had a process which most of us would see as fairly complete, one which started first with the extension of the parliamentary committee which dealt with the substance of the charter and which allowed numerous Canadians from all across the country to present their cases, concerns and hopes to the government.
We also saw a parliamentary debate which was difficult for most Members of Parliament. It took a long period of time, and finally it ended in an additional process being added, that is, consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada as to whether or not the actions we were taking and the position which had been established by the official opposition was indeed accurate. The Supreme Court of Canada decided that
the government itself did not have the right to take unilateral action and that consensus was required if not legally, at least in terms of our constitutional conventions. Following that judgment by the Supreme Court, we were taken into the next phase so that the cadence and the rhythm of the process was maintained. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) made the additional effort of bringing the whole constitutional issue before the premiers.
During that conference, it was stated on numerous occasions that it was not possible to achieve this kind of consensus, that it was not worth while engaging the premiers in additional discussions, and that no fruitful benefits would flow from that activity. However, as a result of that additional process, we reached an accord which brought back to Parliament a modified resolution which included many aspects of the discussions in Parliament of the many concerns which had been brought forward. The resolution was then presented to the House of Commons and was then subjected to an additional review. As we all know, that review resulted in two major amendments which accepted the fact that there was an equality of rights for women, which was not subject to the "notwithstanding" clause that had been introduced. Also, there was a modified acceptance of aboriginal rights and treaties. I think this must be considered to have been a due process of law, a part of the procedure that was worth while, and that it was indeed a part of the tradition of the Parliament of Canada to act on constitutional matters or those which affect the federal government as the supreme authority.
At that point, however, I think that one of the basic flaws in the whole issue became apparent. It became most apparent on Friday of last week, four days ago, when the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie) and then the Prime Minister spoke. The case was well put by the hon. member for Rosedale in terms of the need for additional adjustments to the resolution in order to establish some of the things which would, particularly in the future, relate to federal government actions. These actions and the kind of proposal which was made and brought forward by this party through the hon. member for Rosedale suggested, particularly in the areas of moral concerns, that Parliament would be supreme. It was not intended to change the amendment. This had nothing to do with the substance of the charter or the accord on which the provincial premiers had reached consensus. It had nothing to do with denying any of the contributions by other groups and agreements during the development of the charter and the resolution. It dealt with an additional affirmation that Parliament was supreme in matters which were under federal jurisdiction.
The Prime Minister quite properly pointed out that these matters not only related to the area of abortion, but also related to matters such as capital punishment and, in the future, could relate to issues such as euthanasia or conscription in times of war. However, in this instance the Prime Minister came up with a major inconsistency when he denied the opportunity to include that affirmation in the charter and in the constitutional resolution before it left our House. I think that that in itself should register on the minds of Canadians
December 1, 1981

across the country. That should also tell us something about the intransigence, rigidity and inflexibility of the Prime Minister in dealing with this whole matter. There have been a number of times when he has dug in his heels and has, in fact, caused more problems than he has solved by not dealing, in an open and forthright manner, with the problems which have originally been created on matters of specific substance which were introduced in the resolution last October.
The other major area of concern involves the matter of Quebec. The hon. member who spoke previously spent some time dealing with his concerns regarding language rights and other issues within the province of Quebec. I think that in keeping with what the hon. member for Bow River has said, all of us should share equally his concern that the province of Quebec be treated as part of the Canadian family. Indeed, anglophones within Quebec should have the same rights and privileges as Canadians across the country and should have the same rights as francophones in other provinces. It was interesting to hear the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), who was on an open-line show this morning, discussing this matter in some detail. It appears he is taking up the banner and will spend a good deal of his considerable energy to make sure those rights are protected within that province.
The fact that the Prime Minister at this important point in time will not make that extra effort and take that final step or whatever gesture is required to allow Quebec the opportunity to be incorporated in the first instance in this charter is just another major inconsistency and flaw in the approach that the Prime Minister has taken.
1 believe the charter is imperfect. There is no question that there are and that there will be many matters within the charter about which all of us will have concerns and provisions which we will come to regret. There is no question that in the area I represent, and I think in many areas across the nation, the question of property rights, which has been described by many other members before me, is an important matter. It is a matter that many of us would like to have seen included in this charter and seen affirmed for the rights of future Canadians.
Property rights seem to have been possible in other countries. The right to own property seems quite reasonable. Property rights have a major impact on individuals across the country who feel increasingly that provincial or federal actions seem to threaten their right to own property. The right to own property seems to be one of the basic tenets of a democracy. This is only one example of many of the inadequacies that are within the charter.
1 believe as time goes on that many of these matters can be dealt with. We have a situation now where many of the pundits and critics of this whole constitutional discussion, although new things are happening quickly from day to day, are changing their minds about certain parts of the resolution. After the provinces had reached an accord and after the premiers had met with the Prime Minister, some people found very good reason to be concerned about the fact that the final
The Constitution
step should be taken by 11 individuals in our country because the impact of what they were doing and the long-term consequences affected all Canadians. The reactions of the critics and the people who are looking at the constitutional resolution in the context of today are only momentary. History itself will be the only measure of whether or not this is a good or a bad resolution.
I think it is important that we go forward from the time of the vote on this resolution as it passes from Parliament. We should go forward in the spirit of hope that successive governments will have the good judgment and patience to deal with the inadequacies within the charter and that Members of Parliament will maintain the faith and the confidence of their constituents and will exercise their authority and their responsibilities in such a way that this charter, whether or not it is inadequate now, will serve the purpose of all Canadians.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, there is a basic principle in politics that a government may be free to make any decision it wants, but it will have to live with the consequences. Or to put it another way, history always presents the bill, one way or another. However, it seldom happens that a government which has shirked its responsibilities and shown itself to be unworthy of its people's trust, is cynical to the point of bragging about it. How else are we to interpret statements by the Quebec Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs as reported in Le Soleil of Saturday, November 7, 1981, on page B-2, where the minister states that he created the common front of the eight provinces in September, 1980, and that since that time, the common front had always been artificial, so much so that it would have collapsed had not Quebec kept it going. This means that Quebec made the ultimate concessions. Finally, Quebec had set up the gang of eight for the sole purpose, says Mr. Morin, of using it as a political weapon to sway public opinion in Quebec. And Mr. Morin adds that one of the means used to create this artificial common front, as he calls it, was to work on the claims of each province, whether they concerned natural resources, fishing rights or even, admits Mr. Morin, some provinces' obsessive hatred of Mr. Trudeau.
And these are the people, Mr. Speaker, who got themselves elected on April 13 by telling Quebecers that they would be the trusted defenders of Quebec's traditional rights. And what have they done? They have tried to permanently weaken Quebec. In fact, when our government offered them and the government of Ontario a veto right, they joined forces with seven provinces who did not have a veto right and the first price they had to pay was to drop the veto right they had, so that they could proudly say: We are just as good as Prince Edward Island. They refused to join the two governments that did have a veto right. At least five times, in January, 1977, in October, 1978, in October, 1980, in February, 1981, and at the beginning of this month, in November, 1981, the federal

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
government offered the government of Quebec a veto right. As I said before, a government may be free to do as it likes, but it cannot escape the consequences of its actions. It would be a lesser evil if this weakening of the province had occurred only in terms of such fundamental statements or constitutional provisions, Mr. Speaker. But when a government weakens its most precious resource, namely, its men, women and children, then it is no longer worthy of the trust it has received.
I shall recall, if I may, how Quebec's population has evolved. In the 1960s, the population of Quebec increased by more than
100.000	per year. I shall also give figures for the last three years, when the population growth was almost nil. The population dropped by 3,000 inhabitants in 1978, increased by not quite 11,000 in 1979 and by 20,000 in 1980. It is true that the rate of growth throughout Canada also dropped during the same period, but certainly not as much. During the 1960s, the growth rate of the population in Quebec represented 30 per cent of the growth rate throughout Canada.
From 1976 to 1980, Quebec's share in the population increase of Canada went down to 10 per cent! A contrast between these two periods could not be more striking and it is certainly dramatic, to say the least. Of course, the Quebec government could pretend that it is due to a lower birthrate; unfortunately, it is due to a phenomenon which is the direct and the immediate consequence of its own policies, and I am speaking about international and interprovincial migrations. On a net global basis, outgoing movements of population amounted to about 5,000 people between 1961 and 1976, except for the years 1970 and 1971, and we all know why. On the other hand, these movements reached an average of over
33.000	people a year during the period 1977 to 1980. The worst year was 1977-78 when there was a record net emigration of 54,122 people. And since the immigration figures in Quebec are quite high, the gross numbers of immigrants are even more revealing. The net outflow in 1977-78 represents the difference between 32,345 immigrants and 96,467 emigrants. In other words, nearly 100,000 people left Quebec in 1977-78. This means that both constitutionally and as far as our most precious resource, our people, are concerned, the policies of the Quebec government have been extremely harmful.
Not only have they weakened this province of which they were the trustees, but they have even betrayed the traditional positions of Quebec governments. History will show, Mr. Speaker, that they have systematically refused to support our fight for French schools throughout Canada. They have systematically rejected the appeal of francophones outside Quebec who were asking that their rights be entrenched in the Canadian Constitution. Everyone will remember what they stated in the document which they tabled in Montreal on July 8, 1980, during the last months of their mandate, where they alleged that the entrenchment of the rights of francophones outside Quebec in the Constitution would freeze their rights for the future. What hypocrisy! While we were trying to give them eternal protection, they had the audacity to pretend that this was a means to freeze rights which do not exist today. We have only to read the brief submitted by the L'Association des
francophones hors Quebec to see this. When we read the works of Canon Groulx-and if there is someone who always faithfully defended the traditional position of Quebec, which as a province, has always recognized its responsibility, as the focus of French-speaking Canadians, to work for the extension of their rights, it was Canon Groulx-we can find in his book entitled "Les minorites canadiennes-franqaises declarent" that it is the role and the responsibility of the federal government to entrench the rights of francophones in all Canadian provinces in the Canadian Constitution.
History will show, Mr. Speaker, that these rights which tomorrow will belong to the French Canadians in all Canadian provinces can never be taken away from them because we are giving a veto to Quebec, which does not even request it in this sense, by entrenching in the new Constitution for the first time the equal status of French and English in all the institutions of the central government. If ever someone wanted to remove this provision, Quebec has been given a veto, and all I hope is that separatists will not be in power in Quebec if ever, in a moment of aberration, certain provinces were to try to take away these French schools which are finally guaranteed by the Canadian Constitution. And to further illustrate, Mr. Speaker, how hypocritical they were, let us record in Hansard the following agreement signed on August 18, 1977, in St. Andrews, New Brunswick:
The premiers agree that they will make their best efforts to provide instruction in education in English and French wherever numbers warrant.

We merely have to read that clause, Mr. Speaker, to realize how they betrayed the French Canadian minorities outside Quebec. And the best way to understand it is to read again Section 23 of the constitutional resolution and more especially Section 24( 1) which reads as follows and I quote:
Anyone whose rights or freedoms, as guaranteed by this charter, have been infringed or denied may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction to obtain such remedy as the court considers appropriate and just in the circumstances.
Consequently, if it ever happened that a provincial government did not comply with the Charter which provides for French-speaking schools, French Canadians could appeal to the Supreme Court and the latter would find that in my constituency of Matane fewer than 20 anglophone families have a school at Metis Beach, the smallest town in the constituency, a school from grades one to eleven, and even if one has no legal training one knows that a constitutional provision must apply consistently throughout the country and since in Metis-sur-mer in my constituency, there are hardly fifteen English-speaking families who have a school for fewer than 40 children, it is the best guarantee that the Supreme Court will enforce the same standard in all the other Canadian provinces. It is no longer a matter of the best effort, as signed by the Parti Quebecois in St. Andrews. The Supreme Court has the right to impose sanctions and under the above-men-
December 1, 1981

tioned section it will take the necessary measures to correct the situation. There is the difference between the Quebec representatives who sit in Ottawa and those who betrayed them in Quebec City. As I said, Mr. Speaker, history will show that everything that was put in that resolution for French Canadians at the national level, either for schools in all the provinces or with respect to full bilingualism in New Brunswick, can be ascribed to the francophone representatives sitting in this Parliament.


Bob Rae: Not only the francophones!


Pierre De Bané: What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that not satisfied with betraying French Canadians and refusing to support their claims, they dared ridicule the claims of Franco-Ontarians. History will note that on the day before the conference was officially opened, Mr. Morin, as reported in the La Presse edition of Monday, November 2, scoffed at the suggestion that Ontario might offer Franco-Ontarians the benefits of Section 133. Not only did they shamefully refuse to support Franco-Ontarians, but added insult to injury by deriding the suggestion that Ontario might grant its French-speaking residents the benefits of Section 133. Not content with lying and betraying, they demonstrated the utmost duplicity by deceiving their own supporters. The House will recall that in Ottawa on April 16 they signed a document which they were prompt to hide. They signed this document only three days after telling Quebecers: Re-elect us and we shall be strong enough to fight for your rights. In this agreement they secretly signed in Ottawa on April 16, there is a Section 4 where they recognize once and for all and forever the limits of Labrador which will belong from now on to Newfoundland.
In the meantime, what are they saying to their supporters? That the federal government is trying to deprive Quebec of its rights on Labrador, as they claim in a document entitled "Le Quebec est trahi" which PQ supporters are distributing in the Province of Quebec to demonstrate that the federal government is trying to take Labrador away from Quebec. Yet, they are the very people who came joyfully to Ottawa to sign this document. I think that there ought to be a limit to a party which boasts of its openness and yet betrays the traditional rights and legitimate claims of French Canadians, and its own supporters as well. Mr. Speaker, have you ever heard of a political party which carries duplicity that far? And when they return to their supporters, they say that Canada is a country with two founding nations and that this dimension must be respected, I am anxious to quote from the agreement they signed on April 16. What does it say? With your permission, I should like to read it for the edification of hon. members and future records:
The amending formula we have just signed recognizes the constitutional equality of provinces as equal partners within confederation, and that formula is aimed at protecting Canada's diversity. There is no more reference to duality, Mr. The Constitution
Speaker. "Such a formula enshrines legal equality between all provinces". Quebec wants to emphasize, to stress it is equal to Prince Edward Island. And he added: Being rational, that amending formula is obviously preferable to ours from Victoria, which gave forever a right of veto to Quebec, "because it recognized the equality of provinces within Canada". They do not want to let go of that ten. Hold Canada and equality with Prince Edward Island!
They state in the accord signed April 16 that in certain areas there must still be 11 rights of veto. Examples given are monarchy and the office of lieutenant-governor. This is what Quebec under the Parti Quebecois insisted on signing. They wanted to ensure that as long as Prince Edward Island wants to keep monarchy in Canada, monarchy we are going to have, because this is one of the few questions on which they insisted all provinces should have a right of veto! The function of lieutenant governor and monarchy!
As far as compensation is concerned, Mr. Speaker, which they make such a case of now, it is worth reading what they signed in the April 16 Accord. Here is what is provided on the matter of compensation: "If a province opts out, the Government of Canada must provide reasonable compensation to the government of that province, taking into account the per capita cost of exercising that responsibility in provinces which approved the change" which means that if Quebec opted out of the unemployment insurance program, under the formula signed by the Parti Quebecois, it should be offered only the per capita cost of unemployment insurance in provinces where there is no unemployment insurance. But we can see, Mr. Speaker, in our compensation formula, that it does not use a formula that would be so detrimental to Quebec. It refers to fair compensation. We do not have a formula such as that one that would be an empty phrase, because if the Vancouver compensation formula that is provided for here were possible in the case of unemployment insurance, clearly Quebec could not even afford to opt out. Since the unemployment rate in Alberta, for instance, would the unemployment insurance per capita cost in Alberta be the standard? Mr. Speaker, those are the people who touted themselves as big negotiators before the people of Quebec. I appreciate why Mr. Claude Morin in that article I just quoted from, admitted, and I quote Mr. Morin from page B-2 of Le Soleil of November 7:
English-speaking provinces, says Claude Morin, prepared the April 15 accord-
-and I would add that he had no hesitation signing it. This he did three days after obtaining a mandate from Quebecers under the assurance they would stand up and defend Quebec's interests. This he could do, Mr. Speaker, under the guise of nationalism. As Mr. Louis Falardeau wrote in La Presse of November 25, and I quote:
The Parti Quebecois government was very careful not to reveal that it was the only one against enshrining the rights of women in the constitution.

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
Mr. Speaker, how many crimes can be perpetrated while wrapping themselves in the flag of nationalism. That flag belongs to all Quebecers but they are now trying to rob it so as to make it their own. They have appropriated for their own party that name which belongs to all Quebecers. Does anyone know of a democracy in the world where a party has tried to take the name which belongs to the entire nation? In France, is there a party called the French party, in Italy, the Italian party, in the United States, the American party? Well, the PQ party had the nerve to try to steal the flag which belongs to everybody and the name which belongs to everybody as well, in an attempt to weaken us. Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have here spokesmen for Quebec who are doing their utmost to foil, counteract, work and fight against that attempt to weaken their province. And I can say that we will not stop because what we are doing today is only the first step. And the conclusion we have just drawn is that the province of Quebec is much greater than the Parti Quebecois, and French Canada a thousand times greater than the Parti Quebecois!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Portage-Mar-quette.


Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Yurko:: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Chair to look at Standing Order 29 which indicates that the Speaker should have recognized the first person who stood. But in saying this, I offer the floor to my hon. friend.


Charles James Mayer: Thank you again, Mr. Speaker. I listened as best I could to the hon. minister who just spoke. I would hope that members opposite would do me the courtesy of listening to what I have to say. It is very important that we all take part in the process which has been going on here and has been going on in this country for the last 14 months. It is important that we all make an effort to understand the process because what we see and what is recorded in the press all too often is not really what the process is all about. It is about the complications that are brought about by the process.
It is unfortunate, because the people who elect us to this House of Commons, whether they like it or not, will be affected for many years to come by the very important debates we are engaged in here.
With those remarks, I hope to get some attention from the hon. members from Quebec. I come from western Canada where we also have problems in terms of how we envisage ourselves in confederation. I believe it is in somewhat the same fashion that the people of Quebec think of themselves in confederation. I firmly believe that if we are going to have the kind of dialogue which is needed in this country, to achieve good will between ourselves we must pay attention to each other and genuinely understand what we are trying to say to one another. Without that common courtesy or that extra
effort to understand each other's point of view, it becomes very, very difficult to maintain any dialogue or understanding of what our points of view are.
In order to look at this process in terms of the way I would look at it or the way the constituents I represent would look at it I have to ask some questions on their behalf. Rightly or wrongly, the perception among many people is not necessarily about what the process entails but about some of the conflicts and some of the things which come out of the process that the press picks up. The perception is that much of the problem we have and much of the wrangling which has been going on have to do with the personality conflict between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of the province of Quebec. Rightly or wrongly, that is the perception many people from my part of the country have, and that is something which needs to be taken into consideration. It needs to be taken into consideration by the Prime Minister, not only as it affects the people of Quebec but also as it affects the perception of what is going on and the way the rest of the country looks at the process in which we are engaged.
Most people feel-and I agree-that there is no place for personality conflicts or ego trips when we get to rewriting our Constitution. I concur in that point of view very strongly. It becomes even more of a question which needs to be addressed when we ask ourselves why we got into what many people think of as this constitutional wrangle in the first place. We did not get into it because there was a great necessity to get into it. We got into it by choice. If we were to ask most people on the street, they would say the threat we are facing is not that our constitutional negotiations will break down but that our economy will break down. They wonder, and rightly so, why we have spent so much time and why there has been so much disagreement on the Constitution when things which really affect people, such as interest rates, economic conditions, inflation and their ability to feed and clothe their families, are so very important. As I said, this is not the case with the Constitution.
If we are going to rearrange the Constitution with which we have lived for over 100 years, we need to get into the arrangements by the proper process so that we can proceed with as much good will as possible. We need to proceed as expeditiously as possible so that we can address what most people think is the main threat to their immediate future, and that is the economic threat.
I find the situation we are in to be very unfortunate; nevertheless, we must proceed. We have to address constitutional questions.


Mr. Crosby:: What are we going to do about it?


Charles James Mayer: My colleague asks, "What are we going to do about it?" I have said this before, and I think it needs to be said again: in many ways writing a constitution is like planning something. In many ways the planning part of any exercise can be the most exhilarating and the most exciting because it
December 1, 1981

involves many possibilities. When a person plans a trip, he sits down and decides where he is going. He might be planning to build a house or buy a car. Anything we plan can have a very exhilarating effect. That is really what we are doing in this country. We are planning the future, and this should have had an exhilarating effect on us. Many people have come to the point where they do not feel the exhilaration. We have missed out on an opportunity to harness the energies Canadians have to work together. I think that is unfortunate, and many people in this country look on that as being unfortunate. That is reflected in the position which most people take: they are tired of the wrangling which goes on between politicians, and they want to get on with the job and get it finished. Even though many people understand that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not as perfect as they might hope it would be, they are willing to accept it and get on with the job.
The people of the constituency of Portage-Marquette wonder why it is that provincial and federal politicians continually fight with each other. Let us suppose some objective person came here from a foreign land or from another planet. That person might think that the people whom federal and provincial politicians represent were two entirely different sets of people. However, the people who send us here to the federal House are the same people who send provincial politicians to the provincial houses. It should be much easier for us to agree than it is, yet in the past it has seemed that that has not been so at all in determining what should be done. Instead of thinking about the common good and solving problems- which is the wish of the people who send us to the federal Parliament and who send representatives to the various provincial legislatures across the country-all too often we have engaged in petty political rhetoric for some very questionable short-term brownie points.
The people I talk to at home keep asking about this over and over again, and I have to say that I really do not have a good, honest answer for them, except to say that the only way to solve problems is to send better people to represent them in Parliament and the various legislatures across the country.
We in western Canada feel very strongly about certain parts of the Constitution and about certain matters contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One of them is property rights. My area of the country was settled by people who settled there wanting economic freedom, economic equality and a chance to own some property of their own. They wanted a stake in their communities, their provinces and their country. When we are talking about certain basic rights being included in the charter, it is perfectly natural that those of us who are far removed from the problems of language rights which Quebecers have want to be accorded the same kind of courtesy and willingness to understand why we feel as strongly about property rights as some people in other parts of the country feel about rights that are near and dear to them.
I find it very disturbing to come here as a relatively new member-I have been here two and a half years-and to see unwillingness to listen to another man's point of view, it is difficult to understand why an hon. member says the kinds of
The Constitution
things he says on behalf of his constituents and does not realize that other people have concerns about which they feel very strongly. However, some people show an unwillingness to listen, and that is something all of us feel badly about. The process we have gone through to get to where we are with respect to the Constitution has not lent itself to that kind of understanding. The process has not been correct.
I do not want to dwell on the past because in many ways this document is not a document of the past. It is a document of the future, and the only way we should be looking at it in terms of a document of the past is to ensure that we can learn from the process we have gone through. It has been far from a perfect process. If we could do it again, we would have found a better system by which to arrive at where we are today. If we go ahead the way we plan to go ahead tomorrow, it will be unfortunate if we do not realize what we are doing. We are looking at a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, an amending formula and a Canadian Constitution. We are looking at a prescription for how this country will live and work together in the future. We should not be looking back and making recriminations; we should look back and try to learn from the mistakes we made in relation to process.
From the point of view of the Conservative Party it is perfectly legitimate to say that our leader quite rightly pointed out almost 14 months ago to the day, on October 2, 1980, that we should learn from these kinds of things. If we are going to be changing the Constitution again in the future-which we will because, as I said, it is a document of the future, and it will have to adapt to future circumstances-we should be able to learn from our mistakes.
One of the mistakes we will have to live with for some time to come is the mistake we have made with respect to attitude. The most valuable resource any country has is its people, and the attitudes of those people reflect the ways in which the country works and lives together.
I do not think a bill of rights will make much difference in attitude. If we were able to come back to this country 50 years or 100 years from now to see how we are doing in terms of civil liberties and basic human rights, I think the most important question we would have to ask in order to determine the situation would be: what are people's attitudes toward themselves and toward their government? What are the attitudes of representatives toward the people they are elected to represent? Unless we have the proper attitude and are willing to live and work together and, in the process, understand someone else's point of view, it seems to me that a bill of rights will not be very important.
I have found this constitutional process to be unfortunate. I make that observation to underscore the point that the process of this constitutional renewal, as I said previously, has not been exhilarating and exciting for the country. The process has degenerated. We therefore have more problems in terms of the various levels of government than ever before. We had provincial governments suing the federal government over the Constitution, VIA Rail and the National Energy Program. That does not help improve our attitudes in this country. It is

December 1, 1981
The Constitution
something we have further alienated as far as the process is concerned. Our attitudes in this country have hardened.
A very legitimate question to ask the French-speaking people in this country is how exactly they see the role that the English-speaking components of confederation should play in this process. We have a French-speaking Prime Minister from the province of Quebec very much at war with the Premier of Quebec. We in western Canada feel very much left out of that argument. It is not that we want to be included in it. However, if we are going to be affected by the outcome of that argument, it would be very nice for us to at least understand what the argument is about. There is not that kind of understanding in the country of the process that we are going through to renew the Constitution. That is a very unfortunate effect of the process we have gone through to get to where we are tonight.
Let me take one further point. Once the Constitution is passed and we have a bill of rights, that is not the end. People will have to be elected to this Parliament and to provincial legislatures. The people in the country who elect us will have to be very vigilant and concerned about what goes on in the House. This entails a large measure of dependence on the press and requires a sense of responsibility from it. Too often the productive things that go on in this place are not judged as being newsworthy. Too often it is only the sensational news that is reported, and that is unfortunate.
I suggest very strongly that it is a continual process in terms of the institutions in this country. It is very difficult to bring in a bill of rights the way we have done without doing something about the way the Supreme Court is appointed and the way it functions. That is something that should be looked at.
We need to look at the way the Senate operates. When this country was First put together over 100 years ago, and we had an Upper and Lower chamber, the government was not as involved in our daily lives as it is now. Now the average Canadian in this country works for a government of one form or another from the beginning of the year until some time in June. There should be more accountability to the taxpayers than there is at present. An excellent way of achieving that would be some form of elected Senate. I do not know specifically how it should be done. However, that is something to which we should address ourselves.
We do not need constitutional renewal to fix up some of what goes on in one part of the country versus another. The western section of the Canadian Transport Commission should be given much more authority. The International Joint Commission which functions in this country has never had a member from western Canada, yet over half the boundary between Canada and the United States is in western Canada. Those are some of the things we need to do institutionally in this country so that we have the determination and good will to be able to work together.
What I am asking in terms of the continuation of this process is that we look for ways to bring ourselves together. The question we should continually ask is how do we bring
ourselves together? Unless we learn from the mistakes we made in the process that we are concluding here this evening and will vote on tomorrow, we will be continually asking those questions without learning from our mistakes. We will not learn through reference to our own past actions.
I repeat, we have to be very concerned about attitudes in this country. We must realize that we do not change attitudes by a simple piece of paper. That has to come about by good will and understanding on all sides of the House and in all parts of the country. I feel very strongly that this document should not be used to recriminate against past positions or mistakes. Instead, we should learn from the process we have gone through. The new Constitution should be very much a viable and living document of the future. We should be able to adapt and use it in our changing circumstances. This is a rapidly changing world in so far as technology is concerned, whether we like it or not.
What we are seeing this evening is an end to this part of the process. It is up to all of us, those who are elected, those who sent us here, in fact all who care about this country, to see that this process does not end here. It must be a continuing process. We must continue to improve on the document for the betterment of Canadians from one end of this country to the other.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, we are nearing the end an important debate. In fact, I am next to the last participant in this House of Commons debate. My speech will be quite a bit shorter than I had originally planned because the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) would like to rise for a few minutes in order to move an amendment, and I have agreed to allow him the time to do so.
I want to say that although I had reservations about it almost exactly 14 months ago when the constitutional reform was introduced by the government, I agreed to support it after having given the matter considerable thought. First of all, this resolution allows for further reforms in the future. Something just had to be done in the face of the inertia of the provincial forces that were blocking patriation of the Constitution, the adoption of an amending formula and the entrenchment of a charter of rights in the Constitution. Second, Mr. Speaker, I simply could not but support a measure that entrenches forever the right to the French language, the equality of the French and English language in all federal institutions in this country, from sea to sea. This resolution also guarantees the educational rights of the French minorities in the Englishspeaking provinces. Third, I decided to support this measure because our party, under its present leader, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has fought for years to achieve progress in the constitutional debate, to effect a rejuvenation of this very important aspect of Canadian politics. That is why I decided to support this measure. At first, there were several people in my province who had reservations, much as the Franco-Ontarians now have reservations because Section 133 does not apply to Ontario. Initially, many Acadians enter-
December 1. 1981

tained the same reservations with regard to New Brunswick. Pressure was exerted from the very beginning to try to get the government to amend the resolution so that Section 133 or some similar measure would apply to New Brunswick.
1 did not like that procedure, Mr. Speaker. 1 preferred the one which was used afterwards, that the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly move to present a motion first to the Joint House and Senate Committee on the Constitution, a motion carried by the Legislative Assembly, which is mostly English-speaking, a motion to entrench the equality of both languages in New Brunswick, to agree to institutional bilingualism. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, constitutional rights will not necessarily ensure that the French language will progress, expand and be protected in the future. They are a form of insurance, an additional guarantee, but what will ensure the development and expansion of the French language is the importance and the concern that Acadians themselves will have for this issue.
So long as francophones in New Brunswick, Acadians and others, strive to preserve the French language, nothing will prevent this language from being preserved and from expanding. The entrenchment process is an important one. What 1 like about this resolution is that it allowed my province to act first in its own Legislative Assembly, where, as I say, most members are English-speaking because most New Brunswick-ers are anglophones, and it is this process, the very fact that we have the political maturity to provide for this equality which history did not bestow upon us that I applaud. But my guiding philosophy in this regard, Mr. Speaker, has always been based on a thorough knowledge of history; one has to know what has occurred in the past, yet at some point-one has to come out of it and start looking toward the future.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I sincerely appreciate the member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) allowing me to rise to my feet for a few minutes before the NDP amendment regarding consent is moved at ten o'clock.
1 would like to deal briefly with the much misunderstood and maligned concept of consent as it appears in the amendment now before the House. The intent is to set up a process whereby constitutional change that would affect the rights of aboriginal peoples would require the simple democratic consent of the same people who would be affected. Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is both an intellectually and historically correct mechanism to protect the fragile rights that have been trampled, abused and overlooked since confederation and before.
The arguments that have been put forward both inside and outside of the House to the effect that the process is unworkable and that the definition of the aboriginal peoples is impos-
The Constitution
sible are not sound arguments. With regard to the first argument, history shows that a democratic vote is taken not only in municipal, provincial and federal elections but in relation to many other electoral bodies in this nation on a regular basis. The second argument about defining participants in such votes is a challenge in some areas but is not unworkable. In fact, it is a task that must be quickly addressed for use at the constitutional conference next year. A vote by members of this House against the concept of consent should be seen for what it is: a claim to the right of Parliament and of the provinces to continue to ride roughshod over the interests of our first citizens and first nations.
Let us not forget too quickly or shy away from the task that is now before us, which is to set our minds and increase our efforts to negotiate a settlement of renewable and non-renewable resources, a settlement of the traditional uses of resources, and a settlement in an evolutionary way of the cultural matters of the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
It may prove at times to be a costly process, it may prove to be difficult and in some cases unpopular, but it is a task that our generation must finally take seriously and respond to.
Questions were raised by the Conservatives earlier about the absence of a role for the territorial governments in amending Section 35. I wholly support such involvement, and if this is a concern, let us have such an amendment from the Conservatives and they will find unanimous support for it from this party. They cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The eight premiers of Conservative persuasion are the very ones who brought the provinces into the forum and excluded the Territories. The Conservatives have become experts during this debate in speaking not only with a forked tongue but in talking out of both sides of their mouths.
Since the accord and the amending formula historically preclude the involvement of the territorial governments, it was the open intention of this party to avoid the arguments put forward by the Liberal-Tory coalition that such involvement would bring a new and unsupportable element into the Part V amendment procedures. To ensure that future changes affecting the aboriginal peoples north of 60 found fair hearing, we now introduce the necessary protection of a two-thirds majority vote resolution of the House and Senate. This is a new concept but is one found agreeable to the process which ended on November 5 when it was agreed that two-thirds of the provinces must put forward resolutions for the general amending procedure.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, I have covered all the objections raised by the Conservative spokesman on the Constitution, the member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and I look forward to hearing the real reasons why the Conservatives object to the consent provision, which is an act of democracy and protection for the future amendments of aboriginal rights through Section 42.
13616

December 1. 1981
The Constitution
I make a plea to the common sense of the government members, Mr. Speaker, to their collective sense of morality for adherence to the principle of protecting the rights of Canada's first peoples, the most abused and underprivileged minority in Canada.
Should we end this debate without a clear sense of direction and a clear legislative mandate, the ifs and maybes will haunt Parliament. Parliament will be haunted if the highly paid corporate and provincial legal muscle is left the elbow room to send the rights and the aspirations of the aboriginal peoples the way of the buffalo, passenger pigeon and Dawson caribou.
As I said earlier to members from both the Liberal and the Conservative parties, if their objections are based on reducing the House-Senate vote to a simple majority and to require resolutions of the territorial governments, then they have our support, and we urge them to introduce such a subamendment. Hon. members have ample opportunity to do so, both in time and through the House order.
I would point out that refusal by the House to move seriously on this issue will come to the attention of both the Parliament of the United Kingdom and various international bodies that deal with the issues of human rights.
The international covenant on civil and political rights was entered into by Canada on March 23, 1976. Part II, Article 2 reads as follows:
Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each state party to the present covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present covenant to adopt such legislative or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present covenant.
Support for the amendment on consent now before the House will go a long way toward achieving the principles of the covenant.
In concluding, I am pleased to again enter into this debate on behalf of the NDP and the aboriginal peoples of Canada. I think it is an important note on which to end the debate. There still exists a number of serious flaws in the resolution, flaws that detract in both a symbolic and legal sense from the direction I feel this Parliament has taken on the substantive issues of recognition and affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights.
First, of course, was the unnecessary addition of the word "existing" to the positive affirmation of old Section 34, which achieved unanimous all-party support on January 30, 1981. The vote on that issue has now been taken. Although three Conservatives and two Liberals voted with the NDP to have the word removed, the Liberal-Tory coalition succeeded in keeping the word "existing" in the resolution. That is a flip-flop from their position of only nine months ago, but it is nothing new to this House nor to the native people of this country.
However, a more serious problem has been created by the removal of what was subsection (c) of the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada set out in Part II and Section 55 of the resolution which was passed by committee and filed with the Supreme Court of Canada on April 24, 1981.
Following the November 5 first ministers accord, the rights of aboriginal peoples as well as the protection of the amending formula were dropped.
As we now know, with the vote of November 26 on Section 35 which recognizes and affirms the rights of aboriginal peoples, this House has taken half a step back toward the position held by Parliament prior to November 5.
Part of that step was taken in response to a question of privilege that I raised regarding the tragic flaw found in the French text of the amendment tabled by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro). For some reason, the legal concept of recognition did not appear in the French text. Under pressure from the NDP, and not the Liberal-Tory coalition, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General (Mr. Chretien) conceded there was a flaw and found unanimous consent in the House to amend the constitutional resolution and include the word "reconnu".
Let me now return to the need in the resolution before the House to have the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada protected by Section 42, amended by the general amending procedure. Surely no member of the House, after voting unanimously to entrench a positive affirmation of aboriginal and treaty rights, would want those rights to apply in a checkerboard fashion in some provinces and not in others. Surely no member of the House would want native organizations to participate in the constitutional conference set out in Part IV, Section 37, Subsection (2) with the prospect of up to three provinces opting out of the agreement achieved at such a meeting. Surely this is tantamount to political blackmail and is at great variance from the good-faith negotiations intended by the House.
On Friday, the Prime Minister indicated that no further changes to the resolution would be accepted, and he indicated that such a position is supported by the participating premiers. That is easy to say and to do, but how does the Prime Minister explain the additions to the resolution that have occurred since November 5?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Before entering into the adjournment proceedings, may I bring to the attention of the House that, pursuant to the order adopted on Friday, November 27, 1981, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is now deemed to have moved the following amendment, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the proposed Constitution Act, 1981 be amended (A) by adding immediately after Section 47 the following new section:
"48. An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada set out in Part II may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only in accordance with the following procedure:
(a)	in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, when so authorized by resolution of a two thirds majority vote in the Senate and House of Commons and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected;
December 1, 1981

(b)	in the provinces, when so authorized in accordance with Section 42 and with the consent of a majority of each of the aboriginal peoples so affected; and
(c)	for the purposes referred to in this section, consent of the aboriginal peoples shall be obtained by a procedure determined by the Government of Canada and the aboriginal peoples of Canada; and
(B) by renumbering the subsequent sections accordingly.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
["A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.\nAt 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Wednesday, December 2, 1981']
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser).


An hon. Member:: He is not here.



J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my reading of the budget paper entitled, "Fiscal Arrangements in the Eighties-Proposals of the Government of Canada" leads me to believe that over the next five years the federal government will reduce its total contributions to the provinces, not in absolute terms but from what they would otherwise be if the existing formula were continued, by about $1,947 million or approximately $1.9 billion, with only Quebec obtaining an increase. In my view this is the net figure after taking into consideration additional provincial revenues of $3,743 million or approximately $3.7 billion which arises from income tax changes.
The new formula proposed by the federal government measures the fiscal capacity of provinces on a much more comprehensive basis by including municipal revenues and natural resource revenues which have to some extent at least been excluded in the past as capital from non-renewable resources. The significant difference in the new formula is that payments would be made to provinces with the capacity to raise revenue which is less than that of Ontario, rather than the national average as it is now. Of course this excludes Ontario from receiving equalization payments and raises the question in my mind that the payments will be less over all than if the national average were used. I am convinced that this is the case when we consider the enormous resource revenues generated in the west. I hope the minister will be able to show me tonight where I am wrong on this point, but at this moment I am not convinced that that is the case.
One point which is clear from the answer I received from the minister in the House is that he intends to discontinue the 1972 revenue guarantees. Thus, no safety net is provided for
Adjournment Debate
the provinces. If Ontario moves into recession, the revenue reductions will be very severe.
Recently we have seen 30-year record levels of unemployment and inflation, declining real wages, the biggest tax burden since the war, the gutting of the rail passenger system, and, in the fiscal arrangements in the eighties paper to which I referred earlier, proposals to reduce the financial commitment to equalization, to health and to post-secondary education. This is the reason I asked the question in the House. With the headlines in the paper today indicating the worst economic slump in 30 years, I am very much afraid that my worst fears are on their way to being realized. I will be absolutely delighted to have the minister prove that I am wrong.
My principal concern at this point is the negative effect which a reduction in transfer payments will have on the Atlantic provinces where a very high percentage of total provincial revenues is obtained from this source. Just slightly under half of the total provincial revenues come in the form of transfer payments from Ottawa. The result would simply be a disaster. The best way to reduce transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces is by an increased commitment to the principle of regional development which would, through the establishment of industrial plants, create more jobs and more taxpayers and thus build an expanded revenue base for the provinces which would eliminate their dependence on transfer payments. In my view this is the positive way to go and the way in which the government should proceed.


Mr. Brian Tobin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to thank the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) for his question. I want to tell the hon. member that I come from a province much like his own, and I too was very concerned and did a fair amount of research upon hearing the terms of the new equalization package. I can tell hon. members that upon doing my homework, I found out the net savings to my own province, Newfoundland, a province which is not unlike the hon. member's, in terms of its financial ability to provide goods and services to its citizens. There was a net gain of $70 million in the first year. In a moment, I will point out the net gain to the hon. member's province.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has put forward a proposal for a generous new system of equalization to cover the five-year period from 1982 to 1987. The proposed new formula is intended to enable the government to continue to carry out the historic purpose of this very important program. This purpose is to make it possible for all provinces to provide a reasonable level of public services at a reasonable level of taxation. The government's commitment to this goal remains as strong as ever.
The proposed new formula would achieve this goal by bringing virtually the whole range of provincial-local revenues from their own sources into the equalization formula, thereby

December 1, 1981
Adjournment Debate
anchoring it to the most comprehensive measure of fiscal capacity ever used in the twenty-five year history of this program. These revenues would be equalized by means of an Ontario standard. As a consequence of that measure, any province that applies average provincial rates of taxation to its own tax bases should be able to provide the same level of public services that Ontario could supply by applying such tax rates to its own tax bases in Ontario.
The projected results of this proposal are set out in a paper attached to the November 12 budget. They show large increases in annual payments under this program. These increases would be approximately $600 million a year, each year over the five-year life of the program, taking it to a level of approximately $7 billion by 1986-87. I want to point out to the hon. member for York-Sunbury that the increase in the case of New Brunswick in 1982-83 is estimated to be more than $90 million, or over 22 per cent. These increases are very large and indicate the government's continuing commitment to the equalization program.
The hon. member for York-Sunbury has asked whether it is the government's intention to achieve savings under its new equalization program. The answer to this question quite simply is no. The government's intention rather is to maintain this program at a level of pay-out that will ensure that it can continue to fulfil its original purpose. The relative amounts that would be paid if the present equalization formula were to be continued are not relevant. As the Minister of Finance has said, the present formula has serious defects and, as a consequence, is no longer compatible with the purpose of the program. Accordingly, the payments that might be paid if the present program were to be continued are no longer relevant.
In closing, I want to assure the hon. member for York-Sunbury, on behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, that the department and the officials of the minister are, indeed, quite willing to sit down with the hon. member at any time to answer any questions or to provide any information regarding the program as announced in the budget.
THE BUDGET-PROVISIONS AFFECTING INCOME-AVERAGING ANNUITIES, (b) REQUEST FOR POSTPONEMENT OF PROVISIONS


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this adjournment debate to try to express a point of view which is probably shared by every Canadian who has worked hard, every Canadian who has attempted to save, and every Canadian who has attempted to use his or her own funds to provide adequately for retirement in what should be some of the best years of one's life.
The budget that was brought down on November 12 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) affects retirement plans, plans that were already in progress, already made and set under the existing rules established by the government that allowed the purchase of income-averaging annuity contracts up to March 2, 1982. These existing rules were completely
ignored. They were wiped out by the November 12 budget. This budget affects the retirement plans of farmers, of small businessmen, of fishermen, of civil servants, of people who save through RRSPs, of people who have contributed years of service to this country in the Armed Forces and who have received severance pay. This budget has taken away the dreams of people who have spent years working at a wage which in many cases was below the average wage in Canada. They felt that by accumulating and acquiring assets and letting their capital appreciate they would be able to provide for their retirement years out of their own funds.
The government and the Minister of Finance have shattered all their dreams. The government has taken away their ability to provide for their retirement years without regard to legislation existing before November 12 and without regard to these people who were trying to save with their own funds.
I have asked questions in the House. The minister says that you can pay your tax forward and save a lot of money. What he is saying now is that Revenue Canada is a savings bank. You cannot save by paying forward 50 per cent of additional income in one year if you are going to continue to have any income at all from investment.
I want to read into the record several letters that I have received. I am doing this for the benefit of the government, the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary. In passing I would just like to comment that I do not expect the Minister of Finance to be here to answer questions on the adjournment debate because he is not here to answer questions during Question Period. But I do expect the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) to be here. As capable as the parliamentary secretary who is here to answer may be, his responsibilities are not to respond to members for his colleague who is given an additional salary to be here. I have some reason to suspect that he is not here by reason of a statement he made which appeared in Hansard. He stated that farmers have the lowest tax rate in Canada. That may be the assumption which the government used in bringing forward this budget.
The first letter I have here concerns a Mr. Wilson of Wiseton, Saskatchewan, who went to the local district taxation office where he was advised that he would be eligible to acquire an income-averaging annuity contract to shelter his unusually high income generated from the sale of his farm assets and grain on hand. All of a sudden, this is not so.
The next letter concerns a widow in the Rosetown area of Saskatchewan. She had a taxable income of less than $10,000. She sold one quarter section of farmland in order to provide for her retirement. However, she finds under this new policy that she now has to pay $30,000 in capital gains.
The third letter is from a family in Neilburg, Saskatchewan. I will read part of this letter into the record as follows:
Because of poor health, I have had to give up most of the work, keeping only a few cattle and hiring custom work or renting out the cropland. Our vacations have been very few. We do not have a cabin at a lake, nor a mobile home, nor boat and motor as some farmers do. Our automobile is a 1966 Chev which we bought used in 1972.
December 1, 1981

The letter continues:
Our land was to be our savings and retirement program.
We sold one quarter section of land in 1980 and are committed to sell one quarter this fall, 1981, and had committed ourselves to sell the last two quarters next year, 1982-
But the government changed the rules in the middle of the game. The letter concludes:
We feel that if the new budget is unfair to even one person, it is not fair at all.
We have another letter from a family in Flaxcombe, Saskatchewan, which reads in part:
This is going to severely penalize all farmers, particularly those who want to keep the farm in the family, for the land will have to be sold to the highest bidder in order to pay the capital gains tax.
Here is another one from Cut Knife, Saskatchewan, which says this man sold his cow herd last spring and his accountant suggested he should purchase income-averaging annuities in December, but now this has changed and his retirement money is going to go to the government.
The reason these people waited to purchase their income averaging annuities, Mr. Speaker, was that they had time under the existing legislation. They were receiving a good interest rate on short-term investment over the last six, eight or ten months so they were not in a hurry because the law was established as far as they were concerned and they would have the ability to purchase these annuities prior to March 2.
A gentleman from Unity, Saskatchewan, rented out his farm, sold all his machinery and grain, because the person taking over would need the storage for his machinery and grain, and received a total of $142,000. He now finds himself liable for $65,000 in net average taxes, whereas if he had purchased a $ 100,000 income-averaging annuity over ten years, his income would have been $23,560, his taxable income $17,000, and he would have had to pay $4,800 in tax.
This budget affects businessmen, farmers, fishermen and retired civil servants. It is not fair, it is not equitable, it is a farce and we should immediately go back to the situation in relation to IAAC which existed prior to November 12. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to tell the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight) that my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to
Adjournment Debate
the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans), I am sure wanted very much to be here tonight to answer these questions. Unfortunately, due to unforeseen circumstances, he was caught out of Ottawa. He is not even in the city this evening. Again, I apologize on his behalf. We thought we should show the courtesy of at least having a representative here on his behalf to answer the questions tonight. In that sense I give you his answer.
I want to tell the hon. member that the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), and indeed the parliamentary secretary, appreciate the concerns of the hon. member regarding the fairness and equity of the budget measures. The measure ending the deduction for income-averaging annuity contracts meets this objective of fairness, particularly when viewed, as it should be, in the context of other budgetary measures to lower tax rates and to introduce a new system of forward incomeaveraging.
I certainly concur with the hon. member's concern regarding the retirement prospects of a farmer or a fisherman or any other Canadian but, in the case of a farmer who has decided to sell his farm as retirement income, it is important to examine the new forward income-averaging system carefully. I think that if the hon. member goes to the numbers and works them through he will find that in many cases an individual can be better off under the new system than under the old system, based on IAACs. The individual will have more cash available under the new system in the year of the sale, for example, to invest or consume as he pleases, and he will have much greater flexibility in future years in timing the recognition of his income for tax purposes.
Of course, it may be that in certain circumstances the transitional rules proposed in the budget may cause undue hardship. In that regard I want to reassure the hon. member, because I know his concern is a genuine one, and re-state what the minister has already stated, that the Department of Finance, the Minister of Finance and his parliamentary secretary will be taking those kinds of situations under very serious consideration and will, of course, be taking very seriously the representations the hon. member has put forward tonight.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow afternoon at two o'clock.
At 10.20 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, December 2, 1981