Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 510

No du dossier de la Cour : 35203

DEVANT LA COUR SUPRME DU CANADA

DANS LAFFAIRE de larticle 53 de la Loi sur la Cour suprme, LRC 1985, c S-26 ; ET DANS LAFFAIRE dun renvoi par le gouverneur en conseil concernant la rforme du snat tel que formul dans le dcret CP 2013-70 er en date du 1 fvrier 2013

DOSSIER DE PREUVE DE LA FDRATION DES COMMUNAUTS FRANCOPHONES ET ACADIENNE DU CANADA

ME MARK C POWER ME JENNIFER KLINCK ME PERRI RAVON HEENAN BLAIKIE SENCRL, SRL Avocats 55, rue Metcalfe Bureau 300 Ottawa (Ontario) K1L 6L5 Tlphone : 613-236-1668 Tlcopieur : 613-236-9632 Courriel : mpower@heenan.ca Procureurs de la Fdration des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada

ME SBASTIEN GRAMMOND, ADE Courriel : sgrammon@uottawa.ca Avocat conseil de la Fdration des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada

AU : REGISTRAIRE DE LA COUR SUPRME DU CANADA ET : Robert J Frater Ministre de la Justice du Canada 234, rue Wellington, tour de lest Bureau 1161 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A OH8 Tlphone : 613-957-4763 Tlcopieur : 613-954-1920 Courriel : robert.frater@justice.gc.ca Avocats du procureur gnral du Canada Christopher Rupar Ministre de la Justice du Canada 234, rue Wellington, tour de lest Bureau 1161 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A OH8 Tlphone : 613-957-4763 Tlcopieur : 613-954-1920 Courriel : christopher.rupar@justice.gc.ca Correspondants du procureur gnral du Canada

John J L Hunter, cr Hunter Litigation Chambers Law Corporation 1040, rue Georgia Ouest Bureau 2100 Vancouver (Colombie-Britannique) V6E 4H1 Tlphone : 604-891-2401 Tlcopieur : 604-647-4554 Courriel : jhunter@litigationchambers.com Amicus curiae

Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy, srl 397, rue Gladstone Bureau 100 Ottawa (Ontario) K2P 0Y9

Tlphone : 613-695-8855 Tlcopieur : 613-695-8580 Courriel : mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca Correspondants de lAmicus curia

Daniel Jutras Universit McGill 3644, rue Peel Montreal (Qubec) H3A 1W9

Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy, srl 397, rue Gladstone Bureau 100 Ottawa (Ontario) K2P 0Y9 Tlphone : 613-695-8855 Tlcopieur : 613-695-8580 Courriel : mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca Correspondants de lAmicus curia

Tlphone : 514-398-6604 Tlcopieur : 514-398-4659 Courriel : daniel.jutras@mcgill.ca Amicus curiae

Me Jean-Yves Bernard Bernard, Roy & Associs 8.00-1, rue Notre-Dame Est Montral (Qubec) H2Y 1B6 Tlphone : 514-393-2336 Tlcopieur : 514-878-7074 Courriel : jean-yves.bernard@justice.gouv.ca Me Marise Visocchi Me Robert Desroches Me Jean-Franois Beaupr Me Marise-Catherine Bolduc Ministre de la Justice Direction de droit public e 1200, route de lglise, 2 tage Qubec (Qubec) G1V 4M1 Tlphone : 418-643-1477 Tlcopieur : 418-644-7030 Avocats du Procureur gnral du Qubec

Pierre Landry Nol et Associs 111, rue Champlain Gatineau (Qubec) V6C 2G8 Tlphone : 819-771-7393 Tlcopieur : 819-771-5397 Courriel : p.landry@noelassocies.com Correspondants du procureur gnral du Qubec

Robert Houston, cr Burke-Robertson 441, rue MacLaren Bureau 200 Ottawa (Ontario) K2P 2H3 Tlphone : 613-566-2058 Tlcopieur : 613-235-4430 Courriel : rhouston@burkerobertson.com Correspondants des procureurs gnraux de la Colombie-Britannique, de lOntario et de TerreNeuve et du Labrador

Henry S Brown, cr Gowling Lafleur Henderson, srl 160, rue Elgin Bureau 2600 Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 1C3 Tlphone : 613-786-0139 Tlcopieur : 613-563-9869 Courriel : henry.brown@gowlings.com Correspondants des procureurs gnraux de lAlberta, de la Saskatchewan, du Manitoba, du Nouveau-Brunswick, de lle-du-Princedouard, de la Nouvelle-cosse et des ministres de la justice des Territoires du NordOuest et du Nunavut Christian E Michaud Serge Rousselle Cox & Palmer 644, rue Main, bureau 500 Moncton (Nouveau-Brunswick) E1C 1E2 Tlphone : 506-856-9800 Tlcopieur : 506-856-8150 Courriel : cmichaud@coxandpalmer.ca Procureurs de lintervenante, la Socit de lAcadie du Nouveau Brunswick Inc Perri Ravon HEENAN BLAIKIE SENCRL, SRL 55, rue Metcalfe Bureau 300 Ottawa (Ontario) K1L 6L5 Tlphone : 613-236-1668 Tlcopieur : 613-236-9632 Courriel : pravon@heenan.ca Correspondants de lintervenante, la Socit de lAcadie du Nouveau Brunswick Inc

Lhonorable snateur Serge Joyal 250, difice de lEst Parlement du Canada K1A 0A4 Tlphone : 613-943-0434 Tlcopieur : 613-943-0441 Courriel : joyals@sen.parl.gc.ca Intervenant, Lhonorable snateur Serge Joyal

Nicholas Peter McHaffle Stikeman Elliott srl 1600 50, rue OConnor Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 6L2 Tlphone : 613-566-0546 Tlcopieur : 613-230-8877 Courriel : nmchaffle@stikeman.com Procureurs de lintervenante, lhonorable snatrice Anne C Cools

TABLE DES MATIRES Onglet A B C Rapport de la professeure Linda Cardinal Curriculum vitae de la professeure Linda Cardinal Prime Ministers meeting with attachments Memorandum for the Prime Minister Report on Constitutional Negotiation, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 406) Memorandum for the Prime Minister Details of proposed CCMC and FMC position on the Senate, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 406) Lettre Finlay McDonald (17 juillet 1935), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, vol 684 la p 420011) Diverses lettres, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, vol 684 aux pp 419975-78 ; 41998081 ; 419987-91 ; 419998-420000 ; 420011 ; 420014 ; 420028) Lettre au Premier ministre (30 dcembre 1886), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C1780, volume 432 la p 213016) Lettre de Pascal Poirier Sir John A. Macdonald, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C1493, vol 19 aux pp 6935-6938)
er

Page 1 69 99

144

175

176

193

194

Lettre au Premier ministre (28 avril 1922) et rponse J. J. Denis (1 mai, 1922), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-2244, vol 72, aux pp 6137361374) Lettre J. J. Cameron (20 septembre 1932), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, volume 684 la p 420270) Mmorandum pour Robert Rabinovitch (13 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12) Mmorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E. MacDonald (22 mai 1979), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 10)

198

200

201

209

Report of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution to First Ministers, Senate, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (RG11344, vol 407) Projet de loi sur la rforme constitutionnelle, 1978, Document explicatif Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 1) Mmorandum pour le Premier ministre (15 septembre 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12) Lettre au Premier ministre (10 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12) Briefing book for clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed resolution (Book II) (janvier 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 406, dossiers 7, 8 et 9) Forsey, E.A. - Notes on the Ryan Proposals, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (R4447, vol 67, dossier 3) Meeting of Officials on the Constitution: Collation of documents, January 11 and 12, 1979, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 407) Article de lAcadie Nouvelle : lection des snateurs: Robichaud propose des balises pour protger les Acadiens, Mathieu Roy-Comeau, 13 novembre 2012 Acte pour changer la Constitution du Conseil lgislatif et le rendre lectif, LPC 1856, 19 & 20 Vict, c 140 An Act to change the Constitution of the Legislative Council, by rendering the same Elective, SPC 1856, 19 & 20 Vict, c 140

219

223

255

294

297

421

429

469

470

An Act to change the constitution of the Legislative Council, by rendering the same elective, SPEI 1862, 25 Vict, c 18

497

Table des matires Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2 Chapitre 1 : En quoi la question de la reprsentation rgionale ainsi que le fait que les snateurs soient nomms et non lus, taient-ils des lments majeurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? ................................................................................................ 8 Chapitre 2 : Existe-t-il, au Canada, une tradition de nomination de snateurs provenant des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC), des Autochtones encore des femmes ? .................................................................................................................... 13 Chapitre 3 : Quel a t lapport politique des snateurs provenant des CFC ? ................ 31 Chapitre 4 : Pouvons-nous affirmer que la tradition de nommer des snateurs des CFC tait connue des acteurs impliqus dans les discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ? .............................................................................................. 51 Chapitre 5 : La possibilit de transformer le Snat en organe lu a-t-elle t considre au moment des discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ainsi que ses effets sur la reprsentation des CFC ? ................................................................. 53 Chapitre 6 : Sur le plan des principes de la science politique, est-ce quun mcanisme dlection des snateurs lchelle des provinces, tel que celui qui est envisag par le projet de loi C-7, est susceptible daffecter la reprsentation des groupes minoritaires au Snat ? .............................................................................................................................. 60

Introduction Lobjectif principal du prsent rapport est dexaminer les consquences du projet de loi C-7, Loi concernant la slection des snateurs et modifiant la loi constitutionnelle de 1867 relativement la limitation de la dure du mandat des snateurs sur la reprsentation politique des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC) 1 au Snat canadien . Dpos la Chambre des communes le 21 juin 2011, le projet prvoit, notamment : un cadre lgislatif que les provinces et les territoires sont invits dicter afin de permettre aux lecteurs de choisir les candidats snatoriaux quils prfrent. Le premier ministre serait tenu, lorsquil recommanderait la nomination de candidats snatoriaux au gouverneur gnral, de prendre en compte la liste de 2 candidats prsente par une province ou un territoire . tat des lieux et mthodologie La problmatique de la reprsentation politique des CFC comprend deux dimensions : i) la reprsentation descriptive des CFC au sein des institutions, et ii) la prise en compte de leurs proccupations dans le domaine des politiques publiques. Les 3 tudes et analyses dans ces deux domaines sont de plus en plus importantes . Elles sinscrivent aussi dans des dbats plus larges au plan international sur la question de la participation effective des minorits la vie publique ainsi que sur leur capacit sautodterminer. Dans lensemble, les chercheurs canadiens et internationaux saccordent dire que la reprsentation politique des minorits linguistiques et nationales

PL C-7, Loi concernant la slection des snateurs et modifiant la re loi constitutionnelle de 1867 e relativement la limitation de la dure du mandat des snateurs, 1 sess, 41 parl, 2011. La loi a t dpose en premire lecture la Chambre des communes le 21 juin 2011 par lhonorable Tim Uppal, ministre dtat (Rforme dmocratique). 2 Andr Barnes et al, La rforme du Snat du Canada : Foire aux questions, Ottawa, Bibliothque du Parlement, 2011 la p 13. 3 Pour un tat des lieux dans le domaine des travaux sur les CFC, voir le premier numro de la revue Minorits et socits, paru en 2012, en particulier, Linda Cardinal, Lautonomie des minorits francophones hors Qubec au regard du dbat sur les minorits nationales et les minorits ethniques (2012) 1 : 1 Minorits linguistiques et socit 51. Voir aussi Johanne Poirier, Au-del des droits linguistiques et du fdralisme classique : favoriser lautonomie institutionnelle des francophonies minoritaires au Canada , dans Joseph Yvon Thriault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal, dir, Lespace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montral, Fides, 2008, 513; et, sur le plan international, Kristin Henrard , Participation, Representation and Autonomy in the Lund Recommandations and its Reflections in the Supervision of the FNCM and Several Human Rights Conventions (2005) 12 : 2-3 International Journal on Minority and Group Rights 133; Rapport de la Commission royale denqute sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme, Introduction gnrale, livre I, Ottawa, Imprimeur de la Reine, 1967 (Prsidents: Andr Laurendeau et A Davidson Dunton). Pour un point de vue historique au sujet de la representation politique des Acadiens, voir Philippe Doucet, La politique et les Acadiens dans Jean Daigle, dir, LAcadie des Maritimes, Centre dtudes acadiennes (Universit de Moncton), 1993, 299.

contribue 4 leur lgitimit et leur dveloppement identitaire ainsi qu la cohsion sociale . La reprsentation descriptive des CFC dans les institutions Au Canada, les chercheurs ont inscrit lenjeu de la reprsentation5 politique des CFC dans le cadre des dbats sur le fdralisme et la question des droits . Le fdralisme canadien se caractrise par la division des pouvoirs entre le gouvernement fdral et ceux des provinces et des territoires. Par contre, plus quun principe administratif, le fdralisme canadien se dfinit aussi par sa dimension culturelle ainsi que les droits des 6 minorits de langue officielle (franais et anglais) . Ainsi compris, le fdralisme canadien prend appui la fois sur les provinces et la dualit linguistique. Ce fdralisme des provinces et des cultures a aussi influenc la reprsentation de la dmocratie au Canada. En effet, comment garantir la reprsentation relle ou effective de la dualit linguistique au sein des institutions politiques ? Cette question est dbattue, au Canada, depuis ses dbuts. Comme nous le verrons dans ce rapport, les CFC, en tant que communaut dintrts, dhistoire et de 7 culture, ont aussi toujours exig dtre reprsentes dans les institutions du pays . La question de leur reprsentation politique fait partie de leurs proccupations. Au Canada, les rponses apportes la question de la reprsentation politique ont donn lieu une interprtation distincte du principe dgalit de reprsentation. En partie grce au fdralisme, lide dgalit na jamais t assimile uniquement au principe 8 populaire. La dualit linguistique ne pouvait pas tre rduite une question de nombres . Elle a t conjugue avec le principe dquit, comme en tmoigne aussi le traitement accord la reprsentation des provinces moins populeuses au sein des institutions politiques. Comme le suggre Pierre Foucher, [p]lus fondamental encore que la simple reconnaissance de droits linguistiques, la dualit canadienne a besoin dune expression politique dans les institutions pour exprimer la ralit francophone dans les politiques

Clive Baldwin, Chris Chapman et Zo Grey, Droit des minorits : cl pour la prvention des conflits, London, Minority Rights Group International, 2007, 52 pages. Pour le Canada, voir les contributions des philosophes Will Kymlicka, La citoyennet multiculturelle. Une thorie librale du droit des minorits, Montral, Boral, 2001 et Charles Taylor, Rapprocher les solitudes, Qubec, Les Presses de lUniversit Laval, 1992. 5 Linda Cardinal, dir, Le fdralisme asymtrique et les minorits nationales et linguistiques, Sudbury, Prise de parole, 2008. 6 David E Smith a rcemment rappel ses deux dimensions essentielles du fdralisme canadien dans son ouvrage Federalism and the Constitution of Canada, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2010 et Paul Romney, Getting it Wrong: How Canadians Forgot Their Past and Imperilled Confederation, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1999. 7 Linda Cardinal, Gouvernance linguistique et dmocratie : la participation des minorits de langue officielle la vie publique au Canada (2006) 2 : 2 Gouvernance 39. 8 Voir Rache c Canada (PG), 2004 CF 679; Renvoi : Circ lectorales provinciales (Sask), [1991] 2 RCS 158.

nationales et limpact de ces politiques sur les communauts acadiennes . Dans le cadre du prsent rapport, ltude de lincidence du projet de loi C-7 10 sur la reprsentation des minorits francophones au Snat fera cho cette exigence . De fait, ds 1871, des 11 snateurs provenant des CFC ont t nomms au Snat . Depuis les annes 1960, la volont des premiers ministres de moderniser linstitution a donn lieu plusieurs propositions de rformes, incluant celle de renforcer la reprsentation des CFC en son 12 sein . Or, le projet de loi C-7 pourrait miner une telle avance. La reprsentation des proccupations des CFC De nombreux travaux sur la reprsentation politique reconnaissent aussi que les CFC ont13 des proccupations qui exigent une attention particulire en raison de leur contexte . En effet, ce sont des communauts vivant en situation minoritaire partout au pays. Elles ont des besoins spcifiques qui exigent une intervention formelle de la part des pouvoirs publics. Le Canada sest dot14 dun rgime linguistique qui reconnat cette exigence. La Loi sur les langues officielles contient des dispositions qui portent spcifiquement sur lobligation du gouvernement canadien de prendre des 15 mesures positives afin de voir lpanouissement et au dveloppement des CFC . Ainsi, en plus de la question de la reprsentation des CFC dans les institutions politiques, force est de reconnatre que les francophones ont aussi des besoins particuliers qui doivent tre pris en compte au moment de la formulation des politiques publiques. Au Canada, le Snat reprsente un lieu idal pour tudier ces besoins comme en tmoignent les nombreuses contributions des snateurs francophones depuis la fondation du pays. Nous y reviendrons plus loin dans le rapport.
9

Pierre Foucher, The Canadian Senate: What is to be Done? , dans Proceedings of The National Conference on Senate Reform, May 5-6, 1988, Panel 1: Regional Aspirations, Edmonton, Centre for Constitutional Studies, 1989, 28 la p 30. 10 F A Kunz, The modern Senate of Canada, 1925-1963: a re-appraisal, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1963; Kenneth J Munro, Le snat : une institution importante pour la francophonie albertaine , onzime Colloque annuel du CEFCO, 1991; Louis Massicotte, Possible Repercussions of an Elected Senate on Official Language Minorities in Canada , Rapport prpar pour le Commissaire aux langues officielles du Canada, Washington, 2007. Linda Cardinal dresse un bilan de la reprsentation des francophones au Snat dans les travaux suivants : La participation des minorits francophones hors Qubec la vie politique au Canada : comment combler le dficit dmocratique ? , dans Joseph Yvon Thriault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal, dir, Lespace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montral, Fids, 2008, 385; Linda Cardinal, Vie politique et francophonie , dans Joseph Yvon Thriault, dir, La francophonie en milieu minoritaire. Un tat des lieux, Moncton, ditions de lAcadie, 1999, ch 15, 325. Voir galement Foucher, supra note 9. 11 Voir le tableau 1 ci-dessous. 12 Prime Ministers meeting with attachments Memorandum for the Prime Minister Report on Constitutional negotiation, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, R11344, vol 406 [Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister (Onglet C)] et Memorandum for the Prime Minister Details of proposed CCMC and FHC position on the Senate, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, R11344, vol 406 [Watts Memo for the Prime Minister (Onglet D)]. 13 Pour une synthse e de ces travaux, Thriault, Gilbert et Cardinal, supra note 3. 14 LRC 1985, c 31 (4 supp). 15 Linda Cardinal, New Approaches for the Empowerment of Linguistic Minorities: Policy Innovations in Canada in the 1990s , dans Colin Williams, dir, Language and Governance in Comparative Perspective, Cardiff, Wales University Press 2007, 434 [Cardinal, New Approaches ].

Organisation du rapport Le rapport16 proposera une conceptualisation socio-historique de la reprsentation des CFC au Snat . Cette approche nous permettra de dgager certaines tendances en ce qui a trait la question de la reprsentation des CFC au Snat sur la longue dure. Grce la combinaison des sources primaires et secondaires existantes, nous pourrons galement jeter un nouvel clairage sur lincidence de la prsente rforme propose sur les CFC. Lanalyse permettra au lecteur dapprcier limportance que revt le projet de loi C-7 au sein des CFC. Le rapport comprendra six sections, chacune prsentant les rsultats des recherches relatives aux questions suivantes : 1. En quoi la question de la reprsentation rgionale ainsi que le fait que les snateurs soient nomms et non lus, taient-ils des lments majeurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? 2. Existe-t-il, au Canada, une tradition de nommer des snateurs provenant des CFC, des Premires nations ou encore des femmes ? 3. Quel a t lapport politique des snateurs issus des CFC ? 4. Pouvons-nous affirmer que la tradition de nommer des snateurs des CFC tait connue des acteurs impliqus dans les discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi 17 constitutionnelle de 1982 ? 5. La possibilit de transformer le Snat en organe lu a-t-elle t considre au moment des discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ainsi que ses effets sur la reprsentation des CFC ? 6. Sur le plan des principes de la science politique, est-ce quun mcanisme dlection des snateurs lchelle des provinces, tel que celui qui est envisag par le projet de loi C-7, est susceptible daffecter la reprsentation des groupes minoritaires au Snat ? Pour rpondre aux trois premires questions, nous avons puis dans les archives de lpoque de la fondation du Snat et les dbats parlementaires. Nous avons rpondu aux questions quatre et cinq en nous appuyant galement sur des sources primaires. Enfin, la rponse la question six a t effectue partir de sources secondaires. Aux fins de ce rapport, lexpression communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC) sera utilise pour dsigner les Canadiennes et les Canadiens dexpression franaise qui vivent lextrieur du Qubec. Les CFC ont un lien historique avec le Qubec, mais leur ralit est distincte et doit tre prise en compte dans sa spcificit. Ainsi, les Acadiennes et les Acadiens forment une communaut historique particulire et sont prsents dans chacune des provinces des Maritimes. louest du Qubec, les francophones sont venus de partout afin de peupler lOntario, les Prairies et
Kunz, supra note 10; Robert A MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1963 [Mackay]; David E Smith, Ladaptation possible du Snat, sans avoir rformer la Constitution dans Serge Joyal, dir, Protger la dmocratie canadienne : le Snat en vrit..., Montral, McGill-Queens University Press, 2003, 246. 17 Constituant lannexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada (R-U), 1982, c 11.
16

la Colombie-Britannique sans oublier les territoires. Ensemble, les CFC et le Qubec forment le Canada francophone daujourdhui, constitu de francophones et francophiles de diverses origines ayant tiss, depuis leur arrive au pays, un ensemble de liens et de rseaux permettant dassurer la prennit du franais en terre dAmrique. Il nexiste pas de dfinition statistique prcise ou de critre unique pour 18 dterminer qui est un francophone au Canada . Dans ce rapport, est francophone toute personne ayant le franais comme premire langue officielle parle et encore 19 comprise . Selon les rsultats du recensement de 2011, 1 067 580 des 7 691 705 Canadiennes et Canadiens ayant 20 le franais comme premire langue officielle parle sont des francophones hors Qubec . Ces derniers constituent 14,6 % des francophones du Canada et 4,0 % de la population canadienne totale. Nanmoins, la catgorie utilise pour dnombrer le nombre de francophones nest pas exclusive. Dautres Canadiennes et Canadiens nayant pas le franais comme premire langue officielle parle peuvent aussi sidentifier comme francophones. Les francophones hors Qubec et les anglophones du Qubec sont aussi considrs, au Canada, comme des communauts de langue officielle en situation minoritaire . Bien que le terme soit parfois employ dans ce rapport et dans dautres travaux portant sur les minorits linguistiques au Canada, les anglophones du Qubec ne constituent pas lobjet central de cette analyse, qui se concentre principalement sur les francophones hors Qubec ou les CFC. Enfin, le tableau 1 montre que les CFC sont rpartis sur le territoire canadien de faon ingale. Selon les donnes de 2011, les trois quarts des francophones hors Qubec vivent en Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick. Des CFC se trouvent galement dans les autres provinces atlantiques, dans lOuest, en Colombie-Britannique ainsi que dans les territoires. lextrieur du Qubec, le Nouveau-Brunswick compte le plus important pourcentage de francophones, soit 32,5 %. Pour sa part, lOntario comprend, en nombre absolu, le plus grand nombre de francophones, soit 542 390, hors Qubec. Tableau 1 : Effectif et proportion, par province et territoire, de la population hors Qubec dont le franais est la premire langue officielle parle en 2011 Province/Territoire Alberta Colombie-Britannique le-du-Prince-douard Manitoba Nouveau-Brunswick
18

Nombre 71 730 62 195 4 810 41 364 235 695

Pourcentage 2,0 1,4 3,5 3,5 31,9

Statistique Canada, Le franais et la francophonie au Canada : Langue, Recensement de la population de 2011, Ottawa, Ministre de lIndustrie, 2012 la p 1. Pour la premire fois, en 2011, des questions concernant la langue ont t incluses dans le formulaire obligatoire du recensement, distribu 100 % de la population. 19 Ibid la p 1. 20 Ibid aux pp 2 et 3.

Nouvelle-cosse Nunavut Ontario Saskatchewan Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador Territoires du Nord-Ouest Yukon

30 330 480 542 390 14 290 2 100 1 080 1 485

3,3 1,5 4,3 1,4 0,4 2,6 4,4

Source : Statistique Canada, Le franais et la francophonie au Canada : Langue, Recensement de la population de 2011, Ottawa, Ministre de lIndustrie, 2012 aux pp 2-3.

Avis dexpert de Christopher P. Manfredi Nous avons pris connaissance de lavis de Christopher P. 21 Manfredi dpos dans le cadre du renvoi sur le Snat devant la Cour dappel du Qubec . Nous sommes davis que : Laffirmation de la part de Manfredi, selon laquelle la reprsentation des Autochtones et des femmes est un phnomne rcent, nenlve rien au fait que celle des CFC est tablie depuis longtemps, ce quil omet de souligner. Mme si Manfredi considre que les minorits censes tre protges en 1867 nincluaient pas les CFC, conclusion que nous rejetons par ailleurs, il est clair, comme nous le verrons ci-dessous, que ce rle tait bien tabli en 1982, et que les rdacteurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ont pu tenir compte de ce rle en concevant la formule de modification de la Constitution. Manfredi na pas porter de jugement sur ce qui constitue la protection la plus efficace des intrts des CFC. Laction durable de la Fdration des 22 communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) cet gard constitue une meilleure preuve et un exemple plus tangible que ce que Manfredi peut offrir. Les propos de Manfredi napportent aucun clairage susceptible de modifier notre tude et nos analyses.

Cour dappel du Qubec, greffe de Montral, n 500-09-022626-121, rapport dat de mai 2013. Voir notamment Rapport du comit politique de la Fdration des francophones hors Qubec, Pour ne plus tre...sans pays, Fdration des francophones hors Qubec, Ottawa, 1979; Fdration des communauts francophones et acadienne, Btir ensemble lAvenir du Canada Les Communauts francophones et acadiennes et le projet de rforme du fdralisme canadien, Ottawa, 17 dcembre 1991.
22

21

Chapitre 1 : En quoi la question de la reprsentation rgionale ainsi que le fait que les snateurs soient nomms et non lus, taient-ils des lments majeurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? Selon Ajzenstat, lors des rencontres en vue de la cration de la Confdration, la reprsentation des 23composantes de la fdration la Chambre haute est un des sujets les plus controverss . En effet, la question de la structure et des attributs de la Chambre haute a t au cur des dbats. Presque la moiti des rencontres en vue de ladoption des 24 Rsolutions de Qubec ont port sur le sujet . Parmi les enjeux dbattus, il y avait, notamment, la question de la reprsentation rgionale et le mode de slection des snateurs. La reprsentation rgionale lpoque, la crainte tait grande au sein de certaines dlgations, en particulier celle du Bas-Canada, que la reprsentation des entits fdres ne soit pas respectueuse de lquilibre entre les intrts des constituants, en particulier, ceux du Bas-Canada ou de la future province du Qubec compose, en 1867, comme ce jour, dune population prdominance francophone. En effet, les ngociateurs du Bas-Canada craignaient que la population anglophone, en raison de son poids dmographique lchelle du futur pays, crase la reprsentation des francophones au sein de la Chambre des 25 communes et limite son pouvoir dinfluence au sein des nouvelles institutions fdrales . Les Canadiens franais semblaient bien comprendre que le principe numrique de la reprsentation daprs la population, quils avaient accept dans le cas de la Chambre basse, ntait pas leur avantage. Il fallait donc trouver un compromis afin de les rassurer et de protger leurs intrts. Les Pres de la Confdration vont crer un mcanisme favorable au maintien dune prsence francophone importante au sein du nouveau Parlement, soit la mise en place dune Chambre haute. La cration de cette Chambre haute reposera sur le principe de lgalit de reprsentation. Elle servira limiter les effets nfastes dune reprsentation politique uniquement fonde sur la population. Le Bas-Canada aura ainsi une reprsentation fixe et garantie pour compenser sa faiblesse numrique. Limportance symbolique et politique de ce compromis est indniable. Comme lexplique Ajzenstat, [i]l nest pas excessif de dire que le sort de la Confdration sest 26 jou sur la question de la reprsentation rgionale la Chambre haute . George
Janet Ajzenstat, Le bicamralisme et les architectes du Canada dans Serge Joyal, dir, Protger la dmocratie canadienne : le Snat en vrit... , Montral, McGill-Queens University Press, 2003, 3 la p 16. 24 ric Montigny et Rjean Pelletier, Le pouvoir lgislatif : le Snat et laeChambre des communes dans Rjean Pelletier et Manon Tremblay, dir, Le parlementarisme canadien, 3 d, Qubec, Presses de lUniversit Laval, 2005, 273, note 12 la p 277; voir galement Andr Bernard, Les institutions politiques au Qubec et au Canada, Montral, Boral, 1995. 25 Ajzenstat, supra note 23 la p 16. 26 Ajzenstat, supra note 23 la p 17.
23

27

Brown , un des Pres de la Confdration, reprsentant du Haut-Canada et principal adepte de la reprsentation daprs la population parle de concession . Concder la reprsentation daprs la population pour les Canadiens franais ne devait pas tre associ un jeu somme nulle. Il en allait du sort de la nouvelle Constitution natre. Selon Brown, [n]os amis du Bas-Canada nous ont concd la reprsentation daprs la population qu la condition expresse quils auraient lgalit [au Snat]. Ce sont l les seuls termes possibles darrangement et, pour ma part, je les ai accepts de bonne volont. Du moment que lon conserve les limites actuelles des provinces et que lon donne des corps locaux ladministration des affaires locales, on reconnat jusqu un certain point une diversit dintrts et la raison pour les provinces moins populeuses de demander la protection de leurs intrts par 28 lgalit de reprsentation dans la chambre haute . Sir John A. Macdonald, qui expliquait laccord sur la reprsentation devant lAssemble lgislative de la province du Canada affirmait aussi, que [n]ous sommes tombs daccord quil fallait dans la constitution de la chambre basse lui donner pour base le principe de la reprsentation daprs le chiffre de la population; lapplication de ce principe se trouve pleinement dveloppe dans ces rsolutions. Lorsque je dis reprsentation base sur le chiffre de la population, je prie la chambre de ne pas croire que le suffrage universel ait t en quoi que ce soit sanctionn par la confrence comme le principe constitutif de cette branche populaire. Afin de protger les intrts locaux de chaque province, nous avons jug ncessaire de donner aux trois grandes divisions de lAmrique Britannique du Nord une reprsentation gale dans la 29 chambre haute, car chacune de ces divisions aura des intrts diffrents . Macdonald souhaitait que le Parlement fdral soit une entit permettant la fois la reprsentation populaire bien que le suffrage universel ne fasse pas consensus lpoque , et la reprsentation de la diversit des intrts selon les rgions. Au cur de la diversit de ces intrts, il y avait la reconnaissance des proccupations des Canadiens franais, notamment, ceux du Bas-Canada. Par contre, la question des intrts minoritaires na jamais t limite aux seuls intrts des Canadiens franais du Qubec. Les CFC font galement partie de la diversit des intrts minoritaires qui ont t pris en compte lpoque, notamment lors de lentre des provinces de lOuest au sein de la Confdration. Comme nous le verrons plus loin, des snateurs francophones ont t nomms pour reprsenter ces provinces et les CFC desquelles ils provenaient. Parmi les
George Brown (1818-1880) est un Canadien dorigine cossaise qui sest fait lardent dfenseur dun Snat nomm. Il a t lu dput dans la Province du Canada en 1851 et a t nomm snateur en 1873. Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 28 Province du Canada, Assemble lgislative, Dbats sur la question de la Confdration e parlementaires e des provinces de lAmrique britannique du Nord, 8 parl, 3 sess la p 87 [Province du Canada, Dbats parlementaires ]. 29 Ibid la p 35.
27

10

intrts minoritaires, mentionnons aussi ceux des minorits religieuses, des personnes plus fortunes et des voix dissidentes. Le Snat protgera leurs intrts, mme sil ny a pas de dispositions explicites leur intention dans le projet de constitution. Comme le rappelait la Cour suprme en 1998 dans le Renvoi relatif la scession du Qubec, la Constitution 30 canadienne repose notamment sur le principe non crit de la protection des minorits . Enfin, la Constitution a t considre comme un grand gage 31 de confiance entre les deux grandes communauts linguistiques. En effet, John Rose , dput montralais lpoque, dclarait que [d]ans lhistoire des deux races, ladoption de ce projet sera le gage de leur confiance mutuelle et inaltrable. Cette rciprocit est remarquable, et la postrit se rappellera avec orgueil lpoque o lune 32 des races nhsitait pas confier sa sret et ses intrts lhonneur de lautre . Rose avait bien compris la porte symbolique du compromis qui venait dtre accept par les Canadiens franais au moment de ladoption de lActe de lAmrique du 33 Nord britannique . Les deux grandes communauts linguistiques aspiraient lgalit entre elles, mais elles allaient fonder leur reprsentation sur un principe dquit ou de rciprocit. Grce ce compromis fondamental sur la nature de la reprsentation, notamment celle du Bas-Canada, les deux grands peuples ont russi sentendre sur un pacte qui les liera lun envers lautre pour lavenir. Plus de 100 ans aprs le pacte original, le snateur Gildas Molgat et le dput Mark MacGuigan rappelaient, dans le cadre de leurs travaux pour le Comit mixte spcial du Snat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada, ce qui semblait tre devenu une vidence, 34 soit que le Snat avait t cr, notamment, pour reprsenter les intrts des rgions . En 1979, le compromis de 1867 sur la Chambre haute rvlait aussi tout son sens dans le Renvoi : Comptence du Parlement relativement la Chambre haute. Dans ce renvoi, la Cour suprme du Canada affirmait qu [u]n but primordial de linstitution du Snat, en tant que partie du systme lgislatif fdral, tait donc dassurer la protection des divers intrts rgionaux au Canada quant ladoption de la lgislation 35 fdrale . Ces intrts rgionaux taient troitement associs au fdralisme des cultures ou au biculturalisme inhrent au pacte initial.

[1998] 2 RCS 217 au para 79 et s. John Rose (1820-1888), un Pre de la Confdration, a t dput de Montral-Centre lAssemble lgislative de la Province du Canada de 1857 jusqu lUnion et occupa plusieurs postes au Conseil des ministres (Cabinet). Il fut notamment dlgu la Confrence de Londres en 1867. Il fut ensuite dput la Chambre des communes pendant deux ans. Voir Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 32 Province du Canada, Dbats parlementaires, supra note 28 la p 412. 33 Maintenant Loi constitutionnelle de 1867, (R-U), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, reproduite dans LRC 1985, ann II, n 5. 34 Comit spcial du Snat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada, Rapport e mixte e final , 4 sess, 28 parl, 1972 la p 33 [Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan]. 35 (1979), [1980] 1 RCS 54 la p 68.
31

30

10

11

Le mode de slection des snateurs Lautre lment important de la structure du Snat qui a fait lobjet de longs dbats parmi les Pres de la Confdration est le mode de slection des snateurs. Bien que la structure parlementaire canadienne ait t largement inspire par le modle du Parlement de Westminster, les Pres de la Confdration ont tudi plusieurs modes de dsignation.
36 37

Rappelons qu lpoque, la Province du Canada et lle-du-Prince-douard 38 possdaient des Chambres hautes respectives fondes sur le principe lectif . Le concept dun rgime parlementaire bicamral comprenant deux chambres lues ntait donc pas tranger des Pres de la Confdration. Toutefois, ces derniers considraient que lexprience dune Chambre haute lue avait t dcevante. Elle ne suscitait pas 39 denthousiasme suffisant pour doter le futur Parlement fdral dun Snat lu . ce sujet, John A. MacDonald affirmait que : Je ne me cache pas que les raisons que lon donne lappui du principe oppos sont fortes et nombreuses; je les apprcie dautant mieux que jai fait partie du ministre qui a introduit le principe lectif en Canada. Cependant, sans prtendre que notre tentative nait pas t couronne de succs, je dois dire que 40 plusieurs raisons lont empch de russir autant que nous nous y attendions . Parmi les Pres de la Confdration, Brown sopposait de faon non quivoque llection des snateurs. Il parlait contre leur lection par le peuple. Comme il lexplique : [o]n a dit que la couronne ne devrait pas nommer les membres de la chambre haute, mais que leur lection devrait tre laisse au peuple. Mon opinion est assez connue sur cette question. Je me suis toujours dclar ladversaire dune seconde chambre lective, et je le suis encore, persuad que deux chambres constitues de la mme manire sont incompatibles avec les principes de la constitution anglaise. Jai vot presque seul lorsque le conseil fut rendu lectif, mais jai pu me convaincre quun grand nombre des partisans de ce dernier systme avaient 41 regrett une pareille mesure . Entre autres, lpoque, le Canada ne possdait pas une aristocratie comme ctait le cas en Grande-Bretagne. Le modle de la Chambre des lords, o sigeaient les nobles du royaume, comporterait des limites videntes dans le contexte canadien. Voici dailleurs ce que John A. Macdonald avait dire ce sujet :

Voir Acte pour changer la Constitution du Conseil lgislatif et le rendre lectif, LPC 1856, 19 & 20 Vict, c 140 (Onglet U). 37 Voir An Act to change the constitution of the Legislative Council, by rendering the same elective, LPEI 1862, 25 Vict, c 18 (Onglet V). 38 Voir Ajzenstat, supra note 23 la p 13. 39 Ibid. 40 Canada, Dbats parlementaires, supra note 28 la p 87. Pour plus de dtails sur lexprience du Canada-Uni et de lle-du-Prince-douard ce niveau, voir Michel Morin, Llection des membres de la Chambre haute du Canada-Uni, 1856-1967 (1994) 35 C d D 23. 41 Canada, Dbats parlementaires, supra note 28 la p 87.

36

11

12

[u]ne chambre hrditaire est une impossibilit en ce jeune pays, car nous navons aucun des lments propres former une aristocratie foncire; nous sommes sans fortunes territoriales; nous navons aucune classe spare et distincte du peuple et un corps politique hrditaire ne conviendrait par consquent en aucune manire notre tat de socit. Il se rduirait bientt rien. Cest pourquoi la seule manire dappliquer le systme anglais, la chambre haute, consiste confrer la couronne le pouvoir den nommer les membres de la mme manire que les 42 pairs anglais, avec cette diffrence que les nominations seront vie . Le principe non lectif et la question de la reprsentation des intrts des minorits seront galement lis. Le pari, lpoque, tait que le principe non lectif permettrait la nomination de snateurs dont le rle serait de bien reprsenter les intrts rgionaux et minoritaires, que lon pense ceux des Canadiens franais du Qubec, mais galement ceux des CFC. Macdonald insistera sur ce lien entre la structure et lattribut du Snat de reprsenter les intrts rgionaux en faisant rfrence la limitation du nombre des reprsentants. Pour lui, [] la Chambre haute sera confie le soin de protger les intrts de section; il en rsulte que les trois grandes divisions seront galement reprsentes pour dfendre leurs propres intrts contre toutes combinaisons 43 de majorits dans lAssemble . En optant pour une chambre haute nomme, les Pres de la Confdration ont donc dtermin que le conseil lgislatif devait tre un corps essentiellement conservateur [...] une branche de la lgislature o lon puisse examiner les questions sans 44 trop se proccuper des prjugs du peuple, si cela est possible [...] . Bref, les documents de lpoque, comme les analyses plus rcentes, nhsitent pas souligner que la reprsentation rgionale, incluant la reprsentation des intrts des minorits, tout comme le mode de slection des snateurs constituent des lments majeurs du compromis de 1867. Ces deux dimensions reprsentent des attributs jugs essentiels par les Pres de la Confdration, mais galement par leurs contemporains. Enfin, la Cour suprme du Canada na pas hsit rappeler ces dimensions fondamentales qui caractrisent linstitution snatoriale ainsi que les principes dquit et du droit des minorits.

42

Ibid la p 36. Ibid la p 88. 44 Canada, Dbats parlementaires, supra note 28 la p 345.
43

12

13

Chapitre 2 : Existe-t-il, au Canada, une tradition de nomination de snateurs provenant des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC), des Autochtones ou encore des femmes ? Conformment son attribut de dfendre les intrts minoritaires, il existe une longue tradition de reprsentation des CFC la Chambre haute. Dans son volution, linstitution snatoriale a aussi accueilli des Autochtones et des femmes. Cette volution est typique de la dmocratie canadienne en raison de son principe dquit, qui 45 inclut la diversit des intrts minoritaires, notamment des intrts de type identitaires . Les communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada Selon le tableau 2, depuis la fondation du Canada, toutes les provinces sauf la Colombie-Britannique et Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador ont eu au moins un snateur francophone. Le Nouveau-Brunswick et lOntario ont eu plusieurs snateurs francophones pour les reprsenter. Des 22 premiers ministres du Canada, 17 ont nomm un ou plusieurs snateurs francophones hors Qubec. tant donn que la premire ministre Campbell na pas fait de nomination snatoriale, il est plus exact daffirmer que 17 sur 21 premiers ministres ont nomm des snateurs francophones hors Qubec. Tableau 2 : Les snateurs des CFC au Snat depuis 1871 Nomination recommande par Macdonald Macdonald Macdonald Abbott Bowel Laurier Laurier Laurier Laurier Dbut du mandat 1871.12.13 1885.03.09 1887.01.12 1892.10.27 1895.02.18 1906.03.08 1907.01.15 1907.11.22 1909.01.18 Fin du mandat 1892.09.12 1933.09.25 1907.03.08 1908.12.30 1897.12.14 1911.04.21 1911.08.25 1932.08.07 1911.10.09

Nom* Girard, Marc Amable Poirier, Pascal Casgrain, Charles Eusbe Bernier, ThomasAlfred Arsenault, Joseph Octave Roy, Philippe Comeau, Ambroise-Hilaire Belcourt, Napolon Antoine Chevrier, No E.
45

Province Manitoba NouveauBrunswick Ontario Manitoba le-du-Princedouard Alberta Nouvelle-cosse Ontario Manitoba

Les archives montrent que la religion et lorigine ethnoculturelle ont aussi t prises en compte dans le cadre de la nomination des snateurs. On pense limportance de nommer des Irlandais ou encore des catholiques. Par contre, les donnes sur ces autres dimensions de la diversit canadienne nont pas encore t compiles de faon aussi systmatique que pour les CFC, les Premires nations et les Mtis ainsi que pour les femmes.

13

14

Prince, Joseph Benjamin Forget, AmdeEmmanuel LaRivire, Alphonse Alfred Clment Girroir, Edward Lavin Bourque, Thomas Jean Bnard, Aim Turgeon, Onsiphore Ct, Jean Lon Lessard, ProsperEdmond Lacasse, JosephHenri-Gustave Marcotte, Arthur Ct, Louis Robicheau, JeanLouis Philippe Lger, Antoine Joseph Beaubien, ArthurLucien Blais, Aristide Veniot, Clarence Joseph Hurtubise, Joseph Raoul Comeau, Joseph Willie Lger, Aurel D. Savoie, Calixte F. Boucher, William Albert Choquette, Lionel Henri Fournier, Edgar E. Blisle, Rhal

Laurier Laurier Borden Borden Borden Borden King King King King Bennett Bennett Bennett Bennett King King King King St-Laurent St-Laurent St-Laurent St-Laurent Diefenbaker
Diefenbaker

Saskatchewan Alberta Manitoba Nouvelle-cosse NouveauBrunswick Manitoba NouveauBrunswick Alberta Alberta Ontario Saskatchewan Ontario Nouvelle-cosse NouveauBrunswick Manitoba Alberta NouveauBrunswick Ontario Nouvelle-cosse NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick Saskatchewan Ontario NouveauBrunswick Ontario

1909.07.29 1911.05.02 1911.10.23 1912.11.20 1917.01.20 1917.09.03 1922.10.27 1923.08.14 1925.09.05 1928.01.10 1931.07.06 1933.12.30 1935.07.20 1935.08.14 1940.01.29 1940.01.29 1945.04.18 1945.06.09 1948.12.01 1953.06.12 1955.07.28 1957.01.03 1958.01.31 1962.09.24 1963.02.04

1920.10.26 1923.06.08 1917.09.01 1932.05.08 1952.02.16 1938.01.08 1944.11.18 1924.09.23 1931.04.11 1953.01.18 1958.08.18 1943.02.02 1948.03.01 1950.04.07 1969.02.01 1964.11.10 1966.06.01 1955.01.31 1966.01.10 1961.12.28 1970.08.23 1976.06.23 1981.03.06 1983.02.11 1992.11.03 14

Diefenbaker

15

Michaud, Herv J. Pearson Martin, Paul Joseph James Robichaud, Hdard-J. Molgat, Gildas L. Fournier, Joseph Michel Robichaud, Louis J. Cottreau, Ernest G. Lucier, Paul Guay, JosephPhillippe Thriault, L. Norbert De Cotret, Robert Ren LeBlanc, Romo Corbin, Eymard G. Simard, JeanMaurice Comeau, Grald J. Desmarais, Jean Nol Gauthier, JeanRobert Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie Poulin (Charette), Marie-Paule Landry, Joseph Grard Lauri P. Robichaud, Fernand Boudreau, J. Bernard LaPierre, Laurier L. Lger, Viola Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Clark Trudeau Turner Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien

NouveauBrunswick Ontario NouveauBrunswick Manitoba NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick Nouvelle-cosse Yukon Manitoba NouveauBrunswick Ontario NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick Nouvelle-cosse Ontario Ontario NouveauBrunswick Ontario NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick Nouvelle-cosse Ontario NouveauBrunswick

1968.03.15 1968.04.20 1968.06.28 1970.10.07 1971.12.09 1973.12.21 1974.05.08 1975.10.23 1978.03.23 1979.03.26 1979.06.05 1984.06.29 1984.07.09 1985.06.26 1990.08.30 1993.06.04 1994.11.23 1995.03.21 1995.09.21 1996.02.26 1997.09.22 1999.10.04 2001.06.13 2001.06.13

1978.06.05 1974.10.30 1971.10.08 2001.02.28 1980.09.29 2000.10.21 1989.01.28 1999.07.23 1990.10.04 1996.02.16 1980.01.14 1994.11.21 2009.08.02 2001.06.16 Prsent 1995.07.25 2004.10.22 2012.06.18 Prsent 1997.06.19 Prsent 2000.10.26 2004.11.21 2005.06.29 15

16

Duhamel, Ron J. Chaput, Maria Ringuette, Pierrette Tardif, Claudette Mockler, Percy

Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Martin Harper

Poirier, Rose-May Harper

Manitoba Manitoba NouveauBrunswick Alberta NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick

2002.01.15 2002.12.12 2002.12.12 2005.03.24 2009.01.02 2010.02.28

2002.09.30 Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent

Information jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 46 * La compilation repose sur les patronymes des snateurs et lapproche rputationnelle .

Comme le montre le tableau 2, des reprsentants des CFC ont fait partie des premires cohortes de snateurs dsignes par le premier ministre Macdonald. En effet, en 1871, Macdonald nomme un premier francophone hors Qubec au Snat, MarcAmable Girard, pour reprsenter le Manitoba. Girard sera snateur pendant une priode de 21 ans, soit jusquen 1892. Ensuite, en 1906, le premier ministre Wilfrid Laurier nommera Philippe Roy, le premier snateur pour lAlberta, galement francophone. Le snateur Roy sigera au Snat jusquen 1911. Le Manitoba et lAlberta, successivement, ont donc compt chacune un snateur francophone parmi les premires nominations snatoriales pour ces provinces. Ces Canadiens franais hors Qubec sont nomms au moment de la fondation mme de ces provinces. En plus de Girard, le premier ministre Macdonald dsignera Pascal Poirier pour reprsenter le Nouveau-Brunswick et Charles Eusbe Casgrain pour lOntario. En 1892, le premier ministre Abbott a remplac Amable par un autre francophone, Thomas-Alfred Bernier. Il assurait la continuit et confirmait ainsi limportance de maintenir la prsence des francophones de lOuest au Snat. lautre extrmit du pays, en 1895, grce au premier ministre Bowel, Joseph Octave Arseneault fait son entre au Snat pour reprsenter lle-du-Prince-douard. Wilfrid Laurier poursuit la tradition de nommer des snateurs dans les Maritimes en permettant Ambroise-Hilaire Comeau de siger la Chambre haute pour reprsenter la Nouvelle-cosse.

Nous empruntons cette terminologie Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure; A Study of Decision Makers, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1952. Lapproche rputationnelle fait appel la subjectivit de certains experts dune communaut donne pour dterminer qui dtient du pouvoir. Si cette stratgie a fait lobjet de nombreuses critiques (voir Robert Polsby, Community power and political theory, New Haven, Yale University Press, 1963; Raymond Wolfinger, A plea for a decent burial (1962) 56 : 4 American Sociological Review, 841) quant sa relle capacit dterminer les sources et les formes de pouvoir, elle a son utilit lorsque les donnes ne sont pas accessibles comme dans le cas prsent. dfaut de donnes sur la langue maternelle, nous avons convenu que les snateurs identifis dans les documents de lpoque par leurs collgues comme CFC permettait de confirmer quils faisaient partis des CFC.

46

16

17

Laurier nommera trois francophones des autres rgions du pays. Ce sont : Napolon Antoine Belcourt de lOntario, No E. Chevrier du Manitoba et Amdemmanuel Forget de lAlberta. Ces nominations montrent que les premiers ministres accordaient une grande importance la reprsentation des Canadiens franais de lensemble du pays au Snat et non uniquement ceux du Qubec. Malgr labsence de directives explicites dans la Constitution au sujet de la prsence des CFC au Snat, le tableau 2 rvle que les premiers ministres du Canada ont tabli une solide tradition de nommer 47 des membres de ces communauts afin que leurs intrts soient galement reprsents . En 1928, soulignons que sept snateurs reprsentant les CFC sigent en mme temps, dont trois du Nouveau-Brunswick (Bourque, Poirier et Turgeon), deux de lOntario (Belcourt et Lacasse), un de la Nouvelle-cosse (Girroir) et un du Manitoba (Bnard). Ils seront huit en 1931, grce au snateur Marcotte de la Saskatchewan qui sajoutera au groupe existant. Comme le montre aussi le tableau 3, la tradition de nommer des snateurs des CFC sest poursuivie lpoque plus contemporaine, et ce dans presque toutes les provinces. En 1968, neuf snateurs seront des reprsentants des CFC. Ils seront dix en 1979 tout comme en 1985 et en 1995. En 1996, ils seront 11, dont six du NouveauBrunswick, deux de lOntario, un de la Nouvelle-cosse, un du Yukon et un du Manitoba pour redescendre neuf en 2010 et huit la fin 2012. Malgr leur nombre relativement faible, ces personnes, comme nous le montrerons plus loin, contribueront de faon exemplaire la dualit linguistique canadienne et la reprsentation des intrts des CFC au Parlement fdral. Enfin, au fur et mesure que le Canada se modernise, il parat donc tout fait normal que les premiers ministres nomment des snateurs pour reprsenter les CFC. En effet, le ministre de la Justice Mark MacGuigan affirmait, au moment des dbats sur la rforme du Snat dans les annes 1970 et 1980, que [t]raditionnellement, on a aussi utilis les nominations au Snat pour assurer la reprsentation parlementaire des minorits francophones hors 48 Qubec [...] .

47

Comme nous le verrons plus loin, les premiers ministres ont nomm des francophones qui se sentaient investis dun grand sens du devoir envers leurs membres en plus de vouloir reprsenter les intrts de leur rgion et de leur pays. 48 Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34 la p 12.

17

18

Tableau 3 : Les nominations de snateurs des CFC au Snat depuis sa fondation en ordre chronologique par province/territoire Nom Casgrain, Charles Eusbe Belcourt, Napolon Antoine Lacasse, JosephHenri-Gustave Ct, Louis Hurtubise, Joseph Raoul Bradette, JosephArthur Choquette, Lionel Henri Blisle, Rhal Martin, Paul Joseph James De Cotret, Robert Ren Desmarais, Jean Nol Gauthier, JeanRobert Poulin (Charette), Marie-Paule LaPierre, Laurier L. Poirier, Pascal Bourque, Thomas Jean Turgeon, Onsiphore Lger, Antoine Joseph Veniot, Clarence Joseph Lger, Aurel D. Savoie, Calixte F. Fournier, Edgar E. Michaud, Herv J. Nomination Dbut du mandat recommande par Ontario Macdonald Laurier King Bennett King St-Laurent Diefenbaker Diefenbaker Trudeau Clark Mulroney Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien 1887.01.12 1907.11.22 1928.01.10 1933.12.30 1945.06.09 1953.06.12 1958.01.31 1963.02.04 1968.04.20 1979.06.05 1993.06.04 1994.11.23 1995.09.21 Fin du mandat

1907.03.08 1932.08.07 1953.01.18 1943.02.02 1955.01.31 1961.09.12 1981.03.06 1992.11.03 1974.10.30 1980.01.14 1995.07.25 2004.10.22 Prsent 2004.11.21 1933.09.25 1952.02.16 1944.11.18 1950.04.07 1966.06.01 1961.12.28 1970.08.23 1983.02.11 1978.06.05 18

2001.06.13 Nouveau-Brunswick Macdonald 1885.03.09 Borden King Bennett King St-Laurent St-Laurent Diefenbaker Pearson 1917.01.20 1922.10.27 1935.08.14 1945.04.18 1953.06.12 1955.07.28 1962.09.24 1968.03.15

19

Robichaud, HdardJ. Fournier, Joseph Michel Robichaud, Louis J. Thriault, L. Norbert Corbin, Eymard G. LeBlanc, Romo Simard, JeanMaurice Losier-Cool, RoseMarie Landry, Joseph Grard Lauri P. Robichaud, Fernand Lger, Viola Ringuette, Pierrette Mockler, Percy Poirier, Rose-May Comeau, AmbroiseHilaire Girroir, Edward Lavin Robicheau, JeanLouis Philippe Comeau, Joseph Willie Cottreau, Ernest G. Comeau, Gerald J. Boudreau, J. Bernard Girard, MarcAmable* Bernier, ThomasAlfred Chevrier, No E. LaRivire, Alphonse Alfred Clment Bnard, Aim Beaubien, ArthurLucien

Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Turner Trudeau Mulroney Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Harper Harper Laurier Borden Bennett St-Laurent Trudeau Mulroney Chrtien

1968.06.28 1971.12.09 1973.12.21 1979.03.26 1984.07.09 1984.06.29 1985.06.26 1995.03.21 1996.02.26 1997.09.22 2001.06.13 2002.12.12 2009.01.02 2010.02.28 Nouvelle-cosse 1907.01.15 1912.11.20 1935.07.20 1948.12.01 1974.05.08 1990.08.30 1999.10.04 Manitoba

1971.10.08 1980.09.29 2000.10.21 1996.02.16 2009.08.02 1994.11.21 2001.06.16 2012.06.18 1997.06.19 Prsent 2005.06.29 Prsent Prsent Prsent 1911.08.25 1932.05.08 1948.03.01 1966.01.10 1989.01.28 Prsent 2000.10.26

Macdonald Abbott Laurier Borden Borden King

1871.12.13 1892.10.27 1909.01.18 1911.10.23 1917.09.03 1940.01.29

1892.09.12 1908.12.30 1911.10.09 1917.09.01 1938.01.08 1969.02.01

19

20

Molgat, Gildas L. Guay, JosephPhillippe Duhamel, Ron J. Chaput, Maria

Trudeau Trudeau Chrtien Chrtien

1970.10.07 1978.03.23 2002.01.15 2002.12.12 Colombie-Britannique Aucun le-du-Prince-douard 1895.02.18 Alberta 1906.03.08 1911.05.02 1923.08.14 1925.09.05 1940.01.29 2005.03.24 Saskatchewan 1909.07.29 1931.07.06 1957.01.03

2001.02.28 1990.10.04 2002.09.30 Prsent

Arsenault, Joseph Octave Roy, Philippe* Forget, AmdeEmmanuel Ct, Jean Lon Lessard, ProsperEdmond Blais, Aristide Tardif, Claudette Prince, Joseph Benjamin Marcotte, Arthur Boucher, William Albert

Bowel Laurier Laurier King King King Martin Laurier Bennett St-Laurent

1897.12.14 1911.04.21 1923.06.08 1924.09.23 1931.04.11 1964.11.10 Prsent 1920.10.26 1958.08.18 1976.06.23

Lucier, Paul*

Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador Aucun Territoires du Nord-Ouest Aucun Yukon Trudeau 1975.10.23 Nunavut Aucun

1999.07.23

Information jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. *Faisant partie de la premire cohorte de snateurs pour cette province ou ce territoire.

Une tradition et un droit Dans les annes 1960, MacKay et Kunz, deux spcialistes reconnus du Snat canadien, ont affirm que la reprsentation des membres des CFC reprsentait un droit et une tradition. Parlant de lOuest canadien, MacKay expliquait que les snateurs sont nomms pour reprsenter les francophones ( senators have been appointed as the

20

21

49

avowed representatives [...] of the French in Western Canada ). Kunz convenait que les rclamations traditionnelles des francophones de lOuest faisaient partie des principes guidant la nomination des snateurs dans lOuest du pays (il indiquait que ceux whose traditional claims to senatorial representation form 50 part of the principles governing appointments are [...] the French in the West [...] ). Dans les annes 1990, Munro, qui est revenu sur la question dans un autre contexte, confirmait les propos de Kunz et MacKay pour ce qui est de lAlberta. En 51 sappuyant sur les dclarations des premiers ministres dans les quotidiens selon les poques, il affirmait que [l]es Franco-Albertains ont droit un 52 sige la Chambre haute en vertu dun fait de droit, mais aussi en vertu de la tradition . Nos donnes rvlent que la mme tendance se confirme aussi pour ce qui est de la situation dans les provinces maritimes et en Ontario. Les membres des CFC dans ces provinces ont t nombreux envoyer des lettres aux premiers ministres et crire dans les quotidiens afin de rclamer la nomination dun des leurs au Snat. Ils ne manquent surtout pas de souligner que la reprsentation des Acadiens au Snat est une affaire de justice, de droits et dquit leur gard, tant en raison de leur statut unique au Canada que de leur situation particulire titre dun des peuples fondateurs du pays. En effet, en janvier 1885, le snateur Poirier du Nouveau-Brunswick, dans le contexte de la campagne qui conduisit sa nomination, explique quil se sentait autoris affirmer sans hsiter, que they [Acadiens] would consider 53 their being refused a Senator, in this circumstance, as a denial of their just rights . Non seulement il associait la nomination dun Acadien au Snat un droit, mais il tait convaincu que ce droit lui revenait comme membre dun peuple, dont les frontires allaient au-del de sa province. Hors de tout doute, sa nomination serait perue favorablement par les 54 Acadiens de lle-du-Prince-douard et de la Nouvelle-cosse . Il tait souhaitable aussi que des Acadiens de ces provinces soient nomms au Snat afin de permettre une reprsentation quitable de la population acadienne. Cest un peuple que sidentifie Poirier, un peuple qui il revient une reconnaissance particulire de son existence, grce la prsence dun des leurs au Snat. Dautres penseront galement comme lui. En 1922, Onsiphore Turgeon, qui fait aussi lobjet dune campagne intense de lettres dappui afin de reprsenter les Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick au Snat, se 55peroit aussi, linstar de Poirier, comme un reprsentant de sa communaut. Turgeon tait dj la Chambre des communes et avait
MacKay, supra note 16 la p 149. Kunz, supra note 10 la p 319. 51 Ce sont : Le courrier de lOuest, La Survivance, The Calgary Albertan, Edmonton Morning Bulletin, Edmonton Bulletin, The Albertan, Le Franco-albertain. 52 Munro, supra note 10 la p 4. 53 Lettre de Pascal Poirier Sir John A. Macdonald, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C-1493, vol 19 aux pp 6935-6938 (Onglet H). 54 Ibid la pp 6938. Poirier sera nomm par le premier ministre Macdonald en 1885. er 55 Voir par exemple, Lettre au Premier ministre (28 avril 1922) et rponse J. J. Denis (1 mai, 1922), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-2244,
50 49

21

22

aid faire lire le parti du premier ministre Mackenzie King dans les Maritimes. Il prendra la peine de transmettre au premier ministre Mackenzie King un message de la part du prtre 56 A. D. Cormier, one of our most distinguished and influential Acadian clergymen , afin de faire mousser sa campagne. Le pre Cormier expliquait, dans sa lettre, que la nomination de Turgeon 57 au Snat serait bien reue de tous les Acadiens, peu importe leurs affiliations politiques . Lide selon laquelle la nomination dun Acadien au Snat transcendait les frontires politiques tait donc courante, car en tant que peuple, leur reprsentation au Snat leur revenait de droit.
er

Ainsi, lors de sa nomination, le 1 fvrier 1923, Turgeon dclarait quil stait vu investi du pouvoir de reprsenter la minorit acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick par le premier ministre du Canada. Il explique : [c]est titre de reprsentant de la minorit acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick que le trs honorable premier ministre du Canada, et ses collgues, en me dtachant de mes gnreux commettants, mont appel venir humblement exercer mon activit avec vous [...] la nation Canadienne possde deux langues [...] Oui, je le dis, le rpte, et toujours avec foi : la culture des nombreuses vertus des races anglaise et franaise fera bientt disparatre les quelques nuages qui obscurcissent encore certains points du ciel canadien. Et, alors, nous vivrons dans une atmosphre pure, salubre, vivifiante : heureux mlange de bonhomie canadienne et acadienne, daffection franaise, de British fair play, qui assurera une gnreuse 58 justice aux minorits daujourdhui, et aux minorits de demain . Une dcennie plus tard, en Nouvelle-cosse, aprs la mort du snateur Girroir, la rumeur selon laquelle le premier ministre Bennett allait nommer un anglophone de la Nouvelle-cosse fait bondir la communaut acadienne de la province. Celle-ci tient pour acquis quelle est dans son droit de voir un Acadien nomm au Snat. Pendant lautomne de 1934, des lettres dorganisations et de groupes acadiens seront donc envoyes Bennett pour lui rappeler limportance de nommer des Acadiens en vue de reprsenter la Nouvelle-cosse et le Nouveau-Brunswick o il fallait aussi remplacer le snateur 59 Poirier . De fait, en 1935, Bennett nommait Jean-Louis Philippe Robicheau pour reprsenter les Acadiens de la province de la Nouvelle-cosse au Snat. Comme lexpliquait le premier ministre dans une lettre un partisan anglophone de la province, le
vol 72, aux pp 61373-61374 (Onglet I); fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-11038, volume 425 aux pp 386259-386260. 56 Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-2250, volume 82 aux pp 69617-69619. 57 Ibid. e e 58 Dbats du Snat, 14 lg, 2 sess (1 fvrier 1923) la p 8. 59 Diverses lettres, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M1340, vol 684 aux pp 419975-78; 419980-81; 419987-91; 419998-420000; 420011; 420014; 420028 (Onglet F).

22

23

Dr Cameron : The real difficulty is that the vacancy in the Nova Scotia 60 representation in the Senate is that it belongs to the Acadian section of the population . Il tait donc difficile, mme pour le premier ministre du Canada, de nier la ralit de la situation acadienne en Nouvelle-cosse. Quelques jours avant la nomination du snateur Robicheau, le premier ministre Bennett crivait Monsieur Finlay MacDonald de Sydney au Cap-Breton pour lui expliquer la mme chose, soit quil ne voyait pas comment il pourrait nommer quelquun dautre quun Acadien au Snat. Par surcrot, la question prenait une dimension nationale. Pour le premier ministre Bennett : I do not see how it would be possible to appoint other than an Acadian as a successor to Senator Girroir if we are to take a broad view of the situation. It is difficult to deal with but, on the other hand, we must treat the matter as one of national rather than of local importance, and I do not desire that the view should obtain that there has been unfairness towards any part of the population in any Province of 61the Dominion. I may say that view is the view which is held by my colleagues . Bennett considre donc que la population acadienne constitue une communaut dintrts qui a le droit dtre reprsente au Snat. En plus de lAcadie, lOntario franais tenait aussi avoir ses reprsentants au Snat. Ds 1884, Joseph Tass, le 62directeur de La Minerve invitait Macdonald nommer un snateur franais de lOntario . Il voulait que le premier ministre Macdonald lui dise si les vacances au Snat seraient utilises pour donner une reprsentation proportionne la force numrique de llment franais de lOntario. Il souhaitait que le gouvernement accorde aux 102 000 Canadiens franais de la province, un reprsentant la Chambre haute. Macdonald rpondit Tass que le gouvernement ferait le meilleur choix possible 63 de snateurs, et quil prendrait en considration la population franaise de lOntario . En 1887, Charles Eusbe Casgrain, comme nous lavons dj mentionn plus haut, tait nomm au Snat pour reprsenter lOntario et les Franco-Ontariens. Par la suite, les premiers ministres Laurier, King et Bennett ont aussi nomm des Franco-Ontariens au Snat. Pour sa part, le premier ministre Diefenbaker sera interpell par le dput de Russell, J.O. Gour, qui souhaitait que le sige vacant de lOntario au Snat soit combl par un catholique qui reprsenterait llment francophone de la province. Diefenbaker confirmait, le 6 novembre 1957, quen effet, un francophone de

Lettre J. J. Cameron (20 septembre 1932), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, volume 684 la p 420270 (Onglet J). 61 Lettre Finlay McDonald (17 juillet 1935), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, vol 684 la p 420011 (Onglet E). 62 Lettre au Premier ministre (30 dcembre 1886), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C-1780, volume e e 432 la p 213016 (Onglet G). 63 Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 5 lg, 2 sess (4 avril 1884) la p 1644.

60

23

24

64

lOntario serait nomm au Snat. Gour le remercia de sa rponse . En 1958, Diefenbaker nommait Henri Lionel Choquette pour reprsenter lOntario au Snat. Depuis les annes 1960 Le tableau 3 montre que la tradition de nommer des reprsentants des CFC au Snat sest poursuivie pendant les annes 1960. En effet, la reprsentation des CFC se situe entre huit et onze reprsentants depuis cette poque. Les reprsentants des CFC au Snat comme la Chambre des communes maintiennent aussi leur intrt pour la question de la reprsentation des leurs au Snat. En 1966, trois moments distincts, J.O. Bower, dput de Shelbourne-YarmouthClare, demandait au premier ministre Pearson si dans le cadre de sa nomination dun snateur pour le poste vacant de la Nouvelle-cosse, il comptait choisir un Acadien pour remplacer le regrett Snateur Comeau. Pearson confirma que le fait acadien serait 65 considr dans la nomination dun nouveau snateur pour la province . Pour sa part, en 1974, le premier ministre Trudeau nommait Ernest G. Cottreau pour reprsenter les Acadiens de la Nouvelle-cosse. la mme poque, on peut aussi imaginer la raction des membres des CFC dans lOuest canadien lorsquils apprirent quaucun des leurs ne serait nomm au Snat. Ral Caouette, chef du Parti Crdit social, expliquait la Chambre haute quaprs la mort du Snateur Blais (un francophone de lAlberta), diverses associations de la province staient mobilises pour exercer des pressions en vue de la nomination dun autre francophone. Une lettre de lAssociation canadienne-franaise de lAlberta que Caouette a lue devant la Chambre des communes rapporte avec loquence la dception des FrancoAlbertains : Cher monsieur, vous comprendrez facilement la dception quont prouve les Franco-Albertains en apprenant que le successeur de lhonorable Aristide Blais, snateur, ntait pas un Canadien franais. Nous nous expliquons difficilement cette dcision prise par le premier ministre du Canada et nous esprons quil 66 profitera de la prochaine occasion pour rparer cette omission [...] . Bref, non seulement la tradition de nommer des reprsentants des CFC au Snat sest poursuivie aprs les annes 1960, mais labsence de dsignation pouvait aussi susciter ractions et dceptions. Malgr leur petit nombre, les snateurs reprsentant les CFC assurent la prsence continue de ces derniers au sein de linstitution. Ils contribuent la reconnaissance publique du franais et lincarnation pancanadienne de la dualit linguistique sur le plan politique.

Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 23 lg, 1 sess, vol 1 (1 novembre 1957) la p 679; (6 novembre 1957) la p 856. e re 65 Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 27e lg, 1re sess, vol 1 (31 janvier 1966) la p 435. 66 Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 27 lg, 1 sess, vol 3 (25 mars 1966) la p 3221.

64

re

24

25

Enfin, depuis la premire nomination dun snateur francophone jusqu aujourdhui, nous constatons que ces derniers se peroivent comme les porte-parole dun peuple qui revient le droit dtre reprsent dans les plus importantes institutions du pays, incluant le Snat. Pour ces personnes, la nomination dun snateur francophone constituait donc un droit et une tradition. La reprsentation des Premires nations, des Inuits et des Mtis En plus de permettre des membres des CFC daccder au Snat, les premiers ministres ont aussi, trs tt dans lhistoire du pays, nomm des reprsentants des nations autochtones et des Mtis. Ainsi, en 1888, le premier ministre Macdonald dsigne Richard Charles Hardisty, le premier snateur mtis pour reprsenter les Territoires du NordOuest. Les premiers ministres ne font aucune nomination de snateurs autochtones entre 1888 et 1957. Toutefois, partir de ce moment, la tradition se met en place. Le premier ministre St-Laurent invite William Albert Boucher, galement mtis, reprsenter la Saskatchewan au Snat. Depuis cette poque, la nomination de snateurs des Premires nations et des peuples mtis est une constante au Snat. La dernire nomination dun snateur des Premires nations remonte 2009, lorsque le premier ministre Harper nommait Patrick Brazeau. Jusqu prsent, 14 snateurs appartiennent aux Premires nations ou une communaut mtisse. Tableau 4 : Les nominations de snateurs des Premires nations, Inuits et Mtis au Snat Nomination recommande par Macdonald Dbut du mandat 1888.02.23 Fin du mandat 1889.10.18

Nom Hardisty, Richard Charles Boucher, William Albert Gladstone, James Williams, Guy R.

Origine

Province Territoires du Nord-Ouest

Mtis

Mtis Premires nations Premires nations

St-Laurent Diefenbaker Trudeau

Saskatchewan 1957.01.03 Alberta ColombieBritannique Territoires du Nord-Ouest (reprsente le Nunavut depuis sa cration en 1999) 1958.01.31 1971.12.09

1976.06.23 1971.03.31 1982.10.07

Adams, Willie

Inuit

Trudeau

1977.04.05

2009.06.22

25

26

Watt, Charlie Marchand, Len Twinn, Walter St-Germain, Gerry Chalifoux, Thelma Gill, Aurlien Dyck, Lillian Eva Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M. Brazeau, Patrick

Inuit Premires nations Premires nations Mtis Mtis Premires nations Premires nations Premires nations Premires nations

Trudeau Trudeau Mulroney Mulroney Chrtien Chrtien Martin Martin Harper

Qubec ColombieBritannique Alberta ColombieBritannique Alberta Qubec

1984.01.16 1984.06.29 1990.09.27 1993.06.23 1997.11.26 1999.09.02

Prsent 1998.03.01 1997.10.30 Prsent 2004.02.08 2008.08.26 Prsent Prsent Prsent

Saskatchewan 2005.03.24 NouveauBrunswick Qubec 2005.09.21 2009.01.08

Information jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>.

La reprsentation des femmes Des femmes sigeront au Snat partir de 1930. Les premires snatrices, Cairine Reay Wilson et Iva Campbell Fallis sont nommes par Mackenzie King et Bennett pour reprsenter lOntario. En 1953, St-Laurent dsigne une reprsentante pour le Nouveau-Brunswick, Muriel McQueen Fergusson, suivie de la premire snatrice francophone du Qubec, Marianna Beauchamp Jodoin. En 1995, le premier ministre Chrtien nomme la premire snatrice francophone provenant des CFC, Marie-P. Poulin, qui reprsentera lOntario. Tableau 5 Les nominations de femmes au Snat Nomination recommande par King Bennet Dbut du mandat 1930.02.15 1935.07.20

Nom Wilson, Cairine Reay Fallis, Iva Campbell

Province Ontario Ontario

Fin du mandat 1962.03.03 1956.03.07

26

27

Fergusson, St-Laurent Muriel McQueen Jodoin, Marianna St-Laurent Beauchamp Hodges, Nancy Inman, Florence Elsie Irvine, Olive Lillian Quart, Josie Alice Kinnear, Mary Elizabeth Bell (Heath), Ann Elizabeth Haddon Casgrain, Thrse Forget Lapointe, Louise Marguerite Renaude Norrie, Margaret Rosamond Fawcett Neiman, Joan Bissett Anderson, Margaret Jean Bird, Florence Bayard Wood, Dalia Rousseau, Yvette Boucher Bielish, Martha Palamarek Cools, Anne C. Marsden, Lorna Fairbairn, Joyce Robertson, Brenda Cochrane, Ethel M. Rossiter, Eileen Spivak, Mira St-Laurent St-Laurent Diefenbaker Diefenbaker Pearson Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau

NouveauBrunswick Qubec ColombieBritannique le-du-Princedouard Manitoba Qubec Ontario ColombieBritannique Qubec Qubec Nouvellecosse Ontario NouveauBrunswick Ontario Qubec Qubec Alberta Ontario Ontario Alberta NouveauBrunswick Terre-Neuve et Labrador le-du-Princedouard Manitoba

1953.05.19 1953.05.19 1953.11.05 1955.07.28 1960.01.14 1960.11.16 1967.04.06 1970.10.07 1970.10.07 1971.11.10

1975.05.23 1966.06.01 1965.06.12 1986.05.31 1969.11.01 1980.04.17 1973.04.03 1989.11.29 1971.07.10 1987.01.03

Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Clark Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney

1972.04.27 1972.09.01 1978.03.23 1978.03.23 1979.03.26 1979.03.27 1979.09.27 1984.01.13 1984.01.24 1984.06.29 1984.12.21 1986.11.17 1986.11.17 1986.11.17

1980.10.16 1995.09.09 1990.08.07 1983.01.15 1999.01.31 1988.03.17 1990.09.26 Prsent 1992.08.31 Prsent 2004.05.23 2012.09.23 2004.07.14 2009.07.12 27

28

Chaput-Rolland, Solange Carney, Pat Teed, Nancy Elizabeth DeWare, Mabel M. Johnson, Janis G. Lavoie-Roux, Thrse Andreychuk, Raynell Cohen, Erminie J. LeBreton, Marjory Bacon, Lise Carstairs, Sharon Pearson, Landon HervieuxPayette, Cline Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie Anderson, Doris Margaret Charette-Poulin, Marie-P. Milne, Lorna Maheu, Shirley Forest, Jean B. Ppin, Lucie Butts, Peggy Callbeck, Catherine S. Ferretti Barth, Marisa Chalifoux, Thelma Cook, Joan Maloney, Marian L. Wilson, Lois

Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Mulroney Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien

Qubec ColombieBritannique NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick Manitoba Qubec Saskatchewan NouveauBrunswick Ontario Qubec Manitoba Ontario Qubec NouveauBrunswick le-du-Princedouard Ontario Ontario Qubec Alberta Qubec Nouvellecosse le-du-Princedouard Qubec Alberta Terre-Neuve et Labrador Ontario Ontario

1988.09.26 1990.08.30 1990.08.30 1990.09.23 1990.09.27 1990.09.27 1993.03.11 1993.06.04 1993.06.18 1994.09.15 1994.09.15 1994.09.15 1995.03.21 1995.03.21 1995.09.21 1995.09.21 1995.09.21 1996.02.01 1996.05.16 1997.04.08 1997.09.22 1997.09.22 1997.09.22 1997.11.26 1998.03.06 1998.06.11 1998.06.11

1994.05.14 2008.01.31 1993.01.29 2001.08.09 Prsent 2001.03.12 Prsent 2001.07.23 Prsent 2009.08.25 2011.10.17 2005.11.16 Prsent 2012.06.18 1997.07.05 Prsent 2009.12.13 2006.02.01 1998.08.28 2011.09.07 1999.08.15 Prsent 2006.04.28 2004.02.08 2009.10.06 1999.08.16 2002.04.08 28

29

Fraser, Joan Poy, Vivienne Finestone, Sheila Ione, Christensen Finnerty, Isobel Cordy, Jane Kennedy, Betty Hubley, Elizabeth Jaffer, Mobina S.B. Lger, Viola Chaput, Maria Merchant, Pana Ringuette, Pierrette Plamondon, Madeleine Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn Dyck, Lillian Eva McCoy, Elaine Ruth, Nancy Tardif, Claudette Champagne, Andre Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M. Eaton, Nicole Yonah Martin Wallin, Pamela Fortin-Duplessis, Suzanne Frum, Linda Seidman, Judith Stewart Olsen, Carolyn

Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien

Qubec Ontario Qubec Yukon Ontario Nouvellecosse Ontario le-du-Princedouard ColombieBritannique NouveauBrunswick Manitoba Saskatchewan NouveauBrunswick Qubec NouveauBrunswick Saskatchewan Alberta Ontario Alberta Qubec NouveauBrunswick Ontario ColombieBritannique Saskatchewan Qubec Ontario Qubec NouveauBrunswick

1998.09.17 1998.09.17 1999.08.11 1999.09.02 1999.09.02 2000.06.09 2000.06.20 2001.03.08

Prsent 2012.09.17 2002.01.28 2006.12.31 2005.07.15 Prsent 2001.01.04 Prsent

Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Chrtien Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Martin Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper

2001.06.13 2001.06.13 2002.12.12 2002.12.12 2002.12.12 2003.09.09 2003.09.09 2005.03.24 2005.03.24 2005.03.24 2005.03.24 2005.08.02 2005.09.21 2009.01.02 2009.01.02 2009.01.02 2009.01.14 2009.08.27 2009.08.27 2009.08.27

Prsent 2005.06.29 Prsent Prsent Prsent 2006.09.21 2008.10.22 Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent

29

30

Raine, Nancy Greene Marshall, Elizabeth Poirier, RoseMay Ataullahjan, Salma Verner, Jose Buth, JoAnne L. Seth, Asha Unger, Betty E. Bellemare, Diane Batters, Denise Beyak, Lynn

Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper Harper

ColombieBritannique Terre-Neuve et Labrador NouveauBrunswick Ontario Qubec Manitoba Ontario Alberta Qubec Saskatchewan Ontario

2010.01.02 2010.01.29 2010.02.28 2010.07.09 2011.06.13 2012.01.06 2012.01.06 2012.01.06 2012.09.06 2013.01.25 2013.01.25

Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent Prsent

Information jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>.

Pour conclure, les donnes sur les CFC, les Premires nations, les Inuits et les Mtis ainsi que sur les femmes montrent limportance que les premiers ministres ont accorde la reprsentation des minorits au Snat depuis sa fondation. Cette reprsentation sest accrue au fur et mesure de lvolution du Snat. La reprsentation des minorits fait partie de ses attributs fondamentaux comme la galement 67 soulign la Cour suprme du Canada dans son Renvoi relatif la scession du Qubec . Enfin, la nomination de reprsentants des CFC constitue une ralit indniable. Les membres des CFC croient que la dsignation dun des leurs est un droit et une tradition en raison de leur ralit particulire, celle de faire partie dun peuple uni par sa langue et la dfense de ses intrts. Pour les snateurs acadiens, comme pour les autres snateurs francophones, cette ralit les autorise parler en tant que membre dun peuple unique en plus de former des communauts distinctes au sein de plusieurs provinces. Il ne fait aucun doute que nous sommes devant une tradition de longue date qui a rsist lpreuve du temps.

67

Supra note 30.

30

31

Chapitre 3 : Quel a t lapport politique des snateurs provenant des CFC ? Munro explique que le Snat est un lieu important qui permet aux snateurs 68 de dfendre les droits des minorits canadiennes-franaises de lextrieur du Qubec . Ces personnes se considrent comme des dfenseurs des droits des Canadiens franais hors Qubec. Ainsi, lattribut du Snat de dfendre les minorits a pris une dimension particulire dans le cas des CFC. Le Snat constituera un lieu important pour la dfense de leurs droits partout au pays. Il nexiste pas de documents dcrivant lensemble des ralisations des snateurs depuis la mise sur pied de la Chambre haute. Malgr ces limites, la recherche archivistique, mme partielle, permet de confirmer lhypothse de Munro. Lapport politique des snateurs reprsentant les CFC est tangible. En plus dintervenir dans les dbats du Snat, ils ont dpos des motions et fait amender des projets de loi en plus de proposer les leurs pour favoriser lpanouissement des CFC. Pensons, notamment, au projet de loi 69 S-3, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (Promotion du franais et de langlais) du snateur Jean-Robert Gauthier ou au projet de loi S-211, Loi modifiant 70 la Loi sur les langues officielles (communications et services destins au public) de la snatrice Maria Chaput. Lapport des snateurs reprsentant les CFC se caractrise aussi par leur engagement soutenu envers ces dernires, en particulier grce leur appui indfectible envers leurs droits et leur dveloppement. Nous prsentons ci-dessous quelques exemples de lapport politique des snateurs reprsentants les CFC, grce un chantillon que nous avons constitu partir de la nomination de Marc-Amable Girard pour le Manitoba, en 1871. Ces cas de figure ont t slectionns en raison de la disponibilit des donnes. Dautres snateurs ont aussi connu des carrires politiques remarquables au Snat, mais leur apport politique reste documenter. Marc-Amable Girard Nomm le 13 dcembre 1871 par le premier ministre Macdonald, le snateur Girard a reprsent le Manitoba jusquen 1892. Il est intervenu de faon rgulire et a dpos plusieurs motions sur les droits des minorits canadiennes-franaises tout au long de sa carrire de snateur. Mentionnons ses efforts, en 1877, dans 71 le contexte des dbats entourant ladoption de la Loi sur les Territoires du Nord-Ouest , en vue de faire accepter la nomination de reprsentants de la population locale des territoires au Conseil de gestion. Il ragira aussi trs fortement au fait que la langue franaise avait t ignore du projet de loi, en dpit du fait que la majorit de la population tait dorigine franaise. Cette population, selon le snateur, devait pouvoir bnficier des mmes droits de faire reconnatre sa langue dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest que celle du Qubec et du

Munro, supra note 10. e re 38 lg, 1 sess (2004). e re 70 41 lg, 1 sess (2012). 71 SC 1875, c 49.
69

68

31

32

Manitoba, grce la traduction de toutes les ordonnances officielles pour assurer leur 72 comprhension par de la population . Le snateur Girard proposa un amendement au projet de loi afin dassurer les droits linguistiques de la population francophone au sein du nouveau territoire. La motion a eu pour effet de modifier larticle 11 du projet de loi et visait confirmer que [e]ither the English or French language may be used by any person in the debates of the said Council, and both those languages shall be used in the records and journals of the said Council, and the ordinances of the said Council shall be printed in both those languages, 73 and in the proceedings before the courts . En ce qui a trait la question du statut linguistique des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, en 1890, le snateur Girard a aussi soutenu les efforts dautres snateurs, en particulier ceux de Bellerose (Qubec) et de Casgrain (Ontario), qui dfendaient ouvertement les droits linguistiques de la population francophone minoritaire du territoire. Il parla en faveur de la motion du snateur Bellerose visant amender le projet de loi 126, An Act to amend the Act 74respecting the North-West Territories, pour y inclure lgalit de langlais et du franais . Le snateur Girard tait convaincu que le Snat devait protger les intrts des minorits canadiennes-franaises dans lOuest comme dans le Nord canadien : In the North-West Territories also, where the French are the minority, we are very glad to accept the assistance of those who are willing to defend our interests [...]. Whenever we have appealed to the Senate for redress for any wrong or the abolition of any abuse we have always had their sympathy and support. [...] I have great confidence in the Senate, and at the same time I am convinced that whatever may be done for the Legislature of either Manitoba or the North-West 75 will be done for their best interests . Le snateur Girard a toujours cru que le Snat devait protger les minorits canadiennes-franaises, et ce mme contre les provinces rcalcitrantes lgard des droits des minorits. Il a, en effet, exhort le Snat de lutter contre les mesures discriminatoires du gouvernement du Manitoba lgard des Canadiens franais lpoque. Ses propos taient percutants. Il tait clair pour lui que le gouvernement fdral devait intervenir dans ce dbat afin de rtablir la justice : You have been asked by petitioners in all parts of the Dominion to protect the majority from the evils of the liquor traffic: I am asking you now to protect the minority in one of the provinces and in the territories from an encroachment upon their rights and privileges. It seems to me that it is the duty of every member of this House, if he finds a lack of harmony in the province from which he comes, to investigate the cause and to suggest a remedy. [...] I must say that the present
72

Dbats du Snat, 3e lg, 4e sess (9 avril 1877) aux pp 318-19 (version anglaise). Dbats du Snat, 3e lg, 4re sess (19 avril 1877) la p 437 (version anglaise). 74 Dbats du Snat , 7 lg, 1 sess (3 septembre 1891) la p 548 (version anglaise). 75 Ibid.
73

32

33

Government of Manitoba has dealt harshly with the French minority of the province. [...] It is not necessary for me to enter into an argument, before a body that is so well disposed towards us as the Senate is, to show the importance of the French language. At the same time, I may say that we ask simple justice and we claim a right which should not have been contested in any way. [...] Under the circumstances, we think we are justified in calling upon the Federal Government to come to our protection. [...] There are people of French origin, not only in Manitoba, but throughout the North-West, who are waiting for justice, and they do not understand why they should have to wait so long for that to which they are 76 fairly entitled . Le snateur Girard, comme ses collgues au Snat, ne savait pas que prs de cent ans scouleraient avant que cette injustice cause aux francophones du Manitoba par le gouvernement provincial soit rpare. Toutefois, le snateur Girard aura eu raison de sindigner et de rclamer une rparation. Pascal Poirier Nomm le 9 mars 1885 par le premier ministre Macdonald et en poste jusquen 1933, le snateur Poirier a aussi t un grand dfenseur des intrts de la communaut acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick, mais aussi des autres francophones du Canada notamment, de lOntario au moment de la crise au sujet des mesures restrictives du gouvernement de la province lgard de ses concitoyens de langue franaise. Il rvle aussi une trs grande conscience de limportance de la reprsentation politique des CFC au sein des institutions fdrales. Dune part, il tait convaincu que la reprsentation politique des CFC avait pour finalit dassurer la bonne entente entre les anglophones et les francophones. Citant le Nouveau-Brunswick en exemple, il expliquait ainsi sa propre nomination au Snat en soulignant que : la majorit anglaise du Nouveau-Brunswick dsirait que la minorit franaise ft reprsente dans cette Chambre, et sir John Macdonald alors leader du gouvernement conservateur homme dtat dou dun esprit large et il serait de ma part superflu 77den faire, ici lloge consentit immdiatement ma nomination [...] Et dajouter, dans le cadre de son appui la reprsentation des Franco-Ontariens au Snat : [q]ue le gouvernement fdral accde, donc, la demande qui lui est faite par la minorit franaise dOntario demande qui ne saurait tre combattue par la majorit de cette province et cette politique aura pour effet de dvelopper la bonne entente entre les Anglais et les Franais dOntario entente qui nest peut-

76 77

re

Dbats du Snat, 7 e lg, 1 e sess (27 mai 1891) aux pp 42-3 (version anglaise). Dbats du Snat, 11 lg, 2 sess (12 avril 1910) la p 545.

33

34

tre pas aussi 78 troite maintenant que celle qui existe dans les Provinces maritimes . Enfin, pour le snateur Poirier, la reprsentation des CFC constituait une question de justice et de fair play. Comme il laffirmait, [l]difice de la confdration 79 canadienne doit avoir pour base la justice et le fair play pour tous . Poirier a donc profit des dbats sur la situation du franais en Ontario pour insister prcisment sur limportance du Snat pour les CFC. La nomination de reprsentants des CFC au Snat leur permet dagir titre de porte-parole des intrts de ces minorits. Le snateur Poirier avait aussi lambition de devenir prsident du Snat, poste qui, lorsquil devint vacant, en 1930, donna lieu une campagne de la part de tous les autres snateurs reprsentants les CFC afin dassurer sa nomination. Des membres de la communaut acadienne ont aussi crit au premier ministre Bennett pour insister afin que leur snateur soit nomm prsident. Comme lexplique F.J. Robidoux dans sa lettre : Senator Poirier is unquestionably the most distinguished public representative of the Acadian people. He has had a long and honourable career as a public man and has always been a true friend of the party. [...] The presidency of that august assembly of which he has been a member for so many years would worthily crown his career and, at the same time, his appointment would confer an honor on the Acadian of80 the Maritime Provinces and, particularly, the province of New Brunswick . Nulle surprise de constater que lhritage du Snateur Poirier sera soulign lors de son dcs et non uniquement par les francophones. Pour le snateur Arthur Meighen, Pascal Poirier tait un grand Acadien. Il tait lhistorien, le dfenseur et linterprte de sa race. Toute son existence tait voue aux 81 siens, au peuple qui a jet les fondations de la civilisation dans nos Provinces Maritimes . Thomas-Alfred Bernier Autre franco-manitobain, nomm le 27 octobre 1892 par le premier ministre Abbott, jusquen 1908, le snateur Bernier sest distingu grce son appui indfectible envers la cause des coles franaises du Manitoba. Mobilisant arguments constitutionnels et moraux, le snateur Bernier sest longuement exprim sur la question, tant dans les mdias que les dbats de la Chambre haute.

Ibid. Ibid. 80 Lettre de FJ Robidoux au premier ministre RB Bennett, Bibliothque et Archives Canada, fonds RB Bennett, MG26-K, M-1340 ela p 419902 (4 aot 1930). e 81 Dbats du Snat, 17 lg, 5 sess (30 janvier 1934) la p 4.
79

78

34

35

Bernier tait convaincu que les CFC avaient des droits en vertu de la Constitution canadienne : In the first place, we have the right to rely on the general promises of protection contained in the federal constitution as explained during the debates on the resolutions placed before the Parliament of old Canada in 1865. Then fears were entertained and vigorously expressed by the opponents of the measure as to the condition in which the minorities might afterwards find themselves. But it was repeatedly said that all through confederation, and for all time to come, the minorities would receive protection and be accorded the free and full enjoyment of their language, and especially of their religious institutions and liberties. Why?82 Confederation was conceived and passed and adopted expressly with that view! Pour le snateur Bernier, la promesse que reprsentait la confdration pour les minorits a t rompue dans le contexte de la crise scolaire du Manitoba. La Constitution canadienne na pas protg les minorits. Or, comme lexplique le snateur, elle devait servir protger les droits des minorits et non ceux de la majorit : But the Privy Council has declared that we are the parties having rights and privileges in this matter. The others having done wrong, you cannot speak of their rights; [...]. We surely do not deny that we are in a small minority, but we resent the idea that because we are in a small minority, because we are weak, no attention is being paid to our interest or our feelings. The law was passed in anticipation that there would be a minority. It was passed for the protection of that minority. The 83majority does not need such constitutional protection. It can take care of itself . Napolon Belcourt Nomm le 22 novembre 1907 par le premier ministre Laurier, le snateur Belcourt a reprsent lOntario jusquen 1932. Le snateur Belcourt se percevait comme un reprsentant de son peuple au Snat (soit un dixime de la population de lOntario) : Je suis un exemple vivant lappui de ce fait [franais de lOntario]. Lhonorable snateur auquel jai eu lhonneur de succder feu le Dr Casgrain dut son lvation au Snat la reconnaissance du fait que llment canadien-franais 84 formait dj alors un facteur important dans la province dOntario . Tout au long de sa carrire au Snat, le snateur Belcourt na cess de faire appel au gouvernement fdral afin quil reconnaisse les droits politiques de la minorit francophone de sa province. En 1910, il dirige une dlgation de Canadiens franais de lOntario auprs du premier ministre Laurier, lui demandant de garantir la reprsentation
82

Dbats du Snat, 7e lg, 4e sess (3 avril, 1894) aux pp 101-02. Dbats du Snat, 7 e lg, 5 e sess (25 avril 1895) la p 85. 84 Dbats du Snat, 11 lg, 2 sess (12 avril 1910) la p 543.
83

35

36

des Canadiens franais de lOntario au sein de la magistrature et au Snat lorsque des 85 places seraient combler . Selon le snateur Belcourt, dans certaines rgions de lOntario, il tait aussi ncessaire quun juge comprenne la langue franaise pour assurer la justice du plaidoyer ou de laccus (puisquun interprte ne peut communiquer 86 parfaitement les nuances et significations de, par exemple, un tmoignage) . Il anticipait des dbats qui ont finalement trouv une solution, mais pas de son vivant. En 1912, le snateur Belcourt dnoncera le Rglement 17, adopt par le gouvernement de lOntario afin de restreindre lenseignement du franais dans la province. En 1916, en rponse au discours du Trne, il profitera de loccasion pour rappeler son engagement envers la minorit francophone de lOntario : [J]e nabandonnerai pas un instant la dfense des droits de la langue franaise dans lOntario. Je ne suis pas mu par des mobiles politiques, comme jai t accus de ltre, et la lutte dans lOntario pour la langue de mes anctres est la lutte pour la langue elle-mme. Cest parce que jaime ma langue maternelle; cest parce que je sais que ma langue maternelle a t lun des plus grands, sinon le plus grand, des agents qui aient servi diffusion de la science dans le monde entier, que je dsire la conserver. Et je vais lutter, mais chaque chose doit se faire 87 en temps et lieu . En 1917, dans le contexte de la dcision du Conseil judiciaire du Conseil priv de Londres sur la question de ladministration spare et indpendante des coles 88 confessionnelles en vertu de larticle 93 de lActe de lAmrique du Nord Britannique , le snateur Belcourt sen prend de nouveau la province de lOntario, qui comme il lexplique, malgr son pouvoir illimit sur la rglementation des coles, [...] navait pas le 89 droit denlever des droits garantis par lActe de lAmrique du Nord Britannique [...] . Il nest probablement pas tonnant de constater, sa mort, en 1932, les nombreux loges lendroit du snateur Belcourt. Ses amis et collgues ont tous soulign son travail comme snateur et reprsentant de la minorit francophone de lOntario. Dans une lettre du Consulat gnral de France Montral M. E. Herriot, Prsident du Conseil et ministre des Affaires trangres, la mort du snateur Belcourt est prsente comme tant celle dun homme qui a dirig : pendant prs de quinze ans, la lutte des Canadiens franais de lOntario contre les lois provinciales qui restreignaient lusage du franais dans les coles publiques et mme dans les coles prives, entretenues par les cotisations 90 volontaires de la minorit franaise . Comme lexpliquait la lettre, [c]ette lgislation, mise en vigueur en 1912 et ordinairement dsigne sous le nom de rglement XVII, avait eu pour rsultat de rduire la langue maternelle ltat de langue trangre dans les
Ibid aux pp 541-542. Ibid la p 549. e e 87 Dbats du Snat, 12 lg, 6 sess (19 janvier 1916) la p 35. 88 Mackell v Ottawa Separate e eSchool Trustees (1916), 27 OWR 505 (CJCP). 89 Dbats du Snat , 12 lg, 7 sess (6 septembre 1917) la p 888. 90 Bibliothque et Archives Canada, Correspondance politique entre les reprsentants de la France au Canada et le ministre franais des Affaires trangres, MG5-F, bobine F-2309, fol 85 (7 aot 1932).
86 85

36

37

coles frquentes par les petits Franais de lOntario. [N]ul ne songe aujourdhui remettre en 91 question les liberts acquises par la minorit canadienne-franaise de lOntario . On peut penser que le travail du snateur Belcourt a contribu influencer la comprhension de ces liberts durement acquises chez le Consulat gnral de France lpoque. Lloge du snateur Lacasse, paru dans La Presse lpoque, est galement une marque de reconnaissance importante de la part de son collgue : Reprsentant ses cts llment minoritaire franco-ontarien dans le snat canadien, je serai probablement celui qui regrettera le plus son absence au milieu de nous. [...] Parmi ces causes quil me suffise de mentionner celle de la survivance des siens comme groupe ethnique distinct dans ce vaste dominion britannique. [...] Son plus beau titre de gloire aux yeux de son petit peuple sera son infatigable et constante nergie dfendre ses droits, sa langue et ses 92 traditions scolaires [...] . Joseph-Henri Gustave Lacasse Nomm le 10 janvier 1928 par le premier ministre Mackenzie King, le snateur Lacasse a reprsent lOntario jusquen 1953. Tout comme le snateur Belcourt, il tait un grand et ardent dfenseur de la minorit francophone de lOntario. Lors de larrive du snateur Lacasse la Chambre haute, le dput Pierre F. Casgrain (Charlevoix-Saguenay) sest prononc dans la Chambre des communes sur cette nomination dclarant combien il tait heureux de voir que le gouvernement canadien avait rempli son devoir. Parlant du snateur Lacasse, le dput Casgrain expliquait que King : a reconnu les droits de la minorit canadienne-franaise dans lOntario en appelant la Chambre haute du Canada un de ses fils distingus, dans la personne de lhonorable snateur Lacasse, et je crois que toute la population canadiennefranaise, de la province du Qubec et de toutes les autres parties du pays saura donner crdit au gouvernement du trs honorable Mackenzie King pour un acte 93 aussi juste et quitable . Lorsquil sadresse aux membres de la Chambre haute, le snateur Lacasse invoque aussi la reprsentation de la minorit franco-ontarienne en remerciant le gouvernement pour le geste courageux quil vient de faire en reconnaissant le droit de plus quitable reprsentation dans les sphres officielles et administratives du groupe 94 franco-ontarien . Lors de sa nomination, divers journaux de la rgion de Windsor ont

Ibid. Archives du Centre de recherche en civilisation canadienne-franaise (CRCCF), fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/13, article de La Presse (13 octobre 1932). e e 93 Dbats de la Chambre communes, 16 lg, 2 sess (2 fvrier 1928) la p 132. e des e 94 Dbats du Snat, 15 lg, 2 sess (31 janvier 1928) la p 6.
92

91

37

38

aussi clbr le nouveau snateur Lacasse comme le reprsentant 95 de la population canadienne-franaise de la rgion et de la province de lOntario . Le snateur Lacasse sera connu pour sa dfense des Franco-Ontariens. Entre autres, en 1933, quand la Commission de redistribution des comts, dirige par le ministre H.A. Stewart (Travaux publics), suggra de supprimer le vieux comt majorit francophone de Russell, le snateur Lacasse publie une lettre publique dans La Presse en date du 7 avril. Il crivait, dans cette lettre, qu : titre du seul reprsentant au Snat des citoyens de langue franaise de lOntario, je considre quil est de mon devoir dexprimer en toutes occasions leurs opinions et leurs sentiments et surtout de combattre pour ce que je tiens pour leurs droits intangibles. Jen appelle donc vous de faon solennelle de ce projet de remaniement des circonscriptions lectorales de ma province et je proteste 96 de faon toute particulire contre la suppression projete du comt de Russell . Ensuite, au mois daot de la mme anne, le snateur Lacasse crivait des prsums membres du gouvernement (noms crits la main) au sujet des demandes des Canadiens franais de la rgion de Windsor dobtenir des inscriptions franaises sur les plaques du nouvel difice qui allait tre rig dans la rgion. Le snateur Lacasse soulignait que le ministre des Travaux publics fut sollicit sans arrt pour cette demande : One might think that this is a very minor issue when so many problems of a most acute nature are confronting the people of Canada to-day. Granted, but the maintenance of a truly national sentiment throughout Canada and the preservation of the cherished traditions and rights of one of the two great ethnical elements in this country to reach that goal is also, I submit, a very 97 important question, indeed, and particularly at this juncture of our history . En 1934, Lacasse intervient dans le cadre du dbat sur un projet de loi visant constituer la Banque du Canada en une corporation (projet de loi 19) et souligne limportance de faire imprimer des billets de banque bilingues pour le pays. Selon Lacasse : [...] je pense que nous ne devons pas perdre cette nouvelle occasion daffirmer que nous sommes citoyens dune nation diffrente, distincte [des tats-Unis]. Nous ne devrions pas laisser passer cette occasion sans nous efforcer de stimuler la fiert nationale en donnant nos billets de banque un cachet particulirement canadien.

Voir Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/2. Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/13, article de La Presse (7 avril 1933). 97 Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/10, lettre crit par le snateur Lacasse (destinataire illisible) (28 aot, 1933).
96

95

38

39

Je fais appel mes honorables collgues en cette enceinte, non 98 pas en invoquant la constitution, mais pour lamour de la paix et de la justice . En rplique au snateur Hocken (connu pour ses attaques lgard des droits des Canadiens franais), le snateur Lacasse dclarait, au sujet de sa revendication pour le bilinguisme des timbres : [...] Aucun homme public nignore le fait quil existe un sentiment trs fort chez les Canadiens-franais, je dirai mme un sentiment irrsistible contre toute atteinte apparente ou relle leurs droits et privilges consacrs par le droit naturel et la tradition historique, pour employer une expression tombe des lvres de lhon. Snateur de Grandville. [...] En dpit de toutes leurs dngations, nos honorables amis den face sauront bien nous montrer par leur vote, dans quelques instants, quels sont les vrais partisans dans cette affaire. [...] Je tiens aussi signaler que dautres parties de lEmpire ont dj fait ce que nous demandons aujourdhui, sans compromettre la scurit de la couronne britannique. Le Canada nest pas le seul des dominions avoir 99 des timbres daccise bilingues et Sa Majest le roi ne sen porte plus mal . En 1952, il dpose, cette fois, une motion demandant au gouvernement fdral de faire imprimer tous les chques de vieillesse et dallocation familiale dans les deux langues officielles partout au pays (et non seulement pour le Qubec). La motion, qui a t adopte, se lisait comme suit : La Chambre est davis que le gouvernement devrait mettre, le plus tt possible, tous les chques de pension de vieillesse et dallocution familiales, dans les deux langues officielles du pays, quelle que soit la province o demeurent les bnficiaires, et que cette recommandation urgente soit transmise aux autorits comptentes, sans 100 retard, par lentremise des reprsentants du Gouvernement en cette Chambre . Lors de sa mort, en 1953, Le Soleil dcrira le snateur Lacasse 101comme ayant t un vaillant dfenseur des droits des Canadiens franais en Ontario . Dans Le Devoir du 22 janvier 1953, le prsident de lAssociation canadienne-franaise dducation de lOntario, M. Desmormeaux, crivait que : [l]e snateur Lacasse a t lun des champions de nos causes pour la reconnaissance de nos liberts, dans le domaine du franais et de lcole catholique. Cest pour mieux servir ces causes, dans la pninsule de Kent et Essex, quil fondait le journal La Feuille drable et quil en garda la direction et la rdaction jusqu sa mort. Membre du Snat canadien, vice-prsident rgional de lAssociation canadienne-franaise dducation, prsident de la Socit SaintDbats du Snat, 17 lg, 5 sess (30 juin 1934) la p 660. Archives du CRCCF,e Fondse Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/13, article de La Presse (21 juin 1934). 100 Dbats du Snat, 21 lg, 6 sess (16 juin 1952) la p 444. 101 Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/2, article de Le Soleil (19 janvier 1953).
99 98

39

40

Jean-Baptiste de louest de lOntario pendant un quart de sicle, son uvre demeure comme un monument son patriotisme et ses principes. LOntario 102 franais perd en lui lun de ses aptres les plus ardents et les plus constants . Rhal Blisle Nomm le 4 fvrier 1963 par le premier ministre Diefenbaker, le snateur Blisle reprsentera lOntario jusquen 1992. Il est entr au Snat riche dune longue exprience politique au sein du conseil municipal de la ville de Sudbury et comme dput provincial. Le snateur Blisle tait bien connu pour limportance quil accordait lducation en particulier en ce qui a trait aux universits Laurentienne et Sudbury , et la reconnaissance officielle de langlais et du franais en Ontario. Le snateur Blisle croyait que le gouvernement fdral et ses institutions avaient un rle important jouer en vue de protger et de soutenir les minorits. Interrog lors dun entretien pour la collection de la Bibliothque du Parlement Oral History Interview, le snateur Blisle affirmait que le rle du Snat est dtre le gardien de la minorit : we are the103 guardians of the minority and the minority are the provinces and the ethnic groups . Pendant les annes 1960 et dans le cadre de la premire srie de dbats constitutionnels lpoque, le snateur Blisle soulignera limportance de lengagement fdral dans le domaine denseignement. Il affirmait quil fallait trouver une nouvelle solution qui protgerait toutes les minorits 104 et qui fournirait ltat central tous les moyens de venir en aide aux universits . Le snateur souhaitait aussi une modification la Constitution qui permettrait de reconnatre la contribution culturelle 105 de tous les groupes ethniques qui ont aid btir cette grande nation qui est la ntre . Lors des ngociations constitutionnelles en vue de ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, le snateur Blisle sest aussi prononc devant la Chambre haute sur la ncessit dune protection constitutionnelle pour les Franco-Ontariens. Il affirmait quil : existe toute la diffrence du monde entre un privilge et un droit. Quand on possde un droit, on peut ngocier en position de force, en toute indpendance et libert. Dautre part, quand on vous a concd un privilge, vous mendiez vous dpendez de la bonne volont des autres, vous tes leur merci vous tes dpendants et srement pas libres. En somme, je dirai que les Franco-Ontariens ont t mal traits en Ontario. Sciemment ou inconsciemment, on nous a toujours rappel que nous tions une minorit jouissant de certains privilges en matire de

Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/2, article de Le Devoir (22 janvier 1953). Bibliothque et Archives Canada, Interviews conducted by Tom Earle, numro de rfrence archivistique R1026-127-2-E, volume 2568, dossier numro 5, Rhal Blisle (16 juin 1988). e re 104 Dbats du Snat, 26 lg, 1 sess (26 juin 1963) la p 177. 105 Ibid la p 178.
103

102

40

41

langue et de culture grce lesprit de tolrance et la bonne volont de nos 106 concitoyens anglophones . Le snateur Blisle voulait un changement constitutionnel pour que la minorit francophone de lOntario soit protge linstar des anglophones du Qubec. Selon le snateur, lhistoire des francophones de lOntario a clairement dmontr que nous ne pouvons pas nous 107 fier la lgislature de lOntario pour la protection des droits fondamentaux . lpoque, le premier ministre Davis de lOntario ne voulait pas appuyer lapplication de la larticle 133 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 sans les structures ncessaires pour garantir son application. Comme le soulignait toutefois le snateur Blisle, dans le cadre de son intervention sur la future Charte canadienne des droits et liberts : Honorables snateurs, nous, Franco-Ontariens, ne demandons pas laumne. Nous ne qutons pas de privilges parce que nous sommes une minorit soumise. Nous faisons campagne pour faire reconnatre par le reste du Canada ce que nous considrons comme un droit. Nous voulons tre traits aussi bien que la minorit de langue anglaise au Qubec. Les droits linguistiques des personnes de notre langue sont mieux reconnus au Manitoba et au Nouveau-Brunswick o il y a moins de francophones quen Ontario. Cette situation nest pas normale et il est temps de la corriger. Sil ne sagit que dun symbole sans importance, pourquoi alors ne pas nous laccorder ?108 Nous y attachons beaucoup dimportance. Nous y trouverons un grand rconfort . Gildas Molgat Nomm le 7 octobre 1970 par le premier ministre Trudeau, le snateur Molgat reprsentera le Manitoba jusqu sa mort, en 2001. Ancien dput de lAssemble lgislative du Manitoba, lu en 1953 et chef de lopposition officielle de 1961 1968, le snateur Molgat a apport la Chambre haute une expertise qui le conduira tre nomm prsident du Snat en 1994, fonction quil occupera jusquen 2001, soit quelques semaines avant son dcs. Le snateur Molgat sest vu dcerner lOrdre de la Pliade par lAssemble parlementaire de la Francophonie. Pour lui, cet honneur reprsentait un tmoignage de son engagement envers la francophonie manitobaine : I suppose in my case it is probably a recognition that I come from a province where there is a very small French population and that through the years I have maintained the use of French and consistently used it in my activities. I suppose

106

re

Dbats du Snat, 32 lg, 1 sess, vol 2 (23 avril 1981) la p 2358. 107 Ibid la p 2359. e re 108 Dbats du Snat, 32 lg, 1 sess (23 avril 1981) la p 2359.

41

42

there is a recognition of that109 and the position I hold in the Senate and which I held previously in Manitoba . Parmi ses actions, le snateur Molgat a particip plusieurs tudes, dont le Comit mixte du Snat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada. On peut penser quil a eu une influence sur les propositions lendroit de la dualit linguistique et la reprsentation des 110 CFC dans le cadre des dbats sur la rforme du Snat pendant les annes 1970 et 1980 . En 1987, il intervient vigoureusement dans le cadre des dbats sur la place des 111 minorits francophones dans lAccord du lac Meech ainsi quen 1992, dans le contexte 112 de lAccord de Charlottetown 113 . Entre autres, le snateur Molgat exige la reprsentation des CFC dans les ngociations . Par la suite, le snateur Molgat sest intress dautres enjeux importants pour les CFC. Il a, notamment, t trs actif lors 114 du dbat conduisant la premire limination du Programme de contestation judiciaire dans les annes 1990. Ce programme, mis sur pied en 1978, permettait aux minorits de langue officielle de recourir aux tribunaux afin de contester la 115constitutionnalit de certaines mesures dans le domaine des droits linguistiques . Des causes importantes dans le domaine des droits linguistiques avaient t finances grce au programme de contestation, dont la clbre cause Mah c 116 Alberta reconnaissant le droit de gestion scolaire aux CFC. Or, lpoque, le gouvernement fdral effectuait des compressions budgtaires importantes, incluant dans le domaine des langues officielles. Devant cet tat de fait, le snateur Molgat demanda ses collgues, en particulier ceux du ct du gouvernement, de faire pression pour rinstaurer le programme de contestation judiciaire qui tait considr dune grande 117 importance pour les communauts minoritaires francophones travers le pays . Selon le snateur Molgat : [d]ans la province du Manitoba o les groupes francophones ne reprsentent quenviron entre trois et cinq pour cent de la population selon la dfinition donne, savoir qui est francophone, il est bien sr que sans cette aide du
Bibliothque et Archives Canada, Interviews conducted by Tom Earle, numro de rfrence archivistique R1026-140-5-E, volume 2569, dossier numro 6, Gildas Molgat (dcembre 1988 et 11 mai 1989). 110 Voir Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34. 111 Pour le texte de lAccord, voir Documents du Lac Meech , (1992) 37 RD McGill 144 aux pp 180201 (Entente Constitutionnelle de 1990). 112 Pour le texte de lAccord, voir Accord de Charlottetown: document, en ligne : LEncyclopdie canadienne <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/fr/accord-de-charlottetown-document>. e e 113 Dbats du Snat, 34 lg, 3 sess (17 mars 1992) la p 1048. 114 Le Programme de contestation judiciaire est un organisme ayant t cr en 1978 pour aider au financement de recours judiciaires relatifs aux langues officielles (voir Patrimoine canadien, Histoire du bilinguisme au Canada , en ligne : <http://www.pch.gc.ca/pgm/lo-ol/bllng/hist-fra.cfm>). 115 Linda Cardinal, Le pouvoir excutif et la judiciarisation de la politique au Canada. Une tude du Programme de contestation judiciaire (2000) 20 : 1 Politique et Socits 43. 116 [1990] 1 RCS 342. e e 117 Dbats du Snat, 34 lg, 3 sess, n 128 (23 mars 1993).
109

42

43

gouvernement nous naurions pas pu dans bien des cas revendiquer nos droits. [...] Je vous demande, honorables snateurs, de faire tout votre possible pour que ceci soit remis en place pour les minorits de langue franaise travers le pays. Sans cela, dans dix ou vingt ans, ce sera une illusion de penser que nous sommes un pays bilingue o les minorits francophones peuvent continuer vivre dans les 118 lots comme le mien au Manitoba [...] . En 1993, le programme tait rinstaur la suite de la victoire du Parti libral qui avait promis son retour sil gagnait ses lections. La promesse fut tenue. Louis J. Robichaud Nomm le 21 dcembre 1973, par le premier ministre Trudeau, le snateur Robichaud reprsentera le Nouveau-Brunswick jusquen 2000. Louis J. Robichaud, ancien premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick, tait bien connu pour avoir fait vivre lquivalent dune rvolution tranquille sa province. Architecte du plan Chances gales pour tous , il cra lUniversit de Moncton, institution entirement francophone, dont la mission est d assurer lducation des Acadiens et Acadiennes et 119 lpanouissement de leur culture . Le snateur Robichaud a aussi t responsable de ladoption de la premire Loi 120 sur les langues officielles au Nouveau-Brunswick, ce qui a fait du franais une langue officielle, garantissant ainsi aux Acadiens et Acadiennes laccs aux services gouvernementaux en franais et faisant accrotre le 121 nombre dAcadiennes et dAcadiens employs dans les services publics de la province . Son apport la dfense des droits des francophones et des Acadiens tait donc bien connu son arrive au Snat. Pour le snateur Robichaud, le Snat avait un rle spcial jouer pour sassurer de la reprsentation des minorits au sein de la fdration canadienne minorits linguistiques et autres. Il a aussi soutenu les causes autochtones, en particulier dans le contexte du projet de la Baie-James. Pour le snateur Robichaud, lappui aux autochtones allait de soi. Comme il le soulignait, dans le cadre des dbats du Snat : [c]est parce que, au cours des annes dans ma carrire politique, jai adopt la cause des minorits. Puis, si je suis prt le faire encore, cest que je ne voudrais pas que la cause des minorits soit compromise par un acte que122 le Snat pourrait poser ce soir, ou demain, ou aprs-demain, ou nimporte quand . Le snateur Robichaud accordait une grande importance au Snat comme institution de reprsentation des minorits rgionales, telle que les Acadiens. Parmi ses
Ibid la p 2915. Assemble lgislative du Nouveau-Brunswick, Louis J Robichaud en ligne : <http://www.gnb.ca/legis/publications/tradition/premiers/robichaudl-f.asp>. 120 LNB 1968-1969, c 14. 121 Assemble lgislative supra note 119. e du Nouveau-Brunswick, e 122 Dbats du Snat, 30 lg, 2 sess, vol 2 (4 juillet 1977) la p 1038.
119 118

43

44

interventions, il suivi de123 prs le dbat sur lapplication de la Loi sur les langues officielles laroport de Moncton . Il citait aussi lobtention dune ferme exprimentale pour le Nouveau-Brunswick comme un bon exemple de lutilit du Snat. Pour le snateur Robichaud, cest grce au Snat que les Acadiens vont bnficier de cet instrument [la ferme exprimentale] nouveau qui est donn au comt de Kent [majoritairement acadien], 124 et la province du Nouveau-Brunswick . En 1988, il flicitait le gouvernement du premier ministre Mulroney davoir adopt la nouvelle Loi sur les langues officielles. Mme sil tait du ct libral de la Chambre haute, il reconnaissait le courage du gouvernement conservateur de lpoque : Je trouve que, malgr le retard apport par le gouvernement soumettre le projet de loi C-72 au Parlement, quil a tout de mme fait un excellent travail et quil mrite toutes nos flicitations. [...] Il ntait pas facile pour ce gouvernement dadopter le projet de loi C-72 jen sais quelque chose mais il a eu le courage de le faire et de mettre en uvre une mesure qui, selon le leader du gouvernement au Snat, permet une certaine justice, une 125 tolrance et un respect de la culture de lautre communaut linguistique . Jean-Maurice Simard Nomm le 26 juin 1985 par le premier ministre Mulroney, Simard reprsentera le Nouveau-Brunswick jusquen 2001. Au moment de sa nomination, le snateur Simard tait dput la lgislature du Nouveau-Brunswick dans le gouvernement de Richard Hatfield. Comme dput provincial, il avait convaincu 126 le Parti progressisteconservateur de sa province des vertus du bilinguisme . Pour sa part, le premier ministre Mulroney lui avait demand de venir au Snat pour soccuper des CFC. Comme il lexplique, [l]e premier ministre Mulroney mavait indiqu que, si je venais au Snat, cela lui plairait que je moccupe des minorits en dehors du Nouveau-Brunswick et de 127 tout le Canada . Il nest pas exagr de dire que le snateur Simard, comme plusieurs de ses compatriotes avant lui, a aussi consacr sa vie au dveloppement des CFC. Au Snat, il sest fait connatre pour ses interventions dans les domaines de lducation, de la radiodiffusion, de la Constitution et pour sa lutte contre les compressions budgtaires dans le domaine des langues officielles. En tout temps, le snateur Simard a utilis son statut pour sensibiliser le public aux proccupations des CFC. Pour lui, il sagissait de son devoir. En effet, selon le snateur Simard, nous avons t chargs de protger les droits
Dbats du Snat, 34e lg, 2e sess (19 dcembre 1989) la p 919. 124 Dbats du Snat, 30e lg, 3e sess (29 juin 1978) la p 965. 125 Dbats du Snat, 33 lg, 2 sess (13 juillet 1988) la p 4005. 126 Marjorie Pedneault, Un coup de cur sest fait entendre : biographie politique de Jean Maurice Simard, Lvis, QC, Les ditions Francophonie, 2011 la p 251. e de la e 127 Dbats du Snat, 35 lg, 2 sess, vol 2 (6 mars 1997) la p 1661 [Dbats du Snat, 6 mars 1997].
123

44

45

et les intrts des rgions, ainsi que des Canadiens qui vivent dans ces rgions. Et le snateur Simard dajouter : [d]e toute vidence, on ne peut sattendre, mon avis, ce quune majorit nationale comprenne totalement et mesure les besoins particuliers dune minorit. Les Pres de la Confdration ont donc confi au Snat la tche de veiller ce que les initiatives et les actions parlementaires reconnaissent et respectent les besoins 128 des citoyens canadiens dont les voix ne sauraient lemporter sur la majorit . Le snateur Simard a appuy les nombreuses causes des CFC tout au long de son mandat. Mentionnons, titre dexemple, son appui indfectible aux francophones de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador qui revendiquaient une commission scolaire francophone pendant les annes 1990. Ainsi, en 1996, le snateur Simard faisait le souhait suivant : [j]e voudrais que lon sengage aujourdhui couter la minorit francophone de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador, surtout la Fdration des Acadiens francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Si javais cet engagement, je serais daccord pour terminer le dbat aujourdhui, si on me garantit que les reprsentants de cette 129 minorit francophone seront entendus [...] . Il critiquait de faon trs ouverte le traitement que le gouvernement de TerreNeuve et Labrador rservait aux francophones de cette province. Il affirmait que ce gouvernement faisait fi de ses responsabilits manant de la section 23 en droit 130 scolaire . Pour leur part, les francophones rclamaient une structure provinciale . Or, comme lexplique le snateur Simard : [e]n janvier 1996, le gouvernement terre-neuvien a dpos son programme, sa structure de rforme scolaire pour la province. part quelques mots faisant allusion une nouvelle rforme qui pourrait tenir compte des besoins des francophones, il y avait trs peu ce sujet dans cette rforme scolaire. [...] On est all en cour. Le juge a donn raison aux francophones. Il a reconnu dans son jugement que lesprit et la lettre de la section 23 navaient pas t respects et que le gouvernement 131de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador ne stait pas acquitt de ses responsabilits . Tout au long de la lutte des francophones de cette province, le Snat a t un lieu rassembleur pour leurs reprsentants. Grce au soutien du snateur Simard, le Snat leur a permis dinterpeller leur gouvernement provincial et de faire valoir leurs droits. Lors des compressions Radio-Canada, le snateur Simard a fait preuve de la mme dtermination quenvers les francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Il na

128

Dbats du Snat, 35e lg, 2e sess, vol 2 (25 novembre 1996) la p 1161. 129 Dbats du Snat, 35e lg, 2e sess, vol 1 (13 juin 1996) la p 689. 130 Dbats du Snat, 35 lg, 2 sess, vol 1 (13 juin 1996) la p 689. 131 Ibid.

45

46

pas hsit sattaquer au gouvernement Chrtien, dont laction lgard des CFC lui paraissait incohrente. Pour le snateur : [l]e rseau voit ses ressources diminuer denviron 22 p. 100, alors que les rgions sont affectes en moyenne 44 p. 100. Les communauts de louest et du sud de lOntario copent, pour leur part, dune rduction des ressources allant jusqu 60 p. 100. Ces dcisions vont directement lencontre du mandat de la SRC, qui est de reflter la situation et les besoins particuliers des communauts francophones et acadiennes. [...] M. Chrtien et ses ministres ne se gnent pas pour affirmer et raffirmer leur engagement auprs de la francophonie canadienne. Pourtant, leurs 132 actions dmontrent manifestement le contraire, soit un dsengagement de leur part . Demeurant fidle son engagement de soccuper des minorits linguistiques de tout le Canada, le snateur Simard a suivi le dossier de la sauvegarde de lHpital Montfort Ottawa de trs prs. Il a aussi fait appel au gouvernement de lOntario et rappel son obligation constitutionnelle de ne pas se laver les mains de ce dossier et dassumer sa responsabilit entire, de faon ce que la minorit francophone de lOutaouais puisse recevoir lHpital Montfort ou dautres institutions des soins de 133 sant dans sa langue . lpoque, le snateur Simard dposait une motion incitant les gouvernements fdral et provincial, de trouver une solution juste et gnreuse 134 assurant lavenir de Montfort . Enfin, dans son clbre rapport sur la situation des minorits de langue officielle, De la coupe aux lvres, le snateur Simard interpellera les membres Snat sur la situation des CFC, quil qualifiait de dplorable. Il voulait attirer lattention du Snat sur la situation qui prvaut prsentement vis--vis de lapplication de la Loi sur les langues officielles, de sa dtrioration progressive, du dsengagement des gouvernements au cours des dix dernires annes 135 et de la perte daccessibilit des services en franais aux francophones hors Qubec . Jean-Robert Gauthier Nomm le 23 novembre 1994 par le premier ministre Chrtien, le snateur Gauthier reprsentera lOntario au Snat jusquen 2004. Ds ses dbuts sur la scne politique fdrale titre de dput de la circonscription dOttawa-Vanier, Jean-Robert Gauthier sest toujours peru comme un grand dfenseur des droits des minorits francophones. Lors de sa nomination au Snat, Chrtien dclarait que : Jean-Robert 136 Gauthier est un des grands dfenseurs du fait franais au Canada .
132

Dbats du Snat, 35 lg, 2 sess, vol 2 (16 dcembre 1996) la p 1378. 133 Dbats du Snat, 6 mars 1997, supra note 127 la p 1161. e e 134 Dbats du Snat, 35 lg, 2 sess, vol 2 (22 avril 1997) la p 2038. 135 Jean-Maurice Simard, De la coupe aux lvres : un coup de coeur se fait attendre : le dveloppement et lpanouissement des communauts francophones et acadiennes : une responsabilit fondamentale du Canada, Ottawa, Snat du Canada, 1999 lae p 107.re 136 Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 35 lg, 1 sess, n 129 (23 novembre 1994) la p 8171.

46

47

Le lendemain de sa nomination, le dput libral de Timiskaming-French River, M. Benot Serr, dclarait que : Jean-Robert Gauthier est un fidle serviteur du Canada et de ses commettants de la circonscription dOttawa-Vanier depuis 22 ans. Il est, depuis maintes annes, un grand champion de la minorit francophone au Canada, ainsi que des autres minorits qui 137sont toutes des composantes de la mosaque culturelle canadienne . Au Snat, le snateur Gauthier a choisi de sengager dans deux dossiers en particulier : les langues officielles et les services aux malentendants. Dans le cadre du dossier des langues officielles, il a particip au mouvement pour la dfense de lHpital Montfort, mais il a aussi travaill la sant financire de lAssociation canadiennefranaise de lOntario, la naissance de la Direction de lentente Canada-communaut Ontario, au projet de rendre disponible le signal de TFO (le premier rseau de tlvision public francophone de lOntario) au Qubec et travers le pays, la prparation du plan daction sur les langues officielles et au financement de 12 nouveaux conseils scolaires 138 de langue franaise en Ontario. De fait, la liste de ses ralisations est imposante . Le snateur Gauthier a aussi dploy dnormes efforts pour augmenter la visibilit des langues officielles Ottawa. deux occasions, il dposa au Snat une motion139 pour faire dOttawa une ville bilingue. La premire fois, en 2000, linitiative choua . De nouveau en 2004, le snateur Gauthier proposait une motion pour changer la Constitution du Canada faisant dOttawa une ville bilingue. Le snateur voulait que son amendement constitutionnel clarifie le statut de la ville dOttawa dans la Constitution. Cette initiative sest aussi avre un chec. Or, selon le snateur Gauthier : la capitale du Canada, Ottawa, doit tre le reflet de la dualit linguistique qui est au cur mme de notre identit collective et est une caractristique de la nature mme du Canada. Dsigner Ottawa ville bilingue permettra tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes dobtenir des autorits municipales des services en franais ou en anglais. Cette ralit constitutionnelle confirme que langlais et le franais sont les deux langues officielles de notre pays. Il sera vident pour tous quOttawa, ville bilingue et capitale du pays, sera dornavant respectueuse, accueillante et 140 gnreuse, et ce dans les deux langues officielles du Canada . Le dernier grand moment dans la carrire du snateur Gauthier et son plus grand exploit est le projet de loi S-3, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (promotion du franais et de langlais), qui rendra excutoire lobligation du gouvernement fdral de prendre des mesures positives afin de favoriser les communauts de langue officielle, prvue aux articles 41 et 42 de la Partie VII de la Loi sur les langues officielles. Le
Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 35 lg, 1 sess, n 130 (24 novembre 1994) la p 8242. 138 Rolande Faucher, Jean-Robert Gauthier : Convaincre...sans rvolution et sans haine , Sudbury, ditions Prise de parole, 2008 la p 477. 139 Ibid aux pp 502-503. e e 140 Dbats du Snat, 37 lg, 3 sess, n 14 (23 fvrier 2004) la p 354.
137

re

47

48

snateur Gauthier a voulu clarifier la Partie VII et la rendre excutoire dans lintrt des minorits linguistiques et la promotion de la langue franaise travers le pays. Laction du snateur Gauthier visait trois changements : prciser le caractre impratif de lengagement nonc la Partie VII, imposer des obligations lensemble des institutions fdrales pour la mise en uvre de cet engagement, et 141donner un pouvoir de rparation permettant aux tribunaux den surveiller lapplication . Aprs trois checs de 2001-2004, le projet a t dpos une dernire fois au Snat le 6 octobre 2004. La Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (promotion du 142 franais et de langlais) reut la sanction royale le 25 novembre 2005. Dans un ditorial du journal Le Droit le 21 novembre, intitul S-3 : enfin ! , Pierre Bergeron crivait : [i]l faut ici souligner lengagement et lenttement du snateur Jean-Robert Gauthier, qui, contre vents et mares, na jamais perdu la foi en son projet de loi. Diminu par la maladie et voyant venir lheure de sa retraite, il a quand mme gard le cap et remis son projet de loi sur le mtier lgislatif, malgr les alas des feuilletons lgislatifs. Quil en soit 143 publiquement remerci. Des snateurs comme lui, on en prendrait bien dautres . Comme lexplique Rolande Faucher, dans sa biographie du snateur Gauthier, il tenait utiliser au maximum linfluence que lui confrent son poste de snateur et sa rputation pour faire avancer le plus de causes possible. Il est devenu celui vers lequel on 144 se tourne, comme par rflexe, concernant toute question linguistique . Maria Chaput Nomme le 30 septembre 2002 par le premier ministre Chrtien, Chaput reprsentera le Manitoba en plus dtre, encore ce jour, une des snatrices les plus actives dans les dossiers relatifs aux CFC. Ds ses dbuts la Chambre haute, sa nomination est accueillie favorablement par ses collgues parlementaires, comme permet de le constater le tmoignage de la dpute de Winnipeg-Centre-Sud, Anita Neville. Elle dclarait : Monsieur le Prsident, jaimerais aujourdhui fliciter le tout nouveau snateur du Manitoba. Je parle bien sr de la snatrice Maria Chaput, qui devient la premire Franco-Manitobaine siger au Snat. Pendant plus de trente ans, Mme Chaput a t une leader trs visible de la collectivit canadienne-franaise et elle a reu plusieurs distinctions pour son action communautaire exemplaire. Jaimerais souhaiter la nouvelle snatrice la bienvenue au caucus du Manitoba et celui
Snat du Canada, Comit snatorial permanent des langues officielles, La mise en uvre de la Partie VII de la Loi sur langues officielles : On peut encore faire mieux (juin 2010) la p 4. 142 LC 2005, ch 41; voir galement Forum des maires de la Pninsule acadienne c Canada (Agence d'inspection des aliments), 2005 CSC 85. 143 Faucher, supra note 138 la p 545. 144 Faucher, supra note 138 la p 515.
141

48

49

des femmes. Je sais quelle jouera un rle vital dans la promotion des vues des 145 femmes francophones de lOuest . La snatrice Chaput prside le Comit snatorial permanent sur les langues 146 officielles depuis fvrier 2004 . Elle tente, depuis quelques annes, de rformer la Loi sur les langues officielles afin dy voir insrer notamment la notion de qualit gale des communications et des services offerts par le gouvernement fdral. La version la plus rcente de ce projet de loi a t prsente en premire lecture au Snat au mois de mai 2012. Le projet de loi a t adopt en deuxime lecture et est maintenant tudi en comit 147 parlementaire . En 2011, la snatrice Chaput se prononait sur la question de limportance du Snat pour les CFC. Elle affirmait, dans le cadre dune question pose au leader du gouvernement au Snat, que : [l]a reprsentation des rgions et des minorits est au cur mme du mandat de cette Chambre. Il serait, mon avis, inacceptable que la reprsentation de ces minorits fasse lobjet du jeu lectoral. En ce qui concerne cette proposition dlections snatoriales, de quelle faon le gouvernement de madame le leader entend-il assurer aux minorits une reprsentation garantie au sein du Snat ? Madame le leader ne croit-elle pas quun Snat modifi se doit de respecter la place des deux peuples fondateurs dans la fdration canadienne ? Et le gouvernement est-il prt sengager prserver ces droits historiques au sein du 148 Snat ? En 2012, la snatrice Chaput a aussi attir lattention des snateurs sur les 149effets potentiels du redcoupage des circonscriptions fdrales sur la vitalit des CFC . Enfin, en novembre 2012, elle sest porte la dfense des intrts des CFC au cours des audiences du Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des tlcommunications canadiennes 150 (CRTC) sur le renouvellement des licences de Radio-Canada . Pour conclure ce chapitre, soulignons combien lapport politique des snateurs provenant des CFC a t et demeure constant depuis la nomination de Girard en 1871. De plus, tous reconnaissent quils ont t nomms pour dfendre les intrts des minorits francophones. Chez ces derniers, le Snat a un rle important jouer dans la dfense de ces minorits.

Dbats de la Chambre des communes, 37 lg, 2 sess, n 57 (11 fvrier 2003) la p 3417. 146 Voir Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 147 Voir PLe S-211, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (communications et services destins au re public), 41 lg, 1 sess, e 2012. re 148 Dbats du Snat, 41e lg, 1re sess, n 3 (7 juin 2011) la p 16. 149 Dbats du Snat, 41 lg, 1 sess, n 69 (5 avril 2012) aux pp 1640 et s. 150 Voir Maria Chaput, Renouvellement des licences de Radio-Canada , en ligne : <http://www.mariachaput.ca/fr/discours/376-renewal-by-the-crtc-of-the-societe-radio-canadaslicenses.html>.

145

49

50

Le Snat a t un lieu permettant aux snateurs dinterpeller les gouvernements provinciaux qui briment les droits des minorits francophones. Il est vrai que leur dfense auprs des provinces na pas toujours t efficace. Comme le souligne David E. Smith, la lutte contre linterdiction du franais dans les coles la suite de dcisions prises par les provinces na pas donn lieu un renversement de ces dcisions mme 151 si les snateurs francophones sont trs mobiliss contre laction des gouvernements . Par contre, la recherche archivistique permet de voir que les snateurs des CFC ont souvent mobilis lopinion publique sur les questions linguistiques, une tradition qui se poursuit. Certes, le Canada a err pendant trop longtemps dans le domaine du respect des minorits canadiennes-franaises. Par contre, force est de constater que les premiers ministres nont cess de nommer des snateurs canadiens-franais, bien conscients que ces derniers allaient dfendre les intrts des CFC. Ces nominations constituent non seulement une longue tradition au Canada. Elles sont comprises comme lexpression dun droit. Les snateurs des CFC vont aussi dfendre dautres intrts, que ce soit la cause des malentendants pour ce qui est du snateur Gauthier, les intrts conomiques de lOuest canadien dans le cas des snateurs de lOuest ou des autochtones dans le cas du snateur Robichaud. Ainsi, la reprsentation des membres des CFC au Snat va au-del de la dfense des intrts des francophones. Lengagement des snateurs reprsentants des CFC envers de nombreuses causes constitue aussi un gage de leur sens dappartenance la fdration et de leur loyaut envers leur pays.

151

Smith, supra note 16.

50

51

Chapitre 4 : Pouvons-nous affirmer que la tradition de nommer des snateurs des CFC tait connue des acteurs impliqus dans les discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ? Au dbut des annes 1980, onze snateurs des CFC seront tmoins des dbats conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Le tableau 7 montre que trois des snateurs en poste lpoque avaient t nomms par Diefenbaker au tournant des annes 1960, sept par Trudeau pendant les annes 1970 et un par le premier minstre Clark en 1979. Les snateurs Choquette de lOntario et Fournier du Nouveau-Brunswick taient en fin de mandat alors que la majorit tait en cours de mandat. Tableau 7 Snateurs des CFC en 1982 Choquette, Lionel Henri Fournier, Edgar E. Blisle, Rhal Molgat, Gildas L. Fournier, Joseph Michel Robichaud, Louis J. Cottreau, Ernest G. Lucier, Paul Guay, JosephPhillippe Thriault, L. Norbert De Cotret, Robert Ren Diefenbaker Diefenbaker Diefenbaker Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Trudeau Clark Ontario NouveauBrunswick Ontario Manitoba NouveauBrunswick NouveauBrunswick Nouvelle-cosse Yukon Manitoba NouveauBrunswick Ontario 1958.01.31 1962.09.24 1963.02.04 1970.10.07 1971.12.09 1973.12.21 1974.05.08 1975.10.23 1978.03.23 1979.03.26 1979.06.05 1981.03.06 1983.02.11 1992.11.03 2001.02.28 1980.09.29 2000.10.21 1989.01.28 1999.07.23 1990.10.04 1996.02.16 1980.01.14

Information jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>.

En 1982, ces hommes incarnaient la tradition de nommer des snateurs des CFC. Cette tradition ne pouvait pas tre ignore des acteurs de lpoque tant donn la nomination rgulire de snateurs des CFC pendant les annes 1970. lui seul, le premier ministre Trudeau nomma sept de ces 11 snateurs des CFC. De plus, ces personnes sont intervenues de faon rgulire dans les dbats constitutionnels lpoque. Comme nous lavons vu plus haut, plusieurs snateurs ont saisi loccasion pour faire valoir les proccupations des minorits francophones du Canada. Ils ont revendiqu leur plus grande reconnaissance, en particulier, dans le domaine de lducation en franais ou encore lofficialisation de la langue franaise en Ontario pour ne nommer que 51

52

ces deux exemples. Mentionnons aussi le rle cl du snateur Molgat dans le cadre du152 Comit mixte du Snat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada . Le snateur Molgat, connaissant bien la situation des CFC, na pas hsit faire valoir la ncessit de prendre en compte leurs proccupations dans le cadre de la rforme du Snat. Le rapport MacGuigan et Molgat sur la rforme de la Constitution canadienne comprend dailleurs plusieurs rfrences aux droits des CFC et la dualit linguistique. Ainsi, la lumire, i) de la participation active de snateurs des CFC au dbut des annes 1980, et ii) des rfrences au droit des CFC et la dualit linguistique dans les dbats portant sur la rforme constitutionnelle, nous pouvons infrer que la tradition de nommer des snateurs des CFC tait connue des acteurs impliqus dans les discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Les proccupations lgard de la reprsentation des CFC ont t publicises telle enseigne par plusieurs snateurs francophones comme Blisle, Robichaud ou Molgat que les acteurs impliqus ne pouvaient pas les ignorer. Rappelons les propos sur le sujet dans les notes de service de 153 Michael Kirby ou encore celle de Mary E. Macdonald au premier ministre lpoque . Enfin, la nature de ces propos laisse aussi entendre que la tradition de nommer des snateurs provenant des CFC tait tenue pour acquise par les acteurs impliqus dans les discussions constitutionnelles. Il est difficile dimaginer ces personnes souhaitant rompre de faon radicale avec une telle tradition implante au Canada depuis 1871.

Voir Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34. Voir Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 2 : The second question was the extent to which issues relating to duality should be dealt with by a special voting requirement or by a special committee ; la p 3 : Possible functions and powers of a revised second chamber inclus representation of regional and minority interests qui inclus protecting minority rights (e.g. linguistic rights) [...] ; la p 5 : The major considerations in arriving at an appropriate distribution of seats in a revised second chamber would appear to be [...] to provide an adequate voice to French-speaking Canadians through the system of representation of through special voting or procedural requirements on issues which especially affect them (Onglet C). Voir galement Mmorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E MacDonald (22 mai 1979), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 10 la p 2 [Mmorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E MacDonald (Onglet L)] : elle fait remarquer que la slection des snateurs parmi la Chambre des communes et les lgislatures provinciales tait une des deux options qui avaient le plus de soutien et que, dans le cadre de cette option, the selection of Senators would reflect party strength as well as linguistic and other minorities .
153

152

52

53

Chapitre 5 : La possibilit de transformer le Snat en organe lu a-t-elle t considre au moment des discussions conduisant ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ainsi que ses effets sur la reprsentation des CFC ? La possibilit de transformer le Snat en organe lu a t considre dans le cadre des rencontres constitutionnelles qui conduiront la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Les 154 documents consults foisonnent de renseignements sur le sujet . Soulignons, au pralable, que le Snat, en 1982, tait un lment parmi dautres au sein dune rforme plus globale des institutions. lpoque, lenjeu est de trouver un consensus entre le gouvernement fdral et les provinces au sujet de la rorganisation du pouvoir au sein de la fdration, en plus de satisfaire aux proccupations du Qubec. Pour le gouvernement fdral, cette rforme devra aussi servir adopter une charte des droits et liberts afin de renforcer le pouvoir du peuple. Comme le souligne David Ablett, dans un mmorandum Robert Rabinovitch pour le premier ministre, la question du Snat pourrait disparatre, mais pas celle des pouvoirs que rclament les provinces. Le propos ne vise pas sous-estimer limportance de la rforme du Snat, mais montrer que celle-ci sinscrit dans un contexte guid par des enjeux plus larges ayant trait au fdralisme et au parlementarisme dune part, et dautre part, la question des droits et liberts ce que les acteurs de lpoque nommaient, 155 en anglais, le Peoples package . Cest donc dans ce cadre que le gouvernement fdral considrait la possibilit de transformer le Snat en organe lu alors que les provinces, pour leur part, ne retiendront pas cette voie. Le Snat et le fdralisme canadien Le 9 juin 1980, lors de la confrence des premiers ministres Ottawa, au 24 rue Sussex, la rforme du Snat est un des items que ces derniers veulent approfondir en vue 156 des rencontres constitutionnelles qui auront lieu lt de la mme anne . Ces rencontres auront lieu Montral, Toronto et Vancouver. Dans son compte-rendu 157 de la premire rencontre constitutionnelle du mois de juillet 1980, Michael Kirby explique que le gouvernement fdral ne voulait pas proposer de position particulire sur la question de la rforme du Snat. Pour leur part, lors de la deuxime rencontre constitutionnelle Toronto, les premiers ministres des provinces se sont entendus pour faire de la rforme du Snat une priorit.
154

Mmorandum pour Robert Rabinovitch (13 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12 [Memo Rabinovitch (Onglet K)]; voir aussi Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet C). 155 Ibid (Onglet K). 156 Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 2 (Onglet D). 157 lpoque, Michael Kirby tait le principal conseiller en charge du dossier constitutionnel auprs du premier ministre Trudeau.

53

54

Les provinces souhaitaient alors consolider la nature fdrale de linstitution, en particulier leur reprsentation en son sein. La question de la rpartition des siges et de la composition du Snat les proccupait, car elles voulaient maximiser leur prsence au sein 158 de linstitution, mais il nest pas encore question du principe lectif . Ce dernier constituera une voie parmi dautres explorer. Sur le plan stratgique, dans une tude prpare par le professeur Ron Watts de lUniversit Queens Kingston (Ontario) et membre de lquipe de conseillers du gouvernement fdral lpoque, il est toutefois question de rendre la rforme du Snat conditionnelle la reconnaissance de lespace conomique canadien par les provinces et le partage des ressources naturelles. Watts prsente des considrations stratgiques dimportance. Pour ce dernier, le gouvernement fdral doit viter une trop grande dvolution des pouvoirs vers les provinces. La rforme du Snat pourrait permettre de pallier cette 159dvolution en favorisant la reprsentation des provinces au sein de linstitution . Dautres considrations de nature institutionnelle devront aussi guider toute rforme du Snat canadien, entre autres, en ce qui a trait au respect du systme parlementaire canadien. Comme lexplique Watts, la responsabilit du Conseil des ministres envers la Chambre des communes doit tre maintenue dans le cadre de la rvision des pouvoirs du Snat. Sappuyant sur lexprience australienne, il met en garde le gouvernement fdral de ne pas favoriser un Snat qui 160aurait la possibilit de retarder ladoption des projets de loi sur le budget (supply bills) . Watts martle que toute rforme du161 Snat ne doit pas nuire au bon fonctionnement de la Chambre des communes . La redfinition du rle et des pouvoirs du Snat Comme en tmoigne la synthse de Kirby, les premiers ministres des provinces semblent stre accords assez rapidement pour dire que toute nouvelle Chambre haute ne 162 serait pas lective . Ils veulent revoir les pouvoirs du Snat, la rpartition des siges et la reprsentation des provinces au sein de linstitution. Lenjeu est de faire voluer le Snat lintrieur du fdralisme canadien. Dit autrement, la rforme du Snat lpoque est guide par lobjectif de revoir lorganisation du pouvoir au sein du fdralisme canadien.

Meeting of Officials on the Constitution: Collation of documents, January 11 and 12, 1979, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada R11344, vol 407 (Onglet S). 159 Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 3 (Onglet D). La question de pouvoir damender la Constitution en ce qui concerne le Snat a galement t discute dans Briefing book for clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed resolution (Book II) (janvier 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada R11344, vol 406, dossiers 7, 8 et 9 (Onglet Q). 160 Watts nest pas le seul conseiller au gouvernement fdral de ne pas opter pour la voie australienne. Voir Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 la page 6 (Onglet D) et Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). 161 Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 aux pp 2-3 (Onglet D). 162 Voir aussi : Mmorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E MacDonald, supra note 153 (Onglet L).

158

54

55

De faon plus spcifique, il est propos de faire du Snat une chambre des provinces ou une institution de nature 163 intergouvernementale. lpoque, plusieurs variations ou modles seront proposs . On pense ainsi 164 au modle australien, aussitt rejet, comme au modle allemand, galement rejet . Lenjeu est de proposer des modles qui combineront la fonction de rvision lgislative de linstitution et sa potentielle nouvelle fonction intergouvernementale. Ainsi, le Snat pourrait devenir une institution hybride comprenant une fonction de rvision et la possibilit de faire ratifier laction fdrale dans les champs de comptences des provinces. La dualit linguistique La question de la dualit linguistique a t aborde lors des dbats sur la redfinition du rle et des pouvoirs du Snat. De fait, dans lensemble des documents consults, la question revient comme un leitmotiv. Elle nchappe aucun commentateur. Ainsi, dans sa synthse de la rencontre constitutionnelle du 24 juillet 1980, Edward D. Greathed, le prsident du Comit des officiels sur la nouvelle Chambre haute (Committee of Officials on a New Second Chamber) rapporte que les premiers ministres des provinces 165 voient la dualit linguistique dun il favorable . Le Qubec et lOntario, en particulier, souhaitent formaliser le rle du Snat dans ce domaine. Si dbat il y a, cest de sassurer que les membres des CFC soient compris dans la dfinition de la dualit linguistique, comme laffirme le premier ministre du NouveauBrunswick, Richard Hatfield, lorsquil rappelle lexistence des Acadiens aux 166 reprsentants du Qubec et des autres provinces . Si la reprsentation effective des CFC nest pas toujours mentionne de faon directe, la dualit linguistique fera lobjet de mesures spciales. La proposition dun nombre gal de francophones et danglophones 167 pour juger des questions linguistiques et culturelles nest pas exclusive au Qubec . Cela tant, tous les documents consults font rfrence au fait quun des attributs du Snat canadien est de reprsenter les intrts des rgions et des minorits. Mentionnons le livre beige du Parti libral du Qubec (PLQ), dans lequel il est propos de remplacer le Snat par un conseil de la fdration, mais dont le mandat serait, notamment, de protger la dualit canadienne. Le projet de loi de 1978 sur la rforme 168 constitutionnelle est aussi loquent ce sujet tout comme les diffrents memoranda et tudes mentionns prcdemment. Ces derniers accordent tous une attention particulire la question de la dualit linguistique au sein du Snat. Watts rsume bien ltat desprit
Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 19 (Onglet C). Lettre au Premier ministre (10 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12 [Lettre 1980] (Onglet P); voir aussi Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D); et Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). 165 Edward D Greathed, Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution: Report of the Committee of Officials on a New Second Chamber , Ottawa, 24 juillet 1980 la p 8 de lannexe A de Watts Memo for Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D). 166 Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 8 la p 12 (Onglet C). 167 Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 la p 2 (Onglet K). 168 Projet de loi sur la rforme constitutionnelle, 1978, Document explicatif Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 1 (Onglet N).
164 163

55

56

des acteurs de lpoque sur la question lorsquil indique que le Snat devra permettre la reprsentation des intrts des rgions et des minorits et protger les droits des minorits 169 linguistiques et des peuples autochtones . La rpartition des siges Plusieurs fdrations ont consacr beaucoup defforts afin de se doter de structures170 permettant de reprsenter les diffrentes units constituantes de faon galitaire . Comme lexplique Watts, le principe dgalit de reprsentation est crucial aux tats-Unis. Toutefois, au Canada, le principe galitaire pose certaines difficults sur le plan de la reprsentation. Dabord, il pourrait contribuer accrotre le dsquilibre entre les provinces. Ensuite, lgalit de reprsentation nuirait aussi aux intrts des Canadiens franais. Il importe donc de trouver un systme de reprsentation qui ne pnalisera pas les Canadiens franais. Ce systme devra leur donner une voix adquate 171 (adequate voice) . Plusieurs propositions concernant le nombre de snateurs nommer ou lire seront donc dbattues et commentes par les provinces. 172 Elles viendront du Qubec comme de la Colombie-Britannique ou de lAlberta . De fait, lenjeu principal est de permettre une reprsentation gale au Snat, mais tout en reconnaissant, en loccurrence, la possibilit dune reprsentation diffrencie en raison des particularits du pays. Ainsi, le Qubec et lOntario dtiendraient un plus grand nombre de siges, mais le nombre de siges dans les autres provinces pourrait tre augment. Tous reconnaissent donc que le principe dgalit au Canada ne peut pas tre limit une stricte adquation sur le plan des nombres. De plus, si jamais le Snat souvrait la reprsentation des provinces, la question de la dualit linguistique reviendrait en force, car il faudrait identifier des mcanismes supplmentaires afin de protger la dualit linguistique canadienne, incluant des siges qui seraient rservs pour des snateurs francophones hors Qubec. Dans son mmorandum, Watts crit :

Watts Memo for Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D) : (b) Possible functions and powers of a revised second chamber : (1) The legislative review and support role [...] (2) representation of regional and minority interests : (i) ensuring effective representation for less populous regions and provinces; (ii) protecting minority rights (e.g. linguistic rights, rights of native peoples) [...] ( la p 3). Watts nest pas le seul faire part de cet enjeu au premier ministre. Eugene Forsey, 1980, dans une note sur les propositions du livre beige sen prend Ryan, qui selon lui, sont toutes fausses du dbut la fin, ce qui inclus les propositions sur labolition du Snat au profit dune chambre intergouvernementale. Forsey, E.A. - Notes on the Ryan Proposals, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada R4447, vol 67, dossier 3 [Forsey (Onglet R)]. 170 Voir Lettre 1980, supra note 164 (Onglet P) commentant le modle allemand; voir aussi Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D) et Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). 171 Watts dans Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D), crit, to provide adequate voice to French-speaking Canadians through the system of representation or through special voting or procedural requirements on issues which especially affect them ( la p 5). 172 Memo 1980, supra note 158 (Onglet O). Voir galement Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). Voir galement Forsey, supra note 169 (Onglet R).

169

56

57

[if] a system of equal or weighted provincial representation is adopted it may be necessary in order to protect the Canadian duality to adopt a special procedure for the approval of specified matters in the form either of (i) a special voting pattern (e.g. Bill C-60 double majority requirement) or (ii) approval by a special duality committee of the chamber composed equally of in francophone and Anglophone Canadians (c.f. Beige Paper proposal). In either procedure it would be preferable to have the francophone component include a broader range of francophones than representatives from Quebec, but this would only be effective under a procedure where provincial delegations do not vote as an instructed 173 block or where party discipline does not override the expression of free views . Et dajouter que lInde, le Niger et la Malaisie sont des fdrations qui permettent un petit groupe supplmentaire de personnes dtre nommes au sein de leurs chambres hautes. Selon Watts, ces personnes peuvent 174 tre nommes for their eminence or to represent special minorities or interests . Le principe lectif Le gouvernement fdral tait prpar en vue dune discussion approfondie sur le principe lectif. De fait, le gouvernement fdral, lpoque, ntait pas contre le projet de faire du Snat, un organe lu. Il tait aussi favorable lventualit que le Snat devienne une chambre constitue de membres lus de faon indirecte par les assembles lgislatives provinciales et la Chambre des communes ces personnes auraient eu la mme lgitimit que les premiers ministres des provinces. Les modes de dsignation des snateurs de plusieurs pays (Allemagne, tats-Unis, Suisse, Australie, Royaume-Uni) ont t recenss dans la majorit des documents 175 consults . Parmi ces modes, llection directe comme aux tats-Unis, llection indirecte comme en Inde et la nomination ou le statu quo ont t pris en compte. Llection directe : Llection directe est un mode de reprsentation que lon retrouve aux tats-Unis ou encore en Australie. Or, lexemple australien revient comme 176 un cas de figure viter en raison de la question des pouvoirs . Watts explique aussi quen Australie, la discipline de partis vient limiter lexpression des points de vue des 177 rgions .

Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 6 (Onglet D). Watts accorde galement une attention particulire la reprsentation des peuples des Premires nations au Snat. Ces lments viendraient complter la reprsentation des diffrents intrts au Snat. 174 Ibid (Onglet D). 175 Ibid (Onglet D), voir galement Lettre 1980, supra note 164 (Onglet P) et Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K); voir galement Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34. 176 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D); voir galement Lettre 1980, supra note 164 (Onglet P). 177 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 aux pp 6-7 (Onglet D).

173

57

58

En revanche, plusieurs reconnaissent que llection directe des 178 snateurs pourrait permettre dexprimenter le mode de reprsentation proportionnelle . La mise en place dun tel systme produirait toutefois deux types dlus au sein du Parlement, i) ceux qui auront t lus la proportionnelle, et ii) ceux qui auront t lus grce au systme uninominal. On peut penser que la prsence de ces deux systmes au sein dun mme Parlement pourrait donner lieu des conflits sur le plan de la lgitimit dmocratique des lus. Llection indirecte : Loption de llection indirecte permettrait aussi dutiliser la reprsentation proportionnelle au sein des assembles lgislatives qui reviendrait la prrogative de choisir les snateurs. Ainsi, les provinces pourraient choisir 50 % des membres de la Chambre haute. Toutefois, ce type de dsignation aurait 179 pour effet de crer des conflits dimputabilit dun ordre de gouvernement un autre . La nomination Ce mode de dsignation nest pas unique au Canada comme en tmoigne la situation en Allemagne. Comme le soulignaient le snateur Molgat et le dput MacGuigan, dans leur rapport pour le Comit mixte du Snat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada, ce mode de nomination est encore celui qui permet le choix le plus large parmi tous les secteurs de la vie canadienne. Cest la raison pour laquelle 180ils suggraient de maintenir un nombre de snateurs dsigns par la voie nominative . Le mode nominatif sera aussi le choix des provinces la diffrence quelles seraient responsables de procder ces nominations la place du gouvernement fdral. Watts prend la peine de le souligner, [a]t the CCMC meetings all the provinces have supported some form or other of provincial government 181 appointment of all or a large majority of the members in a revised second chamber . Bref, si le gouvernement fdral na rien contre un Snat lu, les gouvernements provinciaux nen veulent pas. Comme le rapporte Edward D. Greathed, le prsident du comit responsable dtudier la nouvelle Chambre haute, [t]he general view was that members be appointed by provincial governments and vote on instruction of their provincial government. Ces nominations seraient aussi la discrtion du LieutenantGouverneur. Par contre, la population ne semble pas du mme 182 avis. Dans les sondages, elle aurait nettement exprim sa prfrence pour un Snat lu . Si lon ne peut dire ce qui motivait son choix lpoque, pour sa part le gouvernement fdral tait conscient que
Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D); voir galement Memo Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). 179 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 7 (Onglet D). 180 Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34 la p 35. 181 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 la p 7 (Onglet D). 182 Les sondages auraient aussi indiqu que le public a de la difficult comprendre la complexit des enjeux institutionnels (Ibid la p 8 (Onglet D)).
178

58

59

toute rforme du mode de slection des snateurs devrait permettre de prendre en compte les points de vue de lensemble des peuples et des membres des rgions de faon 183 proportionnelle . Pour conclure, rappelons que le dbat sur la rforme du Snat lors des ngociations en vue de ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 sinscrivait dans un contexte particulier portant sur une rforme globale des institutions et du fdralisme. Dans ce cadre, lobjectif principal tait de rendre le Snat plus imputable envers les provinces. Ces propositions incluaient, notamment, une plus grande participation des provinces au processus de nomination des snateurs. La possibilit de transformer le Snat en un organe lu a t considre de faon minutieuse par lensemble des acteurs. Toutefois, lide dun Snat lectif a t rejete par lensemble des provinces. Enfin, les documents consults rvlent aussi que la question de la dualit linguistique a t importante dans le cadre des dbats sur la redfinition du rle et des attributs du Snat tout comme dans le contexte du mode de dsignation des snateurs. Quel que soit le mode de reprsentation adopt, ce dernier ne devra pas nuire la dualit linguistique, une situation que tous les acteurs lpoque ont accepte sans trop de difficult. Ainsi, ils reconnaissaient que la reprsentation des intrts des Canadiens franais de lensemble du Canada tait un rle et un attribut du Snat.

183

Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 aux pp 5-6 (Onglet D).

59

60

Chapitre 6 : Sur le plan des principes de la science politique, est-ce quun mcanisme dlection des snateurs lchelle des provinces, tel que celui qui est envisag par le projet de loi C-7, est susceptible daffecter la reprsentation des groupes minoritaires au Snat ? Le projet de loi C-7 propose un processus dlection directe des snateurs par la population, mais par lentremise des provinces. Grce un cadre lgislatif mis en place par les provinces et les territoires, ces derniers seront responsables des lections des snateurs au suffrage universel, lchelle des provinces. Pour sa part, le premier ministre du Canada sest engag prendre en compte le rsultat des lections au moment de sa recommandation de candidats au gouverneur gnral. Jusqu prsent, seul le Nouveau-Brunswick a propos un projet de loi pour crer 184 des circonscriptions snatoriales (le projet de loi 64). Au nombre de cinq, elles 185 comprendront, chacune, deux reprsentants. Deux autres provinces, soit lAlberta et la 186 Saskatchewan , ont adopt des projets de loi prvoyant des lections lchelle de la province. Du point de vue de la science politique, le mcanisme envisag pourra-t-il favoriser la reprsentation des groupes minoritaires au sein du Snat ? Un groupe minoritaire , en sciences sociales et politiques, est dfini par sa situation dans les rapports de pouvoirs avec dautres groupes, notamment majoritaires, et non uniquement par le nombre de personnes quil peut constituer. Cest ce qui explique que pendant longtemps, malgr leur force numrique, les Noirs dAfrique du Sud ont t associs un groupe minoritaire. Ils ont t marginaliss et opprims par la minorit blanche , qui, pour sa part, se reprsentait comme la majorit , imposant ainsi sa norme un groupe quelle jugeait 187 infrieur elle. Par consquent, les Noirs ont t constitus en un groupe minoritaire . Faire partie dun groupe minoritaire est une ralit construite, mais aux consquences bien relles. Les groupes minoritaires sont gnralement maintenus lcart du pouvoir en raison des caractristiques qui leur sont attribus. Ils vivent une situation de dficit qui les marginalise et les exclut des institutions, incluant les institutions politiques, et des postes de responsabilit ou encore des lieux de prises de dcisions. La reprsentation politique des minorits est considre comme un moyen important afin de combler leur dficit de pouvoir. La science politique a fait de cette question un objet dtude qui a pris beaucoup dimportance depuis les annes 1980.
PL 64, Loi concernant la slection des candidats snatoriaux, 57 lg, 2 sess, 2012. 185 Senatorial Selection Act, RSA 2000, c S-5. 186 The Senate Nominee Election Act, RSS 2009, c S-46.003. 187 Au Canada, dans les annes 1980 et 1990, les travaux de Danielle Juteau ont t parmi les premiers conceptualiser les groupes minoritaires en ces termes. Depuis, la sociologie des groupes minoritaires na cess dtudier les multiples facettes de la ralit de ces groupes ainsi que les moyens mis leur disposition afin de surmonter leur dficit de pouvoir. Danielle Juteau, Lethnicit et ses frontires, Montral, Presses de lUniversit de Montral, 2003.
184

60

61

Parmi les groupes minoritaires les plus tudis, mentionnons les minorits 188 ethnoculturelles, les minorits nationales et linguistiques, ainsi que les femmes . Ces dernires sont souvent considres comme faisant partie de cette catgorie, car sauf exception, elles sont minoritaires sur la scne politique, malgr leur majorit numrique dans lensemble de la population. Il existe plusieurs approches (normative, statistique, institutionnelle) et travaux sur la question des mcanismes favorables la reprsentation des groupes minoritaires au 189 sein des institutions politiques . Malgr lventail de perspectives, les spcialistes saccordent pour dire que le principe lectif nest pas toujours favorable la reprsentation politique des minorits, en plus de tous les autres obstacles de nature plus sociologique et conomique leur participation, 190 moins de leur fournir des moyens particuliers afin daccrotre leur reprsentation . La plupart des travaux sur la question portent sur la situation des femmes et des minorits dans les chambres basses, notamment 191 la Chambre des communes pour ce qui est du Canada . La situation des minorits dans les snats ou chambres hautes est moins bien connue. Parmi les moyens ou les mcanismes suggrs afin de garantir ou daccrotre la reprsentation des femmes et des minorits, mentionnons les mesures favorables la parit hommes/femmes, les systmes de quotas, le fdralisme, lautonomie culturelle, la cration de territoires. Les partis politiques peuvent aussi contribuer accrotre la reprsentation des groupes minoritaires au sein de leurs formations et ainsi favoriser leur lection grce des mesures daction positive internes. Dans lensemble des cas, lenjeu est de crer des conditions favorables au renforcement de la capacit daction des groupes minoritaires sur le plan politique. Comme nous lavons dj mentionn plus haut, la reprsentation politique des groupes minoritaires contribue leur lgitimit, leur 192 dveloppement identitaire et la cohsion sociale . Par contre, force est de reconnatre que la reprsentation politique ne se limite pas la prise en compte des proccupations des minorits sur le plan des politiques publiques. Elles souhaitent aussi tre reprsentes au sein des institutions.

Aux fins de ce rapport, nous avons inclus les peuples autochtones dans la catgorie des minorits nationales. Les groupes minoritaires comprennent aussi dautres minorits marginalises, dont les minorits religieuses, les minorits sexuelles, les personnes avec un handicap. 189 Parmi les travaux, les plus connus, voir Will Kymlicka supra note 4; Iris Marion Young, Justice and the Politics of Difference, Princeton (NJ), Princeton University Press, 1990; Anne Phillips, The Politics of Presence, New York, Oxford University Press, 1995. 190 Pour une synthse des obstacles la reprsentation des femmes et des minorits, voir Karen Bird, The Political Representation of Women and Ethnic Minorities in Established Democracies: A Framework for Comparative Research , Working Paper presented for the Academy of Migration Studies in Denmark (AMID), Aalbord University, 11 novembre 2003 la p 32. Pour une mise jour de la situation de la participation politique des minorits sur le plan international, voir Marc Weller et Katherine Nobbs, Political Participation of Minorities: A Commentary on International Standards, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010. 191 Mona Lena Krook et Diana Z OBrien, The Politics of Group Representation. Quotas for Women and Minorities Worlwide, (2010) Comparative Politics 253. 192 Voir lintroduction de ce rapport.

188

61

62

Les travaux sur la reprsentation des femmes dans les institutions politiques ont donn lieu 193 de nombreuses valuations portant sur leur sous-reprsentation dans les parlements . Le principe de la parit a t reconnu comme un idal atteindre grce la mise en place de quotas. Les femmes semblent mieux reprsentes dans des systmes de reprsentation proportionnelle. Par contre, les barrires lentre des femmes dans les partis politiques et en particulier, les questions de financement demeurent un obstacle important. Pour ce qui est des minorits nationales et linguistiques, une attention particulire 194 a t consacre aux mcanismes permettant de crer des majorits territoriales . Ces mcanismes permettent daccrotre les chances de reprsentation de ces groupes. Le fdralisme est souvent le mcanisme le plus mentionn, car il permet de crer des majorits favorables une plus grande reprsentation des minorits au sein des parlements. Ces majorits, comme au Qubec, en Catalogne ou encore au Nunavut, peuvent se retrouver contrler des assembles ou des parlements rgionaux et nationaux. Dans ce cadre, les chambres hautes sont aussi reconnues comme de bons moyens pour favoriser la reprsentation des territoires alors que les chambres basses sont plus 195 appropries pour reprsenter les populations . Ainsi, llection de membres de groupes minoritaires ou leur nomination en fonction dun territoire donn peut contribuer accrotre leur participation aux institutions centrales. En outre, loctroi de territoires des minorits peut avoir un impact favorable sur la formation des partis politiques et la slection des candidats. En effet, les formations politiques dans ces territoires ou rgions seront contrles par les membres du groupe minoritaire. Ces derniers pourront aussi influencer les programmes politiques des partis politiques afin quils rpondent aux proccupations du groupe minoritaire. Ainsi, la cration de partis politiques peut favoriser la comptition dmocratique des intrts des 196 groupes minoritaires, lintgration et la cohsion sociale . Pour ce qui est des minorits non territoriales, il est plus difficile de leur octroyer des territoires, car elles sont souvent trop parpilles ou elles nont pas toujours le

Pour une tude complte de la reprsentation politique des femmes dans les parlements au plan international, voir Manon Tremblay, dir, Femmes et parlements, Montral, Remue-mnage, 2005. Pour une synthse et vulgarisation des diffrents enjeux ayant trait la participation politique des femmes, voir Manon Tremblay, Cent questions sur les femmes et la politique, Montral, Remue-mnage, 2008. 194 Rainer Baubck, Autonomie territoriale ou culturelle pour les minorits nationales ? , dans Alain Dieckhoff, dir, La constellation des appartenances. Nationalisme, libralisme et pluralisme, Paris, Presses de science po, 2004, 317. Thomas Fleiner et Julian Thomas Hottinger, La pertinence du fdralisme dans la gestion des diversits nationales (2003) 10 : 1 Revue internationale de politique compare 79. 195 Patrice Glard, Rapport sur les secondes chambres en Europe : Complexit parlementaire o ou ncessit dmocratique ? , Strasbourg, Commission europenne pour la dmocratie par le droit, tude n 335/2005, 2006. 196 Pour un exemple, Zsuzsa Csergo, Talk of the Nations. Language and Conflict in Romania and Slovakia, Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 2007.

193

62

63

197

nombre pour justifier la cration dun parlement . Dans le cas canadien, les CFC reprsentent des minorits non territoriales. Elles bnficient dune certaine reprsentation au plan municipal comme au Nouveau-Brunswick et en Ontario. La reconnaissance du droit des francophones la gestion et au contrle de leurs institutions scolaires en vertu de larticle 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et liberts a aussi permis de constituer un espace dinfluence important pour les CFC dans le domaine de 198 lducation . Souvent, linfluence des minorits non territoriales se fait mieux voir dans le domaine administratif, dans le cadre de lorganisation des services comme cela est le cas en Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick dans les domaines de la sant et des services sociaux. Linvitation des reprsentants des minorits francophones siger des comits gouvernementaux permet aussi dassurer leur prsence au sein de la gouvernance 199 des politiques publiques et leur confre une certaine influence sur la prise de dcision . Toutefois, en raison de leur situation particulire, ce sont des mesures supplmentaires comme des quotas ou la garantie de certains siges dans les parlements ou les chambres hautes qui pourraient rpondre au besoin de reprsentation des minorits non-territoriales au plan politique. Pour leur part, les organismes de la francophonie canadienne ont souvent propos la mise en place de mcanismes afin de pallier leur manque de reprsentation au sein du Snat. titre dexemple, en 1966, le Conseil de la vie franaise demandait au gouvernement canadien de faire passer la reprsentation des francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick au Snat de trois quatre et de deux trois en Ontario en plus 200 de garantir une reprsentation des francophones de la ColombieBritannique . En 1978, la Fdration des francophones hors Qubec (FFHQ aujourdhui connue sous lappellation FCFA, pour Fdration des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada) ragissait au projet de loi C-60 et exigeait que le gouvernement cre 201 des listes distinctes pour les francophones et les anglophones dans chaque province . Par ailleurs, le projet exigeait la double majorit pour les questions revtant une importance culturelle ou linguistique. Il reconnaissait devoir protger la fois la dualit linguistique et les intrts des rgions et non lun ou lautre. Enfin, lors des multiples dbats constitutionnels qui ont suivi ladoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, il a aussi t question de prvoir un veto absolu en leur faveur sur les questions 202 linguistiques et culturelles .
Pour un exercice dimaginaire institutionnel sur la question, voir Johanne Poirier, Au-del des droits linguistiques et du fdralisme classique : favoriser lautonomie institutionnelle des francophonies minoritaires au Canada dans Thriault, Gilbert et Cardinal, supra note 3 aux pp 513-562. 198 Voir notamment Mah c Alberta, supra note 116 pour une dfinition du pouvoir de gestion et de contrle en vertu de larticle 23 de la Charte. Dans beaucoup de pays, laction des minorits non territoriales se limite dailleurs au domaine de lducation et de la culture. Pour un cas de figure, voir JeanBaptiste Harguindguy et Alistair Cole, La politique linguistique de la France lpreuve des revendications ethnoterritoriales (2009) 59 : 3 Revue franaise de science politique 939. 199 Voir Cardinal, New Approaches , supra note 15. 200 Fdration des communauts francophones et acadienne, Rforme du Snat et communauts de langue officielle en situation minoritaire du Canada, 22 juin 2006 la p 7. 201 Ibid aux pp 7-8. 202 Pour une synthse de ces propositions, voir Lhonorable Claudette Tardif et Chantal Terrien, La rforme du Snat et les minorits francophones (2009) 32 : 1 Revue parlementaire canadienne 6.
197

63

64

La prsente rforme a suscit les ractions de la FCFA et de la Socit acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick (SANB). Les deux organismes ont aussi exprim leurs craintes 203 lgard du projet de loi 64 au Nouveau-Brunswick , qui prvoit llection indirecte des snateurs distribus dans cinq circonscriptions comprenant deux reprsentant chacune. Les deux organismes conoivent que llection des snateurs fera diminuer le nombre de francophones hors Qubec au Snat. Pour sa part, le vice-premier ministre du NouveauBrunswick, 204 Paul Robichaud, mme sil est convaincu quil faut lire les snateurs cote que cote , sest prononc sur limportance de protger la reprsentation des francophones au Snat. Lensemble des mcanismes cits reprsente une source non ngligeable de moyens favorables la reprsentation politique des groupes minoritaires. Dans ltat actuel des connaissances, force est de reconnatre que le principe lectif ne savre pas le meilleur choix pour favoriser la reprsentation des minorits dans les institutions politiques. moins doccuper lensemble du territoire dune province, comme au Qubec, labsence dassise territoriale qui caractrise la situation des francophones hors Qubec nuira leur lection potentielle au Snat. De plus, cela est bien connu, sauf exception, la difficult de percer dans les partis 205 politiques est grande pour ces minorits . moins de mesures spciales de la part des partis politiques qui se feront la lutte pour les siges, il sera trs difficile dlire les reprsentants des minorits en soumettant ces dernires la libre concurrence des forces politiques. La preuve en est que, de faon gnrale, des membres des CFC ne sont lus la Chambre des communes que dans les rgions o les membres des CFC reprsentent une forte proportion de la population, notamment dans lest et le dans nord de lOntario et au Nouveau-Brunswick. titre dexemple, en 2013, il ny a que dix dputs reprsentants des CFC la Chambre des communes, soit (en ordre alphabtique) Mauril Blanger, Royal Galipeau, Yvon Godin, Robert Goguen, Claude Gravelle, Carol Hughes, Dominic 206 LeBlanc, Pierre Lemieux, Bernard Trottier et Bernard Valcourt . Ces personnes reprsentent surtout lOntario et le Nouveau-Brunswick.
Supra note 184. Mathieu Roy-Comeau, lection des snateurs : Robichaud propose des balises pour protger les Acadiens , LAcadie Nouvelle (12 novembre 2012) 8 (Onglet T). noter que la Commission du Nouveau-Brunswick sur le fdralisme canadien a recommand en 1990 que le Snat soit lu de manire assurer une meilleure reprsentation des diffrentes identits collectives du Canada : Commission du Nouveau-Brunswick sur le fdralisme canadien, Rapport de la Commission du Nouveau-Brunswick sur le fdralisme canadien, Fredericton, janvier 1992 la p 43. 205 Voir Bird, supra note 190; Krook et OBrien, supra note 191. Shamit Saggar et Andrew Geddes, Negative and Positive Racialization: Re-examining Ethnic Minority Political Representation in the UK (2000) 26 : 1 Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 25 la p 28. Rares sont les partis politiques qui vont cibler ou crer des postes ou favoriser des candidats des minorits ethniques. Le cas amricain est unique. Les Noirs et les Latinos sont plus prsents en politique aux tats-Unis par rapport dautres minorits dans dautres pays en raison de lattention particulire quils reoivent des partis politiques. 206 Nous avons repris le principe de lanalyse rputationnelle afin didentifier ces personnes (voir supra note 46).
204 203

64

65

Il y a donc trs peu de dputs la Chambre des communes qui sont des reprsentants des CFC : les dix dputs en question ne reprsentent que 3,25 % du nombre total des dputs. La proportion des dputs issus des CFC est infrieure la proportion de CFC dans la population canadienne qui est denviron 4 %. Pour sa part, le Snat compte huit snateurs reprsentants les CFC, soit 7,62 % du total des snateurs. La reprsentation de membres des CFC au Snat compense, dans une certaine mesure, la trs faible prsence de reprsentants des CFC la Chambre des communes. En effet, mme si leur nombre demeure relativement faible, cette reprsentation est essentielle dans le cadre fdral canadien. Elle rpond un besoin important de reprsentation dun peuple fondateur qui a t trop souvent marginalis dans lhistoire du pays. Plus encore, la prsence, mme faible, des CFC au sein du Snat, donne une assise pancanadienne la reprsentation de la dualit linguistique au sein de linstitution. Par le pass, mme si le gouvernement canadien a considr de faon trs srieuse la possibilit de transformer le Snat en organe lu, le premier ministre fdral sest 207 souvent fait conseiller de se rserver le pouvoir de nommer des snateurs . Une telle solution pourrait servir combler le besoin de reprsentation des CFC au Snat dans le cas canadien. Or, tant lesprit du projet de loi C-7 que le type de mcanisme envisag pour llection des snateurs parait peu propice llection de reprsentants des CFC. Qui plus est, lexception de la dclaration du vice-premier ministre du NouveauBrunswick mentionne ci-dessus, aucun parti politique ne sest prononc sur la possibilit dadopter des mcanismes particuliers afin de favoriser llection de reprsentants des CFC. Seul le Qubec pourra envoyer, sans trop de craintes, des francophones au Snat dans les conditions actuelles. Quelques Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick pourront potentiellement se retrouver au Snat, mais aucun autre Acadien des Maritimes ne pourra tenir pour acquise cette possibilit. En ce qui a trait aux autres provinces canadiennes, il est difficile dimaginer des francophones remportant des lections snatoriales tant donn leur faiblesse numrique. Un exemple contemporain qui permet de bien illustrer les effets pervers du projet de loi C-7 envers les CFC est la situation qui prvaut prsentement en Alberta. En 1985 et en 1987, lAssemble lgislative de lAlberta adoptait, lunanimit, le Senatorial 208 Selection Act . Le projet de loi prcisait qu chaque fois quun sige vacant au Snat revenait lAlberta, llection du snateur en question serait organise par la province, qui recommanderait le gagnant au Conseil priv, afin quil soit recommand au gouverneur gnral pour nomination au Snat. La premire lection snatoriale en Alberta a eu lieu en 1989, suivie de trois autres lections snatoriales en 1998, 2004 et 2012, et ce bien que la Chambre haute ne soit pas fonde sur le principe lectif ou populaire. Or, aucun candidat ne saffichait pour reprsenter les intrts des francophones. Aucun candidat francophone na t lu. De

Report of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution to First Ministers, Senate, Ottawa, Bibliothque et Archives Canada RG11344, vol 407 (Onglet M). 208 Supra note 185.

207

65

66

plus, comme le tableau ci-dessous permet amplement de le constater, les francophones ont t trs rares se prsenter dans le cadre de ces lections. Tableau 8 Sommaire des rsultats des lections de candidats et candidates pour nomination au Snat en Alberta en vertu de la Senatorial Selections Act Candidat, Parti politique enregistr ou Votes indpendant lections snatoriales du 16 octobre 1989 Bert Brown, Progressive Conservative Association of 127 638 Alberta Bill Code, Alberta Liberal Party 139 809 Ken Paproski, Independent 30 849 Tom Sindlinger, Independent 25 491 Gladys Taylor, Independent 38 534 Stan Waters, Reform Party of Alberta* 259 292 621 613 TOTAL lections snatoriales du 19 octobre 1998 Bert Brown, Reform Party of Alberta* 332 766 Guy Desrosiers, Independent 148 851 Vance Gough, Independent 135 840 Ted Morton, Reform Party of Alberta* 274 126 891 583 TOTAL lections snatoriales du 22 novembre 2004 Cliff Breitkreuz, Progressive Conservative Party* 241 306 Bert Brown, Progressive Conservative Party* 312 041 Link Byfield, Independent* 238 751 Vance Gough, Alberta Alliance 167 770 Gary Horan, Alberta Alliance 156 175 Michael Roth, Alberta Alliance 176 339 Jim Silye, Progressive Conservative Party 217 857 Tom Sindlinger, Independent 161 082 Betty Unger, Progressive Conservative Party* 311 964 David Usherwod, Progressive Conservative Party 193 056 2 176 341 TOTAL lections snatoriales du 23 avril 2012 Doug Black, Progressive Conservative Party* 427 745 Len Bracko, Independent 141 830 Perry Chahal, Independent 65 164 William Exelby, Independent 81 476 David Fletcher, Independent 114 940 Paul Frank, Independent 93 586 Raymond Germain, Wildrose 299 800 Rob Gregory, Wildrose 300 883 Pourcentage du vote 20,53 22,49 4,96 4,10 6,20 41,71

37,32 16,70 15,24 30,75

11,09 14,34 10,97 7,71 7,18 8,10 10,01 7,40 14,33 8,87

16,90 5,27 2,42 3,03 4,27 3,48 11,14 11,18 66

67

Elizabeth Johannson, Evergreen Party of Alberta Vitor Marciano, Wildrose Mike Shaikh, Progressive Conservative Party* Scott Tannas, Progressive Conservative Party* Ian Urquart, Independent TOTAL

149 844 246 787 309 587 351 761 107 397 2 690 800

5,57 9,17 11,51 13,07 3,99

Source : Elections Alberta, Senate Nominee Elections, en ligne : Elections Alberta <http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20Website/589.htm>. *lu

Bref, ce jour, aprs 23 ans dlections snatoriale en Alberta, aucun FrancoAlbertain na t lu et na pu tre recommand pour nomination au Snat par cette voie. Ceci semble lun des objectifs avous du projet de loi C-7. Le snateur Bob Runciman confirme dailleurs ceci, comme le rapporte le Toronto Sun : Runciman [...] agreed Tardif would be shown the door quickly in Alberta if she ever had to 209 run in provincial elections for a Senate appointment. And that, precisely, is the point . Quant aux autres candidats lus de cette manire, le seul Albertain lu ayant t nomm avant 2006 fut Stanley Waters, nomm au Snat sur recommandation du premier ministre Brian Mulroney. Pour sa part, depuis son arrive au pouvoir en 2006, le premier ministre Harper a recommand des snateurs de lAlberta ayant t lus au suffrage universel. Ainsi, Bert Brown, qui a obtenu le plus grand nombre de votes lors des scrutins de 1998 et de 2004 a t nomm au Snat en 2007. Betty Unger, lue en 2004, a quant a elle t nomme au Snat en 2012. En janvier 2013, Douglas Black, qui avait t lu en 2012, a t nomm ainsi que Scott Tannas. Llection des snateurs risque dexclure la possibilit de reprsentants des CFC. Pourtant, dans lOuest canadien, les francophones ont t parmi les premiers firement reprsenter cette rgion du pays au Snat lors de sa fondation. Dans les conditions actuelles, une grande tradition canadienne pourrait tre en voie de se perdre. Il est aussi gnralement tenu pour acquis, quand on pense lAlberta, mais non exclusivement, que les langues officielles ne sont pas des thmes que lon aborde facilement dans le cadre dlections provinciales ou fdrales. Or, les snateurs reprsentants les CFC ont historiquement toujours dfendu les droits des minorits francophones et ont mobilis lopinion publique sur ces questions. Il est fort parier quun francophone qui tenterait de se faire lire pour dfendre les droits de ces minorits aurait encore moins de chance de gagner son lection. Comment ces questions serontelles abordes au Snat si des CFC ne sont pas en mesure de se faire lire pour en parler ? La dualit linguistique pourra-t-elle continuer avoir une relle signification et prsence dans les institutions politiques si le principe lectif est le seul qui guide la reprsentation au Snat ? Pour revenir lexemple albertain, un francophone saffichant pour dfendre les langues officielles naurait pas beaucoup de chance de lemporter. De plus, quand on
Mark Bonokoski, Ridiculous, in both official languages , The Toronto Star (19 juin 2011) 44 la p 44.
209

67

68

pense au pourcentage de voix de Guy Desrosiers au tableau 8 lors des lections snatoriales albertaines en 1998, soit 16,70 %, un pourcentage apprciable par rapport au pourcentage de francophone de cette province, il sest plac au troisime rang. Le systme lectoral qui a t mis en place, mme sil nempche pas des candidats francophones de se prsenter, ne permettra donc pas de garantir une reprsentation favorable la communaut francophone de cette province. La rforme du mode de nomination des snateurs propose par le projet de loi C-7 pose donc un grand dfi au fdralisme et la dualit linguistique au profit dune approche plus populaire ou populiste peu amne au principe dquit de reprsentation. Or, comme nous lavons vu plus haut, au Canada, lide dune reprsentation quitable des intrts minoritaires devrait, pour des raisons historiques, gographiques et politiques, guider toute rforme des institutions. Le principe populaire ne peut lui seul faire lconomie de la complexit de la reprsentation politique au Canada, notamment en ce qui a trait la reprsentation des intrts des CFC ou des minorits de langue officielle au sein des institutions. Sil a sa place au sein de la Chambre des communes, le principe populaire nest pas le seul garant de la dmocratie au Canada. Comme nous lavons vu tout au long de ce rapport, le fdralisme et la dmocratie canadienne se conjuguent aussi avec lide dquit et de diversit. Il y a au moins huit snateurs des CFC presque en tout temps dans lhistoire de linstitution snatoriale. La prsente rforme risque de rduire encore plus ce nombre dj trop petit en plus de renvoyer la question de la participation effective des CFC dans les institutions politiques du pays aux calendes grecques. Pour les CFC, la situation est non seulement intenable, elle reprsente un vritable recul sur le plan des droits politiques.

68

69

CURRICULUM VITAE

cole d'tudes politiques A) NOM : NO. D'EMPLOYE 64361

CARDINAL, Linda, Professeure titulaire, permanence Membre de la Facult des tudes suprieures et postdoctorales : oui

B)

TITRES UNIVERSITAIRES : Doctorat Matrise B.A. Spc. cole des Hautes tudes en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France, Sociologie, 1987 Universit d'Ottawa, Sociologie, 1983 Universit d'Ottawa, Sociologie, 1981

C)

EXPRIENCE : 2009-2014 2006-2007 2004-2009 2002 -2004 1999 1995 -1999 1992 -1995 1987 -1992 Titulaire de la Chaire de recherche de l'Universit d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques Titulaire de la Chaire en tudes canadiennes, Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 Titulaire de la Chaire de recherche de l'Universit d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques Titulaire de la Chaire Craig Dobbin en tudes canadiennes, University College Dublin (Dublin, Irelande) Professeure titulaire, Universit d'Ottawa, Science politique Professeure agrge, Universit d'Ottawa, Science politique Professeure agrge, Universit d'Ottawa, Sociologie Professeure adjointe, Universit d'Ottawa, Sociologie

Professeure et confrencire invite : 2012 2011 2009 2008 Bureau des Affaires francophones et francophiles, Universit Simon Fraser, Vancouver, octobre. Centre for Research on Ethnic Relations and Nationalism, Universit de Helsinki (Finlande), mai. Language, Policy and Planning Research Unit, Universit de Cardiff (Pays de Galles), fvrier. Peter O'Brien Fellow, Universit Concordia (Montral), Dpartement de science politique et Institut d'tudes canado-irlandaises, septembre dcembre.

70

2007

2006 2005 2004 2003

Association allemande d'tudes canadiennes, Grainau (Allemagne), fvrier; Centre d'tudes canadiennes, University College Dublin (friande), fvrier; Facult de Droit et Centre d'tudes canadiennes, Universit Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique), mars. Centre of Excellence for Gender and Constitutional Law, Universit de Tohoku, Senda (Japon), juillet. Royal Flemish Academy of Belgian Arts and Science, septembre School of European Studies, Cardiff University, Pays de Galles, octobre Dublin City University (friande), dcembre; Queen's University Belfast (Irlande du nord), octobre; National University of Ireland, Galway, mars

Chercheure associe : 2008 -2009 2007 2006-2007 2006 2006 2004 2000-2003 Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire Irlande-Qubec (GRIIQ) Centre for Research on the English Speaking World (CREW), Universit Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 Centre d'tudes en relations internationales, Fondation nationale de science politique, Paris (France) Honorary Fellow, Universit de Cardiff (Pays de Galles). Language, Policy and Planning Research Unit. Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur l'immigration et la citoyennet, Universit du Qubec Montral (CRIEC) Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la diversit au Qubec, Universit du Qubec Montral (CRIDAQ) The Women's Movement Archive Project, University College Cork, Cork (friande) (membre du comit international encadreur)

DISTINCTIONS : 2011 Prix Clef de Vote, dcern par la Fdration de la jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario (FESFO) une personne ayant contribu l'avancement de la francophonie et au changement favorable aux femmes. Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, Universit d'Ottawa Rcipiendaire du prix d'excellence en recherche de la Facult des sciences sociales, Universit d'Ottawa Nomme par la ministre du ministre du Patrimoine canadien au Conseil d'administration du Muse canadien des civilisations Nomme par le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes du Gouvernement du Qubec au conseil d'administration du Centre de la francophonie des Amriques Boursier Peter O'Brien en tudes canado-irlandaises, Universit Concordia Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, Universit d'Ottawa Senior Honorary Fellow, Facult des Arts, University College Dublin

2009-2014 2009-2010 2008-2011 2008 -2010

2008 - 2009 2004-2009 2004-2007

71 .

E) TRAVAUX UNIVERSITAIRES ET PROFESSIONNELS : (pendant les huit (8)


dernires annes)

Postes de direction : 2012-2015 Membre du Bureau des gouverneurs de l'Universit d'Ottawa 2012-2014 Membre de l'excutif de l'Association internationale de science politique. Membre du comit de programme 2011-2014 Coordonnatrice de la mineure et du certificat en tudes des francophonies, Universit d'Ottawa 2009-2012 Prsidente du Comit de recherche 50 Langue et Politique de l'Association internationale de science politique 2009-2012 Reprsentante de la Socit qubcoise de science politique l'Association internationale de science politique 2009-2011 Responsable francophone des recensions la Revue canadienne de science politique 2009-2010 Responsable du comit des candidatures, Socit qubcoise de science politique Prsidente sortante, Socit qubcoise de science politique 2009-2010 Membre du comit de rdaction de la revue internationale en tudes 2009-2012 qubcoises, Globe 2009-2011 Responsable des recensions, Revue canadienne de science politique Comit consultatif de la revue virtuelle HistoireEngage 2009--2008-2011 Membre du comit consultatif de la Revue canadienne de science politique 2008-2009 Prsidente de la Socit qubcoise de science politique Prsidente du Comit des sections rgionales ACFAS 2007-2008 2007-2008 Vice-prsidente de la Socit qubcoise de science politique 2006-2009 Co-prsidente, Comit de recherche 50 Langue et politique , Association internationale de science politique Membre du Conseil d'administration de l'Association francophone pour 2006-2009 l'avancement du savoir 2006 -2010 Comit de direction de l'Observatoire sur la gouvernance de l'Ontario franais 2005 - 2010 Comit scientifique de la revue d'tudes postcoloniales LIANES 2004 - 2008 Membre du comit consultatif de la Revue canadienne de science politique Comits universitaires et professionnels : 2012-2013 2011-2012 2012 2011 Membre du comit excutif du Centre d'tudes en gouvernance de l'Universit d'Ottawa Membre du comit organisateur des tats gnraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa Comit externe d'valuation du dpartement de science politique, Universit du Qubec Montral Comit d'embauche, poste en mthodes quantitatives, cole d'tudes 3

72

2011

2011 2011 2010-2011 2010-2011 2010-2012 2009-2011 2009-2011 2009-2010 2008-2009 2008-2009 2007-2010 2007 --2005-2006 2004-2006

politiques; Comit de recrutement francophone; Comit des archives du CRCCF Membre du jury de la bourse de matrise et de la bourse de doctorat sur la francophonie canadienne attribue par le Collge des Chaires sur la francophonie canadienne, le CIRCEM et le CRCCF Membre du jury de la Bourse Diefenbaker, Conseil des Arts du Canada Comit externe du dpartement de science politique, Universit du Qubec Montral Membre du comit d'encadrement des cotutelles, cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa Comit externe d'valuation du dpartement de science politique, Universit du Qubec Montral Membre du comit de la recherche de l'Institut canadien de recherche sur les minorits linguistiques Membre du comit excutif du Centre d'tudes en gouvernance de l'Universit d'Ottawa Membre du comit d'valuation des bourses de recherches en tudes canadiennes de la Canada Ireland University Foundation Comit externe d'valuation du dpartement de science politique, Universit du Qubec Montral Membre du comit 24 pour l'attribution des subventions ordinaire du Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines du Canada (CRSH) Membre du comit de recherche de l'Association des universits de la francophonie canadienne (AUFC) Responsable des ateliers d'intgration des tudiants de 2' et de 30 cycle la vie universitaire, cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa Membre du Collge des Chaires de la francophonie canadienne, Universit d'Ottawa Membre du comit externe de Condition fminine Canada Membre du comit consultatif universitaire sur la rforme dmocratique, Gouvernement de l'Ontario

valuations d'articles et de projets de recherche :


2011 2010

2009 2008

2007

valuation d'articles pour la Revue canadienne de science politique, Politique et Socits et Minorits linguistiques et socit. valuation d'articles pour Globe, Revue internationale d'tudes qubcoises, Recherches sociographiques et la Revue canadienne de science politique. valuation d'articles pour la revue Recherches sociographiques valuation des demandes au programme des bourses sur la francophonie canadienne du Fonds qubcois de recherche sur la socit et la culture (FQRSC) valuation d'un projet de recherche pour le CRSH et d'articles pour les revues Reflets, Revue internationale d'tudes canadiennes, Recherches sociographiques, Revue canadienne de science politique 4

73

2006

valuation d'articles pour les revues Politique et Socits, Globe, Francophonies d'Amrique et Lianes.

Experte-conseil : 2011-2012 2010-2011 2009 2008-2009 2007-2008 2006-2007 2005-2006 Centre national de formation en sant (CNFS) Ministre de la Formation, des Collges et des Universits Ministre de la Justice du Canada Procureur gnral de l'Ontario; Ministre de la Justice du Canada Ministre de la Justice du Canada; Ministre du Patrimoine canadien Procureur gnral de l'Ontario; Commissariat aux langues officielles du Canada Procureur gnral de l'Ontario; Coalition nationale des femmes francophones; Commissariat aux langues officielles du Canada

Organisation de colloques et sminaires : 2012 Co-responsable de l'atelier Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire , Socit qubcoise de science politique, Universit d'Ottawa, 23-25 mai. Responsable du colloque limovative Strategies for Linguistic Minority Vitality , Cardiff University et Tresaith Youth and Cultural Center, Pays de Galles, 23-26 avril. Co-responsable du colloque Penser la ville : Ottawa, lieu de vie franais , Universit d'Ottawa, 3-4 novembre. Co-responsable du colloque Rgimes linguistiques et traditions tatiques : un tat des lieux , Universit d'Ottawa et Association internationale de science politique, 9-10 septembre. Co-responsable de l'atelier, Les nouveaux politologues francophones , Congrs de la SQSP, Universit du Qubec Montral, 19 mai. Co-responsable de l'atelier, Les francophones hors Qubec comme enjeu de la philosophie politique au Canada et au Qubec , Congrs de la SQSP, Universit du Qubec Montral, 19-20 mai. Co-responsable du colloque, L'appartenance irlandaise au Qubec, ACFAS, Universit Bishop, 12 mai. Co-responsable de l'atelier Bilan de la science politique au Qubec , Congrs de la Socit qubcoise de science politique, Universit Laval (Qubec), 20-21 mai. Responsable d'une sance sur les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire au sein de la francophone canadienne, ACFAS, Universit de Montral, 11 mai. Co-organisatrice du colloque Qubec-Irlande sous observation : les petites nations et les crises, ACFAS, Universit de Montral, 10 mai. Membre du comit organisateur du congrs annuel de l'Association des juristes d'expression franaise de l'Ontario Responsable du congrs de la Socit qubcoise de science politique, 5

2012

2011 2011

2011 2011

2011 2010

2010

2010 2009-2010 2009

74

2009

2009 2009

2008

2008

2007 2007 2006 2004-2005

Les voies multiples de la science politique , Universit d'Ottawa, 27-28 mai. Responsable du comit organisateur du colloque La transformation des institutions et la reconfiguration du lien politique , Universit d'Ottawa, 27 mai. Membre du comit scientifique pour le colloque, La francophonie des Amriques et ses mondes , ACFAS, Universit d'Ottawa, 12-13 mai. Co-organisatrice du colloque, Des accommodements pas toujours raisonnables : l'Irlande, le Canada franais et le Qubec , ACFAS, Universit d'Ottawa, 13 mai. Co-organisatrice du colloque Philippe Garigue et la sociologie du Canada franais : contributions et controverses , Universit d'Ottawa, 26 septembre. Co-responsable du colloque Gouvernance et dmocratie au sein des minorits linguistiques et nationales , Universit d'Ottawa, du l er au 3 mai. Responsable du colloque Au-del des mouvements sociaux ? , Universit d'Ottawa, 26 septembre. Responsable du colloque Le conservatisme : le Canada en contexte , Universit de Paris 3 la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 27-28 avril. Co-responsable du colloque Le fdralisme, le Qubec et les minorits francophones du Canada , Universit d'Ottawa, 9-11 mars. Co-responsable du colloque Le dbat sur les politiques linguistiques au Canada et en Europe , Universit d'Ottawa, 31 mars, 1' et 2 avril.

F)

DIRECTION DE TRAVAUX D'TUDES SUPRIEURES: Rsum indiquant un total pour la carrire entire, et selon les catgories suivantes : Nombre total supervis : 35 : 25 matrises, 9 doctorats 23 : 21 matrises, 2 doctorats Nombre complt : 12 : 5 matrises, 7 doctorats Nombre en cours : i) ii) Description dtaille des thses diriges pour les sept (7) dernires annes :

Doctorat - Sophia Muller, Charter Dialogue and Federalism: the case of Quebec (titre provisoire), premire inscription, janvier 2011. - Marie-Christine Gilbert, L'antifdralisme au Canada. Un courant de pense oubli, premire inscription, novembre 2010. - Djamel Cheikh, La mise en conflits des langues : pouvoir, territoire et perceptions citoyennes, premire inscription, septembre 2010. - Stphanie Chouinard, L'ide d'autonomie pour les minorits francophones hors Qubec l'preuve des juges, premire inscription, septembre 2010 - Stphane Pageau, L'cologie des populations des groupes d'intrts au Canada, 6

75

premire inscription, septembre 2010. - Helaina Gaspard, Le bilinguisme de la fonction publique fdrale (provisoire) premire inscription, septembre 2010. - Anne-Andre Denault, Le fdralisme, la mondialisation et les rapports entre le Qubec et les francophones du Canada, premire inscription, janvier 2007 octobre 2012. - Jackie Steele, Liberty Before Liberation. Towards a Feminist Republican Theory of Citizenship, mai 2005 octobre 2009. Matrise - Andrane Gagnon, La grve d'Amoco Hawkesbury (titre provisoire), premire inscription, printemps 2012. - Julien Abord-Babin, L'identit acadienne et le dossier de la sant au NouveauBrunswick (titre provisoire), premire inscription, printemps 2012. - Mila Youns, Le fminisme mulsuman (titre provisoire), inscription printemps 2012. - Guillaume Guitard-Lortie, Les pays scandinaves et l'identit europenne, premire inscription, septembre 2010 octobre 2011 (recommand en vue du prix de thse dans les Humanits). - Joshua Kirchner, Interculturalisme, cohsion sociale et politiques publiques, septembre 2010 juillet 2011. - Cynthia Dupont, La Francophonie internationale (titre provisoire), premire inscription automne 2009. - Caroline Trottier, L'Organisation internationale de la francophonie, premire inscription, printemps 2009 aot 2010. - Simon Letendre, Les effets identitaires des programmes d'immersion franaises, le cas de la Colombie-Britannique, premire inscription, automne 2008. - Chantal Terrien, Mdias et politique : le Rglement 17 et la cause Montfort, mai 2005 mai 2010. - Maxine Haskel-Lger, The Case of Acadie-Bathurst: Protecting Minority Rights and Representation in the Canadian Electoral System, septembre 2008 octobre 2009. - Martin Normand, La Partie VII de la Loi sur les langues officielles, t 2007 t 2008 (prix Ren Lupien). - Martin Joyal, Le comportement lectoral des Franco-Ontariens, septembre 2006 mai 2007. - Maria Uribe, Le fdralisme asymtrique au Canada, janvier 2005 mai 2006. - Eimear Melvin, L'identit francophone nord-amricaine dans les romans La Petite Poule d'Eau de Gabrielle Roy et Volskwagen Blues de Jacques Poulin, University College Dublin (Dublin, Irelande) septembre 2002 automne 2003. - Janique Vernie, Le trait des Nisga'a et le fdralisme post-colonial, t 2002 automne 2002. - Nystrom, Jason, La social-dmocratie en Saskatchewan et le discours de l'austrit conomique, 1944-1998, automne 1997 automne 2001 - Hudon, Marie-Eve, Le fdralisme asymtrique et les minorits de langue officielle au Canada, septembre 2000 t 2001

76

iii) Comits de thse de doctorat - Benot Secours-Dcary, Politique et imaginaire pnal au Brsil (provisoire), cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa (en cours) - Tina Desabrais, Femmes francophones et ducation, Facult d'ducation, Universit d'Ottawa (en cours) - Junichiro Koji, La politique d'immigration qubcoise, cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa, avril 2011. - Marc Gervais, Minority Governments in Canada, cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa, 2010. - David Leech, Strength Through Sharing: Mi'kmaq Political Thought to 1761, 2006, cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa, 2002. - Guy Chiasson, Pense et voir dmocratiquement le dveloppement local : le local et la question du politique, cole d'tudes politiques, Universit d'Ottawa, 2000. iv) valuateur externe - Kathleen Charlebois, La mobilisation sociale dans un contexte de gouvernance au Qubec et en Irlande dans l'laboration des politiques de luttes contre la pauvret, Universit de Montral, mars 2010. - Simon Jolivet, Les deux questions irlandaises, thse de doctorat, Universit Concordia, octobre 2008. - Olivier De Champlain, Modernit avance et volution des modles nationaux de dveloppement : une comparaison des modles qubcois et irlandais, thse de matrise, Universit du Qubec Montral, fvrier 2006. - Paul Dobrowolski, La planification linguistique et l'apprentissage du franais langue seconde dans les pays fdrs, thse de matrise, Universit Laval, Qubec, juin 2005. - Jennifer Cann, Language Policy and Its Implementation in Higher Education in Wales and New Brunswick, thse de doctorat, Cardiff University, Pays de Galles, janvier 2004. v) Stagiaires, professionnels de recherche et post-doctorats - Mlina Leroux (stagiaire de recherche, 4e anne), La gouvernance communautaire au sein de la francophonie d'Ottawa. - dith Leclerc (postdoctorat), La gouvernance des forts en milieu minoritaire francophone, septembre 2012. - Rmi Lger (postdoctorat), La gouvernance communautaire en milieu minoritaire francophone, janvier 2012 aot 2012. - Koldo Diaz (stagiaire doctoral, University Barrio Sarriena Pays Basque, Espagne), Identit, jeunesse et mdias sociaux au Pays Basque, janvier 2012 avril 2012. - Marie-Hlne Eddie (professionnelle de recherche), janvier 2011 dcembre 2011. - Jol Madore (postdoctorat), Les savoirs de l'engagement : les minorits linguistiques face leur avenir, septembre 2009 aot 2011. - Kathleen Charlebois (postdoctorat), La gouvernance intracommunautaire au sein de la francophonie canadienne, septembre 2009 aot 2010. 8

77

- Eloisa Gonzales-Hilado (stagiaire, Universit Carlos III, Madrid), Un droit l'autonomie pour les minorits nationales au sein du Conseil de l'Europe, fvrier 2009 fvrier 2010. - Stphane Lang (postdoctorant), Le dveloppement du bilinguisme judiciaire en Ontario, janvier 2005 mars 2007. - Anik Sauv (professionnelle de recherche), janvier 2005 fvrier 2010. - Gemma Ubasart (stagiaire), Les mouvements sociaux en Espagne, septembre 2004 janvier 2005. - Nancy Johnston (stagiaire), Les politiques linguistiques au Sngal, septembre 2004 mai 2005. - Nathalie Plante (professionnelle de recherche), septembre 2004 (encore en poste) G) COURS SUPRIEURS : (pendant les huit (8) dernires annes) Sminaires POL 8512 POL 7760A CDN 6520 Ml-M 2 FRA CDN 6919 FEM 5700 POL 6519 POL 7603

Examen champ mineure en politique canadienne, 2012 Sminaire de mthodologie, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 Sminaire de doctorat sur la francophonie canadienne, 2009 Sorbonne Citoyennet et identits au Canada, et Histoire, socit et politique au Canada, 2006, 2007 Identit et culture en Amrique francophone, 2003, 2004 Citoyennet et identits au Canada, 2001, 2002 Thories fministes, 2000 Analyse du systme politique canadien, 2004, 2005, 2012-2013 Sminaire en politique canadienne et qubcoise, 2000-2001, 2001-2002

H) SUBVENTIONS DE RECHERCHE EXTERNE : (pendant les sept (7) dernires annes) 2012 Centre national de formation en sant
SAIC

1 000 $

2011

6 000 $

Recherche (coll. Manon Tremblay, Hpital Montfort) Colloque international Colloque international Co-responsable dans un projet de recherche dirig par Anne Gilbert Recherche

2011

CRSH

8 400 $

20112014

CRSH

187 000

20112012

Centre national de formation en sant

40 000 $

78

20102011 2010 20092010 20092014 20082009 20082009

Ministre des Collges et Universits Association internationale d'tudes qubcoises Fondation du droit de l'Ontario CRSH Ministre du Procureur gnral de l'Ontario Fondation du droit de l'Ontario (en coll. Avec Mark Power et Franois Larocque, Facult de common law) CRSH CRSH Ministre du Patrimoine canadien Ministre du Patrimoine canadien

32 500 $

Recherche

G G C G A

500 $ 21 804,00 $ 1 000 000 $ 108 713 $ 5 000 $

Confrence Recherche ARUC, Recherche Recherche Recherche

20082009 2008 2008 2008

C C G G

20 000 $ 9 050 $ 3 500 $ 5 000 $

ARUC, lettre d'intention Colloque Colloque Organisation de la Journe internationale de la francophonie Colloque

2008

2008

20072008 2006 20062007

Institut canadien de recherches sur les minorits linguistiques Secrtariat aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes Ministre du Procureur gnral de l'Ontario Ministre du Procureur gnral de l'Ontario Ministre du Procureur gnral de l'Ontario

5 000 $

2 500 $

Colloque

60 306 $

G G

14 480 $ 84 690 $

Recherche et coordination d'activits Recherche Coordination du plan stratgique sur les services en franais dans le secteur justice Recherche

20062009

CRSH

45 000 $

10

79

2006

2006 2006

Institut canadien de recherche sur les minorits linguistique ' Fondation canadienne pour le dialogue des cultures Ministre du Procureur gnral de l'Ontario

5 000 $

Colloque

F G

2 500 $ 16 000 $

Colloque Recherche et collaboration une consultation sur les services en franais Recherche Recherche

20052006 20052007 2005

Commissariat aux langues officielles CRSH (en coll. avec Anne Gilbert et J. Yvon Thriault) Ministre des Affaires trangres et du commerce international Coalition nationale des femmes francophone (en coll. avec Rachel Cox) Ministre du Procureur gnral de l'Ontario Ministre des Affaires trangres et du commerce international du Canada CRSH Ministre des Affaires trangres et du commerce international du Canada Patrimoine canadien et l'Association franaise des municipalits de l'Ontario en coll. avec C. Andrew (U. Ottawa) et Claude Denis (U. Alberta) Patrimoine canadien

G C

32 000 $ 100 000 $

5 000$

Colloque

2005

5 000 $

Recherche

20052006 2004

G G

155 000$ 5 000 $

Recherche Appui aux tudies canadiennes Recherche Appui aux tudes canadiennes Recherche

20032006 2003

C G

53,563 $ 2 000 $

20022003

45 000 $

20022003 20022005

26,000 $

Gestion de la revue Politique et Socits Gestion et numrisation de la revue Politique et Socits

FCAR

71 924 $

11

80

20022005

CRSHC

29 607 $

Gestion de la revue Politique et Socits

*Type : C-conseils subventionnaires; G-gouvernement; F-fondations; A-autres **But : Recherche, voyage, publication, etc.

I) SUBVENTIONS DE RECHERCHE INTERNE : (pendant les huit (8) dernires annes) 2011 2009 2009 2009 2008-2009 2008 Universit d'Ottawa, 3 000 $, colloque; Facult des sciences sociales, 3 000 $, colloque. Universit d'Ottawa, 1 000 $, colloque Vice-rectorat la recherche, 100 000 $ pour la Chaire de recherche de l'Universit d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques Service de la recherche, 5 000 $; organisation d'un colloque dans le cadre de l'ACFAS; Facult des sciences sociales 5 000 $ Deux assistanats de recherche, 10 000 $, Facult des sciences sociales Vice-rectorat la recherche, 5 000 $; Facult des sciences sociales, 5 000 X 2 $; cole d'tudes politiques, 500 $, Facult de droit, 2 000 $; Centre d'tudes en gouvernance, 1 000 $, Service de subvention de recherche et dontologie, 3 000 $, organisation de trois colloques Service de subvention de recherche et dontologie, 3 000 $; Facult des arts, 3 000 $ ; et Facult des sciences sociales, organisation d'un colloque, 3 000 $ Fonds universitaire d'aide l'organisation de colloque, 3 000 $ Vice-rectorat la recherche, 100 000 $ pour la Chaire de recherche de l'Universit d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques

2006

2005 2004

J) PUBLICATIONS : i) Rsum indiquant un total pour les 7 dernires annes, et selon les catgories suivantes : Livres rdigs par l'auteure ..................................................................................... 4 Livres dits par l'auteure ..................................................................................... 18 Chapitres de livres ................................................................................................. 54 Articles publis dans des revues avec comit de lecture ....................................... 41 Contributions majeures sur invitation et/ou rapports techniques .......................... 29 Rsums de communications et prsentations .................................................... 178 Autres .................................................................................................................... 32 ii) Description dtaille des publications d'aprs les mmes catgories pour les sept dernires annes :

12

81

Livres dits par l'auteure: 18.


e Linda Cardinal, Simon Jolivet et Isabelle Matte, Le Qubec et l'Irlande aux XIX et XXe sicles : culture, histoire, identit, Montral, Septentrion, 2013 (sous presse)

17.

Linda Cardinal, Minorits, langue et politique, numro spcial de la revue Politique et Socits, vol. 29, n 2, 2010. Linda Cardinal et Jean-Michel Lacroix, Le conservatisme : le Canada et le Qubec en contexte, Paris, Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2009, 213 p. Dimitri Karmis et Linda Cardinal, Les politiques publiques au Canada : pouvoir, conflits et idologies, Qubec, Presses de l'Universit Laval, 2009, 402 p. Joseph Yvon Thriault, Aime Gilbert et Linda Cardinal (dir), L'espace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montral, Fids, 2008, 564 p. Linda Cardinal, Le fdralisme asymtrique et les minorits nationales et linguistiques, Sudbury, ditions Prise de parole, 2008, 456 p. Nicholas Brown and Linda Cardinal, Managing Diversity: Practices of Citizenship in Australia, Canada and Ireland, Ottawa, University of Ottawa Press, 2007, 208 p.

16.

15.

14.

13.

12.

Chapitres de livres: 54. Linda Cardinal et Simon Jolivet, Les modalits d'intgration des Irlandais catholiques au Qubec et en Ontario. Le cas des conflits scolaires au tournant du 20e sicle , dans 1 Linda Cardinal, Simon Jolivet et Isabelle Matte, Le Qubec et l'Irlande aux 2riXe et .20C sicles : culture, histoire, identit, Montral, Septentrion, 2013 (sous presse) Linda Cardinal, ric Champagne et Marie-Hlne Eddie, Consortium national de formation en sant , dans Caroline Andrew, Ruth Hubbard et Gilles Paquet (dir.), Gouvernance communautaire : innovations dans le Canada franais hors Qubec, Ottawa, Invenire, p. 31-43. Linda Cardinal et Nathalie Plante, Mobilisation des connaissances au sein de la francophonie , dans Caroline Andrew, Ruth Hubbard et Gilles Paquet (dir.), Gouvernance communautaire : innovations dans le Canada franais hors Qubec, Ottawa, Invenire, p. 95-105. Linda Cardinal, Language Regime in Canada and in Qubec: From Competition to Collaboration? , RECODE Working Paper Series, European Science Foundation, University of Helsinki, Online Working Paper n 2, 2012, 13 pages.

53.

52.

51.

13

82

50.

Linda Cardinal, L'avenir du franais dans un Qubec interculturel , dans Grard Bouchard (dir.), Actes du symposium international sur l'interculturalisme, Montral, www.symposium-interculturalisme.com, 2012, chapitre 7, 23 pages. Linda Cardinal et Martin Normand, Des accents distincts : les rgimes linguistiques ontarien et qubcois , dans Jean-Franois Savard, Alexandre Brassard et Louis Ct (dir.), Les relations Ontario-Qubec : un destin partag, Montral, Presses de l'Universit de Montral, 2011, p. 131-158. Linda Cardinal, Fdralisme et langue , dans Michel Seymour (dir.), Le fdralisme multinational : Un modle viable?), Bruxelles, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2011, p. 247-268. Linda Cardinal, Minorits, langue et politique , prsentation du numro, Politique et Socits, vol. 29, d 2, 2010. Linda Cardinal, Language policy-making and planning in Qubec and in Canada , dans Rudy, Jarrett, Stphan Gervais et Christopher Kirkey dir.), Quebec Questions. Quebec Studies for the Twenty First Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, chapitre 13, p. 186-203. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Immigration, langue et diversit culturelle en Ontario , dans Vera Regan, Isabelle Leme et Maeve Conrick (dirs.), Multiculturalism and Integrtion. Canadian and Irish Experiences, Ottawa, Presses de l'Universit d'Ottawa, 2010, p. 13-42. Linda Cardinal, Le Qubec et le monde atlantique , Bulletin d'histoire politique, numro spcial sur le thme L'ide de rpublique au Qubec sous la direction de Marc Chevrier, vol. 17, n 3, 2009, p. 17-28. Linda Cardinal, Quelle citoyennet pour les minoritaires ? Une rponse rpublicaine , dans Mark Dubrulle et Gabriel Fragnire (dir.), Identits culturelles et citoyennet europenne, Bruxelles, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2009, p. 51-72. Linda Cardinal et Dimitri Karmis, Introduction , dans Dimitri Karmis et Linda Cardinal, Les politiques publiques au Canada : pouvoir, conflits et idologies, Qubec, Les Presses de l'Universit Laval, 2009, p. 1-6. Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang et Anik Sauv, La coordination des langues officielles et la formulation des politiques publiques : apprendre travailler autrement , dans Dimitri Karmis et Linda Cardinal, Les politiques publiques au Canada : pouvoir, conflits et idologies, Qubec, Les Presses de l'Universit Laval, 2009, p. 155-180. Linda. Cardinal, La participation des minorits francophones hors Qubec la vie politique au Canada : comment combler le dficit dmocratique ? , dans Yvon Thriault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal (dir), L'espace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montral, Fids, 2008, p. 385-430. 14

49.

48.

47.

46.

45.

44.

43.

42

41.

40.

83

39.

Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andre Denault, Les lois linguistiques du Canada et du Qubec l're de la mondialisation: pour un changement de paradigme , dans Linda Cardinal (dir.), Le fdralisme asymtrique et les minorits, Sudbury, Prise de parole, 2008, p. 168-197. Linda Cardinal et Biljana Kostadinov, Les nouvelles avances du fdralisme asymtrique : Le Canada en perspective , Collected Papers of Zagreb Law School, vol. 57, ris 4-5, 2007, p. 727-741. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andre Denault, `Empowering Linguistic Minorities: NeoLiberal Governance and Language Policies in Canada and in Wales', dans John Loughlin et Chris Deschouwer (dir.), Governance in the 21' Century, Bruxelles, Flanders Royal Academy of Arts and Sciences, 2007, p. 97-114. Linda Cardinal, 'New Approaches for the Empowerment of Linguistic Minorities: Policy Innovations in Canada in the 1990's', dans Colin Williams (dir.), Language and Governance in Comparative Perspective, Cardiff, Wales University Press 2007, p. 434459. Linda Cardinal et Rachel Cox, Reprsentation et lgitimit des groupes de femmes francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire au Canada , dans Marie-Blanche Tahon (dir.), Les frontalires, Montral, ditions du remue mnage, 2007, p. 96-117. Linda Cardinal, La jeunesse francophone au Canada : une recherche aux accents prometteurs , dans Michel Bock (dir.), La jeunesse au Canada franais, Ottawa, CRCCF et Presses de l'Universit d'Ottawa, 2007, p. 267-270. Linda Cardinal et Marie-Joie Brady, Citoyennet et fdralisme au Canada : une e relation difficile , dans Alain-G. Gagnon (dir.), Le fdralisme canadien au 21 sicle : fondements, traditions, institutions, Montral, Presses de l'Universit de Montral, 2006, p. 453-469. Traduit en catalan, Ciutadania I Federalisme al Canada : une relacio Dificil , Barcelone, Generalitat de Catalunya, Institut d'Estudis Autonomics, 2007, p. 377-398. Linda Cardinal, Les enjeux de la diversit linguistique au Canada et au Qubec , dans Jacques Palard et al (dir.), La diversit des identits au Canada et dans l'Europe des rgions, Qubec et Bruxelles, Les Presses de l'Universit Laval et P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2006, p. 93-118. Linda Cardinal, La judiciarisation de la politique, les droits des minorits et le nationalisme canadien , crits en l'honneur de Claude Ryan, Forum Constitutionnel/Constitutional Forum, vol. 13-14, ris 3-4, 2005, p. 60-64. Linda Cardinal, Neo-institutionalism in Qubec Political Science , dans Andr Lecours (dir.), Neo-institutionalism: theory and analysis, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2005, p. 128-150.

38.

37.

36.

35.

34.

33.

32.

31.

30.

15

84

29.

Linda Cardinal, Las politicas linguisticas en Canada y en Quebec , dans A. Heistoulas, C. Denis et J.L. Garcia Aguilar (dir.), Politica y Gobierno de Canada. Un introducion, Mexico (D.F.), Miguel Angel Porrua, 2005, p. 141-163. Linda Cardinal et Luc Juillet, Les minorits francophones hors Qubec et la gouvernance des langues officielles au Canada , dans Jean-Pierre Wallot, La gouvernance linguistique : le Canada en perspective, Ottawa, Presses de l'Universit d'Ottawa, 2005, p. 157-176.

28.

Articles publis dans des revues avec comit de lecture : 41. Linda Cardinal, ric Champagne et Marie-Hlne Eddie, Nouvelle gouvernance publique et innovation : le cas du Centre national de formation en sant , Gouvernance (sous presse). Jrmie Connut, Carolle Simard, Maya Megen et Linda Cardinal, L'embauche dans les dpartements de science politique francophone au Qubec et au Canada. Un bilan des annes 2000-2010 , Politique et Socits (sous presse). Linda Cardinal et Anne Mvellec, La reprsentation politique des francophones la ville d'Ottawa , Francophonies d'Amrique (sous presse). Linda Cardinal, Marie-Hlne Eddie, Marc Johnson et Martine Plourde, L'analyse diffrencie francophone , Revue du Nouvel Ontario (sous presse). Linda Cardinal, L'identit en dbat : repres et perspectives pour l'tude du Canada franais , Revue internationale d'tudes canadiennes, nos 45-46, 2012, p. 53-66. Linda Cardinal et Eloisa Gonzales-Hildago, L'autonomie de minorits francophones hors Qubec au regard du dbat sur les minorits nationales et les minorits ethniques , Minorits linguistiques et socit, vol. 1, n 1, 2012, p. 51-65. Linda Cardinal et Martin Papillon, Le Qubec et l'analyse compare des petites nations , Politique et Socits, vol. 30, d 1, 2011, p. 75-94. Linda Cardinal, Politiques linguistiques et mobilisations ethnolinguistiques au Canada et en Grande-Bretagne depuis les annes 1990 , Cultures et conflits, n'79-80, 2010, p. 39-56. Linda Cardinal, Pourquoi le Qubec devrait-il renouer avec le dbat sur son avenir au sein du Canada ? , Note critique, Recherches sociographiques, n 3, 2010, p. 423-434. Linda Cardinal et Martin Normand, Philippe Garigue et la sociologie du Canada franais , Recherches sociographiques, n 3, 2010, p. 386-403.

40.

39

38.

37.

36.

35.

34.

33.

32.

16

85

31.

Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang et Anik Sauv, Les minorits francophones hors Qubec et la gouvernance des langues officielles : portrait et enjeux , Francophonies d'Amrique d 26, 2008, p. 209-233. Linda Cardinal, Bilinguisme et territorialit : les enjeux de l'amnagement linguistique au Canada et au Qubec , Herms, n 51, 2008, p. 133-139. Anne-Andre Denault et Linda Cardinal, Rupture et continuit : une relecture des rcits des effets de la rvolution tranquille sur les rapports entriles socits acadienne et qubcoise , American Journal of Quebec Studies, vol. 43, 2007, p. 67-81.

30.

29.

28. . Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andre Denault, Empowering Linguistic Minorities: NeoLiberal Governance and Language Policies in Canada and in Wales , Regional and Federal Studies, vol. 17, n 4, 2007, p. 437-456. 27. Linda Cardinal, Anne-Andre Denault et Natalie Riendeau, Bilingualism and the Politics of Language Policy-Making and Planning in Wales , Language Problems and Language Planning, vol. 31, d 3, 2007, p. 211-235. Linda Cardinal et Stphane Lang, Les Franco-Ontariens et la pense constitutionnelle de Roy McMurtry , Mens, Revue d'histoire intellectuelle de l'Amrique franaise, vol. 7, n 2, printemps 2007, p. 279-311. Linda Cardinal et Rachel Cox, La reprsentation des femmes au sein des groupes minoritaires : le cas des femmes francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire au Canada , Les cahiers de la femme, vol. 25, nos 3-4, 2007, p. 91-96. Linda Cardinal, 'Language Politics and Horizontal Governance', International Journal of Sociology of Language, n 23, 2007, p. 89-107. Linda Cardinal, Langue, droit et politique : la thorie librale et le dbat sur les langues minoritaires , Supreme Court Law Review, n 31, 2006, p. 217-233. Linda Cardinal, Gouvernance linguistique et dmocratie : la participation des minorits de langue officielle la vie publique au Canada , Gouvernance, vol. 2, n 2, 2006, p. 3949. Linda Cardinal et Gilles Paquet, Theorising small nations in the Atlantic world: Scottish lessons for Qubec?, British Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 18, n 2, 2005, p. 214-231. Linda Cardinal, Language and the Ideological Limits of Diversity in Canada , Journal of Multilingualism and Multicultural Development, vol. 26, n 6, 2005, p. 481-495.

26.

25.

24.

23.

22.

21.

20.

17

86

Contributions majeures sur invitation et rapports techniques : 31. Linda Cardinal, Franois-Olivier Dorais et Nathalie Plante, Le milieu associatif Ottawa: vitalit, engagement et appartenance, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2012, 25 pages. Linda Cardinal, ric Champagne et Marie-Hlne Eddie, Une tude de la gouvernance du Centre national de formation en sant, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2012, 48 pages. Linda Cardinal, C'est l'temps. Le premier mouvement de revendication pour des services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario, 1975-1977, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2011, 52 pages. Linda Cardinal, Franois Charbonneau et Tina Desabrais, Francophonie et ducation postsecondaire en Ontario. Rsultats de la recherche sur la gestion de donnes et la mise en oeuvre de mesure permettant de quantifier l'ducation postsecondaire en langue franaise en Ontario, Toronto, ministre de la Formation, des Collges et des Universits, 2011, 29 pages. Linda Cardinal, laine Dry, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, La gouvernance communautaire en Ontario franais : une nouvelle forme d'action collective ? Volume 1 : Un portrait des groupes communautaires, Ottawa, Observatoire sur la gouvernance de l'Ontario franais, mars 2010, 49 p. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, De la thorie la pratique : les mcanismes d'offre et de demande des services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : le point de vue des fonctionnaires et des usagres et usagers, volume 2, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2009, 93 pages. Linda Cardinal et Anik Sauv, De la thorie la pratique : les mcanismes d'offre des services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario, volume 1, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2008, 74 pages. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Les francophones vivant en milieux rural et urbain en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Les jeunes francophones en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Les francophones de 65 ans et plus en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages. 18

30.

29.

28.

27.

26.

25.

24.

23.

22.

87

21.

Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Les immigrants francophones en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Les francophones appartenant une minorit visible en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauv, Les femmes francophones en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages. Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang and Anik Sauv, Les services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : rapport de la consultation des intervenantes et intervenants francophones, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, juillet 2006, 76 p. Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang et Anik Sauv, Apprendre travailler autrement : la gouvernance partage dans le domaine du dveloppement des langues officielles au Canada, Ottawa, Commissariat aux langues officielles, dcembre 2005, 62 p. Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang, Nathalie Plante, Anik Sauv et Chantal Terrien, La francophonie ontarienne : un portrait statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2005, 97 p. Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang, Nathalie Plante, Anik Sauv et Chantal Terrien, Les services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : un tat des lieux, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2005, 127 p. Linda Cardinal, Stphane Lang, Nathalie Plante, Anik Sauv et Chantal Terrien, Les services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : rpertoire, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2005, 207 p. Linda Cardinal et Rachel Cox, La gouvernance des langues officielles au Canada et ses effets sur les femmes et les groupes de femmes francophones en milieu minoritaire : optimiser un potentiel rassembleur, Ottawa, Coalition nationale des femmes francophones, juin 2005, 54 p.

20.

19.

18.

17.

16.

15.

14.

13.

Rsums de communications et prsentations : 178. Linda Cardinal, Le mouvement social des carrs rouge reprsente t-il la fin ou le renouveau du nationalisme au Qubec , Sminaire du CIRCEM, Universit d'Ottawa, 21 novembre 2012.

19

88

177. Linda Cardinal, Le Mouvement C'est l'temps : le temps du renouveau en Ontario franais , colloque du rseau Histoire Engage, Universit d'Ottawa, 6 octobre 2012. 176. Linda Cardinal, La gouvernance au service de la justice : le cas de la Coalition des intervenantes et intervenants francophones en justice , Symposium sur le bilinguisme et les services en franais, Universit d'Ottawa, 20 septembre 2012. 175. Linda Cardinal, ric Champagne et Marie-Hlne Eddie, Innovation et nouvelle gouvernance publique : le cas du Consortium national de recherche en sant , Socit qubcoise de science politique, Universit d'Ottawa, 23 mai 2012. 174. Linda Cardinal, Savoir et engagement au sein de la francophonie: deux chantiers en cours , Rseau de la diapora djiboutienne d'Ottawa, cole secondaire Garneau (Orlans), 21 mai 2012. 173. Linda Cardinal, Lnnovative Strategies for Linguistic Minority Vitality , Cardiff University/Tresaith Youth and Cultural Center, Pays de Galles, 25 avril 2012. 172. Linda Cardinal, La mobilisation des savoirs dans le domaine de la gouvernance et de l'immigration , colloque Metropolis, Toronto, 29 mars 2012. 171. Linda Cardinal et Anne Gilbert, Le chantier de recherche sur la francophonie Ottawa , colloque de l'Association amricaine d'tudes canadiennes, Ottawa, 18 novembre 2011. 171. Linda Cardinal, Les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en franais , Facult de droit, Universit d'Ottawa, 17-18 novembre 2011. 170. Linda Cardinal, La fin du projet linguistique canadien ? , colloque De la question nationale la question sociale ? , Universit d'Ottawa, 10 novembre 2011. 169. Linda Cardinal et Anne Mvellec, La reprsentation politique des francophones Ottawa, 1980-2010 , colloque Penser la ville. Ottawa, lieu de vie franais, Universit d'Ottawa, 3-4 novembre 2011. 168. Linda Cardinal, La mobilisation des savoirs et les partenariats de recherche , Symposium sur les langues officielles, Ministre de la Justice du Canada et Patrimoine canadien, Ottawa, 31 aot, 2011. 167. Linda Cardinal, La coproduction des savoirs : enjeux conceptuels et mthodologiques , Alliance de recherche sur les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire, Universit de Moncton, 30 aot 2011. 166. Linda Cardinal, Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire , prsentation dans le cadre des activits de l'Assemble de la francophonie de l'Ontario, Ottawa, 18 juillet 2011. 20

89

165. Linda Cardinal, L'avenir du franais dans un Qubec interculturel , Symposium Interculturalisme 2011, Universit du Qubec Montral, 25-27 mai 2011. 164. Linda Cardinal, "Language regimes in Canada and in Quebec: from competition to collaboration?", RECODE Workshop, University of Helsinki (Finland), 5-7mai 2011. 163. Linda Cardinal et Marie-Hlne Eddie, Le mouvement C'est l'temps et le domaine de la justice en Ontario , prsent au CRCCF, 2 mars, 2011. 162. Linda Cardinal, Les droits des minorits et la question des droits de la personne , prsent au CRISEF, 18 novembre 2010. 161. Linda Cardinal, L'identit canadienne-franaise hors Qubec en dbat : bilan et prospective , prsent au CIRCEM, Universit d'Ottawa, 14 octobre 2010. 160. Linda Cardinal, Le mouvement C'est l'temps , congrs de l'Association des juristes d'expression franaise de l'Ontario, Strasbourg (France), 1-3 juillet, 2010. 159. Linda Cardinal, Les rgimes linguistiques et le dveloppement des services aux minorits : le cas de l'Ontario , congrs de l'Association des juristes d'expression franaise de l'Ontario, Strasbourg (France), 1-3 juillet, 2010. 158. Linda Cardinal, L'autonomie des minorits linguistiques : le Canada en perspective , ICRML, Universit de Moncton, 16-17 mai, 2010. 157. Linda Cardinal, Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire en Ontario franais , ACFAS, Universit de Montral, 11 mai, 2010. 156. Linda Cardinal, L'identit francophone en dbat , CREFO, Universit de Toronto, 9 mars 2010. 155. Linda Cardinal et Nathalie Plante, Profil de la gouvernance organisationnelle des groupes de l'Ontario franais , Alliance de recherche sur les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire, Universit d'Ottawa, 13 novembre 2009. 154. Linda Cardinal, Fdralisme et langue : les avances et reculs du fdralisme canadien , Laboratoire de recherches et d'tudes sur le fdralisme et les institutions, Universit d'Ottawa, 15 octobre 2009. 153. Linda Cardinal, Fdralisme et langue : les enjeux , Conseil priv, 6 octobre, 2009. 152. Linda Cardinal, Une politique sans hros? Commentaire sur Daniel Innerarity , Universit du Qubec Montral, 29 septembre 2009. 151. Linda Cardinal, Fdralisme et langue : l'incidence du fdralisme d'ouverture sur les 21

90

rgimes linguistiques canadien et qubcois , Universit du Qubec Montral, 28-30 septembre, 2009. 150. Linda Cardinal, L'action collective des minorits linguistiques : comparaisons canadiennes et europennes congrs de l'Association franaise de science politique, Grenoble (France), 7-9 septembre 2009. 149. Linda Cardinal, Considrations thoriques sur les rapports entre langue et politique , congrs de l'Association internationale de science politique, Universit de Chili, Santiago, 10 au 15 juillet 2009. 148. Linda Cardinal et Martin Papillon, Le Qubec et l'analyse compare des petites nations , congrs annuel de la Socit qubcoise de science politique, Universit d'Ottawa, 27-28 mai 2009. 147. Linda Cardinal et Guy Laforest, Language Planning and Policy-Making in Qubec , Conseil de l'Europe, Bilbao, 20-21 avril 2009. 146. Linda Cardinal, Where Reasonable and Practical: the development of French language services in the justice sector , Universit de Cardiff, pays de Galles, 19 fvrier, 2009. 145. Linda Cardinal et Anik Sauv, Les mcanismes d'offre et de demande dans le domaine des services en franais en justice , Rseau des intervenantes et intervenantes francophones dans le domaine de la justice, Toronto, 12 fvrier 2009. 144. Linda Cardinal, The Other Atlantic World : Quebec and Ireland in Comparative Perspective , prsent au Centre d'tudes canado-irlandaises, Universit Concordia, 28 novembre 2008. 143. Linda Cardinal et Anik Sauv, De la thorie la pratique : les mcanismes d'offre dans le domaine des services en franais , ministre du Procureur gnral, Toronto, octobre 2008. 142. Linda Cardinal, Philippe Garigue et la sociologie du Canada franais , prsent l'Universit d'Ottawa, 26 septembre 2008. 141. Linda Cardinal, La diversit linguistique en Ontario , prsent au colloque biannuel de l'Association d'tudes canadiennes en friande, Dublin, 15-17 mai 2008. 140. Linda Cardinal, Les nouveaux enjeux politiques : les rapports entre le Qubec et la francophonie canadienne , colloque Vue d'ici et d'ailleurs. Francophonies minoritaires en perspective, ACFAS, Qubec, 7 mai 2008. 139. Linda Cardinal, La comparaison Qubec-Irlande : un nouvel objet d'tude , colloque Culture, histoire, identit : le Qubec et l'Irlande, d'hier aujourd'hui, ACFAS, Qubec, 6 mai 2008. 22

91

138. Linda Cardinal, Portrait et gouvernance des minorits linguistiques : perspectives compares , prsent la confrence Mtropolis, Halifax, 4-5 avril 2008. 137. Linda Cardinal, Commentaire et ractions l'tude de Statistique Canada, Les minorits de langue officiell prennent fa parole, Universit d'Ottawa, colloque du CIRCEM, 10-11 mars. 136. Linda Cardinal, Bilinguisme et valeur des langues l're de la mondialisation : le cas du Canada , prsent l'Institut des langues officielles et du bilinguisme, Universit d'Ottawa, 25 janvier 2008. 135. Linda Cardinal, De la politique au droit l' empowerment : le dveloppement des minorits de langue officielle au Canada , prsent au ministre du Patrimoine canadien, Gatineau, 21 novembre 2007. 134. Linda Cardinal, Le dveloppement des services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : un exemple de bonne pratique , prsent au ministre de la Justice du Canada, Ottawa 24 octobre 2007. 133. Linda Cardinal, Les langues officielles au Canada , Chaire d'histoire nord-amricaine, Universit Paris 1, 30 avril 2007. 132. Linda Cardinal, Aprs le multiculturalisme ? La gouvernance des politiques publiques de l'identit au Canada , prsent au Centre d'tudes en relations internationales, Sciences po, Paris (France), 20 mars 2007. 131. Linda Cardinal, Citoyennet et fdralisme : comparaisons Canada-Europe , prsent au Centre de droit public et constitutionnel, Universit Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles (Belgique), 9 mars 2007. 130. Linda Cardinal, State Intervention and Identity Policies : Quo Vadis ? , prsent au Centre d'tudes canadiennes, University College Dublin (friande), 23 fvrier 2007. 129. Linda Cardinal, La Charte canadienne des droits et liberts et la juridisation du dbat linguistique au Canada , prsent la confrence annuelle de l'Association allemande d'tudes canadiennes, Grainau (Allemagne), 16-19 fvrier 2007. 128. Linda Cardinal et Aime-Andre Denault, Empowering Linguistic Minorities in Canada and in Wales , prsent au congrs de l'Association internationale de science politique, Fukuoka (Japon), 9 au 13 juillet 2006. 127. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andre Denault, Citizenship and Linguistic Policies in Canada in an Era of Globalization , prsent au colloque Citizenship, Diversity and Gender , Universit de Tohoku, Senda (Japon), 4 juillet 2006.

23

92

126. Linda Cardinal, Quelle citoyennet pour les minoritaires ? , prsent au colloque Conceptions et volutions de la citoyennet , Institut d'tudes politiques, Universit de Rennes, 16 juin 2006. 125. Linda Cardinal, Le dbat contemporain sur les langues minoritaires : l'apport de l'analyse compare l'tude des minorits , prsent au congrs de l'ACFAS, Universit McGill, 18 mai, 2006. 124. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andre Denault, Les politiques linguistiques canadienne et qubcoise et la mondialisation , prsent au colloque Le fdralisme, le Qubec et les minorits francophones du Canada , Universit d'Ottawa 9-11 mars 2006. 123. Linda Cardinal et Stphane Lang, Les Franco-Ontariens et la pense constitutionnelle de Roy McMurtry , prsent au Centre de recherche en civilisation canadienne-franaise, Universit d'Ottawa, 19 janvier 2006. 122. Linda Cardinal, La recherche internationale sur les conditions critiques d'mergence des langues minoritaires , Commission nationale des parents francophones, Ottawa, 28 octobre 2005. 121 Linda Cardinal, tude du projet de Loi S-3 , prsent au Comit permanent des langues officielles, Chambre des Communes, Ottawa, septembre 2005.

120. Linda Cardinal, Neo-Liberal Governance and the Empowerment of Linguistic Minorities in Canada and in Wales , prsent la confrence Territorial Governance in the 21st Century, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgian Arts and Science, Bruxelles (Belgique), 16-17 septembre 2005. 119. Linda Cardinal et Rachel Cox, Reprsentation et lgitimit des groupes de femmes francophones au Canada , prsent au e congrs sur la recherche fministe en francophonie plurielle, Universit d'Ottawa, 5-8 juillet 2005. 118. Linda Cardinal, Gouvernance linguistique et dmocratie : la participation des minorits de langue officielle la vie publique au Canada , prsent la Fdration des communauts francophones et acadienne du Canada, Vancouver, 10-12 juin 2005. 117. Linda Cardinal, Qui sommes-nous? Samuel Huntington, et la peur des langues , colloque de la Socit qubcoise de science politique, Universit d'Ottawa, 24-26 mai 2005. 116. Linda Cardinal, La dvolution au Royaume-Uni , commentaire prsent la confrence Que reste t-il de Cool Britannia ?, Universit de Montral, CRIUM, 5-7 mai 2005. 115. Linda Cardinal, Language Rights and Political Theory , prsent au Dpartement of Politics, University College Dublin, 23 fvrier 2005. 24

93

114. Linda Cardinal, Les rcits de la citoyennet au Canada : quelle place pour le fdralisme? , prsent la confrence sur le fdralisme organise par la chaire de recherche en tudes qubcoises et canadienne de l'Universit du Qubec Montral, 2829 janvier 2005. Autres : 37. Linda Cardinal, Qui d'Ottawa ou de Qubec fera le premier pas? , Le Droit, 13 septembre 2012. Linda Cardinal, Que restera-t-il du projet linguistique canadien en 2015? , L'tat du Qubec 2012, Montral, Boral, 2012, p. 460-462. Linda Cardinal, Les francophones seront-ils bien reprsents par leurs lus? , Le Droit, 21 juin, 2011. Linda Cardinal, La mobilisation des connaissances : rflexions mthodologiques et formalisation d'une approche. Note de lecture, Ottawa, Alliance de recherche Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire, 2011, 4 pages. Linda Cardinal, Franois Charbonneau, Pierre Foucher, Grard Lvesque et FranoisOlivier Dorais, Juges bilingues : le Snat doit lutter pour l'galit , Le Droit, 15 dcembre 2010. Linda Cardinal, Les fausses inquitudes du candidat Hillier, Le Droit, 6 avril 2009. Linda Cardinal, Michael Ignatieff et les francophones hors Qubec , Le Droit, 17 mars 2009. Linda Cardinal, Au travail! , Le Droit, 12 dcembre 2008. Linda Cardinal, Rflexions sur les nouveaux enjeux politiques au sein de la francophonie canadienne , Monde commun, www.mondecommun.ca. Linda Cardinal, compte-rendu critique de l'ouvrage de Nicola McEwen, Nationalism and the State: Welfare and Identity in Scotland and Qubec, (Pieterlen: Peter Lang, 2006, 212 pp, pb, 23.50, ISBN 0820466506), Scottish Affairs, n 60, automne 2007, p. 119-124. Linda Cardinal, Le discours de la FCFA est insatisfaisant , Le Droit, 3 octobre 2007. Linda Cardinal, La refondation de la francophonie canadienne : une tche ncessaire mais difficile , Le Droit, avril 2005. Linda Cardinal, Le bilinguisme de faade , Le Droit, 18 janvier 2005.

36.

35.

34.

33.

32. 31.

30. 29.

28.

27. 26.

25.

25

94

Activits avec les mdias : Tlvision (45) : TFO-Relief, Entretien avec Gisle Quenneville au sujet des tats gnraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa, 31 octobre 2011. Rogers, Entretien Ginette Gratton reoit au sujet du chantier de recherche sur Ottawa, 31 octobre 2011. TFO-Panorama, Entretien avec Gisle Quenneville au sujet des mcanismes d'offre de services en franais dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario, 19 mars 2010. SRC-Ottawa-Gatineau, Entretien avec Angie Bonenfant sur le programme de contestation judiciaire, 7 octobre 2009. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Odette Gough sur les services en franais dans le domaine de la justice, 2 fvrier 2009. TFO-Panorama, Entretien avec Gisle Quenneville au sujet de la crise parlementaire, 12 dcembre 2008. TFO, Panorama, Entretien avec Gisle Quenneville sur le sujet des donnes sur la langue et l'immigration de Statistique Canada, 5 dcembre 2007. TFO, Panorama, Entretien avec Gisle Quenneville sur le sujet du leadership de la Fdration des communauts francophones et acadiennes du Canada, 18 octobre 2007. TFO, Panorama, Entretien avec Gisle Quenneville au sujet des lections fdrales, 15 dcembre 2005. Rodgers TV, Francopinion, Entretien avec Ginette Gratton, Bilan de la scne fdrale, 17 novembre 2005. SRC, Regina, Entretien avec Hugo Lavoie sur la gouvernance des langues officielles, 16 novembre 2005. Rodgers TV, Francopinion, Table-ronde sur les identits franco-ontarienne et acadienne, le 16 juin 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fdrale, 12 mai 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fdrale, 13 avril 2005. SRC, Entretien avec Mireille Allaire, la situation du franais dans les municipalits ontariennes, 18 mars 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fdrale, 6 avril 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fdrale, 12 mai 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fdrale, 20 janvier 2005. TFO, Table ronde sur l'Universit franco-ontarienne, 5 janvier 2005.

Radio (39) : CBON- Sudbury, Entretien sur la vitalit de la francophonie ontarienne, 25 septembre 2012. SRC-Windsor et Sudbury, Entretien avec Caroline Borduas sur les rsultats des lections au Qubec, 6 septembre 2012. CJOF, Entretien avec Denis Boucher sur les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en franais de l'Ontario, 17 novembre 2011. 26

SRC-Toronto, Entretien sur les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en franais de l'Ontario, 17 novembre 2011. SRC-Sudbury, Entretien sur les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en franais de l'Ontario, 17 novembre 2011. CJFO, Entretien avec Vronique Soucy sur les tapes des tats gnraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa, 7 novembre 2011. CJFO, Entretien avec Denis Boucher sur la reprsentation politique des francophones, 21 juin 2011. CJFO, Entretien avec Denis Boucher sur les tats gnraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa, 16 juin 2011. CJFO, Table-ronde sur les tats gnraux du Canada franais, octobre 2010. SRC-Saskatchewan, Entretien sur le projet de loi C-232, juin 2010. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Benot Cantin sur les services en franais en justice, 4 mars 2010. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Annie Poulin sur les services en franais en justice, 3 mars 2010. SRC-Sudbury, Entretien avec Maude Rivard sur le programme de contestation judiciaire, 8 octobre 2009. SRC-Ottawa, mission Carl Bernier et Cie, Entretien sur le programme de contestation judiciaire, 8 octobre 2009. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Gisle Jeanson de l'mission Au-del de la 417 sur la publication du rapport annuel du Commissaire aux langues officielles, 26 mai 2009. CBON-SRC-Sudbury, Entretien au sujet du dveloppement des services en franais dans le domaine de la justice, 13 janvier 2009. SRC-Ottawa, Le monde selon Mathieu, entretien au sujet de mes recherches sur les minorits linguistiques, 18 avril 2008. SRC-Ontario, Entretien avec Gisle Jeanson de l'mission Au-del de la 417 pour commenter la candidature de Madame Hilary Clinton la prsidence du Parti dmocrate aux tats-Unis, 4 mars 2008. SRC-Ontario, Entretien avec Gisle Jeanson de l'mission Au-del de la 417 pour commenter l'enqute de Statistique Canada sur la vitalit des minorits de langues officielles au Canada, 11 dcembre 2007. SRC-Ontario, Entretien avec Line Boily de l'mission sur les Arts et les Autres sur ma nomination la chaire d'tudes canadiennes la Sorbonne, 3 novembre 2006. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Genevive Jeanson sur la rencontre de l'AFO Toronto, 9 juin 2006. France-Culture, Entretien avec Franois Garcin sur les langues officielles au Canada, 10 mai 2006. SRC-Edmonton, Entretien avec Emmanuelle La Mer sur la course la chefferie du Parti libral du Canada, 3 avril 2006. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Frdric Bisson sur la journe internationale de la francophonie, 21 mars, 2006. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Mario Giroux sur les langues l're de la mondialisation, 10 mars, 2006. 27

96

SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Ramin Pezeshki sur les francophones dans la campagne lectorale, 17 janvier 2006. SRC-Montral, Entretien avec ric Larouche sur la rencontre des premiers ministres Banff et la question de l'ducation suprieur, 12 aot 2005. CBC-Ottawa, Entretien sur la candidature de Gilles Duceppe la tte du PQ, 10 juin 2005. CBC Ottawa, Entretien ave Jennifer Fry sur l'effet Stronach, 18 mai 2005. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Michel Bolduc sur la situation des francophones de Welland, 11 avril 2005. CBON-Sudbury, Entretien sur l'avenir de l'AEFO, l' avril 2005. Radio-Canada International, Entretien sur les politiques linguistiques au Canada et en Europe, 31 mars 2005.

28

97

98

99

SECRET

particularly its position on the ,rosoUrces an( offsnore resources itdms. "Tt: is difficult to tell at the present time.ifthre is-a modifiCailon of our . exi5Lih9 Positions which 1je "acceptable to hotte roderai Cabinet Ministers and the provinces; Nevrtheless, if tiffe , are to barqain tu-gOod faith, wd advance some new positions 3in, thus far in the iegotiations, - we have not budged from otir opening positions on any of the key items. Therefore one element we would like to have in the' RD of t:his meeting is authority to develop new positions in the.five areas of re4:0arces, offshore resources, communications, fisherie and the Sonate on Ihc understanding that these positions will be placed before Ministers for approval before the CCMC reconvens on August 26. GiiidanctOn the Package fortinLiateral 7lct an.. On pp._ 36-38, the discussion piper descrihes t-t-serieS ofpossiblepackageS.on WhiChthe:govern Hrient might take unilateral aCtioniWthe falUif no agreement is reachedwith the proVinceS. ln summary, l akage Patriation with amending formula and. Charter of Rights (including mobility rights and minority language ricihts) applies oniy:ta the federal government with provincial eptingin. Sanie as Tackagc I, except that. the Charter of Rigeit4 would be binding upon boih leVel46f qovennifint, and it would also entreneh equalization, a revised Section 121 to provide the underpinnings for a -stronger. Canadian economic union, and Chesproposal for modified Supreme Court.

Packale

101

SECRET Package I Paekaqe III A Modified) Package Package II, A Package III Package II Package IV the selection of the approPriate Package rests on .the kgy issues of credihilitle end the de9ree .6g'federal provincial conflict which the Country an tOlerate.at any given point in time. That is, whilc it may helegal, ,t PolitieallY wise (or the "federal 9 0veYnment to net Is unilaterally in areas other than those which are undgr cloar.federal jurisdiction (Package I) or on which there ha s heen provincial "agreement" .(Package A Medified)? This, in turn, rai ses: the issues or what, w:her than .unanimity, onstitutes agreement with the provinces, I L also raines the question of whether Ministers want tu he able to elaim legitimacy for thcir actions by seeki0g the appreval of the Canadian people' in a .. cferendum bbfOre amending and patriating the ConstitutiOn. Dut Ministers shou1d note that.such . a. referendum could nota he hold before pring, 1981. Thus Ministers nec td addres, threg speci,le quegtiOnPt 1. AL they prepared to act unilaterally in arcs; of.shared or purely provincial jurisdiction without provincial ayreement, aven if this action involves a transfer of power from the federal government to the provinces' what, other than unanimit , constitutes redorai:provinCial agreement? If agreement cannot hg reached, do Mieistets want to hold a national refere.ndum-on their desircd package before procecding to- amena :the Constitution?

102

SECRET Oreftiny the text for a Joint Address. This will ent LO you on Friday, Augost 15: ' egotiation Tactias You will note from page 33 of the discusnion paper, that-in order to make it more difficult for the provinces- to combine into a united front, it - is iffiportant that we enter into bliateral discussions_with soine of them NewfOundiand and Naira Scot ai on offshore resources, Saskatchewan on resoureesY, befete the national Premiers' meeting an - Augnst 21-22. This means that new positions on key issues will hv to be develeped and given at least tentative Ministerial approval within 'the ncxt three weeks so that we . can discuss them wtth the provinces.
In, the absence Of . ,Cabinet appreval, can we ent i nto negetiatiOns with PrOvinces by advanoing new pos4tionsi?:eovided that these positions have the ,silppert Mr. Roberts and the Minister of the appropriateiline the department? 'Un so doinq, We wooleMke:i't-.clear te provinces that we cOuld flot guaraetee4binot approval of the posif;ions we were advaninyil..t .tn-order to make 'ho neqotiations Meaningful wo wou]WhaVe to. say that there was a reasonably .food chance that the Positions would receive Cabinet support if they were aceepted by Lhe provinces. It , would be desirable to' have this point covcred in th. RD. Ministers May ilsoWantte.diegetbe commUnicatiens pin outlined in thediSeussion-.: PapetIpage-14), ta see they agree witb. tbee:eeptgAis being.A3vrl, I t'ishould alsb b poi:ritect- out. ta: Ministers that in snew their inter-relation the - COmmunications procjrams: the constitutienall'and onergy issues will be very Olosely CoOrdinated

Titninr

of Parliamentay-Aettan

The other major issue. Mini ors may want ,ta discuss is the timing OtIP.arllaMentary action au - thc constitution.in:relation- to . a-l1t budgut and measurte which may be requieed to 4MpieMent. the gavernmenUs energy Pregraffi,- IrLparticult,:::Miliisters:ehOtild decide if the Jaint - Address on the' Canetitut ion shOuld ho introducedbefore the budget (perhaps ae early as the WeekLdiUSeptember 15, which would be the week

103

SECRCT A> . ter compltion of Lhe Fir st_ linstrs i e COnference

or_aftet the budget debate is,ovet (thus delaying its i ntroduction until Close te.Novembet I).
Ministers ma also witnt to discass in n. preliminary way the process which the Joint Addte,s will take, in the lieuse. For o's;ample.'; will debated in COMmittee to a COMMittee? Will 7ofho a the -WhOle? Win the vete on the rcsolution free vote in an effort: to gpt support From MP1's rAiresentinyail reg ions of the coUntry or witt the whips be on? In the-latter case, Should an effort be:made , toSet the .support of the NPP before a deci is made en which Package to take action? 1lOwever, you MalLprefer not tri discuss these we have evenyoU A meffiorandum on a possibIe pai Strategy'whICI will . , liamentar deVellopcd in con)unction wi.th-pe(YAnd M r. t i.rr oLfice ST1 ,71, Jst i

l'ho-Meeting

Following ote meeting with Yonon wodnesdaY morning, Mr. Chrtien will prepa're a '1?.ed of ro commendatIOns for Ministers on the contrdi i.:;suu5; raised i n the discussionpaper and thi-s memorandum. This Indy heiP to focus Ministerial discussion on the key strALegi isSucEt on which we need guidance rathcr Lhan on the details Of the current state of negotiations on each of- the twelve items under discussion with th provinces.

Mihael J
MJ L K : t c

Ki bY

AttAChMent

t04

SECRET July 28, 1980

Discussion Paper

Progress Report on the Three Weeks of Constitutional Negotiation In Montres', Toronto and Vancouver Note: This paper has been prepared by officiels involved in the constitutions' negotiations, under the direction of FPRO and the Department of Justice.

Introduction This memorandum is designed to provide Ministers with a review and assessment of the first phase of intensive constitutional discussion which was completed last week in Vancouver. White it is, primarily an informational document, it does request some broad policy direction from Cabinet (see Part III, pp. 30-40). sections; The memorandum is divided into three main An overview and general assessment of the constitutional talks to date A statue report on each of the twelve items of negotiation A concluding section on strategic issues which indicates further work to be completed in August in oreparation for the August 26-29 CCMC meeting and the September 8-12 First Ministers Conference, and which seeks some general policy guidance. below: A summary timetable of relevant events appears Quebec referendum Minister of Justice's meetings in provincial capitals (except Quebec City). First Ministers Conference, 24 Sussex Drive. Meeting of the Continuing Committee of Ministers Responsibie for the Constitution (CCMC) in Ottawa. Week 1 - Constitutional negotiations begin in Montres'.

May 20 May 21-24

June 9 June 17

July 8-11

.105

SECRET

July 15-18 July 22-24

Week 2 - Constitutional talks . continue in Toronto. phase of intensive Wek 3 - First Stitutional discussion conconcludes in Vancouver. Prime Minister Trudeau meets Premier Lougheed in Ottawa about oil priCing. Talks break down. Interim period prior te final CCXC meeting during which committees of officiels will continue to meet. Quebec National Assembly discussion of constitutional reform. Annuel Premiers' Conference to be heid in Winnipeg. Final CCMC meeting in this round of talks. To be heid in Ottawa. Possible extention into week of September 2.

July 24-25

July 28 August 25 August 14-15 August 21-22 August 26-29

September 8-12 First Ministers Conference to be held in Ottawa. At the June 9 First Ministers meeting twelve items were identified for the intensive constitutional discussion, and it was agreed that the federal and provincial Ministers responsible for the Constitution wOuld report back to the September First Ministers Conference on progress made during the sumer on each of the twelve items. The items are: 1. Charter of Rights Patriation and Amending Formula Principles/Preamble to the New Constitution Egualization Supreme Court Family Law Fisheries Resources Offshore Resources 10. 11. 12. Powers .over the Economy Communications Senate/Second Chamb r

106

SECRET

Overview and General Assessment of Constitutional Discussions to Date A. Mood of the Talks and General Progress So Far In summarizing progress ta date, it is probably fair to say that we are at the key point in the negotiating process. We have spend the bulk of the first three weeks in the first phase of negotiations in which the various participants established their positions, attempted to communicate the justice of their cause, and tested the strength of their adversaries. There were some indications in the third week of a readiness to move to a second stage in which the participants would begin to search actively for common ground, and to indicate a willingness to nove some distance towards one another and a desire to establish the terms of a settlement which ail participants can subscribe te and defend politically to their own constituants. Needless ta say, this is a perception of the process from the inside and is littie recognized as yet by the press and public, a fact which is hardly surprising, since the talks are taking place behind closed doors. In this first phase of negotiations, the federal government has farad well, staking out a tough position and defending it successfully, both in private and public (e.g. at press conferences). As we will see in a moment, the strategy which Cabinet established prior to the start of constitutional talks has been implemented and is operating effectively. Initial provincial suspicion of federal government intentions has been gradually supplanted over the three-week period by the realization that the country's circumstances have changed since the last constitutional round, as have the fortunes of the federal government, and that Ottawa means what it says in the positions it is advancing and the tough approach it is taking in these talks. There is littie apparent recognition among mort provinces of the fundamental importance of the Quebec referendum; indeed as far as the CCMC is concerned, it is very much business as usuel. The adjustment of the provinces to this new situation and to an unfamiliar bargaining environnent in which the federal government is asking for powers, not just giving them away and is clearly determined to achieve constitutional change this fall, has taken some time. However, there have been some indications towards the end of the third week (principally Saskatchewan's statement accepting the principle of the economic union) of a provincial willingness to concede some ground on areas of contention in the hope of breaking, the stalemate, and some provinces have indicated in private, a willingness to make a deal. On the other hand, the change in the Saskatchewan position may only be a negotiating tactic rather than a change of heart (in which case it will probably turn out to be a major tactical error). It may just be an attempt by Mr. Romanow te get himself out of the corner he had painted himself into in Toronto wheii he appeared to be completely unreasonable in his emotional reaction against the concept of the economic union.

107

SECRET

The item dealing with powers over the economy dcminated the three weeks of constitutional discussions, without a consensus emerging at this stage. But a good deal of work was done on the other items as well, and this is detailed in Part-II of this paper. In the first week the Senate surfaced as an item of lively interest on the part of the provinces, and it continues to attract a good deal of attention. The Supreme Court proposai, which is widely supported by the provinces, provides for an 11-member court with 6 common law and 5 civil law judges, an arrangement which would resuit in a remarkably open and Frank expression of the principie of duality, which is the more striking when one considers that it is Manitoba that advanced this particular ides. The discussions of the various items in no sense saw the provinces lining up together against the federal government, although Ontario has been the most steadfast supporter of the federal position. Indeed, offshore resources is virtualiy unique in being the only item in which there is universel provincial opposition to the approach taken by Ottawa (although the same 10-1 split exists in some parts of the communications item); even then, however, on offshore resources, the provinces are not in agreement am:zig themselves on how to Laidement their agreement in principie. In summary, it is useful to recall that, prior to the start of these discussions, and even until the end of the second week, there was some question in people's minds about whether the talks might break clown, in view of the hard Federal stance. In reviewing the three weeks, it is fair to conclude that the federal government pressed the provinces to the limit, but not beyond, and that we begin August with the process intact and the stage set for rapid progress, should that be the collective desire of the participants when the CCMC reconvenes in three weeks' aime. The outcome of the intervening Premiers' Conference may be criticai to progress.

B. Government of Canada's Objectives and Strategy


The Federal government's constitutional strategy, as approved by ?riorities and Planning Committee and Cabinet at the beginning of July, was composed of five elements: 1. To insist on the distinction betWeen the people's package and the package for governments: To make it clear to the provincial governments and the public that the Federal government is committed to a deadline on the people's package; To make it clear that the federal government would not bargain elements of the first package against.elements of the second;

108

SECRET

To insist that the federal government was prepared to bargain on the second package, so long as it involves give-and-take on both sidess To establish the central linkage between resources and powers over the economy. Our conclusion at the end of the third week of negotiations is that the strategy is working well. The federal government has clearly established the ground on which the negotiations will occur and has been able to ensure that its basic conditions with respect to the process have been met. The people's package has been separated for purposes of negotiation from the other items on the agenda, and Little overt effort on the part of the provinces is now devoted to the attempt to trade off agreement on "rights" for agreement on "powers". However, our impression is that several provinces will wish to hold off on submitting their final position on the Charter of Rights until they see what the total package might conta in. The existence of a deadline and the threat of unilateral federal action in the absence of full agreement are perceived as real; indeed, the provincial concern now is, first, that the federal government may be looking for an excuse to move unilaterally, the excuse being that the provinces are uncooperative, narrow in their outiook and interested in their own rather than the nation's interests. And second, that, if unilateral action does occur, it may proceed on a wider front than simply the people's package. The linkage between resources and powers over the economy has been clearly established, as is evidenced by the fact that a single committee of officiels is addressing both issues. What remains to be done, so far as our statement of strategy is concerned, relates to Item 4; that is to say, "good faith" bargaining on the second package, involving give-and-take on both sides, awaits our entry into the second phase of the negotiating process. So far, it has been the federal government's policy te assert the bargaining principle in general, but to insist that the first sign of movement and of a willingness to make a deal needs to came from the provinces. These signs began towards the end of the third week in Vancouver, and reciprocal action on the part of the federal government will be required in August. (We return to this subject in Part III of this memorandum.) The federal government has successfully taken the offensive with an approach that so far has proven to be generally attractive and "explainable" in public. The provinces as a consequence have been on the defensive. The situation, however, is unstable, and the Government of Canada will need to consider carefully how best it can maintain the momentum that has been established. If the federal government

109

, adheres tco long to a hard-nosed negotiating position, and is not able to move quickly to take advantage of negotiating openings and offers for compromise when they present themselves, its toughness may coma to be seen as intransigence and as an aggressive and unbending defence of its own powers. Thus a good public case could be fumbled and the initiative could move to Chose who oppose the approach of the Government of Canada. However, we must also guard against moving too quickly -- for there is no doubt that one of the reasons for the limited success there has been in the negotiations to date has been the tough, uncompromising stand of the government on positions which the provinces presume to be politically popular. For example, Romanow said on radio on Sunday, that the federal position would be highly popular with the people of Saskatchewan if the federal government decided to hold a referendum on it.

The key questions which vs must face therefore are: what issues we should alter our position on, and when and how we should make these new positions open te the provinces. These questions are also addressed in Part III of this paper. C. The Provinces Collectively e as we have indicated elsewhere in this memorandum, the provinces have been caught somewhat off guard by the federal government's strategy, and in particular by the fact that it has developed precise proposais in the economic area that constitute a challenge to provincial freedom of action. The foliowing provinces might be singled out for specific comment: 1. Newfoundland Newfoundland has in affect made a leap of faith. It has now decided to give total support to the federal government's position on the people's package and on much of our powers over the economy proposai, in the expectation that it will receive satisfaction on at least offshore resources and possibly on the fisheries as well. By doing so, it has acknowledged the distinction the Government of Canada wishes to draw between the people's package and the rest, and has placed itself in an exposed position, should- the federal government refuse to move sufficiently on matters of particular concern to it, especially on offshore resources. 2. Quebec The Government of Quebed's approach to date has not in any way undermined the process or oompromised the integrity of the talks and the federalist framework within which they are being carried on.

110

Quebec bas been forthcoming in discussions of. the Supreme Court, principles/preamble, Senate and family law, while also indicating that powers items corne first, although Mr. Morin has stressed that a reformed Senat is no substitute for changes in the distribution of powers. For the first time they have been active participants in discussions on the topic of patriation and amendment. Their position on the distribution of powers and powers over the economy has been entirely predictable; they are opposed to any steps which might weaken Quebec's provincial powers. They have also asked for major transfers in resources, communications and fisheries. While they are prepared to discuss the question of the entrenchment of certain fundamental rights, they are steadfastly opposed to any constitutional entrenchment of language rights. Their long-term strategy remains unclear, aithough it appears that the outcome they would most like to see from the negotiations is agreement on some items (e.g. Supreme Court) which would undercut Ryan by showing that the PQ can negotiate successfully with the provinces and the federal government, and disagreement on ail the powers items, thus showing that they are staunch defenders of provincial rights against an excessively centralist federal government. Thus, Quebec's preferred outcome to the negotiations appears to be partial success because of Quebec's skillful negotiating ability, and overall failure because of Ottawa's demands for new powers and refusai to concede to Qiiebec's traditional demands. Ontario Ontario has been the strongest supporter of the Government of Canada's overall position in these talks, especially in the area of the division of powers and economic matters. They offered a revised draft of a new section 121 which would secure ail the positions which the Government of Canada deems to be important. At times the warmth of their support in the economic areas endangered their credibility, and it would not be surprising if they decided, for tactical reasons, to put some distance between themselves and the federal government for a time. They agree in principle with the other provinces on the subject of offshore resources, and they are opposed to many of the federal proposais for the Charter of Rights, other than language-education rights. Saskatchewan Saskatchewan has been without question the most obstreperous and recalcitrant province in the course of these talks; the reasons for this are obscure. To some extent, they

SECRET

may be fundtioning as a stalking horse for Alberta,, although the extent to which that is a result of cirtumstance or design is mot clear. Also, to a certain extent, Mr. Romanow may be attempting to maintain the credibility of his government which is publiciy vuinerable to attack if it is seen to betoo close to what is perceived as the 'central' Canadian government. He may alsa have been trying to establish his credibility as provincial co-chairman in the eyes of the other provincial Ministers (although if so, this is backfiring to some extent). Mr. Romanow is clearly ander a good deal ' of pressure and has made a few tactical blunders, including a major one by first bitterly attacking, and then supporting in principle, the federal position on the economic union. This has isolated him from his provincial colleagues at times. Some provinces have taken exception to what they believe to be his tendency to use his CCMC co-chairmanship as a soap-box from which to publicize his province's views. While Saskatchewan has been the mort aggressive province in these talks, .it would be wrong to conclude that they have strengthened their position as a result. If anything, it is the reverse. Rowever, the fact that they feel boxed in and in danger of being isolated may make them difficult. In addition, it is . not inconceivable that they may find sudden and strong support in Alberta, particularly now that the energy talks have broken down. Alberta Alberta has been playing a minimal rola in these talks and has been virtually salent on caverai issues. Their official, as Chairman of the committee dealing with powers over the economy and resources, vent to considerable length to keep resources off the table, despite the efforts of Saskatchewan to address the natter. It is obvious that their role in these talks has been shaped by the energy negotiations, just as the degree and quality of their participation in the future CCMC and First Ministers meeting is now in serious doubt as a result of the impasse in the energy talks.

112

SECRET

/I

tatus Report: Progress Made on the 12 items This section of the paper is divided into three parts: The People's Package Patriation and Amending Formula - Charter of Rights - Preamble/Principles Economic Items Resources and lnterprovincial Trade Offshore Resources Fisheries Powers Over the Economy Equalization Institutions and other. items - Senate/Second Chamber - Supreme Court - Family Law - Communications

The People's Package Patriation and Amending Formula There have been useful discussions on this item, especially in the lest week. In acoordance with the federal government's strategy for the meetings, the federal delegation has not declared a preference for any particular amending formula, but has encouraged development of potentially acceptable proposais by the Conference as a whole. The federal government indicated that something in the general area of the follcwing existing formulas would be acceptable: The Victoria formula, requiring a "national consensus" for amendment of matters of fundamental concern; such a national consensus being the consent of Parliament and of six or more provincial legislatures, distributed among four regions, representing 80% of the population.

113

-10S E C R

The Toronto consensus, requiring unanimity on changes in amendment provisions and in provisions affecting provincial ownership of natural resources. Changes in other entrenched matters would require the consent of at least seven legislatures representing 85% of the population. A simple formula, requiring the consent of Parliament plus six or more provincial legislatures representing 80-85% of the population. Discussion in the Committee of Officiels centered upon the Alberta formula, which would provide for amendments with the consent of Parliament and twothirds of the provinces representing a simple majority of the population, but if adopted the amendment would net apply ta a province which had exptessed its disagreement. The federal obvetnment indidated that it would support any general formula that provided an effective ccmbination of stability and flexibility, that was broadly acceptable ta the provinces, and that resulted in a generally uniform constitutional rgime for all the provinces. Anumber of proVinces appear to support the Alberta approach generally. Most of the key issues have been raised and differences narrowed to some degree, including the possibility of a veto for one or more provinces and spedial protection for a short list of key items, such as provincial jurisdiction over and ownership of natural resources and certain elements of the amending procedure. Ail provinces have particioated activelv. Quebec has declared its desire for a veto and no. province has explicitly rejected the notion. One or two have said they would want the same, but Ontario has net yet made a point of laying claim to veto. The federal government viii have to decide whether it should declare support for any of the more familier' formulas or whether it should make a new proposai. It may be necessary te take a position at the August meeting of the CCMC, but in ail likelihood we can avoid taking a firm position on the amending formula until the Ministers Conference. Charter of Rights When entrenchment of the Charter was first discussed privately by Minieters on July 16, there vas only limited provindial support for the principle of entrenchment. Only New Brunswick gave unqualified support. Newfoundland's support vas contingent on concessions respecting offshore resources and fisheries, with Nova Scotia and proposing deferral of rights discussions until offshore issues were settled. Ontario's support vas limited to fundamental freedoms, democratic and a few legal rights as was Quebec's but

114

SECRET in the latter case, Quebec felt entrenchment of rights should proceed only after settiement of the distribution of powers. Other provinces continued their outright or strong opposition to virtually any entrenchment. Despite general provincial reluctance to entrenchment of rights (especially as comprehensive as those proposed by the federal government), a committee of officiais was struck to: examine the provisions of the federal draft with a view to assessing their likely impact on existing laws and practices and on provincial legislative powers; consider changes that would clarify and improve the language of the draft; consider the possibility of initially entrenching the Charter only for the federal levai; re-examine the practicality of including in the Charter an "override" clause, permitting the enactment of laws expressly derogating from specified rights; and, consider th; viability of elevating the Canadien Bill of Rights as a "super-statute", the provisions of which would prevail over other statutes without entrenchment. ?ollowing a study and report by officiels on these matters, some considerable progress has been made. Whether this advance will hold is another question since some provinces' positions are unstable. In general, the following assessment may be made: with the exception of Manitoba (and probably British Columbia) which remains totally opposed to entrenchment of any rights, ail provinces are likely to accept entrenchment of fundamental freedoms and democratic rights. with the exception of Manitoba and possibly Alberta, it may be possible to get agreement to entrench some legal rights; it may be possible to sell a limited version of mobility rights to a fair number of provinces, but without including any right to acquire and hold property; as anticipated, non-discrimination and oromertv rights ' will be virtually impossible to seli; general language rights at the federal level will be acceptable, but there are difficulties at the provincial level. In particular Ontario will not accept the same obligations as Quebec, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Most other provinces will likely accede to the minimal obligations proposed for them; a fair number of proyinces may be brought around to accepting the proposai for entrenchment of minority language education rights;

115

SECRET - 12 it is -peoblematic whether there will be any consensus to entrench the Canadien Bill of Rights; there may well be added support for entrenchment if an acceptable general override (notwithstanding) clause could be devised. Despite the foregoing, there are a number*of difficuit problems to be resolved. Many of these entail drafting changes which may or may not ultimately gain provincial acceptance. Others involve larger policy issues on which Cabinet guidance will be sought. before the August CCMC meeting.

3.

Preamble/Principles

Ministerial discussions on this item went unexpectedly well. All the main federal aims were achieved. The principal objective is to obtain as clear as possible a statement of the subjects the various participants think. should appear in a Preamble. The item will be considered again at the next CCMC meeting, when drafts from several participating governments are likely to be presented. Ail provinces attended the Ministerial session in Vancouver, although Alberta and Saskatchewan took no part in the proceedings. Quebec, which had prompted the discussion, was especially active. Mr. Morin stressed the importance of the preamble and suggested that it refer, among other things, to the distinctness of Quebec society and to Ouebec as the mainstay of erench Canada, to Quebeo's commitment to faceralim combined. with its free adherence to the federal system. At the officiels meeting, Quebec did not ask that provincial self-determination be referred to explicitly in a preamble. Rowever, at the Ministers private sessions, Quebec (supported by Premier Hatfield of New Brunswick) asked for a self-determination clause but also laid that they wogld be prepared te agree to having self-determination expressed positively (e.g. by saying that Canadiens originally came together voluntarily and hence, Ouebec claims they could leave the union voluntarily. Considerable agreement with this suggestion was voiced and there was no expressed opposition. Several delegations expressed a preference for a preamble which was chiefly, if mot exclusively, inspirational in character. Concern was expressed by same delegations about the possibility that a preamble to the Constitution might be used by the courts to interpret other parts of the Constitution. It was also noted that the preamble might net be used bythe courts ta interpret ther parts of the Constitution_ unless the meaning of those parts was unclear. It wae deoided that titis matter be reviewed at the next meeting of the CCMC at the end of August.

116

- 13-

SECR E T

There was alsowide support for an appropriate expression of Canadian linguistic equality but not cultural duality. New Brunswick was the leading voice in favour of Quebec's proposais and Ontario also lent support. B.C. and Nova Scotia would not allow themselves to be carried along by these statements of Canadian reality and said, for example, that it did not accord with the facts to say that French and English are Canada's languages, as opposed to "officiai languages." Economic Items 1. Resource Ownership and Inter_provincial Trade By the close of the first round of discussions at Montreal, the provinces had been told, in line with the July 2 Priorities and Planning discussion, that the federal government was not prepared to support those important sections of the 1979 Best Efforts Draft which provided for (1) provincial concurrency in international and interprovincial trade and commerce in resources and (2) federai paramountcy to be limited to those situations involving a compelling national interest. The provinces had also been told that there was no federal support for the 1979 draft on the declaratory power which would have exempted resources from its application, uniess the province concerned was in agreement. The full import of these moves by the federal government took time to "sink in", and was probably appreciated fully only when it was made clear, during the Toronto discussions, that no easing of the federal position was to be expected until provinces moved on matters of federai interest, particularly on powers over the ecaomy. - The federal stand on resources ownership and.interprovincial trade was not directly discussed by Ministers at Toronto, but was-attacked -strongly in dieeussions on other subjects, particularly in talks about the economy. An officiels committee covering both resource ownership and powers over the econcmy was established at Toronto, but did not discuss the resource issue bocause the Alberta committee chairman insisted on it being postponed despite pressure from other provinces for it to be discussed. At Vancouver, Ministers spent some time in private sassions on the resources issue. Mr. Chrtien indicated his willingness to consider concurrency with unrestrieted federal paramountcy. He also expressed sympathy concerning problems raised by Saskatchewan which had arisen from the.CIGOL case and the Canada Potash case. The provinces ware encouraged to continue exploring the whole subject with the federal reprsentatives, but with no promise that a solution would be found, or that a change in the federal stand might take place. On the application of the federal declaratory power to provincial resources, Mr. Chrtien indicated a wiliingness to explore the possibility of a constitUtional provision requiring ratification by a renewed Upper House before the power could be used against the wishes of the provincial government concerned.

. 117

- 14 -

SECRET

The Committee of Officiais spent most of its time in Vancouver on powers over the economy and only a short and inconclusive period on resources. Despite the fact that the 1979, Best Efforts Draft was unacceptable te Most 'provinces for widely different and sometimes conflicting reasons, most provinces statad their disappointment that the federal government had largely withdrawn from the earlier joint effort and seemed te be making no new effort to resolve differences. Offshore Resources In line with the July 2 Priorities and Planning discussion, Mr. Chrtien indicated in his opening statement at the outset of the Conference, that the federal government no longer believes concurrent jurisdictioni'as earlier proposed, to be a workabl solution with respect to offshore resources. He proposed instead that administrative arrangements be considered and suggested that tnere coula be an improved version of the arrangements worked out with the Maritime provinces in 1977, -including an improved revenuesharing formula.
Ali the provinces argue ,that offshore resoarces should be treated in a manner consistent with constitu,tional provisions for resources onshore. This means that on this item there ia a 10.n split against the federal e position. iiowevor.wheu it comas-ta implementing above principle, %even provinces- faveur constitutional recognition of provincial ownership, New Brunswick supports the administrative arrangements approach and Ontario and ManiCoba do not seem to hold strong views.

Despite the above alignment of provinces, Mr. Chrtien maintained his initial position. At the end of the second week, he was therefore pressed by the provinces to table a precise proposai concerning administrative arrangements, even though most provinces consider such an approach to be an unacceptable solution. It proved impossible to develop a proposai by the third week, but federal officiais did explore various possibilities with theis-provinCial counterparts. In the absence of a specific proposai, the provinces were rather reluctant to discuss administrative arrangements and they now fully expect a federal lro;osal to be put forwar.1 prior to the August 26-29 meeting of-the CCMC. Federal officiais are now developing proposais for administrative arrangements for consideration by Ministers. The possibilities explored with provincial officiais, without prejudice to an eventuai firm federal proposai, and using the 1977 Federal-Maritimes Memorandum of Understanding as a starting point, can be summarized as follows the poSsibility for the fderal minister to override provincial views might be made more difficult than in the MemOrandum de F771A.erstandingl

118

SECRET - 15-

he existence and the roles of the Board set-up under the Memorandum might be confirmed in the Constitution; the 75% share of revenues the provinces would receive under the Memorandum might be increased, perhaps to 100%; and, to assure the provinces that the revenue flow would be significant, governments might adopt a principle whereby the economic rent provinces receive from offshore resources would be comparable to the rent from onshore resources. Fisheries The draft Mmorandum to Cabinet of June 27, 1980 proposed that concurrent fisheries jurisdiction should be opposed and that improved arrangements for consultation would be the best way of satisfying provincial aspirations. At the same time it was suggested that, as a fall-back position, full provincial jurisdiction over freshwater fisheries and certain coastal species of lesser importance could be proposed at an appropriate point towards the end of the negotiations. During the July CCMC negotiations, ail aspects of fisheries jurisdiction both freshwater and marine -- were explored in considerable datai'. The Committee of Officiels produced a "best efforts" draft of constitutional provisions conferring exclusive jurisdiction on the provinces with respect to the inland fisheries, with the federal government, however, expressing strong reservations as to the workability of the regime. There vas general agreement that salmon and other "diadromous" (freshwater - sait water) species should be subject ta a special regime,.but differing views were expressed on the nature of the regime that should be adopted. The federal position was that Parliament should retain exclusive jurisdiction over these fisheries, both at sea and in rivera. Most provinces. argued for a form of concurrent jurisdiction, leaving the federal order of government with jurisdiction only with respect to the total allowable catch and the division of the catch between provinces. The federal government considered this approach to be unacceptable. The federal government also proposed that if inland fisheries jurisdiction were to be transferred, some federal authority should be retained over environmental protection in inland waters (which at present is based largely on the fisheries power), native fisheries, and the prevention of fish disease. With respect to the environmental question, it was indicated that the federal concern is primarily centered on salmon streams as well as trans-boundary rivera and lakes where effective action would be beyond the powers of any single province. These questions remain open for further negotiation,

119

A "best efforts" draft vas also developed with respect to aquaculture end certain specified fisheries conducted in tidal waters -- the so-called "sedentary species" such as clams and oysters (which unlike the free swimming species are essentially stationary) and marine plants. Again, however, there were strong federal reservations on the practicality of this option. This aspect vas also covered in the "best efforts" draft, although the key questions of the exact species to be covered and the area involved have not yet been discussed. The most important issue remains the coastal fisheries, and here there are stili significant differences. The federal position is that exclusive federal jurisdiction should be maintained, but that "lgal not necessarily of a constitutional nature mechanisms" could be developed to ensure more meaningful consultative procedures. Nova Scotia stiil appears to support this approach, but most other provinces appear to faveur some form of concurrency with federal paramountcy over the areas that have an intarprovincial or international dimension, and provincial paramountcy over arecs of primarily local impact. There were, however, differences among the provinces on the form that concurrent jurisdiction might take. There tas some discussion of the fore that improved consultative mechanisms might take,;and this question is te be pursued further in August.

4: ledWets'Over the Economy The federal position on powers over the economy dominated the three weeks of discussion. Briefly, this position is to secure - in the Constitution the Canadien economic union by making provision for the free flow of persons, capital, services and goods across the country. Discrimination on the basis of province of residence or origin Would be prohibited. The provinces were first put off balance because they did not expect the federal proposais to be as direct: They were then shocked when they realized that the federal government tas serious about its proposais and had no intention of backing away. Saskatchewan and Alberta were particularly troubled by the linkage made between powers over the econemy and resources, and it tas not until the end of the third week that Saskatchewan decided that it had to make some concessions in order to have a serions discussion on resources. It may well be that a basic difference of principl exista between the federal government and the provinces as to whethet the national economy tranecends, or is simply an aggregation of the regi,onal economies. Certainly, there are soma clear signe that the cleavage in outlook runs as deep as this. In particular, some Western provinces may avant to te able ta regulate the externe' world

120

SECRET - 17-

which impacts on their major resource areas (e.g., potash in Saskatchewan and oit and gas in Alberta. In effect, they appear to believe that the national economy consists of a series of regional economies and that the provinces themselves should control these regional economies. This is a fundamentally different view of Canada from that held by the federal government and Ontario and may well be the underiying cause of the concern and resentment which the provinces have towards the federal economic proposais. In turn, such differences on the nature of an economic union can explain the significantly different views that emerged on suitable derogations to be allowed in respect of a constitutional acknowledgement of a Canadien economic union. These differences can also explain the differing views on whether politicians or the courts should make the decisions in cases of conflict. The basic provincial reactions to our position can be summarized as follows: There is widespread acceptance of the principle of economic union although there is no consensus on the best means of making it operative. Some provinces are concerned that the courts will have too great a rale in the economic field; they want disagreements over the implementation of the principle of an economic union to be settled by politiciens not judges. The four Atlantic provinces will probably end up in,agreement with our position if we can assure them that regional development will not be adversely affected. Quebec will be opposed because it sees our position as weakening provincial powers; however, it wili be embarrassed to have to contradict its own White Paperwhich'strongly supports a Canadian common market. Ontario is strongly in favour. Manitoba has indicated a certain degree of approval. Saskatchewan has approved enshrining the principle of an economic union and, in the end, wili be hard pressed to refuse to make it operative. Alberta has been silent, but has indicated disapproval. British Columbia seems to be leaning towards approval. However, most of the support indicated above for the principle of an economic union, will disappear if the issues of resources and offshore resources are not resolved to the satisfaction of the provinces. Nevertheless, what is significant is that in a period of three weeks, we have achieved widespread recognition that the principle of economic union and the free flow of people, goods, services, and capital across Canada should be incorporated in the Constitution. How to achieve it, rather than whether or not it is a valid goal for the federation, is now the matter being negotiated. The other significant aspect is that this is the first time in many years that the federal government has corne to constitutional negotiations with a direct attack on provincial lava and practices and a request for new or clarified powers of its own. The result has been that the provinces were consistently on the defensive on an issue that has very widespread public support. Finally, it appears evident that a signal has now been given by Saskatchewan -- the most recalcitrant province -- that it is wiliing to move if we compromise on

121

CR - 13 our bard-fine position on resouces. If we do bargain on resources in good faith, it is very possible that we will get agreement on incorporating a new Section 121 into the Constitution which has aome measure of enforceability. 5. Equalization The initial federal objective to secure constitutional entrenchment of the principle of equalization through a system of federal payments to provinces, has been largely achieved. sine provinces and the federal government are in agreement on the substance of an approach for doing this which Le along the fines of the earlier best efforts draft as modified by-Quebec, However, British Columbia stili questions the need ta entrench equalization in the Constitution. Their objection, however, is not to the principle of equalization but to the fact that they interpret the word equalization to mean the existing equalization formula and they are opposed to entrenching a, formula in the Constitution. Institutions and - Other Items 1. Senate/Second Chamber The federal position adopted on July 7 was to not present a particular proposai far a revised second chamber but to direct discussions with the provinces on this subject towards an identification of the roles a revised second chamber might perform. During the first week of the discussions a striking development was the extent to which (in contrast ta previous periods of constitutional discussions) the provinces gave to this issue a high priority and approached the subject from a common (rame of reference. By the beginning of the second week, the Ministers in private discussion had arrived at the following pdints of consensus: a) b) on the need for a new second chamber, that the new second chamber not be an elected body, that it be composed of provincial representatives, bt that' consideration be given to the possibility of federal representatives at the same Lime that the rale and powers of the second chamber are discussed, d) that on representation: a majority of the provinces wanted equal representation on a province by province basis, some wanted a weighted representation based on an undetermined number per region, using four regions as a basis,

122

- 19 -

SECRET

one province (BC) wanted equal representation from five ragions, two reserved their position, that the new upper chamber could possibly, but not necessarily, be a substituts for some of the existing federal-provincial consultation mechanisms, f) that the new chamber have the power to ratify (probabiy by a simple majority vote) federal actions in such areas as: declaratory power, federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction, amendments to the constitution, other powers as contained in the B.C. proposai, and that there was a willingness to discuss further the establishment of another category of suspensive powers.

g)

This ministerial document vas referred to a committee of officiels who identified four possible approaches to second chamber revision each compatible with the broad points of federal-provincial ministerial consensus. The four modela were: Model I, a "traditional" House of review composed largely of provincial appointees voting as free agents, Modal II, a basically intergovernmental institution that would be restricted to ratifying federal action on a limited list of specified matters of concern to provincial governments and which would be composed largely of instructed delegatesof provincial governments, Model III, a hybrid house (e.g., B.C. proposai) that would supplement the ratifying function in Modal II with the additional general review power in Model I within one body, but with distinct procedures for handling the two functions, Modal IV, the creation of two distinct bodies, a new upper house with largely provincial appointments for the general legislative review function, and a separate intergavernmental institution for the ratifying function.

1-23

- 20 -

SECRET

At this stage, the Atlantic ptoVinCes and Manitoba preferred Modal I but were'willing to consider Modal IV, Saskatchewan. and Quebec cleark, favoured Model II alone, BritiSh Columbia and Ontario favOured variants of Modal III, and Alberta reserved its position. The federal reprsentatives took the position that we would be willing to examine further ail four modela, statinq also that final approval of any modal would be related to the outcome respecting discussions on the distribution of powers items in the package of government powers and institutions. At the beginning of the third week, the Ministers, after reviewing the four modela directed the committee of officiels to develop more fully proposais beginning with Model II and moving to Model III or Modal IV. By the end of that week the committee of officiais submitted a report outlining the powers, the method of appointment and basis of representation appropriate for the two distinct roles which might either be Combined in a single hybrid institution (Modal III) or two distinct institutions (Modal IV). In the first role, that of representing provincial interests in ratifying federal action:in a limited range for specified matters of shared fedetal-provincial concern, the general view was that the range of cutters requiring ratification might include: (i) use of the federal declaratory power in a province which has not consented to its application, use of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction, federal legislation to be administered by the provinces, use of emergency powers, requiring ratification within a certain petiod after imposition,

(ii) (iii) (iv)

The Committee retained for further examination: (v) aPpointments to major federal boards or commissions in areas related to provincial jurisdiction, matters which might emerga in the overall process of constituticnal review which might prove to.be apprcpriately handled in this way.

(vi)

Considered for inclusion in this list bUttentatively rejected at this time moere the ratification Of constitutional amendmentai a role in appoitments to the Suprema Courti determining "compelling national interest" on federal invoivement in naturel resources issues, ratification of treaties, approval of intetgovernmental delegations of powers.

124

- 21 -

SECRET

For this rola of ratifying on behalf of provincial governments, federal initiatives in the areas listed above, the appropriate membership was considered to be instructed delegates appointed by provincial governments including the participation of provincial Cabinet Ministers. Members would cast a black vote by province. Since the role would be limited to ratifying federal initiatives, the presence of non-voting federal smokesmen to mresent those initiatives was considered appropriate. Most provinces favoured equal provincial representation in such a body. B.C., Quebec and Ontario preferred a weighting taking account of population and other factors but Ontario would accept equality. There was a general view that ratification would require either a majority, or a 2/3 vote, depending, in the view of some provinces, on the basis of representation selected. These criteria Might be varied for issues related to dualism. In the second role, that of serving the traditional function of an upper bouse as a body of review of most legislation emanating from the House of Commons, the general view was that it shouldencompassall federal legislation excluding (i) ail measures requiring ratification under the first role outlined above and (ii) allappropriation bills, but that in this role it should exercise only a suspensive veto (90 days before repassage by the House of Commons). For these purposes it was considered appropriate that members be appointed for a fixed term of 8 years and vote as free agents. Manitoba suggested that the method of appointment be determined by the legislature concerned (as in Switzeriand), but this question was left open. There was a range of views concerning the basis of provincial representation, Manitoba suggested a distribution which would give some smaller provinces a relatively greater weighting than at present. In this role, the appointment of a portion of the representatives by the federal government was considered not inappropriate: some provinces favoured no federal representatives, some a minority representation, and two 50%. Two other issues which the Ministers directed the committee of officiais to examine were considered but on both it was agreed that further discussion at the meeting at the end of August would be necessary. The first issue was whether the two distinct roles which had been identified, should be contained within a single hybrid second chamber or be filled by two separate institutions. it was agreed that this matter might be resolved at the August meeting after further study by Ministers of the advantages and disadvantages of these two approaches and of the possible linkages that would be required in the former case. The second question was the extent to which issues relating to duality should be dealt with by a special voting requirement or by a special committee. Quebec and Ontario each agreed to develop specific proposais for consideration at the August meeting.

125

- 22 -

SECRET

While many points remain to be refined before it would be possible to turn to developing legal drafts, during the three weeks July 7-24 the provincial partici pants have shown a willingness to nove towards a broad consensus on the ways in which either a hybrid institution or two institutions might perform the two major roles identified. This represents a significant advance from the situation during the negotiations between October 1.978 and February 1979. 2. Supreme Court

The federal position adopted on July 7 was to support the best efforts draft of February 1979 but to agree to consider any alternatives which gained substantiel support. The February draft had received the support of ail but three provinces in 1979. Quebec was fundaMentally opposed because it had always argued for a specialized constitutional court. Alberta supported the idea of some kind of constitutional court but not vigorously. British Columbia would not accept the best efforts draft beoause it wished to see the appointment of judges ratified by a reformed Senate. The best efforts draft entrenched in the Constitution a nive-member court, a requirement that the.federal Minister of Justice consuit with the Attorney General of the appropriate province before making an appointment of a judge from that province, a requirement that three members of the Court be appointed from the civil law bench or bar (as is now required by section 6 of the Supreme Court Act). and a requirement that cases concerning the civil law of Quebec be heard by a special panel of the Court composed of a majority of civil law judges (as is now done as a natter of practice). At the beginning of the discussions'(July 7-25)Quebec put forward a new proposal, the essentiel featur of whichvas that a 5-judge panel of the current court woUld,hear ail constitutional issues, This panel would consist of two civil law judges, two common law judges and the Chief Justice. The proposai also proVided that Chief Justices would be chosen alternatelY from among the civil law judges and the common law judges on the cOurt. This proposal was similar to that of the Quebec Liberal Party set out in the Beige Paper. Criticism of Quebec's proposai centerad on the fact that it would mean that a majority of three judges could decide an important constitutional case and that the whole court would not be Sitting on important constitutional cases. Accordingly, Manitoba proposed, in response to QuebeC's proposai, that the present Court be increased to 11 members, 5 being civil law judges. Ail provinces have supported this exceot British Columbia which is opposed", Nova Scotia which has trouble with the "perception" of increasing the

- 23 -

SECRET

number of civil law judges,and Alberta which has reserved its position. This support for Manitoba's proposai reflects the fact that there has developed general acceptance of the idea that a principle of duality should be reflected in the composition of the Supreme Court. Support for this principle focusses on the fact that there are two legal systems in Canada and on the understanding that different approaches te legal problems therefore exist. In addition, there is considerable support for entrenching ln the Constitution the alternate appointment of the Chief Justice from among the civil law and common law judges. Only Manitoba is opposed. British Columbia reserved its position. There is aise support for making the Chief Justiceship a post for a fixed terni of seven years. Only Manitoba is opposed. Saskatchewan and Alberta reserved. As noted above, the best efforts draft of February, 1979 contains only the requirement of consultation between the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of the province from which a proposed appointee,to the Supreme Court would coule. The Victoria Charter and Bill C-60 had required agreement. About one-half the provinces were unhappy with the requirement of mere consultation. This led to a two-step appointment procedure being developed which has gained almost unanimous acceptance. When the Minister of Justice is considering a vacancy on the court he would first consult with ail provincial Attorneys General to get their views. Then, as a second step he would be required to reach agreement with the Attorney General of the province from which the appointee contes. If the Minister of Justice and the provincial Attorney General cannot reach agreement it is proposed that such deadlock be broken by inviting the Chief Justice of Canada to join with the Minister of Justice and the Provincial Attorney General concerned to make the decision. Indeed, it is unlikely that such a deadlock-breaking mechanism would ever be used since the federal and provincial Ministers would likely prefer to agree between themselves. This deadlockbreaking mechanism has received the approval of eight governments. Only New Brunswick does not support it, Quebec and Saskatchewan support it less warmiy than the other provinces. British Columbia has reserved. A new element, referred to as the principle equality, has been raised for discussion. Tne proposai is that both the federal and provincial governments should have equal capacity to refer constitutional questions directly to the Supreme Court. (At present, provincial governments may direct such questions to their respective Courts of Appeal but net to the Supreme Court of Canada.) The new proposai is generally acceptable to ail provinces although two feel that direct references to the Supreme Court should net be allowed in any case but should be initiated in a lower court. The proposai would result in a slight diminuation of existing federal authority under which the Governor in Council can refer any question to the court.

127

24 -

SECRET

Apart from some minor changes, the only other modification being considered ta the best efforts draft is on which would allow Parliament to set the allowances, salaries and pensions of judges by means other than through an Act of Parliement, for example, by order in council. 3. Family Law

The Minister of Justice's opening statement expressed continued support for concurrency with the provinces on major aspects of the legislative jurisdiction over divorce as set out in the best efforts draft of February, 1979. He aiso suggested giving consideration to the options of (1) federal jurisdiction over the enforcement of extra-provincial orders or (2) a constitutional provision requiring enforcement of extra-provincial orders. He aiso expressed support for unified family courts. In Montreal,the Ministers stated general provincial concerns and then referred family law to the Committee of Officiais dealing with the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights. There was complete agreement on the need for unified family courts and general agreement to continue on the best efforts routa. In Toronto, the issues identified for further consideration by the Committee were: The enforcemene. of extra-provincial maintenance and custody ordrs: Ontario and Quebec felt this could be handled by provincial legislation. There was general recognition that comprhensive family law legislation must recognize the mobility of Canadiens and that deficiencies exist in the prsent Law and best efforts draft in this regard. The question was adjourned to the Vancouver meeting. The question of extending federal paramountcy over the recognition of divorce and the jurisdictional bases,on which divorce is granted to include angulment and nullity decrees: After discussion, this question was adjourned to the Vancouver. meeting. The Manitoba position on retaining federal jurisdiction in the whole field of divorce and expaning that jurisdiction to caver the enforcement of ail maintenance and custody orders: Prince Edward Island supported this position but the other nine jurisdictions opposed it. The Manitoba proposai that the provinces h given jurisdiction to appoint family court judges with full family law jurisdiction to facilitate the establishment of a unified family court system: Ail eleven jurisdictions agreed with this proposai.

128

- 25 -

SECRET

In Vancouver, the committee met on July 23 to discuss the questions adjourned from Toronto as follows: The recognition of annulment and nullity decrees and the jurisdictional bases for granting annulment and nullity decrees: Ail governments, except Quebec and Ontario, supported federal jurisdiction in this area. (New Brunswick was not present.). The possibility of inserting in the Constitution a provision similar to section 14 of the Divorce Act which would provide that custody and maintenance orders have affect throughout Canada: Quebec said it could support this proposal only if it is the law of the receiving province that governs the recognition of the order. British Columbia supported the proposai but felt it should be subject to contrary provincial legislation. It could be automatic unless provincial laws provided to the contrary. On the vote, four provinces, Manitoba and Prince Edward Island, and British Columbia and Newfoundland (subject to the reservation on provincial paramountcy), supported the proposai. Three jurisdictions, Canada, Saskatchewan and Alberta, reserved their position and three provinces, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Ontario, opposed the proposai. The question of whether a provision should be included in the Constitution giving individuals the right to file maintenance orders made in one province, in another province with power in the receiving province to make laws in respect of variation and the limitation of recognition: Ail jurisdictions agreed that this matter should be tabled for further study and conclusion at the August meeting of Ministers. The outstanding question on the recognition and enforcement of maintenance and custody orders involves matters essentialiy of a technical rather than a policy nature. Consequently, it is not felt that further Cabinet guidance is required at this time.

. 1.29

- 26 Communications

SECRET

The initial federal position on communications, and tentative results to_date are summarized as follows:

Initial Federal Position To strive for agreed objectives as a guide to future discussions; To stress the integrated nature of the four issue areas (cable television, broadcasting, telecommunications and radio spectrum); To stress the intraprovincial/interprovincial principle in all issue areas; On cable distribution: to keep the February federal draft on the table, ascertaining provincial concerne with a view to amending the draft to take in both provincial and federal conerns; On broadcasting: to listen and consider provincial proposais; On telecommunications carriers: to oaer to transfer the intraprovincial aspects of Bell, B.C. Tel and Terra Nova Tel to the respective provinces with federal responsibility for the interprovincial and international aspects of all telecommunications carriers, interconnection and access; and, On the radio frequency spectrum: to tan.= the present exclusive federal jurisdiction.

Tentative Results te> Date Failed in the first week;

Successful;

Some difficulty in the telecommunications carriers area; Two drafts, one federal and one provincial were developed. Conciliation and possible other approach will need to be considered;

Provinces have asked fine a "role in programming" at the constitutional Levei; Some difficulty; provinces do not accept exclusive federal jurisdiction over interprovincial aspects: provincial alternative has been developed; and,

Some measure of agreement but depends on other issue areas.

1 30

- 27 -

SECRET

The CCMC Sub-Committee of federal and provincial officiais on Communications met in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver and reported to Ministers at the and of each week. Four topics ware discussed in Montreal and Toronto, i.e.: - the radio frequency spectrum; telecommunications carriers; - cable; - broadcasting. Two topics only were discussed in Vancouver by the SubCommittee, following directives given by Ministers; i.e.: - telecommunications carriers; - cable. Following the meeting in Vancouver, the situation on the four topics is as foliows: 1) Radio Frequency Soectrum An agreement was reached by Ministers early in the week in Vancouver to the following effect: that the authority over the radio frequenoy spectrum should be defined as a purely technical natter and, on this basis, be recognized as exclusively within federal jurisdiction; that questions relating to the use of authority over the spectrum as a means of implementing policy in other areas of communications should be considered in discussing those areas. Of the three remaining topics, the situation is now the following: 2) Telecommunications Carriers In Montreal, on 7uly 8th, the federal government offered to transfer to the provinces of Newfoundland, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia jurisdiction over the intra-provincial aspects of certain carriers now wholly regulated by the CRTC, namely Terra Nova Tel in Newfoundland, Bell Canada, and B.C. Tel. The federal government said, however, that this new arrangement must, of course, recognize federal jurisdiction in ail parts of Canada over ail interprovincial and international aspects of telecommunications, technical standards, interconnection of systems and the continuing federal regulation of national carriers: CNCPT, Telesat, and Teleglobe.

131

SECRET - 23 The Federal proposai related to exclusive federal jurisdiction over the interprovincial activities of the telecommunications carriers and exclusive provincial jurisdiction over the intraprnvincial activities of the telecommunications' carriers. Ministers_then requested officiels to develop other options. Provincial officiais developed the following alternative which was acknowledged to be without prejudice to the federal position as stated in Montreal: Concurrent powers over the interprovincial aspects of telecommunications carriers with general provincial maremotintcY but subject to federal paramountcy in the following fields of exceptions: - the general management of the technical aspects of theradio frequency spectrum; - the use of telecommunications and telecommunications systems for maritime and aeronautical communications, defence or national emergency, - satellite communications; and, - national and international carriers such as CNCP Telecommunications, Teleglobe and Telesat Canada. Substantiel progress bas been made in this area. In Toronto, the provinces essentially refused to discuss titis natter unless the federal government were to withdraw its option of July 8th In Vancouver, provincial governments agreed te develop an option which would reflect their perception of the concerns of both levels of government. A great deal of work remains co be done ta further develop the provincial option. What is clear, however, is that no province has agreed to be_excluded from at least some measure ofTinvolvement_in the interprovincial aspects Of teiecOmmunicationscarriers: The current federlproposal provides for no such involvement. Fox this reason, - no province hes accepted it at the officiais, level. At the Ministerial level, in Vancouver, Ministers directed the SubCommittee of Officiais to prepare a draft amendment following an approach baSed on concurrency over the interprovincial aspects of telecommunications carriers with general provincial paramountcy and federal paramountcy over specific areas,, in time fat consideration by Ministers at their next meeting.

SECRET 3) Cable - 29 -

As directed by Ministers, officiais considered the February 1979 cable draft and another which represents provincial views as expressed in Document 830-70/043 dated Vancouver, January 22-24, 1979. Both drafts deal with concurrent power over cable with, however, the foliowing differences: - the federal draft extends the concurrent jurisdiction to closed circuit which is not now within*federal jurisdiction. The provincial draft leaves closed circuit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces; - the areas cf paramountcy are different. In the federal draft, federal paramountcy would be recognized over: - Canadian content; - Canadian broadcast programs and services; - technical standards. The provincial draft would recognize this federal paramountcy in a much more limited way, namely: the reception and conditions of carriage of broadcast signais; technical standards relating to the reception and carriage of broadcast signais; and, the national origin of broadcast programs content. Provincial officiels indicated their preference for the Vancouver draft over the federal draftwhile setting out the pros and cons of each draft, an exercise Ministers directed the Committee to perform. It turned out te be evident that the federal February best efforts draft vas no longer acceptable to provincial officiels. It was apparent that there vas resistance to granting federal jurisdiction over closed-circuit as well as to an ail pervasive federal role in content on cable. The Committee sought direction from Ministers as to whether the Committee shouid develop a "best, effort" draft based on the Vancouver draft or any other option. Ministers in Vancouver directed officiels to prepare a "beit effort" draft, for the next meeting of the CCMC, based upon the Vancouver draft, or alternatively to develop some other approach as directed by Ministers.

133

- 30 -

CRST

Broadcastinq Little can be reported on broadcasting since no directives were given by Ministers in the first deys of the Vancouver meeting. Provincial officiais have expressed, however, in Montreal and Toronto, a need for some provincial involvement in broadcasting programming and have linkid in this respect the discussion on broadcasting with the one on cable. At the end of the vancouver Officiais' meeting, the Committee asked Ministers for guidance in this area before further discussions can take place. Ministers have told officiais they are ready ta consider options that would include options with a eonstitutional role for the provinces in the autharization and regulation of programming undertakings and services. Federal officiais have not been instructed with respect to pOssible fall-back options. As a resuit, they were perceived to be on the defensive and without flexibility, thereby at odds with the federal Minister's stated openness. The effect of this on the negotiations was to cause frustration among provincial officiais and a radicalization of provincial positions (10 against 1). It was also apparent that some provinces do not as yet have fall-back positions either. Federal and provincial officiais will be meeting in Toronto on August 12-13 to pursue their mandate. As this meeting is before the Premiers' Conference, it will be a good opportunity for the Federal government to give a clear signal that it is willing to bar ain. New instructions are therefore needed to allow or exibility and the ability to develop new approaches. III Strategic Issues A. Assumptions The discussion which follows is based on the following two assumptions: That the federal government will present to Parliament &Joint Address on s package of constitutional reforms early this autumn; based op agreement.with the provinces if possible, unilaterally if necessary. That a negotiated package, which meets must if not ail of the federal government's objectives, and to which the provinces can agree, is preferable to an imposed package, which includes ail of the items of must concern te Ottawa. Ministers are asked to confirm these assumptions There are three strategic issues which need to be addressed in the coming weeks; What new positions should the federal government put on the table when CCMC Ministers next meet on August 26 or when the First Ministers meet on September 8?

134
- 31 -

SECRET

How bard should the.federalqovernmentpublicly sell" its position on eenstitntional issues before September 8? What shOuld be inclUded in the package On which the federal government takes unilateral action. in the fall, in the event that a negotiated settiement is not achieved? Each of these issues is addressed below. B. New Positions As indicated elsewhere in this report, in addition to the People's Package (principles, Charter of Rights, patriation with amending formula) on which the government intends to take action this fall, there are-three other items (equalitation, family law, the Supreme. Court) on which there is virtuel federal-provincial agreement. Of the remaining six items, the negotiations on two (fisheries, communications) of them have reached the point where the federal government has offered to transfer some power to the provinces Uhland fisheries, aspects of cable television, regulation of the intraprovincial services of Bell Canada and B.C. Tel) and the provinces are saying that this is not enough. Moreover, they believe that in the case of these two items, it is the line federal government departments, rather than the federal ministers responsible for COnStitutional negotiations which are preventing further progress f . rom beino Made. Further Movement: by the federal goverpMent in . these areas might help to bring the negotiations to a conclusion, but they are hot th issues which will dtermine whether the overal1 constitutional negotiations ultimately succeed or fait. The issue of the Sonate is one on which the federal government has not so far taken any position, but may be prssed to do so. The Most useful perspective within which to address this issue is, generaily, in the light of the division of powers question, and, specifically, in the light of the intergovernMental review of the use of so-called 'unilateral' federal powers (e.g., the declaratory power, the spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction). Our work on upper-chamber reform during August will be developed along these linos, recognizing that little progress in this area can occur until a federal position is advanced, and that short-terra discussion of Sonate reform could be tactically useful to the federal government, but that substantial progress toward agreement on this item is unlikely to get very far until after the September First Ministers Conference. The remaining three items (resources, offshore resources, powers over the economy) have proven to be . the most difficult and emotionally chargea of the negotiations.

135

- 32 -

SECRET

On resources, the federal government began by withdrawing from tua of the three key positions it had offered in the hast efforts draft of February 1979. It withdrew the of fer to give the provinces concurrent jurisdiction over international and interprovincial trade in resources with federal paramountcy, restricted in the case of interprovincial trade, to the case of "compelling national interest." It withdrew the of fer to give up the unrestricted use of the declaratory power in connection with resources. It left on the table the of fer to give the provinces the right ta impose indirect taxation. The current federal position is completely unacceptable to most provinces, particularly the western ones. However, one result of the federal government's tough stand to date has been to change the thinking of some of the provinces (e.g., Saskatchewan) so that they might now aceept some compromise position between the current federal position and that of the best efforts draft. In other words, at the start of th constitutional negotiations, the provinces assumed that the 1979 Sest Efforts Draft was the least they would get on the resources issue. They now realize it is more than the best they can get. Some compromise positions will be developed during the next three weeks in conjonction with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for discussion by Ministers before August 25. Offshore resources is the only issue on which ail tan provinces are on one sicle as far as the principle is concerned (in favour of treating offshore resources like onshore resources) and the federal government is on the other. Some movement by the federal government on this issue couid be a key factor in achieving a consensus on a range of other issues. The federal government is committed to putting a new proposai for at least administrative arrangements on the table before CCMC Ministers meet on August 26. This proposai will be developed in conjonction with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources for discussion by Ministers before August 25. The final issue of powers over the economy is one in which it is proposed that the federal gOvernment maintain its current position. Initially some of the provinces, particularly western ones, showed little willingness to move toward the federal position (in contrast to Newfoundland and Nova Scotia which have largely supported the federal position). However, near the end of the neeotiations last week, Saskatchewan abandoned its previous strong opposition to the economic union proposais of the federal government and agreed to entrench the principle of the economic union in the Constitution. The challenge now is ta find a way to make this principle operative (that is, to enforce it). Saskatchewan is opposed to enforcement though the courts and wants nothing more than a commitment to the principle in the constitution. There may be ways around this problem, however, by making

136

- 33 -

S ECRET

it politically difficult for a province to derogate from the principle,and work on this possibility will be undertaken during August. However, because the federal government's position on the ecOnomic _union is popular with the press and, likely, the Canadien people (which acconnta for some of 'the ektreMe rike rt f paliganirated - OritheemOtion it hiaKr. RomanOW),'little comprmise on our hard line position seems required at this time. During August, as compromise positions are developed on each of the issues menticned above, bilateral discussions viii be held with various provinces so that we have a good understanding of the likelihood of the acceptance of these positions before the CCMC meeting on August 25 and preferably before the Premiers meeting on August 21 and 22. If none of the provinces have seen strong signs of movement by the federal government before the Premiers meeting, it is highly likely that the result of that meeting will be a hardening of provincial positions and the creation of a united provincial front. We must try to orevent this from happening. In summary, there is a possibility (but not a probability) of an agreement on a fairly wide range of issues in September, but this will came only if each - province believes that it got something out of negotiations in an area of particular interest to To achieve this viii require that the federal it. government develoe new proposais in five areas: resources, offshOre resources, communications, fisheries, and the Senate. New proposais are needed not only to make progress in the negotiations, but also to enable the federal government to prove it is bargaining in good faith. Federal Ministers have said from the outset that they would bargain, that they would be flexible and participate in a genuine process of give-and-take. They will have to start doihg this when the CCMC reconvenes on AugUst 26. A final point is worth emphasizing here. It would seem to be distinctly preferable to reach a settlement to which ail goVernments can agree, so long as that settiement meets the federal government's essentiel objectives. To achieve such an outcome will require serions and imaginative bargaining on Ottawa's part both at the CCMC meeting in August and at the First Ministers meeting in September. At the same time, federal bargaining in good faith is essentiel, even if negotiations ultimately fait, for in that case the federal government must be in a position te make its case effectively with the public as it proceeds with unilateral action. Thus, either way, the federal government must be seen to be bending its energies between now andSeptember 12 to reaching agreement with the provinces if that is at ail possible. It would be very damaging to the federal case . if the summer's exercise could be made to look merely like e public relations charade by a federal government which had decided at the outset to proceed with unilateral action and hence had not negotiated in good faith.

137

- 34 -

SECRET

Selling the Federal Government's Position The federal government's communications plan will have three phases: Phase I: Sensitizing the public to the constitutional debate, Phase II: Presentation of the federal government's proposais for change, Promotion of the option of Phase the Government of Canada. This plan has been approved by the Communications Committee of Cabinet. The first phase in particular will be emphasized from now until the end of the First Ministers Conference in September. The second phase would become the dominant dimension of any federal communications effort in the postSeptember 12 period. Phase III would be applied if the Government of Canada should feel obliged to proceed unilaterally or with a national referendum. Between now and mid-September the communications objective will be to create a climate of public credibility and receptiveness vis--vis the constitutional process with a program that will inform and educate with material that is factuel and non-confrontational so far as the provinces' positions are concerned. Therefore, during this early period, in order to avoid confrontation which could poison the atmosphere for the First Ministers Conference, current plans call for erring on the sida of nonconfrontation when a decision has to be made about whether or not a particular communications instrument or activity will be used. On the other hand, if the provinces jump into the communications gaine in a big way in order to explain their positions on constitutional issues to their own residents (as B.C. has indicated it may do through the use of radio and T.V. ads, etc.) then the federal government may be forced to respond in kind, which means that Phase II could start before the First Ministers Conference. The Premiers Conference August 21-22 in Winnipeg is clearly one event to watch closely from this point of view. /t is important that there be close coordination between the constitutional information plan and the communications aotivities relating to energy.

138

SECR - 35 The Contents of the Package on which Action is to be taken As the constitutional negotiations continue, it is becoming more and more apparent that the provinces, the media, and that part of the public which is following the debate are expecting the federal government to take some kind of unilateral action if the present round of talks does not productsIn agreed upon package. This expectation is now so firmly ingrained that it is reluctantly accepted by ail parties. The prospect of unilateral action has given rise to what can be described as pro forma criticism; it has not yet provoked serious opposition. This is probably so because all provinces know that the public is fed up with constitutional debate and is likely to support a unilateral federal initiative if that is. what is necessary in order to achieve some degree of constitutional change. Whatever criticism does arise viii be more over the concept of unilateral action itseif than over the content of such action unless, of course, the contentA.s - a clear power grab by the federal government. The concept of acting unilateraily can give rise to accusations of arrogance, contempt, etc. It will be casier for the provinces to campaign against arrogance than to campaign against detailed constitutional changes. For this reason, any type of unilateral is likely to give rise to action -- large or small much the same type of criticism aven though there may be some (probably minor) difference in the intensity of the criticism depending on what the unilateral package contains. And because of the symbolism of patriation, especially as fostered by successive Quebec governments, much of the debate may center around patriation rather than around the rest of the package. If the assumptions underlined in the previous two paragraphe are-correct, the government should take action on a bold package rather than on the one which leads to the least possible resistance. There are essentiallyfour alternative packages which might be considered in terme of unilateral action. Each contains a Charter of Rights (which includes mobility rights and minbrity Language rights) and patriation of the constittition with some type of amending formula, be it temporary or permanent. The rest of this paper describes the four. possible packages and analyses their respective advantages and disadvantages. Each package is broader then that which precedes it.

139

'36 -

SECRET

So far as the powers of governments are concerned: the first package would limit certain powers of Parliament without in any way affecting the powers of the provincial legislatures; the second package would limit the powers Of both levais of government; the third package would limit certain powers of each Level of government, while at the same time giving certain additional powers to the provinces; - the fourth package would limit certain powers of each level of government, while at the same time giving certain additional powers to the provincial governments and certain additional powers to the federal government. Package Essentially what this approach would do would be to patriate the constitution (with an amending formula), and entrench a Charter of Rights (with mobility rights and minority language rights), applicable only to the federal government and to whatever provincial governments decide to opt in. As far as minority language education rights are concerned, it might be that they would only become effective after a certain number of provinces with a certain percentage of the population adopt the Charter although it would be preferable to include them as one of the rights to which provinces can opt in. The advantage of this approach is that the Constitution will have been patriated and there will be some form of Charter of Rights even though it will apply only in areas of federal jurisdiction and in those provinces which voluntarily adoptA.t.. ,No province will be able to argue that any of its rights or powers had in any way been affected by unilateral federal action. The disadvantage of this approach is that, while patriation will have been achieved, and will undoubtedly be considered by some as having considerable symbolic importance, it will lead to a situation in which, instead of enshrining rights in such a way as to apply equally to ail Canadiens, the rights attaching ta Canadien citizenship will be dependent upon province of residence. This is contradictory to the concept of a right as something which is sis important that it should apply to ail Canadians. more importantly, the question which will be asked about this package is: why is this ail that came out of such an intensive period of negotiations, when there was no need for a process of intensive negotiations if the federal government is just amending the Constitution to affect only federal powers. This viii be seen as something less than the renewed federalism which has been promised to the people of Quebec. It viii aiso be a wasted opoortunity sinc it is highly unlikely that the ciimate for constitutional change viii be as positive as it is now for a long time to coure.

140

SECRET - 37 Also, th Tact that there will be the perception of no significant change will give bath Mr. Lvesque and Mr. Ryan the chance to continue over the next few years to pursue alternatives which are likely net to be acceptable to Ottawa. In addition, be controversial and will patriation by itsalf provoke criticism by certain circles in Quebec, including bath Lvesque and Ryan. It would be unfortunate to have to fight this criticism without in the end having a great deal to show for it. Finally, there is some evidence to suggest that the provinces expect (although they definitely do net favour) federal unilateral action to include, a Charter of Rights binding on ail Canadiens. Meeting this expectation should net present insuperable political difficulties, given the public support which appears to exist for an entrenched Canadien Charter of Rights. Package II Essentially, titis package would include patriation, a Charter of Rights binding upon bath levels cf government, equalization and a revised Section 121 which would provide the underpinnings for a stronger Canadien economic union. This package should ais include the proposai for a modified Supreme Court because of its close relation to the Charter of Rights issue, the clear expression of duality contained in the propcsed foret of the new court and the fact that it is not a "powers" issue, but more of a people issue. This means that in the area of human rights, certain powers would be taken away from bath levais of government. In the area of the economic union, some powers of bath levels of government would be restricted; but there would be more restrictions on the exercise of certain pcwers by the provinces than by the federal govetnment. However, there would be no transfer of powers. The advantage of this approach is that in addition to patriation, considerable constitutionai change would be evident. Rights would be guaranteed for ail Canadiens wherever they live. In economic terme, because cf the entrencment of a broader Section 121, Canadian citizenship would be more meaningful than it now is. At the same time, no one should accuse the federal government of any type of power grab (although no doubt some of the provinces would tri to accuse the federal government of a power grab because of a new Section 121). The disadvantage of the second approach is precisely that it removes rights and powers of provinces without their consent even if such rights are ttansferred to the people (or, Saskatchewan would argue, Co the courts) instead of to the central government. There vin undoubtedly be some outcry by the nationalist forces in Quebec that the federal government is engaged in "centralism" because powers have not been given to Quebec. This viii net be too much different from the criticism cf Package I, namely that nothing has been done to meet the needs of Quebec.

141

SECRET - 38 In summary, this package constitutes significant renewed federalism; and it might not provoke much more public criticism than Package I. Package II A A more modest variation of this package would be to drop Section 121 and proceed with the rest of Package II. This would remove the economic dimension of Canadien federalism from contention, with the attendant advantages and disadvantages, but would protect the fraedom of movement of pensons, on the assumption that mobility rights were included in the Charter. It would also apply the Charter, including minority language education rights, to all governments. Package III Essentially this package includes all of Package II with one important addition. It adds those items involving some transfersof jurisdiction to the provinces, which have either been agreed upon, or rejected by the provinces as not going far enough, even though provinces have agreed that they are a move in the right direction. This would mean that family law, some elements of communications (e.g., cable T.V.), and possibly something in resources and offshore resources (depending on where these items stand at the conclusion of the First Ministers' meeting) would be included in the package on which action was taken in the fail. The advantage of this approach is that while certain powers now exercised by the provinces have been restricted under the new Section 121, the only change in jurisdiction is from the federal government to the provinces. The package is larger than Package Il and thereby provides for more "renewal" . It gives some things to the provinces which they do not get in Package II and so would possibly make a stronger economic union under Section 121 easier for them to swallow. There is even less justification for an accusation of a power grab by the federal government than there is with Package II. The disadvantages of this approach are less than with Package II. There will be accusations that Ottawa has not given up enough powers or has not given up those powers which are contained within the "traditional" demands of Quebec. However, it will not be difficult to argue in response that half a loaf is better than no bread at all and, of course, there will always be the possibility of further change in the future. On the other hand, it may be argued that no federal powers should be given up without a corresponding transfer of power from the provinces to the federal government. While this is a good argument, it may well be that a revised Section 121 is sufficiently important to the federal government -- that it is a sufficient "gain" for us -- that we might be prepared to give some additional powers to the provinces in order to make the package more saleable.

142

- 39 -

SECRET

Package III A Again a more modest variation of this package would be te drop the new Section 121, but proceed with the other elements of Package III. This would be done on the understanding that mobility rights for persona would be inciuded in the charter binding on both orders of government, thus protecting the free movement of citizens, and goods (i.e. only to the limited extent that interna). tariffs on goods are prohibited by the existing Section 121), if not of capital and seeirCes. The provinces wouid clearly prefer this package to Package II A since it gives them some new powers in family law and communications without imposing on them the restrictions contained in a new Section 121. Package III A (Modified) An aven more modest package wouid be Package III A but with the Charter of Rights appiying Lnitially only to the federal government with provinces having the right to opt-in to it. This package is the same as Package I with the addition of any items on which there has been reasonable federal-provincial agreement. This package would be more acceptable to the provinces than any other package except Package I, but it wouid leave the federal government in the position where it was giving something to the provinces (e g.family law and some parts of communications) while getting nothing in return. Thus it wouid not be consistent with our basic negotiating position which has been that agreement on the powers items must involve give and take. Package IV This approach is similar to the third alternative except that it would provide as well for a transfer of power te the federal government probably under a new Section 9L(2). White the draft of this new section has been received with great suspicion (but not overt opposition) by the provinces, it should be noted that aven here we may be able to seil a new Section 91(2) if the existing federal proposai is modified to protect current provincial jurisdiction subject to unrestricted federal paramountay in interprovincial movement of goods, services and capital. The advantage of such an approach is that it would mean ail encompassing constitutional reform and wouid provide the federal government with most of the additional powers it needs in the economic area. The disadvantage is that it would transfer powers from the provinces to the federal government without the consent of the provinces. It wouid be seen as a power grab unprecedented in the history of Canadien federalism andcoulds,give rise to grave criticism. This option would be much harder tin sell than any of the other packages.

143

- 40 -

SECRET

Next Steps In order to make the necessary preparations for unilateral federal action, should negotiations break down, it is important to have a sense of what kind of package the Government of Canada might be willing to contemplate taking unilateral action on. Clearly, the precise composition of the package would need to be reviewed in September after the First Ministers Conference when the situation is clearer. When Cabinet has decided on the package that is to be implemented, officiels will undertake the drafting of the instruments ta be laid before Parliament. (Work is aiready underway on the instruments needed for the People's Package.) At the same time we will analyze the process that must be foliowed in the House and develop a parliamentary strategy for presentation to Ministers in late August.

144

cc: Mr. Chrtien Mr. Pitfield Mr. Coutts Mr. G. Smith Mr. Rabinovitch Mr. J. Tait

CONFIDENTIAL August 21, 1980

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRIME MINISTER

Details of proposed CCMC and FMC position on the Senate

Attached is a memorandum which summarizes the discussions which have taken place and which outlines in greater detail than the memorandum I gave you yesterday, our proposed positions on the Senate for the CCMC and FMC. It has been prepared by Ron Watts, Principal of Queen's University, who has been a consultant to the federal negotiating team on this issue. The memorandum has been discussed with Gordon Robertson and John Tait of the PCO and they support its recommendation. You do not need to read the entire memorandum. The essence of the document begins on page 12 where we give the details of the proposed CCMC and FMC negotiating positions. I apologize for the fact that this paper is only a photocopy and not a particularly good one at that; but Dr. Watts took the original with him to Kingston by mistake and rather than wait until he returns next week, I thought it was important that we send you this memorandum right away.

Michael J.L. Kirby

145

CONFIDENTIAL

August 19, 1980 MEMORANDUM TO TliE PRIME MINISTER Federal Position on Second Chamber Rvision This papes considers feders1 government strategy. concerning the issue of second chamber rvision for the August 26-29 CCMC meeting and the September S-12 First Ministers' Conference, Sections I and II review negotiating considrations, SectionSIII and IV analyse longer-terra objectives and alternatives, and SectionsV and VI lay cut the considrations and Teommendations for a partial or interixn solution on this issue intended to assist the resOlution of other questions under discuSsion at ,the August and September meetings.
I

Status Of the Issue in the CCMC . Deliberations

As previously reported in the Memorandum to Cabinet_ . reporting on the July CCMC Meetings (July 28, 1980), a striking development durirg the three weeks. Of July discussions wasthe estent te which the Provinces gave to the issue of second - Chamber rvision a high priority and approached the subject from a' lergely commorseraMe of reference in contrast.to previOus corss stitutional discussions.. The report of the COMmittee of officiels on a new second chamber (Document 830-83/017,' Vancouver;' July 24, 1980) which includes a - statement of the points ce cet* sensus arrived at by the:Ministers is included as Armes- A cc thisjpaper. Left open.for, diidussion at the August meeting was th choice b'etween two basic alternatives: (1) a hybrid secon Chamber that would combine (a) a provincial rStifying pester 3f esal action in a specified list of nattera effecting provinci , jurisdiction and (b) a general federal lgislative revie 7'7Wer (with only a suSpensive veto),. (2) tso distindt institut'i.en3 one a non-parliamentary intergovernmental councilsperfosming function (a), and the other a federal regislative second ehamber performing eunction (b), Also identified for further discussion. in August were the prcise distribUtion of saats among.te provinces, and the estent to whiCh issues telating to dualiey shoulel be , dealt with by a special voting reqUirement or by a special committee. Il Uegotiating onsiderations The number of outstanding issues still to be resolved within the CCMC concerning the revised second chamber mens

that there is insufficient time to negotiate and work out with the provinces a best efforts constitutional draft for approval at the First Ministers' Conference in September. Furthermore, this complex and controversial subject 'would undoubtedly prolong th debate within Parliament, and particularly within the esistin Senate, thus delaying seriously the timetable for implementing the first phase of constitutional revision. Qn the bther hand a positive fdral position on .this subject at the August CCMC and September First Minister Conference is desirable for the following reasons: (1) In order to influene the developing provincial csnseness and to avoid the solidification cf a broadly agreed prcvincial. position which would then be more difficult to reverse lester.

CONFIDENTIAL (2)

In order to avoid the appearance of unresponsiveness to provincial progress on this matter and charges of "bad faith" in the negotiations. This could contribute a souring note undermining the resolution of other issues. In order to provide a counterpoise to arguments for greater devolutiOn in the distribution of powers. ..A feature of some of your previous public comments and of the position taken by the federal representatives at the July CMC meetings has been to emphasize that second chamber revision and in particular provincial representation in a revised second. chamber would be an alternative and net supplementary. te s greater devolution in the distribution of powers. Given the federal insistence in the negotietions to date upon the importance of federal "economic l'Owen. and-upon.: limiting the degree. of transfer of powers to the proVinces federal proposais fr a revised second chaffiber with realiatic powers or an effective institutional alternative culd. significantly help in getting other parts of the federal' "package" accepted by the provindeS. ThUS some progress tewards Senate reform, or at least an irOnclad commitment to pursue the subject after September, could help the federal government in establishihg its case for withstanding decentralizing pressures. in order to provide a non-judicial way of dealing ith derogatiOns fre the proposed s..121. A numbet of prevInces_and particuiarly saskatchewan, are indicating that they might support a statementio.. pr ncipIes and operative section concernina the economic revised s. 121) provided non-judicial ways of dealing with d oJgations were adopted. There are ale some. views fedetal government that economic polidy issues are.. better handled by non-judiCial processes. A revised second chamber or alternatively an intergoVernmental institution might provide a process for settling- such issea politically rather than judicially.

(3)

(4)

In the light of the considerations above it is clear that the negotiating and working out of ail the detaila ofan acceptable renewed federal second' chamber will haVe to be completed in a latex phase of the cons.titutional deliberationS. However, the reSolution, of other issues te b implemented immediately after the First Ministers! Meeting in-Septemb:er be assisted if the initial package incorporated partial'or interim arrangements relating to second chambeit revision together with an iron-clad commitment to pursue th subjectof second chamber revision during the second phase of oonstitutional review. The inclusion of such eleMents in the initial package would, of course, be proceeded with Only if the economic powers and resources issues were resolved at the same time. Since any partial or interim solutions incorporated in the initial September revisiong should take account of the ultimate objectives, sections III. and IV below consider those before the consideration of partial or interim solutions in. Section V. III Institutional Considerations (a) Premises

(I) A parliamentary Cabinet system will continue to operate in both federal and provincial orders of government. Thi implies that any second chamber revis ion must elloW for the responsibility of the Cabinet to the

147

CONFIDENTIAZ, House of Commons and therefore, that by contrast with second Chambers. in the USA or Switzerland (and the formel powers of the existing Canadien Senate) a new Canadien second Chamber would normaily only have powers to delay legiSlation and not to block it if the House of Commons wishea to proceed. FurtherMore, a neW second chamberfahould not have power to delay supply bills since this WOU"egiVe it power in effect to dismiss a government, ashappened in Australie in 1975. in any rvision,. the impact of a revised second chamber upon , the operation and- procedures of the House of Commons 1-ei t; be clearly borne in mind. In rder to achieve a strong union- in S coUntri - CcmpCsed of:Vigorous regional and provincial diveriitieetnce is;a need for a better expresaion of rgional end provinCial .viewpoints in. the second chamber. This would enhance the political aceptability of. th legislation, polieies and -actions Of the federal government, and .
wIthetand ( 3)-

'the impact upon the representativeness of political parties in Ottawa and 'lien party discipline is an important factor to be takehinto consideration. Sirice some areas of Overlapping jurisdiction betweetfederal and provincial governments are unavoidable in any federal system there is a need for institutionaI machinery:- Or procedures to reconcile as far as possible federal ariclprovincial policies in these areas. The institutions through which areaSof joint federalprovincial concern are handled Sho u ld- b designed tO encourage and induce acCOMMOdatiOnA:nSteas of eated power rather Chan, confronfetion and obstruction. It is desirable to have a national forum in which federal-provincial differences of vieriaredebateein publid. This would help to increase, tha underetending of issues on which there are differshOe, between the federal and prOvincial governMentSandhel4 the federal government to get its point acrosStothe.-publiC

(4)

(5)

Possible fonctions and powers of a revised second chamber (1): The legislative review'andstipPort rotes (i) critical review and improvement of*House of Commons legislation conducting investigatory tudies (2) representatiOn oe regionalend minority interests ) ensuring effective. represetaticn for lissa populous regions and provinces prOtecting minority rights rights of native peoples) linguistic rightS,

(ii) initiation of lgislation

(iii) providing e broader regional basis for federel political parties to facilitate cabinets and caucuses which are broadly representative regionally. (3) the interrelation of federal and provincial government interests (a set of functions which could bo performed either bY reviSed second chamber or by .a corietitutionally established intergovernmental council)

148

CONFIDENTIAL
-

ratification of federal legislation or action having a significant impact upon areas of provincial jurisdiction (as identified by CCMC Committee of Officiais, those in brackets having been tentatively excluded at CCMC): the exercise of the declaratory power the exercise of the spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction the exercise of the emergenCy power after the fact in certain cases) federal legislation adminietered by the provinces e.g., criminel law approVal of appointments to certain boards and commissions matters which have or might effierge in the Overall process of constitutional review (constitutional amendMents) (the delegation :of lgislative authority) (approval of appointments to the Supreme COUrt) (ratification of treaties affecting areas of provincial jurisdiction)

(ii)

approval of derogations by the federal or a provincial goVernment from the statement of principles and opertive section in the Constitution concerning the "economic union". PrOmotiOn Of federal-provincial consultation and agreement on particular areas of joint concern" (i,e., in those areas outlined in (i). and

(iii)

(c)

Interrelation.with 4ather constitutional revissons

In specifying the functions of a revised second chember these muet be related to the other constitutional revisions.Silch as the formulations of the distribution of powers which include epecial proceduras of approval, methods of intergovernmental consultation regard ing appointments, degree of institutionalizihp of First Ministers', Conference, House of Commkinu reforms direOted7---. at improving its powers of legislative scrutiny or at incrasin g its representativeness by introducing an element of proportional, *representation, and the extent to which political review rather than expanded judicial revew is sought to safeguard the . econoMic union. (d) Special Considerations Relating to Propcsed s.121 and Charter

If a political rather than judicial safeguard is sought for the statement of principles and operative provisions concerning the economic union (i.e, proposed s,121 and Charter guarantee. of mobility, the following three tests might together be apecifiad as required-to establiah constitutionality: (i) declaration in the bill that it is a derogation;

(ii) . ratification before it becomes law by an intergovernmental council or the second chamber, subjeCttO e vote requiring one of the following forms of majority: a majority of the provinces containing a majority of the population of Canada; (b) a majority of the provinces containing 30 per cent of the population of Canada; '( c) a majority within. a body where th Federal and provincial covernments were represented as 11 equal units;

(eF

149

CONFIDENTIAL (d) a majority within a body where each province has one. vote and the Federal government two votes plus a casting vote (ie: the Federal qovernment plus 4 orovinrpm would carry the vote) c.f. Australien Loans Council VOtiAg pattern; (e) a majority within a body where each province has one vote and the Federal government four votes plus a casting vote (i.e. the Federal government plu 3 provinces would carry the vote).

Of those above (b) would provide each region including Quebec with a stronger guarantee but neither (a) nor (b) give the Federal governMent e vote. The requiremnt in (d) reproduces stxictly the Australien Loans Coundil reqUirement, but (e) is closer to the proportienel. Federal weight in Australie which has Only '6 statee. Of the five options (e) would be the peeferred one from. the Federal point of view and (d) would be a taii-bacx position as giving the strongest Federal weight. (iii) the law includes n sunlet clause requt within-S(or possibly 7) yearse enabling reviewed.

repeeeeee:

These three tests taken togetner have the aavantage of requiring e'positive identification of derogations by the legislating authority if the law is not to be vulnerable to a judicial judgment as unconstitutional and of including the requirement of a 'sunset" clause to ensure that impact can be taken into account in any continuance of the law. However, by contrast to the purely judicial process of enforcing s.121, this arrangement would reduce the opportunity for indiViduals, cititens or corporations t challenge successfully the constitutionality of such derogations. Since both provincial and fdral legisletion_involyine derogations must be- subject to review and ratifiCatiOn, th.. e euggested procdure would involve an unorthodox role tor a ferlerai second chamber which normally in other federations ie Confined to reviewing only federel legislaticn. The raie of .reviewing both federal and provincial legisletion would appear:to imply arTMitergovernmental rather than a federl legisletive institution. (e)
-

Distribution of Seats Amona Provinces

In most federations efforts have been made to repreeent the constituent political units (i.e. provinces) equally (e.e. U.S.A., Switeeeland Australie, Malaysia and Eqigeria) cr with weighting to favour the smaller units (e,g. West Germany end India). In the case of Canada a problem is created by the Tact that equality of representation for provinces or weightinr in faVour of smaller provinces would accentuate the minoeity situation, of French-speaking Canadiens. The major consideretiOns in erriving at an appropriate distribution of seats in'a fevised'seCond cnamber would appear to be: to provide adequate weighting tor provinces; (ii) to give more representation te th western orevinceS Who are clearly under-represented in the. existing,Senate by comparison with the four Atlantic provinces or the twe central provinces; (iii) to provide an adequate voire te 7renchspeaking Canedians through the system of representationor through special voting or procdure' requirements on issues which especially affect them.

150

CONFIDENTIAL Historically Canada has been unique among federations in distributing seats on a regional basis. The four region apptoach has ensured a substantiel representation for Francophones:. through treatment of Quebec as a region. However, it has led - now to serious under-representation of the 4 western provinces in relation to the Atlantic provinces, and B.C.'s'claim to be itseif a region and Alberta's claim to equality with B.C. indicates the difficulties of the regional concept as a basis for the distrbution of seats. While equality of provincial representation les perhaps th most appropriate forts fer an intergovernmental council, in a legislative chamber the particular Cenadiah Oolite:kt wculd OeobblY make a weighted representation more appropriate. Fot reference purposes Annex B summarizes a variety of proposais for weighted representation in a renewed Canadian second chaMeet. If e system of equal or weighted provincial tepresentation is adopted it may be necessary in order to peotect the Canadien duality to edOpt a special procedure for the ePpreval of apeeified metters in the form either Of (i) a spcial voting pattern (e.g. Bill C-60 double majority requiremnt) or (ii) 4pprova,1 by a special duality committee of the chamber composed equally of in francophone and anglophne Canadians Beige Paper proposai). either prOcedure it would be preferable to have the francophone .component- includ e broader range of francophones than representatives ftom Quebec, *cet this would only beeeffective under a procedure where provincial delegations do net vote as an instructed block or where Party discipline does not override the expreSsion of free views. Three federations,'India (1947-'),: Nioeria (1959-1566) and. Malaysia (1963-) have made provision for a gmell additional .group:. of appointed members in the federal second Chamber, .apeinted ':Sither for their eminence or to represent special minerities cr interests. New Zealand i while not a federation, has provided,for the electien of a number of Maoris in its unicametal legislature., ment to Provide, saY 6 additional seats for appointed or eleeted representatives of the native peoples miaht be considred for a revised second legislative chambet, but such an arrangement would be less appropriate in a second chamber or an intergoVernmental council which was composed of governeental_reprsentatives since they would not represent any governffient. (f) Method of Choosing Members The method of choosing members of a second chamber which is appropriate will vary with the rol and powers assigned to that body. For example, where a primary emphasis is put upon gerving an intergovernmental function as compared to merely legislative review, the appointment of members as instructed delegates of provincial governments becomes appropriate as in the case of the West German Bundesrat which plays a major intergovernmental robe. In most other federations, the fedetal second chamber has not been conceived as performing an intergovernmental function but s mply as a body for review of federal legislation and a variety of methods of appointment or election have been employed. Affiong the options are: (1) Direct election. This method is emplcyed in the UeS,A,, in most of the Swiss cantons (where the choice of method is left by the constitution te the cantons), and in Australie. Of the three only Australie, howevr i has . parliamentary cabinet systeM and Australien experienc suggests that the power of auch a senate would need te . .)e limited to a suspensive veto and the eClusich of the power to dely supply bills in ordr to ensure that

151

CONFIDENTIAL such a second chamber would not rival the House of Commons or undermine cabinet responsibility to that House. The Australien exprience aise indicates that the impact of party discipline in such a senate may limit the expression of regional views. Cuch. a method does peoyide the opportunity, however, to introduce lection by.proportional reprsentation by province thus enabling a broadening of regional repregentatitm in Ottawa for each national party without having to introduce a component of proportional representaticm '(end, hence two classes of members) into the House of ComMons. (2) Indirect lection. This method has been emplOyed in India, Malaysia and Nigeria. In India all but a very small number of represehtatives in the Council of States are elected by the state legislative asseffiblie usine proportional representation in order to ensure reprsentation of minority parties and interests. Tri Malaysia and Nigeria a simple majority system ef electen by state legislatures made the process in praCtice:usually equivalent to eppointment by the state cabinet. There are na close equivalents elsewhere to the system indirect election (50% chosen by provincial legislature and 50% by the House of Commons to reflect oeoportionately the provincial or federal'vote within the province at the last lection) proposed in Bill C-60. The disadvantaee of such a system would be that the members wuld be acceuntable neitherdireCtIy to theelectorate nor tc a duly elected government, but only,to the provincial or fedetal peeties appointing them, thus leading to the likelihood that party interests woUid predominate over regional ones. Such a system would appear to ensure a ninority status any such house for the gpverning party in Ottawa with little compensatory gain sinc the complexity-of the arrangement and the method of glection is to pose problems of legitimacy in public eyes. Furthermore since the provincial premiers' statement of August 1978 unequivoeally opposed this approach it would not Oelp-to pin their support on other constitutienal issues. ) Appointment. Appointment of instruoted delegates (indeed. of state cabinet ministers) by the state cabinet serving at the pleasure of the state government is the method employed in the West German Bundesrat which has opereted particularly effectively in facilitating ihtergpvernmental ' coordination and cooperation. This has encourageai a number of eecent Canadien preposela forSuch enatrangement in a revised Canadien constitution (e.g. Canade_West FoUndation, Canadien Bar ASsoCiatien; Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation, 3.C. government, PepinRoberts and the Beige Paper). At the CCMC meetings all the provinces have supported some ferai or other of provincial government appointaient of ail or a large majority of the members in a. revised second chamber. Such a chamber is more likely to reptesent provincial government views rather than more broadly rgional views, and therefore its powers would need to be defined and. limited accordinely. On. the other hand, it would provide a basis for including intrgovernmental issues within the sccpe of such an upper house. Appointment of all (as in Canada) or a.majotity of second chamber members by the Federal Government is unique to Canada, although the short-lived West /ndieg Federation included a similar method couoled with the requirement of prier consultation with the appropriate territorial government. In the Canadien content this method appats to have oUtlived its legitimacy in public eyes.4 Acceprability to the public and to governments; (1) To public (as indicated by opinion surveys): prfrence for elected second chamber;

(i)

152

CONFIDENTIAL (ii) (iii) second preference for balancad federal-provincial representation; difficulty of public understanding overly complex institutions.

(2) to federal government:


desire to legitimize regional representativeness of

federal institutions;

(ii) (iii) (iv)

concern to avoid blocks to effective federal action; desire te balance federal concessions to provinces with-provincial. concessions te federal government. interest in providing a political (i.e., nonjudicial) process for reviewing and approving derogations from common market principles.

Hence there is some federal preference for either an elected second chamber or for one composed of members indirectly 'elected by the P. idVindial- legiilatUres and the House of Commons (e.g., House of the Federation in Bill C-60), and a a leaning against prdvincial government delegates. (3) to provincial governments:
(i)

concern that federal policies and actions take account of provincial governments' concerns, especially where they have impact on areas of provincial jurisdiction; concern about being by-passed as spokesmen of regional and provincial views; preference of some (e.g., Saskatchewan) for political rather than judiciai resolution of derogations from common market.

(ii) (iii)

Hence, there is general preference for a "House of the Pro vinces" approach as summarized by the Ministerial Points of Consensus agreed upon in Montreal meetings of CCMC in early July (see Appendix B of Annex A to this paper); IV The Alternatives and Variants

In order to cover the full range of functions listed in III(b) of this oaper two general approaches have been under consideration by the CCMC: (a) a hybrid institution combining within one body the role of an intergovernmental body (e.g., ratifying on behalf of provincial governments federal actions affecting areas of provincial jurisdiction and possibly aise federal or provincial derogation from 5.121) and the traditional role Of a parliamentary second chamber reviewing federal legislation with a suspensory vetO. (b) twc distinct bodies, (i) a revised upper house retaining the titie "Senate" as part of Parliament for the general legislative review function and (ii) a separate intergovernmental council (net a part of Parliament and possibly an extension of the First Ministers' Conference) for the ratifyir.g function and which coula deal with derogations from the proposed s.121. Under each of these approaches a number of variants' is possible. (a) Variants of the Single Hybrid Second Chamber: (i) The House of the Provinces (first ooticn in the Cdmmittee of Officiels Report to CCMC). In thi variant the second

153

CONFIDENTIAL chamber would have two distinct memberships and procedures for handling the ratifying (i.e., intergovernmental functions) and for handling the general legislative review function. For the former, members would be delegates appointed by provincial governments and vote on instruction from their provincial government with delegations including provincial cabinet ministers. There would be provision for non-voting Federal spokesmen. For the latter function, the membership would be supplemented by representatives appointed by the provincial governments for fixed terms and voting freely (uninstructed). If this variant were to be adopted, the Federal Government might suggest that for the latter group of members the Swiss constitutional provision leaving the method of selection for each provincial lgislature to decide be followed. Over the long term such an arrangement might lead to public pressure for indirect or direct election as occured in Switzerland. (ii) The Council of the Federation (e.g., Task Force on' Canadien Unity). The second chamber would consist for all its functions of provincially appointed delegates (including, provincial cabinet ministers) voting on instruction and there would be provision for non-voting Federal spokesmen. .owever, because of the nature of membership, the scope of such a second chamber's power would be limited to the intergovernmental ratifying fonction and to review of House of Commons legislation;in areas of concurrent jurisdiction (the latter being subject only to a suspensive veto). House of Commons lgislation in areas of exclusive federal jurisdiction would require passage only in the House cf Commons and the function of careful scrutiny would have to be performed by that House's committees. (iii) The House of the Federation (eg. Biil C-60). The second chamber would consist of uninstructed representatives, 50% chosen by provincial legislatures and 50% by the _ House of Commons to reflect proportionetely'the'previnCist".-or federal vote within the province at the last eicction. (iv.) The combined appointed and elected Senate-(proposed by R.B. Bryce). Bach provincial government would,be entitled to appoint one Senator, to repr4sent and epe_ak for it, to serve "during pleasure" and to cast the block.: votes of the Senators from that province, for the intergovernmental ratifying functions. The balance of members would be elected directly by proportional representation in the province from party lists and would vote when the Senate exercises its general legislative review function. In the exercise of this function the Orovincially appointed Senators would have mnlv on vote each. The federal goVernment would be entitled to appoint two or three Senators to speak for it and vote in the Senate in relation to both functions. The first and fourth variant sUffer from the complex combination of membership and procedUres involved. The thirdi despite its superficial attractiveness could net really perforM the intergovernmental functions because th method of appointment means that its members cannot act as spokesmen for the Federal or provincial governMents. The second variant prc, .rides the most straightfoeward institution for dealing with the priAarily intergovernmental functions, but achieves this by limiting the. scope of the powers of the second chamber.

154

CONFIDENTIAZ Some concern has been expressed cor.cerning the first two variants about the lack of voting federal representation and the possibility that either of these forms might become a "bouse of obstruction". The lack of federal voting members is not inappropriate in so far as it is proposed in both variants that the chamber would have no .initiating powers and would be confined to ratifying fdral .initiatives. In both cases, the nossibility of the second chamber:becoming a "bouse of obstruction" is reduced by limiting its veto on most federal lgislation to a suspensive veto of 90 deys. The knowledge that obtruction could soon be overridden would be likely to induce coMproMiSe. In the second variant the degree of possible obstruCtion is further reduced by the more limited scope of its powers. In terms of dealing with derogations from a revised s.121, nrsne of, th fonr.variants_would nrovide a significant_ vote for federal appointees who could act as genuine spokesmen for the Federal government. If one of these variants were assigned the role of approving derogations from a revised s.121, a special voting requirement for this role would, therefore, be desirable. (b) Variants within a system of two distinct bodies: If the approach of establishing two distinct bodies, a renewed Senate and an intergovernmental council were followed a number of variants would be possible for each of the bodies. Among the forms which the upper bouse for legislative review might take in such a pair of institutions are: (i) The Elected Senate (e.g., Australie) composed of members elected directly by proportional reprsentation within each province from party lists. The House of the Federation (e.g., Bill C-60) composed of members indirectly elected, 50% by the provincial lgislatures and 50% by the House of Commons, to reflect prpportionately the provincial or federal vote., at the last lection. The Provincial House (e.g., Atlantic provinces and Manitoba at CCMC July 1980) composed of representatives appointed by the provincial government or lgislatures (PoSsibly with method of lection left by the constitution to b determined by the provincial legislatures as in Switzerland) for a fixed term and voting freely, with up to 25% of the membership appointed by the Federal government or the House of Commons.

(ii)

(iii)

(iv) The Federally appointed Senate (e.g., existing Canadien Senate) with all members appointed by the Federal government. The first of these variants would have the greatest public appeal and would provide an alternative way of-broadening the rgional representation of national parties in Ottawa -to that of introducing a component of proportional reprsentation into the House of Commons. Care would have to be taken, however, to ensure that its powers did not undermine the responsibility of the cabinet to the House of Commons. The second variant suffers.from the weaknesses identified in such a method of appointment in Section III (f) of this paper. The third variant, while favoured by many provinces, would be less likely to be insisted upon by them if their primary concerns, i.e., the power to ratify federal actions in areas affecting provincial jurisdiction, were assigned to a' distinct but effective intergovernmental council. The fourth variant would represent the status quo and would probably have the least public appeal.

155

-il-

CONFIDENTIAL

Among the forms which an intergovernmental council might take in such a pair of institutions are: (i) The Federal Council (e.g. Beige Paper, and Saskatchewan and Quebec at CCMC) composed of instructed delegates of provincial governments, including. participation by provinCial cabinet ministers with members casting a block vote by province. Since the role Of the Council would be limited to ratifying fderal initiatives in . certain specified areas, non-voting federal spokesMen would participate to present federal proposais. Most prOVinos would favour equal representation in such a bedy, but B.C. Ontario, and Quebec at the CCMC and the Beige Paper advocated weighted or rgional reprsentation. Chairman7 ship would rotate. The /ntergovernmental Council (, Australian tchS Council) would be an extension but not a replaceMent of the First Ministers' Conference, with powera voting pattern Of this council specifiCd in the constitution. The provincial. dlgations might aaCh rave one vote and the Federal Government four votes plua a casting vote, i.e. the Federal Government plue 3 provinces would carry the vote (a proportion similar to that in the Australien Loans Council - see section III (d) above). The Prime Minister would be chairman. The Combined Intergovernmental Council, which would ,take the foret of the Federal Council for ratification-6f federal initiatives in specified areas, and of. the IntergOvernmentel Council for dealing with derogaticns to s.121 and with other intergovernmental negotiations.

(ii)

(iii)

0f these variants, the Federal Council would appear the most appropriate for ratifying federal initiatives in 'nattera affcting' provincial jurisdiction, but if the council's powers are extended te inciude the ratifying of provincial as well as federal actions. (i.e. for dealing with derogations from s.121 the second or thirdvariant would be more appropriate since they involve-a-voting for the Federal government. The third variant 'would get greater provincial support than the second but at the expense of more complexity. The general approach of establishing two distint institutions would cover between them the full range of functions outlined in Section III (b). By keeping the second lgislative chamber distinct, confusion of functions and complexity within a single institution are avoided. It also makes it easier to combine any one of the variants among the intergovernmental councils with any one of the variants of the second lgislative chamber (or for that matter with abolition of a second chamber) easier because membership and procedures do not have to be interlinked. It also makes it easier to incorporate appropriate arrangements for dealing with derogations from a revised s.121, if such arrangements are desired. The disadvantages are that the opportunity to sensitize provincial delegates and governments to wider federal concerns through tying them into the second chamber is lest and there may be some public resistance to the proliferation of governmental institutions. The latter would be reduced if an intergovernmental council was portrayed as the extension and constitutionalizing of one aspect of the First Ministers Conference.

-12-

CONFIDENTIAL

V Partial or Interim Solutions This section considers a strategy whereby either a partial or interim solution might be incorporated in that initial package of constitutional rvision together with a commitment to complete the revision of the second chamber in the second phase of constitutional revision. The objective of such a strategy would be to increase provincial support for other provisions which the Federal government wishes to include in the initial package. A "partial solution" would be one in which a portion of the eventual longer-term solution was implemented initially, while an "interim solution" would be one in which temporary arrangements would be established, to be replaced subsequently by whatever long-terni solution is adopted later. (a) The Partial Solution Partial implementation of an eventual single complex hybrid second chamber combining the intergovernmental and legislative review functions would be impossible to work out in the brief time remaining before the September First Ministers Conference. But if agreement could be reached at the August CCMC meetings on the eventual creation of two distinct and separate institutions, one an intergovernmental council to be established under the constitution and the other a renewed second chamber or Senate to perform the traditional lgislative review functions, it might then be possible to obtain agreement at the September FMC meetings to proceed immediately with the establishment under a constitutional provision of the intergovernmental council, while leaving Senate reform as a commitment to be pursued in the second phase of constitutional review. This strategy would have the advantage of providing within.the initial constitutional package which is implemented an institutional element - facilitating a possible resolution of provincial concerns about the federal exercice of "unilateral" powers and also provide a political process for safeguarding the economic union, while at the same time defer-: ring for a second later package lengthy debates. on the final forM of a "renewed" Senate. In terras of provincial support the non-parliamentary intergovernmental council has been the preference of Saskatchewan and Quebec at the CCMC meetings, and although Alberta reserved-its position at those meetings it would appear to came closest to their preference. Furthermore, such a council would also in many ways be similar to the non-parliamentary Federal Council proposed in the Beige Paper thus encouraging the support of the QLP. For this reason, Ontario would probably support it, even though their first preference, like that of British Columbia, is for a House of the Provinces performing both the ratifying and legislative review functions. The Atlantic provinces and Manitoba are more interested in a revised second chamber exercising the general function of legislative review, but a commitment to proceed with Senate reform in the second phase of constitutional review might win their acceptance since they have generally leaned to the two-institution solution during the July CCMC meetings. An advantage in proceeding with the partial solution as opposed to deferring action on the single hybrid institution is that it would leave more freedom for the foret which the second legislative chamber might take later. In a hybrid second chamber which includes the intergovernmental role, implicitly the basic foret of rgional membership must be provincial government reprsentatives since only they can negotiate and speak for those governments. Where the two roles are performed by two separate institutions, the second legislative chamber could be directly

-13-

CONFIDENTIAL

elected, indirectly elected, or provincially and/or federaily appointed. Indeed; this approach, by meeting provincial concerns primarily through the establishment of an intergovernmental council, would leave open the possibility, if the federal government wished to pursue it, of a renewed Senate composed of members elected within each province on the basic of proportional representation. This would provide an alternative way of broadening regional representation in Ottawa for each national party without having to introduce proportional representation for a component of the House of Commons (and the need for two classes of members in that House). This is an avenue which you might wish the Parliamentary Committee on the electoral system and the representativeness of Parliament, referred to in the Speech from the Throne, to explore. A further advantage of the two stage approach with Senate reform deferred to the second stage is that it allows more time for a careful study of the impact of such reform on the procdures of the House of Commons, while enabling immediate action on the concerns which the provinces regard as primary. (b) The Intrim Solution If it were decided that a single hybrid second chamber (performing the total range of functions.identified by the CCMC) was ultimately much preferred, or if an acceptable fall-back position from proposing the "Partial Solution" at the CCMC August meeting were needed at the First Ministers Conference, an "Interim Solution" might- be proposed. The basic intrim measure would be to proVide for the performance Of the intergovernmental functions by the establishment of an interim process to last for a period of say five years, during which it would be hoped that proposais for a renewed second chamber would be worked out. This would be done by stipulating in the initial constitutional cext that federal actions in a specified list of matters affecting provincial jdriSdiction(i.e., those.identified at CCMC: e.g., general declaratory power, spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction, the emergency power, federal lgislation administered by provinces, etc.) would have to be approved in the First Ministers Conference by a majority of the provinces having a majority of the population-. of Canada. The requirement for this assent would lapse after five years thus putting pressure on the provinces to reach agreement on a permanent institution by that time. The.political review and approval of provincial statutes which would otherwise be contrary to the provisions of the constitution regarding the economic union might require the same procedur but with approval by a majority vote within the First Ministers Conference in which the Federal Government would have four votes plus a casting vote (or one of the other voting requirements listed in Section III (d) of this paper). The "Interim Solution" would not go as far as the "Partial Solution", and leaves the ultimate direction of second chamber rvision less settled. Nevertheless, it might at least provide both an indication of a federal commitment to revision and possible procedures for dealing with those areas of potentiel "unilatral" federal action about which the provinces are concerned and for safeguarding by a political process the conomie union. It would, of course, leave completely open for later decision the longer-term choice between a single hybrid second chamber.or the establishment of two institutions. On the other hand, the tentative character of the interim solution might leave the provinces less satisfied and hence less forthcoming on other constitutiopal issues under discussion. Furthermore, given the proposai which has already been made to you for an interim solution on the general issue of constitutional amendment the provinces might be encouraged to argue that instead of proceeding with interim solutions, implmentation should be delayed until final solutions have been agreed upon.

158

-14-

CONFIDENT/AL

It should be noted that in the case of either the "partial" or the "interim" solutions the affer should be conditional upon provincial concessions over the economic and other issues under discussion. Furthermore, although the CCMC discussions on the second chamber have identified the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction as one of the key areas lor which provincial ratification would be required, this particular item would need to be more precisely defined before the Federal government makes this major concession as a trade-off against provincial acceptance of the federal position on economic powers.

VI

Reccmmendations 1. In terras of the ultimate outcomes outlined in Section IV of this paper, the single hybrid institution as developed at CCMC would involve considerable complexity if the full range of desired functions including approval of both federal and provincial derogations from a revised s.121 are to be performed. Therefore, if the PepinRoberts variant is net adopted, an ultimate outcome involving two distinct institutions is to be areferred. This would involve the establishment under the constitution of (i) an intergovernmental council with certain specified functions and (ii) a renewed federal second legislative chamber. 2. The preferred form of the intergovernmental council, if its functions include approving provincial derogations from a revised s.121 would be the Intergovernmental Council (Variant (ii) as outlined in Section IV(b) of this paper). Although established by a constitutional pro- . vision, such a Council would in essence be an extension of (but net a substitute for) the First Ministers' Conference. If the approval of provincial derogations from s.121 were not included in its functions the Federal_ Council (Variant (i) outlined in Section IV(b)) would be appropriate andwould increase the likelihood of provincial.. aJceptance. s. The preferred form of federal second legislative .chmber . (see Section IV(b)) would be a directly elected Senate based on proportional representation. With the proper safeguards outlined in Section III(a)(i) of this paper it should be possible to avoid the Australien difficulties. This form would net only have the widest public acceptance but achieve the benefits of proportional representation without the complications involved in introducing that procedure into the House of Commons. E. If provisions to safeguard the Canadien duality in a way that represents French-speaking Canadiens across the country are desired, these can be incorporated more appropriately in the federal second legislative chamber than in an intergovernmental council. 5. The Federal negotiating position at the CCMC August meetings and at the First Ministers' September meetings would be enhanced if either a "partial solution" or an "interim solution" for the second chamber issue could be presented. (See Section V.)

159

160

ANNEX. A

DOCUMENT: 830-83/017 CONFZDeTTAL

Continuing COmmit'tee of Ministers on the Constitution Vancouver. July 24, 1900

Report Of the doectittee otOffiCials on a New Second Chamber BackaroUnd MinisterS met on July 22 to d-Scuss anw SecOne: chamber and to provide directions for further work by the Committee of Officiais. The Chairman of the Commiztee gave. an oral report on the conclusions.reached by Ministers oh the oasis of-the ministerial douMent "Pointe of a Senete Consensus" (Montreal) and the Report of the Committee Of Officiais on the Senate (Toronto; July 17, 1980) copies' of-Which are attached.

After discussion, Ministers asked the. COmmitt ) as a first step, to study the desirability.tie cr-ating an institution for ratifying federal action, dealing, - only with a limited list of specified natters of:.sharad "federal-provincial concern, and whose voting:members wouid be solely provincial delegates voting on govrnment instruction; (b) as a second step, to look at th deSirability of a w dg rale of review of Sousa of Commons lgislation for a new second chamber whose memberswould te appointed solely or primarily by the provinces; (c) to enquire into the desirability of having Loth of * functions 'in (a) and (b) dealt with in cne r.ew nstitution or of having two separate institutions for thosir functions;

161

CCNFIDENTTAL

, (c1) to examine the issue of the oasis of representation

(whether there hould be gualaty of representation by proVinCe or region or a weightecl , forMula)) and (e) to consider whether the new body or bodie should Make special, provision for handline Matters related tg "dUalism".

An Institution for Ratifying Certain Federal Actions Under section (a) of the Ministerialdirecti s the Committee examined the desirabil creat a new

institution for ratifying federal action en a 1 mit: sPecified matters of federel-prOtitcial concert.

Rola of the new iMatitutict There was a general view in the Commit:tee t.nat v
,

principal ro-le of the new

itution shouid te thz.

of providing a "national consensus" on a shot of "crucial" matters of special concert provinces where the(ederal authOriCies M4'/: nOw-ad, t. alone. (ii.) >lettere reguiring ratification by the new institution There was a- general view that the fallOwitg. mit be subject to the requirement of ratification b the new institution; the exercice of the declaratory power: - the exercice of the spending power in'aeaan m: provincial jurisdiction; the exercise of the emergency power Gaffer fact in certain cases); fed'eral lgislation ta be adMinistered provinces.
e3

162

CCUFIZENTIAL

The Committee aleo retained for further examination other rnatters which might de added tO the liet other means of handling,them could not be -fOund; approval of appointments to certain federg be d and commissions; matters which have or might emerge in. the overall deem . appropriate. process or constitutional'review which .MinisterS _

The Committee considered the failowing matters, action by the: new institution, but the gneralView was that they net be included on the presen.. 1 constitutional emendments; the delegation of Iegislative authe approval cf appointments to e Supreme a rdle in treaty-making urisdiction. (iii) areas ce prOv;:n'ciai.i:

Method of selection cf membars of the new institution The general view was that mambers be ap9ointed provincial governments and vote on instruction by. their provincial goVernment. Such members May or nay not be provincial Cabinet Ministers. It was noted that there should be no prohibition against dual memberahip in e legislature and in the new institution. There was e general view that there should be prOvision fot ncn-voting 'participation federal gcvernment spokesmen.

Li)

Tenure It was . ag ed that appointmenta te th new should be at the pleasura of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council.

163

CONFICENTIAL

(v)-

Bassa of RepresentaEiOn Seven provinces eXpeessed a preference for equality cf t'ePregentation by provinceS, although three Of!' them wculd accept compromise weighted formula. Two proVinces preferred a weighted formula approad based on population and/or ()the: consideratiOnS but one would accept equality if.that were the general view. One preferred equality Of reprsentatiOn fo.r five eegions but would considee a weighted formuIS' The federal view was that.this was a matter in the first instance for the provinces to determine.

(vi)

Votino Procdures It was generally agree&that memberw WOuld castra bloc vote by 'province on instruction by theirpeovincial government. There was a general view-'that, ratification should require a majority or 2/3" vote, the choice of which,-in the view of..some arovfstc s,' would depend on the basis of tepreeentation sel'ected; These critria might_be varied for issues related to dualism.

A New. Second Chamber for the Aeview of Federal Bills Consideration of this matte: vas carried out under the seras of section (b) of the directives 7i7en by Ministers. (i) Powers There vas general agreement that the new second chamber should have the power to reviewall federal egislation except for appropriations bills and those matters ccvered under the institution

COMF/DENTIAL

desCribed aboya in section A. lb , deseisci. gtheral agreed that enew Second -Chamber having the revieu role would Only eNereise a short suspensiVi "veto of, say, 90 days which Couic) be overridden by repassage in the HouSe of CommonS reguiring only one reading and a simple majority.

(ii)

Voting Proceduras Ali members wculd e free agents and wouif nOt vct on instruction.

ii)

Basi of Reoresentation

A majority of provinces empressed a pr .erence:


eguality of representation, but two couldmcve to a comproinise "weighted forMuia. Two preferred weighted formula based on population and/or- Othr consideratione. One preferred equality fart Pive: rgions but would consider a cOMpromise Weighted formula. Manitoba provided the foilowing proposai, for compromise weighted formula: the Yukon and NWT: 2 each;. ?.E.I.: 4;

U.S., N.B., Newfcundland, manitoba and


Saskatchewan: 8 each; Alberta: 10; B.C.: 12; Ontario and Quebec: 16 each.

tiv)

A000intments Itwas kgreed that appointmente shoulf - Ce for efime period of, say, 8 years, to ensure independence, and, that the duration of the initial appointments should_'

165

CONFtpEntrta ., be taggered-- Whether: MeMbemsCoUld ba reappOint_d was judged to I a matter reguiring fu:ther tonsider ation. On whether thete should be a mix of federal and provincial appointments or provincial appointments only, views were mixed. The federal government proposed that 50% of the members should be eederally appointed and 50% provincially. Two provinces shared this view. The majority of provinces favoure- pro vincial appointments only, but a nier were w to consider a mincrity proportion cf fedetal a po ments. It was suggeated by one province that con sideration oculd be given to having 75% of the membera appointed by provinces and 25% appointed federaliy.

One institution or ".swo? There were divergent views:On whether the t';'b functions of ratification end review should be handledbY. one institution or taro. if they Ware Combined in one. institution, there would be two sorts of members (gOvernme..z delegates:and free agents) who woUid have different and,POwers PrOVincial delegats alone would debate.and

vOte on matters eor ratification. Both delegates and agents wculd debate bills under legislative raview. Arguments in favour of havin bath functignS handled one institution were:

there would be a highly beneficia_ c.css. fertilization between the deLegates and' free agents if they sat in one House:

166

167

CONeZDENTIAL

There was.no agrement on whether there shoule be one or two institutions.

Dualiem

Scith Quebeo and Ontario had suggested a dualist function for the -new institution(s) or for a Special,committee. thereof.. During diScUssioh, the following point emergedl

(i)

there was gene, dualism concept:

synpathl for accommodating.the

(ii).

there was a general wiiiingness to examine proPOSal respecting language and linguisti* meaSures;

(iii)

there was concern about eXpandi-g the propcSals to -include "culture' becaUse of the problems Of dfini such a concept;

(iv)

it was felt that the Mechaniems .or dealing with - dUalisM cOuid only beptdperly discussed when a:morecanote' idea of the scope of the dualiSm propoial has.teen deVeloped ' anda clearer picture of the new insu tion(s) has emerged;

(7)

until:ffiechanisms had been propcsed for examina it was fait to be premature to discuse.whether francohpone intereste under the dualien- principle could best be safeguarded by Quebec membrs of a neW second chamber, by francophone me bers of a new Second chamber or in some other way,

tt was suggested that Ontario and Quebec shcu ?repart more precise proposais far consideration by the Committee at the August meeting of the COMC. A11 Othet gOvernments were invited to submit any ideas they might hale to Ontario and Quebec.

168

CONFIDEUT/AL. COMMITTEZ 'REPORT MiniSterial Document Points of Senate Consensus A.PPENDIX

the Sinisters In priVate dIscussidn, the following points of a Senete:cOnsensusr on the need , for:e new second chamber..

that - the new. Second charter hot be an elected body. that it be.combosed of Provincial _epresentatiVet. but that coealeration be liven ta the poSaiOility s et the eame. of federal represeAtat the rale and poWera of the second chambi a discussed. that on representa a) b) a majority wanted equa- reSentation On el province by province basic
on an undeterMined number per

some:wantid elweighted rapresen:.ate i.tca,e four regions as a oasis one province wanted egual represente from five regions

d) two reserved their position, that the new upper chamber could possiblytUted. nedessarily, be a substitutefor soffie.odthereUia federal-provincial mechanisms,
that the new chamber have the poWer to a actions in such areas as:

de a

a) b)
c)

dedla-atory power federal spending power


amendments to the Constitution

d)

other powers as contained in the British Columbia proposai

further the establishment oi another category of suspensive powers. This consensus is to be used as discussion, aster governments have given oasis furthar

and, that there was a willingn'ass to disc!.:sa.

consideration.

170

171

172

173

ANNEX C

CONFIDENTIAL

Recommended Positions on Second Chamber Revision at CCMC (August) and FMC (September) Meetings

At the CCMC meeting, we would recommend that Mr. Chrtien state that, because there is insufficient time to work out all the details of a revised second chamber in time for the FMC but in order to encourage resolution of other issues to be included in the initial packages of constitutional revision to be approved at the September FMC, the Federal government would support a "partial solution" of the second chamber issue. Of the two major alternatives aiready identified by the CCMC, the Federal government would support the alternative involving two distinct institutions rather than a single hybrid second chamber, and would of fer to proceed immediately with the inclusion in the initial constitutional revision this autumn of a constitutional provision establishing an intergovernmental council (not a part of Parliament) whose function would be to ratify federal actions in a specified list of matters affecting provincial jurisdiction. At the same time a commitment could be given to proceed with implementation of the second institution, the renewed federal second legislative chamber during the second phase of constitutional negotiations. Mr. Chrtien should make clear at the CCMC August meeting, that the implementation of the partial solution would be conditional on a satisfactory resolution of the "economic issues" at the same time. Mr. Chrtien might suggest that the CCMC August meeting give attention to arriving at a precise agreement on the powers, composition and procedures of an intergovernmental council with a view to arriving at a best efforts draft. In the resulting discussions the federal government should insist upon -a more precise definition of each of the matters suggested at the CCMC July meetings for ratification bl the proposed council, especially in relation to the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction. On composition, equal representation for each province might be advocated because of the intergovernmental character of the body. A voting pattern which enables the federal government plus three of the provinces to carry the day (c.f. Australien Loans Council vote proportions) might be advocated as an initial federal- position. At the FMC, it might be suggested that the partial solution be developed further to provide the political mechanism to approve both federal and provincial derogations from the proposed s.121. In view of this it would be suggested that the intergovernmental council be composed of the First Ministers (or their delegates) with the Prime Minister (or his delegate) as Chairman accompanied by one federal minister. For approving such derogations the provincial delegations would each have one vote and the federal government four votes plus a casting vote (i.e., the federal government plus three provinces would carry the vote). This could subsequently be reduced to two votes plus a casting vote (i.e., the federal government plus four provinces would carry the vote). In the cases of ratification of federal initiatives in areas of provincial jurisdiction approval by a majority of the provinces representing a majority of the population of Canada could be considered as a voting requirement. If agreement on a "partial solution" cannot be reached at the FMC meetings, a further fall-back position for you, if necessary, would be to offr an "interim solution"

174

CONFIDENTIAL

to last for a period of five years during which it would be hoped that proposais for a renewed second chamber would be worked out. Under the "interim solution" the initial constitutional text would stipulate that federal actions in a specified list of matters affecting provincial jurisdiction would have to be approved in the FMC by a majority of the Premiers representing a majority of the population of Canada and that derogations from the common market provisions (s.121) would require a majority vote in the FMC in which each province would have one vote and the federal government two votes plus a casting vote (i.e., the federal government plus four provinces would carry the vote). These requirements (i.e., the provincial ratification procedures and the possibility of derogations from s.121) would lapse after five years in order to put pressure on governments to reach agreement on a more permanent arrangement.

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

secret V 4 e Memorandum for Ro,15er Rabinovitch Const:tutional Discussions This nemorandum is an assessment of the first week of constitutional talks from the particular independent perspective that I enjoyed. Canerai comments 1. My assessment is that the federal ride has slipped off strategy on some aspects, has not yet got on strategy on others and is in some danger of being wedged into a potentially dangerous reversai of strategy. My reasons for saying this are as The federal Powers over the Economy initiative attention among the has diverted provinces to the question of how to defend on powers as well as attack. This is a positive development from the federal perspective but, for reasons set out below under Specific Issues, there has been no powers-for-powers negotiation,, a primary federal objective, and it islrat established there will be. This, if not negative, is not positive. This diversion has produced a de facto separation between the Peoplets Package and Powers questions but not, as yet i an ordering favorable to the federal Bide. That is, the Government wanted to ensure that the Peoplets Package -- rights, principles and patriation was concluded by September whether the Powers items were concluded 4 or not. In Montreal, thepmzInsluA.121dgd any ce,-4 4 . substantive discuss of the Peoplets Packaue. Thir lner chrner-tre"P-crontv-antr/or Vancouverbut do not see it happening without strong federal pressure because the clear provincial preference is to deal with the Peoplets Package fast. The effective result at this point leaves the Peoplets Package hostage to the Powers items aven though there is no formai bargaining of one package against the there

The main federal achievement was to put some 2, fairly tough positions to the provinces and keep them at the table. It is clear, however, that they did not stay because they accept the positions. Rather it is because the two provinces of greatest concern, Quebec and particularly Alberta, have clearly decided to stay, to avoid being isolated, to avoid being blamed for riilure Imettferg-unilateral action, and to isolat ariathUrthe federal government wherever possible. My reading is that both provinces are clear on their approache are on the same track and following it in sure-footed fashion. The essence of their approach is to support other provinces strongly where possible, concede on non-essential points to other provinces where possible and Ltvc cl Qmertseps221..tLon . to other provinces, for example on Senate, reforme I presume they expect the same in return on issues where they feel their essentiel interests are enemed.

3.

As a final general point, such progress as has been made on specific issues has been made where there have been federal concessions which the provinces have accepted. Trthis poin, there have not been provincial concessions except to each other. ecific issues The Senate

This issue has been a surprise, in that a number of provinces have coma to accept the views set out, primarily by B.C. but also in the Beige Paper and C-60. The reasons for this coalescing of provincial positionsvaries. Quebects support obviously flows from a combination of trying to co-opt Ryan, emphasize common cause with the other provinces and isolate Ottawa. In exchange, other provinces have been willing to accommodats duality as an aspect of a new Senate and of a changed Supreme Court. The duality problem is discussed below. Alberta, on the other hand, started from subdued opposition and moved, as other provinces indicated interest e to neutrality as a formai position, perhaps because of the energy fish it wishos to fry with B.C. and most likely to avoid isolating itself. Presumably, Alberta expects that Sonate support and/or neutrality will buy support on powers and strengthening executive federalism along the linos Premier Lougheed has firmly established. It is clear that Quebec, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Newfoundland and perhaps others do net see the question as the lenate or powers. They see it has the Senate an one has to go, 1 is clear which one. af - a_, /4.4

203

It hes uetmen2qt!blished that the federal iirrrnIragertliet is, on government wuldinsistor the provinces choosing a renmedSnate or powers. If such a linkage were there and accepted by the provinces as a hard choice, my assessment would be that support for sonate reform, aven along the exclusively provincialist lines proposed, would evaporate quickly. However, spart from this aspect, there really is no federal position before the CCMC on the Senate and this may account as much as anything for the development. That is with the Senate divorced from the powers question and unrostrained by any limite a federal position would impose, the provinces have found it a pleasurable exorcise to agree among themselves to transfer the Sena e appointive power from the federal to the provincial levai. It is not clear how they will rospond should the government find this unacceptable. It is clear, however, g_to that the Government is now in the ositio negotiate back from a provincia consensus in order to achiove anything other- Man a provincially appointed not the best position to be in, Senate 2. The Supreme Court

The technical aspects of the court question (number of judges, the value of entrenchment, etc.) are set out in efficikls reports as requiring guidance. However, the idea of duality, and the two conceptuel aspects represent the pillars idea of Coderai provincial equality of the evolving provincial positioh and the government does not have clearly defined positions on either. If the government has problems with either, it is already in a "bargaining back" position to a degree. The federal/provincial equality concept, of course, is a key demand of proponents of stronger mechanisms of executive fedoralism, particularly Alberta. In the court discussion it manifeste itself in the question of whether provinces should also have the power to refer questions to the court and, to a lasser degree, in the questions as to the appointive procedure. Should it be accepted in the court context, the concept muid acquire added force in other executive federalist matters. It would o osera government to have a thus seem desira e clear view of the general concept rather than treating it as solely related to the court, as would likely happen if the matter were left for resolution in the CCMC with its separateitems approach to negotiation.

3e

Duality

This is not an item, but as a concept it has acquired consideraole force, because of Quebects approach, because it has been legitimized by Pepin-Robarts, because as a word it has slipped into the constitutional vocabulary without great opposition or e2en concern. My assessment wouid be that the provinces have not been led te expect federal opposition to either the word or the concept. Me own concern is that it will wedge the government by innocucus anches toward what is really "two nations" and/orlumlalrILItus" and that it will alter th basic balances of theoverall national system. That is, "duality has been and is the the idea of two fo din eoples essentia reason lie have prov ne a governments with great powers over rights, language, educatfUn and culture. Bt we have national institutions to demonstrate our essentiel Uespite our duality. Transforming unity. if yoUTIInational institutions so that they need liElfloe122th the capacity to- be unified - and to be divided would represedt ar --a profeouri r errier: In any case, the Government needs to clarify for itself what it means by duality and whether it accepts and/or can live with the concept because the provinces seem to have the perception that the Government can live with it and no reason for resisting it in terras of their own responsibilities. Resources It is not clear, as a result of d evelopments on Friday, that this natter is still on track. The federal position established by Cabinet was that the bext efforts draft would be withdrawn. Up to Friday, this seemed clearly understood, if not accepted by the provinces. But in the closing session Mi'. Romanow noted that resources would be difficult to deal with because "the best efforts draft is net on the table." Mr. however, that it was on the table but not a reed. Mr. Romanow took this bail and ran, se ng ou ' . s un ers aning that "if that is the base"' officiais in Toronto can start from the not-agreed best-efforts draft as a reference point.

0nauta_uid,

Thus, although the raderai position had been understood by the provinces, it seems to have changed and the government, as I wouid assess it, isnow in the position rejected by P and P Ministers in favor of withdrawal, that is, starting from the best efforts draft and negotiating back from it.

205_

5. Equalization This issue, in my view, has regressed. That is, ail provinces and the federal government had accepted r zinces th principle of equalization payments D.C. alone opposed entrenching the present systen oT federal payments to provincial governments because, as a have province, it7reTrredpaymenti to people, and, in any case, in the future the present system being entrenched might prevent a better system being put into place. As a result of officialq discussions, however the principle of equalization is now stated in terras of han the pa' e ts to rovinci less restrict ve-to provinces and it looks as if the unanfaty on fEW PFInciple will be lost. In terras of Ministerst views, my understanding is that ther preference is increasingly for payments to people rather than to govermments -- that is, Gloser to B.C.Is views than to the views of the other provinces. My concern is with the affect of this shift on the government's options in the event unilateral action is necessary. "Sharing" is a potential unilateral item if it is unanimous or aven 10-1 agreement. However, the government will now have to judge whether returninc to the principle of payments to provinces, that is, people and/or governments, rather than to provincial governments will be accepteethe nine or opposed on the basis that the change rerresents a challenge to provincial governments .Communications The pro blem here is the fairly typical one. The government has asked for a clear agreement on national objectives in exchange for the transfer of Gable, etc. - -- e oug on is issue = "T annot Mr. sali it to my colleagues without a clear recognition of national needs" -- but the natter now seems to have beau wedged back from principles-first, powers-latex, to powers in the context of principles. As Mr. Romanow baldly put it, the officiais could judge the specifics in the lightfederal principles if they were federal and provincial principles if they were provincial. That is, if the federal government agreos to specific transfers in accordance with its principles that the provinces accept in accordance with their principles, the two levels can then coma to grips with sorting out the differing principles. Or perhaps not.

7n8

7.

Economia powers.

The federal position paper has caused a great flap and, apart from Ontario, no response except for defensive manoeuvres. This was expected. There is a potential problemi however, in the positioning of this item in the discussions. In the context of trying to establish a powers-againstpowers bargaining dynamic, the federal effort has been directed at getting economic powers into the same comnittee an resources e interprovincial trade and offshore resources. The provinces, particularly Mr. Romanow, have resisted this linkage. In response to Mr. Romanow on Friday, Mr. Chretien took the position that whillLhe_ilema_uare_in the same commirte, they were not linked. That is, the items would be deaIt with separately. In brief, the powers-aeinst-uowers principle is not established, the linkage is not being pushe an p unlnss 3%r9lpushed, is unlikely to take place because the provinces do not want the issues linked. The problem with this fiows from the order in which they will almost certainly be handled: resourcos and interprovinial trade. offshore and thon economic powers. My connern is that if the negotiators get to economic powers federal leveFtide will be sharply redUdedbacause the Tderal government, not having established the necessity to trade off, will have given the provinces what they want. Strategic aspects The key raderal strategic asset developed during the week flowed from the clear determination of Alberta and cuebec, and the others, to stay at the table. The alternative approaches to this asset are as foliows: 1. Take it as a positive sign of the possibility of agreement requiring some give on the roderai part to convert it into tangible results. This might be done by trying to achieve the "greatest possible measure of agreement" on the provinces' items before turning to the federal items. To a degree this is happening anyway and, in any case, federal insistence on provincial concessions on federal items may sour the provinces in ternis of accepting federal concessions on what they want.

2Q7

2. Take it as giving the federal government more leverage than previously assumed to insist on concessions before provincial powers items are negotiated. This might be done by bringing the federal negotiating approach back in line with the agreed strategy, particularly with regard to those items set out above and, specifically, demanding a clear bargaining linkage between resources etc. and economic powers and insisting on clear and early progress on the Peoplets Package. This would provide some time, as well, to catch up on concepts such as duality and positions such as on the court and the sonate. Tho difference between the two is fundamental. The first assumes that the provinces require evidence of federal good faith. The second assumes that the federal government requires evidence of provincial good faith. The "correct" approach turns very much on subjective assessments of provincial intentions. The whight of concessions so far on the table would indicate however that federal good faith is very muchmore in evidence than provincial. The provinces hav Fither accepted federal concessions as "'adequate", rejected them as inadequate, hor not discussed them as yet. There have not been provincial Uconcessions, except to each other. It is possible, of course, that if the federal government satisfied the provinces on their items, the provinces might then satisfy the federal government on its items. On rights, however e they appear more opposed than ever les ttey accept the idea but not hing. - On princra to entra the federal draft. On patriatien the ground is not yet clear. On economic powers they have vigorously attacked the package as a "'provocation"' (by ruebec) and a "massive diversionary tactic"(by New Brunswick). In view of this, negotiating prudence would auggest the need for tangible resuits on the People's Packagelaa2eQuenic Powers before the provincial irMireiliFFIMMFh tr_r_e The apparent leverage flowing from the provinces' evident dtermination to stay at the table and avoid justifying federal unilatral action suggests the matter can be pushed hard. Finally e the fundamental problem with the first approach that is, to demonstrate good faith by putting off federal items in order to allay provincial fears is not only dangerous in terms of lost leverage but a fundamental reversai of strategy. That is, it makes the People's Package hostago to the provinces being satisfied on powers, which is what the strategy was aimed at avoiding.

Equally, it effectively changes the deadline for concluding an agreement on the Papplets Package. The deadiine would not be the September conference, as Cabinet decided. Rather it would be whenever the powers negotiation was concluded. In brief, if detailed negotiation in Toronto is confined to the powers question, it will only be a matter of the provinces holding off Peoples Package negotiations for an additional two-to-three days the following week in Vanp.9uver to avoid thtS"matter ( entirely at least until 14 ate August e

David Ablett

209

Office of The Prime Minister

Cabinet du Premier Ministre

CONFIDENTIAL May 22, 1979

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRIME MINISTER From: Mary E. Macdonald Re: Your memorandum for the Prime Minister April 11, 1979 "The desirability of proposing an elected Senate for Canada"

The Prime Minister has commented as follows: "I rather agree. But this should not be raised during the elections."

r. SIttle ,1150 R, G, ROY.'


eg

MAY

919

Ottawa KM 0A2

210
Hon.Mafc Lalonde Hon.John Reid Mr. Tass Mr. Strayer Mr. Pitfield Mr. Coutts Mr. Rabinovitch Miss Macdonald Mr.Carter Mr.Tellier Mr.Gwyn Mr.MacKinnon Mr.Hayes Mr.Taylor

CONFIDENTIAL

April llth, 1979.

MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRIME MINISTER: The desirability of proposing an elected Senate for Canada I have been thinking about the plan you intend to put forward for action on the constitution immediately after the election. Essentially what you will be seeking is a mandate to move on that plan so as ta get over the blockade created by the need to get unanimous consent from It seems to me that, in addition the provinces. to the items we have discussed and which are covered in my memorandum of April 6th, there is one other possibility that you might want to consider proposing now - an elected second chamber. Background In the work we, in the FPRO, developed under your direction in 1977 and 1978, we advocated an elected second chamber to replace The Ad Hoc Committee of Ministers the Senate. were worried about it and opted instead for the "selection" or "indirect election" version that was included in Bill C-60. The essence of the consideration in the meetings of the Ad Hoc Committee is summarized in a memorandum of February 15th, 1978: "(a) The Cabinet Document proposed a directly-elected Senate, elected on the occasion of provincial general elections, with a three-month suspensive veto, with seats distributed ta give West and Atlantic slightly more than Quebec and Ontario, and with an "auxiliary Senate" composed equally of French

and English-speaking Senators and having an outright veto over language and ancillary legislation. "(b) Most Ministers envisaged serious problems with any major change in the Senate; only two unequivocally favoured such a change, and only one of those two unequivocally favoured direct election. However, of those opposed to a major change some would favour direct election to any other method. No one supported direct election on the occasion of provincial general elections. Opinions were sharply divided (generally French-speaking versus English-speaking) on the need for an "auxiliary Senate" with equal representation of the two language groups. "(c) Two options as to selection received most support: (i) direct election of half of the Senate at each federal election; and (ii) "selection" by legislatures and House of Commons (following consultation by the government concerned with other party leaders): half by the House Commons, and half by the provincial legislatures. The selection of Senators would reflect party strength as well as linguistic and other minorities."

The "selection" version of a reformed Senate, which we called the "House of the Federation", has received no support. I think it must be regarded as dead. The kind of second chamber that has received a fair bit of support is something based on the German bundesrat - a "House of the Provinces" or "Council of the Provinces" advocated in

differing detail by some provincial governments, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Task Force on Canadian Unity, the Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation, the Canadian Bar Association, and This idea would provide a second chamber others. comprised usually of 100% provincial appointees, of the political persuasion of the provincial government appointing each group and with terms of election to coincide with the term in office of each provincial government. A House of the Provinces is bound to be attractive to most provincial governments and if no popular mandate is gained for something else, the House of the Provinces will almost certainly carry the day sooner or later. The House of the Provinces concept runs quite contrary to many of the principles and objectives the government considered to be The important for an effective new second chamber. main objective had been to establish a chamber in which the people of the different regions would be represented in a way that would ensure free and unhibited expression of views as held in the regions on a basis roughly proportional to the popular The House support for those views in each region. of the Provinces would represent provincial governments, not people; the views expressed would be those of the provincial governments and there would be no proportionality of views whatever. I would like to suggest to you that the only chance to achieve the objectives that were agreed upon by the government, and which underlay the House of the Federation, is to advocate an elected second chamber and to do it now in the hope that a It will not popular mandate for it can be secured. be supported by present power-centres - provincial governments, the House of Commons, the Senate or perhaps All are afraid of a new even the federal Cabinet. body that can claim to derive power from the people and that may, therefore, threaten their own power.

213

The nature of an elected Senate In early 1978, we considered As indicated several versions of an elected Senate. in (b) at the top of page 2, the Ad Hoc Committee of Ministers was particularly concerned about a version that would have election for the Senate coincide with They also felt the each provincial election. provinces would oppose such a version as it would draw federal parties and federal arguments into provincial elections. As you will see from the extract from the note of February 15th, 1978, the version that got most support was one where Senate elections would coincide with federal general elections - half the I think Senate being elected at each federal election. there are many arguments against this version: 1. It would put the Senate elections entirely into the federal general election In that sense, it would reduce context. the chance to get any considerations except those of the immediate federal election into consideration. 2. It would mean clear control by the federal parties and reduce any chance of having more "provincial" parties or considerations involved in the contest. 3. It would link the terms of Senators to the term of a federal government and thus reduce the chance of getting really independent views and untrammeled reflection of regional concerns. All of these things are important if the objective is to get a Senate that will be, and will be seen to be, a genuinely independent forum for the expression of regional views, without the domination or dictate of federal governments or federal political parties.

The alternative to elections that coincide with federal elections would be election for a fixed term - six years - with 50% being elected every three years. This would achieve a long enough term to be attractive to good people; independence from the fortunes of any and all governments; and complete separation of Senate elections from federal elections. It would provide a means of "mid-term" expression of public views without putting the life of a government at stake. The purely independent Senate elections would give it a status of its own and might well mean (depending on the electoral system) that agencies other than federal political parties would become active in trying to elect people to represent their regional and special views. Ministers in the Ad Hoc Committee were concerned about proportional representation. However, there is no other way of being sure of achieving the objective of a balanced representation of views. Moreover, we went for proportional representation in the House of the Federation and it would be hard to explain why the principle was being abandoned. It would require some study to determine what means of proportional representation would be best. The Australian Senate does not work in the way we have in mind because their system of proportional election puts a stifling control into the hands of the federal political parties. A system like it would achieve nothing in "renewing" the centre of our government with more regional, free and genuinely representative views. Ministers were also concerned about an elected Senate claiming power to withdraw confidence from a government, of it withholding supply as was done in Australia and of it otherwise rivalling the House of Commons. I think that none of these fears is necessarily well-founded. They simply

215

require appropriate constitutional provisions about the powers of the second chamber. It should have only a very short suspensive veto over supply and money bills - possibly seven calendar days for supply and thirty calendar days for money bills. It should be made specific that its votes cannot be Its veto regarded as votes of non-confidence. on legislation should be suspensive only in the case of matters that are designated as essential for The limitations in the program of a government. these areas of power could be compensated by special powers of the kind contemplated in Bill C-60 for the House of the Federation - confirmation of certain appointments, safeguarding matters of "special linguistic signficance", reviewing the activity of agencies of special importance to regions, etc. In summary, a plan for an elected Senate might involve: two bases: 1. Direct election on one (a) at the time of federal elections, with half the Senators being elected at each federal election; or (b) for a fixed terra of six years, with haif the Senators being elected every three years. 2. Election to be on a proportional representation basis, with each province being a single constituency except in the case of Ontario and Quebec, which would each be divided into two constituencies of equal numbers of Senators. (This would mean, except in the case of P.E.I., "constituencies" electing about five or six Senators at each election, which would permit reasonable proportionality.) Note: It would be important not to become involved in details as to how proportional representation would work. There are

216

many systems: each with its own advantages and defects. We should try to establish the one most likely to ensure that the views of the people of ail regions are represented in proportions as close as possible to the extent to which they are It would also be held in each region. important not to get into details of the numbers of Senators at this time. There are many views, and any proposai is wide open to attack. 3. The powers of the Senate to be drawn in such a way as to ensure that it could not rival the House of Commons but would rather be a forum for the effective and free expression of regional views and the protection of regional interests in the composition and activity of agencies important to regions. Probable reaction to an elected Senate The provincial governments can be expected to be opposed, especially to a Senate that would be elected on the occasion of federal general elections. Senators will be opposed. In this connection you may wish to see the attached memorandum of February 28th, 1978, about discussions at that time in a week-end meeting of the Liberal Party. The public reaction might well I had some indication of this on be positive. the week-end in discussions with Stanley C. Roberts, the President of the Canada West Foundation. According to him, his Foundation held day-long seminars in 1978 on the question of the Senate two in each of the four western provinces and one This year they in each of the two Territories. held six more seminars on the same subject but broke off the series when the federal election

217

was called. At the seminars - sixteen in ail - they had over 500 people drawn from ail parts of the west. Roberts tells me that the various proposais for second chambers were discussed and that the only one that secured any significant support was the proposai for an elected Senate. The support for it was virtually unanimous. As Roberts put it: everyone is for it except the politicians. Roberts is also inclined to put this reform very high among those that could be made to give the west the sense that it can be heard He does not think that most westerners in Ottawa. want a weak central government: they want something that will permit the west to be heard, to influence appointments and to influence the policier of regulatory and other agencies that affect them and their interests. Capacity to achieve an elected Senate Jim Hurley has made a point that An elected Senate, unless it may be important. was tied to provincial elections, would not require any provincial action. Our House of the Federation would have: so would a House of the Provinces - in each case provincial governments would have to If act in order to fill the seats in the House. the Supreme Court upholds Parliament's power to reform the Senate, it may qualify it to the effect that Parliament could not do it alone if .the manner of change affected any right or privilege of a In short, a change to an elected Senate province. might not require the agreement of provincial governments - especially if it appeared to have a popular mandate behind it - but other forms of change might be dependent on such agreement. Conclusion I think an elected Senate is the only way of avoiding a bundesrat which, with the great powers our provinces enjoy, would seriously

218

219
DOCUMENT:800-010/00
4

CONFIDENTIAL

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS

Report of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution to First Ministers

SENATE

Ottawa February 5-6,1979

220

SENATE

The Committee considered proposais which had beeh made public by the federal government and by the Government of British Columbia, and proposais, circulated for the information of the Committee only, by Ontario and Manitoba. Several other provinces made oral comments and suggestions. The Committee also discussed the proposais of the Task Force on Canadien Unity. There was,subject to the caveate from some provincial governments noted below, general agreement that the present Senate should be simply abolished or, alternatively, replaced with a new kind of second chamber. Saskatchewan tentatively suggested that a "formalized" First Ministers Conference might be preferable to a new second chamber, but this idea did not receive general support. On most questions relating to the design of a new second chamber, the Committee was unable to reach agreement or even a broad consensus. Exceptions were that members should serve for the life of the government which appoints them, and that appointment is the preferred method of choosing members. The issues which remain to be resolved by First Ministers are: 1. To what extent should the interests of the provinces be represented or channelled through a new second chamber or, on the other hand, through changes in the division of powers? If they are to be accommodated through a new second chamber, should the scope of matters to be voted on in that chamber be confined to lgislation and other questions which impinge directly on provincial jurisdiction and, if so, how should those matters be defined? How should members of the new chamber be chosen? If they are chosen by governments, would they vote on instructions from the governments which appoint them? Would their vote be suspensive or absolute, and if suspensive, for how long? 5, How should seats be distributed among the provinces?

2.

I - Representing the Interests of the Provinces: General Points Arising from the Committee's Discussion The Committee recognized that there is a connection between the question of reconstituting the Senate and the question of the divison of powers. The Committee noted that it was not an "either-or" situation, inasmuch as progress could be made on both questions simultaneously. However, a "trade-off" could exist between the two questions, and some governments prefer that progress be made on one rather than

221

the other question, with British Columbia, for example, giving priority of importance to reconstituting the Senate, and Alberta, Saskatchewan and Newfoundland giving priority to the division of powers. Alberta and Saskatchewan, among others, were also concerned that the creation of a new second chamber should not detract from the role of federal-provincial conferences as the primary mechanism for intergovernmental consultation and the resolution of differences. British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba considered that a new second chamber could be designed to complement such conferences. Saskatchewan believed that an appointed body should not be given extensive powers. In response to a question about the status of the proposais for a new House of the Federation contained in Bill C-60, federal Ministers noted that these proposais had received no support from the provinces. While no new federal proposais were made, Ministers said that the federal government was flexible with regard to its earlier proposais. However, they expressed a preference for the inclusion of federal representation in any new second chamber. Ontario said that the proposais of the Task Force on Canadian Unity for a Council of the Federation interested it very much. British Columbia said that the proposais might do so.

II - The Scope of Matters to be Voted on in a New Second Chamber The Committee noted that a new second chamber may be conceived primarily (a) as a body for giving provincial governments a voice in federal legislation which impinges on provincial jurisdiction, or (b) as a body which would vote on ail federal legislation no matter what the effect of that legislationt and theoretically an argument could be made for a federal role in provincial legislation to parallel any provincial role in federal legislation. It was apparent from the Committee's discussions that, if the purpose of the chamber is to deal only with matters which impinge on provincial jurisdiction, the scope of such matters could be narrowly defined, and possibly confined to a short list of federal powers, or it could be more broadly defined.

III - The Method of Choosing Members, and Voting on Instructions Ministers recognized that the method of choosing members of a new second chamber should depend on the choice which is made between the alternatives noted above. There was a consensus that, under alternative (a), provincial governments should appoint at least some members of the new body, and possibly ail, if the precise scope of the matters on which the new bouse could vote were carefully defined and quite limited. There was also a consensus that, under alternative (b), the federal government or (as under Bill C-60) Parliament should appoint at least some members.

222

Thare was no consensus about whether members should vote on instructions, and whether a province's vote should in some circumstances be cast as a bloc, in the avent that members are appointed by governments. IV - A suspensive or an absolute veto for a new second chamber There was a consensus that in general a new second chamber should have only a suspensive veto over legislation that had been approved by the directly-elected House of Commons, and mort governments consder that such a veto should be of short duration, Bay in the order of three months. However, a few provinces believe that an absolute veto may be appropriate in some ,oircumstances where the legislation concerns matters which impinge directly on provincial jurisdiction, such as certain uses of the federal spending power. It was also suggested that if the new second chamber failed to approve such legislation, the question could be referred to the next meeting of federal and provincial First Ministers.

V - The distribution of seats among the provinces Various proposais were made by different governments, including (al (b) (c) an equal number of seats for each province; an equal number of seats for each of five regions; a more nearly equal distribution of seats that would be weighted according to a province's population; and the exclusion of any seats for the Territories in the event that a second chamber is to deal only with matters impinging directly on provincial jurisdiction.

(d)

There was no consensus on a formula for the distribution of seats. However, there was a consensus that any new formula should provide for future population changes, and that a province should not Jose any of its present seats in the House of Commons as the result of a redistribution of Senate seats.

223

224

225

226

k' pb 0.1 > ,u

a 0 tk

c -2 cl .....) e e
-

0 > * 5 '13 .e0 01 ... . G i. Cie Z .

Z en -

>-

.- t3 e.. 01' eu .. Z 0

'2

..

eu ......

"a 0 e2,Z..".
g
0

-2 F ;) ce ...

e `u o %, 'e" --.. -
'Z1 4:::'

-`"-, 0 Z u 0 r.,3 ., - .

.1:

.t. 4 0 .,- eZ c4 ezt 0 ;c. 0 te ....e:3 > k.. 1.., ts 0 0 1 %./ t 0t. -0 ? -. -.
0- en

0 le
k

.... GUO;

g .z

0
%)

..... ze . .,0..., u
n 0 4 te
Ci1 '"
i

..
z c. ) Ca '' '

...
r

, re; e ,1 e vu to 7 tee b 10 -.. 2 ' g 4 ''' .0 ...., 0 {* .. z . 0 -.. ... . . . ... e


. ... .. .Z:, .%) ib. ...

=-) 4-,
,

le,

2 ,.. ). ..e3 -,. ,....., ,, 0 ...g ..z . ....


0 ... 0

0 Z Z z 0 -.... 0 :-.. ..... 0 0 eZ 0, "0 g ..... "g cu g ....

4 e4

.0 :yr

V]
.e

... e.

o e z e e `:$ -e '. ii R. o ".". et o J 3 F., ,..:-.. ... k o ' u Io

, . , 2 o, e O o t , L2 e 1 z `'?' ;,-, l' 'i* ... 'z" '%.'. .:.-. ''e .:3 '' , . : , ..... s s , -t, cu ... o ..., ..... ,, 0 --, ,u t-, ., 1.,_ p G G ...Z - 33 0 - - r..... -, e> z e. c% G S..... Z IG 0 0 ,... , G aG i 0 v s.., -, .., 2 , .. ,... , . ,.., e . . . b , 1 .... E.... % .e a e I 'e 4 .,. ... ,..s rz: _ . , . .a . o , z . 1 .. ;,,, .e.. ;., ........ a ,-.- a .-3 %, <a . t 3 4? ei r. "u n ..n ,s... a ,.,., -- e e e . Irs z Fe,,,, a ts *- ..e , ,:, .. z a.. tu Cl ... z., ,
cs1
1

Ce

iz,

bd) .". -0 ' - ex; u0 g 0 ...z 4. vu g ,ev


z

0e

M cd el.) . 0 "5. c.4. ..A Io G ga 4


4 ,

1 . tu 0 Ci.) 4
- CA G
4

u >, eri 11 u nis .0 Cu e e '.: . iil ..= E ..... ; 4) O -. e e 1 e (-3 r.. e C..) ` 0 vl
0 .00 , _.. .0 0) cd a.) =. e .., U 0 .M vl
.2, (,/, = .

. rs ,,* U ,,?. e 0 ....0 til G

QU

Cl

> .- .-.. ..-. .0 0 ...., .. 0 e ..- ._,

o .0 o -= ... ..., '2 x el. n o u <1 u) 0 E e.) e .. t.) ..c ,,... u e 0) u e c . ..


4
G

0 4.. r) -0 C. 000 = E .E ' = t


a

..c `-' o ,,, , <dl ." ,.., u


">

.sz -0 ci ,_ le = 1 n 0 -5 o en c e

4...

0 0., 0 4.. 6 > "ni k.. ' (.) e u.) e 4 U,e el


0 c., 0
b

, c..1 1:4 3.)

' s.

U " 75

- ,e ii. Z G u .... .,... k.....,

,g

mei
ez

re z ou eu _ c c e... Ct. - e o et) .e ..

6 g = = ....., ,:o' E e.) n '' ..... 4 o (.... ,.0 c


Ct. 71)

to e c ..... ,,) c 0 ) g nC e 04 F-.. ,t..


;a

m el . .= M
0 0 = .... e u U le = 0
1..1

= ....,

0 e ,5 ..cl 4 t-. c.. e , u -- n 0 >e >u , G ..0 U > ... l . G E .


4 - sf /

,r, ,-, E 9 LL'

= a

CA

, e , g 2 g e c ' et :1 ' r .0: cd = k ..o en .0 cd 0 u - to ,. 2 e E f..?, 0 01. A , C ,-. , ... cl u u ._ CC; .0 ..0c 0 :', <5. 0. e , H

.,.... .,n

... -> 0
4

.. 0 0.;_,

- u....0 -

1 t .'. : -... : ! -: 1 .1 ,, 0 :s 7 1 ... e" -0 . 2 e -o c b e 2 ca f,, ,.) u, O. 2 ._


) - u... : :

227

228

0 6) CI I)
e.0

.... .1 CIO . u

,. o
0

4-, V>

te. .5A

e0

6> U

.E 0 e tu) - A. `"
)

U i::

, tm

e 0 . 0
u

e are a number of n

"I0 t g e 4-, 0 0 CI .0 .0
I. =

eu

t. oe g 4) (.) U e cd le e > e :3 0 'e.. u A (... ,u 4 cli a c, 4:, e0 = Le0 te e ''': le 3 0 u ' 6) e 0.." = Ai_ i Z 6) a. ,17, ..te 7., -$ u '''Zi 0 4 0 cd q$7. 0 c.) e e 4.) O e ,.. 1.) Q . 0 . -. 6) 0 cl 0 '0 0 .' .r. 0 -0 tIo cd 4) ... in 4 g. 0 .0 ...I 0 E .-. sil og o eJ i.. t- e 2 .... 1s 4 = O0 cn . = c '""' c a. '-' ., ..... ,., 43 E 2 g 0 g 0 , .....5, A fi e u cri . , : . . , es l -e e i ) o 5 I>c 1 a ce 151 te 8 e .".. 410 O. el 9, 1....; mi ..= ,., =. e, , 1 0 4 = 0 E 0 -- G? >,, .u 0 .-0 r, 0..8 et 0U4 t) f 0 41 u) 0 0 - Me e 0 43 X .0 i ,-,,J ,... 4) fl Q .,-. t ..- .0 = , ... a 4 , 0 (e, .0 4 , e u 0. , ''''' o a c 1.... u e ..- e e .... e ei ' >, yy . e ele tr, a) t,ti .... ..-. >, . ee 4 ., :0.. 0 . Cl 71 .5 .0 1) E o .. e " : =- ox ue = ,3 "). e r.. * 1-1 _cg ce > ce 0 0 o i.! . 0 4-. 0 ,., .o ., ,., , z ,.., -ri w 0 ..; t. 0 II = U ten 0 .._,, ...- e 2 0 ci n o "C> Q - 0 tu es. u = : ..-. 1 O e tu e ''' ` = .... e 4 0:1 U D t.t . 1 a 0 Cn t >, e . .-. ,5 1 0 ,.. .1) n- 4. 0 u e o 0 a. e 8 6 04 97 ..0 ' cl g -,,, u 4 e ci ... ' t... 0 nt = ..c Q VI . ..., e ....., t e i .?, , c: = e . 1. , V C.> U CU en u e = osi v 4., e E g e., ( .lj cd 1 $e 10. 4 -0 te ...... ;=, a > 8 Lu ,,"; e4 t1.1 .0, g. 4$. rU 1 -0..-. ,,1 4 c4 E- vl ::3 (,) E- 4.--- 0
cr.1 1 211 ,,,

I., 0 4) = 4,4 ,_, i.9 -.7, -4,3 u , --4 c 0.>

o .4 ic ., en 0

ci. > x cn t> u

.1 ..

a3 -5 El

en = mo . 4) 'n a I. ''' = = = am0

a. la uu t.... E ..,, 0 c:1 g Ir

...

,..

O4 0 u 0,

'el

0 = C14
0 5 r'ri

0..0 f.. ... i2

9.

$ 4,) cd

0 .. 0 e .3.)
44
t

2,... ,

; 2

ri

0' ,cn -17.41 .... 0 - n le ce 0 Q .e g u .... ...2 fi 4


c
ta.

.5,

ej

l ...

'

t)

e)

.. ,, ,i ..

u a) g , O
O

-0

4..

3 4. -0 e 0 u 4_, . e t.... _. eo 0 -. .VI az ..., e 3 Li e C:

4) to o ... . -6. 4) =I

4.

6 ''S ,. .a ., en ti 4-,
,

'e . 10 .g "0

.., 10 u

..:1 iii el

A e :4 - ^e

el 2 on '

me =

e1t

O E ce >. = RI . 0 I-. i., )-' t

'fi e le es ... .= . - -. nu .E es a

e .
4..
0
4' 4.4

,... t 1 eu..

=, c...., , 0 me 0 , elc g ... u 0 2 C G 0W4 . 0 .c


1

>

4) v, e 2. ';':: ' 74 , ci- po e o> e.se 0 mi CI g ,.-. g .9 ..... 4 0 0 e ... cd CA .. -0 ,.., 0 Cel I: 0 0 >, 0 t tu

le e --, clt... +-+ MI _, U :73' ,.. cd 4

a) ce 't. = n .. q -, . >% -ti ,,. .. '0 Z 2 ...? . es "C el0 .r. t.e e ,: - M JO e .4Z u 0 e > ''' O ...z z ''' E on 6) Q 6) ez 1 u 0 u 7.' .-: u 0 ..e y *, 6) d C.) 0 cd 0 LI e -. .2 l ... 3A .5 ..ce e U ,.. cs= , 0. . - 1... . .......e ) .1. E 0 Fa .4 ei) e . u .g -0 1 g '-' -' ,: e 0. >s t_ 4 0 4 a. 0 (.) U , 0 e >, e 0 v) e 8 u .9 4., 0 ne Ge 0 ..z 0 (0 t.. 0 4 03 - ''-' ta,, 4. 0 ne te .e = tu t.... e 4. 0 -ce cci --. e 0 eU 0 .. CUI ( g e e 0 4 cl cil 1:1. r, 0 e. 0 ce a' =o >< > r; 'e 0 c re 'C - g eu E II 4 0. 3, 9 .../ . ) -, ,,, o.i eu e ,... 0,,, , g e E c.., ,,,,u ... c., .... c:,, 4 ' e 0e,=0 cd *6) 4-e de 0 63 C6 -. e E I) n'5'..._ ... e. . , - ,. i) .... '... , 05 I. e 0 e Il c,3 .; 7 e0 >i 0 "-.. 0 ' , ).< m e d o c z, 0 ,0 , fi a >,.. -0. 0 lu 0 7,, 0 -ci 0 ci - i el 1 , > r? mze u .1-,. .. . ',i, , 00 Q ce, , ,.., . : cl. ,,. ) e .e ,... - -0 0t 0 CAS (0) 0 ..e ( 3 . c.4 u0 , .c . ne, ,., = 1; : c... g . ) .-, i, cl ce a. tu. u cl 8u 04 0 .= o a :0 " 'a u e el 0..4. :.e. cd 0. 4 U 3 'r .) E .

229

da
'

e 0

C7 cd 0 ces

..... ( .1 .. E .- t . =

7.

4 0 _. .y 4 4, 1 4,:i .0 c.) 0 e >, ..0 -..--, 2 0 ..9 2,, e 'g = --, 0 ezi.
= .0 8 tr. * o.' E e

..... 0

4 es .= d.) tu u - a .

..o 0

e e

o Mi e

1.0 e 0 a.)
4)

.....

= _ . = '''' 1..

Q 4... tu ee'leb e a) e ,c2 e .4 . L ..... J 0 u -

y I . C C

,e

.--. 0 e ,.0 u to

>1 . ...

o ai) ea O

e o

o e ..e d a.. us ca ....,, 7 1 .0 =


<ai

U
(1
.

U G G .. z u ,3 5, mi 0 ,.= 4.) o 1,0.e, u .... te 0 e Cl C cl U 0 a

e .

1...c >, e

a 0. 0 CZ
g
n

=
o o.

Protection a

I. = o..z
O

El ae E

a 4.) .::: C E

ris . c

2 cts o 0 di u o o 0 e t U 5,. ,.. ) 0 -- goo a) 4 o, - 4..., . = r'" i = = N -3-1 . o ..... d -. ccs .:., - ca <:) o 10 , 4. 0 4 co> u c.) ct 4 Q = .' ... " .. +.+ ..0 , G, n G .- G i) ^ JO "C7 t I., a n bo "e d = . 0 G el ..0 a ,-. e ea. , (..) 1 5 e r)

4. e,, ,.: i- 0 0 ci -ctueu.bd ,.. e cl ,.. .-..... . -z

c., e 0 7:1 0 r I e ..e .... .0 c... .4 0 c., ..., 0 .., 7 ,./) e3 a ''n e , a. 0 e > da 4 1. e ase ..--, o .....

.1

it

e = c.- 0, te = o ci 0 '' . iri ... l 0o g . ..5. 0 . 0


4

O ,...

os

,A

0 5 0 u cl o ,

o sa

4.4 E
...e

o u A 0 c, > o 1 ei.) .57


00 o
1)

E
Q .
e

5.
0 e)

E a .... u 0 0
le

e
-0

a-.

.-2 0

tx

0 5 0 L. ,e G C.) cl 0 cl 00 ca 1.) = ms .... ..,:e o e .r.: ta ' an -0 C ..- - 't 01 F. n l 5. i 4 1.., e4 .C-) +... ca. ..,_ - , a G ..... 44 a a.)

0 tri

te

0 le

U =

"

0 .e .., -. - ,....., - 0 0 .... u u e u e 1) g - 0 a 1 4 a> .. nt _0 0 0 4 1:1 s 1.' a) ..,... _. c .l u ag a. a, ...., e > <d = t. et O c Cl cd e o ......., e 1... d c.D 0 e , na3 e ..1 >,O...0

e agi 4 00 0.
esi)

2 e Z va .. G G +;. ... 0 cd ... 0 G d 1 , ) a. e . e ci ve cA ' C .0 6) et) th e -0 .e ...8 0 - -

ca o: <I e -. agi = - ce) '

2.

ta,1 0

'

c,) ...... io !..), :-.. ',-..


"5 i c cl

TI :

aa 0 tz4 4 td) = 4.) ":1 ca 4 el : u ee e G ' U f'' e -0 U 1Z.. .1 0.) .g _e ,G = U ja .:, o ..... da Mt cd ,-.1

e c.,)

U ^ oo . cl 0, -0, 0 = t..e r, e .... ou 2 . cl ,I:) ... e 1 .--.. .e /...,

CI O

.0 ... 30 _,

O
as

,-, G

g ro cati a a o ..

0, e, 0 'C el
0

dt) 1.) "Cl

0
-

'' t'ZI ci 0

.0 7-. G O

*I

El)

CO e! ) T t zt I o e c.) I .... ,.. =


'0 L.

ei

6 JI

. 0 e 0 4 . dO e ,,, >, G. 0-td = eii t.t = u (.1 ..;.-.: 0

3 IX *-

.-.. a. 0 a e act cp 'A e 3 Ic {- ..... 2 g


=

0 _4 0 ,.

el 0 0

IO.
el

0 --. .

0 g: , 1... = .1-.

3 , 1

-o
te

) (..) :Li.

el 4. e 4 "0

4Z

4.# ** I) 1:3 b, 4.1 lee '"' ca ..... e .-9


4

e u c .e.., ,

0 t.1:/ .....

e = 4.=

cu d e lae cd u 0

..at e e e 4 l ton. ... ,0

,.. C 7 o 0 1.) ..., . ce> es

8 ,, , ai (il
..c:

4.

.4

0 i.. ct..> = U xi

>

2.

a.>

4) .1 e

<I =

+ ,C .

ej I. 4.. MI 0 . n ....-. 4 mi

5 .9,

; '1:3 "4 l

*4

. ... +

....

4. .0

011 . 4) .4 Q j ch l e qj 0 .... , ....

.$ e. ..2 = ..... ,...,

e ,,,,,,
G . .. 1 4

.. . u vf .4 ci, ... e e e) ,.. 40 a. e


Ce le 1, :

o d , 4

. h. 0 1 e$ el e 8 e, ' a: .,4 ..= c 1... a: e.4 a d = . 12 .0 . 1 5 4 y ; ' ' Ta. ' a. .... M .2 ' Q ...e r., e e ... ,, U y t. t U a '-' U d 1 . ca) 0 = .-.... '''' G (..) ..-. e e l e = = 2 ir4 ,1,1 .0.0 y U 5 te .:".. a a .d: . -0 .... o:, o 2 tt.c 2 0 L. u 0 0 0 3 i X 4.) 0.. :..: Ph.. El u.: a. o E

0 ..... .5 0 gt o

= 0 e

a) G

o ... e :5 ,,E . 1 to de e .... CID e '' te., .... >, e


.4
, .

.." d e 0, ''''. or) 5 ,1 cci '

tao r?, 2, T. .e =I a -' u 0 - e T.: .= .!.. .. e u cet <5 .... ,c, 4,, = tas)11 a; ra ,.. e - ,__. c.n un 0 ^-, ,....
de

a ..... = = (.) E ne .0 0 ..... 4 a. 0 u o

,1

..... s n

ef. E 8. ` ,-", a

04 cl
,

..-
'

.=
c

e cl 8

a. ' .% g

o A- 5 .... TC G = ra cl 0 0 e da 0

Ci 4.

10

4.) e ...

u .-

s e4. = .,,' i: ; 2
1

CO 0

O.

cn E e m 7 .?, f, p , ..r.J . 00 . C.) 0 U


d E .e.

230

. T1 e le " er .) nt G) >>' C 2 e .e ',-.; ..., ..0 0 '..... 0 - ..,, e "-u e >, li = s" oe c -. - u .a c-- ..) e
M.

.. u

0 y Ei la u) , o.) o 4)).

mediately applicable?

0 0

0 0 , 3) y

0 '''' 0, e...,

0
G) -= .... y

)... } . e. 1) O e u 0 0 ` U o a-. . tr3 ....-a ... 0 = to .r.' 0 ,, U c 8, > )-) c ,...) 4, me8-. el u .> 2 e E -0 E t C U U 0
..Z" CY
0

. E t u , .. 1 0 . . .. . .o 0 0 . .> u me
4.) 0 et

e
., . --

ce ,.0 et) te.... 4- 0 0 -e .. ,- 0 0.

13
0-

i 0 .... ,..., ...0 0 51 i 0 t i .4 8 t e . .0 .` : e : ; . ) .; ; r. )( , ) ":9: i.62 ,.., E tu 4 ~ cu .= , ,, = 1.3 0 to = go .0 I' -9, ei oz -' en ,,, 0 - p. dt .e4 1- - = .2 o 04 ..7.1 4) 0 4) . = Tu ) 2 0, 0 t on c.> .11 Ge -.J = e e .^. e U Ej * .. e . t . (91 . e a , :., tua . 0) e os., 4) s 4.. b., MI ;.1.1 .0 .0 0 = ,-.. : 0 0 cto e, u 9 0 z -8 ,.... ; o 0 ,... 0 er:e = 0 = .5 . ..., Ce ) . 1 ..,) Me U ) el e 3 .--. = > Lu `" cd 0 ng E T) ''' 8 . ''''J 4 e 07 0 Y. . 'y 0 0 1... .-e)

c -te -. 0, 0 0 I ` 0 4.) E o - ..o . (21 2 .r.n = 1:1 n


" . 7.... 0 i : 0 ..e '

0 0 0 0 Y 0 = = eu .m. p 0 .0 0 i 1... b 7. - z 1 4 cu = ,-,

4.., =

=..= , es - ,-. 0

a .

1... 0 0 cit. 0.1 :$ -"' .2 e = ....

g '

ta e. ro 4, , 1.... o .- e-) 0 et .01 ,,, ,., .....


0 '

" y:1 .0 . ;:re .. "n ( i -- E 0 3 me

) e .0 E .. 0 ..., Ft f. " i... .. e:1 1. y ej ).. ,.. 1 .0 e.... 0 ' 4) .2 6 3 F e

o e ..._ -

41 .,..

= " E (.9 .0
.2 y'
...

c, cm

e eci

t.) e) CI ..= -; U = ,9

CU tt

os

" ) : 0 0 4) ee cu ...4 C e ?.. .; r ll 0 a' ' E el ' 0 .. " .) ''' U ..--. ,...., ..im we':' -'' F.) 4)

e: 4:1 t l el U 6 := ' -' l', : .7 .. .1' .. , . .N .

44 1

aD
. .. C

ta -0 -0 0 .-' Q ....

0 0

el ).e y 5 0 , fl al t.4

61

,.

. 0
cu
e)

ta

t CU ej 0 (e) .t. t )"'

e., , ms / 0 - . e [4.4 . - 9) e - -t1 o% t.-. -2 ...; 4,1 0 _ le.) ..., y i 0 c_.1 el


c t1 .1) x 't) n u c s " 1 0 3 c

o.>

0 I; 0 d) , -c1 . = = = u 0 0 .. ...'. 'ri c ' 78. a ,..... 2 Le. 0 e " ..N 1... te 0 4.... ta. 4 C.) 4 0

1- 4) = 0 t- - .0 0 0

u c el

ci 0 .

ee 44

4 (

... 0 c u u ..--, o -se e . 0 0 0 .: e 5 .. E cd cn 0 "Li .4


0 ,. e

0 e 0 0 ,,, ..e .0 a. cu u

' 3 (,) 00 te : - 0 ,... me c , I- ,,, = " 0 el ai o n . .... o 2, C. = .... ) a 4 . 0 <A V ..eg ta, = ... ... ' 4 r ..L1 a .4. ,.., .., . 0 4.... ro i F'4 1 ) CI) Ce e' t # Te 0 tese 0 4 1 ) f4 "5 ."' .".' OcnClo d C n = ' . .., 5 0 ,_ -0 e b (h c4 Co T. .

i.. tot .... = .4 0 .-1. - ).. c .... .... C..) 4. s et ti)E4),-0 0 '',7 Ce.. .,..4 1 (..? b a 0 e 0 0 , 7 :" .. : el 14 ..0 4 le 0 , 0 .... - .0 cl 5 iz ., , . u 0 64 te 0 ,,, : . ? ,,, = ..... Mi e * 0 - .7... >.. . !.2 ..0 .. _n u sU c.) ..-o -a s... , 0 - 22 ,... m "6 e .9) * es (...) i. . . o u ~ 2 F , c o o 0 0 .... i. 0 3 U cd a
) te 15 .1:'

e4

to 0

= a. a.) =

40 el IL:l a oz: e ill e


OC

..= Mi e e..) t ..... "0 n0 as -, U 4-. e. "El e


L1 - " b le .1e

4, 11.) 0 10 , = 0 0 ,... cd u% 1) cl e os -e
1

.., our 1 I.. = ,I) = eu , ,


1

4.

I 1,.) 4 ,". e 0 e ,_ 7" -) , .=


)

.)::

= ,-..

0 -

o Y e

-e "a
-a

n t

73 7;

= -o .....) y 0 8 to 0V,:). ie ,.. = ?,0 U . o u 0 e 0 Y .e . ,... .5 , = ,- . . .-o 0 R 0 0 ... .. ,, .e -ca 70 0 e -. e o.) --) u a ,,... u o u ...., 0 .'"", e 0 e l e u ,.... .. .c e t = - ,... m >U e .e 7z 7 e 0 1 ) me a, a 6' t . = 0 E cr 4.) -.. eu = g = ,..r e* cg , - 0 on - e, 1 , a, cp c 0 u 0. 0.) . o.) 0 cA g 2 .... .. = .e . ne c.) -0 0.0 ....... 0 0 le 0 e .,..., E ta < e e o 0 e e ..= e u 0 u u ,/, -;:.; I.-., . es e Y , ...., Lz on 0 ,, - -. 0. ra c > 0 ,, 2 ..e.r.: - 0 e u 04 ..0 4 , .. Q .03 c0 ,... ,.., g -,) ... e eL) a, s' = - E 1:1 ..... 0 'l 1..1 0 'a , a.) e b 8. ,,9,0 i... 4.: u : >. .i.-.; .-. Do m : .-. 0 ..=- 8u - u e > ca N 0 es 0 0 = .... ... . 4. ... 0 ..... .e ... 1) a = 'e - i,.. tu - 4 0 0 e 3 014:." C U "5 2 2 e5 .ii '4 ,.= .... n - (... a a. , u CJ:1 eg.0 C.) Z. E
C 0

8.. '45 21 tn ..C1 -g,


s.

0 .4)

;14

C.) e d ) '."' .0 , , 0 -, 0 W.: 0

me 00 -i.- . -4 1..tu -0 ) . 0 Y0 ... ,, )--, 3


, > e e 7 :i .. -5, .,-.1 L

, , . .7 1 0 ..
"5

et 5 - .0 .
0)

' , .... = .5 e e o e 8 .... o 2

. t . t... u o l e .= -

C' 0

t'I

., .

i.7

t )

c ,

E 7 2 9 ; 2 ..izi X 1.... = Col = M -i n E I-. .e CI 0 ) 1.... 'I0 4) C.) . "c' -4mO u = t .--.-. 0e = 0 <4 c.) 0 > 0 e mi" Cl o e 0 . , e 4. 1,,) ".e. -0 ^ _, u , -. . e 0 a = ...1 , .g Q 0 _, n - 4 (.1 ^ .4 U e..0 0 Z.1 c. e -a e u .., es -o C4 .- t.0 0 el U 0 O L. u b I U 0 4 ,... 4) C ,e, 4) t'l 0. 4 e . 4H ' m 5 * 0 1.) . O Orl 1 I O 0 r) d l 2 ',A m ..... ' ti "0 z cl .,.... e = r .0 O.) 4.) U . 'el u , 0 *". ut O. ... e E.., A 5 il:) to . ).1 .e.. - 4,) -bd i.Z.1 0 e.1 2 10 e 4, cl 8 2 n o e ,> c,,._ u ) .,3 5 .. 0 u , . ,,,,, . ,..,-0 E 0 .6 <I) "C3

e 7 0 3 S le .e.

z, -,., = . e c:t.

> . gl cu 41., e 0
- N

0 9

CI

ue

a.) > -
eto

0.

el

0 "5 et)

g n ' t & me 2 e 5. 0. 4 e >< U 04) U

0 -e

e,

231

.) .c) 4) . ..= 0 .0 .2 1., ....

,-.1 4 e0U .... 1:5 e 00 "" t.. .. e e


Ti
1 5 = ... 4

C
,

.0 ..,_. . "0 7, 0 ej 4 --"' .- el


c
.1... I. ...

cic C.1) _ o

1:1 tu

'V .4 Tl r j ' = U v>, u = U Ci. C'S 4


..n
i tt4 .?:,

0
0

04 U E , e =

U
''
e

a.) 0.1 .0
U 1-. 4>

'A

T. 4.) g 4) g . ' >".

e. A e.
C.) ...

1a
)

.0
c cu

De

oi...., g ,L, .....

r .... 'cl E
,et .

1:5 e

tz", g

..i ' c. ,1 0 .0 ..0 o G 2 ()


.
0 4
- .....

-e - .-.

> 0 > RI

0 -a .-'

y.., 4.) 4

e ....

,...

e u. oueou0,.. .; ) . e 0..... ,_, . p.. 4... .4 ,.., '-. ...I ,..., 1... l ) 4) Toi r.n 4, es O[ u a e o l

%,../

..-.. .. . et) tu

,.= ,,i . 1 : 0

0 -1:1 ,22 ...t `"'

,.. . 0 0 cl
c

te g 4 g --.> "." .> "CI 10 CA .> 0 g O ,-..., 4 0 c.-. ..., 44) 0 ... t) 0 00 0 . . ie 1e 72
e E " ..... &)

a -.
0

. 0 . ,,, C. r. c) ; u u 0 .0 ., . .e. vj et .5, u ) 00 t .2 5. e -e -* u tr, e oy - 1-. E [--4 el. Il u


' 0 . Caf, '" i., ..4 0' 5 u a .4 e 2 e u 2 ,,,, '5 ,,p > 4 ,.... .., - u0 ... , e, e4 .- ,zi , tx.
"

c.$ "Cl =SC d "-' . 4 ,04 -...., .0 4.) u e et)


1

..;,

r t;tl 4> ' ta. +-

U G L

4 4 el

4)

j g

te

(1

. -.... 0) ') , u o ..... ,. - Q 4 .e E 1 t: "4e 0 Q '''.

4. .0

0 lu 2 ne ,.=

04.5 ,,.
1-

4 C) 0 44
. a.

. = 1 .5 u ---

2 ') r.,) e . -> se .... .. .... ) ,4 4... ..2 ,..i 1 0

`I .9 ' . 0 .. '

........

z " .> a, ol = o ee ..-. ...

1 , c.) . e o , . ..o _ ,,. 0 5 , , . P. 0 tn.+" .> .. eqs t c 5:-' 0 _ ,A ...

'e t 0 w 71 , o

-7. , .
8

"e L 0 0) -.-. .e

>, 1.9, 11 ..-' -. e .= >,- .a .. -o > ) .2 c; c e 0 ezt >, u .1. 0 0 t. T. ae 4 4 0 a n 00 . = n. k ms 4 .4 a .1 o 2 U .ty os te 3 17.3 ) .7. ' G 4> U C >-, .!.-.. '

... ... .

el' "9 4)
.. 0 0
.1 .- .... E ...... 4

a e...)'1 0Cre:)e0..000 0. Q 1)

el 0 4. = "0 ne .4 .. (,,, *I

. .. z ,. , .._.. - .._
,....

0 -Ci ) 3- . 4. = >, ,_ ..... t. 5 9 .., .0 -,r, ,_, to _0 6) nt

4.0
0

>

.. ,.., <

. 4 0

ci. ..... -

tt ...

.= u

e ....::

..2 u

...;. , o te 04, ....7' .. U u o ,c1

2 8 .2 .... 0
e

-Z .... .14 0 61 e3 4 g. ... 00 el 4.. I. I y 0 et

1 + '90 4 .=.' 0 ; '4 .Lj

. .00 ,-. 8-,

T. e
, .. ia .0

cd =

il '.1 o f 0 2

ta ,..,
0

, cl su, X
1

u 4

cd e to.t. ..... -

-4 ..-.) - tom 1 . 4 te un 01 46 , 4) = re te

e fg ''''

r 1 ,te ,, se

u e 04-

..-. 1 .C pp .5
4,

... , * I

....

, / . ,..e 4 ,... en u

,d* u -5 --.. u 10
*

e u o cd CI

t 5 M 2 c..) 1.. .-octlema,a

e a ao - ..
0

A .4 e

( biy... 4. U 4.) y til) 4 M . ...d cl u u g 75 0 Mi g _c 7... 4. 04 ..I .0 a. '' 0.. e ...e,

L. te) .--, .
c

VI =

S , , Fo

CI. e

. % ,-. .40 .. .. ' 4 4 c - * 50 g e d h7 e 1 ' ....b 4. 1.0


cu 0

> cd 00 .... E ,... t01,) 6.1 .0 rl g >"' ei e 2 * e ,. 3 ce") Fi .F 1 t .5

e 0 cd = ,

0 .... e 0 .. 52

.,. .

>.. .2 E. .,,,

ei 0 * 0 04":'

o ur et -

e .2 , E 1; = .
e$

1:34 0 04

a .E g

0g

y el

,... o 4-.
0

a a. te, ` ' , ..l e Lm me

e
4)

4:

el =

>, 0

e.. ,.. 0 fa.* L : e

4 0 ,.. ^

e.,

e.

00

0 e ' .... 5 >.., e--. ... C "0 vl

te 4.

E -0 u , U 0 1). > 0 Iiii 0


oe .., ,e E u

F ..

e e 04 "W 4 es 4. = bA tu '1J Ci .0 Ri 4..

..,.,

>, a -0 0 es el

g .0

%:,

.4

14 0

. ..I id -

e o mi cl
o ms
4 e 0"a e ci 0 4,

-e

(..) 0

e
"

0 a

o ..., ., m ci, u U ._,.. . 0 o C __, =

co >, nt

o 0 ct 0

e .... --. .- u 0 - ri 4,) e E E -

z - o ta. el 0 `" o 0 cg)


e u --. a
1:2

.0

42 m a 4 4 60 0 40 e 0 fl Z: 0 I..
.4

e ' ,1 > 3.1 , .= 0 4a > f, c :; _. - ..... 0 ).. " ,.J4 t C.) Fa. 4 . e 0.1 - 2. el. .. 1 ..... .

> {1.

-,,., e a te e 00 -e

' Zr.

(98
4. .

0 ') E ne E -

e cu 0 04 `e e 1..

>, o a e cd
0

4 - ..c. 0

. , 0

eu

`c ) 'e n+ .... :: t .;.. . a; O >4 t... ... cn ' ti 0 CTieTicgide

2 ,.4

0 0 4:: CI

0
0 = 0

E .0 . e 0

:-.;

7 1

. 0 c- 0 ".. To t

''' e. e e t : .4 (..) -. .. e 0t _ ,= 0 . 5 1-. u e


eya "

cl ..e Y .., ..." 74 0 c.) ... o -.7. 71. .. .

, l

g 4

. .. . t.;

....

le e "0 a e un U 1.. u el .= g .... . 4 'Z te V o u

e ..= 4> =

4. ry 0

44

0.

e e ; ra * I
2
o

4 14
.

orl

V1 ci

l'II -e

0.

... o
:

a, o e 0.13 ,

".1

Ef ,,, ....
a 4+

cl

,,,,,

mea

tel4

Cl

> li u .e... ,E -o = .0

..

..

a.,e "0 , , e I..1 atc.) t.r.. 4. {. , 4. 0 0 1" >< 0 e . 2 us',:: .0 *4 C4 ei c,, . 6

oe

00
e

o u

:1 *". 0 ' u t. ,. 0 le u 1.... 47.: _,d .. .., Ni = u .

te

. e
z

0 ..) I" elt u5e 5 .... eo ..... . L'.. '' 0 r, >, ..0 g g E g ..... U ...,
gy. '"' D E _fi cd t, C.i CI n ^ l a " CI 0 1 Io o es 5 . ),_, e e : .6 9 0 ..... '.... , "" ' 6, .. es ,0 , 4 ....

l Id 0 0^ .: _ 0 "C u . ..2 o ,-. ;;; 12 , 0 .C o 0

II '..'

00 ..1

o te .
0 -

A.a. ..rD -...

CO 0 izi Ri ,...._ e . -, e 0 CCS 01) 0 4) 60 , .0


7-1

e0a

el SZ

e
u :U

ee

C.)

.0 e

0 0 .) ej 1 . .0 el) 1..! "fj

el c. el 0 ...*
0

1... e ele - et >b 0 ;:: 0 ize = .... e o ..0 a '


Ce e. ...=.

.... ,...

6-

0,00 e .0 . .e. u

..0 0 i, .2. o - 4 3 3Ae


r- 4,
> .._. 4

el

0 o

c. o.') .... = . .4 e4 e u a.u .-tb e o e .= 4, 0

e P. te u :tie a) 0 1-

E e 'S = 0 6. 0 e e 44 e f:i ,.. u = 0 0 ...., .I. * = . . 0 -. =

e - e .., a,

.4 re 90 be
ee 0

:S. e

'

,.., ,.... ne E
u

0 - -. "5 Te C e 5 Io t te
crt,.

00 < e. e > 0., e 0 c.> 2 E 0 a 0


a. /

232

4 - o o.) >, c 0 .= ... 0 0--. 4

.-.,

CI.

= de = 0 - 41 4.

= 0 V1 C C...)i .... n -.., 43 es =


0 .4 , ... ,..-. ;11 0 I5 U 0 0

c fa

vo el cn U

c.) ,, r - 4. 0= , u a. ) g. e . 0 eL e: e., I. 0 0 o e a. 4 o ta. e ''' e 0 . .. 01. ri ,.e > 42 ,..) e V' _ -- da


.
e 49 re -4 u

0 u ,

-c es '-' rin ' a ...., E-4 c `-' en

01 e

i` o "*" 0 3 1... .. " ,-, - cd , u.ac rsi cl $... eu .+ u cts ..i 2 = e 0 .c . (2. = ;,--- ,... c 4' e ,
.0 1 0 0 10 0

ce> , e ;.e. = u e u mi 0 0 a c.- _ ,, F ,..., ., u cs.4 0 e -i g u

4. . . ln. 4) ... 4 '0 C F.

0 mi

= 0

g....= --a - .4 cd

c c ,-
0

>, 4) 01 e

es.) Pi mE

u ,, e 5 .. e u z' '0.) is. Z -53 su 0 tu ..,


CU 0

0 c) e. 4 'es 0 e el 'tzu 15 .. 0 ue a. C3 r.>`- ,-, ta. 0400-1......-.0o) t.. . . .... et) mi u o.) 0 un' 7 g-, 0 . . = .. '. ? ... c,:s .0 , - fa..` 2 = ;-a Els 0 3 ..d u 8 . ,.... :..,..il e 1 Ja ni 0 --.
n

C E 3 '.>-, ., ..'3 o ri ..--' u .... u 0 = c1 'Zi uvuun. il E -. .... po o, e ..-_, c ca, E P t...., ,-. o tu u ' me ' , t,:l
-5 .

, .... 0 -0 a na a u .e . - 0 0. e ''
0 0 0 0 :9. Iii = 0
n P. Y, '' - U 4. >, Ci 4-, CA ..) e 4 e 0 --, - e eu " 0 ei> 4"; el e'' n 1:2 2 -, x . 1 1.) tU I, ,-=. ..-e .. = .... = 1cL.) 1... t- '

,. - e .eu. .0

u-

C7
... 2 .... .5 CI 0

a
e

C4 0 ..... -0 e u0 ce ,:: e) u

41 1 < ,L

= ' e:, 8 E o zu .,. u .c uo pet) u u= - .- ta

mi -.

RI

tel 4 .

1 'e 2 7 4 0.) yj ... sa _. .... 4) 4 4. " 4, u la. Ci 4 4) E ... = 4) 00 = ..... ... 4) . ... gi tA ..W/ g., i .. 4) g e..... = .. eu.on. ,.. ni 0 Q. 5: 4 1.) ..... ..= ..= ...., ,,. 0 u >:, ...., d' 0,,, Z "' - 4. 4) 0 t.o 0 e g:, le t.) Z) a .s.: ..... ) ..... 0 . 52 i 4 5 4 ... M '..... e
41 m. 0 0 ja, 4) " , 5 , . . oe
i* :73 ...s

0 u -ra c .c
S.. = 4..)

9 .5 gi, 0 E u E E .9 ... sa

cl t v 51' ,t.) . a .: ,... : li ,1 (*"' ;8 -0 u na .-....c o ci

0 =

'

et

C o.()

l'd >b . , Ts 4.) 7 ) 0 ..= az 4.) .0 C c.. ()

4.

2)

,
1

e az .e >e

tj

el) V

' E 4) e.-. Z' r .0 U .. . 0 v) d c nao.,0 E-i :z u na A


na >
. .,
cl.)

e > to e 0 c -0 .0 c e - iM 5.: t) e :15 *u ci' m 00 () a


n ..= 0 cs ,= e = ... ,

C.)

X .

et ..=

/ 4./ ra = CU

u es 0 le ,c eeu
t

su

e
-0 -01 =
'1.)

,... .rs
emq
0 .

4 .., 0 a) n.f. -0 . c...) cd (...) 5 -. -' E .% +. co l 03 - .= . ce 0 1 4 .z, e E. u 03 : .. -. u .... V) .0 0 .... c +- - e `-, 0 0 .., .-1 ce u) e u 'e 'r . o . ) u c L..
c'e .54 *

= =

P>. O.) ci) cd > 4

.
IZI

.
1

.. 5 4)

-0 e

te

tl) 93. cn 01
e
'

61

(., ,,c ,J.,

1 ,

et
0tU ,

.-

8 .-t t el

el., V .0
oa 4. '''.
LI 0

, > Vis ,
sril. 1.4 i.; 4 %)
tl

., ,.., 0 ,, U I. ..e
Ce

. ,..?. t:s ''-

= ,= e> u0 _u c 1... r- -0 ....


cl.) ..... =
. tT) a 0

= - .4

... Z 4> ,C)


-0

, cd 0

z '.

Z. / -... u -e c, %)

(.:,, ..... .

= .... .-. -0 = .,:,

0, 0 -5 .4 C1. 'Z' le .:e k 0) c "E 0


e. . 0 '-' cn

. = a. tu .E C.) a 4, ,-. : 4 4. a '-' 0 e e c . 0 .e 1. cie ,... , E4) 7.1 c cd E :cia u n...., cd cd = 0


43 te

4) U ccs =

0 = % sa cd . 0

lu _ .... c,.. cf.e ..,


1.
.,

....

"Ci ...

u
e

> 0 0 CD

u n 0 0

. r... ; =

E.5..

l ta. OI) er> O) ''' 1) 60 Cle [--4 ` ''' < .= ;.; C

IZ:1 4 0 -,:x a ci -- ,..c ..o 0 0 u .cl 0 1.) -. cd -- - f.) ...4 0 u tato es ..., ' = y, +-> tel "Cf 1-. .; (l .17 i

&.. 'u (-1 e,3 .- u- laCil qa ... oa P e 4., ... eu . 0 '. .., eu . c agi.- / '' )?t` ''
s 1.>

.0

..., 0 ...

0 b.. 0

CM tO Z

c.._ 01 --",
e

..e...

15. .;
=

*
e

:p le '4:1

Gw

0 . C.) i

-' , to 10 4.

= Cl

233

0 =

e. ,:e) .r.. ,... to =:.-. .O

cl .,.. g fo

= u

.e) L '
e

0m = De u s _. 2 e u e ID f.., 2 ... e -o e e O'-r-eEuomo s. ey 0 .....


o _
=

oss 4, a
<V
4
0

: _ ...... s tc, .. 0 ... 0


.C1
.I...

4u
u

=
.= o t
0

.4 0 ,..., =

0 ,. ._. CO :I .^ -"'

, 0 -C

, 0 u 4.,

0 C.) -

O n -e .e .0 .e = 4, ,, t (-) 0= 1 1 0 u

.' .1' ,..- 4 e .... , e c i4 ,,, ga. c 0., la..c.) e el cl 2 .2 0..z E TA ..0 0 4.4 .e c.) .......... = 0) 0 0_ ,..., u .... .e s 0 O , 0 .. .... v ...
4 u e:: 1 e

u e. .9

y .

. Te

... o

4., 4. e U I:e . 1.-, N (7 g i..) 0

Il -o Z ty3 ,L, ..... = '71 Cl .9. 0Cc3= . c I


4 "Ci

, mi v 4) u 0/1 ..1 C

.uM0
.

~ Op

,9 E"'" ,.0 Tt 9: g e cn . "'" o 7,9. t ci e0 e ,, 1-Fi 0 u ell CL) .^. frb 0 e u 1 .-. -. %.0 .... .4
MI

44

ed .

ci .... .... .-. e l),_ ' tu ce it) 0 < el U .... en `-' E-. _ci u ... g A . ....e 0 u .,_, _0 0 Ch rn ne 0 4-. 0
C 0 o

0 4.) 0 0 O h) ,,., 42* U 4.1-. ..-. o 0 : ta .


4

, -0

..... et) en .2 -e.. e e 0 >., ej -, a.) ,_


, = 40 ce) 0 c;) U 1 .- > 0 T) e 0 0

.i .0

= me ta 0 0 uo

o o 2 0 .,..?,. 1-. .. 0 ., . 0 . 0 s. , .0 .c4.4 4 .". , ..0 .... u ...., ... .- 4 0 4.) U 0 E LI T, 0 1... ej 0 ..... ''. M eeu u L.,.o, vi t) g .0 ..., V
,

c) 1-. ..., q 4 L'"' le 0 -0 , e a e ..5 t1 = c Cl 6) 0 .1:1 C u cl .0 ..c 2 1CL) .4 0 u .0 .... u 3 0 0 0 tn ci 6, .-. .) )u s--'4 e CI p .5 ,C2 a t E <2. 2 ,1 3 y

0. e

al 1 .

.**1 ) ., u a-, 2

u e , 1-E2,.e ma o u uee 3 0 [, 0 0 e t1--. 3 c..) .ge


d.)

h..., a e % e, 0 .... oi 0 e u0 L., --, ,... CU 0 2, 1 .,,z p., a ... 0 0.1 0 c4 2 .4 il '0 6 eu 1-4 '-' .C1 A 4,. . a _,
`d

e s, u :: : = u .: 4) 4,

e ,.= ..,,

a.) a ...

~ 6) e
= 4 e = cl ci 0 1 .. 1:e 4) 0 - 4, . = 0)) ci Cu CO 4-e c- U 1 2 u Pr - --. 0 col

Me

'd e>
u

. ,.8 ,
4

u, u ..= ,..,

>, t.

4ti Z ,,,

: ai .e =

.....

2 -0 ID U 00 = 70 d., eu u., = . (n.... c e, 0 .m 0 e ra. 9 e 0[ 4 oc .9., u c .2 ...e u ei 4 : u0 , ,,; To .5.,) .70 ..... E .0 u `) 0 u ,...... .. c -0 ..0 Li., = >, oz .4:i u - -_. .._ =e , -, --. .:-1 e -e a) ... ) ,,, c -' g '-' = 0 a ..0 u u .. (...) .1 e, ee ,.0 '-. * 0 -o . , -3 -.....e ..... 5 -71.. ,- e '-' 0 CO y eI., 3, 0 5 .8 e . h., . 4) - u .... ,_, cl ..., i_ = oc e te . , ,.= , c) o r) e g-u ar 0l 0 en .ri u a - = el c = -. . . 0 a. 2 -. e 10 ta Cl . 1c 00 1 arj 0 .e' et> 0 0 -. e, 0 , a 0 u > , 0 u) . " c ... Z 7:1 0 >, 0 s- .... , L. u O -"'" e . . 0 e0 1,-, ce ,,, U .0 c.) c, 4 L. C2 II , cl ,3 , cd) r6 f 8 = u E 0 >, 10 - , t% , p U ., 4- . s.. e c.) 0 el - e .... ed e 5 . 8 ,m, u e = ru 11 .,.. 1.. 0.) u . . a) ...0 o ,, n, 7 E 0 o eu Tu g E E 1 4:.. 2 ,e g e e ,.,.. = ., _ >, .... ,.. .0 ,, C.) u me c > h. .., .a .0 .., 0.0.0 (..) : el c.,.. e ..o c c.,,J :.., .. l .. " I CO 0 ..., bo 2 g g 00 E -1 rd u 0 Lt. e u0' oE u 4) In. e 7 M 0 0 ,_ l .0 g, (i..) 4. 41 1' .0 F 4-, 0 es ...., 00.-ou 0 g u e . cl v, ,.. 0. Le o..) 'e u 0 tse u __, 6) > . u e e ti, -.C. 0 , 0 -0 p ,1* U '- b4 0 t.4 * O '-' 4 U , a, = f .8 d, , u 1 '00 -' 0 --, r1 u L. ''S e e'r. cd 0 4 4p,r) - - 40 4 U --. ' 14 41 O .0 CU 0 0 0 '( ' ;1 , ue.cet .0. 0 ee cs, el 0m ci 0 4 _ = te t. ,.) 0 - ., 4. c.-, 4 .... = .. DA Cl U-t z' . -0 ..= .TU."0 0 er0 a-, e>-0 0 E u ,.., el h I .) 0 -) ,.c -. ,.. > c..... , _ ..--. 2 b a u c 0 C) = e e ., . o 'r.. .= 0.0 0 ii-; 0 ci) izj 4n0 . et e cd 0 0 0 -ce _, -, , 0, o La 0. 5 o 0 2 o u "0 5 e j '21 >\ ;e2 4> a ..... = , ,E s-% 13 1<>,-,1 '0 c3 .> e 'e '' : . 1 -o , u r"' 1.., ,.. 2. r 2 te L, ee' .1) -e 2 cd (ami e ,-,-, u c.: o :, "g izt. u i > ,.z.-, '0 C ..0 cl -.e e' '4 m -j 4',' 5 -0 , u ' 4 , u y ..- 8. 7...c (1 E. .5 0, 4.., .... O.) 6) 1,.) e g 880 ' e g' 4 ., % ra, e ,...., ta 4 cl la U q, e ee ee E (...) 2 2 X -ei -0 0 "' (7) " o C..) 4 7... ". ''' ) 1...,
_ -e .,
,, . l 0 (I U C 7-1
0 s

"0 MI

6) ,-, 4) 0 ..c ... zi.

(31 030 0 = o ,..) $.. > 0 ... ki

.4 t o

Y% "0 ,.0 0 0 C C o o --.

00 u3 lel 7.

d .e,
cl
,4

e ei 0 a> zo,) 0

>

u ee
0 0
4
0

4-,
u
4

0 m

1.)

4i)

,, - e. > ao .... e z go.,.2 0 .. c 0 0 2. 8 TO .0 oe - 4. u o e a. u


.=:

0 0 40 le

-a 0 ea i.0 f.. 04 E-4 .-.. ..a

4) u 00 ci 0 .0 E "0 0 0 = 0 14, e 0

234

i 2 ti; :LA 2 .

le 01 . 40 II. 0 0

U d.)^0 j
> =

ck) 0. u

.... .......

= 'Z'a

Cil "0 4 c1.1 0 >


. e .. ,... ....' , ed e E .e -" 1.. el 0 o

0
,77,

'-'

e-4 l : e ,,, ,,, o.

ek.x =

em au o =
u 0 3 > 4.. ,, tlj .. o I'

CIO !". '0 i , - ,-.. o. n 0 ,__ -


0

e ' t : l 0 *.e. 6

0. --, .... 0 m V] n. e c .1:2 mi ,,, 0t, .. cd

.... o -=

e ,,:. o .3 5 u e e -be tu

e ,- = CA 0 0 r$ CI I 04 0 0 e .= ..c o
e o M u

3.)

.....

a
el.' h

1"-

e t- e u e 0
e n L

.2, ,
-'4

ms

.4 4) i

Ja

Q H -a

nt

I.

8 o

te.

) _ ' p 5 ,( . _i >sm ,.., ... ... 0 ..,, a a 0. e , u ni, C cd > 0 Cn (:. ..- ci 2 e o ..., 0 O ' e u o e az 2 u t-

,u,
13 o

17

me

,...., ..C)
u o

, 0

5 .t , .
E

5.
'

el.)

. -4. (,-,;
e

, ,.... ..3 , e .. , r +.4 i... -.... ,- .. 0 4 0 '. . ou


> 2

>. 0 4 , .1 o ... ,- , ci fa. .... "`' .,0 ,... ei

U C)

eu

u g c

,9 70 3 06'a=ci
2 ' - - el. 2 1C.d.... ch ....
0

Ti

_a e
u

el 0 .._. -o

4 Cl e Q u o" 0 7 Z ..,
0
0 0

, .?: qi '- ,C) 0 ... C.: 0 . - ch 0 = a.


a. E t. fi ...., , ca.,e e 71) 0 c.-.

... =
.... e o ci

U 1:1 ,,, 0
o .o 3 -14

ai

Ca

Ci el)

cri ' , ..k , pe. . p. - 0. , .


,

. '..a

c1

0 cd 0. C.) 0 ..0 C . .

r:1, 4e ,.., 0 t- u , o ,2. r-,,,...t,


=

0 y

-43 e p 0 04 .6 .2 0 TU ? 1 5 a, ,.e - 03 eu . C en cd c 0 4.1 .... czt 0 .-. ..0 Z (...)


.' o e 15 3 ,.., 0., e GU Ca ." ...X 4.5. C...1 = =

</) 0

...,

u-n

4. ci

.= E .2 E ..= o 3 (..)

3 5,, ci te c .) ) . . 5 . .... Md e te cn _>., *.%) izo ..9 e i u .. = c., 0 -b *d = e ad .-. 0 ... c.le

; ts nt .,.., c

... c.J
4

w
O
cd

0 .. ..7. GL
0 . cei co)

-. 1... el >. 0 ''' - 8 m Z 'm t4 o -" .ie '10 MI cl 0 "Cl c j; e

0 > . ,. ..... 27 1-

, 3 ,.. 61 a .4
-2, ez Z '-: t

cd g ; 9 ..

g
"

8
. -2

.-,,..,
o
QA

E = g .:
'''

e " r.T.,

,... (/) = g) u e e

,4 a, ,4 te

. s 6 , , ,e : e

e b. 5 tu .....

Eo . -o 3 u o

1:14
' n

..-, E __, o '''''

.8 ,... 0

o >, o 0 o - ,.. o 5 e i-, e ,,.., > e o e o .-. u


e work of the H
0
'2 t

0 u o g cu 0 u r.: ,.. , e, U

0 9a C

...".1 0 _o > ..,. .0. .1=1. &) 6.>


=

N e 0 cd VI C.) = 0 A.) ,...

u = 0 0 ..= cd e 5 c.) g . r , 0 ,.... O . . . cu <, 0 e u ,,


0 e' .. t 0 >-. CI. = n ei U cil .-. C .0 0 '0

;d4

e e o .-. 0

,.. 0

a.

p., a
)

. .;._, ... 04 4 `"


u

O. 1... e cr.. e .e 2 ,e 0 . ..,.... u .... t ..; ,


,

= u 0 .. . 0. c.i el..p 0 -0 1-. -0 " P RI 0 e 0 .0 e. c.. .1 0 e c.) ..g: 0 e 0 t


kW

... e

...0 ,,..,

0 1... .4... Z 0 :r) CL) 4... n .-. e. ......, ....


0 9 . .., c.) e

0 ..= .,.,

.1:2 0
al '''''
o" e:'

a,

.0

col e

mi o a., a, c

0 y .1 0 od U .0

,,, e

E e , = c' ci O 3 - 0
0

.n v) 0.
=
4/) O. 0 CI

0 0 4) E o ._. .0 ,..., *
... l ... ,,, e
e' 5 -11V QQ t r _a N. ?

1C 0 u e -0 e

cd Cd do

e .- cl

.. = ..

, cg .e .
u t-.

> u

e , 0 in e o a o > ..i = 0 2. 5
0

u
5 --.

0 ". Ti -.-. i ... .. a.. th 0 4 ! P. 4 ... . n e a. P .


x 0

i ; c% ."' 0 = L

c.> Z
0

E -1;1

-o

0 0

a : ee 0 U

-.. .0

-a

o VI

dA
e

.14 C I... e C L.. o u e -0 > ri) Q n o ,- "*.i) e r'n ..... ti ..

.0 0

eu

-. u o -, o "' 0 .ri
.

l a C "0 =

c'

e
s-

45. *

.aueeeE

4) o

i r ;

o , 4 o ....., ..., - eU .. u zi .e. , o 0 o 5 ,_, .:.. ) o

o t

... 4, > .o ''' = - "

o a, Io a.

Ir U

a gr,:e.F

o ...... oi o

d u1...,,,, >., u u
c

en e 4.) ..... 8 o e o . )
1)

0 i 0 0 0

,-. o= c 10 L)...? o o 0 U ... .....

cu ..- 17

eL) ' 0 . I . _n

cd !;_, .., !.. -0 o) 1)

e LI., .7 , 7z

235

u ".e. 5 0 .,$ E 4-, E .4 0 cil 0


-

.... e_., o 0.. ., ... ,e, e > . 0 0 2 , ."' ).:' 1) 0 .= 5 00 (,, (.... 0 e .-. .4 ,., 0 0. 0 =2 ,.... e0 .-. 0 op o y:, cl ,e0c., 0 0. 0 0 0 0 c e >, - -e c ) -,
, e

0.-.. c.) N , 0 0 0 (,) n cz us c.. e .t... S 0 C) 8 '-r, ., eu I-. 0 I) -..e 0 e ce el") . a. a.) u ce ;1-* . 0 eiy .4 0 0 .0 0 5 (.., 1:1 , c-' gu ce ,,, F'' E ,_ se.,.... ,, >0 E0 u -, 0

oz ,... 0 -. =2
G

U 6.) 4.. 0 -0

o O 0

.. 0 , - L) Vr '' 00 0 0 -.,. -. = 0

X 0 a) L)

o .-.; e E 0 0
n

0 0 e
L Z

..

d.)

.. E ,-

u
(.4 d

= 0 0

e .= -,.... ) ..) o ce) -, tu) = ,... ce = [...4 Ci.

-> o u e. e u 1: e (I . 0 ,,, .,, e .r. 0 e ..... o Q m .....e. ou:... o ee o ;7 ; -a >, o ...-. = ,.= ".. Q o ,n 0,0 ,.r. , cg 'et .r eV) 0 >-% u0 0 1.1 E..., e. tl + '.... te .-1 .. ni, ..... ... eeetE .ci mb a.) -. UU 0 Co ,... 0 u , .), .e Z cl .0 70 -5 e ''d e .S .1> e ez
, -.

d u,0,...e ...+4 7. aoe 0 y, 0 .-. cn = _.f. .. 0 0 - , 0 5 pl -,. uo e e (..,,, c, b o

di Cei "_ 72 1. .0 , nci 1 = 7, ' 1 ... = 4 0 0

,,- 0 i e ,i = . .

u .2 = 4,.t.. . 5 -ci -ct o e -ci ;...


n gliv

e V) gL, 5 e ,.... 0 . 7,i ,... .c 0 00 - e00


0 3;5 Cl. (,) 4.4 * C 0 , ) ,... cl

ci me e U

0e0 .). e

00 o

" cc0 vs

0 1. - 0ee 0 0 u .x74 u 1 .... .. 0 C; 0 .. .5 gi j .4 ga.. e e -.,*; 1 .


Cf) 0 0e uE ,.... 0 L, 0 u c. ec...) ,,0 ..-, e 0 2
cn 11

ta, 0 ,.= >.,

C .14 o Ce'

........

5-0
o

...

., .r. ': 0 i m e, e u .. 0 E -,,,, u e ae sei 0 1 ... o eu >

'c "

4 02.

-. .8 > ss: e cts u tz,> ozi ,ei- 0 o ..-.-.. . e ....c; - e >-, e 5 0 0 os i, e u eu -. e ., 8 ..0 = 0 (..b e e (..... = ri)nz u u .e cl ^ b.0 ,r, TU .e :I' .: o .. , meg . OR 0 e 0 0 . cl.) 0 '-' bO C t 0 ,,,, e . r_ r^ .... E-. .1:1 o es' EL 0 " j 0 5 0 - ,O r. cd 0 0 0' _ uU _ 0 < c., (...) o(..) P.

n .e....... f. , ,

.) --. .4 !If) 4' ) ej ."' . . . ' . -el ci. cl -, q) G cn 0 0 ..te > , el ..- ,.. U 8 t.. ":" .. . 0 0 :te4 . e ..0 u ci = .e 0 '-'. 0.,!:: ... e 1.4 = . .' 0 ns cl. o .0 .& u e . _ le el.i... u .-. ....

1.1 'G y.. >, " + 0G eu I- . 2.

"0 u =

tsi

--1

si 32 si-51 u

U 0

cel ..... bz,c.... 0 >, <.... :.. 5


o
.-.. c.....

a. 3 th

.4 ....0 t) , e u 3 Sa. = e

U A. .... tn ^0 0 0 ...) .0 U 0

e .e. = 70 . 6 , 0 -0 je 0 /-- u t ,a cf; = (4), 41 _ ...> A iii 4 e := ''' z ' U .2:1 '">'. u 6 2 cc$ -, e u -i ' 3 0 -. 9 e -. 0e E ..= , -= 0 If= (2, 0 g; E 5 04 ,,,, ,.... - ., 4.> 0 el .0 e, 0 o 0 a - tr, .. -... 2 3,,.e {-''' . :, "" ) 0 ,.... 0 0 t.. 0 E 14 je mi g r) ' "' f.. 0.. .0 U ... 0 mid U 4 c..... 0 ..0 0 3 E el e cd et ) C u cn 3 . .... 0 0 .- 5 0 ,, e cl u tn. 5 4 .:2 . . " t. .. 0. : c% e.0 . e .fe. : ci. 0
u 0.14.,
e
Q 4 -2 e l

os O

e .-..= .1

tg)

.c u ... .. e) tu tstro 0 0 cos.... (.1 . w.1 e :a .e e .e. th s- .= -. ,... .= = i 0 ..b/ sl F c 4) to..2 sss vs" .2 4 01 ) 6)

re u o _gi .. ...m -o
=

5 0 l e u 2 ca 0 e -,) 0 t... ) cu --. -. -.


c.-, ta. cn .1-",
u

,4

ee ,... 0 0 >,.. ,.= 00 ,,, .., ,e) 0 ,..-. '-' a.) -, -4 -. - >,., e u . ,_, .0 .
pj 8_, .; ,
0

'0 1.) I.) O .0

u -'-' v, '5 E os

"

2. E t-,

. ,...

ou

u , E 2 2 x ..0 0 4.. . o t.-, 0 C.) e .0 ski 0 . m u 0,.

=0

, , _, os
pj

"0 0 J:: I .... .-.

" ) ' * .0 t e 8 . r.e

..= ,.. 2C u
el c

u ro-. -C .-. .e) e .1::


u 'a'

J)

i 0 cn C c

,,o)

,,,j

..= ,-. o ..= = U o u E- 1.1.1

m) )- .....

eu el)

Ir , v) I: 8

ID E' 2, 0 e 1:e a* cd' r1 u 0 ,

ej >c 0 0 (.e t> e. .. .. u Z

ezt oz

0 ,, cl. 2 2 ; - te. ' * .U ,t) U a) = f - "fi 0 .0 r 4-. .. ..ci = e Er - -= e .0 " l -.5 .= n' o u I 'U u 6. 0;) ... t : ,,,
>

ro o

on

'>-, 1_, 0 .,-. 644 ..... .., 4 l-1 e ' u .4U..'"' 4) '1 . ." '..' 4:

r.. .0 0
--I

"e'

, E 4. E u ',i

,v 8. e e 5 e Z -2 9. t

QI > 4. = u eu .4 t) a 4.4 ....., no

0 U 4

8.. 0 o g

236

e 0 0 ci c> -0 6) 0 = 11 0 c 0 O <,9 ?... u CD


2 L E .2 .0 ..= .,... e .) c... -0 c.... 0 -..-. 0 u go ..0 ..... 0 a cd 0 a c... cd . - ,- -o u . 0 u C.: ,:r. = 4.) c .14 4. U .... cl , '.*: i o ..0 e ,' = .4 cl. ,,, ch 0 (13 . el .4 -- ref .-. ,,, ... u eu ... n.k. U l .-^ .... ,0 , r u Le

z..) .4 e
Q 01

t 7
0

u > = ,,).sF . 1 U t9 ed . . e C.)


C.) 17 ""
9

-7, ..z to ,,,, _ ...


2
1 . 3 c....

el)

00;3

.4 4) , el ei 0 Ti

F. ... 1 D, = el i 03 a.:1 u U n .0 Mii . = 0 OZ U 0 tg1 3

= a> a> , .E 4-..e .tn 0 e cn ..... a> 0 C ..-. c.. .0 cl t 0 0 ..0 u = cl .' e ,A 4) . tn 0 ... .... - ? t4 i> u .." l) 5 a e az a> l > .i 73 -. 0 e < 2 e eu o u .
-

5 e. u ., ' i... cl *r. ,, .... .u cl b... ... u ito e tn cd 0 0 0 es s ' .-. ni

e .

8 0' i Q t b ' : . x : --5 " . cl .0 .a ,n - ' 0' 1.... cd C 4 g 4,) 0 0 , >< . . Q _ ..... ..., es -, .4 g = e ... F.1 0 0 C> A

t) -

e 1 . :e. :: - : 0

et')

. e, _ , Ti. ... cd > .

75 th 0 CL 0 90 'a ..0 o d.s. CA r) >, <i ) .... 00 C.) e 0 u Cd 1) *A 10 E eu = ..ge = e l u 1.., ,,,, . .. P. C ,... D . ctl i; 2 "te> al 0 i. a. u t. ,
tr: 0
1-

ez

.. =

ce

et')

o 4...
6) .." MI

.; = -

() 4... 42 il 1g 0 -01 4-. cl r... ..... .

,5

. . . ,. . U u (2 cu_ 1E1. u e tu 1 14 ,,..:. 51 1- e . , u ,..,..o . > .- -. . 5 ,..0 e " (.... ,..m v) e -.. Cd. ou 0 , = o <A re e ,.e ,.... 2 z 1 4 o o 4 .0 CO e u
(/)

91 (e) ea ..., - o ,c/ s. = ,

:e :E e 4 :l ! ::: ..:: :
.: t e c:) ; t

.1) '.. er ..n .. tU I-.

0 0 0

,e)

01

,e V. 1> 4 ,4 te ... CLI 0 X E ...= ,:j ....., U ... >. el O ..1 (1) (.3 m i = mt, IO
eu ( 0 o

.. x =

C ,...

e 00 cl .... cn 0 ... = = .,... .-. , CL 0 P.. 0


t4)
0 0

..-. : te 5e_4 0 ... c) cl - u .. 0 ..0 - _ei , O u 0 4.-. CE

... 1 o (..) o Ce .0 tA 5 6.) Q L, . . . ..... u-ule et2uo o -= = c..) .c) es Q u v) -


4)

y = ,.., es te C.> ..4 .-.

.-

... c/ 0 '0 IL) 0 e e 0


4 o .

>,
a> 'le L., ei= 0 .-.

0 1...

'-.- 5 tr. u co u 4 .0 0

4 cl

l 0 ' -' o 0 ,o; o 0 cu ., Ca e = .., ,r 0 t o o u u

tt ..0 e0 = 6) -0 u 0 6) te a . 2 . u .0 u -0 2 e2 -.s. u o. o 73 m .
o
e (... 0

e e a
e

e1 '

2 g .i . .) .4..... -a cr6 Ti ''' ,2

O l w,

u cn Cy
0 40 0 g)

c.. . . - e o .b e e
cl

tt) =

a. > 0 cn e o

.. =

6) e3 ..0 ... F., i. g


4

0-0 (.)

6) = cd .o 0 0 0 > d 2 .... 2 _ E o ew ' -0 ..... ... 01 U 0 el) cl . 1 ., U e . U . 4 . ci. = ... e 0 = 4 d) a> 1.) (1 CIO 0 .0 0 0 Q 4.. 1. > 0 0 0 4 u c- u 0 > n cl-ie

0 0

oe U u u U 4) u 0 .- Pa eu !, - E 4 0 3,q E a.> ..- - 0 u ..... 0 t., u e 0 .e >,....... -ra ta,c) 1... o 0 E-m ./0 0 0 0.-i. -to..' u vl a' .- 0 u
0 4.,
3

e cl. cn

5. es -, a.) 0
e
n

vr
0

_cl E e u o
0

0 v, u 1.m .0 u 0 '-' ..= 0

, cl .

4.

o L.. :F, 4. .,a ` a> 3 et.4 '''' E -'-' 4d , 0 0 0 , ,, .0 u " ...4 ...., ... ... . 0 u ci v) .. c,, 4>

d) =
: ..5 '

E o.. 0

,'" cl 0 ..0 0 el 1' a

237

>0 ,.....= ce su e
Q4

C 4.

8 fou - .5 U a 0 , 1... ...... ... 0


o

0 0 cy 0e0

u .0 u -0 FI. U .W/ 44 + 0 ki 64 0 e 0 e 0 ...e . , uto n 0 0 0 _ et 'Ci 0 0 t . el u 'C ) e = = CI 0 == 0 4. 4) 1-. . 3 a e so ci .. 0 e te * .a" t 0.1) > 0 4 ,, nu0 eS 0 ... 0 0 a 0 , 0. rx 0 se 1 el -e 01) cr tif -5 1 4 ' .1% o e 4. ,.., u o 0 ,..-. ..... 0 cu 0 ..1e ea a!), U el 0 tA r.. "r ., *c u .0 e u ... .t .,-e ... ,o , -. e I " " s ' ., :u ) 4 y - ' f. ) . .4 .' - .: = _. - e ,.., 8 e:
ta*
M
. ,

' . .) ::

..e '?) 8 -0 E .,Le.,.0 0 (..) .0 0 .0 .. !:"..'43 _eu e. , -S 8 0 e -. 7 a 0


4> .0'

u . -. , Eele -a .

e 41

lu u e -..z 0 cl... .1:3 -a 0 0 .0 0 ,... .4, * .= > > m e ... 0 e ta0 a ..0 cm o U 4'2 3 e 0 'e g 8
1
4 4

1- 4 '' , MO 2 TU * 4 0 U M 1./ 2 ( M Cd 1. ) . 0 0 . .... t2 eu .-0 c... e.4 .10 .M CA

5 cg) 5 cl Ueu,9,19= cl.... tu.. 0 E = z 4> 9, cn .; 0 - el 4.1 , 1-

e : e 1.. ..-. ...


>, a = - ms

.e, ,...

c.) 0
4.
. .3)

4 o a E, ,e kl. E cl, 'ru

el

S::

, s ,,, . wu 0 = ... .- . 4 u S 2 ..> 2 t; .e s 12 -0 eo, 1.... 0 . - 0 1... 0 = 4 c ),. o 0 .6 z. , .... Cl M ,0 0 Mg 0 e: C . e S y 1. u cu ctl ce et) 0 4 0 ne : +Z "0 MI "0 2 et) ett 0 0 .44 g t-e Cti 0 lm 6; 0 Cd -. e .9 4 .) 5 ., 0 .5 u ,z, .; c, M t 03 CI 1 - 5 ^o 0 .4 4 u U 0 e ) .0: = o c.) 0 .a cl 0 u > .. 3 e 3 6 = .e .5 2 e -4,, e 0 4.) ti " = me ,..., v, e . , 00 0 u=.0 u , 0 o e ;... , - . ei 1 tg 64 4 u oc . . 0. 1 0 MI = a 2 0 0 e u ' 5 .2 e 4:4 -0 c... 04) 41 0 u u . 11 u el a 0 me 0 0 0 ac, -5 . it 'l > -a :1 cc% e 4 4 k) = c2 .- 4 13 4) ., 1 ms e e - , , Db. W e 5 0 mi .... 0 0 .0 . 'e , 3 8... a t; ' , ( 4 M U 6) 6) 0 . M MI 0 0 M. 8, ... 4. 9 gme x.a. 0u 44.4. ' ...: JI 4". au Gy e 30 . 0 r) 0 . 4 1,-.. 8 51 0) '.. 63 cif ,. M ne 0 e, t) 0 t M o, 5 .... La U 64 0u el e .._... 6) 0 0. co 0 Q M ..1 .4 ''''' C .e CA 0 c4 e Eu A C ..... , 0 zi m M M M _. -c ni u= 0=.4 M ...; 0 Ti 4 A a en 4 0 e ,.. ,.., (,) 0 . 4 M 4.4 t cl '1 .2 0 .e a <... Q ...?...0 u ...t = u , C" <. . .4 01 c... e g ". M 0 0 0 >>% tl e ..9. 03 e el 1) 0 . 4, 1 ..... .. u ..., e 0 .. F.I 0 0 o a e a 0o eu u -u ,e ..., __ .0 2 e '''' .., a e 'E .1 'E*4 -e '::: eiw a , .4zi -5 ri.) e ._, . .0 a e .0 . ,... .0, 0,t4m0 : . -1 ,R 5 444 fl . 4....1 cd ) f te8 e .e.aeu .- .a *' .,< ,:: ii. .-. c> 7 0 u ,-, a a 5 `g (..... <, g f, :5 4, * 2E 0 4 ,... 4. s 1) ' 4. 04 .0 u .4 ,....7.. .. e t) = g m , E-0 20 a0 eu c., 2 e c-) w 0 .a 0 b el .1.) 0e0 C/3 ..... -5 .2 -0 0 a 0 0 4 u g '5 tu m 3 C., ,.. .... , . o cl cl L, ...S .8 . te. = 0 = 4) u 0 tt: 0 0 .. e e e :a .> ....9 cl 0 t., - F-' ' e '' -.5. 0 3 O 2 -, 4-) 'e .... 0 .-.... ,1 ne o ea,E -' 0 = e " ..t.. 0 C uU e u .i.",i.. i = o E . CI f.1 . . o u 00 0 0 .01 '-' V) e, ,4 9 et u D .e ,, ..1 0 =o M.F14 . su ou -.. - .e., :4 u .. c , e 0 4 o a 0 e * q '' .c: = . 5 u 1"" '4" 0 . ? .. , ,.. . . t 0 E) u ..; a 7 0 5 , o C ... ce 1 0 E .2 2 . 0 0 4:1 A ' 11.51 13 Z 4, 0 .r0 F-c "r- u (..., .e 0 E 2 u Et u e .-e 4 tg) ,. . 0 0 0 0 u e .0 . 03 0 S Ca e 8 8.;73r8 c., _e on 0

e',4. 1 e c n 2. .e /4.1 pi L.> 0 4., u u ,;;,, te * e+ a re .. 4 '4 e 4


1,,, '

14

'

' 5

* .

4)

'

) M

4"

'

238

239

240

241

"ve t re O. CU

= tsv Cl

; ' 9' o a. ,-. E .-, r-

- CI

...

, - wg..) ..o u :01 ., C1 " e .4 .) u Z (cl r 1 il = u 41 eje.4) ,,, .. -0 i... o I.) g u N cs' ,,c4 -':)
". v, 0 Idi) s 1 ..., -4 .(1. 0 4 0 e. 0 ^,
0
e

,,, 7,5

.-. .... -0 t) .,... ) .... ., V :.-,. .0 - c

o . 0 ,... , e fa. i , e
oz

el ., ,z,

"--.

el) 0 el) e-e M e ie. 4 e -0 ---e c.) -0 et) e e e 0 0 e ( 0 e , . ( 0 2 0 c... .1

en ,... I u mm
o u 1 .
.4 .-0 E 6

I E

. a)

' VI = g M

0 -0 ... p +0 y., N. 0 O j : te Ci. 1


2

0 MI 3 .

tom. 4 MI , ..M C "0 en et) .4

0.

.0 4

) t. - o

t 4

u . 0

<ed ,..., .4,).

0 eu

0 eu

, .1
"ti
. = t) o

= t. rs
Ce 'ce 4,
u e e e

u .,

2 .cg , _

u cu .o ". 41.
e mi u c (-o

.le

0.,,, e e -
pl nd

.o

le -o

>

".

( %.,

e: '4 4 "X:3 cd en 0 eu M en M e7 8 4) , .ee. 0 st) d.) 0 E -1 e: ' ' Me = . p en es 01 E al te u u -.. 4, .-0 ...." u ,, e ... 4 u 0 ,,,

0 Q mi 4) u e c.; 0 cd ci) M 0
.Cl

se en oeuvre

,.... . ... ., E --a..r. .' .g = tu ; u e ,A , ..a.b ... ar ...2 oor au-romi.-.. a . ) e IL, te 'a -' 0 .0 :5 e .... 3 . ... cl CM -r;1 e ,-. ., 'e ..... . -. 4.) 0

O .r.:

Z ..,

ce CA CA n

e d.,

r) e) 0 MI = O. e 4. 0
et --.

,U
10 ''' as '

cr tr ei .... 4 O , 4) .... .
e

0 . ..= -0 = ...
c

oo

,, rm. ,
E o 10 el

e --. a -, E - u ee e u es)

t..
e Io t)

- 1 ) " :1. Z.1 ,

2
:

cs

' ,CI

4 ti 4 eZ, VI in.

,..

c. , c tu 0 (1 c 0 t -.-a ..7.1 0

T. '

e (7i ri e u t.,) 0 g , , tu , te. -4 w s.

:n .

> = 5 a a ,,, 1 a Io a eu -ce e o au OO 0 4) 0 -0 ,..,

u lu e -0 - e ..es

>

E cd

...... -..

"1)

u -0

a. co)

ta. cl

5
a. L.,
e

' g: v 4. 4 cl e O =

.;

cr E e) 1-) cl 4 et Z i'4 1.; (..)

,c,1

cl u E E

ti)

C6.4

H eS

o -

0 a.
U
O
C

e 4

MI

t. 0 "" Cif """ - .cl :3 ) 1 C T. 3 0 4 ) 4 = sU ZJ Mi Mi 0 U 4, su 4 ) g c. <1, ee 0 $-4 1... /0 >N .4. . ,1) , a> .. 4 4 ,A 0 r, a ,.., .' 18 't, '4, = o. e 0 U .... 4) . 0' 0

'= 1.). - -or ,.. ;:, a 0 g , - - z. > e .... e = b u = 4 $. .... 0 ti M. " 1.) en 4.) bo gz E a,
4
4, 0 1..

e)

..ri . ,u i n
4)

4)

a.) ri .,--.

e
't)

A
.,-.
c9

'il
0

0 CI,

= r) e
-

E '15 t a .ti "a g - .e.-- ' - < e e ci le ,.. 0 ,,_. w -0 t.2 . e or cr il xe


e

te ,,,i ... ". g) s-e le (.1 ...... (...) 4.) 4) cil MI 10 . . '-' .-.. . -_. ..---, e-e = CY = 0 45 cd ,,_, el e (...) n -,,-,' = = e cI.2 . ,,e = 4.) tA , a..) ,... = 0 el) vl 0 = CA I.< le e e , e tu = ---' 0 ci cr --, e ,,, 0 u u u u 4 . i, = 0 ... a a ue 4 . ) t.... ":: c .. . EL . bu Cu -Ci --- cd 'a .c,3"0 '(L3' a "' tea ..0 ..0., .1., , Ti 2. M) r i da e e a ' ,r, ._ 5 0, ) 0 u el) ee .er. .-.. = Es a <2 'ce c., .,,, Cr -.. 0 g) 4) E e .,,, o e ,. ..) e! 1A 4. ,... . e ) e 'cLil (4 8 2 O N t2 q o e ) .- Mt ) e 4, .) u 1 . u g. u ..e -0 0 e e u, = 0 = ' 4 -, 'e 0 e cr, - e en .,.., 2 ... z = -,-,3 - su u el e 4) in M 4) e e 3
e '

es z e.--,..- 3 > c ;, 1 a e 0 e 0 e -0 e e e e ,.. u .:. z ml t)

a d -o -or ii. e ga CA .. = ..o a. e u..,, ., -. e -. i o oi o x E 3 : ce> .. = ii 2 ". I- 0 49 e , cri .- ..... d) eti ir. 74 r) C 4. CI .m 0 a = el ..., 0 .... = .+ , e ..0 t e , c c Z ...z ,8 ri c 4 elr el g u g e e 0 2 1
r:. .0
e

. cd 0 ' t 9.a.)4) .e07"

0. 0 4) C., t' = l e O.)


01

'0

cl e

= n i.... 0 ,..1 .. 0 di
0 ... U 0 :-

e .,5 .8 - or t
u

j
, ,:1 w et. C., = 4) CA 4

fl

ce T
,4' ,

p, 0
e "e

k1 . . tt .1 .
..c. o '.0 u en >s I-. u a cl

'ii. : .. ....

* .c) 'Z,', .-:., ' Zi E -0 -0 U

0 4) ced 0 > e cd M t 0 e MI mi 0 R 1l e m su r
e
Ci) ss

u =

S d

c .) 0 e o

u
E
Cid

o or n
4) E st) ) td D1 `ei i 8

:`.. 4, > 4 GO -M .".. = Cb ,1 >


/) u e 0 l n c.) ^...
47 ,

4-. 0 e ,4 Cn sU
0

E .1 :1 'ee (..r a 4) 0 se o ,t) s .an el'er i1


eu

, " s4s
4

.cd o.. g" .) e' ,8 .4 t..

. ..I 2 4.. .8 b+, ".".


, en . ^.

e .ki t1 'el l

td

ed c..)

_ ela

li> t.)

e ts

: ''Fi 4 U
Rf )
4

4 '1 ) U

jj

.e E E

- ,1 = e - ... ;. .., e , .. x, O
.

el ". .,: . ,. ; -. = ... e ms 0 0 u ',...

:::%.

.h. . . ; e 2e ae : ,-e : . ... i... . a) .... Mt .rA E 2 %g e n ,... c>13


e

4)

du 4 g *)

... 0

44 ' eq ce

e e u - ' 1:. 2. - 9

e". -' 5

242

cr 'e u 0
0

4.1

-0 Q .

e u e
Q.)

1- >:.: ` ' ") '"" .... C !. "'; 5

cd C ti

Qa
. TA

0.0 C
cd

CA 0

. ,,..,. , ,, ,,) ,,,:, c, u, ....... ,:., r.1, .z3 u 1... tu) o e,..e ' czt 'es sq , ... - Z. '''', . I 1..
.... 1...

'n .... - .,. ,3 t) .... t., 0 Ir .....

_. , .2 u
Ci
0 -

fi

(0 O 4. e, _ ....
Q.

s-t e e o e o e
" Z. e

14,.

.... 0 0

vi

.... e duo ,..

3 e ,., e. ,. t ,,,

......, ,,,,, Z.,..., l fi


% .le .t7 1 . ... .;
. 1

e e)

e -0 0 > . ( 4 ...., 0 ,o <,3 e C..)


ti

A.. 0 tu tu -eu <4


il

0. E Z .., 1/4 ..... Z 1. Gt . -..., e Z --* '-) tu ..,_ CS tzt, -. cl, t2


(U
.1'

'''

te

il

..

Le

tZt ,.

r., V IV e) %

3 Z. 0 cle 41 '''') c: -0 'fi 1... .t.) ' el 1 . C:' t. . z' .. ... fi i ',.)
1 U t . t..: e

eu = e

--' t. e - s Z 4... -c3 ,e, i.. 0 .1 c., /4 4) 4) ) ,-. Z Z0 fi, fi `r.,


a) (1,a

0 ''"% . '''' .%; ,.., , ,iire.'9 . '47 % 3 , .i? ,3 --, or ti 2 ee 1 e Z


:1

tu

ex> `t3 r...

o e 4 o <1 t3 e <3
cm ){ t3 -) -. .-. Z. Z .) P I..

-.." e e "es ,,... t .o, t.e, -.. z., .. ., - ..... tzt . 7 ss .. 1 0. ... 2 (:; ....) ...... _ ,,,, t . . Ci I ''.. `---. il 'es -,% -=' . ..les 0 LO) ..-.
--. Ca L.) ti
11

4 1 ,t3 , q, ,. 1%..)

t :3 0 e ., U

. ,1

S e 3

.. .z 0. .. .

`ei Z I `

Cr 1 'il Ct Z,. /4 , 1

...,. zt -.., ,, ---.-, e., . z....`


t1

z) ...0 c),. ,.; >c ,, z it:2


r

.. ,,, .

" e

'V

'?1 u e

4:Z,

11

: 4

'. , fi 11)
* ;.4

'Z3 ,, II
0 0 k. ..0 k.b

04 0 E

.... k. '') 7 :7 '41 e cle '5> - tl ';'

ki

0 e c.) e .le t.) ,

) . i ( .. ) ,

....

le tu a..,,:j O -.... -- u .e t) t
,,, E

rd > .6 t 0 2 4 ''' e u

-. 'g =

e (..) ' 2) 41) e 0 .4 c0 ....


Cr 1

C. ..,, .0 e
u

.c -0 e -0)

4)
,

>

e .- v, 0 c o
0 .,D
e uu " 4 '...., "n '.' ' -. 4 .t > n ' . '. e 1 0 01 , z S (o ) e 13 =' . 4 8:5 = o =
e)

cd C)

.0

4) .4)

= e es g 'V 0 o > - et ; E .a .0 ,1 9 : 0 0 te) c.) es ..: ,,, u c e c.) .1.-. u e '3.) ., 0 = = 3 ,-. ci) u 5 O= ca th E . - e ..I e u 0 : ci .-4

,... u e..) ...= &) 0 -0 c e or u) Ta. ' a u b 1.el.) > > d 0 cd g

*- cd .3 c.) e ,...

". .0 C e d c)

il ( r.1

t) g 0 C-) ms u .. .0 c...0 -o cn u '5 -eu .-. .... a) le ..-, t) U :=


b., 0 0
0

^C

-. 0 . .7.: C g -

o cts _ cr r, AL) .... ...q .1.) 4-. g .< o n 0u


0 ' "'

4. 5 s' ,-t--. ' 0 E '10 -0 CI ,72


ct G cd cl. 4.1 ,.., -> .... ..0.) cy, . 0 4) et)
-4+

cd = cd c.) g .eu _
y

u "0", c

c ..,
0u
0 cl ci

5 -0

C.)

t) b .0 fi 1"1
a,.,

1..

,..,

t: fi M "C1

.P.. -2
1 (1

c a)

e u > 2 C. c u ).< 0 e <:, 0. Q. 5 ,-,...,. 5eE

' in. ' 2 4>

u n

te

. V. 1) 1I 1:2 l 1" e 0 e ce a ,; (1 4 .0 r ve c e :,7.. . . ,.. . = . 4- 4) -g 1.-. * . cd o ..; :_. 4) a -ce 0 ,.. CL ,jc, CL c ..a. .e2-0u. 0 ,...
0 ..... 4.) ) i... > >>, i.... 4)0 t. c.) ra "0 0.'0 4- 0 CA ...... ." 0. 5

0 es

1... Cil
l:L'

.2)
le

c,:
4>

0 e
0

'0 0 1... e -^-, s-. 1C - t e ,i 5 z = O c.) 0 .0


c g te e e tu 7,.' = =a 0= ... .. O l O -0 -0 1-4 4

1., le

,,,,,, z . ci 4) - r) c c
4. . el

0 4)

0 1...

.0 0 t "0

4.) cu L4
0

0 = 0 CA e 0 1.. Q 2) 0 .... > ej le

t, ...

441 cl k.... .-..

0
0

2 ,...

e le le

4.) 4.1

0 o C 0.. t) cd

u E .,;-: -c) %1 ....., ,

e (...)

4...) dl4.. = .. r s mi ..!c.) c5 .4.,


7:.., 0 r .... % U

0. 0 cr 0 r) g 2 e 0 e ,,, .--. >e la. "' u 0 u c `0 g 4.) , e ---. 4.) 0. 01) 4, 0 4 o "0 1-, 5 5 e 4..) <-) cn ` ,.71 -, ccs --.-z. 0 u
e lle .%) 0 ....'

CA <A y 0 S.. 44- ,-...

-0 , e ,..., c 0 g 0 O c fi .

eJ

. ...... su z, 1-. ,......9 .a.) ....

c1 ,

4) e. C/1

't_. 0 E E

u .9 .0 2 -' a.) c .5 cd C 0 , .0 0 ..-. 10 ,,, . . . . u z , , u = 6 , n 2 d u ==, a) ,..., c.) 8 cl u ,..., cd


0

, . :u -. 1:1 1:1 s.

......

el .2 re >

....

1-4

243

..-,. ..a n 13 0 1 n e

':, u l 1'

.te

*e 2 e .5?: 0 ..
0 ..... 4 l
e D :::: tz
CJ .,.

1.

z xt, mt,

V 0 o. . it. 0 --.. eu. >I G o. g n 0 gl.


I-.

. .e= e ,.) Cn. cd .. I... ... = ct el


O

S.. e 5

ere 0

0 ii, e e,.. '; 41 es ,.. tO O 0 ..e e ., ., ,... ...,. c, 'e n:4 , -' c, C4 .e. t :e .... r 04 .., 1"? es . ", , 04 0 ..... u S. '4 ..t. 4
..... In .1, .

/ g _... e
t

ee 1 t.4

1 ,.

....

ca e  ... "es z,

c.% e e .e 41 ' e -Z ,,, ''' 0 ... ., a >o


.

e
e

... e ,, , . ,,L. e gb

.."

- ,.., .,-,, , a , a) ;... 1 7-4 .5 *.e ... n @, .. it ea. gr t g e .. = = """ mu .?:, 5 4, 0 'D i. 0 0 CI. .., -. q. > , .e 0 1.e re) 4 . 8 -0 el ' > o ., u -cl . r .2 = -,11 cr 13 - cl = e R 0 03 cl .e ' (.) . g a Q i 1 I p., 2 1., .0 cl- g
1

. 0
0 el

crne

e = le 1 r

4, "... r) e :'

3 5 0.) > e o 1 ;/ .ci 2 2 0

a. l e Ce me = =e8 me a cu - t a a) , . . >.. , l . .f ,9 .44 l E N.. c ..4 0. L. e , es e e u c e c., 0 .. g ,., 0 0 . 0 ! ..... . ; . C0Cl e g s- tu 4)


tIl

..

P.. '

ee

'tg)

0 ,... .4'. = 1) .4., mi : 41 0 4) Q : V4 4 .0 00 e: tri : 6 : 41 :: nr ,: : et e <L c f. t e . 0 .,J =) ,...


a1 1 il .0

2 e le 0 .,..., $-. a

ez
O ..e
1

0 cr

e. 0 t

L. ao o

:4. *4-. ' e a...

c 4e 4.1 CI = 44. Q a. qie . a 49. 'e e oh u a .-, 0 ,

01 0 , e 0 "4. u

.0 -4 0 n u u 1-. 719 0 u rz 44, ce ..., U 4


CA

e . ,..1 = r e 9, c.-. e U0Egile

e e 4, ..--#

i". 04 el

..., .... ta. ,.., 13 ,,, e ,.., o a , e -a e , = u 0.0 e ..= 1:0 Q. 00 = 440 l t< 0 e U e e e r.:, -.., p 0 e . U ru ..... = U el p d ce 34) 0 e cxr
s

e -ce

.0 1.- v, .9 `d, :r.s . 17. e

-'

.b.p

ee e ..._ ,Q. k a ....., , t>0-' 2 ... u zIt ... n;:

o 1. 1 +4 0
0

aa

=
t,

u,==
a x ;..3
CU u Q

e 4t 1

o, .... sa E . 0 o

= 0 =
1...

le v ce

'0.U 5* u0 a 43.1
C
e

15

QI c. 4.,
.....

Al U

a o o

e , ,.e 0
C.) C.)

e ..er. 2 ri
64
E Tl c.? ..-

43 e CU e

) ce :1.

=x z

= 0. 4 ,... ).. 4, e g; i..1 e el. ... nEe a e O Q.1:3 c 4 me a

Ce

I..

4.) 0..) 0 p.4 = E O

> a

- nt 2 e ' 4 r C? ! 5 ! =

e4

i e lo o. :vo -o : : eb
u L. o

4. u ik. u ,t 2 ..., izt . ., a ee


hl

u ., 4. Zit e.4)
--

l.

tU th& ..0

eu '4'1 %I
,

o.

2 e
le

2 e e ,i
v

z e

4. i

e.1.

6 ttei

tu cr cy,

'- g

e4 .e.. .

..,..a t . e m :Z 1:141:3 o e c+ 1-. be(c. e q , -.... \tu ::-.--- c,,. -. :,.. %


c) ., "a ..t.
... tr .'" - -.. stu

IZI ) 11t 2 e:r ' ,

,3 %) t. e -0 Cr ,,

n . 'n ,. u e te ' a e ei

'nC

, ,3, , .., , .
tu e

iz..
.> in te n. tu .... t.e .14

tu k,, d ri s

,..

le

3.4.. c4 Oet:4 ., , :t ,. z.. % :--4 e0 .z3 .' c..a t) ". ' 0 ig

-0 %qt, e t..e e ,...

..! zi, in .!' ts ..e , a .5 ck, e ., . .2 l E o U ej ee e t . e 0 .. >le *Z is.,.* k. 's - e ..." .., u . sa . -. o e t',",,. *- I- D' e 'e. cu >e"e, eu :1 ( D Q e i> X) %eu ,,, a, 1;2 "U . eu t z ' t ''. b.0 t %
- % 2 '1 '.
,

4.- -e eu e er, u 1e 4 i t e 44"es ..,. :, ,,,, ..e .7:. a a %, ....

^ e.) n et -, %, ,..

4 e "4

,3

lu -te t: ,-, c. ,

-2 ... ,,,, ,,,li , ,.. e 0 ., , -, 1 ..... ., z -, 2 1

e , Cs 3 .-. 7 -- qe 4.) r._ .D . .., Q, ---, ....

'

e:;z:
Ok

r e

P ee le.
e e

eE
e

..-.

11

te e --...... Z t .... . cyleu -1 z ,.... ., tr c3 Z ' e4) ti '.... , ,k; '.i) ... eu 41 , e
00 1:l 0 t'A (li e: ' to ,, a .... _ z , . l 0 Q Qt
u
, .. .e o,

.11 e (.0. 1u . 0 ';e ii 1 ,.. ;t: .> t . . ,..... -,3 .e , e o . u .a. -o -. e ... - ,.... , z1 To) ) rr,e e e'5%, z a 2, e.: ;it ....e , .. z rc.,
.

,,,,3

e te, ,n Z e* 3 Zr 14,, ,32 te, i 8... = / : .4.4 C4.1 m. j .+ 1 ' t el ''. ts .z.4 -e. - zi ,... Q. '... ' ,t % ,, E.tc 0 ..,% 0,. 'czt ru 4-, k. .11 0 .44 .444. Cli .... a .... ,1 tu ... te a -- r- * t., '' 4- s- e 5 .. o e., 'e e et e ,,z, te M .2 .et t e. 'e sL t .. 4+% L) 0
e 'e3

I.. .441 p . ' ,zt 4 t.) '*:

cs t..

.,
In

o ., E %; **. , ci .r, .*l.l

e .. a, es (.) te ts -.. .e

'..1 -, . , fz, ... : ..5.t , e ,t IL 53., ... .., , _. _ c., ,. .,- izt e -. .., .. -ze , ... .., e . .a4 . u .4e e a ..e. -t:{ zt .., , , QL, r Q j :e e , -, o , . ...., Q. a e *ts 2, ., q e %,,, - z m ., - e , ,,, - , "zt ,-. ,. -= i., %, .....,-, ' z: `i sa cs 4'1' ,.! u,,, u k ,,a .; .e t: ... -tu 2 ',3.4 .syr .... ,.. ..., c , .!..) ty p w2 e , ., 1.. h . 2.. .. 5a 3 t c> = Ce Ze. L 4 .> * 4.
k ' :;) .e col P el

e ,,,, , e .% . .0 Cy

. 4 . "k.S. , V3 '..... .b: .C.

,o. n z.. th, 4:3


1..,

z
I..

"I 47 P qil 10 ' C:11 '.' m ...t .3 , e. ... ,e., . ih. ".

0 ....
, .. e .;

. .4 ... . " E o 2 Q.
o.ua e ee
. k C tl (el

izzi

4 (-) 4t *

(..)

. 0 e .... . 0 z

1 '

I:
F

. o. u o

c.,, t,,, "e t,, z 1... )... mc. 3 e 1 ,,, te a,-... * -* ul c.. lu tl.. 'a mu a..2 " 'et "
,,,

244

u0 0 u r, 1:1 0 = (le 0 stli 0 = y = 43 te. . . u .... de = .... ,-. , -0 zr -a. 0. g) /. RI e C. ,3.. ) 17 a co g' tt) el a 0 , t ... ) 4) Cr '0 G.,r3 . ( G G el e th 4 O. 0 3 e r, 7 a O tr e. 0 6 L) .. 0 0 0 ,.. _ <, 0 -5 t; u o e e eti I"' cr ........ E RI (..) g) >< 4) 1 0 o ii 04 Ti cd e -0 c V a tgt G ' o Im 0 te .- .1.. ' ) DO u ri0 0 0 .z1 -0 u - ., 0.e 4.), su MT .,,s, `U 8 e 0 U a 0 te,-. 1 .e (-) .,e1 u C el 0 G 4.1( L. E e 4 -2 u C e 4 0 I.1 ,., u . * 4 , E 6 ,,,. _. 014 . 4/ ,.. RI 0.3 . CI u , I Q t> ..., , a 3 ' cd "Cj 0 ,... ..0 . ? .." oc G et. et cci 3 cy KI/I .4.) 00> ..... ,u 44$ Io 0 = mi LI CJ 9:1 04.1 fl) G 7:1 Cl t e2 Cl > = G I. 4.d a .0 su 4) 'u e 4 c.> o - u tr. 0 u e c 0, .. 0.1 . 2. g, CI re e C) .,. . .. , 0 ...e ).. a I. Z ' u 4 .'du 2 no 0 .o .o su ei) 4 Ch I CI u 0 I 03 p.13 .1n* a su ... a.. P. ., -a e, = .... a 0 izi . cl Ge .. .. tr. 0 V) 4 = = 4, " 4) O.ttI . Ce c 0 u te% ei t.4 0 ... = 0) 0 0) 0) r C.) ' C 0 va 4.0 9 0 e el a 5 e - `d. .0 0 .- e 4) 0 ;.. .. c. 4. = 6) / 0 - rc, L 4.4 0 " '-4 0 '. u tA e 0, 4.) II-. u e c Ab '..= .4 , . .E. as ,.. a 0 o u ...4 ;:c om >u -ee cl E 4 . e -e 0 0 .,sz eig e = en u Cr MI ).., = ei - .,,, - ' 0) v El.. ..9 5, .... .a e e e 0 (e) e tz tu c cd a' a le ..14 ir, e co 7)) .= ..., = . ..... . 0 Ae 0 ,-; X.at - = :7.. - 0 = w a>-, 0 -0 ,e, ee ... E xiP rs- A u 4,.... u a- cu su 0 u 4.0 t) e 0... + 17 "Cl tA u t 4.> I. ... "G a Q= 0 (DO Ind a e, o z Ir 4) 4J .e E ir) ` .(1 ,,,, ,--, u 0 Cl' . E - ii... , le .e G u ... u 'a t) cg 1::1 , ^01 '"'. ../ If) le .... , ci. e a c . .,,,, 'tri t o '... ) tt.) ,,, 4) 4 ),..1 -te 0 ,4 C.) o. z crq: )4 ;.1c.) e.: 0 I: . 8 ei=. >, 8., ' -i t 6... e...1 ..0 = a ii,s 0 ..= < el X > u Cl .0 ie C.) O c).TiU ,...
(t

au

a .0

5 .,?:, 7 i > mi c)

5 ,_ 0

= e

.... e V

O 0 ....,

21

el 0

0 ). ce o
1...

0 Z ' 5 0 c >.

> 10

au

.0

g > 10

el

.cd

el al U Cr

. F u-0 <,,

_ cr.

Y..

=8

1:j

rf

gi

0.1 0) ll$ 1 4

711 EC g ..... ../ 4-,

eg .... _ , e
4" 4

_,. t...

to

. (1) 43
0 ,... >
0

52 t st
.q S . t:11" c '
0.

, c

ni

- e 4.) 0 td-o MI 4) 0 , e 0 ... u ,_. .13 CU 0.4 et/ -{- = oU 4. = ele .Z

,,,i el C ci) el 0- . 0 , u . . . a ., e e 0 , ,.., E ' t


C 'el G te, e .0 a ,, on
.0
4)
= = 0

_o u o C.) c'e
a

44044 CI G e 0 e eu . 0 be e '' .. 5 : c e ....g .1.4 ....- . ,,,,


"

0 ).. cl u >.t
..Zl)

a e
C.)

et N G.)

;2) g

ci ms
t mi .0

cci u 0

n1 0 el N 0 lj eu mu 0,

.. 0212. .. ) urrAe, 1 E a e . o .., ..f.,' 1 'cob 0.1. .

,-. 4 ,4, Cd

ic tu cd 1.....-.
a

a " a E a u ...c I.cn ..o .


s ,,,,

e "0 ;. U

2 0, a "a -

,,e ne u

CU me ni

*,

ce cc>0 il
.1)
-

a s ' . u rr, l.,

4: o.

a o

mi

e Cl) . i

ii. 5

o a 2 ... du a e cn 0-> 'ni

0,

de

.., ......

ca.

a
..C1 . >.

.0

.4 a

2 0 0 0
z

g 4e,

.4

= po

a cd

8,

$: Fr e . , c t 3 I;2= a) , to _ 5 , .I . ., 2 E 1 t r u u cl t . l (,) -0 . e > ca :j 9 . 4, mi u 0 .a 0 PMI 5 0, 2 2 -es _ o ,-., .5 .M e = .0 c I. ,t) * c V) ..- e g ee U 1.4 '11; U -o

2 0 4- 0 'g cd
7 0

= el R1 e e z ce .0 c c.) z; i0 s Cl .o g, 0 ..a () e o.

&, e Ti ,8 0 8 e
u ,u e ..-. o
C ,0 o., o.. e 2 col il

,,,. % u u
.1

o e 0 0 0 0 ..._, z cm ....) u5

=2

e c I

Ci

r,e,

y,

E 0 mi .,t, ,

,-, ..

c,> "e 0 .4

. u ... U
2

,5 5 g '..z

a a ..4.) .. o o c.)

245

bD
0 0 a > ne
0

411 U 0 l ..
3 .i..0 '''

5 0 15 ,,
e

mi > 8.,
u O

-0 0,
#) 0

4-4 su cu

0 v)

..a. G) ,... -ci u .-. .:.: a 7" a ni 0 Ur. e .2 -,

..

0 . , ...0 .). c: :

...' 2,

cl -0

'0'
. a

al e -
e

"0 ..., (...) U 2 .0

cd 0 ci 4

E .u g a. 04, e
es
e

a.) .. I-. <,1 0 , 0

,.. u

O u

e 0 0 0

5 a) ... u .!
4 -0

et

Okcil .1 1 0 2 ,, 0 -,

e ..., ,

u-... u 0 E 0 -c ` 0 u et g q a
03 t 1... c's la. e su e
r

et.,,,, z. -: 0 0.
I. 04

Lo U U I-.

0.. te 00

M y

u 0 ct; -0 , ,. 0 0 ....-... :75 s., ;.. ,. a) a ,,,

41)

..... _

-0 u
tb 1o YI ". 0 ad , e3

,d, .. Q 0
.... :..0

g :0)

"

=a
a

a: t

,a) .o

s. ,u F ,. 0 a .
cs . 4))

e rJ u g : . .c . . e 1= .. ,-,.2 0 cn st) c:

..8

n4..t.' Q .... et 1:1 cn


MI

3
N

3 ^^ sa) ..., u 4....., c ... > . ..,


.42 n

...,

4 e 4-4 > 0 00 4... O ) OS .._>. 0 e 1. 0 U le...-.

0 0 ,-.. , 0 t) tu

, <.,, .... 00 . j., 0 .,r, eu i


Zy

v) ..
0

>4

= .-. u 17 fl e
e

.... 0 > . t u e .c., -- 0,. i- , 1

en

0 4,)
C

=
l

me ,... , zu eu

cu

cl
O VJ

O V

c 9 L e cr e ' e

Cr

-.

on 1-.

O ,e "te se ,
y
CI + 5

CA

6. U
,

Ie

ce'r) &) e Y a .0 -.
g.) 0

el.)

I: u .0 '" 5

U su 4) e ,1-)

*r... ce = a

4.

....

'8

n4

4-#

u 0

i.

e( 4. $1 a)a oc ee50"e (;) a YI) 0 "Cf ni

Q 04 . u _. a a. 0 G y 7; 4>
4.-4 0 el u t. 4) 4' 0 .0 'y U 0 4.) 1... .

= a> r
U .d

465 ni

. U

e) >N

a
r. g'E a',
Cu, 0 gr

ue :7: : 'a

kt

e 6, . -0 i..

Ot

M e

Ti

e 0 y e ,.,

^0
.

4e "zi

cr e .o

e e

ae a> .
e e

y -0 u 5 er
le .-

tir)u Q - . e a 8 e no
e

gu2 e a) le e

c.) Io
...

no E ii a ,g,-, ...,..,.;-; = o.0 0 0 0 r3 ej e u u .,


0 ot an

' 1 U te4

CL

u *a all 0 o :... .

2 0

e 6.
"1:1

a aB
. At

4. -. .

"0

efj

e .0 0 0 .44) 0 0

.4
0.

M "e .5

.1.) 0 "IP, 4., Q ..." 0 e -, ) ...-_, ,

,u

41

..0 ..-4 0 4.) le 4.4 10 --' .... ly sej tA ^1

CI

e a 0 0 4.) '...1 4-4 0


u
... te

Ci el.

e"
.e -. 41i

e go e u
irj

GO1

Cr

0 0 r.e, CI

me cts
ho

ci '' E

es g .
..

0s 0

cl.

1 ->, a .4j 0
-

44 0 0 0 0 0 4.. 0. .n. k.

cr. Ci e a

......

44

e,

0 .0 ,_

.. e ,

b , = " f 0 et a..;' 0.0 se) al) ,... 0 Se .... 0 0..... 0 ^. .... 0 ,u GO '"" 0 _. 0 0 1.., p 41. CI m C1 *. 2 . Si :fe eej a .... ettl - 0 u .5 s.," s 1. ..... u__. e tr. .... ,.. .5 . .

ed

4)

El i. ,y `04 4 ee 0 ' t iel. ..4,0 . ... 1: 71 4 eel


6 -a..

" ,,,,,

el 11 = 0 '-' el U t.a 0

U rt

. 01 . ' ` r, CI
Y1)
el

0
C o e Y y
se)
u o

0 0 l E 7 :

C) U

ne 1-
u

A gr <

= b y sa.) 0 A4 :., < -o a:

a b ._

le

:5 ,,, I,
le

44

e '-' 0" 0 444.4

su e

..sp ,,,1 a .e u cl --- :0 = Irl L


,

' M "iii u 0 Or el n 43

s O. cti ,.

4":l ).0 01) ia. .... 4.)

st g, 0 0 y ..., e

a.

ee
0

1... 8 ,,,
0. ce e 4. cn `e ei

c1J ...) .,

o 4 ^0

00

A< E

8e

5 ; ,1 a

- 0 u=0 .. 0

n i El aO ;

246

-ci e

ci

e ' 2
, e 0 . . 0

g c ci . . g 1 mt)
,

4.1 .40 '0 4


4)

0
u

1=1
cd cr o

i "0

U e .
.

.... g

0M0

cd e

0
i''
.

ce co ...es
.....

C.1)`0 CD t: = Ce re
44

cd

,3; e r.
0

i m

o e 0 o

0 e tA tz..
...

u s.0

cd

g 4r, ,4 '1 = GA
4

-0

..m . tc

. ... Ei u ozT,
b., 1..1 1 *
eL...4.,
4

1-
1.., . > -
e

c ..e
U

-. t et te

g 5 b.4 .,. ,:,, .0 u ,.., .-.-..., -0 O 6 u vl .


ni Ca4 L.
ee

I. Q 4)

- tA n , erd> 4..) I, , 4 0 0^ > '


r
0

ees u

e e ne

to-

ess c

40, 0
6.)

n
su 0

su

64 .,., , "..A ... /0.1 .. m 44 =

e -k ) 'tu

- e e

I-e

0 4. 4 Ci ,c1 1..
s+ 0

t.. 2 2 E 0 e , u ,0 0 O/ j C 0" g
41

t ,, C ri

: "..

col

0U
e. 6)

e ce e

0 e e t-. u a u 0 d el)

oue.)

5u
E

F.. ..

....>

Cr

c e4 cre

4 .1

0
I % 5 cl u l e ' ) 1s e . :1 2 1 ..,

.. e cd 0

_ e 0" g Z Q' o cci c.) ..... U ;.. cg mi .0 ..ci io. tu 'e e .'n .-. n. u t id e. cd ce1 (-)' 0 g

. 4.1 ....s g 0

mi 4e 0 4: u

e1 GA Q ..."2/ (J u el W e 0 Q tej 0i) "Ci 6,, LI . -4., 0 U 4.) e I. = ...4 U a

cn 4.1
'0 U
0

u u u i, ; ci cd Io - 1.
- 72' e 2 . .--, 1r, 6. 1.4 FI

,e . ,

_. ;...

G. u
i ' ' 'L E

,n m 0.0 0
0 cl a

._. ,r.
,

. ri g. 0 z 0 ... .... or ei, e .e

11 1...4 Mt t)

r.

. = e

is.

e cd it, ca c.

, ,.. 6 ..., ..; 41

ct. )

ci
4,

.,a 0

5 4J

4.1 c tu LI

=.C 0 0 Q 0 = so. VI
ro. cd mi te

u ++ el) -

g C.) E i c

-uoeco-

, .., e , . -,

e 0
9

,...1 .2 ..o )...., r. ,,,i E .2 ..1 L. 1 cy e i

0 d 0 C.; O.

is. ,.

,... . 0 cd

e -0

4 - - su . 0 0

.... 0 c g (.) g g t...... "*. 0 4> "....

g ee 0 6)

.1 .0.) C -

d) ..e/ .0 cn

0Q

0 el> 0 C.

,,, ..., x ..`e e 0 U E 1:1 4) . - 4.) U ... i... 1. e


0

. .

. -o 6 ...: u - o nt .d '.'.; ., '- ty .ftz. ,..... E t . 0 u -. ,......


0 s

0 ee+ e.s " +-e , .0 d e 6) u 0 oi a...0 0

,tj +.+ 0 0 0 ,-. cd te ) cl e u ..... cd e

Cl t g "0 .... c

. C u

72 i:3 vi ,..
0

,., o 6 > a 0 ni '"' .z . ..,?,'i o. o, ro u . 7a.0 5 et vl tl) b 0 u u e > 0 ii g tu

.... .= 0 >
c

,.#., , 1 g

0., 0 g, u le

y? E .-. = u V <I> g g --,, > 0 0:1 0

31)

'0 g g

o' e U s.. d>


c....

<'

' I 4) e ti l e ZZ el c u e . g 1... E ut 4>


t.. 0..

;El e e QI UUri

I, tr .4- Cri Q

o e <,)

= 7:74

2 -0
eu

ci> cl

E cl

= 0

V) -,a 0.) tm .5

C. ci
el VI U e o e ei. 5 el 01) "a
-i

0 ce el) el ...) ..... e "0 'S e e oe > c e e . -..

,(...) ..

e .". e e eu e mi c6 g e 6) 0 de 1.. +a. 0 cl t' 1... +0 s - ,-. 0 n cr e 2 0 C > ari .,., 0 e

ecp e u -0 . e = ,..r - s" '' E x ,... 0 u .2 '6 L u te, ,,e fa. eeco '
)

,_, .4) '.., -. 8 u o -cte>' ,,

g) Cr ....s .4.) c , t.. G 0 ';-.. O el) , 0u A y 0 '') c.-. L.

00 . , e. g 7 .8 '0
o

,..... ,,, o u o ..t.

. , u e c., su ....o. e
- rj 9 .. c

.. cl 8 , ie g i ue '''... 1 ' ci .5 ' 1 . .2 0 tnm ,.....1 u.... O. 0 w

1 84 e ,.., I' ..) o j <g ,... r-, -0 ...Lu cr i g ,u c


-

L:, ae o lao cr c) ,, e C u u ,/, ce u e z > e ...4 0 - 0 VI e u t


rzt

,,,, C ^,... g 1./ 4.) ,, = el 0 0 "r ) , .--. a1'0 4. I . .9 j j s- o0 ' 00


4)

t) . , = 0 ea

De =

0 ci 1:1

0 ...

0 =

0 ci
e

CU

= ....
g C

td) IO 4.>

4)

..".. 60

0 i....

O u

u e 1ri e) ..

<1 v,

= --. t ...,, 0w. Ce 1 -- CO ., CO./ ci> .....


le 0
u rj

7 .510

...i

tu 0

r_. '4) I? ic -ci el

a4u)

0 < 1 .1> O c... - ,-. cy, c1.1 .... U C

....,._ c.... .. .22

U
j 5

U c; cd C = .a.)

..

42

--- 4' 'i'.. ., .9 .1.5 .,-,1 70 c,, Cu g , = `6 e e ul i n ' 00 . $ c` et t. 2 r) M


tq 4 = r = 4 U

ei e 0 4) ..... _. '5 0 0 2

0 ..""

I: 0 0 1=14 0

Ca 4. g g .r . L.. CI .... .5, et e.) CL. U 1 5

00
E o et
O

88

5C

n:1 0' .2

1) o -0 * .

`'"

247

u o
0

,,,, u 0 0 = u cr 0 C 0 bl) c "Ci ' .9. v; ,t, u = e a = ..,1 4) - .... Mi = ..... 3 - 0 _le, 0 ...1
0

1 2 cd ce 6. 74) L6) s 6) bi) y . ty) Ch U le U t... 0 0r. = e 0 I.-. 1 . 0 ... 7 : ., 0 n Cl nt , " . 4) 0 0i0 (i.) -,0 C M g ..i . -0 L.. cj cr E; " -0
-

y e . . 00u

..,..>. ..,. .) ..,

,,)

-s t Ct al

vi se 0

0 C

,rd u .!". "" 5 e e 5 cn ss.., eu e e e, a t... ...... u r: 't - Cl '1 I) u "4 ( i. . . g) ..... g y 1... ' ' o R V ,..., "' al ) e e Ict !,... ... e l . .,
0

01,.... U

el "0

a a. r.' .. e .. en -0 :c5 cr e 0 c41


z

. = 4. = p u UU 0

0 >

Ci

4.)

0 u
e.)

= I-. cd = a 2 o

V 1 ..0

- w 0 0 = , .

ld L. >, 1! .e,

os 0

'a' u 0.

> el .... -

7 60 0 ti

X (0)

..0 6) , t D. .4 Q 1... 0 0 0 = c ,r) 0

7 ci 0 0. . -, `") 5 = cl. ti) 'Cf 1... = E 0 E - -> 42 e o ie, cu - na o to y - 'eu _ ..... u cl...h., ; e 0. 1... > ti) c 0 C st> a. e er E 0 ,., y .... u e a %-. i... 0 .is .,.. 0 elle 4, C iz = ...... el _ce u e. a = '-- 4 ; . .
0 4

0.)

el) 0 (1) u 0 F:: , 0u7Uu

Ce.

o e .r,
i lcjA:1 s u

..

6)

en

4.) .4

) Cr

se mi e il
>

E v9 0 e eu E U + o o lu Cr, e o 0 ,-. 0 .. = 0. . 0 = 0.4rt 0

4.1 .

1:3, -...

.__

0 ..
u

ri,

,../ U u "Cl 0 ....1


0

ce, <0 ). .-

a e cr

u = = en x y 1:2 0 mg ci 0 01 U t"' Cl .,... = = 0 .... = C

e es 0 0 u a se o

12 ,i ce. ` os Cl a x t / a , 6) i.... o e en - m se e ou ho I) a 1... o a 0. 0 ..... -.. , 0 Ch y e 0a..z. eu a e a. Le :D-E .... u z, 0 0 Le Ei v. 8 ,,1' ., c, et, .0 0 css ,). ,,e e e.. u 0 n Ti e IL) -se ce -. o ezczi t ) , U 0. 6) = 0. d ..... 2, -2. >.. .1. ta -a 4) VI a E ',I e Fe g <, ... . -. -. 0 tz -te> 0 10 h.
.-.
1

0 V O oi

...I

A V = = 60 Q 6) .,.
.M 0

4) --. 4) S .. en Ca0 ,.= e... c... = CD

eu

-0 , 0

4)

sa)

=
0

... u . . ci

0 .I 0 ''.. " ".

6) 0 =

'-.

ea -0 Ei

CA 4.) 4> 0

-9

cd le S .... =
r)
e tu

en Cr = ''

e 15

el -LI (el e.) 0 .. el ) I 1.

i)

0 .

e = 0 ty.. ar , s%

E E c

4 0 .1) 6) -0 G.) a 6

eu u mina e lu; ae -a , ci o ca.e t... te = a 0 o e :=-.. y a t eu 9 ' 19. el F' - , cl o u - e -o -0 I) , u u L ,r a -2 b . 0,e - g e; "i; a _. L 0
tA

e e .._. us .... ua o a 0 . - se ie) ce ss uuecr..ea el ,e ue= ..... 1..... c 4) me


ee

cc 0 ... co . 0 0 0, y 4) .^. a 0 e 0, ta.0c6) .......... e (1 .- e T., 0 . -. u 0 -- :+ u o (.15 4: .. 2 1V.. -0 u 0 5 ll ;,E, e... - 1.... ) 4:i 10 7 .-. - r5 e , ee el 4. 0 u _ te. a = 1 ~Qy e e 4,;, 1 . : = 4, p. > = il) 0 e 04*, e , se

, m ....

0 0

C 4> N

ii)

6.0

'a

g .u 0
7 0 0 Cl s u

:2 tl i:. e,

= = e vf A.

8 7,1 u

-,,, ; ..e
0 .1 0 *U

= 0 0 2 0

u
0

or
7

a 0

a or Li,

61 VI

41.
ej

..., 4.1 1 0 ..a a ej , a _, y at y .p. CA os e 0. 0 -. 2, a o irt


1

2 o ID .E,
- 1-1

> .....

a se 0
n.
0 0 ..... 0
t a El 4 El

1:0

a.) tu 0 0 ci () 4) ......, -.0 2 2 ,Io ru so 0 ''''' eu U c.-- do +- - ... (n ....

4) a 0 ,) e o....... .,_, ......


M
c

se E .o e '? 0 u v, 'c e ..-- u e e'l a e o tl a u ,t1.) - iC ..g 6 e a .6.. 4 a 1 .. 0 , , , 0 Ce est = tu.-- .1: eu a> o m .4.) %-..e e ...... 'IC u
..
1) ee

ea

0 , cl U

ell gu u v. a 0 -0 60
fa
44 El

1M

uU

e,

e%

ci ,..., a

.e e ,..... e I) e , .i 0 _ _., 0 ci t": a 0 cej C


{. v)

ar

. MM ..
0 "

C CIS v)

r:

k.d .
E
el

(J e 04 0
0

c.. .....,-., . . = . , L. e a ar
0
cu

41 .u v,

= = a) : 0 .... uuU ,... kk) KI *73 e el I " :...' : ''' : E Cr 0 -0 t .. : ._., ..te te \ 0 20 4) *". , V u 0 ux r,i .... 0 0 .. 0,,

0 0 ei ce, ma
Ir fa

.32

" kk)

_ .r.: .;,-,. w el ,,, <il

tr il.

.... .- 4.

eu e

os ce t .1 e
=

a. 2 .
0
ci,

g ...., ;, ,, ,..1

se 27 ,i i.. ..... 0 os VI
-

a) 0 C v2 "0 Ch

> ,..:_,

., %-.

CM CLI GU k el. 191 Ck le

ce I r u 0

...0

o .

.0.4 r)

0 e' 5 %. , ". : . : C (/) .2 z u el il e 0 u -; mi

-1

e le

4 2 Ig 6)

1)
ca)

el

sti

e c u 01 sec-. e c, ,-. ., eu e..... - g t) , ,..... CI 4. 0 e, rez , 4,5 e .- a e 0 a -9 2 .cr a C0 tu 1.) = CI. ''' n. -) n

5 Ce

= cu
E

o u ao u

e , e

e o et.4 -...

248

. ..) =0 . -0u0u u . -0 . . 0 ,. u E r. u u q.,

e cr.:. .

g) ,.. g) -,, g) 4 t)..-.. 0 .U ).t


e

t
e

.c)

fa.

u su

D = 0 (u tu) o P. u cr
0

Cr s gi ,,eu

.. ..'" 0

o o.

7,) g

0 .,, ,...9 ._ s., u .e , ... ,.., .., a., s. 0 --,;- , p. s.,... 1..,, tu .... O 0 . 0 ._ 4.. .... fi cl 04 ci. u 0 .,-, .... . . ,,,..._ = ... '-' 0 0, 1... Ce '-' e a..e 4) e x ...: cl fi ,...1 ei 1.,
6... el

, 2 e U u 0 ,,. cr i_ sTe e .., 4 e7 u E e '''' 0, 0 = e e e ). %9... ' e e e " s izo -. * cn 4 g) 0 i .4 5 tn ,. z = = n 0 = % ti U ..Z.. . ,. h , , . e ,v .,. t. ... e ' c) e e u e

F.

ce -ci u su d) e` r, en 1.. ,,3 .,,,3 1r I:, ,... -&-; N' u 'u cn 0 u e e en bo eu ,> ci) u, . U cl el U -4 --. 4-. --) eu o a. I- le ei.) c., -, cl> 41 cri (11 6.) "fi tu .' ...., u U

4., o> - .-

l Z

0 L..

r.", -,:t * 6.) - - .., 0 g) = in -cl 9 ts e . n3 . E z1)..M .,..,, , . e, 0 u z i= rl e e cn u "0 <., 0 ,... , , U 7 ,
U)
`

Cs e, le 1, a tt e

e .....

e )1 > 5 cl ,-, i, 5 - .

0 es ..=

fi

'''''

tee

16... k Ct : Q .

1)

, Cn .." ". -. >. pu '

._

.f -.. U .C) 0 0 , e4 .... tu fi %

2
e e

Ct, ,(1 .) 4) = . 5
Li1

00

- , ci ou r- 0 ce3 cn su
.' '-' .
P.
ei

t:

Cf

- e '-' e eu g3 ..fi 2. U e.

0 0 su 1... a

r,

... .

tt

- i..

. a 7 e

et., u
e ' -Pe b..

"Cf E ;fi u ...0

a,

.) ''e h p.

,... U 0 ..c, eu

I... '.... , ) ..,

..., te-.

.... g ei , c.1 t- = i5 . uu 6 0 u-0 e= o 0 o ..r.. fa. ,. ., u ..,cl. > c5 e ct, X .... , X fii. cl 'u e'<.) 1::"1 u( ...e g4.2 :_ `' . Ili 0 -> .... . 'j j:1 45
..

Cr I, , 6 le na) (1 4.' 0 () ..., en 4.) .. , oil u -0 u a, "... - = - ..-. ej ci CI .et; 1::$ . 1.9 ne 1. y +4 1. O u 0.. e 9. a) .0 u . (.7 u '''

V) .L. 0 y el.

.> 1-

1.) = <1 ,_.

0 e

0
e

c0 el ., 4 u)

= a.. -re -c e 8

0 0- ,n e.) Cr

cl

0 ; ...e ..) t . ,-. i.e ... u F. ,e ,,, k 6) 9 o 0 .....

<':i .... e .0 u ._9.


.

e e .. e. e ta.

2 ..> P. 0

I,

U d) 6)
.,=
le

6) = 6) I

'I el ' L 121

,..., e ci rcl ' L 0 .. e E ci 0 .."' a) cl .--

be - (,) -

4) . a

Mt e 'I0

s-, = cl r0, -. cl. c ' e e ' ' 3 -, Ei ..-- eti e u cu . eu -st

cn ,-. - ,...

0 0 ...- ...' 0 ..... *0 0 .4 4 = su o t- o su e .--, u ,-. Io , 4 G. 2. 8 2 t.) s . y c a i; .... 4, o uy,,,-, , . -, ,.. e - 1 . ki. u

, A I e' "... ...' -

>

... b... u 1::7 c 4 v> .t.. ,_ Il .- 0 . r: = e u o .s

44 4

A.

u u = u
0 0 0

0. ) = F. .-,' 1 1 . 6) 6) n 3 2 3 'le .' cs o ti) o cr ..... en .... O u en = I e e -e1 -, 0 . "-: = ) t U c r ,; 0 > 5 d) s e n g; ,., ., 4) e) = g 2 ' c o tz 4 <,,) 0. 2. . bi) el)

2, ta 0 = (i) u r T; .z.

0 ,.,

. 0 . a)

.... ,-.

= u cr i... .e
1"

4.1 g
' 0 ''e e1 e u

: U cu la =

cn
... =

e 0 .?
=
5

...1 0 >, e . 1 . Z 1 1 cd te ,,, su a. u


= L.,
ei 4 -

).. ...., g cl id
cd 2 = te$ 1 4

a 8 E

L. Z

1 ...

e.)

U Q

.12

...:

e r 0 el :T .... = fi 4 ir,

...

. a.) 0 s 0 u 4 "0 .

,, ,

,)

0 -zi e... ej 0 > u .,: .... , ..8 -0 6, E e t Cr


=

. e.

e,

. a .U U .. 6J
.,

es

. .`") 0 1 .1 . , 4 . ..) 41 o e eu c cc; a. e e 1.., u su 9 e 0. `11 o 3 ) - e Q.e 0, `1:1 - 41 a.) cr

>,

gli

41

le

C) C

) 4 e

4 U ,i1 Cil lz, .--'> = y., -0 6) = 0

.... t "

le vu

44 41 6) F. 0 - e

e te, .e); e e 0 . ' . ,u.. '''' cn *". N - ..0 =


"

[ .Jo

0 , .e --. = _. 4 cn cd e 1 0 = . u u = te s o u mi 1

G., u

in.. "

.,,_, .._. .-. ,,, ..,.... 0 -

:21 .e = LI . -cri e) = ,,u


..-.
C

'3 2 ' ' ,'. * E 01) 4 ..-.. u ta.u e e eu -

g ,.. c,,
0

4; u

0 cn .-, C ..>"' ei

u 0 . -4

- (.) 0
e

e30

"0 .- c2 't u

cl = su Vo
le

fi .fi fi :8 C u0u cl 0 0 5 Z U ..... cl cd ..M - rei = = 0 4 . 4 .1


I e g I .l 5 0

e e e 0

4.)

u su ..... iz ;-,

....

, 4 Cr = C, ., 8-4 s C1 cd ''' M -

o.iiu mooeu cd T:, '.e. cr -o '2 o "(,)

-.

. -- ,,,,, ;..-...8 e . ,.. er , , e = ii.. 0 4)


e

4 mt

r" ... 'A' . -, n 4) e sU e , cu 4 n e U 0 0 l .si 0

9 i-i -
=

F.
MI u

) s ' 0 2 .6 e, e . Ei l r..- -'' _2 e cl i 11 ) u '0.' x , 0~ 0 te 47 cl tu 1

i.-. 4-4 cl

r% s

-0 -

4 .4 = z .> a)
0 c

- 4 eU

0 Cd .0

..0

e . u cl t?..

e ,- -0 e .., U = a
c en - g U :0 lm
e ,, , ei .0 u

>

el F. o.o P.

0 cn A...2

.' .. u ca...: ^e ', ) rj sn O r , u o ."3 a. u c.) Q ,............, le e te)


l e el

(...)

249

250

J3

e 04 u
...

..

E. cre tu

4> c

,T,

n le

0 la

el o ... Jo

e,

e -

a>

7 .o e u

0.
E

'- e

0
cl

4) U .e ..z. :. el) ne 4) le c e 0 , I- U n > i 0 a) e e su e E ee 0 , 0 4) e-

'a = 0 o
E ..., 0 ..r...
0 i

0 -- :0

c c

0 0 ed .e *
,-, eu ...,
le e

..... u

(0. 0. 1...

e -a u u.,

5 oc el) ..;;; U rie en 0 0


c .-- ._ cr'eu e

4.1

-0
-

<, 1 g rC 8 E = 0 .9
e1 9
-

f.1)

,70 u e t1,1 RI 4 u

la

ce ro) ,1. 0 .3, 4) ..... b 0 tu Ir he C.)

e = el
u . 0.) Ri 71 = [ 0 i 0 0 .

cr
.1
e

....

e e et

0 0 U ett) 1...
e o 4 CI

le

cl

tu

ae
IV

...,

p k ,L. 9 e '., a1 ,. o `L Z e 0 t 9 rs ''S ..... u 4) 0 = 0 -,

es

1)

2 0 --.

e
C.>

e...

V t ... etCI p 0 me 0 Ce e -0

re 0 E le
,

. .
su

0. C...) U 0 4)

Il ' Ri e 0 .... Q 4. e g ..... e ri


u u

e E 2

7 7

, , 'a , 6)
=

()

C) ,rd C ,a 6) ... 1 -. - a.,z; t

, i

'1.

no el) a r,L a
L.

cd

'- e a> ....

4> U .F. 0 ,, Cl. ,...

u -li rs

e o

c Ci. e

,.c,

e da

u o .... 0 ) 0 2. 1 ci> L. -' CL ..0 1:3 0 4. 6) e u 2. ej s a oe ,,, y, el g) X t.. -0 -0 (4 e e .= ,, ;, . CU 0 e cil ...

E 0 u e U 2 -' 7 " e vue' s te e g)

e
te .t. a
a)

2, tu

> E ce) 0 - VI 4 4.) = .r.: 4)


- ,,.. ,

T 4.0 ) .

, 0 4) -0 0) ... .. el Ri ,6) , u 9. I. fj.. rn I., 4) et) en 0 co)

..) 's

0 '0

cr'

= le

z eol 11
>

C.) 4. .."/

e ,

..,

., cu ..... 1 0 ...8 :.-. Fi e e "'


e 0

0 MI 0 (....) 0 t., E 0. E ci) .0


... Ri 0 6) 4 i..

te su 0 ,, u 4.0 ej " g: ,41) -1 e c.)


0 ici eu 0
4

a in CL) 0 e >, a o > u Zi e 0 0 0 l '' ,... e e... e. u u e La -o=

u .4

2 ch e
0 4)

On

-. 0 u
In ..-

) tu ..43 ..g 5.0

= ,s-z ..... 0 o, e. 7< .,:i ,,, j , te

,. 0

a , "a' ..e 0 ,t u o .... . ., 01) gzi eu


a 'cl

e Ll

c = LI ce

a.-o a. -o

eyou e o o 0-oe u, v to . ,..; si n cl u e' gm 1 ...1 l (,) Cl..... `''

0 1.. su u 0

-'. ,g. e0 u u ., . . . .

E ,,I ..e 4. li, os 0 ,. , ,ci tpl 6) , ....f = 4) 0 re ...... 0

C I-. C ,0 ..0 >

=0

.4-'.'.'

..4., QI 6. ,cu (A 6'

o o cn - I. 0 e tu e 0CC 0. y

eu ... s..., ,-7 , ti ,n c.eu

0 so
cs4 ' ' .... Cn

es eu ..... cl

. i

U , , . u .ou

..a
0) 0 ).
A

0..e ,... e

el

4 ... C > .0 le

-, ,- c z .... ce. au .
1.) -0 $...
4

y 0 e 4)

..

.."

e e c o
le

4 0 - 'le ,,,. 0 l....> . e m


=

... 4.,
"C
1

le vu

()

0 .0 :9
. .t

5 15

:,
u El

= ,..
)

= y

e 0 'i.. . x -,
u
v.:

me

el 0 ,... 0 . .z.

E" =4 1) u 0. ,..,
(1) ;:. 1...

.0 y.:
E e

fi ra 2 =
It.. 0

0
4) 0 "li .... u fi .-' 0 I.. C 4. .11 0

-, 0 u ni 10 M
0 ee

.1 u

, {/1 r-

sa.., c E .2 E t 0 0 0 .

un u e

MI ...e.

ei

,_, . 0 n1 td e: d C cd 4 0 e

,t T

0 cs$
Z

4 L. 0 ul = 0 0 ,cn ,, 0 et. t) E sP t 0 :. , 8 C .4q :0 0 ,e, t = i .. cl se) U 1. c-) 'V 4) e 0 1... m. = 0 o 0 ' 2 ,. .ci. r. ..c ... el c) ... 4. e 9 u ).4 Al u e 1 . 0 e 0 ;- ei0 e >. .c) ,... E ,i) 10 o -- ,te ,, g 0 i., t tu 1 , - c 4) .ril ra. ,.., e 4 'et .e ' 0 C.' Z .o ,... 4) (-4 -E3 u

e -e V) ... e tu "O = 0 -: el) 'Mi '6)

Ti en ;:. en 0e. e in. et ,-- `el , ....., o .-. rel c ,,,, 0 .. 1 - tu

.) cr CV ,0 .1 I-. e u

"u

.0 0

E ''' ez,..e ,
4) c

es 0

1
0

e u
u 0
(L

04

et e 0 "
6> 40

cr e
1... ,0

.
cr u

n 4.)

e u 1-.. a

0 0) ggt. I. '0 en 4

Ti ,,, e'e .- o . E u s '-2 - 2' 4) 00 ce)


0

se .. . .....
.0)

4 U

s ,
,e 2,

e tr) cr
et ,....
0

-.g
4.To

1 1:

c el el 0 6)

4) = le 4 0 *.t) u

.0 E 'e E u 2
r) (..)

..0 ,... cl
'4) )
e)

2 ,.3

,) 0

et

. 6te.

.41 ... 0
U.

es -01 s.. ele c

....1 U 1..

2 E

ai 0

e -e .... 0.. .

''' 0 .4 4 Ri o .a. 0 e Il Il .>. "4 -5 0 4 os 4-. 0 (I.) -. =

es 3' 'a' . e .2 0 Ri 0 g> ,

4) ,.., r a .0

e e z

u .... r. ,',1 -0
0 .... ..a.
0 ei el) Ce x ,-... . , -5 0r ii s.) 0

0 eu 0 0 ne t.. 0 *0 et et is 9 4 o "0 ... 0u u ....

> a

CD

7. .)

0.. 6> 0 . e 0 ;J

g) u ' g

m tu 0 0 so
a tii O I Z -L G . 4

1... > 1 ts. 0 , 4) 4

el.

cl. al cr u u e 2 e ra le e 0
I. .1) = c .,:i 0 g, ..0 (11 4.1

0$ c.) e e ,.. e

' cu .3 m = ''ttj
Cl U ')

U = = 0 0 0 `C

0 su

sll

zr y s..

a. e.

0 " =
. 0

u
L.

..1 ga ... . EI

, u

< cr
..u. ..,d C" Ri

4) it t.) Me 0 >< '- le.

a t .0

E e

-o e

6) 6)

e e. et> 1... - .-. a.m. u s...

e 6) 0.) 6. a eal

tu o '3 6. 1::: , e

e eu 4.4 ai .... as -na . os 6.


.4,) 9 :1

o.. o

251

a co a'

e a t... tz o -o

3
x

nt 0 17 la. cr ( e) e u o el - 1 - e 4. $.. o, o o 4 1... c'l E U U

U U

0
cl

e e

-o 0 o , 0 -. ,.. 0 =
0

5 6 . 0 . o - u u o . cu $.... eu r. et 0 0 el."0 u o o o o 04 E

Il l 0 I , 1.) ......

.... "0 <4 're ..... 4 u eu a (,)

^ U el U

\ (1>

", 0

e.

,4 ) .. -zi ''' ta. . u I! 0 o c n n. n o 4.. e E ""' u

c u .0 ,T) :0 0 4.) o ,.. ZQQQn ' .43 .0 - i.... ,

a)

6)

ect 0. I.) 0 CIS 0 e

o .... e3 u E v E 0.0 u 4" 0 eu "". ta. 4.

.4)

0) * ---.. U .
9

, Cl e, -ce ..,0 4 e l ce. ,_, le c.d - ,.. 1 et a .73 , ;:e ..) id) = 0.0 2
i c

o
.0

0
c.

4. e > "0

4) 0 -' a) 1-.

8e
..1

^ 0 e....

,4

0 ... > ...... , -0 , cn


o .... = 10

0 4.1 0 - -

> cl C.,-, 4 =
+

,,, 0 c,

0 E

.,

, 4:

e S
oe

.8 , 5,

. u,
4.)

.... cu t9 0 .0 0 0. 0
I.. 0 le t I f s

u _ ,.1 a.) = M ' en =

e cr u t ,, u e..... 0 0 4
-

y E l, r.
"" il
el toi ,,, 0

11 I : ,,, 2 to

ce .

e en

12

et ...o 2 = 4 41 4 ... e ao) 1 ' 0 c: 4 a 4) . '" eg


y 0 ..., <cc cu

= {X 2

e. 0 .0

e .,><. e e col ed 0 4.1 u ..0 %.7.' X) 8 E , G t..7 o ... 0 ..= ,L) I. ne C ...

io o

'. 3 ,,

u g g
'

6) e 0 ... 0 4 n 0 .0 .... gy, tl, ....

0 .." el"

C El o >100 0 'il o E no tif .. -tU ! .. :i G' rts 0 0

le e

U ...ce 0
*

0 r,

8d a
CJ

0
I g u o

a e e. -1. io
eet

. 8

4) . te
0

= . cl l . e . 0......,, .. AD IZ. , . 0 . , , . .,.._ e 0 0


o 4 sU 4-4 ') '.. 0 Ct. .0

e 0 E o cn ez >e, -. 03 te. = .0 - cezt l o 04 4. Q 4.) ct. E L, c .. U uf


i (1 ..

-,z, u ., ., _
o
Q
'

e0 a ; .

.. e . s Q

= 7., ..it

ri ., 0Io 0 . ,..... .
t) (.4

ccl

me
l

mcee

6. 0 0

cp .

2 1 .-.,..

U "0 y %-

02 ,... ,.,

8 .,

1) E . .

e3

n.
0

E `) - ta.

Or U "Cl
'

0 0 ....
e

cel ci ).

0 "CI u 'V)

tn 1 .%) V 0 0 -, &a cl

4 ... 0 .0 --

r.. ., ,
e 0

e -c) 'e

0 0 ..., ees el 0 E cn u eu ....+ ..o. ..... ,.., r 3 ,,i . ,:-., ..... . 0 ) E ..g ? - u - .r.. o to cl ..tee , x .1a E . 1:, , > t . )

t) Ca)4 0 el) .. .:i e ..,..

e_
il.

.....

2,

.. ti ..= cl e . 0 el 0J 4) 4 ) 1 4 e ,5 e cl 41 ni ri - 1... a o o. u
el U ... ) ... 0 "44' j 0 Le)
MM 0

a 2

0-11

f.L. 0 0 e

. n . o cD -
0 .
a, 0 0

u x 8..

e or p. su e 0 le. 1.. 0 0 eu cu a. ,

to u it, e.ece 0

c 2... o '5 a ot ..c (..) V O.

e ,, 0 e'

0 h. li, E o E o >, 4 cn

e cl.)

g= - .1e, en 8

g o le 0.3 0 'e/ .... .. 2 cd nt 0 0 '"7 e 4 --- eJ = o e . cd mu u oci u4. > o 4 . .1 U bt) a. > U., .La cl

a") U el

0 y
1

e 0 %II es
. ge = = 0

lm)
o

eo -0
t...,

:3

e,

0 le) .. e

.4
(..)

o 8 U u

El =

u o 0 4 , ,- i. I" ,, cn

Cl

4eu

> . .e

...

ie, m. D m
ei4 15

5 i..
ci

tLII = . 9 . h* 0 c a 4 ..... o N0 ..... , ' ,1 d) c,i . ne ... " cl.) cn. a 9 . 0. c cu

041

1...,

66)

0 ....

"0

,-..) -- 4- Cr ' Tj 1 1 cir 4 Q 2. ,.. .. 0 E eu 0

se 1,

ci lec eic ." ... le

e g . e. . ....,t)
e

I crj e 4

Q u 1.1 Q 0 (y c
o -. A e o 0 o E *0 e el O. 4)

(
o U
,./..

* e) 4 y o 1 ,

0 cl.) .4; ta,,

4) re 0 > - 2 el .cS c 0

eci me 'G

st)

:es to o e 0 Y

1-:

e --. o o
0 cef
oej

11

Cs) fat 0 0

.4.c

'es o e . 4 4 IO

CY

. U u

0 2.. g, l -. = o0 o o o
0 4 u 15
l:e

..

0.

4EEuE
l

.13 U cd U o

0., '0 >.,

h o .

-5 U 0 ei 8 U c , d r4 = . ? (.) .1
.

7 1 i... ;=
U

u .C2 ..4 e .4 ' " (-) A 0 . i . ?.. , = o e") ,.. o " .. ...., 1.. ,.. ri' ..= ..., ... 2 .0 0.

, E e - 0 ..- 0 ,.,, el U 0 ,,, 0.3 .... -, ,... --.... su 0 0 0 e .. 0 et ` , 5 , 2.1. 7 c6 , ... a 44 I .t, . ". mj ' h. 0 to> -. 2 -1 .1, col e ; cn ... o. 0 cu 1.4 "0 > te setj =
1 be . 3 U

le r

4 " 0 t).0 8 ''') ;: 'n o 5 a I" 2 U c c VI fa ) pi 4 e 4) e)

..= )

10 0 ' C

... ,

tr.. o 0 .0 -. a 4 G O > E u te

1-

o=

o u cl et a ej ,, 8., u - - .0 0 u ,,

. . ... .. -,

...1 d)

.... ne y=
ce -... 0

u u0u.-/0 o , :c 2 ) 0 <A el' u ai 04 41:3 5

e .- (a)*z 0 0 ID 4 . .. a ...d ., 5_ . - ..o =

le I"
o

4) Cie

au

E,..4 g 0=

.r) .. ..0 u U E c eu C..) o . 0 h. 0 cci ezI I. I..

.. . VI cr 4.) 'l 0 ""' , -. - c....


t>
CA

U ce _ , o u .k.,. 8
l 4 `..

-cc u

e a h o o 0

MI 0 -. eL * .7

0 V

U = $. ....., ce u. ce .- a

0 ci = 2 bi:, 2
. 0

X ce. -0 Io es e 0 o t.....

4.) .,, 0 .A. ( i l c...) Ce I-. ct. .. . . 4 . o E Ot 0..


a) a

1)

t'

1:2

10

,t)

Z l o (1 fa

'''''

9 4 1 g a

0)

.*

tO r 0 ce a Ln ^.. 4 0 ,,. 0 ,..... el)


V 04 . ". o cl

0 e

,... ta.
'

mo h. z = o u .,. o ., ...
. 4 1

0 o E-

00 o0
u ..0 no

.. 0 e et )4 z.. ??.. U

2 ,A C.) P. E 3: t; .. c'; , 4d eu o 4.) , 13 0 ..-w a e, .5. . c be cu le a cl 4.) ...r a. > 00 t =3b e = o o


2 u
e
Cl. =1

) o ,.1 c e tee o e u o ,0 = r. e L). a. o E ed ..1 cA u 4.4 s ..... E 00 .= =

ro

eu

1-'

ei

- .""ru me u o 4:1 2

(1

.-1 I-. 0. ) 0 4' u a .... 8 1 u .- - ,,,, e ;.. e .c ..... e o 4 E e a. !: g Ir. 9 . o a h u 0 0 u 4, .... "e . u 1-00 0 cl ,cd ^."'. 1.* mn cio ..-i 4.) 6.1 0 0 co 44 . e u < u 4 .-:-. : g N . 4 C Z i . . 11" .
01

co a m i

0.0 0 0

., J

..3 ...

Ti

0 <, 1

....0 g:, . .u
er

' V te ' re) e... os a U 0 -

S ' eu o c.)

. 0 01 W . pl 4 4

ce u 0

=e,d z
U +.:, ''''

ta

E 4.4 o

e sty z

...1 C) C 04 fl =
l 3

i C 'e

e 8'
0
to

.4

<...c...1 .. E t.r., o o

252

41 u a..

E ee

... /

70 > 4) ...
C

ii)
....

4.) = Tl "0

. co 4) <41
1:2 4.3

=
:

73
te

aa c0 . o 71 :b ,.. 4 E e .... , 0 C.) 4.4 u "5 i co e cr le (..)


=

e E . tu 0 0 . t :I A. ,) 0 g '0 .r0 cA G R. . .F. co .... u ,.. e x Cl -a e e a ,0 le cl. a .n O 'T:$ e,4 'Cl e g' e..... e 0"= t .O e ...... *05 u . , ee ' 9 ' 'Il
; .
'

e -a

e e e . 0 o=g2C ee o ra.TS e in . su = ..... o... .9 4 cl) . . le 0) al e o 1 b.... 0 .4. e .... a.-.... und e-,u 0 0 c ms a 4.. a
' elc l I) u r % le el u =" / . uE ... %.., c
e

> .0 C.3 4 = ...,

co 0.. $...,e a. e l = 4 u = e .0 u e o c.) ..e .,)


4

ci

, 2 e Q ., . ..., 4.4 rt <C ,3 .a. ..., . e 0 0 ta 6> ea 4.) - 9 .... 4)

= en e 64 u 0 = = .

a. . a 2 .0 e e -0 ...... u -.., e

:44":7 4;0 a -n 4 e .. a =

c 5 o .... c.> 0

E o

le a

..- 1.- a

CA .0 cr 4> , e r.! c c 4 -4 e e ' le .0 0 a p. a 'V u


n Ke-, el' U -

c.) e ... a. .tA., ..... ,4 ei ..8 0 = = c'eo . :.0 .... ,..0 .0 = 2


' e u

oe

4, v, a a. oo 5 ..., e
4.) C.> 0 ,...

0 ..0 u .e r$ E ' "e te'.' 3. g e M o 0 e .*". 4.4 1... ) ... 0 ,...., % 41 9r ,e 0.) 4. C.) = e ... > se t e 0 4 = (1 ) C) = "' 44 > su f.. U) = 4) V Ce , ., a 0e 12 .2 u E . 3 ,) 0 ":, c ta < ,., ..I vo 4> e U ie .te ,. e O. c le4 = ,.., 1 0 u ' 'CI ..--. e - ,..) 0 04 e e 0 11 el e e 0 0 0 0 C -i... ..... . 4.) mi - .... = ; 0 *' ..a .4. CA ,3 .: i. ta e 4, 0

4> .. ..45 0 "' e 0 `A0 cr . .2 *.,.. e .- E , e 0.. of 4.) tn c 2, 52 e 4 4.) 4) 6) ....; 6.. V V X) ..4-0 Cal t . , . g .,... ;. . , cf >, , _ . .. . . g u 5 ce e ce e 0 u
. e .

4) -

.9 0 4) a-.:
.... a

Ea c e ma 0 at o a o0c e 0 a ...5 oh le

' e. . 7) a I) 4 6) e e .-- 6> cd ..,,,,

..., a u
u

v a2 --. e c. > 0 0 -eco


-ce

-0 1

4e C)
4 es Ce MM 4> ms

dg

t; u

ei ...., .. -te 6) su ri, 4 0


C')

u a
. 4)

66) ..

Z il e.

a. '

c) o . st it ..-,1 -s a.. .

(e.) d ' . r, 7. -2... e 0 g 2 -8 er u e ru u e., .e


e 0

= 4) '0 1)

0E

cil ..= ic a (-) m 8' . e !... ) .9

.n$ 0 -z

a.su e ) es e.0

. . (..) .. . .., e..a.) e.,


o U

.= ct. e cd) 0 a .9 U t 2 4 u I... = O C/ a g C.) U ti M a

ce

o . . ,

C Q ..

7 0 0 p Pd 4.1

4) CC1 ..., r , a 6, $. 8 - c . g> O Er% e tr,

c t.., _ cd

ae .,

4. ,2
0
1::1

1 'cl e c ki 5,-. t cd . , e c 2 0 *2
1 0

O M c

e ... 0
"e

0 .. , 5 e O aE O e j . . 0 X = g 0 .., ,... e = 0 .z.. a t e 4) '..:. ce -,......E .... 0 .2 ; 0a o.> 0 "' a e ...1 .- u cr 4> > ,,,
..0

8 et) sit) -

= 0.) a e 0 Cr ;le 4) vl cl, I

f..) ne (I I c e U

e e ,2 ... 1

2 t' 'e
u
U e ej 4: 4 b n o

0 ....

go .5
3

5te
,

49

Cr cci 0 ..."' . 0

;C ....

-u0
e

..,
u

Z" . a 0 ce e e _'5 m .4> - i., 0

*te

'ei

i- w a -0 , E

O O
0

cd u E cd 4. u -. -i-+ 0 -. U 4 0 'SJ

0
0

a nt1 il U u

4)

E Eeo e a..5 a = ,...1 ta


0 2

" 5 a.. = .c '0 %, 0 y = e

E '"" 0 0 , % 0 Q '' :. :.. ). . . : s o su Z a 0 > 0 V oo zeu e Z3 .4E E N. agi 4) 4) e 5 CD ,,,, .6 5 ...a 0 4> a - 4 . O 2^ . o e 5 e
l. , .

,9

ee > s2u :8 . ..9 . ri ..4 Te e ; 4.1 s.. = l. cu t) a. ca 1 4.6.4 > =

0a x .. E'

e 44, .d.

a. a)

ci 0 w 0 e 0 '0
u

....,

.2 0 _a e .... e. cd ,E, E . ,, -a e ;a c4 .. -8 Cl .....


6.> IE.

a.)

0).

s-,1

(...) g e 0 .2 U .-. 2 ;

' .

0 0 ,..-,.; 0 .1> __ C0 0 --i a> ,es e , .... 1,,I .4) . e. .) 0 0 '`' ,... '0 0. c. V) e .... C.) .9 0 '.c 0 e cd cti 4.) o u cr ' . ics .,M ..0 a e nid 0

r.: . u :,5

U
0

.0

ic cr a.

= = ....

i 2 v 4/ e

ci el '. < ,g. ci e u e eu E E ,a

,. . . : . ,

O.

le u 'A' "g > 1.. a '..= oa aU U U

253

Cr ,2 U '' -'

gnt

in.
GA U ,,,, ;""' 0 0

ie 41.;
s... cc; :.,)
a

e.) ,,, ., ,

..

ei. e cn'-' -- el ,.. -e, ,.., 0 = ..0


S 0 e
w

0 6)MI = U 4.)

= , 0 tu
eL) d "o

0 0

1 0 1..,

a 2 c) c..) C.) 4 e ul 'CI Cr ..-.. 4 Co, .--g

cr

.0

0 >" 2 e ef cl 0 0 0 0 .e U *. u 4 . o to El u $-. = b< y el F le LW~ u ,... a u I) t e 0 .., 0 u e e 0 Y- < 0 m : e (...) u 0.1) u a.) g' e 6.) le -I e 76 e.. c.) l x e F MS cn bo t., cu te ei e e V ,,0 ' U ,u. 4 0 tu . 4 "0 4 0 Mi t. ` el) (I) 6) 4.4 oy 0 0,0 . .-. -0 4.) U 1.Z 0. 0 e <4 u0urrs>15 0 cl ''' I .." ,,, 8c) z . s .+' f.> a u " e u e a) ,., ,crf u 1:1 a _ s... -0 4 Ci . 9 E 41 e u er U M .., e 6) 6) : ":-. , (1 0) = Z 6) se) e m -. st) = 01...a y, .... u x U ccf et, --, a 2 , s-: 01 , o.) .: u) a) e le 'te ) 0 ,, u 5 el 1 4 u ..0 ..09 ... L. , = 4 .4. '0) e -. 0) -. C..1 130 .t" `6) I-. {-, r e ul - C u ,0 u el ,,, ri 4 u 0 - 0 `api,,, u 0 4 VI ..0) IO 0 cl 4) 4.) .... 4.) u U u es 0- i 5 .0 Me 0 -. 0 _ ..e , s e .0 e- 0 Cd 0 0 u u 4,) u ) . 1... '-' 0 1-' U cA 0 tel . ...0 e 0 a.f (11 ..,...1 "c" .1, >, g st) 0 64 ti 7. ,..., e 1. 6.1 e ' ci 0. Cd 0 g 1 ) .. 4 . t l . 1 ( 7 3 u . . te e 4 ,-. 0 4 -6) " ..-. r \ cy ..e i) 9 I 4 9 1 CU 4 to 0.cr, cf `j 6) s....,. le 2 u e) ccf 4. ) e '''0 tt +." e su 4' e e cd a) o .4) le ''''' b 4 ot)'' .E cl ) '. e 4 7: 6) > = g le 2 e. g-ni **-' le e) YI% ** . " > <4 o 0 .-. et 'n o f..... - vl> .1 CI tu c 4. 0 a. 4' -o , ; r4 O.) C1 fa, ..... f=1 4 ,,, L. ,-. MI du 9 :44, ... 0 Q/ 3 U ,-. 4 ee ,t". 0' 0 4 gL. Cl) et e e % 0 2 cl 5 el c 00 0 .... 1... t.-j M. ct) ci cil ... ,,, 0 4 ) e 1) -. 0 CL. an ctt e e 0 n e 4. .5 C U... tuf e 0 0 in - O T) M. ' 9 s b1) 1 0 me I:: '' t 2 0..cu . 0 i r c e 2 .0

im -4... 0 0.,:a 4 . 4 .,,

,..r u Ott 'te '4) C 0

a.)

1uuz 2 L = mi = 0 tu ..

g g ,u u u eu E E o u 0 ,u
6

'''.'z 5

0 'el g u 0 4.)

e- 12 u ^ .;

= ,u u

.i ,

'13

o E

ta .;)

.o

.e.-;

u ..... ,_ iis

e 0. o u

- U a ' b vf , a a 0 C..) es eu el> 0 *r.,

0 e>

4.)

... -

-. $... -

e.8

g 3 4.) - sa..10 t>41- t. c4 u '-' ., c...) g u o 5 <,; r r, = ee c E ,.., tu ; 1.,_ u e 2 Q., u 0.0.e, e , ..o u,.. e ez .- - .4 e -, Q. () ed e se .-. , t ... . , (.9 tu a f"1. 2 e. (5 e. ,, ,,,., ..... . r., 0 e z. , .... ,.. ; , t Edi e e = 1.k 4 0 ... u Tt) (..1 ,Z (..) U .."' e e 1... o g tso , e le di I,n > a e I.... I e 0 0 as izs a E 0 -o - di e. .;3 ou >

e -o ... uaQ

u ..>

.... .rus e. e > a tao is e (1.) u t) x --. c ,,,, _ _ ,._ ,

,.; ; u u -

Ie i.-1

s.,

u e

--,...9, u 04

Ma ,,,,

43 su 1-. ..... $-. U

. = . L. a
cl
4

M :7 .0

u 0) le

ho 0 0 ...)

* t.

. Eetu20=di +-""cei 1 0 0 0 ) = ., ` ),
.. 1

e?.> u u `1 k.
r A .1.j me

'13

g, e ... e ga ,

,04,, se 0 cd u .=,
6l at. 1:1 es e -= g) 9 cl ct , .
n

r = e n. ,
a
I. g

: 0 .., "CI 10 :::, u - ,, - e 73 ---. U (-) = .te e 0 e: .... = -.-. tu 0 g k.. t.. ,0 ,1 elt MI 1

D 0 u di .

tg) cl

e t di C .) di e
t a) e

P.

.2 2 e
dos .4.. u Cd =

ii U 0 u e ...... U 0 -, U 0 - e u ,,,, ... su I. 0 .., ),,,, t.. 0 u e


.. 0 C,

1 ' - C 0.
-

:9 0) C -0

U o

...
0 0 el

. 0 le . 0 -.. 04
el Me

1.. ,,,

<0)

e ci

te (...) 6)

..e c,

1. :cf,

cs 4 pl 'il 0 ..- - 0 ro . ' (..) .a Es

, e E su ) e (7. mi ..1 ,,t, g, e_, C


0' -te
g 2 A !A 0 F ,-1 *0 QI 4.-. 4) 4 0 . 0 0

4' 0 vi Ir 0 0 ' u

c..) . z E = E ..1= 0 o0 z0 0 'o . _et ' u 0 ,e.:1 u - ...... .-. .. = .b e, s... ... ...,. e, <a) .-- 'e 17, R. = C.) = CCI ..-. ,.., 12. el) 4 e 0 e:4 0 1:3 () e ) PI 'CU 1'-' 3 ' a cd e 4 u u 0 ''' u 6) ...2 ek e ..... U ,0 U 0 0 -0 z - , -..o

cd cd = ... cd

,,, u . 4, i::J

4.;

0., cd ) a- - 04 t 0. .-.. Z6 .
0

e
e

e3

el, g

Ya

Cr' e: e 4) .4' ..o 4.

ed

, .. to 0 ,... sa) cd a) e z z eg ,0 g. el) 8 2 u et/ ,


'eel

c... ..., u

et -e ,,,I , , 4 :Ei e _ ce -0
1... e

,. 0 ci 0 .1 1 . = pp 0 A C7' 0.'4:: 4 0 4- SU 0

.,)

re -s

;,0 0

a a) 4

'4-; 0 f..t <1.1 ... 1 4 le .e MI "0 5 e 0 .4 Vi "CI e

'' e g .e., = . ,1 E
U C
0

0 - (1) 0 U2'u 0 ..,

e 4:2 e
..
,5

a -a e 0) =

'7'
1..1. . I' Q cr : . . . . : 71 =

: : U ,,, e: ie 11 , g e t.
g ni t/ . 7-,

a)

'N

..

El

a. ,...

- mi '7 u

ti o.+ e., es ` es 0

., e e

u e 0

a) _ .-. ,_ e () .2 :5 z ..-. ,, o E 2. Ir_


)

: 1)

0 -e..:., 0 0 A. ,I - .z...

"

cd 0 ... o... .4,) tel "e . +4.1 7, ;ta u .e 41, ' et tu iy tni 0 t 'el U e r () u E 4 e.) 5 0 ` 7 .e e 5 . -i 1 :: Ce 0 00. 1 4 rcy 0

eu 0 `n
(I)
4.

-. v) g

3 Z El 0 ,g i., re n

'4..1 .2 e

'ii.te 5 ,j ,0 0 4_,
e
c:

su 6 s-. e U ..,,,, -e 0) V) ' 4 4, e 4 e 1/ el a u e u 4 4 " u es ,..: ,1 1.... a.) - a ,,,,, t.... 0 e 1 ,,, u o n , 7 o ..m Q U 2 ,4; ". r l. = MI 0 a t cd e.) cd , 'Cl cr, U

El = v, E .2 v, 4) ne r.... e 0 ...1

le

g: ::: e

gi ..9+ c9

'p 8-. ..ri 2 ..11--1

e u .,,, ...1 ,.., ,....,, - eq) cz ... u .e C g 4..ei = er..2 4) e (> 0


C'e F.
t eL'"'

CL

,_, e

41

e 1 /...1 10 C il (..I -. , : . !, 4 '-' 4.) s..? 1-. = f...o e ) ".

ce

ai

,_. ..c.) .0

et. e e 1 -. 2

'z

'
e

254

255

zb6
DOCUMENT: 800-14/085

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS ON THE CONSTITUTION

Proposai for a common stand of the Provinces QUBEC

Ottawa September R-12, 1980

257

The attached text has been prepared by Ouftec for the purpodexif dnecifying the common stand of the provinces on the series ofsubjects discussed by the Conference.

It was dislributed to the provincial delegations and discussed by the ministers on Thurdday, September n'and served as a basis for the discussion by the First Ministers of the Provinces on Friday morning, September 12.

The appendices have been added to assist in understanding the text.

Qubec Delegation Ottawa, September 13, 1980.

258

DISCUSSION DRAFT The Provinces of Canada ,unanimously agree in L-"L-----

principle to the following changes to be made to the Constitution of Canada. It is understood that these changes are to be considered as a lo al_pa ge and that this agreement is a common effort to corne to a significant first step towards a thorough renewal of the Canadian federation.

Natural resources 1979 Best effort draft (APPENDIX A)

Communications Provincial consensus draft, August 26, 1980 (APPENDIX B)

Upper Chamber Best effort draft for a Council of the Provinces, as an interim solution. (weight of vote and implementation to be set after consensus reached on horizontal federal powers) (APPENDIX C)

Supreme court of Canada Entrenchment 6-5 at least on constitutional matters Alternate chief-justice Appointment procedure, consultation & consent,(no dead-lock mechanism) (APPENDIX D)

4a.

Judicature Repeal of S.96 Constitutional guarantees (APPENDIX E)

259

Family law Sub-committee draft APPENDIX F)

Fisheries Provincial draft, July 21, 1980 (APPENDIX G)

Off-shore resources Principle of equal treatment for on-shore and offshore resources

Equalization Manitoba - Saskatchewan draft less paragraph 3. (APPENDIX H)

Charter of rights Fundamental freedoms Democratic right& - all existing laws deemed valid

Judicial rights Discrimination rights

- non-obstante clause

Official languages of. Canada


Use of official languages in federal institutions &

services S.133 applicable tOOnt, Qu N.B. Man.

Multilateral reciprocity agreement to be concluded without delay (Bill 101: Canada clause).

10.

Patriation Alberta Amending Formula (APPENDIX I) for matter subject to opting-out, with provision for financial arrangements between governments. Victoria formula for other matters (APPENDIX J)

260

Implementation of patriation delayed until unanimous approval (APPENDIX 1)

11.

Powers over the economy No new S.121 (or Saskatchewan draft) (APPENDIX K) Part of new S.91(2)

12

Preamble Quebec proposai (APPENDIX L)

If a satisfactory interprovincial consensus is reached in this way, it must be accOmpanied when tabled by an announcement of the following measures: (1) As soon as the federal government has given its assent to this consensus, the matters will be returned to the ministers' committee for final draftinq of the texts in their legal form. (2) Another list of subjects must be established to be covered by constitutional discussions at the ministerial level in the following months: the horizontal powers of the federal government; (spending power, declaratory power, power to act for culture; social affairs; urban and reaional affairs; - reaional development; transportation policy; international affairs; - the administration of justice. "peace, order and good government", etc.);

(3)

Another conference of First Ministers must be called for December to approve the texts drafted on the twelve subjects (initial list) and to disuss the results of the work done on the new subjects (second list).

(4)

If the results of this work are satisfactory, then the Canadian Parliament could adopt its address to the Queen at the beginning of 1981.

(5)

Another Conference of First Ministers to be held in February 1981 to approve the texts drafted on the second list.

(6)

From February 1981: adoption of the resolutions of the ten Legislatures and Parliament to bring patriation into effect and to implement the second list according to the amending formula.

(7)

Final Act of the British Parliament to be adopted hopefully in June 1981 implementing the amendments of the first list.

2
APPENDIX 1

SUSPENSIVE PATRIATION

A patriation formula with delayed or suspensive effect coula enable the federal government to go to London only once and yet at the same time respect the principle of provincial consent.

This formula would enable the British Parliament to enact a final amendment to the B.N.A. Act with the following effects:

the law would decree that the Parliament of Westminster no longer legislates with respect to the B.N.A. Act which is henceforth to be amended in accordance with the amendment formula enacted. This provision would corne into force only by proclamation of the Government of Canada issued once it has been ascertained that each of the Provinces of Canada, as well as the Federal Government, has approved it;

b) the same law would give immediate effect ta the amendments agreed upon with respect to

./2

the matters discussed during the current constitutional negotiations. These amendments would corne into force immediately and, obviously, would not be subject to the suspensive effect of the provision respecting patriation. DRAFT The B.N.A. Acts 1867 to 1975 shall be amended as follows: (Insert the amendments to take immediate effect.)

Section 7 of the Statute of Westminster is repealed.

The B.N.A. Acts 1867 to 1975 shall henceforth be amended as foliows: (Insert the agreed-upon amendment formula.)

This Act shall corne into force the day of its sanction. Nevertheless, Sections 2 and 3 shall take effect by proclamation issued by the Governor General of Canada; such proclamation shall not be issued unless it it declared that it is issued in accordance with the resolutions adopted by each of the ten Legislatures and by the Parliament of Canada.

284
BEST EFFORT DRAFT (1979) Draft Proposai Discussed by, First ministers

APPENDIX A

RESOURCE OWNERSHIP AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Cl) (present Section 92)

(1)

Carries forward existing Section 92

Resources (2) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to a) exploration for nonrenewable naturel resources in the province; development, exploitation, extraction, conservation and management of nonrenewable naturel resources,in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and development, exploitation, conservation and management of forestry resources in the province and of sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, including laws in relation te the rate of primary production therefrom. Export from the province of resource (3) In each province, the legislature may make lava in relation to the , export from the province of the primary production from non-renewable naturel resources and forestry (3) Provincial governments are given concurrent legislative authority to pass laws governing the export of the resources referred to above from the province. This legislative capacity is in (2) The draft outiines exclusive provincial legislative jurisdiction over certain naturel resources and electric energy within the province. These resources have been defined as nonrenewable (e.g. crude oil, copper, iron and nickel), forests and electric energy. This section pertains to legislative jurisdiction and in no way impairs established proprietary rights of provinces over resources whether these resources are renewable or non-renewable.

b)

resources in the province and the production from facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy, but such laws may not authorize or provide for prices for production sold for export to another part of Canada that are different from prices authorized or, provided for production not sold for export from the province.

the sphere of bath interprovincial and international trade and commerce. Provincial governments are prohibil:ed from price discrimination between resources consumed in the province and those destined for consumption in other provinces. This new provincial legislative capacity applies to these resources in their raw state and to them in their processed state but does not apply to materials manufactured from them.

Relationship to certain lama of Parliament (4) Any law enacted by the legislature of a province pursuant to the authority conferred by subsection (3) prevails over a law enacted by Parliament in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce except to the extent that the law so enacted by Parliament, a) in the case of a law in relation to the regulation of trade and commerce within Canada, is necessary to'serve a compelling national interest that is not merely an aggregate of local interests; or is a law in relation to the regulation of international trade and commerce. The effect of this new provincial legislative responsibility over trade and commerce diminishes the scope but doea not eliminate the federal government's exclusive authority over trade and commerce. The exercise of the provincial power is subject to tdo limitations. First, the federal government may legislate for interprovincial trade if there is "compelling national interest". This trigger mechanism may apply to circums.tances other than an emergency as established under the, peace, order and good government power. Second, federal laws governing international trade prevail over provincial laws in international trade, in effect establishing a concurrent power siinilar to that for agriculture.

b)

Taxation of resources (5) In each province, the legislature may make laws in relation to the rais:LI-1g of money by any mode or system of taxation in respect of a) non-renewable naturel resources and forestry resources in the province and the primary production therefrom; and
(5)

Provincial powers of taxation are increased to include indirect taxes over the resources outlined in this section - whether these resources are destined in part for export outside the province. These taxes are ter apply with equal force botte in the province and across the rest of the country.

266

b) sites and facilities in the province for the generation of electrical energy and the primary production therefrom, whether or not such production is exported in whole or in part from the province but such laws may net authorize or provide for taxation that differentiates between production exported to another part of Canada and production net exported from the province. Production from resources (6) For purposes of this section, (6) a) production from a nonrenewable resource is primary production therefrom if il it is in the form in which it exists upon its recovery or severance from its natural state, or ii) it is a product .resulting from processing or refining the resource, and is net a manufactured product or a product resulting from refining crude oil or refining a synthetic equivalent of crude oil; and b) production from a forestry resource is 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 manufacturcd from wood. In determining the scope of provincial legislative powers over resources exported from the province, it became necessary to define the degree to which the resource was processed. It is not intended to extend provincial authority to manufacturing but it is intended to extend it to something beyond its extraction from its natural state, Given the varying resources covered by this section, the wording of this subsection is thought to place the appropriate limitations on provincial powers.

Existing Powers in subsections (2) to (7) Nothing (6). derogates froM any powers or rights that a legislature or government of a province had immediately before the coming into force of those subsections. (7) This clause ensures that any existing provincial. legislative powers found in s.92 are not impaired by the new section.

267
Draft Proposai Discussed by First Ministers LIST OF ALTERNATIVES COVERING THE DISPOSITIONS OF SECTION 109

Option 1 Option 2 (a) Property in lands, mines, etc.

Maintain the .status ouo, do not carrer forwara Section 109.

1 ,' "123.1 Ail lands, mines, minerais and royalties belonging to any province immediately before this section cornes' into effect, and all sums then due or payable in respect of any such lands, mines, minerais and royalties, belong immediately after this section cornes into effect to the province or are then due and payable, subject to any trusts. existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the province therin."

Option 2 (b) Ownurship of property *"123.1 Ail property belonging ta any province immediately before this section cornes into affect, belongs immediately after this section cornes into effect to the province, subject to any trusts existing in respect thereof and to any interest other than that of the province therein.

t ion Ci
Owncrship of property "127.1 Nothing in this i- ct changes the ownership in any property owned by Canada or a province immediately before the coming into force of this Act."

*NOte: Numbering>s tied in to numbering found in Hill C-60.

268

Zti9
BEST EFFORTS DRAFT Council of the Provinces

APPENDIX C

Council eetablished

1.

There shall be a body to be called the Council of the Provinces. The Council shall have thirty (30) members.

Membership Appointment

The Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province shall appoint three members to the Council. The Lieutenant Governor in Council of each province shall designate one member to be the head of that province's delegation. Each member holds office at the pleasure of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council of his respective province. (a) A member of a provincial legislative assembly may aise be a member of the Council. (b) Subject to (a) the legislative assembly of a province may prescribe the qualifications for its members to the Council. 7. The federat Cabinet may designate any person or pensons, including federal Cabinet ministers, who shall be entitled to appear in and speak to any matter coming before the Council. (e) Each province shall have one vote on every matter before the Council.

Head of delegation,

Tenure of members

Qualifications

Federal government spokesmen

Votes

8.

(b) The vote of each province shall be cast by the head of that province's delegation or his designate.

Ratification

(p) Unless otherwise specified herein, the ratification of any matter coming before the Council requires a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. (b)

Unless otherwise specified herein the failure of legislation or an appointment to receive the required majority means that the legislation or appointment shall not take effect.

(c)

Legislation on which the Council has made no decision within ninety days from the time of referral shall be deemed to be ratified unleas an extension of the time is made by the federal government. Appointments on which the Council has made no decision within thirty days from the time of referral shall be deemed to be ratified.

Powers

10. Matters coming within the following classes shall be referred to the Council for its consideration, debate and disposition according to section 9, namely
(a)

The exercise by the Parliament of Canada of the declaratory power pursuant to section 92 (10)(c).

2(1

Powers

10.

(b)

(i) Laws of the Parliament of Canada initiating general conditional grants to the provinces in relation to matters within exclusive) provincial jurisdiction
2

(ii) 2
(c) (1) Laws of the Parliament of Canada made pursuant
to the opening words of Section 91 or actions of the Government of Canada pursuant thereto, which have the effect of suspending in whole in part the normal distribution of legislative powers between the Parliament of Canada and the legislatures of one or more of the provinces, except in cases where there is a state of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection. (ii) Any measure taken to deal with real or apprehended insurrection will become inoperative fifteen days after having been proclaimed unless it is ratified by the Council.

Ministers were unable to conclude whether this provision should be limited to areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction or made broader. Ministers recognize the necessity, at soma stage, of further ministerial or First Ministerial determination of what if any fiscal equivalent should be available to non-participating provincial governments. At the request of Quebec the following clause was els considered, but Minialeers did not reacb a conclusion: "Laws of the Parliament of Canada initiating payments to classes of individuels or institutions in relation to matters within exclusive provincial jurisdiction."

272

(d)

Laws of the Parliament of Canada, or sections thereof, which are to be administered by provincial governments.

(e)

Approval of appointments to the managing bodies


of such federal boards, commissions or agencies,

as are determined from time to time by the Conference of First Ministers, to have significant interest to all or some of the provinces.4

(f)

Other matterewhiCh have emerged or might emerge in the overail process of constitutional review which Ministers or First Ministers deem approoriate.

Dualism

11. In the case of any matter coMing before the Council which is in relation to the French language or French culture the ratification of the Council would require that the two-thirds majority prescribed by section 9 (a) include the affirmative vote of Quebec.5

There was some discussion as to whether, as an alternative, a liat of specific subject areas such as energy, communications, tariffs, monetary Poney and transportation should be specified. Ministera alsd examined the - altexnetivA of a weighted vote on this aepec?.:: but id not reach a conclusion. Ministers alep reccnized the fundamental definitional eoblem attached to the word "culture".

273

274--REST EFFORTS DRAFT


Tho Suprent oUrt of Canada

APPENDIX D August 12, 1980

Supreme Court )f Canada Constitution of Court Eliqibility for appointment

1. There shall be a general court of appeal for Canada called the Supreme Court of Canada. 2. The Supreme Court of Canada shall consist of eleven judges, who shall be appointed by the Governor General. 3. (1) A person is eligible to bc appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court if, after having been admitted to the bar of any province, the persan han, for e total period of at least ten years, been a judge Of any court in Canada or e member of the bar of any province. (2) Five of the judges of the Supreme Court shall be appointed from among persona who, after having been admitted to the bar of Quebec, have, for a total period of at least ten years, been judges of any court of that province or of a court established by Parliament or membera of the bar of Quebec. 4. (1) A chief justice, to be called the Chief Justice of Canada, shall be designated by the Governor General. (2) The Chief Justice of Canada shall be designated fo: single term,alternatively,from ahone the judges appointed u subsection 3(2) and from among the other judges of the Supreme Court. (3) The term of office of a judge as Chief Justice of Canada expires seven years after the designation has effect or upon the judge attaining the age of retirement, whichever first occurs. S. (1) Where a vacancy in the Supreme Court occurs, the Minister of Justice of Canada shall consult wit the Attorneys General of all of the provinces and shall sec. the consent of the Attorney General of the province the person being considered for appointment as of ,L) the appointment of that person. (2) Where consent is not forthcominq, the Minister of Justice of Canada and the appropriate provincial Attorney General shall, together with person chosen by them or if they do not agree a person chosen by] the Chief Justice of Canada, determine the person to be recommended lor appointment. 6. (1) The judges of the Supreme Court hold office during good behaviour until they attain the age of seventy years but are removabie by the Governor General on address of the Senate and the House of Commons. (2) Parliament shall provide for the salaries, allowances and pensions of the judges of the Supreme Court.

Appointment of judges from Quebec

0esignation of -,Chief Justice of Canada Alternate designation

Term of office

Procedure on vacancy in Court

, rocedure where no consent

Tenl.re of office of judges of court Salaries, allowances and pensions of judges

/. The Supreme Court hzis exclusive eltimate itimate appellate appellate civil and criminel jurisdiction. :urisdiction of .outt 8. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies with ppeals with leave of the Suprema Court from any judgmcnt of the .cave of highest court in a province, or a judge '7airt thereof, in which judgment can be had in the particular case sought te'be'appealed tu the Suprcme Court, where any question involved raiscs a constitutional issue. 9. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies from an ,,ppeals from (Invcrnor General opinion pronounced by the highest court established by Parliament on any constitutional question referred in Councii to it by the Governor General in Council references

ay Governor General in

l'ai rt~ct references

10. Parliament may make laws authorizinq the Governor General in Council to refer questions of law or fact direct to tne Supreme Court. 11. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies from an opinion pronounced by the highest court in a province on any constitutional question referred to it by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province. 12. The legislature of a province may make -authorizing the Lieutenant Governor in Council to refet ' questions of law or fact directly to the Supreme Court. 13. In addition to any appeal provided fer by this Act, an appeal to the Supreme Court lies as may be providud hy Parliament. 14. Parliament may make laws providing for the oraanization, maintenance and operation of the Supreme Court, and the effective execution and working of this division and the attainmebt of its intention and ()bicots. 15. The Minister of Justice of Canada shall consult with the Attorneys General of tne provinces in respect of proposais for laws referred to in sections 13 and 14. TRANSITIONAL

AmDeals from erovincial .. eferonces eirect erovincial -eferences tppeals

aintevc.nve hd:eperatien i CoUit


(*:1$: it

In:ieJation of Supreme Court of Canada .'ontinuation In office of judqes

XX. (1) The court existing immediately before the commencement of this Act under the narre of the Supreme Court of Canada is continued as provided in this Act. (2) The Chief Justice of Canada and other judges of the Supreme Court of Canada shall continue in office as thutigh appointcd and designated in the manner provided in this Act except that they shall hold office as judges Chief Justice until attaining the age of seventy-five yeAr (3) Until otherwise provided pursuant to this Act, ail laws respecting the Supreme Court of Canada and the judges thereof that were in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall continue, subject to thin Act.

..: entinuatioe ef laws

276

271APPENDIX P

BEST EFFORTS DRAFT FAMILY LAW

Repeal head 26 of section 91 Repeal head 12 of section 92 Marriage in the Province".

"Marriage and divorce". "The Solemnization of

Add as new legislative authority provisions, the following sections: Marriage jurisdiction "1. The legislature of each province may make laws in relation to marriage in the province, including the validity of marriage in the province, except that Parliament has exclusive authority to make laws in relation to the recognition of a declaration that a marriage is void, whether granted within or outside Canada, and in relation to the jurisdictional basis upon which a court may entertain an application for a declaration that a marriage is void. Divorce provincial jurisdiction 2. (1) The legislature of each province may make laws in relation to divorce in the province and has exclusive authority to make laws in relation to relief ancillary thereto. Divorce jurisdiction of Parliament (2) Parliament may make laws in relation to

divorce and has exclusiveauthority to make laws in relation to th&recognition of divorces, whether granted within or outside Canada, and in relation to the jurisdictional basis upon which a court may entertain an application for a divorce.

Rclationship between Irma of provinces and 'aws of liament

(3)

1dhere the legislature of a province enacts

a law in relatien to any natter over which i.l has concurrent authority with Parliament under this section, that law prevaiis in the province over any law of Parliaaant in relation to that natter to the extent of any inconsistency.

278

Jeclaration assuming ' authority

(4) The legislature of each province may declare that it is assuming authority in relation to all matters over which it has concurrent authority with Parliament under this section and, where the legislature so declares, notwithstanding subsection 3, all laws of Parliament in relation to those matters have no effect in that province while the declaration is in effect.

Effect of Order

3.

An order for maintenance or custody made

in Canada has legal effect throughout Canada. Registration and enforcement of order 4. An order referred to in section 3 made in

any province or territory may be registered in any other province or territory in a court of competent jurisdiction anc shall be enforced in like manner as an order of that court.

Authority to make laws

5.

The legislatures of the provinces may make

laws to give effect to the provisions of sections 3 and 4 and may make laws providing for the variation and non-enforcement of orders by reason of a change in circumstances and, in addition, for the non-enforcement of orders on grounds of public policy or lack of due process of law. Power of legislature to confer jurisdiction of superior court judges 6. Notwithstanding section [6], the legislature

of each province may confer, or authorize the Lieutenant Covernor of the province to confer, concurrently or exclusively, upon any court or division of a court or all or any judges of any court, the judges of which are appointed by the Covernor Canerai or by the Lieutenant Governor of the province, as the legislature may determine, the jurisdiction of a judge of a superior court of the province in respect of any matters within the field of family law.

279

Add as one of the transitional provisions, the following section: Continuation of existing laws "XX. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, all laws relating to marriage and divorce that are in force in Canada or any province immediately before the coming into effect of this Act continue in force in Canada and that province, respectively, until such time as they are repealed, altered or replaced by Parliament or the legislature of the province according to the authority of Parliament or the legislature under this Act." *

*NOTE: The wording of this general transitional section will need to be finalized later.

280

BEST EFFORTS DRAFT APPENDIX G Amendment Alternative Formulations Regarding Inland Fisheries, Marine Plants and Sedentary Species

Supported by Nine Provinces 92.1(1 The Legislature of each province may exclusively make laws in relation to: a) inland fisheries in the non tidal waters of the province; b) marine and aquatic plantsi in the non tidal waters of the province and in tidal waters in or adjacent to the province1; c) sedentary species in tidal waters in or adjacent to the province; d) aquaculture within the province and in tidal waters or adjacent to the province that is not included in either a), b) or c);

(2) Notwithstanding paragraph 1(a) the Parliament of Canada may make laws in relation to the determination of total allowable catches for andromous species in non tidal waters and their allocation between provinces and any such law shall be paramount.

2ffr
BEST EFFORTS DRAFT

Amendment RegardinciSea Coast Pisheries. (a) Section 91(12) of the British North America Act would be repealed.
A separate section in the British North America Act, in the

(b)

following terms, would be enacted. 95A (1) With respect to fish stocks adjacent to each province (as defined in subsection (5) below), the Legislature may make laws relative to the sea coast fisheries but any law covering those matters set out in subsection (3) shall have effect in and for the province so long as they are not repugnant to any Act of the Parliament of Canada made under subsection (2). (2) The Parliament of Canada may make laws relative to the sea coast fisheries but any law covering those matters set out in subsection (4) shall have effect in and for any or ail of the provinces so long as they are not repugnant to any Act of the Legislature of a province made under subsection (1). (3) Tne matters referred to in, subsection (1),are: (a) fixing parameters for the total allowable catch for stocks; the allocation of quotas to foreign countries and the licensing of foreign vessels; conservation of fish stocks.
(4)

(b)

(c)

The matters referred to in subsection (2) are;

(a)

fixing the level of catch within the parameters referred to in subsection. (3) (a) and the issuance of quotas up to the levai so fixedi licensing of fishing vessels other than foreign vessels taking fish from the residual quota; all matters not referred to in this subsection and subsection (3).

(b)

(c)

282

continued (a) The allocation of the fish stocks adjacent to each Provi shall be determined by agreement between the Provinces in accordance with eguitable principles taking account of all relevant information including traditional fishing patterns. If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable period of time, the Provinces concernedshall refer the particular matter in dispute for expeditious arbitration.

(b)

283
APPENDU R

BEST EFFORTS DRAFT EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Governments of Manitoba and (including Quebec's Proposai) 96(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the legislatures or of the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the
Saskatchewan Proposal

legislatures, together with the Governnent of Canada and the Go ts of the Provinces, are oannitted to

(a) (b) (c)

pramoting equal ppportunities for the wellbeing of Canadiens; furthering eccnamic development to reduce disparity in opportunitiee; Md, providing essentiel public services of reasonble guality to ail Canadiens.

(2) Parliament and the Government of Canada are further committed to the principle of making egualization payments to ensure that provincial goveiuments have sufficient revenues ta provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably camparble levels of taxation.

284
APPENDIX I BEST EFFORTS DRAFT AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

(1) Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and the assent by resolution of the Legislative Assembly in two-thirds of the provinces representing at least fifty percent of the population of Canada according to the latest general census. (2) Any amendment made under sub-section (1) affecting! (a) the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws, the rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the legislature or the government of a province, (e) the assets or property of a province, or (d) the naturel resources of a province, shall have no effect in any province whose Legislative Assembly has expressed its dissent thereto by resolution prior to the issue of the proclamation, until such time as that Assembly may withdraw its dissent and approve such amendment by resolution.

(b)

A proclamation shall not be issued under Section 1 before the expiry of one year from the adoption of the resolution initiating the amendment procedure thereunder, unless the legislative assembly in each province has previously adopted a resolution of assent or dissent.

285
Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, of the Provinces including any such amendment made to provincial boundaries may from time to timeb made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seai of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and the asSent by resolution of the Legisslalive Assembly of cach Province to which an amendment applies.

An amendment may be made by proclamation under section I, 3 or 9 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if within ninety days of the passage of a resolution by the flouse of Commons authorizing its issue the Senate has not passed such a resolution and at any time after the expiration of the ninety days the House of Commons again passes the resolution, but any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the ninety days.

The following rules apply to the procedures for amendment described in sections 1, 3 and 9 1) either of these procedures may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Commons or the Legislative Assembly of a Province, 2) a resolution of authorization or assent made for the purprees of this Part may be revoked at any tille before the issue of a proclamation authorized or assented to by it, 3) a resolution of dissent made for the purposes of this Part may be remnficedat any Lime betore or atter tne issue ot a proclamation.

The Parliament of Canada may exclusively make laws from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive Government of Canada and the Senate and House.of Commons.

286

In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the Province.

Notwithstanding sections 6 and 7,the following matters may be amended only in accordance with the procedure in section 1(1)'. 1) the office of the Queen, of the Governor General and of the Lieutenant-Governor, 2) the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting yearly sessions of the Parliament of Canada and the Legis tures, 3) the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies, 4) the powers of the Senate 5) the number of members by which a Province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Senators. 6) the right of a Province to a number of members in the Flouse of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the Province, 7) the principles of Proportionate representation of the Provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada, and 8) the use of the English or French language.

9.

1) No amendment to section 1 of this Part, this section, or to any provision in the Constitution with respect to the procedure for altering provincial boundaries shall corne into force unless it is authorized in by resolutions of the Senate and couse of Commons and assented to by resolution of the Legislative Assemblies of all the proteinces. 2) The procedure prescribed in section o of this Part may not be used to make an amendment when there is another provision for making such amendment in the Constitution of Canada but, subject to the limitations contained in subsection (1) of this section that procedure may nonetheless be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution.

10.

The enactments set out in the Schedule shall continue as law in Canada and as such shall, together with this Act, collectively be known as the Constitution of Canada, and amendments thereto shall henceforth be made only according to the authority contained therein.

288
APPENDIX

CANADIAN CONSTITUTIONAL CHARTER 1971

289

PART IX AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Art. 49. Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may from time to Cime be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Aseemblies of et least a majority of the Provinces that includes (1) every Province that at any Cime before the issue of such proclamation had, according to any previoua general census, a population of at least twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada; at least two of the Atlantic Provinces; at least two of the Western Provinces that have, according to the then lateat general censua, combined populations of at least fifty per cent of the population of ail the Western Provinces.

(2) (3)

Art. 50. Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, of the Provinces may from Lime to Cime be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commona and of the Legislative Assembly of each Province to which an amendment applies. Art. 51. An amendment may be made by proclamation under Article 49 or 50 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if within ninety days of the passage of a resolution by the House of Commons authorizing ite issue the Senate has not passed such a resolution and et. any Cime after the expiration of the ninety days the House of Commons again passes the resolution, but any period when Parliament is prorogued or diasolved ehall not be counted in computing the ninety days.

290

Art. 52. The following rulea apply to the procedures for amendment described in Articles 49 and 50: (1) either of these procedurea may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Commons or the Legialative Assembly of a Province; a resolution made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked et any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

(2)

Art. 53. The Parliament of Canada may exclusively make lava from time to time amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive Government of Canada and the Senate and House of Commons. Art. 54. In each Province the Legislature may excluaively make laces in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the Province. Notwithstanding Articles 53 and 54, the following matters may be amended only in accordante with the procedure in Article 49: (1) (2) the office of the Queen, of the Governor General and of the LieutenantGovernor; the requirements of the Constitution of Canada reapecting yearly sessions of the Parliament of Canada and the Legialaturea; the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies; the powers of the Senate; the number of members by which a Province ia entitled to be represented in the Senate, and the residence qualifications of Senators; the right of a Province to e number of members in the House of Commona not less chan the number of Senators representing the Province; Art. 55.

(3)

(4) (5)

(6)

91

(7)

the principles of proportionate representation of the Provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and except as provided in Article 16, the requirements of this Charter respecting the usa of the English or French language.

(8)

Art. 56. The procedure prescribed in Article 49 may not be used to make an amendment when there is another provision for making auch amendment in the Constitution of Canada, but that procedure may nonetheless be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including Chia Article, or in making a general consolidation and revision of the Constitution. Art. 57. In this Part, "Atlantic Provinces" means the Provinces of Nova Scotia, Nev Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and "Western Provinces" means the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

APPENDIX K

ECONOMIC UNION (SASKATCHEWAN PROPOSAL) 121. (1) Without altering the legislative or other authority of Parliament or the legislatures or of the Government of Canada or the governments of the ProvinCes or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their respective legislative or other authority: () Parliament and the legislatures, together with the Government of Canada and the governments of the Provinces, are committed to (i) the maintenance and enhancement of the Canadian economic union, (ii) the movement throughout Canada of persona, goods, services and capital without discrimination by Canada or any Province, by law or practice, in a manner that unjustifiably impedes the operation of the Canadien economic union, and (iii) the harmonization of federal and provincial laves, policies, and practices that affect the Canadien economic union; and (b) pursuant to the commitments specified in clause (e), the Government of Canada and the governments of the Provinces are committed to the ongoing, systematic and co-operative review by them of the operation of the Canadian economic union.

293
APPENDIX L DOCUMENT: 800-14/081

QUI1 PROPOSAL PREAMBLE AND STATEM/T OF PURPOSE

oe TF

CONSTITUTION

In accordance with the will of Canadians, it is the will of the provinces of Canada, in consort with the federal government, to romain freely united in a federation, as a sovereign.and independent country, under the Crown of Canada, with a constitution similar in principle to that which has been in effect in Canada;

AL PURPOSE of the Fedeeaticn is to preserve and promote freedam, justice and well-be ng for all Canadians,

PROTECTING individual and collective rights, including those of the native people; * I SURING that laves and political institutions are founded on the will and consent of the people; FOSTERING econanic c'portunity, and the security and fulfilIment of Canada's diverse cultures; RECOGNIZING the distinctive character of the people of Quebec which, with its French-speaking ma ority, constitutes one of the foundations of the Canadian duality; BUTING to the freedcm and well-being of all mankind.

This phrase is subject to acceptance the native leadership.

291

THE SENATE OF CANADA

LE SNAT DU CANADA

July 10, 1980 PERS The Right Ronourable Pierre E. Trudeau Prime Minister Bouse of Gommons Ottawa.

In our short talk on Tuesday you mentioned the intereat beteg shown in the British Columbia proposai for a new Senate. I told you that in their report on a new constitution for Canada, the Canadien Bar Association made a sionilar proposai. The Ontario section of the Association asked me for my views and I thought you would be interested in the following extract from my reply: I find it strange that the West German Bundesrat should suddenly emerge as the model for an institutional solution to federal-rprovincial problems in Canada. The proposai fails to take account of the special features which differentiate West German federalism from our own. Moreover, it does not reflect practical experience in the operation of Canadien federalism. The .German system is "executive-legislative federalism". Legislation is almost exclusively the domain of the central government but the administration and execution of the laws, both federal and state, ara the responeibilitY of the Laender, i.e., the States. The bulk of the civil servants in the Republic are officiais not of the central: government, which employa about 300,000, but of the Laendee with more than 1,400,000. The composition of the Bundesrat, whose members are ministers of the Laender governments acting on instructions of those governments, reflecta this horizontal division of powers, which, of course, differs' basically from the vertical division in Canada

295

and most other federations. The Bundesrat also reflects the constitutional history of German federations with states which for a long time were almost independent principalities. Bavaria, for example, had its own King until 1918. Considering the basic differences between West German federalism and its history and those of. Canada, I cannot see a Bundesrat type of Upper House fitting into our parliamentary system. With the provincial executive power in a position to curb the federal legislative process, our system would be unworkable. The Report sees the reconstituted Upper House as "an ongoing federal-provincial conference" for "co-ordination of policy on a continuing basis" in place of the FederalProvincial Conferences of First Ministers and ministers. I am afraid that this is based on simplistic reasoning. It is politically unrealistic to expect provincial premiers to abdicate their role in federal-provincial matters in favour of their nominees in the Upper House. Nor should they. Negotiations and agreements on such matters are properly the role of the governments responsible to their respective legislative bodies and electorates. The Federal-Provincial Conferences of Prime Ministers and ministers meet the requirements of popular election, regional representation, and understanding of the issues involved. It is significant that even in West Germany, with the Bundesrat as constituted, there are frequent conferences between the central and state governments corresponding to our FederalProvincial Conferences. The belief that problems would be solved more easily and confrontation avoided by a transfer of the functions of such conferences in Canada to a public forum composed exclusively of nominees of the provincial governments with federal "spokesmen" who have no vote, is completely unrealistic. Experience teaches that negotiation in a public forum between politiciens elected at different levels does not lessen confrontation but promotes it. The powers and functions recommended for the new Upper House would give a direct voice in federal decisionmaking to the provincial governments. Considering that the Constitution sets up a federal system in which different roles are assigned to the federal and provincial

296

297

298

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART II: Equalization and Regional Disparities EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES: SECTION 31

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


PARTO EQUALIZATION AND RGIONAL DISPARITIES Commdmcni tu mu. ttlu.11 opporhentle, PARTIE II PRQUATION ET INGALITS RGIONALES

31. (I) Without altering the legislative 31. (I) Sous rserve des comptences Engagements relatdi authority of Parliament or of the provincial lgislatives du Parlement et des lgislatures rgalitdes legislatures, or the rights of any of them with 5 et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement 5ctun.0 respect to the exercise of their legislative et les lgislatures, ainsi que les gouverne. authority, Parliament and the legislatures, ments fdral et provinciaux, s'engagent : together with the government of Canada and a) promouvoir l'galit des chances de the provincial govcrnments, are commilted to tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de (o) promoting equal opportunities for the 1 0 leur bien-tre; 10 well-being of Canadians: b) favoriser le dveloppement conomique (b) furthering economic development to pour rduire l'ingalit des chances; reduce disparity in opportunities; and e) fournir tous les Canadiens, un (e) providing essential public services of niveau de qualit acceptable, les services reasonable quality ta ail Canadians. 1 5 publics essentiels. 15 (2) Parliament and the government of EmplemM 12) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du relatif aso Canada are committed to taking such =usCanada s'engagent prendre les dispositions strok=puNks ures as are appropriate to ensure that provessentiels propres mettre les provinces en mesure inces are able te provide the essential public d'assurer les services publics essentiels viss services referred to in paragraph (1)(c) with. 20 l'alina (1)c) sans qu'elles aient imposer un 20 out imposing an undue burden of provincial fardeau fiscal excessif. taxation.

ornmilmtnt repcCting =L publia ..tnuee

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS PART II EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES 0mini t 31. (1) Without altering the to prcnote legislative authority of Parliament equal or of the provincial legislatures, opportun- or the rights of any of them with ities 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 well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality tc. all Canadians.

299

300

CONFIDENTIAL January 9, 1981

CONSTITUTION ACT PART II: EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES SECTION 31: EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES The principle set out in this Part is a statement of intention or commitment only. It does not place legal obligations on governments. Thus, the opening words of subclause (1) of section 31 provide that the section ope rates: "without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them...". Section 31(1) expresses the commitment of federal and provincial legislatures and governments to: (a) (b) (c) promote equal opportunities for Canadians; further economic development to reduce disparities in opportunities, and to provide essentiel public services of reasonable quality to ail Canadiens.

This was agreed to by ail governments at the September 1980 Conference and is identical to the best efforts drafts discussed at that Conference. Section 31(2), as set out in the Proposed Resolution, provided an additional commitment for the Parliament and the government of Canada; a commitment to take such measures as are appropriate to ensure that provincial governments have sufficient revenues to provide essentiel public services. Section 31(2) was based on a proposai put forward by British Columbia at the September, 1980 Conference. In submissions made to the Joint Committee by the Premiers of PEI, New Brunswick and Saskatchewan, it was urged that Section 31(2) make specific reference to the making of e ualization payments rather than the less precise formulation of the B.C. proposai: "taking such measures as are appropriate to ensure that provinces are able to provide essentiel public services without imposing an undue burden of provincial taxation." Premier Hatfield proposed the following formulation: "Parliament and the Government of Canada are further committed to the principle of making equalization payments to provincial governments that are unable to provide essentiel public services of reasonable quality without imposing an undue burden of taxation.

301

CONFIDENTIAL

Premier Blakeney proposed the following wording: "Parliament and the Government of Canada are further committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial governments are able to provide essential public services of reasonable quality without imposing an undue burden of taxation." The Hatfield proposai is identical to one put forward by the government of Qubec during last summer's negotiations, and the Blakeney proposai differs from this only in not referring only to provincial governments that are unable to provide essential public services, adifference without substance. In view of these representations, the federal government proposes a modification to section 31(2) that would make specific reference to equalization payments (which reflects the existing practice and is clearer than the concept of "such measures as are appropriate" in the current draft). At the same time, the government feels that the concept of tying equalization payments to essential public services and undue burdens of taxation is not the best way to express the basis for equalization payments, since both of these expressions are difficult to define or measure. Therefore, it is proposed to incorporate into section 31(2) the wording of the formula that was advanced by the governments of Saskatchewan and Manitoba during last summer's negotiations. It is the following: "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. This, it is believed, is a more accurate reflection of the purpose of equalization payments to provinces: to ensure that the levels of public services are reasonably comparable throughout the country based upon reasonably comparable levels of taxation. It carries with it the idea of a relative balance between the provinces as to the levels of public services and the levels of taxation. (See attached comparative table of the proposais that were discussed during the constitutional negotiations last summer). AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT It is proposed to amend section 31(2) to provide that "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."

-3

1 0 RI

44 ()

1A

00

3 1M i

303

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART II: Equalization and Regional Disparities EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DISPARITIES: SECTION 31

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS There were a number of representations on this section as follows: The Governments of P.E.I., N.B. and Baskatrchewa_n believed that "equalization payments" should be specifically mentioned and, as being payable directly to provincial governments. New Brunswick sought assurances in the Constitution that such equalization payments would be made on an unconditional basis. A number of concerns were expressed about the likelihood this section would authorize equalization payments being made directly to individuals, and so bypassing the provincial levels of government. The Alberta Chamber of Commerce supported recognizing the sharing principle in the Constitution, but not the principle of equalization. The Canadian Council on Social Development was concerned about the possible implications of this section for social programs where the governmental jurisdiction was unclear. It sought guarantees that there would be no change in current social program, operation, funding or delivery. The Canadian Bar Association suggested the section should acknowledge the regional impact of fiscal and economic policies and should preclude disproportionately high taxes in one region relative to another. The Canadian Chamber of Commerce wanted assurances that the equalization principle would not be implemented so as to create artificial circumstances in a community or province which would be a disincentive to the movement of people and capital. There were a number of concerns about definitions of phrases such as "undue burden of taxation", "essentiel public services", etc.

B. PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS If the First Ministers federal-provincial discussions last September and the representations to the Committee by various provinces are an indication, there should be a wide measure of provincial support for the

304

government's proposed change to this section to explicitly acknowledge egualization oavments. The proposed formulation is known as the "ManitobaSaskatchewan" proposai, and it had secured support from most provinces. However, this approach raised several objections from the Government of British Columbia which favoured a more generic approach as more appropriate for a constitution, for the federal commitment respecting the provision of essentiel public services in a province. It is probable that supporters of the B.C. position may strongly resist the government's proposed change in this provision.

305

17

306

THE CONSTITUTION ACT

PART III: Constitutional Conferences


CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES: SECTION 32

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


PART III CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES
COIUMV04e.ii

PARTIE III CONFRENCES CONSTITUTIONNELLES

cadeaux.

32. Until Part V contes into force, a con32. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie Confrence. condurtioene stitutional conference composed of the Prime V, le premier ministre du Canada convoque Minister of Canada and the first ministers of au moins une fois par an une confrence the provinces shah be convened by the Prime 35constitutionnelle runissant les premiers Minister of Canada at least once in every ministres provinciaux et luimme, sauf si la 35 year unless, in any year, a majority of those majorit d'entre eux dcide de ne pas la tenir composing the conference decide that it shah une anne donne. not be hcld.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

No change.

307

CONFIDENTIAL January 9, 1981

CONSTITUTION ACT

PART III: CONST1TUTIONAL CONFERENCES SECTION 32: CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES This section provides that until the permanent amending formula contes into force (either through unanimous agreement on a formula during the first two years, through the automatic implementation of the Victoria formula at the end of two years if seven provinces have not proposed a different formula within that period, or through a referendum within the next two and one half years where the provinces -- and perhaps Parliament -- have proposed an alternative to the Victoria amending formula) there shall be at least one First Ministers Conference annually. The purpose of such conferences would be to consider the possibility of an agreed upon permanent amending formula as well as to discuss other aspects of constitutional change. The main representations that have been made to the Joint Committee on this provision have been from the native groups who have argued that the section should be amended to provide for guaranteed representation for the native groups at the First Ministers Conferences, at least where matters concerning them are involved. The representatives of the Northwest Territories also submitted that they should participate in the conferences independent of the federal delegation. With respect to the proposais of the native groups, providing a constitutional guarantee for their representation at First Ministers Conferences would be unacceptable. By their nature, Conferences of First Ministers are composed of elected heads of the federal and provincial governments, the only constitutionally recognized independent political units in Canada. The leaders of the native organizations are not heads of governments possessing any constitutionally conferred powers, and thus they have no legitimate claie to participate as equals with the federal and provincial governments. The native leaders have been invited to meet with Ministers responsible for constitutional reform to discuss constitutional matters respecting the native peoples. They have also been included as observers at First Ministers Conferences. ln addition, they will be directly involved in negotiations relating to changes in the constitution to provide for native peoples rights. However, it would be compietely inappropriate to make provision in the constitution for formai representation of the native peoples leaders at First Ministers Conferences. (In any case, how would such leaders be chosen? It is evident from the number of groups that have appeared hefore the Committee that there is no clearly defined groups representing the native peoples.)

308

CONFIDENTIAL

As for independent representation at First Ministers Conferences by the Territories, this would, of course, be inconsistent with their present status as territories and not provinces. As long as they remain territories, their formai representation must legaily be as a part of the federal delegation.

AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT


None.

309
IO

PART III CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES (SECTION 32)

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The government of the Yukon recommends that Section 32 be amended to allow it to participate in First Ministers' Conferences and the government of the Northwest Territories recommends that Section 32 be amended to ensure that elected territorial leaders are invited to attend the annuel conference. The Council for Yukon Indians, the Native Council of Canada and the Inuit Committee on National Issues all seek an amendment of Section 32 to provide for the participation of Native Peoples, at least for matters respecting them.

B. PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS 1) Native Peoples The NDP may move the amendment proposed by the Native Council of Canada: (1) Until Part V coules into force, 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 at least once in every year unless, in any year, a majority of those composing the conference decide that it shall not be held. Such constitutional conferences shall include the direct participation of representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada for matters on the agenda which affect them.

(2)

Alternatively, the NDP may move the amendment proposed by the Inuit Committee on National Issues, which also involves a new section (51A) Section 32 should be amended by adding a sub-section as follows: "Such constitutional conferences shall include the direct participation of one representative of each of the Indian, Inuit and Metis peoples of Canada for matters on the agenda which affect them in accordance with rules to be established in this regard by an appropriate person or body duly authorized for such purposes by the Governorin-Council." Section 51A should be added as follows: "(1) Nothing in Parts IV and V shall be construed as permitting any amendment to any constitutional provision that makes references to any of the aboriginal peoples of Canada without the consent of each of the aboriginal peoples of Canada so affected in accordance with rules to be established by an appropriate person or body duly authorized for such purposes by the Governor-in Council."

Comment

310

2 -

The government of Canada is formally committed to consultation with Native Peoples on constitutional changes affecting them. In September, 1978, the federal government proposed that Native groups be invited to make presentations to the FMC, but the provinces did not unanimously concur. Native groups have been invited to attend all FMC's on the constitution as observers since October, 1978, and a sub-committee of the CCMC has met with representatives of Native Peoples on one occasion (August, 1980). The government would be unwilling to amend section 32 at this time because: i) the FMC is an intergovernmental institution and such an amendment would change its fundamental character; ii) if provision were made for some groups to attend and/or participate in FMC's, pressures from other groups to obtain the same status would be strong. 2) Territorial governments The Conservatives may moue that section 32 be amended to require that the Yukon (and perhaps the Northwest Territories) be invited to attend FMC's. Comment The government would be unwilling to accept such an amendment because the territories are not yet provinces and do not enjoy the same status as provinces under the B.N.A. Act.

311

18

312

THE CONSTITUTION ACT

PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement SECTIONS 33 - 40

Sections 33 - 35: Interim Amending Procedure Section 36: Limitation on the Use of the Interim Amending Procedure

313

PART IV INTERIM AMENDING PROCEDURE AND RULES FOR ITS REPLACEMENT Part IV provides for an interim amending formula to apply for a period of time which might be as short as two years or less or as long as 4-1/2 after the Governor General has issued proclamation (pursuant to section 57) bringing the Constitution Act, 1980 into force. The length of the interim period is The interim discussed more fully in the note on section 37. formula is set out in sections 33 and 34 and they do not apply to those parts of the Constitution which can now be amended in (section 36). Canada Sections 37, 38, 39 and 40 provide for a mechanism whereby a "final" amending formula will he adopted. Section 33 - Interim Procedure for Amending Constitution Section 33 Provides that amendments to the Constitution may, for an interim period, be made with the unanimous consent of bath Houses of Parliament and ail provinces. This section must be read together with section 34 which provides during this interim period for the amendment of provisions which affect one or more but not ail provinces and with section 36 which provides that where there is an existing provision for amendment in the constitution (e.g. sections 91(1) and 92(1) of the B.N.A. Act) they continue to operate. Although section 33 is broadly framed it does not encompass amendments covered by section 34. Section 34 is a more particular section and the rules of statutory interpretation require that more particular provision take precedence over the more general. Provincial consent may be given by either the legislature (for example, by resolution) or by the government of the province (this could be by in informai instrument, such as a letter signifying the provincial government's consent) - the section talks about the consent ..."of the legislative assembly or, the government of each province." Consent of the Senate and the House of Commons must, however, be by resolution. These procedures reflect past practice. On occasion provincial consent to amendments has been signified by letter from the province. On other occasions the more formai process of signifying consent by resolution of the legislative assembly has been used. (further comments under section 35) "May be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General" does not leave discretion to the federal government to direct the Governor General not to issue a proclamation. The "may" does not relate grammatically to the issuing of the proclamation but to the use of a proclamation for such purposes. The section means the same as if it read that the Governor General shall issue a proclamation when he is so authorized.

314

Section 34

Amendments of Provisions Relating to Some but not all Provinces States that amendments to provisions of the Constitution which apply to one or more, but not ail provinces, can be amended in the interim period with the consent of both Houses of Parliament and the legislature or government of the province or provinces concerned. Provisions amendable in this way would include, for example, parts of the Terms of Union with British Columbia, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island, since these relate only to one province. Another example would be section 133 of the B.N.A. Act which prescribes certain language guarantees in Quebec, and section 23 of the Manitoba Act which prescribes similar guarantees in Manitoba. Note: It is only amendments to existing provisions which apply to one or more but not all provinces which can be made under this section. The section does not allow provisions which now aomly to ail provinces to be amended to apply thereafter to only some provinces. (For example, the division of legislative powers, sections 91 and 92, could not be amended to create a "checkerboard" pattern of legislative jurisdiction across the country.) A similar provision was contained in the Victoria Charter formula. A queStion may be asked as to whether provisions affecting one or more but not all provinces (e.g. Newfoundland's boundaries, or denominational school rights) can be amended under the general provision of section 33 as well as under 34. This same issue arises with respect to the "final", amending formula, in the interaction of sections 41, 42 and 43. An amendment iG heinq nroposed to ciarifv the situation with respect to those sections. A similar amendment is not required here because, unlike sections 41 and 42, amendments under section 33 require the consent of ail provinces. In any event it has been the government's position that section 33 cannot be used to effect an amendment to a provision pertaining to one or more but not all provinces. Section 34 in this regard is exclusive. It is a more specific provision than section 33 and as such must be read out of that section. The change is being made in the case of sections 41, 42 and 43 merely to place this interpretation beyond doubt.

Section 34

315

Section 35 -

Rules for Amendment Procedures

Section 35(1)- States that amendments may be initiated by either the Senate or the House of Commons, or by the legidlative assembly, or by the government of a province. While initiation by the federal government must be by resolution the section leaves the procedure to be followed by provincial legislatures and governments open,to be determined by them. The provision mirrors the requirements for consent to a constitutional amendment set out in section 33. The Senate and House of Commons could initiate a constitutional amendment by joint resolution while a province might initiate an amendment by legislative resolution or by a letter from the Premier setting forth a proposai. Section 38 is being amended to require approval of the provincial legislature and not allow approval by the provincial government alone; similarly sections 41 and 43 require approval of constitutional amendment by provincial legislatures. It may be asked why this section is not also amended to require the consent of the provincial legislature to amendments instead or aiiowing provincial-governments to give consent without legislative approval. 'As noted under section 33 the prOcedures described reflect past practice. When provincial consent has been sought and obtained in the past, it has on occasion been signified by letter from the premier, on other occasions by the more formai process of resolution of the legislature. Since this is an interim procedure it is thought appropriate to retain the procedures used in the past. Section 35(2)- Provides that consent given to an amendment (either by resolution or otherwise) can be revoked by the sponsoring legislative body or government at any time before the amendment becomes law. Equally action taken to initiate an amendment (either by resolution or otherwise) can be countermanded by the sponsoring legislative body or government at any time before the amendment becomes law. A similar provision vas contained in the Victoria Charter proposais.

316
PART 1V INTERIM AMENDING PROCEDURE AND RULES FOR ITS REPLACEMENT Ss 33-35 (Interim Amending Procedure) SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Canada West Foundation recommended that the requirements for agreements by the federal and provincial authorities under the interim amending procedure be parallel. At present, ss.33-35 require the authorization of the Senate and the House of Commons for amendments, but provincial authorization could be given by either the provincial government or legislative assembly. The Canada West Foundation would remove the option of authorization by provincial governments and would require authorization by legislative assemblies.

B. PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS A Committee member may moue that the deletion proposed by the Canada West Foundation be made.

Comment The interim amending procedure is designed to reflect current practice. The government of Canada would not propose to alter the current practice during the interim period when governments will be engaged in the search for an amending formula.

317

THE CONSTITUTION

ACT

PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement SECTIONS 33 - 35

AS TABLED ON

OCTOBER 6, 1980
PART IV PARTIE IV PROCDURE PROVISOIRE DE MODIFICATION ET RGLES DE REMPLACEMENT

INTERIM AMENDING PROCEDURE AND RULES FOR ITS REPLACEMENT Imam MocedureW umodee COMMunqsol Canada

Procduft 33. Until Part V cornes into force, an 33. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie prwnairt de amendment to the Constitution of Canada V, la Constitution du Canada peut tre meumm may be made by proclamation issued by the modifie par proclamation du gouverneur Governor General under the Great Scal of gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, autoCanada where so authorized by resolutions 5 rise par des rsolutions du Snat et de la 5 of the Senate and House of Communs and by Chambre des communes et par l'assemble the legislative assembly or government of lgislative ou le gouvernement de toutes les each province. provinces. MWilicaWmi 34. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie 34. Until Part V cornes loin force, an rond de V, les dispositions de la Constitution du Certains amendment to the Constitution of Canada in 5emw= relation to any provision that applies to one 5 Canada applicables certaines provinces seulement peuvent tre modifies par proclaor more, but not all, provinces may be made mation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand by proclamation issued by the Governor sceau du Canada. autorise par des rsoluGeneral under the Great Seal of Canada tions du Snat et de la Chambre des commuwhere se authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and by the lOnes et par l'assemble lgislative ou le gou- 10 versement de chaque province laquelle la legislative assembly or government of each modification s'applique. province to which the amendment applies.

Amenriment ar mmwom Msorqstosom but nos all provinces

Rules applicable to smendenern procdures

35. (1) L'initiative des procdures de !tee 35. ( I ) The procdures for amendment modification vises aux articles 33 et 34 described in sections 33 and 34 may be initiated either by the Senate or House of Com- 15 appartient au Snat, la Chambre des com- 15 muses, l'assemble lgislative d'une promons or by the legislative assembly or govvince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci. ernment of a province.
Id m (2) La rsolution adopte ou l'autorisation (2) A resolution made or other authorizadonne, dans le cadre de la prsente partie, fion given for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any time before the issue of a 20 peut tre rvoque tout moment avant la 20 date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise. proclamation authorized by it.

ldent

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS English version no change.


PARTIE IV PROCDURE PROVISOIRE DE MODIFICATION ET RGLES DE REMPLACEMENT

33. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie V, la Constitution du Canada peut tre modifie par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorise par des rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des communes et par l'assemble lgislative ou le gouvernement de toutes les provinces. 34. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie V, les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada applicables certaines provinces seulement peuvent tre modifies par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorise par des rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des communes et par l'assemble lgislative ou le gouvernement de chaque province laquelle la modification s'applique.

mwitelrede modifiemen

Procelum

Modification s re:mi& prosimes


cmamet

318

TAB 18, SECTION 33 PART A

- 319

THE CONSTITUTION ACT


PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure

and Rules for Its Replacement SECTION 33

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


PART IV INTRIM AMENDING PROCEDURE AND RULES FOR ITS REPLACEMENT Intcrim proceurefor mendirls Cormitutiona Canada PARTIE IV PROCDURE PROVISOIRE DE MODIFICATION ET RGLES DE REMPLACEMENT

Procdure 33. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie Until Part V contes into force, an prerre mure de V, la Constitution du Canada peut tre moddieut Ion amendment to the Constitution of Canada modifie par proclamation du gouverneur may be made by proclamation issued by the gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, autoGovernor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by rsolutions 5 rise par des rsolutions du Snat et de la 5 Chambre des communes et par l'assemble of the Senate and House of Commons and by lgislative ou le gouvernement de toutes les the legislative assembly or government of provinces. each province.

33.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

No change.

320
TAB 18, SECTION 34 PART A REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVINCES: SECTION: 34

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


lochnutlen 34. Avant l'entre en vigueur de la partie 34. Until Part V cornes loto force, an de 2elt V, les dispositions de la Constitution du amendment to the Constitution of Canada in , , .Ar menswwmt .5 Canada applicables certaines provinces 5 Pro -3 relation to any provision that applies to one beffle seulement peuvent tre modifies par proclaprovinces or more, but not all, provinces may be made mation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand by proclamation issued by the Governor sceau du Canada, autorise par des rsoluGeneral under the Great Seal of Canada tions du Snat et de la Chambre des commuwhere so authorized by resolutions of the Ones et par l'assemble lgislative ou le gou- 10 Senate and House of Commons and by the l vernement de chaque province laquelle la legislative assembly or government of each modification s'applique. province to which the amendment applies.
,

Mnaltimmd mMeam

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS No change.

321

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVINCES: SECTION 34

SUMMARi OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Fdration des francophones hors Qubec, Mr. Nystrom and the Socit franco-manitobaine expressed concern that section 133 of the BNA Act and section 23 of the Manitoba Act could be altered under this provision. In such a case, the Socit franco-manitobaine recommended that section 34 be amended to require that amendments relating to one or more but not all provinces require a majority of three-quarters of the membership of the Senate and House of Commons and three-quarters of the membership of the legislative assembly of the province to which the amendment applies. Mr. Yalden suggested that section 133 and section 23 should be amended to give them the same status as if they were part of the Charter (therefore requiring the general formula for amendment). PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS A member may moue that section 133 of the BNA Act and section 23 of the Manitoba Act be amended togive them the same status as if they were part of the Charter. Comment While the government sympathizes with the desire of some to give added security to language rights, making the amendment of provincial language rights subject to the general amending formula would also make it more difficult for individual provinces to opt into provisions similar to those of section 133.

TAB 18, SECTION 15 PART A

322

REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement RULES FOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURES: SECTION 35

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Rule appliablt

35. (I) L'initiative des procdures de 35. (I) The procedures for amendment modification vises aux articles 33 et 34 described in sections 33 and 34 may be tiated either by the Senate or House of Gom- 1 5 appartient au Snat, la Chambre des com- 15 muses, l'assemble lgislative d'une promons or by the legislative assembly or goyvince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci. ernment of a province.
IL. Id (2) La rsolution adopte ou l'autorisation (2) A resolution made or other authorizadonne, dans le cadre de la prsente partie, tion given for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any lime before the issue of a 20peut tre rvoque tout moment avant la 20 date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise. proclamation authorized by it.

Idem

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS English version no change.

35. (1) L'initiative des procdures de modification vises aux articles 33 et 34 appartient au Snat, la Chambre des communes, l'assemble lgislative d'une province ou au gouvernement de celle-ci, (2) La rsolution adopte ou l'autorisation donne, dans le cadre de la prsente partie, peut tre rvoque tout moment avant ta date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise

Initiative
dures

des proc-

t de rvocation

Possibili-

323

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement LIMITATION ON THE USE OF THE INTERIM AMENDING PROCEDURE: SECTION: 36

A.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS

The Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association recommended that only section 33 of the interim amending formula be used to amend confessional school rights and proposed that section 36 be amended to add a subsection (2): (2) The procedure prescribed by section 33 shall be used to amend any provision of the Constitution of Canada whereby any rights or privileges are granted or secured with respect to separate, dissentient or other denominational schools. B. PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

A member may propose the amendment recommended by the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association. Comment Confessional school rights vary from province to province and the government would not wish to make the amendment of the specific provisions respecting any one province subject to the general amending formula for provisions respecting ail provinces.

324

Section 36 Section 36

Where an Existing Amending Procedure Exists for Amendment in Canada Provides that the interim amending procedure of unanimous consent (in section 33) and that relating to provisions affecting one or more but not all provinces (section 34) do not apply where there is already in the Constitution another provision for making the amendment. Existing provisions for making amendments inciude section 91(1) of the B.N.A. Act which provides that the Parliament of Canada may legislate to amend the constitution of the central government (subject to certain exceptions); section 92(1) which provides that provincial legislatures may amend the Constitution of the province; and provisions such as that in the B.N.A. Act, 1871 which aliows provincial boundary changes to be made when the federal Parliament and provincial legislatures agree. The section expressly provides that the interim formula of unanimous consent (section 33) will apply to amendments to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Egualization (Part II of the Act) and the provision for constitutional conferences (Part III of the Act) would be amendable by section 33; no express reference is made to them in this section because there is no argument that they might apply only to one or more but not all the provinces. Certain provisions of the Charter of Rights, on the other hand (e.g. Language Rights), apply at the federal level only, and now with the new proposed amendments to New Brunswick. Amendments Proposed bv Government It is proposed to delete the words "and may be used in making a general consolidation and revision of the Constitution." This parallels a change being made to section 47. In both cases (i.e. under both the interim and final amending formula) it is appropriate that revisions to and consolidations of the Constitution be made in the same manner as amendments to individuel provisions because there is the possibility that in making a consolidation or revision, a substantial amendment could inadvertantly be made. Thus, in the interim period (if it is even conceivable that a consolidation or revision would be attempted) such consolidation or revision would be done, with respect to provisions relating to: - the constitution of the province (section 92(1)) with the consent of the legislature of the province - the constitution of the federal government (section 91(1)) with the consent of Parliament

325

- one or more but not all provinces (section 34) with the consent of Parliament and the relevant provincial legislature or government - those areas of the constitution falling under the general amending formula (section 33) with the consent of Parliament and ail provincial legislatures or governments.

326

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement SECTION 36

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Lonaillon on use4mimm

2cmAm prooedure

itcencitax 36. Sections 33 and 34 do not apply to an 36. Les articles 33 et 34 ne s'appliquent re amendment to the Constitution of Canada pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle '?" 1 ,:e where there is another provision in the Con. pour lesquels une procdure diffrente est Prmre stitution for making the amendment, but the 25 prvue par une autre disposition de la Consti- 25 procedure prescribed by section 33 shall be tution du Canada. La procdure vise used to amend the Canadian Charter of l'article 33 s'impose toutefois, pour modifier Rights and Freedonts and any provision for la Charte canadienne des droits et liberts, amending the Constitution, including this ainsi que les dispositions relatives la modisection, and mav be used in makinR a general 30fication de la Constitution, y compris le pr- 30 consolidation and revision of the Constitusent article; cette procdure peut galement tion. servir toute codification ou rvision gnrales de la Constitution.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS


i'imit36. Sections 33 and 34 do not ation apply to an amendment to the on use Constitution of Canada where there of is another provision in the interim Constitution for making the amendment, amend- but the procedure prescribed by ment section 33 shall be used to amend proce- the Canadien Charter of Rights and dure Freedoma and any provision for amending the Constitution, including this section.

36. Les articles 33 et 34 ne s'appliquent pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procdure diffrente est prvue par une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada. La procdure vise l'article 33 s'impose toutefois pour modifier la Charte canadienne dei droits et liberts, ainsi que les dispositions relatives la modification de la Constitution, y compris le prsent article,

Reatricuon du recours la procdure prlcone

327

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement DURATION OF PERIOD FOR FINDING AN AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 37

A.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Mr. Yurko, M.P., and the Canada West Foundation recommend that the period of two years during which governments would attempt to devise an amending formula be extended to five years. B. PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

A member may moue that section 37 be amended to provide for a five year period during which governments would attempt to devise an amending formula. Comment The question of an amending formula has been studied intensively during the past twenty years and the principal problems to be resolved are well known. Reaching an agreement is now a question of political will and two years of concerted effort on this question provides a reasonable period for finding an acceptable formula. If unanimous agreement is not reached, provision is made in section 38 for putting to the people in a referendum the option preferred by at least seven provinces representing at least 80% of the population.

328

Section 37 Section 37

Coming into Force of Part V Provides that Part V (i.e.: the "final" amending formula) cornes into force in one of three ways: (a) when both Houses of Parliament and the legislatures or governments of ail provinces agree; this would be accomplished by use of the amending procedure set out in section 33 above; or automatically two years after the Constitution Act, 1981 cornes into force, if provinces have not agreed upon an amended version of Part V which is to be put to the people by referendum pursuant to section 38(3); or if seven provinces representing 80 per cent of the population agreed upon a proposai for a replacement for Part V as provided for in section 38 and that proposai, or some federal alternative thereto, is approved by the people in a referendum, then Part V amended in accordance with that proposai cornes into force within six months of the date of the referendum (section 39).

(b)

"final" here is not used in the sense of unamendable but in the sense of a formula which becomes operative after the interim period.

329

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement SECTION 37

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Cmftioto foret of Pull V

E10,4e 37. La partie V entre en vigueur la 37. Part V shall corne into force vtgutur de la premire des dates suivantes: pan. v (a) with or without amendment, on such avec ou sans modification, la date day as may be fixed by proclamation 35 a) fixe par proclamation prise conformissued pursuant to the procedure prement la procdure vise l'article 33; scribed by section 33, or b) deux ans aprs l'entre en vigueur, (b) on the day that is two years after the exception faite de la partie V, de la pr-40 day this Act, except Part V, cornes into 40 sente loi. force, Il demeure entendu que, si la tenue d'un whichever is the cartier day but, if a referenrfrendum s'impose conformment au paradum is required to be held under subsection graphe 38(3), la partie V entre en vigueur 38(3), Part V shall corne into force as pro45 conformment l'article 39. vided in section 39.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

No change.

330
TAB 18, Section38, Part C THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for It Replacement PROVINCIAL ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE: SECTION 38 REVISED

A. SUMMARY0F PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS Section 38 was found to be practical and acceptable by the Conseil du Patronat du Quebec and by the Employers' Council of B.C. This section gave rise to the following representations: (a) The 80% population qualification gives a veto to Ontario and Quebec (Mr. James Richardson, Premier Blakeney); Parliament is being asked to approve in advance the federal government's counter proposal without knowing what it will be; The section does not allow provinces to put forward an alternative to section 42 which is objectionable (Premier Blakeney); Only a national rather than a regional majority would be needed for adoption.

(b)

(c)

(d)

B.

PROBABLE PROPOSALS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

With respect to (b), the government will propose that Parliament be required to approve the federal alternative procedure in the event of a referendum. Members may propose amendments to take account of the critical views expressed in (a), (c) and (d). Comments (a) If only a national majority is needed for adoption of a provincial alternative in a referendum, the requirement that seven provinces representing at least 80% of the population is necessary to ensure that the provincial alternative is supported by at least one province in each of Canada's four regions. (c) The Government of Canada is committed to the option of being able to hold a constitutional referendum under s.42 in the case of a deadlock and would not agree to the possibility of having s.42 deleted in a provincial proposai under the terms of s.38. Furthermore the government is not willing to see provincial governments accorded the authority to initiate a national referendum. The government is firmly of the view that only the Parliament of Canada, in which ail Canadians are represented on the basis of population in the Commons and on the basis of region in the Senate, should be empowered to hold a national referendum in the event of a deadlock. However, provinces can alter the requirements for consent under section 42 either by unanimous agreement on an alternative amending formula during the two year interim period or by proposing an alternative to section 41(1)(b) in a referendum under the terms of section 38.

.331

(d) Only two options would be put to the people: one would be supported by the Parliament of Canada representing all Canadians by population and by reg ion and the other would be supported by at least seven provinces representing at least 80% of the population. Under these circumstances, the requirement of a weighted national majority for adoption would not be necessary.

332

Section 38 Section 38

Alternative Formula Proposed by Provinces Provides for the adoption by referendum of an alternative version of the "final" formula set out in Part V. If eight, to be reduced by proposed amendment to seven, or more provinces initiate the referendum process provided for in this section, within the two-year interim period, Part V (i.e., the "final" formula), will be determined by that process. Amendment Proposed by Government To reduce the number of provinces that must agree on an alternative amendment formula from eight to seven and to provide that the provincial alternative must be approved by the provincial legislatures not merely provincial governments. The change in numbers is being recommended to respond to the criticism that requiring the agreement of eight provinces is too high a threshold and creates too rigid a requirement. The change deleting provincial government approval is in response to criticism that there is not sufficient control over the alternative the government might choose to put before the people in a referendum.

Section 38(1)- As amended will provide that if the legislatures of seven or more provinces that have at least 80% of the population can agree on a single proposal as an alternative "final" amending formula to the "provincial component" of Part V, such will be put forward for approval by referendum. The provincial component is subsection 41(1)(b) which provides that for general amendments the provincial consent required is that of: (i) every province that has or has had 25 per cent of the population of the country; two Western provinces with a combined population of at least 50 per cent of the population of the region; two Atlantic provinces,

(ii)

(iii)

The provinces cannot change the Part V formula so as to delete the requirement of Parliament's consent to constitutional amendments. They can only change the provincial component. No proposal for an amending formula which has been put forward so far has omitted a requirement for Parliament's consent and any such proposai would be based on the philosophy that Canada was of a confederal nature or merely an association of states rather than the federation which we are.

333

Nor can provinces change that part of the "final" formula which provides for the adoption of general amendments to the Constitution by the agreement of the people through referenda rather than by the agreement of governments (section 42). A provincial proposai, by replacing subsection 41(1)(b), however, could convert section 41 into a quite different amending formula. Among the options open are: (1) The Fulton-Favreau formula of 1964 which would require the consent of Parliament and of ail provincial legislatures for amendments regarding matters of fundamental concern, such as the distribution of powers, and the consent of Parliament and two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing 50% of the population for other matters of mutual concern (such as the office of the Queen or Lieutenant Governor); (2) The "Toronto consensus" formula 1978-79 which would require unanimity for amendments to provincial ownership or jurisdiction over natural resources, and the consent of Parliament and 7 provincial legislatures representing 85% of Canada's population for ail other matters,and (3) The "Alberta" formula of 1979-80 (which Alberta renamed the "Vancouver" formula) which would require the consent of Parliament and two-thirds of the provincial legislatures representing at least 50% of the population of Canada, except that if the amendment affected the legislative powers of the provinces, rights and privileges granted or secured to a provincial legislature or government, the assets or property of a province, or the natural resources of a province the amendment would not apply to a province whose legislature had expressed its dissent.

The percentage of population found in each province according to the 1976 census is as follows: Nfld. 2i% P.E.I. i% N.S. 4% N.B. 3% 27% Que. Ont. 36% Man. 4% Sask. 4% Alta. 8% B.C. 11%

(The next census will occur June, 1981, but it is unlikely that the relative positions of the provinces will charge except that Quebec will likely drop to 26% and Alberta rise to 9%.)

334

Thus any alternative must have the consent of Ontario and Quebec each of which has more than 25% of the population. Also, by requiring the consent of at least 7 provinces, a region can not be ignored. This stringent requirement can be justified on the ground that an alternative to Part V should have strong support before it qualifies as a serious proposai to be put before the people in a referendum and that it should have support from ail regions of the country. The requirement will be criticized on the ground that it heavily favours central Canada since both Ontario and Quebec obtain a veto under Part V as it is presently drafted and their consent is needed before any alternative thereto can be put to the people in a referendum. On the other hand Ln a referendum those two provinces do represent over 60% of Canadians.

Section 38(2)- Provincial Alternative or that Preferred by the Federal Government Adopted by Referendum Section 38(2)- Provides that when the provinces agree on an
alternative te tire-provincieleOmponent of Part V they shall deposit a draft of that proposai with the Chief Electoral Officer. Any province so filing would be entitled to withdraw its proposai at any time within the two year period. The proposais filed by at least 7 provinces having 801 of the population would have to be identical. The Chief Electoral Officer is chosen because he has an independent status as an officer of Parliament and he will likely be the person in charge of conducting the required referendum. In the Referendum Bill, which died on the order paper in May, 1979, the Chief Electoral Officer was under the terms of that legislation placed in charge of the referendum. If the federal government should support the provincial alternative agreed to by 7 or more provinces, but not 10, then a referendum would have to be put to the people asking whether they preferred that alternative or the one presently set out in paragraph 41(1)(b) ie.: modified Victoria. If ail 10 provinces and the federal government agreed, however,the proposal could be substituted for section 41(1)(b) by using the interim amending formula of unanimous consent set out in section 33.

335

Section 38(3)- Provides that where the required number of provincial consents to an alternative proposai for the provincial component for the amending formula are filed, at the end of two years after the Constitution Act cames into force, the Government of Canada shall ensure that a referendum is held giving the people of Canada the choice between that alternative and such one as might be preferred by the federal government. It is probable that the federal government's preferred alternative would be the Victoria proposai since: it is the one which has been agreed to at one time at least by ail provincial governments; it provides for a guaranteed regional balance; yet it is not overly rigid as would be a provision for unanimous consent of ail provincial legislatures. Nevertheless, an alternative proposai might coule forward from the provinces pursuant to subsection 38(1) and (2) which would lead the federal government to think that something other than the present section 41(1)(b) was most appropriate. There is therefore flexibility built in by section 38(3) to allow the federal government to propose an alternative to the Victoria proposai set out in section 41(1)(b). Should the federal government agree with a provincial alternative, proposed by 7, 8 or 9 but not agreed to by ail 10 provinces, then a referendum would have to be held asking the people whether they preferred that alternative or the Victoria Charter proposais as set out in section 41(1)(b). Amendment Proposed by Government The amendment would require the approval by Parliament of any federal alternative formula before it could be put to the people in a referendum. As the section exists, approval could be given by the government alone. Two minor amendments are also made in the section; one of terminology,changes "filed" to "deposited" and the other is a consequential amendment changing "eight" to "seven" to correspond to the change being made in subsection 38(1).

336

Addendum The question may arise as to why it is necessary to hold a referendum on the amending formula where 7, 8 or 9 of the provinces with more than 80% of the population have all agreed upon a new amending formula which is found acceptable to the federal government. Since this degree of agreement would exceed that contemplated under the permanent Ofictoria) amending formula, wouldn't it be sufficient to enable the proposed new formula to be adopted over the dissent of one or two provinces without a referendum? There are perhaps two answers to this. First, during the interim amending period the general rule for amending the constitution, including the amending formula itself, is that of unanimity. Consequently, it would be a breach of this rule to enable the adoption of a new amending formula over the cbjectic,n of one or tho provinces. Following this approach, one could equally argue that a new amending formula should be adoptea if the requirements of the Victoria formula are met, ie. agreement of the federal government and six provinces meeting the population qualifications of section 41. Second, the prospect of a referendum where not all the provinces agree places strong presfe on the provinces to coure up with a unanimous proposai for an alternative referendum during the initial two year period that would also be acceptable to the federal government.

337

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement SECTION 38

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Provincial siterniti.e procrdurc

38. (1) The e or legislative 45 38. (1) Les gouvernements ou assembles assemblies of eight or more provinces that lgislatives d'au moins huit provinces dont la have, according to the then latest general population confondue reprsente, selon le census, combined populations of at least recensement gnral le plus rcent l'poeighty per cent of the population of all the que. au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la provinces may make a single proposa! to population de toutes les provinces peuvent substitute for paragraph 4111)(6) such alterprsenter une proposition commune en vue native as they consider appropriate. 5de remplacer la procdure prvue l'alina 41(I)b).

overnments

Proposition de remplacement

Procedure fur palatins alternative

(2) One copy of an alternative proposed (2) Chaque province concerne peut dpomise au point under subsection (I) may be deposited with ser le texte de la proposition vise au paragraphe (1) auprs du directeur gnral des the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by cach proposing province within two years lections du Canada dans les deux ans sui- 10 after this Act, except Part V, cornes into 'Oyant l'entre en vigueur, exception faite de la force but, prior to the expiration of that partie V, de la prsente loi, tant entendu period, any province that has deposited a qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette copy may withdraw that copy. priode. (3) Where copies of an alternative have (3) Dans les cas o, deux ans aprs l'en- 15 Ittrthdim been filed as provided by subsection (2) and, 1 5 tre en vigueur, exception faite de la partie on the day that is two years after this Act, V, de la prsente loi, au moins huit provinces remplissant les conditions dmographiques except Part V, cornes into force, at least ejeLit copies remain filed bv provinces that vises au paragraphe (I) n'ont pas retir leur have. according to the then latest general texte, le gouvernement du Canada fait tenir, 20 census, combined populations of at least 20 dans les deux annes suivant l'chance des eighty per cent of the population of all the deux ans, un rfrendum pour dterminer provinces, the government of Canada shall laquelle des procdures suivantes sera adopcause a referendum to be held within two te: years alter that day to determine whether o) celle qui est prvue l'alina 41(1)b) 25 (a) paragraph 41(1 )(b) or any alternative 25 ou l'ventuelle procdure de remplacement thereto pronosed bv the government of propose par le gouvernement du Canada Canada by depositing a copy thereof with aprs dpt de son texte auprs du directhe Chief Electoral Officer at least ninety tete gnral des lections au moins quatredays prior to the day on which the referenvingt-dix jours avant la date du rfren- 30 dum is held, or 30 dum; (b) the alternative proposed by the provb) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition inces, des provinces. shall be adopter!.

Itererodum

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

Provincial 38. (1) The legislative alterna assemblies of seven or more tive provinces that have, according to the piu..edurethen latest general census, combined populations of at least eighty per cent of the population of all the provinces may make a single proposai to substitute for paragraph 41(1)(b) such alternative as they consider appropriate.

338

Procedure (2) One copy of an alternative for proposed under subsection (1) may be perfect- deposited with the Chief Electoral ing Officer of Canada by each proposing alterna- province within two years after this tive Act, except Part V, cornes into force but, prior to the expiration of that period, any province that has deposited a copy may withdraw that copy. Reeren dum (3) Where copies of an alternative have been deposited as provided by subsection (2) and, on the day that is two years after this Act, except Part V, cornes into force, at least seven copies remain deposited by provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least eighty per cent of the population of all the provinces, the government of Canada shall cause a referendum to be held within two years after that day to determine whether (a) paragraph 41(1)(b) or any alternative thereto approved by Parliament and deposited with the Chief Electoral Officer at least ninety deys prior to the day on which the referendum is held, or (b) the alternative proposed by the provinces, shall be adopted.

38. (1) Les assembles lgislatives d'au moins sept provinces dont la population confondue reprsente, selon le
recensement gnral le plus rcent l'poque, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces peuvent prsenter une proposition commune en vue de remplacer la procdure prvue l'alina 41(1)b).

Propoptoon de remplacement

(2) Chaque province concerne peut dposer le texte de la proposition vise au paragraphe (I) auprs du directeur gnral des lections du Canada dans les deux ans suivant l'entre en vigueur, exception faite de la partie V, de la prsente loi, tant entendu qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette priode.

<MU 30

Pusubtlit de rant

(3) Dans les cas o, deux ans aprs l'en- eirel.'dm tre en vigueur, exception faite de la unie V, de la prsente loi, au moins ztie provinces remplissant les conditions dmographiques vises au paragraphe (l) n'ont pas retir leur texte, le gouvernement du Canada fait tenir, dans les deux annes suivant l'chance des deux ans, un rfrendum pour dterminer laquelle des procdures suivantes sera adopte: a) celle qui est prvue l'alina 41(I)b) ou l'ventuelle procdure de remplacement adOPte par le earlement et dont texte est dzose auprs du directeur gnral des electtons au moins quatrevingt-dix jours avant la date du rfrendum; b) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition des provinces.

le

339

TAB 18, SECTION 3 8 (1) PART A

REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION

ACT

PART IV:

Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement

ALTERNATIVE FORMULA PROPOSED BY PROVINCES SECTION 3 8 (1)

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980

Provinc..11 ahernaine procedure

38. (I) The governments or legislative 45 38. (1) Les gouvernements OQ assembles lgislatives d'au moins huit provinces dont la assemblies of eight or more provinces that population confondue reprsente, selon le have, according to the then latest general recensement gnral le plus rcent l'pocensus, combined populations of at least que, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la eighty per cent of the population of aIl the population de toutes les provinces peuvent provinces may make a single proposai to prsenter une proposition commune en vue substitute for paragraph 41(1 )(b) such alter5 de remplacer la procdure prvue l'alina native as they consider appropriait, 41(1)b).

Proposition de remplacemeni

JANDA RY 1981 P ROP OS ALS

Provincial 38. (1) The legisiative alterna- assemblies of seven or more tive provinces that have, according to the pmcedurethen latest general census, combined populations of at least eighty per cent of the population of ail the provinces may make a single proposai to substitute for paragraph 41(1)(b) such alternative as they consider appropria te.

38. (1) Les assembles lgisla- troroimoode melelens tives d'au moins sept provinces dont la population confondue reprsente, selon le recensement gnral le plus rcent l'poque, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces peuvent prsenter une proposition commune en vue de remplacer la procdure prvue l'alina 41(1)b).

TAB 18, SECTIQN 38(2) PART A

340

REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement ALTERNATIVE FORMULA PROPOSED BY PROVINCES: SECTION 38(2)

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980

Pradure fur perfecting alternative

de (2) Chaque province concerne peut dpo- Pessiteti (2) One copy of an alternative proposed au mixt ser le texte de la prOposition vise au paraunder subsection (1) may be deposited with graphe (1) auprs du directeur gnral des the Chief Electorat Officer of Canada by lections du Canada dans les deux ans sui- 10 each proposing province within two years after this Act, except Part V, cornes into I O vant l'entre en vigueur, exception faite de la partie V, de la prsente loi, tant entendu force but, prior to the expiration of that qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette period, any province that has deposited a priode. copy may withdraw that copy.

JANUARY 1981 P ROP OS ALS

No change.

TAB 1 PART

341
SECTION 38 ( 3)

REVISED

Rfrendum (3) Dans les cas o, deux ans aprs l'entre en vigueur, exception faite de la nartie V, de la prsente loi, au moins ge provinces remplissant les conditions dmographiques vises au paragraphe (I) n'ont pas retir leur texte, le gouvernement du Canada fait tenir, dans les deux annes suivant l'chance des deux ans, un rfrendum pour dterminer laquelle des procdures suivantes sera adopte: a) celle qui est prvue l'alina 41(t)b) ou l'ventuelle procdure de remplacement adoPteQ par le Parlerrent et dont le texte est dzose auprs du directeur gnral des elections au moins quatrevingt-dix jours avant la date du rfrendum;

t.) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition des provinces.

342
TAB 18, SECTION 18(3) PART A REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement SECTION 38(3)

ALTERNATIVE FORMULA PROPOSED BY PROVINCES:

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER

6, 1980

Releeed.^,

(3) Dans les cas o, deux ans aprs l'en- I 5 Mim (3) Where copies of an alternative have been filed as provided by subsection (2) and, 15 tre en vigueur, exception faite de la partie on the day that is two years after this Act, V, de la prsente loi, au moins huit provinces remplissant les conditions dmographiques except Part V. cornes into force, at least vises au paragraphe (1) n'ont pas retir leur eight copies remain filed by provinces that have, according to the then latest general texte, le gouvernement du Canada fait (enir, 20 census, combined populations of at least 20 dans les deux annes suivant l'chance des eighty per cent of the population of all the deux ans, un rfrendum pour dterminer provinces, the government of Canada shall laquelle des procdures suivantes sera adopcause a referendum to be held within two te: years Act that day to determine whether a) celle qui est prvue l'alina 41( I )b) 25 (a) paragraph 41( Mb) or any alternative 25 ou l'ventuelle procdure de remplacement thereto proposed by the government of propose par le gouvernement du Canada aprs dpt de son texte auprs du direcCanada by depositing a copy thereof with the Chief Electoral Officer at least ninety leur gnral des lections au moins quatrevingt-dix jours avant la date du rfren- 30 days prior to the day on which the rcferendum is held, or 30 dum; (b) the alternative proposed by the prou- b) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition inces, des provinces. shall be adopted.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

Referen(3) Where copies of an alternative dum have been deposited as provided by subsection (2) and, on the day that is two years after this Act, except Part V, cornes into force, at least seven copies remain deposited by provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least eighty per cent of the population of all the provinces, the government of Canada shall cause a referendum to be held within two years after that day to determine whether (a) paragraph 41(1)(b) or any alternative thereto approved by Parliament and deposited with the Chief Electoral Officer at least ninety deys prior to the day on which the referendum is held, or (b) the alternative proposed by the provinces, shall be adopted.

. 343

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement COMING INTO FORCE OF PART V WHERE REFERENDUM HELD: SECTION 39

A. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS Representations concerning section 39 dealt with the requirement for a simple national majority rather than a weighted national majority for approval of an amending formula in a referendum. This point was raised in the context of section 38 and was dealt with under that section (please see above).

344
TAB 18: SEC. PART B REVISION

Section 39 Section 39.

Coming into Force of Part V Where a Referendum is Held Provides that where a referendum is held a proclamation must be issued within six months by the Governor General bringing the proposai chosen by the people into force. In addition consequential changes to the other components of the "final" amending formula set out in Part V would be made by virtue of this section, for example, the present section 41(1)(b) provides for consent of a province - Sections 42 and 45 accordingly assume that consent will be given by resolution of the legislature and refer to such resolution, yet it is open to the provinces by means of the procedure prescribed in Section 38 to provide for a "provincial component" of the final formula which would not use resolutions of the provincial legislatures - it might require only the consent of the government of a province, or it might require a provincial statute. In such case consequential amendments would be required in Sections 42 and 45. It may be questioned why the voting in this case is on a national basis with no requirement for majorities from the particular regions of the country. This is because the formula put forward by the provinces will already have been approved by at least seven of the provinces. Thus it is not felt necessary to provide for a regional majority in the referendum.

SPECIAL NOTE TO MINISTER _ It may be asked why any alternative proposed by Parliament would also need only a national majority to pass. This can be answered by sayiag that Parliament itself by virtue of being composed of elected representatives and Senators from across the country protects the regions sufficiently in this case. However this is not a very convincing argument given that amendments proposed under Section 42 also require approval by Parliament, and yet regional majorities are also required for adoption.

TAB 18, Section 40, Part C

34
REVISED THE CONSTITUTION ACT

PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 40

A. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS Premier Blakeney proposed a new section 46 (rules for holding-a referendum under section 42) that would apply also to a referendum held under section 38. His proposai would provide for a Referendum Rules Committee of three persons: the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada (chairman), a person named by the Governor in Council and a person named by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the governments of a majority of the provinces or, failing which, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice from among persans recommended by provincial governments or, failing which, from among persans knowledgeable in the holding of elections. The Governor General "may, by Proclamation issued under the Great Seal of Canada, on recommendation of a Referendum Rules Committee make rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under sections 38 and 42". Such rules may include penalties for the contravention thereof; have force of law; and prevail over other laws except the Canadien Charter of Rights and Freedoms. (The text of Premier Blakeney's section 46 is attached.)

MOTION BY THE GOVERNMENT The government will move amendments to section 40 and section 46 that would provide for a Referendum Rules Commission composed of three persans: the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and two persons appointed by the Governor General in Council, one to represent the Government of Canada and one to represent the provinces (the latter to be chosen under terms similar to those proposed by Premier Blakeney). The Commission would, within 60 days of its creation, present referendum rules approved by a majority of the Commission to Parliament. Within a further period of 60 days, Parliament could enact rules for holding a referendum, subject to the right to vote of Canadien citizens and taking into consideration any rules approved by the Commission. If Parliament does not enact rules, the rules recommended by the Commission would be brought into force by a Proclamation of the Governor General. The rules would have the force of law and would prevail over other laws. They would not be specifically limited by the provisions of the Charter since, under the new federal proposai for section 52, the Constitution of Canada (including the Charter) prevails over ail laws. Comment The federal proposai for a new section 40 goes quite far in meeting the main points raised by Saskatchewan. However, the federal proposai would retain the ultimate supremacy of Parliament to determine the rules for holding a national referendum if Parliament wished to exercise that power. If a Member of the Joint Committee were to propose that Premier Blakeney's text be substituted far the government's revised s.40, the government would oppose such a move since the Saskatchewan text would give independent constitutional authority to the Commission. The government is strongly of the view that the Commission should be advisory and that Parliament should retain its ultimate authority.

346

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46

A. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS Saskatchewan proposed a new section 46 which would also apply to section 40 of the interim amending procedure. A copy of the comments on the Saskatchewan proposai and the federal revised section 46 is found under section 40.

347
TAB 18:Sec. 40:PART B:P. REVISION

Section 40

Rules For Referendum Amendment Proposed by Government Would provide for the establishment of a Referendum Rules Commission instead of leaving the making of such rules to Parliament alone. There has been criticism by many, and in particular by Premier Blakeney that leaving the rule making procedure to Parliament alone invites abuse, since Parliament could frame rules respecting expenses, time Units, etc. that might be seen as "loading the dice" in favour of the federal option. While this is really highly unlikely the proposed amendment respOnds to these criticisms because the government believes that the process provided in the constitution should not only be fair but should aise "be seen" to be fair. The amendment proposed follows a draft suggested to the Committee by Premier Blakeney.

Section 40(1) - Guarantees that all citizens of Canada without unreasonable distinction have the right to vote in a referendum.

SPECIAL NOTE FOR MINISTER Questions will likely be raised as to whether preventing judges, or inmates in penal institutions, from voting is an unreasonable distinction. In the end it will be the courts which will decide.. At present, these groups are prevented from voting in federal elections and thus there is a good argument for saying the limitations would not be unreasonable (judges must be seen to be impartial, inmates can be said to have forfeited their right to vote by the actions which led to their imprisonment). On the other han& there is a good deal of public sentiment today that these groupa should not be prevented from voting thus it is arguable that the restrictions against them are unreasonable. It is probably wiser to answer such questions before the committee by saying that such restrictions are reasonable, otherwise a debate on the fairness of the existing Elections Act will be opened up. Clearly provisions which prevent citizens under 18 years of age from voting are reasonable restrictions.

348

Section 40(2) Provides for the establishment of an advisory commission to be called a Referendum Rules Commission, consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer as Chairman and two other persons, one chosen by the provinces, one chosen by the federal government. The Chief Electoral Officer is an independent officer appointed by Parliament; he is appropriate as chairman of the Commission because of his expertise in electoral matters. Provision is made that the member of the commission chosen by the provinces shall be so chosen by majority vote of the provinces. But, if a person is not so chosen he shall be chosen by the Chief Justice either from among persons recommended by the provinces, or, if no recommendations are made, from among persons he considers qualified. A sixty day time limit is imposed on the choosing of nominees since the provinces are given 30 days after a request by the Chief Electoral Officer to so choose, and if they do not, the Chief Justice is given a further 30 day period within which to make the choice.

349

Section 40(3) The Commission, once established, is given 60 days in which to recommend rules to Parliament or an. extended time limit if Parliament is not then sitting. In the latter case the Commission must table its recommendations within the first ten days of Parliament sitting. Section 40(4) Parliament is empowered to enact the referendum rules taking into consideration the rules recommended by the commission. Parliament retains ultimate control over the rules since it is an elected body. An entity ultimately responsible to the electorate should retain responsibility for the rules. At the same time it would be very difficult for Parliament to ignore the recommendations of the Commission unless there was a very good reason for its doing so. Section 40(5) If Parliament does not enact rules within 60 days after receiving the Commission,s recommendations, the rules the Commission has proposed automatically corne into force by proclamation of the Governor General.

350

Section 40(6) The 60 day period referred to in sub-section (5) does not include any time during which Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. Section 40(7) The rules adopted by operation of section 40 will prevail over "laws made under the Constitution of Canada", that is over federal or provincial laws for example, which might prescribe rules respecting voting. The rules would not, however, prevail over the Constitution itself, that is they would not prevail over the Charter of Rights which provides guarantees for the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc. A similar section providing for a Referendum Commission for any referendum held uner the "final" amending formula, section 42 of Part V, will be set out in section 46. The total time period for the making of rules, if all time limits are extended to their maximum length, is approximately six months. That is, there are: 30 days within which the provinces must choose their nominee to the Commission, but if they do not, then 30 further days within which the Chief Justice must choose that nominee, then 60 days within which the Commission must make its recommendations to Parliament (or some longer time if Parliament is not then sitting), then 60 days within which Parliament must enact the Rules legislation.

351

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement SECTION 39

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER6, 1980


Contins int force of Part V 'dure referendum held

39. Where a referendum is held under 39. Dans les six mois suivant la date du 35Eyttaten subsection 38(3), a proclamation under the 35 rfrendum, une proclamation sous le grand 811 u a ", ,,:v p 1 Great Seal of Canada shall be issued within sceau du Canada est prise en vue de faire nutenattet six months after the date of the referendum entrer en vigueur la partie V, ventuellement bringing Part V into force with such modifimodifie dans la mesure ncessaire pour cations, if any, as are necessary to incorpoincorporer la proposition approuve par la 40 rate the proposai approved by a majority of 40 majorit des votants et pour intgrer les the persons voting at the referendum and autres amnagements justifis qui en dcouwith such other changes as are reasonably lent. consequential on the incorporation of that proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS No change.

352

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement SECTION 40

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6,
Rulcs for sure:urdu'',

1980

stl i 1 ,r., Parlia- 45 40. (11 Sous rserve du paragraphe (2), le 40. (1) Subject ici subsection a 1 Parlement peut lgifrer pour rglementer la 457 d:,,, V` ment may make laws respecting the rules tenue du rfrendum vis au paragraphe applicable w the holding of a referendum 38(3). under subsection 38(3). (2) Every citizen of Canada has, without unreasonable distinction or limitation, the right to vote in a referendum held under subsection 38(3). (2) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote Toccasiop du rfrendum vis au paragraphe 38(.31Se droit ne peut, sans motif valable. faire l'objet d'aucune distinction ou 5 restriction.
Drett de cote

Right lo ut

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS Right to 40. (1) Every citizen of vote Canada has, without unreasonable distinction or limitation, the right to vote in a referendum held under subsection 38(3). Establish- (2) If a referendum is required Trent of (to be held under subsection 38(3), ReferendHa Referendum Rules Commission shall un Rulesiforthwith be established by Carrais- commission issued under the Great Seal of Canada consisting of ' sion (a) the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission; (b) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council; and (c) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council (i) on the recommendation of the governments of a majority of provinces, or (ii) if the governments of a majority of provinces do not recommend a candidate within thirty days after the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada requests such a recommendation, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the provinces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persons as the Chief Justice considers qualified.

353

Duty of Commission

(3) A Referendum Rules Commission shall cause rules for the holding of a referendum under subsection 38(3) approved by a majority of the Ccemission to be laid before Parliament ,within sixty days after the Commission is established or, if Parliament is mot then sitting, on any of the first ten days thereafter that Parliament is sitting.

(4) Subject to subsection (1) and Rules fo referen taking into consideration any rules approved by a Referendum Rules Commission um in accordance with subsection (3), Parliament may enact laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under subsection 38(3). Proclan (5) If Parliament does mot enact ation laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum within sixty days after receipt of a recommendation from a Referendum Rules Commission under subsection (4), the rules recommended by the Commission shall forthwith be brought into force by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada.
Output- (6) Any period when Parliament ation is prorogued or dissolved shall mot of be counted in computing the sixty period day period referred to in subsection (5). Rules (7) Subject to subsection (1), to ha rules made under this section have force the force of law and prevail over of law other laws made under the Constitution of Canada to the extent of any inconsistency.

40. (1)

citoyen canadien a le droit de rfrendum vis au para graphe 3$(3) ce droit ne peut, sans motif valable, fairerObj et d'aucune distinction ou restriction. vote

211

Fout

Orem de .vie

(2) Ds que s'impose la tenue du rfrendum vis au paragraphe 38(3), il est constitu, par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, une commission rfrendaire compose:

Constitution de la commission rfrendaire

a) du directeur gnral des lections du Canada, prsident; 11) d'une personne nomme par le gouverneur gnral en conseil; e) d'une personne nomme par le gouverneur gnral en conseil : (1) soit sur la recommandation des gouvernements de la majorit des provinces,

354

(ii) soit, si les gouvernements de la majorit des provinces ne prsentent pas de candidat dans les trente jours suivant la demande que leur en fait le directeur gnral des lections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi prsent tant choisi parmi les personnes recommandes par les gouvernements des provinces dans les trente jours suivant l'expiration du dlai de trente jours ou, faute de recommandation, parmi les personnes que le juge en chef estime qualifies. (3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission rfrendaire fait dposer devant le Parlement les rgles applicables la tenue du rfrendum vis au paragraphe 38(3), qu'elle aura approuves par dcision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne sige pas, ce dpt s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de sance ultrieurs. (4) Sous rserve du paragraphe_ M et compte tenu des rgles dposes" ,conformment le Parlement peut lgifrer pour rglementer la tenue du rfrendum vis au paragraphe 38(3). (5) Faute par le Parlement d'avoir lgifr, conformment au paragraphe (4), dans le dlai de soixante jours suivant le dpt des rgles vises au paragraphe (3), celles-ci sont mises immdiatement en vigueur par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada.

Mandat de la commission

Rglementation du rfrendum

Proclamation

(6) Dans la con utation du dlai vis au paragraphe (5), ne sont pas compts les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est prorog ou dissous. (7) Sous rserve du paragraphe (1), les rgles arrtees en vertu du prsent article ont force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre rgle de droit fonde sur la Constitution du Canada.

Computation du dlai

Valeur de force de loi des rgles

355

19

356

THE CONSTITUTION ACT

PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada

SECTIONS 41 - 51

Section 41: General Amending Formula Section 42: Amendment by Referendum Section 43: Amendments of Provisions Relating to Some But Not Ail Provisions Section 44: Amendments Without Senate Approval Section 45: Rules for Amendments by Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures Section 46: Rules for Referendum Section 47: Clarification re: Use of Amending Formula Sections 48 Amendments bv Parliament and 49: Amendments by Provincial Legislatures Section 50: Matters Requiring Amendment by General Formula Section 51: Consequential Amendments

REVISION

PPM V INTRODUCTION PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA Part V provides for what is called in these briefing notes a "final" amending procedure. It is final only in the sense that it is to be distinguished from the interim amending formula set out in sections 33 and 34 of Part IV. It coula, of course, be amended before or after coming into force.

Part V provides for two alternate ways of approving constitutional amendments, by approval of the federal and provincial legislatures (sections 41 and 43) or by approval of the people in a referendum (section 42). As noted above (section 37), this "final" formula set out in Part V, can corne into force in one of three ways: (1) when both Houses of Parliament and the legislatures or governments of all provinces agree, if within two years of the coming into force of the Act; automatically two years after the Constitution Act, 1981 coules into force; or if the provinces agree upon an alternative to the provincial component of section 41, and that version or some alternative thereto is approved by the people in a referendum,then Part V amended accordingly cornes into force within six months of the date of referendum (section 39).

(2) (3)

358

(i) every province that at any tinte before the issue of the proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twenty-f ive per cent of the population of Canada, (ii) two or more of the Atlantic provinces, and (iii) two or more of the Western provinces that have in the aggregate, according to the then latest general census, a population of at least fifty per cent of the population of all of the Western provinces. Oefinitions (2) In this section, "Atlantic "Atlantic provinces" means the provinces Provinces" of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland; "Western "Western provinces" means the provinces provinces" of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

PARTIE V PROCEDURE DE MODIFICATION DE LA CONenTUTIONDUCANADA

41. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut tre modifie par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorise la fois: a) par des rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des communes: b) par des rsolutions des assembles lgislatives d'une majorit des provinces; cette majorit cc ferend: (i) chaque province dont la population, avant la date de cette proclamation, reprsentait, selon un recensement gnral antrieur quelconque, au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de la population du Canada, (ii) au moins deux des provinces de l'Atlantique;

Procdure normale de modification

(iii) au moins deux des provinces de l'Ouest, condition que la population confondue des provinces consentantes reprsente, selon le recensement gnral le plus rcent l'poque, au moins cinquante pour cent de la population de l'ensemble des provinces de l'Ouest. (2) Les dfinitions qui suivent s'appliquent au prsent article, provinces de l'Atlantique. Les provinces de la Nouvelle-cosse, du Nouveau-Brunswick, de file-du-Prince-douard et de Terre-Neuve. .provinces de l'Ouest. Les provinces du Manitoba, de la Colombie-Britannique, de la Saskatchewan et de l'Alberta.
M'initient .province de PAtlaMique.

erovinctuide Murat.

359

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada GENERAL AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 41

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Bar Association find the Victoria Amending Formula acceptable and Premiers Buchanan and Blakeney could live with either the Victoria formula approach or the Vancouver consensus. The Vancouver consensus was preferred by the Canada West Foundation, the Union nationale, the Alberta Chamber of Commerce, the Government of Alberta, the Canadian Organization of Small Business (Calgary) and the Employers; Council of B.C. The Alberta NDP supported a variant of the Toronto consensus (7 provinces representing 80% of the population, with unanimity for amendments respecting language rights, educaton, and ownership and control of naturel resources). Specific criticisms of section 41 included: (a) section 41 does not provide for a role for the territories in constitutional amendment (Yukon, NWT); the 50% population requirement for consent in the Atlantic region effectively eliminates P.E.I. from any meaningful role in the amendment process and the population requirement should be dropped; section 41 gives a specific veto to two provinces (Ontario and Quebec) and not to the others, therefore provinces are not treated equally; the 50% population requirement in the western region should be replaced by a provision requiring the consent of at least two western provinces including one of the two most populous; section 41 does net require the consent of Aboriginal People for amendments respecting their rights and a provision to provide for such consent should be included; provincial language rights (section 133, section 23 of the Manitoba Act) should be tied to the other language rights in the Charter regarding their amendment.

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

360

B. PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS (i) The Vancouver Consensus It may be moved that the Vancouver consensus be substituted for the Victoria formula. Comment The Victoria formula was approved in all its details by all governments in 1971. While all provinces were agreed in principle on the utility of pursuing the Vancouver consensus in September, 1980, some reservations remained about the opting-out provisions and there was no agreement on how to handle those matters where opting-out could not occur (e.g., amendments respecting the Supreme Court). The government is therefore firmly of the view that the Victoria formula, which provides a regionally weighted "national consensus" that would require the approval of amendments by Parliament and at least six legislative assemblies representing over 80% of th population distributed over the four regions of Canada, should be retained as a final amending formula since it is the one which previously had unanimous support. If the same degree of support the Victoria formula commanded in 1971 can be reached on an alternative amending formula (eg. the Vancouver consensus) during the interim period, it can be put into place. Alternatively, another formula (eg. the Vancouver consensus) could be put to the people under the provisions of s.38 even though it had less than unanimous support. (ii) Motions Arising out of Points (a) to (f) Above

(a) That section 41 provide a role for the territories in constitutional amendment. Comment Section 41 provides a procedure for constitutional amentment involving only legislative bodies that exercise legislative authority in their own right under the Constitution of Canada. The territories have not yet attained this status. A role for the people of the territories is, however, provided in section 42(referendum) whereby the vote of the people would form part of the requirement that a majority of the persons throughout Canada voting at a referendum would have to approve an amendment. (b) That the 50% requirement for consent in the Atlantic region be dropped (as in the original Victoria formula). Comment The government . WiI1 so propose. (c) That a veto not be given to two provinces (Ontario and Quebec) and to no other.

361

Comment The Victoria formula is based both on provinces and on regions. Each of the four historic regions of Canada exercises a veto under section 41. In the case of two of the regions, the region is coterminous with a province. To remove the veto for Ontario and Quebec would be to remove the veto for those two regions and this would be anomalous. (d) That the 50% population requirement in the western region be replaced by a provision requiring the consent of at least two western provinces including one of the two most populous. Comment The proposai in section 41 is taken from the Victoria formula. Should the western provinces wish to alter it along the lines suggested above, government and legislative bodies coula take the appropriate action during the interim period to effect such a change. (e) That provision be made requiring the consent of Aboriginal People for amendments respecting their rights. Comment Section 41 provides a formula that requires the approval of amendments by legislative bodies that exercise legislative authority in their own right under the Constitution of Canada. The Government of Canada would be unwilling to single out any particular group of citizens (Native peoples, linguistic minorities, denominational minorities) and require that the consent of such a group be required for a constitutional amendment. The Government of Canada is firmly committed, however, to consulting Native peoples on any amendment affecting . them. (f) That provincial language rights (section 1.33, section 23) be tied to the other language rights in the Charter regarding their amendment. Comment The Government of Canada sympathizes with the desire to give greater protection to provincial language rights. However, any move to makeIt more difficult to remove such rights would also make it more difficult to add rights in provinces where there is no constitutional provision for them. The Government of Canada considers that the addition of new language rights is the principal concern to be addressed in the near future and that a more flexible amending procedure would be preferable in pursuing this goal. N.B.: Provincial language rights for New Brunswick have been included in the Charter, but this was done at the express request of New Brunswick.

362
CONFIDENTIAL

Section 41

General Amending Formula

In order to see the complete amending process, one should read section 41 together with section 43 which provides for amendments to provisions affecting one or more but not ail of the provinces, section 48 which provides for amendment by Parliament to the executive government of Canada, the Senate and the House of Commons, and section 49 which provides that provincial legislatures may make amendments with respect to provincial constitutions. Amendment Proposed by Government It is proposed to delete the requirement that the consent required from the Atlantic provinces must be at least two provinces comprising 50 percent of the population of ail Atlantic provinces. This is in response to the criticism that that population requirement makes P.E.I.'s vote meaningless - its population is so small that it would never, in combination with another Atlantic province, constitute a majority and any two other Atlantic provinces could aiways constitute a majority. Wording changes to subsections (ii) and (iii) are made to make it clear that these provinces voting together may constitute the regional majority required and that it is not necessary to aiways have two provinces which alone can constitute such majority. Section 41 thus amended is the Victoria Charter amending formula. Further General Comments

The Victoria amending formula was acceptable to ail governments in Victoria in 1971, although Quebec rejected the whole constitutional proposal because the provision relating ta social services did not go far enough; in addition, Saskatchewan never officially accepted the whole Charter because its government changed at that time. Subclause (1) will require, at the present time, the consent of Ontario and Quebec. The percentage population of the provinces is as follows: Nfld. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. 2i% i% 4% 4% 27% Que. Ont. - 36% man. Sask. Alta. B.C. 4% 4% 8% 11%

363

It should be noted, however, that the formula requires the consent of "every province that at any time before the issue of the proclamation (i.e.: bringing any particular constitutional amendment into force) had a population of at least 25 per cent ... ". Thus, the consent of every province which at any time in its history had 25 per cent of the population is required, even though at the time of the particular amendment it may have less than that number. Therefore, over the course of time the consent of several provinces could be required under this section. That would only occur if, as a result of population shifts, that province at some time or other had 25 per cent of the population of the country.

The population of provinces by percentage of total population of the Atlantic and Western regions respectively are set out below. The figures are taken from the 1976 census. Those for the next census in June, 1981 are not expected to change the relative positions of the provinces. Atlantic Region Nova Scotia New Brunswick Newfoundland P.E.I. Western Regions British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba 39% 29% 16% 16% 38% 31% 25.6% 5.4%

In the Western region the regional population requirement means that an amendment can only be made when British Columbia and at least one of the other Western provinces agree. Otherwise, if B.C. does not agree, the three other Western provinces must agree. As noted above, the provincial component of the amending formula (section 41(1)(b) can be altered if eight provinces having at least 80 per cent of the population agree on an alternative proposai which is approved by referendum as provided for under section 38. Victoria Proposai

Art. 49. Amendments to the Constitution of Canzu.a may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by Governor General under the Great Scat of Canaris when so authorized by resolutions of the Sonate and Hiiuse of Commons and of the Legtslative Assenblies of at least a majority of the Provinces that inclucies ci) every Province that at any tune before the u.sur nf sud) Proclamation ha.d. according 4.9 arty previous eral versus. a population ed at ieast tveenty-fixe percent of the population of Canada: 42)at least iwo of the Atlantic Provinces: 43) et least two of the Western Provinces that have. according to the then latest generat eensus, combined populations of at least ftfty per cent of the population of ail the Western Provinces.

364
CONFIDENTIAL

Why did the federal government propose the Victoria amending formula as the "final" formula? 1. 2. All provinces and the federal government explicitly agreed to its provisions in 1971. It provides for a regionally-weighted "national consensus" requiring the agreement of Parliament and the legislatures of at least six provinces representing over 80% of the Canadian population distributed among four regions. The Victoria formula (or variations of it) continues to have broad public support (the Pepin-Robarts Report, the Canadian Bar Association Report, the Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation Report, the Quebec Liberal Party "Livre Beige").

3.

9. The Victoria formula strikes an appropriate balance between the need for flexibility and the need for stability. The provisions of the Alberta amending formula, discussed at the First Ministers' Conference in September, 1980, were not explicitly accepted by all provinces or by the federal government. The emerging consensus around the Alberta approach was contingent upon acceptante of a larger package of constitutional changes. There was some continued concern about the optingout provisions which might lead to a checkerboard effect over time. Furthermore, some questions remained unresolved, such as how to handle amendments where opting-out would not be appropriate (i.e., amendments respecting the Suoreme Court and the Senate). If, however, eight provinces representing at least 80 per cent of the population were to agree to a fully elaborated version of the Alberta formula, it could be put to the people in a referendum. If adopted, it would replace the Victoria formula.

365

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada GENERAL AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 41

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


PART PARTIT V PROCEDL RE DE MODIF ICA TION DE LA CONSTITIMON Dl' CANADA

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDINO CONSTITUTION OF ( ANADA General /noceur( far agnencling Com iNtion of Cafe&

Definition: Mbnik petrol

Wcatetn prormcc-

41. H) An amcndment tes the Constitution 5 41. (I) La Constitution du Canada peut roccW ,rc gorntee de of Canada may be made by proclamation tre modifie par proclamation du gouvermiddisatme issucd by the Governor General under the neur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, Great Seal of Canada where so authorized autorise. by a) par des rsolutions du Snat et de la 10 (a) resolutions of the Senate and House of 10 Chambre des communes; Commons; and 4) par des rsolutions des assembles (b) resolutions of the legislative assemlgislatives d'une majorit des provinces; blies of at least a majority of the provinces cette majorit doit comprendre: that includes (i) chaque province dont la population, 5 (i) cvery province that at any lime 15 avant la date de cette proclamation, before the issue of the proclamation reprsentait, selon un recensement gnhad, according to any previous general ral antrieur quelconque, au moins census. a population of at least twentyvingt-cinq pour cent de la population du five per cent of the population of Canada, 20 Canada, 20 (ii) au moins deux des provinces de (ii) at least two of the Atlantic provl'Atlantique dont la Population confoninces that have, according to the then due reprsente, selon le recensement latest general census, combined populagnral le plus rcent Spoq_ue, au tions of at least fifty per cent of the moins cinquante pour cent de la popula- 25 population of ail the Atlantic provinces, 25 Lion de l'ensemble de ces provinces. and (iii) au moins deux des provinces de (iii) at least two of the Western provl'Ouest don la population confondue inces that have, according to the then reprsente. selon le recensement gnral latest general census, combined populale plus rcent l'poque, au moins cin- 30 tions of at least fifty per cent of the 30 quante pour cent de la population de population of ail the Western provinces. l'ensemble de ces provinces (2) In Phis section, (2) Les dfinitions qui suivent s'appliquent au prsent article. "Atlantic provinces" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince .provinces de l'Atlantique. Les provinces de 35ere--aset.e. Edward Island and Newfoundland: I Mhe Pn. 35 la Nouvelle-cosse, du Nouveau-Bruns' "Western provinces" means the provinces of wick, de l'le-du-Prince-douard et de Terre-Neuve. Manitoba, British Columbia. Saskatchewan and Alberta. provinces de l'Ouest. Les provinces du Manitoba, de la Colombie-Britannique, de 40 1 la Saskatchewan et de l'Alberta.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS PART V

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA 41. (1) An amendment to the General procedureConstitution of Canada may be made by for proclamation issued by the Governor anuding General under the Great Seal of Constit Canada where so authorized by ution of (a) resolutions of the Senate and Canada House of Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assemblies of at least a majority of the provinces that includes

. 366

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada REFERENDUM PROVISION: SECTION 42

A. SUMMARY OF. PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS This proved to be one of the most controversial elements of the Resolution. Of the provincial governments making representations, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick asked that the provision be removed. Saskatchewan had reservations about the provision, but argued that if the referendum procedure were maintained, it should only be used to break a deadlock and that Parliament should only authorize a referendum with the support of at least four legislative assemblies and that legislative assemblies sufficient to meet the requirements of s.41(1)(b) could authorize a referendum without the support of Parliament. The Official Opposition argued that the referendum procedure would change the nature of Canadian federalism and that the provision should be deleted. Some Conservative MPs did suggest amendments to the provision. Mr. Fraser suggested that a certain percentage of MPs from each region would have to approve any resolution for an amendment through the referendum procedure. He also suggested that a certain number of provinces should be able to cause a referendum to be field. Mr. Crosbie wished to have the Charter removed from the application of the referendum procedure. Mr. Yurko wished to remove resource ownership rights from the application of the referendum procedure: amendments respecting resource ownership should require the express consent of the affected province. The NDP position was not as clear. Mr. Nystrom expressed concern about using a referendum for amendments respecting individuel rights or provincial rights, particularly resource and pronerty rights. Mr. Robinson preferred that the Charter be removed from the application of the referendum procedure or, alternatively, that a referendum should only be used to add rights and not to remove or reduce them. Groups appearing before the Joint Committee raised a variety of concerns. The Canadian Catholic School Trustees, Association asked that denominational school rights be removed from the application of the referendum procedure. The Positive Action Committee felt that constitutional amendments were not suitable issues for a referendum. The Newfoundland Branch of the Canadian Bar Association felt that the referendum procedure moves Canada from a system of parliamentary supremacy towards a populist system. The Canada West Foundation proposed that every amendment proposai be put to the people in a referendum requiring a national majority and a majority in every province.

367

PROBABLE MOTIONS-BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS (a) Deadlock-breaking mechanism The government viii propose an amendment to make clear that s.42 can only be brought into operation after prior recourse to s.41. (b) A second resolution by Parliament It may be moved that Parliament adopt a second resolution to authorize a referendum if after twleve months of adoption of the initial resolution insufficient legislative assemblies have also adopted it. Comment The initial resolution adopted by Parliament gives full approval for an amendment either with the support of provincial legislatures or of the people in a referendum. It would be an unacceptable burden on the parliamentary timetable to require Parliament to debate once again and approve its initial resolve. If, however, the view of Parliament were to change twelve months latex, it would be open to Parliament to introduce a new resolution to rescind or replace the initial resolution. (c) Requirement for a First Ministers' Conference It may be moved that s.42 be amended to provide for the holding of a First Ministers' Conference to ascertain whether or not there is a deadlock. Comment The ways in which governments consult are varied: exchanges or letters, telephone cails, meetings of officiais, ministeriarmeetings and First Minsters' Conferences. It is highly improbable that a resolution would be introduced in Parliament without prior consultation with the provinces, but it would be inappropriate in a Constitution to lock in any one form of consultation. (d) Requirement of provincial support for the holding of a referendum It may be moved that a referendum coula on.ly be held when authorized by Parliament and at least four legislative assemblies. Comment It is for the Parliament of Canada, which, alone, represents ail Canadiens, to determine whether a proposai for amendment should be put to the people. Since a constitutional referendum wculd require, for approval, the consent of a national majority and a majority in at least six provinces distributed among four regions, provincial interests would be well protected by the approval procedure.

368

(e) A provincial initiative It may be moved that the number of provinces sufficient to meet the requirements of s.41(1)(b) be empowered to authorize a referendum. Comments It is for the Parliament of Canada, which, alone, represents ail Canadians, to determine whether a proposai for amendment should be put to the people. (f) The Charter of Rights It may be moved that the Charter of Rights (or language rights or denominational school rights) be exempt from the application of s.42 and only be amendable through s.41. Comments The Government of Canada is firmly of the view that sovereignty resides in the people and that, in cases of deadlock between governments and legislatures, Parliament, representing ail Canadians, should be able to appeal ta the people for a decision. "Approval by the people" in this context does not mean a mere populist majority. Rather, it would require a majority in each region that would respect the special regional character of Canadien society. The referendum procedure could be used for ail parts of the Constitution entrenched under s.41. The Government of Canada rejects the view that, in the fast analysis, legislative bodies are better custodians of the values we hold in common than the people of Canada in the four regions.

(g) Referendum only to add rights to the Charter A referendum should only be used to add rights to the Charter, not to remove or reduce them. Comments See (f) above. (h) Resource ownership and jurisdiction Remove amendments respecting resource ownership rights and legislative jurisdiction over resources from the application of s.42. Comments Constitutional provisions respecting resource ownership are amendable only under s.43 because such ownership rights are given by provisions which apply to one or more but not ail provinces (for example section 109 of the BNA Act of 1867 only applies ta the original four provinces; the Resources Transfer Agreement of 1930 applies to the four western provinces).

369

Section 42

Amendment by Referendum

Section 42(1) - Provides for approval of amendment by referendum instead of by legislatures as required by section 41. It is being argued that this section allows the federal government to amend the constitution "over the heads of the provinces". It does; it allows going "over the heads of the province" to the people of the respective provinces. A better characterization of the section is to say that it allows constitutional issues to be removed from the hands of governments and placed in the hands of the eo le for decision. Governments too often ave a vested interest in constitutional amendment which means that they make decisions based on what would lead to most power for that particular government. This does not necessarily lead to the best solution for the country as a whole. It is this attitude on the part of governments which has led to the continued deadlock in federal-provincial constitutional negotiations for more than 50 years. It must be emphasized that a referendum under this section cannot be won on the basis of a national majority only. Two majorities are required in order to ensure acceptance of the proposed amendment in ail regions: a majority of voters voting and a majority in each region. The purpose of the section is to place authority to consent to an amendment directly in the hands of the people as an alternative to amendment by agreement by Parliament and the provincial legislatures. Thus, the required regional majorities parallel the consent required from provincial legislatures under section 41. On this basis approval by referendum therefore would require: (a) (b) a majority of voters voting thereat; a majority of voters in every province having or having had 25 per cent of the population (Ontario and Quebec); (ii) (iii) in at least two Atlantic provinces; in at least two Western provinces having the oombined population of at least 50 per cent of the region.

(i)

If section 41 is amended as a resuit of an alternative proposai by the provincial or federal government under section 38, then the requirement for regional approval in a referendum under this section would change accordingly. It may be asked why only a referendum authorized by Parliament and not by the provinces is provided under this section. The rationale is that only Parliament represents ail of the people of Canada and, consequently, the ability to go to them by way of referendum should be vested in the national Parliament.

370

Section 42(2) Amendment Proposed by Government It is proposed to convert the referendum procedure into what has been called a "deadlock breaking mechanism". This is done in response to, among others, Premier Blakeney, who expressed concern that as drafted the section allows Parliament to initiate a referendum with no debate or discussion of the proposed amendment having taken place with the provinces. The present section provides that a national referendum shall be held when authorized by resolution of both Houses of Parliament. The amended section would provide that the Senate and House of Commons would have to first approve the proposed amendment to the constitution; which it was planned to place before the people in a referendum and then wait a year to give provincial legislatures a chance to debate if they so wished such proposed amendment. Only after the expiration of that year and if the consent of the required number of provincial for - an amendment under section 41 Legislatures was not forthcoming, could the referendum be held.

Section 42(3) Amendment Proposed by Government The section would provide that a referendum would have to be held on a proposed amendment within two years of the expiry date of the waiting period under section 42(2), that is within three years of the approval by the Senate and House of Commons of the oroposed amendment. This amendment is being proposed to provide a "sunset clause" for the holding of a referendum and not allow Parliaments original approval to authorize the holding of a referendum at some indefinite time in the long-distant future. The two-year sunset period could not reasonably be shortened given the fact that part of that time will be required for establishing the referendum rules.

371

PART V:

THE CONSTITUTION ACT T Procedtire for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENT BY REFERENDUM: SECTION 42

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


.tmendment authorited by rcfcrcentum

42. (1) An amendaient to the Constitution 42. ( I) La Constitution du Canada peut of Canada may be made by proclamation40lre modifie par proclamation du gouverissued by the Governor General under the rieur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada,

Nodificanon morise pst rflcacturn

Great Scal of Canada wherc so authorized autorise par un rfrendum tenu dans tout by a referendum held throughout Canada le pays conformment au paragraphe (2) et under subsection (2) at which lors duquel la modification a t approuve: (a) a majority of persons voting thereat, al d'une part, la majorit des votants: and 5 h) d'autre part, la majorit des votants 5 (b) a majority of persons voting thereat in de chacune des provinces dont les rsolueach of the provinces. resolutions of the rions de leurs assembles lgislatives suffilegislative assemblics of which would be raient, avec les rsolutions du Snat et de sufficient. together with resolutions of the la Chambre des communes. autoriser la Senate and Mouse uf Commons, to author- 10 proclamation mentionne au paragraphe 10 ire the issue of a proclamation under sub41(1). section 41(1), have approved the making of the amendment.
Malweimain dmfueldum

(2) A referendum referred to in subsection 15 (2) L'ordre de tenue d'un rfrendum AUtenetiOn de newe'n (1) shall be held wherc directcd by proclamentionn au paragraphe (I) est donn par mation issued by the Governor General proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le 15 under the Great Seal uf Canada Authorized grand sceau du Canada, autorise par les by resolutions of the Senate and flouse of rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des Commons. 20communes.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

Amendrnent 42 . (1) An amendment to the author- Constitution of Canada may be made by ized by proclamation issued by the Governor referend-General under the Great Seal of un Canada where so authorized by a referendum held throughout Canada under subsection (2) at which (a) a majority of persons voting thereat, and (b) a majority of persons voting thereat in each of the provinces, resolutions of the legislative assemblies of which would be sufficient, together with resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons, to authorize the issue of a proclamation under subsection 41(1), have approved the making of the amendment. Aehoriz(2) A referendum referred to in ation of subsection (1) shall be held where referendumdirected by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada, which proclamation may be issued where

372

(a) an amendment to the Constitution of Canada has been authorized under paragraph 41(1)(a) by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; (b) the requirements of paragraph 41(1)(b) in respect of the proposed amendment have not been satisfied within twelve months after the passage of the resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (c) the issue of the proclamation has been authorized by the Governor General in Council. Time (3) A proclamation issued under limit for subsection (2) in respect of a referendum referendr- shall provide for the referendum to be held within two years after the expiration of the twelve month period referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection.

42. (1) La Constitution du Canada peut tre modifie par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorise par un rfrendum tenu dans tout k pays conformment au paragraphe (2) et lors duquel la modification a t approuve: a) d'une part, la majorit des votants; b) d'autre part, la majorit des votants de chacune des provinces dont les rsolutions de leurs assembles lgislatives suffiraient, avec les rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des communes, autoriser la proclamation mentionne au paragraphe 41(1).

Moddiumm woriMk par rfrendum

(2) L'ordre de tenue (1 1_ rfrendum mentionn au paragraphe (I) est donn par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada. Cette proclamation est assujettie aux I conditions suivantes:

.Autorlaallon de rfrendum

a) le Snat et la Chambre des oamnunes ont, conformment l'alina 41(1)a), adopt des rsolutions autorisant la modification de la Constitution du Canada;
b) les dispositions de l'alina 41(I)b) applicables au projet de modification n'ont pas t observes dans les douze mois suivant l'adoption des rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des communes;

gouverneur gnral en conseil a autoris la proclamation.


au

le

(3)La proclamation vise

fixe la tenue du rfrendum pour une date comprise dan.: les deux ans qui suivent
l'expiration du dlai de douze mois mentionn l'alina b) de ce paragraphe.

paragraphe (2)

Dlai de tenue du rfrendum

373
TAB 19, SECTION 42 ( 1) PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada
AMENDMENT BY REFERENDUM: SECTION 42(1)

REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6 1980


Arnendment by referendurn

42. (I) La Constitution du Canada peut 42. (I) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation 4tltre modifie par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, issued by the Governor General under the

motoMeWper Weendum

Mndifierran

Great Scal of Canada where so authorized autorise par un rfrendum tenu dans tout by a referendum hcld throughout Canada le pays conformment au paragraphe (2) et lors duquel la modification a t approuve: under subseciion (2) at which (a) a majority of persons voting thereat, a) d'une part. la majorit des votants; 5 b) d'autre part, la majorit des votants 5 and (b) a majority of persons voting thereat in de chacune des provinces dont les rsolurions de leurs assembles lgislatives suffieach of the provinces. resolutions of the raient. avec les rsolutions du Snat et de legislative assemblies of which would be la Chambre des communes, autoriser la sufficient, together with resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons. to author- 10 proclamation mentionns au paragraphe 10 41(1). ize the issue of a proclamation under subsection 41(1), have approved the making of the amendment.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

No change.

374

TAB 19, SECTION 42 (2) PART A


THE CONSTITUTION ACT

REVISED

PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENT BY REFERENDUM:


SECTION

42(2)

AS

TABLED ON

OCTOBER

6, 1980
d.

Aulhouwhon dmkrendum

Amr (2) A referendum referred to in subsection 15 (2) L'ordre de tenue d'un rfrendum i ` mentionn au paragraphe (1) tst donn par (I) shall be held wherc directcd by proclaproclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le 15 mation issued by the Governor General grand sceau du Canada, autorise par les under the Great Seal of Canada authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des 20communes. Commons.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

Authoriz(2) A referendum referred to in ation of subsection (1) shall be held where referendundirected by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada, which proclamation may be issued where (a) an amendment to the Constitution of Canada has been authorized under paragraph 41(1)(a) by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; (b) the requirements of paragraph 41(1)(b) in respect of the proposed amendment have not been satisfied within twelve months after the passage of the resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons; and (c) the issue of the proclamation has been authorized by the Governor General in Council.

.375
TAB 19, SECTION 42(2) PART A REVISED

(2) L'ordre de tenue du rfrendum mentionn au paragraphe (I) est donn par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada. Cette proclamation est assujettie aux conditions suivantes:

Autorisation de rfrendum

a) le Snat et la Chambre des =runes ont, 5Bnformment l'alina 41(1)a), adopt des rsolutions autorisant la modification de la Constitution du Canada; b) les dispositions de l'alina 41(l)b) applicables au projet de modification n'ont pas t observes dans les douze mois suivant l'adoption des rsolutions du Snat et de la Chambre des communes; &) - le gouverneur gnral en conseil a autoris la proclamation.

376
TAB 19, SECTION 42 (3) PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENT BY REFERENDUM: SECTION 42(3)

REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 No proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAL

Time (3) A proclamation issued under lirait for subsection (2) in respect of a referendum referend- shall provide for the referendum to be held within two years after the expiration of the twelve month period referred to in paragraph (b) of that subsection. (3)La proclamation vise au paragraphe (2) fixe la tenue du rfrendum pour une date comprise dan,.. les deux ans qui suivent l'expiration du dlai de douze mois mentionn l'alina b) de ce paragraphe. Dlai de tenue du rfrendum

377

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVISIONS: SECTION 43 S.43 (Amendments relating to some but not all provinces)

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Fdration des francophones hors Quebec asked that s.43 be amended so that minority official language rights could not be reduced under s.43. The Societ franco-manitobaine proposed that s.43 be amended to require a 3/4 vote of the Senate and of the House of Commons and a 3/4 vote of the legislative assembly of the province affected for any amendment under s.43. The Newfoundland Branch of the Canadien Bar Association wished to have s.43 clarified to indicate when it must be used for an amendment and proposed that the word "only" be added: changes "may oniy be made by the Governor General The Native Council of Canada was concerned that ss. 31 and 32 of the Manitoba Act respecting land guarantees could be amended by Parliament and the legislative assembly of Manitoba alone and the National Indien Brotherhood expressed similar concerns over other provisions respecting native peoples (eg. hunting rights in the BNA Act, 1930, and the 1871 Terms of Union with B.C.).

PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS (a) Language Rights Remove provincial language rights from the application of 5.43 or require 3/4 votes for their amendment. Comment The Government of Canada sumpathizes with the desire to give greater protection to provincial language rights, but removing such provisions from s.43 or requiring a 3/4 vote would make it also more difficult for those provinces that do not yet have constitutional provisions respecting language rights to make such provision. N.B.: Provincial language rights for New Brunswick have been included in the Charter, but this was done at the express request of New Brunswick. (b) Clarifying where s.43 must be used Note: this matter has been handled by an amendment to s.47.

378

(c)

Making special provision for aboriginal rights Make provision for the consent of native peoples to amendments under s.43 affecting them. Comment - The amending procedures deal with the way in which legislative bodies exercising legislative authority in their own right under the Constitution of Canada may amend the Constitution. It would be inappropriate to single out any one group in Canada for formel participation in this process. However, the Government of Canada is committed to consultation with native peoples on any amendments affecting them and no amendment to the Constitution may be made without authorization by Parliament.

379
CONFIDENTIAL

Section 43

Amendments of Provisions Relatin9 to Some but not ail Provinces Provides that amendments to provisions of the Constitution that apply to one or more, but not ail of the provinces, may be amended with the consent of the two Houses of Parliament and the legislative assembly of each province to which the amendment applies. This is identical to the interim amending formula for the same cases set out in section 34 of this Act and to Article 50 of the Victoria proposai.
Art. 50. Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more. but not ail, of the Provinces may from rime to lime be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolu. tions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of each Province to which an amendment applies.

Section 43

There is no referendum alternative for amendments under this section. It would not be appropriate to hold a national referendum on an issue pertaining to one or more but not ail provinces. Concern has been expressed that section 43 is an alternative to sections 41 and 42 for making amendments to provisions affecting one or more but not ail provinces. The section is intended to be exclusive, so that such provisions can only be amended by section 43 (that is, with the consent of the relevant provincial legislature and Parliament). This would seem to follow from the fact that section 43 is a more specific section than section 41 and therefore should be read out of it. In any event to put the matter beyond doubt an amendment will be proposed to section 47 to make it explicit that only section 43 can be used to amend provisions affecting one or more but not ail provinces.

380

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVISIONS: SECTION 43

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


tincndImmnf 43. An amendment tu the Constitution of mwmon. ,Wmptommx Canada in relation to an> provision that buqnot all applies to one or more, but not all. provinces prydnce,

Modewalie, 43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du d : Canada applicables certaines provinces 20= pictvint seulement peuvent tre modifies par proclamatton du gouverneur gnral sous le grand may be made by proclamation issucd by thc Governur General under the Great Seal of 25scvau du Canada, autorise par des rsolutions du Snat, de la Chambre des commuCanada where so authorized by resolutions nes et de l'assemble lgislative de chaque 25 of the Senate and House of Communs and of province laquelle la modification s'applithe legislative assembly of each province to que. which the amcndment applies.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS No change.

381

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL: SECTION 44

A.

SUMMAR? OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS This provision was strongly criticized by Conservative Senators (Senators Flynn, Roblin and Walker) and the Official Opposition (Messrs. Fraser, McMillan and Clark). Senator Flynn proposed that the delaying power of the Senate be extended to six months from 90 days. The Canada West Foundation expressed a preference for a strong Senate to play a greater role.

B.

PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Senator Flynn may move that the delaying power the Senate be extended to six months from 90 days. Comment The government will propose that the delaying power of the Senate be extended to 180 days under s.44. Consideration is also being given by the government to other options.!

382
CONFIDENTIAL

Section 44 Section 44

Amendments Without Senate Approval Provides that where the Senate refuses to authorize an amendment by passing a resolution, the House of Commons may override that lack of consent by re-passing the resolution. Ail such amendments will require the approval of either a majority of provinces regionally distributed as set out in section 41(1), or the provinces immediately concerned (section 43). It is not thought appropriate that the Senate should be able to block a proposed amendment to which both the House of Commons and the relevant provincial legislative assemblies have agreed. The section has no application to amendments by national referendum under section 42. The section has no application to amendments which require Parliament's consent alone - those relating to the executive government of Canada, or the Senate, or House of Commons, under section 48. An amendment to abolish the Senate, however, could be accomplished without Senate approval by virtue of this section since "the powers of the Senate" are by virtue of section 50 amendable by the general amending formula (section 41) and are not among the items which require Parliament's consent alone. A similar provision was contained in the Victoria formula:
An. SI. An amendment may be made by proclamation under Article 49 or 50 witnout a resolution of the Senatc authorizing the issue of the proclamation d within ninety deys of the passage of a resolutinn by the House of Communs authortzing its issue the Senate bas not passed suer, a resolution und nt any urne lifter the expiration of the ninety clays the flouse ut Communs again passes the resolution. but any period when Parfument :s prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted In Computing the ninety deys.

Amendments Proposed by Government Amendment is proposed to add "as appropriate" to the section to make it clear that the reference to sub-section 41(1) or 43 is not a simple alternative. This is merely a grammatical clarification. The section is divided into two to facilitate reading. The time period for Senate consideration of a proposed amendment, before reconsideration by the House of Commons is extended from 90 to 180 deys. This is in response to the representations made by Senator Flynn, in the course of the committee proceedings, that such extended time limit is more appropriate.

383

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL: SECTION
44

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 44. An amendaient to the Constitution of 30 44. La Constitution du Canada peut tire modirmi.il 4 we Canada may be made by proclamation under modifie par proclamation, dans le cadre du ni,7,7 ' paragraphe 41(1) ou de l'article 43, sans une 30 subsection 41(1) or section 43 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue rsolution du Snat autorisant la proclama. of the proclamation if, within ,ninety days lion, lorsque. dans un dlai de ouatre.vinztatter the passage by the House of Comment 35dix jours suivant l'adoption par la Chambre des communes d'une rsolution cet effet, le of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Snat n'a pas adopt une telle rsolution et 35 Senate has not passed such a resolution and si, aprs l'expiration de ce dlai, la Chambre if, at any Ume after the expiration of thosc ninety days, the Flouse of Comment again des communes adopte de nouveau la rsolupasses the resolution, but any period when 40tion. Dans la computation du dlai ne sont pas compts les jours pendant lesquels le Parliament is prorogued or dissolved thatl 40 Parlement est prorog ou dissous, not be counted in computing those ninety days.

Ammtmem, .1WrigiSono rtwhaum

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

ts 44. (1) An amendment to the without Constitution of Canada male Senate be made by proclamation under subsection resolu- 41(1) or section 43, as appropriate, tion without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if, within one hundred ande4eity days after the passage by the House of Commons of a resolution authorizing its issue, the Senate has not passed such a resolution and if, at any time after the expiration of those one hundred and eighty days, the House of Commons again passes the resolution.

ation of period

(2) Any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the one hundred and eighty day period referred to in s 'on (li
44. (1) Dans les cas viss au paragraphe 41(1) ou l'article 43, il peut tre pass outre au dfaut d'autorisation du Snat si celui-ci n'a pas adopt de rsolution dans un dlai de cent quatre-vingts jours suivant l'adoption de celle de la Chambre des communes et si cette dernire, aprs l'expiration du dlai, adopte une nouvelle rsolution dans le mme sens. (2) Dans la computation du dlai vis au paragraphe (1), ne sont pas compts les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est prorog ou dissous. MOdificaticn sans

rsolution
du Snat

Computation du dlai

384

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada INITIATION OF PROCEDURES FOR AMENDMENT: SECTION 45

A. SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS None.

385

CONFIDENTIAL

Section 45

Rules for Amendments by Parliament and the Provincial Legislatures

Section 45(1) - Provides that amendments under sections 41 and 43 may be initiated by either the Senate or the House of Commons, or by the legislative assembly of any province. Presumably this will be done by resolution of the respective legislative assemblies.

Section 45(2) - Provides that any resolution may be revoked any time before the amendment to which it relates becomes law. Similar provisions were part of the Victoria proposai.
Art. 52. The following rutes apply In the procedures for amendment descnbed in Articles 49 and 50. either of these procedures may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Communs or the Legislative Assembly u! a Province: 121 a resotution made for the purposes o! thls Part may be revoked at any Ume before the nsue of a proclamation authorsied by il.

386

TAB 19:Sec. 46: PART B

- 387

REVISION

Section 46

- AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY GOVERNMENT (identicai to the coimnents Pound in the briefing book in relation to the proposed amendment to Section 40) would provide for the establishment of a Referendum Rules Commission instead of leaving the making of such rules to Parliament alone. There has been criticism by many, and in particular by Premier Blakeney that leaving the rule making procedure to Parliament alone invites abuse, since Parliament could frame rules respecting expenses, time limits, etc. that might be seen as "loading the dice" in favour of the federal proposai. While this is really highly unlikely the proposed amendment responds to these criticisms because the government believes that the process provided in the constitution should not ()n'y be fair but should also "be seen" to be fair. The amendment proposed follows a draft suggested te the Committee by Premier Blakeney.

Section 46(1) - Guarantees that ail citizens of Canada without unreasonable distinction have the right to vote in a referendum.

SPECIAL NOTE FOR THE MINISTER Questions will likely be raised as to whether preventing judges, or inmates in penal institutions, from voting is an unreasonable distinction. In the end it will be the courts which will decide. At present, these groups are prevented from voting in federal elections and thus there is a good argument for saying the limitations would net be unreasonable (judges must be seen to be impartial, inmates can be said to have forfeited their right to vote by the actions which led to the imprisonment). On the other hand, there is a good deal of public sentiment today that these groups should not be prevented from voting thus it is arguable that the restrictions on them are unreasonable. It is probably wiser to answer such questions before the committee by saying that such restrictions are reasonable, otherwise a debate on the fairnees of the existing Elctions Act will be opened up. Clearly provisions which prevent citizens under 18 years of age from voting are reasonable restrictions.

388

Section 46(2) Provides for the establishment of an advisory commission to be called a Referendum Rules Commission, consisting of the Chief Electoral Officer as Chairman and t140 other persons, one chosen by the provinces, one chosen by the federal government. The Chief Electoral Officer is an independent ()Meer armointed by resolution of the House of Commons; he is approariate as chairman of the Commission because of his expertise in electoral matters. Provision is made that the member of the commission chosen by the provinces shall be so chosen by majority vote of the provinces. But, if a person is not so chosen he shall be chosen by the Chief Justice either from among persons recommended by the provinces, or, if no recommendations are made, from among persons he considers qualified. A sixty day time lirait is imposed on the choosing of nominees since the provinces are given 30 days after a request by the Chief Electoral Officer to so choos, and if they do not, the Chief Justice is given a further 30 day period within which to make the choice.

389

Section 46(3) The Commission, once established, is given 60 days in which to recommend rules to Parliament or an extended time lirait if Parliament is not then sitting. In the latter case the Commission must table its recommendations within the first ten days of Parliament sitting. Section 46(4) Parliament is empowered to enact the referendum rules taking into consideration the rules recommended by the Commission. Parliament reteins ultimate control over the rules since it is an elected body. An entity ultimately responsible to the electorate should retain responsibility for the rules. At the same time it would be very difficult for Parliament to ignore the recommendations of the Commission unless there was a very good reason for its doing so. Section 46(5) If Parliament does not enact rules within 60 days after receiving the Commissions recommendations, the recommendations of the Commission automatically corne into force by proclamation of the Governor General.

390

Section 46(6) The 60 day period referred to in sub-section (5) does not include any time during which Parliament is prorogued or dissolved. Section 46(7) The rules adopted by.operation of section 40 will prevail over "laws made under the Constitution of Canada", that is over federal or provincial laws for example, which might prescribe rules respecting the holdino of elections. The rules would not, however, prevail over the Constitution itself, that is they would not prevail over theCharter of Rights which provides guarantees for the freedom of expression, freedom of assembly, etc.

The total time period for the making of rules, if all time limits are extended to their maximum length, approximately six months. That is, there are: 30 days within which the provinces must choose their nominee to the Commission, but if they do not, then 30 further days within which the Chief Justice must choose that nominee, then 60 days within which the Commission must make its recommendations to Parliament (or some longer time if Parliament is not then sitting), then 60 days which Parliamcnt must enact the Rules legislation.

391

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Rulei t'or teDrendum

46. ( I) Subject -to subsection (2), Parlia46. I I) Le Parlement peut, sous rserve du 5 rtstemcmation des rfrenment may make laws respecting the rules 5 paragraphe (Z). lgifrer pour rglementer la dttrm applicable tu the holding of a referendum tenue du rfrendum vis l'article 42. under section 42. (2) Every citizen of Canada has. without (2) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de Droit de rote unreasonable distinction or limitation, the vote lors du rfrendum vis l'article 42: ce right to vote in a referendum held under I ()droit ne peut, sans motif valable, faire l'objet 10 section 42. d'aucune distinction ou restriction.

Right to rote

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS Right to 46. (1) Every citizen of Canada vote has, without unreasonable distinction or limitation, the right to vote in a referendum held under section 42. Establish- (2) Where a referendum is to be ment of held under section 42, a Referendum Referencl- Rules Commission shall forthwith be un Rules estabiished by commission issued Catmistuider the Great Seal of Canada sion consisting of (a) the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission; (b) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council; and (c) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council (i) on the recommendation of the governments of a majority of provinces, or (ii) if the governments of a majority of provinces do not recommend a candidate within thirty days after the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada requests such a recommendation, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice of Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the provinces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persons as the Chief Justice considers fit. D ty of (3) A Referendum Rules Commission s- shall, within sixty days after it is sion established, by majority decision recommend to Parliament rules for the holding of a referendum under section 42.

392

(4) Subject to subsection (1) and upon consideration of any recommendations made by a Referendum Rules Commission in accordante with subsection (3), Parliament may enact laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under section 42. Proclam- (5) If Parliament does not ation enact laws respecting the rules pplicable to the holding of a eferendum within sixty days after eceipt of a recommendation from a eferendum Rules Commission under subsection (4), the rules recommended by the Commission shall forthwith be brought into force by proclamation issued by he Goyegnor General under the Great 'eal of Canada. (6) Any period when Parliament Comput ation is prorogued or dissolved shall not of be counted in computing the sixty period day period referred to in subsection (5). Rules (7) Subject to subsection (1), to ha rules made under this section have force the force of law and prevail over of law other laws made under the onstitution of Canada to the extent of any inconsistency.

46.(1) Uput citoyen canadien a le droit de vote .au rfrendum vis l'article 42; ce droit ne peut, sans motif valable, faire l'objet d'aucune distinction ou restriction. (2) Ds que s'impose la tenue du rfrendum vis l'article 42, il est constitu, par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada, une commission rfrendaire compose:

Droit. de vote

Constitution de la commis sien rfrendaire

a) du directeur gnral des lections du Canada, prsident; le) d'une personne nomme par le gouverneur gnral en conseil;
verneur gnral en conseil :

c) d'une personne nomme par le gou(i) soit sur la recommandation des gouvernements de la majorit des provinces, (ii) soit, si les gouvernements de la majorit des provinces ne prsentent pas de candidat dans les trente jours suivant la demande que leur en fait le directeur gnral des lections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi prsent tant choisi parmi les personnes recommandes parles gouvernements des provinces dans les trente jours suivant l'expiration du dlai de trente jours ou, faute de reeommandation, panai les personnes ,ete, Je-juge en chef estime cpatitiees.

393

(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission rfrendaire fait dposer devant le Parlement les rgles applicables l tenue du rfrendum vis l'article 42 , qu'elle aura approuves par dcision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne sige pas, ce dpt s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de sance ultrieurs. a) Sous rserve du paragraphe (1) et compte tenu des rglls donses conformment . au paragraphe (3), le

Mandat de la commission

Rglementation du rfrendum

Parlement peut lgifrer pour rglementer la tenue du rfrendum vis l'article 42.
(5) Faute par le Parlement de lgifrer, confonmment au paragraphe (4), dans le dlai de soixante jours suivant la rception de la recommandation de cammissicn rfrendaire, les rgles reaxnnandes par celle-ci sont mises immdiatement en vigueur par proclamation du gouverneur gnral sous le grand sceau du Canada.

c.lamation

(6) Dans la amputation du dlai vis au paragraphe (5), ne sont pas compts les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est prorog ou dissous.

Computation

du dlai

(7) Sous rserve du paragraphe (1), les rgles arrtes en vertu du prsent article ont force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre rgle de droit fonde sur la Constitution du

Valeur de force de loi des

rgles

394

395
PART A
TAB 19, SECTION 46(2)
REVISED
-

THE CONSTITUTION ACT

PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46(2)

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Righi

ch

(2) Every citizen of Canada has. without (2) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de D.', Ck `c't unreasonable distinction or limitation, the vote lors du rfrendum vis l'article 42; ce I right to vote in a referendum held under 10droit ne peut, sans motif valable, faire l'objet 10 t section 42. d'aucune distinction ou restriction.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS Establish- (2) Where a referendum is to be ment of held under section 42, a Referendum Referend- Rules Commission shall forthwith be un Rules established by commission issued Commissader the Great Seal of Canada sion consisting of (a) the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, who shall be chairman of the Commission; (b) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council; and (c) a person appointed by the Governor General in Council (i) on the recommendation of the governments of a majority of provinces, or (ii) if the governments of a majority of provinces do mot recommehd a candidate within thirty days after the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada reguests such a recommendation, on the recommendation of the Chief Justice cf Canada from among persons recommended by the governments of the provinces within thirty days after the expiration of the first mentioned thirty day period or, if none are so recommended, from among such persona as the Chief Justice considers fit.

396

397
TAB 19, SECTION 46(3) PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46(3) REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980

No proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS

(3) A Referendum Rules Commission Duty of s - shall, within sixty days after it is established, by majority decision sion recommend to Parliament rules for the holding of a referendum under section 42.

(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission rfrendaire fait dposer devant le Parlement les rgles applicables la tenue du rfrendum vis l'article 42 , qu'elle aura approuves par dcision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne sige pas, ce dpt s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de sance ultrieurs.

Mandat de la ccmmission

398
TAB 19, SECTION 46(4) PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT
PART V:

REVISED

Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada


RULES FOR REFERENDUM:

SECTION 46(4)

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 No proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS

(4) Subject to subsection (1) Rules for and upon consideration of any referend- recommendations made by a Referendum um Rules Commission in accordance with subsection (3), Parliament may enact laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under section 42.
Sous rserve du paragraphe al et compte tenu des Orles dnosel au paragraphe (3), le conformment Parlement peut lgifrer pour rglementer la tenue du rfrendum vigA l'article 42.

Rglementation du rfrendum

399
TAB 19, SECTION 46(5) PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46(5) REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 No proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS emeLam- (5) If Parliament does not ation enact laws respecting the rules pplicable to the holding of a eferendum within sixty days after eceipt of a recommendation from a eferendum Rules Commission under ubsection (4), the rules recommended by the Commission shall forthwith be brought into force by proclamation issued by he Goyernor General under the Great 'eal of Canada.

(5) Faute par le Parlement de lgifrer, cenfoi.duesilt au pAragraphe (4), dans le dlai de soixante jours suivant la rception de la recommandation de commission rfrendaire, les rgles par celle-ci sont mises turent en vigueur par _proclamation sous le grarxi sceau du Canada.

Proclarati

400
TAB 19, SECTION 46(6) PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACTPART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46(6) REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 No proposai.

JANAURY 1981 PROPOSALS

Comput- (6) Any period when Parliament ation is prorogued or dissolved shall not of be counted in computing the sixty period day period referred to in subsection (5).

(6) Dans la computation du dlai vis au paragraphe (5), ne sont DR% conpts les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est proxv96 ou dissous

Computation du dlai

401
TAB 19, SECTION 46(7) PART A
THE CONSTITUTION ACT

REVISED

PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada


RULES FOR REFERENDUM:

SECTION 46(7)

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980 No proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS

es (7) Subject to subsection (1), te ha rUles made under this section have force the force of law and prevail over of law other laws made under the onstitution of Canada to the extent of any inconsistency.

(7) Sels rserve du paragraphe (1), les rgles arrtes en vertu du prsent article ont force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre rgle de droit fonde sur la Constitution
du

V de force de loi des rgles

402

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada LIMITATION ON USE OF GENERAL AMENDING PROCEDURE: SECTION 47

SUMMARY 0F PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Newfoundland Branch of the Canadien Bar Association was particularly concerned that s.47 be clarified to indicate that ss.41 and 42 could not be used to make an amendment respecting one or more but not all provinces (s.43). PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS The government will propose an amendment to s.47 to make clear that ss.41 and 42 cannot be used to amend a provision respecting one or more but not all provinces.

403

Section 47 Section 47

Clarification re: Use of Amending Formula Provides that the general amending formula (section 41 or 42) and the procedure for amendments respecting one or more but not all provinces (section 43) may not be used where there is another provision in the Constitution for making amendments. For example, section 48 provides that Parliament may amend provisions relating-to the executive government of Canada, or the Senate or House of Commons. Section 49 provides that provincial legislatures may amend provincial Constitutions. However, the section makes it clear that the general amending formula (section 41 or 42) must be used to alter any provision respecting the procedures for constitutional amendments, including this section. Amendments Proposed by Government It is proposed to delete the words "and may be used in making a general consolidation and revision of the Constitution". This parallels a change being made to section 36. In both cases (i.e., under both the interim and final amending formula) it is appropriate that revisions to and consolidations of the Constitution be made in the same manner as amendments to individuel provisions because there is the possibility that in making a consolidation or revision a substantial amendment could inadvertantly be made. Thus a consolidation or revision of provisions relating to: the Constitution of the province (section 49) will be made with the consent of the legislature of that province the executive Government of Canada, the Senate or the House of Commons (section 48 as modified by section 50) will be made with the consent of Parliament one or more but not all provinces (section 43) with the consent of Parliament and the relevant provincial legislature sections amendable under the general amending formula (section 41) with the consent of Parliament and six provincial legislatures.

404

Section 47(2)

It is proposed to add section 47(2) to make it abundantly clear that sections 41 and 42 cannot be used to amend provisions applving to one or more but not all provinces (for example constitutionally entrenched denominational school rights). The October draft was intended to so provide and we would argue, did so provide since section 43 is a more specific provision than sections 41 and 42, and therefore should be read out of the more general provisions. Nevertheless, to clear up all ambiguity it has been decided to expressly state this to be the case. It may be argued that the amendments to provisions for amending the Constitution should only be made with the consent of all provinces, and not by means of the general amending formula of section 41 or 42. This has been rejected by the government as too rigid. As a natter of principle, unanimous consent as a requirement is something that has been rejected. For the past 53 years we have seen the problems inherent in a practice of seeking unanimity. Unanimity is simply undesirable and this is equally true for changes to the amending provisions as it is for other provisions of the Constitution. The argument is likely to be made that a province might indirectly have provisions which apply to it alone changed without its consent (e.g., borders or denominational school rights) if the amending provisions themselves which now require its consent (e.g., section 43 or in the case of borders, the B.N.A. Act, 1871) were changed to no longer require the consent of the province affected. This can be answered by noting that it is highly unlikely that six provinces would agree to have those provisions (e.g., section 43) which now give it a veto over amendments to provisions affecting itself but not all other provinces changed to relinquish that veto.

405.

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada CLARIFICATION RE: USE OF AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 47

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6,
Linotation On use of encrai encodons formas

1980

Rcsincsioe de 47. Les articles 41, 42 ou 43 ne s'appli47. The procedures prescribed by section r p 41, 42 or 43 do not apply to an amendment quent pas aux cas de modification constitunonnos tionnelle pour lesquels une procdure diffto the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for 5 rente est prvue par une autre disposition de 15 la Constitution du Canada. La procdure making the amendment, but the procdures vise aux articles 41 ou 42 s'impose toutefois prescribed by section 41 or 42 shall neverthepour modifier les dispositions relatives la less be used to amend any provision for modification de la Constitution, y compris le amending the Constitution, including this section, and section 41 may be used in 20prsent article; la procdure vise l'article 20 41 peut galement servir toute codification making a &crierai consolidation or revision of ou riN.11On gnrales de la Constitution. the Constitution.
"

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS 47. (1) The procedures Limit ation on prescrioed by section 41, 42 or 43 use of do not apply to an amendment to the gemeral Constitution of Canada where there is amendmentanother provision in the Constitution procedurefor making the amendment, but the procedures prescribed by section 41, as modified by section 44, or by section 42 shall, nevertheless, be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this section. Idem (2) The procedures prescribed by section 41 or 42 do not apply in respect of an amendment referred to in section 43.

47.(1) Les articles 41, 42 ou 43 ne s'appliquent pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procdure diffrente est prvue par une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada. La procdure vise aux articles 41 ou 42 s'impose toutefois gour modifier les dispositions relatives la modification de la Constitution,
y compris le prsent article.

modification

normale de

Restriction du recours la procdure

(2) Les procdures prvues aux articles 41 et 42 ne s'appliquent pas la modification vise l'article 43.

406
CONFIDENTIAL

Section 48

Amendments by Parliament The section provides that Parliament itself may make amendments to provisions concerning the executive government of Canada, or the Senate or the House of Commons. This section must be read together with section 50 which exempts certain matters from that amending power: the office of the Queen; the office of the Governor General; the powers of the Senate; the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate, and the residence qualifications of Senators; the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons, not less than the number of Senators representing the province; the principles of proportional representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada. This section replaces section 91(1) of the British North America Act which was added to that Act by an amendment of the United
Kingdom Parliament in 1949. It provides: " the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next herein-after enumerated; that M to aay, I. The amendment from time to time of the Constitution of Canada, except as regards matters coming within the classes of subjects by this Act assigned exelusively to the Legislatures of the provinces, or as regards rights or privileges by this or any other Constitutional Act granted or secured to the Legislature or the Government of a province, or to any class of persons with respect to schools or as regards the use of the English or the French language or as regards the requirements that there shah be a session of the Parliament of Canada at least once each year, and that no House of Commons shah continue for more than five years from the day of the return of the Writs for choosing the House: provided, however, that a House of Commons may in time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection be continued by the Parliament of Canada if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of Illich House."

The requirement that there be one session of Parliament each year, and that no House of Commons continue for more than five years are governed by provisions of the Charter of Rights (sections 4 and 5), and would not fall under Parliament's authority pursuant to this section. The replacement of section 91(1) is similar to the provisions of the FultonFavreau formula and the Victoria formula. As a practical matter, it probably does not narrow Parliament's power much more than the Supreme Court did in the Senate reference. Section 91(1) is repealed by section 51.

TAB 19, Sec. 48, PART B

407

REVISION CONFiDENTIAL

SPECIU NOTE FOR MINISTER AMENDMENTS TO THE SENATE UNDER THE CONSTITUTION ACT, 1981 (Sections 48 & 50) The Court in the Senate reference indicated that, at present, mort significant amendments must be made by the United Kingdom Parliament; however, less significant amendments might be made by the Canadien Parliamcnt. Among the latter are the following: some changes to the qualifications of Senators (e.g.: property qualifications but not residency requirements); some changes to tenure (e.g.: imposing a retirement age of 75); changing the naine of the Senate; and perhaps changes to increase the number of Senators, providing this does not alter the system of regional representation. Among the matters Parliament clearly could not amend, according to the Senate reference, are: the abolition of the Senate; changing the powers of the Senate to provide for a suspensive veto only; changing the proportion of Senators per province (e.g.: increasing the number of Senators from Alberta or B.C.); changing the residence qualifications of Senators; changing the method of appointment in a fundamental way (e.g.: provincial appointment or direct election). Under the Constitution Act, changes to the Senate which require the use of the general amending formula (section 50) and, therefore the approval of the provinces, are: changes to the powers of the Senate (e.g.: to either abolish it or to provide for a suspensive veto); changes to the proportion of Senators per province; and changes to the residence qualifications of Senators. Such changes could also be made by approval of a national referendum under section 42. All other aspects of Senate reform could be accomplished by Parliament alone pursuant to section 48. Thus, under the Constitution Act, 1981, amendments could be made to the Senate by the Canadien Parliament which now can only be made by the United Kingdom Parliament. Among such amendments, there is at- least one which is significant: changing the method of appointment of Senators (e.g.: to allow for provincial appointment or direct election). It has been suggested that this matter is perhaps one that should be under the general amending formula (i.e. listed under section SO) rince it is a matter which concerns the provinces as well as Parliament. If this change is pressed in Committee it is something to which the government could airee. However, for the reason indicated below, it is not a change that the iovernment would likely want to initiate.

408
TAB 19, Sec. PART B REVISED

. It is important to note that amendments made to the Senate by Parliament alone would in every case require the Senate itself to acquiesce in the amndment. Amendments made undee the general amending formula, pursuant to section 41, bowevr, could be made without Senate approval since section 44 provides that Senate opposition may be overridden by the House of Commons repassing the appropriate resolution. Sue override could only occur in cases where the required number of provinces under section 41 have agreed to the amendment. When approval is sought by referendum the Senate, by virtue of section 42, would have to agree to the holding of the referendum. and thus it would have to approve the proposed amerdment, Note: White the better view would seem to be that amendments to the Senate could be made without Senate approval because of the override provided in section 44, this is not entirely free from doubt. Section 50 provides that sections 41 and 42 may be used for such amendments but it does not refer to section 44. Thus it can be argued that by omitting any reference to section 44 it was intended to require Senate approval to amendments of those matters listed in section 50.

409

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT: SECTION 48 AMENDMENTS BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES: SECTION 49

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS None, other than the desire of the Canadien Catholic School Trustees' Association to have denominational school rights added to s.50 (matters amendable only under ss.41 and 42) in order to make clear that denominational school rights coula not be amended unilaterally by provincial legislatures under s.49.

410

CONFIDENTIAL

Section 49

Amendments by Provincial Legislatures The section empowers provincial legislatures to amend their own Constitutions. This authority is subject to section 50 which provides that the office of Lieutenant Governor can only be amended by the general amending formula of section 41 or 42. This replaces section 92(1) of the B.N.A. Act which also excepted the office of the Lieutenant Governor from the amending power of the province.
92. In each Province the Legialature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subject next herein-alter enumerated; that is to aay,1. The Amendment from Time to Time, notwithstanding anything in this Act, of the Constitution of the Province, except as regards the Office of Lieutenant Governor.

Section 92(1) is repealed by section 51. The Fulton-Favreau and the Victoria formulas contained a similar provision.

411

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada MATTERS REQUIRING AMENDMENT BY GENERAL FORMULA: SECTION 50

A.

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association asked that paragraph (h) be added to s.50 (matters amendable only by s.4I or s.42): (h) any rights or privileges, by the Constitution of Canada, granted or secured with respect to separate, dissentient or other denominational schools.

B.

PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS A Member may propose that paragraph (h) of the Canadian Catholic School Trustees' Association be added to s.50. Comments Denominational school rights vary from province to province and are amendable under s.43. It may be argued that denominational school rights should be treated as language rights and be added to the Charter. It could be answered that provincial language rights (with the exception of New Brunswick) are not included in the Charter: s.133 of the BNA Act and s.23 of the Manitoba Act are amendable under s.43. Provincial linguistic rights for New Brunswick were included in the Charter at the express request of that province.

N.B.: Representatives of denominational schools in Newfoundland were also concerned about the status of denominational school rights.7

412

Section 50

Matters Requiring Amendment by General Formula This section removes a number of matters from the power of Parliament and of the provincial legislatures to amend their respective Constitutions, including the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province. In addition, it makes it clear that the new constitutional provisions added by this Act (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the commitments relating to equalization and regional disparities) are amendable only by the general amending formula prescribed by section 41 or 42. Amendment of the amending procedures added by this Act is also governed by the general formula. Section 47 so provides. As noted above there mav be some doubt as to whether amendments made under this section require Senate approval. It is intended that they should not and that such approval should be subject to the override provisions of section 44. Thus after a 180 day delay, lack of Senate approval could not hold up an amendment which was approved a second time by the bouse of Commons and the requisite number of provincial legislatures pursuant to section 41. However, it has been suggested that this is not clearly the case since section 50 expressly provides that amendments to the listed subjects be made by sections 41 and 42, with no express reference to section 44. In reply to this it can be argued that section 44 operates automatically in combination with section 41 and must be read together with that section in all instances of the use of 41. Amendment Proposed by Government The french version of paragraph (a) would be amended to substitute for the word "fonction" the word "charge" for purposes of clarification.

413.

THE CONSTITUTUION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: SECTION 51

SUMMARY OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS The Association of Metis and Non-Status Indiens of Saskatchewan asked that s.91(24) of the BNA Act be deleted from the Constitution. The Canadian Bar Association recommended that the repeal of ss. 91(1) and 92(1) of the BNA Act be dealt with in Schedule I of the Constitution Act, 1980, rather than in s.51. Senator Tremblay and Mr. Clark feared that the protection granted to the provinces in s.91(1) would be removed and that s.42 (referendum) would broaden the powers of Parliament. N.B.: Mr. Chretien and his officiais argued that 91(1) had been replaced by Sections 48, 43 and 50. txplained that 91(1) gave broad powers to Parliament to amend the Constitution, with only five exceptions. In the Resolution, these matters are treated differently but ail of the elements are included. - Parliament's right to make amendments regarding the executive power, the House of Commons and Senate are now contained in Section 48; - provincial powers, rights and privileges are now dealt with under 41 and 42; - rights regarding schools and the English and French languages are dealt with under 43; - the requirement of an annuel session of Parliament is entrenched under Section 5; - the duration of Parliament is provided for under Section 4.

PROBABLE MOTIONS BY COMMITTEE MEMBERS It may be moved that the repeal of ss.91(1) and 92(1) be placed in Schedule I of the Constitution Act, 1980 rather than in s.51. Comment The repeal of ss.91(1) and 92(1) is placed in s.51 because the repeal will only take place upon Proclamation of Part V of the Constitution Act, 1980. Schedule I will corne into effect upon Proclamation of the Constitution Act, 1980 (less Part V).

414

Section 51

Consequential Amendments Provides for the repeal of sections 91(1) and 92(1) of the B.N.A. Act, and Parts III (Constitutional Conferences of First Ministers) and IV (Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement) upon the coming into force of Part V. Sections 91(1) and 92(1) are repealed here rather than in the schedule because such repeal should only take place when Part V cornes into force and when sections 48, 49 and 50 replace sections 91(1) and 92(1). Prior to the coming into force of Part V, i.e. during the interim period, sections 91(1) and 92(1) continue to ope rate.

Amendment Proposed by Government technical only, and constitutes a change of numbering consequential on an amendment to the schedule adding thereto the Rupert's Land and North-Western Territory Order-inCouncil of 1879 (see item 3 of the Schedule).

415
TAS 19, SECTION 48 PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure fr'Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT: SECTION 48 REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980

Amodrocnt by Parliament

48. Subject to section 50, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive 25 government of Canada or the Sonate or House of Commons.

48. Sous rserve de l'article 50, le Parlemcer..1.. ment a comptence exclusive pour modifier , tes dispositions de la Constitution du Canada 25 relatives au pouvoir excutif fdral, au Snat et la Chambre des communes,

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS

No change.

416

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT: SECTION 48 AMENDMENTS BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES: SECTION 49

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Arnendmcnt by Par liament

muddicitico 48. Sous rserve de l'article 50, le Parle48. Subject to section 50. Parliument may k ment a comptence exclusive pour modifier r,: riG,, exclusively make lavis amcnding the Consti tution of Canada in relation to the executive 25Ies dispositions de la Constitution du Canada 25 relatives au pouvoir excutif fdral, au government of Canada or the Senate or Snat et la Chambre des communes. House of Commons.

Amendment.i by Kowinctai klpiattitle

modirmation 49. Sous reserve de l'article 50, la lgisla49. Subject to section 50. the legislaturc turc de chaque province a comptence exclu- r:r a,, of each province may exclusively make lavis 30 sive pour modifier la constitution de celle-ci. 30 Provlbeialbi amending the constitution of the province.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS No change.

417
TAB 19, SECTION 49 PART A THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada AMENDMENTS BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES: SECTION 49 REVISED

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1990

Ametemenu bymovincial IfflUturel

Modir.ation 49. Sons rserve de l'article 50.1a lgisla49. Subject to section 50, the legislature turc de chaque province a comptence exclu- ref , of cach province may exclusivcly make laws 30sivc pour modifier la constitution de celle-ci. 30 efflndalet amcnding the constitution of thc province.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS No change.

418

THE CONSTITUTION ACT PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada MATTERS REQUIRING AMENDMENT BY GENERAL FORMULA: SECTION 50

Procdure

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Mamers ruqurring arrendmunl under gcncral formula

50. An amendment tu thc Constitution of Canada in relattiin to the following matters may be made only in accordance with a procedure prescribed by section 41 or 42:

50. Toute modification de la Constitution du Canada portant sur les questions suivantes se fait scion la procdure vise aux articles 41 ou 42:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor 35 General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;
(b) the Canadian Charter of Rights and

u) les fonctions de la Reine, celles du gots- 35


vcrncur gnral et celles des lieutenantsgouverneurs; b) la Charte canadienne des droits et

Freedoms;
(c) the commitments relating to equaliza- 40 tion and regional disparities set out in section 31; (d) the powers of the Senate; (e) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the 45

liberts;

c) les engagements noncs, en matire de 40 prquation et d'ingalits rgionales, l'article 31; d) les pouvoirs du Snat: e) le nombre de snateurs reprsentant chaque province au Snat et les conditions 45 de rsidence qu'ils doivent remplir;

Sena te and the residence qualifications of Sena tors; (J) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators repre- 5 senting the province; and (g) the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada. 10

.1) le droit d'une province d'avoir la


Chambre des communes un nombre de dputs au moins gal celui de ses snateurs:

g) les principes de la reprsentation pro- 5


portionnelle des provinces la Chambre des communes prvus par la Constitution du Canada.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS 50, Anamendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation irtg to the following matters may be arrend- made only in accordance with a procedure prescribed by section 41, ment as modified by section 44,or b under general section 42: (a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; (b) the Canadian Charter of

Matters

procedure

amendment

(c) the commitments relating to equalization and regional disparities set out in section 31; (d) the powers of the Senate; (e) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate and the residence qualifications of Sena tors; (f) the right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the province; and (g) the principles of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada.

Rights and Freedoms;

-419

Recours , 50. Toute modification de la Constitution obl igatou:e du Canada portant sur les questions suivan la procetes se fait selon laprocdure vise aux artidure normale cies 41 ou 42: de modification a) la charge de Peine, celle de gou verneur gnral et celle de lieutenantgouverneur ; b) IL Charte canadienne des droits et liberts; c) les engagements noncs, en matire de prquation et d'ingalits rgionales. l'article 31; d) les pouvoirs du Snat; e) le nombre de snateurs reprsentant chaque province au Snat et les conditions de rsidence qu'ils doivent remplir; .1) le droit d'une province d'avoir la Chambre des communes un nombre de dputs au moins gal celui de ses snateurs; g) les principes de la reprsentation proportionnelle des provinces la Chambre des communes prvus par la Constitution du Canada.

420

THE CONSTITUTION ACT


PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: SECTION 51

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6, 1980


Conicquential a mcndmenis

51. Class 1 of: section 91 and clam I of 51. La rubrique I de l'article 91 et la mod.dkang^ section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 rubrique I de l'article 92 de la Loi constitu-l r'"1"" (formerly named the British North America tionnelle de 1867 (antrieurement dsigne Act, 1867), the British North America (No. sous le titre: Acte de l'Amrique du Nord 2) Act, 1949, referred to in item 21 of 158rirannique, 1867), l'Acte de l'Amrique du Schedule I to this Act and Parts III and IV Nord Britannique (n" 2). 1949, mentionn au of this Act are repealed. ri. 21 de l'annexe I de la prsente loi, et les 15 parties III et IV de la prsente loi sont abrogs.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSALS

Consequent-

51. Class 1 of section 91 and bal amma-class I of section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the ments
British North America Act, 1867), the British North America (No. ) Act,
1949, referred to in item 22 of Schedule I to this Act and Parts III and IV of this Act are repealed.

51. La rubrique I de l'article 91 et la rubrique I de l'article 92 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 (antrieurement dsigne sous le titre: Acte de l'Amrique du Nord britannique, 1867), l'Acte de l'Amrique du Nord britannique in" 2), 1949, mentionn au n' 22 de l'annexe I de la prsente loi, et les parties III et IV de la prsente loi sont abrogs.

Nt ..1471<l!.n> Melo.

Notes on the P.yan Proposais, "A New Canadian Federation:" Part I Eugene Forsey A. Powers they would take away from the Parliament of Canada, and Transfer te the Provincial Legislatures.

1. The residual power ("peace, order and gond government of Canada," section 91). P. 66.) 2. The declaratory power ("Works for the general advantage of Canada or of two or more of the provinces," section 91, head 29, and section 92, head 10 (c)). (P.67.) 3. The power te make "educational grants and bursaries" (P.77). 4. Copyright (section 91, head 23). (P.78.) 5. Musums. (P.78.) 6. "Control cf trade associations" (combines?). (P.79). 7. Marnage and divorce (section 91, head 26). Pp.81-2). 8. The training, r-training and placement of manpower (section 91, head 2A). (P.86.) 9. Labour relations in industries under the jurisdiction of Parliament, except employees of the Government of Canada, and workers in interprovincial and international air, rail and marine transport. (P.88). 10. Contributory pensions (section 94A, Canada Pension Plan.) (P.91) 11. Unenployment insurance (section 91, head 2A). (P. 92). (I understand that the Quebec Libral Party has struck out this proposai.) 12. Offshore minerai resources. (P.96). 13. Fisheries (section 91, head 12).(P.97). (Parliament would retain power over protection of the species, and over interprovincial and international commerce in fish.) (P.97). 14. The power to charter Dominion companies (Parliament would retain the right te incorporate "campantes operating in fields of federal jurtsdiction, such as aeronautics, maritime and railway transportation, railways or banks"). (P.104). 15. The power vo control broadcasting, except for frequency allocation and technical standards. (P.112). 16. The power te control Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone Company. (P.112). National power over the telephone industry, "if it la to remain, "shouid be "strictly limited to the rgulation of interprovincial and international telephone service." 17. The power te deal with housing. (Pp. 116,118). 18. The power to create courts for the better administration of the laws of Canada (section 101). (P.120). "This would result in the abolition of the Federal Court."

422

2. 19. Penitentiaries (section 91, head 28.) (P.120). 20. Parole (cut out from section 91, head 27.) (P.120). 21. Power ta create new provinces (BNA Act, 1871,) B. Powers they would take away from the Execntive Government of Canada. 1. Appointment of Superior Court Judges (section 96 -100)

(P.136.)

2. Disallowance of provincial Acts and assent ta reserved provincial bills (section 55-57 and 90). (P. 68.) 3. Prosecution in narcotics and food and drug cases. (P.121). C. Powers they would partly take away from the Pa.rliarent of Canada and give to provincial Legislatues. Control of nuclear energy, where Parliament would retain raramount power for "purposes of defence, security, pollution and international responsibility." (P.96). 2. Control of the environment, where Parliament would retain enly power "to impose penalties for the more serlous pollution offences, nainely triose which threaten personal safety and property," and power "for the protection of coastai and interprovinciel waters." (P.116.)

(Pp, 58, 109).

oniy

1.

D.

Agriculture.

At present, of course, jur sdiction over agriculture is concurrent, with national. paramountcy (section 95.) The Beige Paper would sive Parliament exclusive jurisdiction over interprovincial and international marketing (but see below), the subject to the veto of the Federal Council classification and inspection of agricultural products and livestock, and epidemiological control. National price stabilization plans would be subject to the veto of the Federal Council. Agricultural research would remain under concurrent jurisdiction (paramountcy unspecified.) Pp. 99-100.) On the spending and emergency powers of Parliament, see below, under the heading e "The Federal Council."

B.

The Federal Council.

1. The Senate would be abolished. (This, of course, in the light of the Supreme Court judgement on Bill C-60's proposais 47 for a new Upper House, would reluire a constitutional amendment.) (P. .) 2. Instead of the Senate, there would be a Federal Council, This "is conceived as a special intergovernmental institution

3.

and not as a 1egi.sla.tive assembly contr011ea by the central government." (P. 52.) 3. Its purpose is to "allow the provinces .... to participate directly in the government of the federation itself." (P.52.)

4. It would consist exclusive)y of "delegations from the provinces acting on the instructions of their respective governments ....... The length of their mandate would be deterinined in accordance with this principle." (That is, each provincial delegation would change with .a change in the provincial government.) "The Premiers or their representatives would'be ex officio members of their provinces' delegations. There would be no delegates of the Th feaeraf central government with a riOt to vote. government should -have tie right to delegate its own representatiVes to the Council to put forwara its views.n (P.52):
S. "The constitution will have to provide a financing mechanisin for the Federal Council which guaranteerrts independence from both the central government and trie ParliaMent of 'Canada.- (1, .54 ) Does this mean that it would have taxing power? Or would it depend on provincial grants? 6. A suggested size for the Council is BO: Prince Edward Island 2, Newfoundland 3, Novs Scotia 4, New Brunswick 4, Manitoba 5, Saskatchewan 5, Alberta 8, British Columbia 9, Ontario 20, Quebec 20, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon an unspecified So number, with "full participation and voting rights." (Pp. 52-3). the Atlantic provinces would have 13 delegates, the Prairie Provinces 18, the four Western Provinces, 27, Leaving asidathe Territories, this would mean that the two-thirds majority required for "ratification of certain federal legislation (see. below, 8(a),(b),(d) and (g). could be blecked by a combination of either Ontario or guebec with either Alberta or Britleh Columbia. 7. "Provincial delegations would vote 'en bloc' .... factor, deVlped on the basic of the relative A weighted vote each province would establish the relative value of this size of Vote." tP.52.) 1s this simply another way of saying that Ontario would have 20 delegates as against Prince Edward Island's 2? Or does it mean that Ontario's 20 delegates would have, in effect, more than 20 votes, and Prince Edward Island's 2 less than 2? -----8. Powers of the Federal Council.

(a) "Ratification, " by a two-thirds majority, of any exercise of the national Parliament's "emergency" power. (Pp. 53, 67.) (b) "Ratification," by a two-thirds majority, of any exercise of the national Parliament's "spending power." (Pp.53,68.) This would apply, explicitly (p.68) to "candit:10nel subsidies"

424
-ne

4.

(shared Programmes), for"education, health, we re and housing;" in other words, to post-secondary education (universities), medicare, hospital insurance, and the National Assistance Plan. Whether it would apply also te "unconditional equalization payments," which "must be maintained," is not clear (p.68). "Ratification" (whether by a simple or a two-thirds majority is not clear) of any delegation of legislative power from Parliament to the provincial legielatures, or vice versa (pp. 53,72). Incidentally, if Parliament delegates a particular legislative power to a provincial Legislature or Legislatures, it " must continue to assume the financial burden of the activities which flow from such delegation;" and, of course, the same would hold fox a province which delegated any jurisdiction to Parliament (p. 72). "Ratification", by a two-thirds majority, (d) of any "programmes of a cultural nature" passed by Parliament. This would, apparentiy, caver aven "so-called 'national' institutions, such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, a national library, a national galiery, a national film board and the national archives." "The Canadian government should be allowed to participate in creating e managing or aiding" such institutions (p*78). (e) "Ratification" (whether by a simple majority or otherwise?) of the appointment of "judges of the Suprema Court (of Canada) and its Chief Justice, "and "power to revoke these appointments after inquiry" (by whom7 presumably, the Council itself) (p..53). (f) "Ratification" (by simple majority, or otherwise?) of "the appointment of the presidents and Chief Executive Officers of major central government bodies such as the Bank of Canada, the National Energy Board and of Crown corporations such as Canadian National Railways and Air Canada" (p.53). (g) "Approval" of "ail legislation relating ta the budgets or funding" of "existing federal research bodies in the areas of social science and medical science" (p.78); that is, the budgets and funding of the National Research Council, the Medical Research Council, the Social Science Research Council (and, presumablY: the Canada Council) "Ratification" (by simple majority, or other(h) wise?) of "legislation relating to interprovincial or international marketing plans for agricultural products" (p.53). (Would this caver the Wheat Board, or the Board of Grain Commissioners?) This applies aise to agriculturaI price stabilization legislation (p.100)

-t

425

5.
(i) "Ratification" (by simple majority or otherwise?) of "treaties negotiated by the federal government in fields of provincial jurisdiction" (which, of course, would be enormously widened by these proposais); the "enactment of these treaties wouid e however, tali under provincial jurisdiction" (p.53). (j) "Ratification" by a two-thirds majority of action by Parliament "in times of extreme crisis to salve problems relating to the distribution of, and access to; Canada's naturel resources " (which would, however, remain the property of the provinces) (pp. 95-6). (k) Power, through a Joint Committee of the Council and the Bouse of Commons, to decide "which of the different laws, treaties or appointments would be subject to one or other of its jurisdictions" (p.54). This would appear to oust the Courts from this field of constitutional interpretation; alternativeiy, it could mean that the Courts couid reverse the decisions of the Joint Committee, and rend the whole thing back te Square One. (1) Power to give its opinion on "monetary policy, the co-ordination and harmonization (of) the fiscal and budgetary policies of the federal government with those of the provinces;"to give its opinion on "the fiscal situation of the two leveis of government at regular intervals and make suggestions concerning its readjustment:" to "advise on any federal proposai affecting the provinces or regions which it deemed te be sufficientiy important." ("For example, it could express its views on policies dealing with regional development, energy, transportation, immigration as well as on interprovincial or international marketing schemes.") it could aise "eAoLess its views on the choice of mechanisms and operating formulas ueed for equalization." (Ail this on pp.53-4). 9. The Dualist Committee.

(a) The Cvuncil would create "a permanent committee with an equal number of French and Engiish-speaking delegates. Frenchspeaking citizens living outside of Quebec and English-speaking Quebecers would be guaranteed an equitable representation. In conctete ternis, about 80% of the French-speaking delegates would coins from Quebec, white the remaining Z0% would ropresent the other provinces" (p.54). (b) This committee "would exercise the power of ratification of federal laws and other initiatives which pertain to the status of the official languages" (p.S4). (c) The committee " would also ratify the appointments of the Presidents and Chief Executive Officers of culturally-oriented federal agencies and Crown corporations such as the Official Languages Commission and the Canadian Broadcastrir--Corporation" (p.54). (This would presumably cover aise:, the National Library, the National Film Board, - the Public Archives, the National Gallery, the National Museums.

426

co ) "The mmittee would have a erecise mandate to ensur.e that the Civil Service r eflects Canadien dualiSm at all levela" (p.S4). ice, This can only mean that half the Public Serv from tep to bottom, would have to be French-speaking, and that the Duelit Cemmittee would have power to enforce this.

10. The Tripartite Committee on the National Capital. "Legislation relating to the National Capital Region should be approved by a tripartite committee of the Federal Council, with equal representation from Quebec, Ontario and the rest of Canada. Such legislation should also be submitted for the approval of the two provinees affected. Without the express Consent of Quebec and Ontario such legislation should not have the effect of reducing the jurisdiction of municipal and provincial governments over the National Capital Region" (p,117). The lest sentence is somewhat mysterious. No legislation of the national Parliament can reduce the jurisdiction of any provincial Legislature over anything A fortiori, no legislation of the national Parliament can reduce municipal juriediction over anything; for the municipalities derive all their powers from the provincial Legislatures (Section 92, head 8, of the British North America Act, 1867), The provincial. Legislature can do absoluteiy anything it sees fit with the jurisdiction .o any municipality, or all municipalities, within the province (subject, of course, to the Lieutenant-Governoris power to reserve the bill for the Governor General's pleasure, and the Governor General-in-Councills power to disallow any provincial Act.) But no other authority can touch the municipalities' jurisdiction. But it is clear that any legislation on the National Capital Region passed by Parliament (which, under these proposais, means the House of Commons) would be subject to a triple veto; by the Tripartite Committee, by Ontario,and by Quebec. F. The Dualist Bench of the Supreme_ Court of Canada for ConstitutionalQuestions. "In cases raisins conetitutional issues, we recommend that the central governm ent, as well, as any provincial government or individuel, be permitted to request that a dualist bench be constituted with th Chief Justice presiding over an e ual number of_judges from Quebec and from the other provinces.I`f it is necesserY to ada juiies from Quebec" (who, under these proposais, would be provincially appointed), they would be appointed at the request of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from among the judges of the Court of Appeal or of the Superior Court of that province,.. following e predetermined mie of senioritY" (p.59)- The plain implication is that the "request" for a dualiat bench would be automatically granted: dualism on demand. It is plain also that, almcst invariably, such a request would conte only from the Government cf Quebec, or some individuel Quebecer, or some individual French-

427

Canadian in the other provinces. So, in effect, this proposai would mean that the Government of gebec, or any individuel FrenchCanadian, coul7Take any constitutional case out of the Fan g of the Supreme Court of Canada and pute intd the hands of this dualist bench.
G. Impeachment of Judges.

"The new constitution should specifically efore deal with the .... impeachment of judges" (p, 58). By whme whom? (Incidentally, on the same page, we are told that the new constitution "should specifically deal with . . . the remtulin_. of judges, be they federally or provincially appointed," 'This seems an odd thing to put into a constitution.)
H. A Unicameral Parliament.

The Senate is to be abolished, and the Federal Council is, explicitly, not to be "a legislative assembly. This would make us the only federation in the Western world without an Upper House. 1. Codification of Parliamentarx,Procedures. "The rules of procedure of the Flouse merit inclusion in the (of Commons) and of the legislatures new constitution" (p.40). Do they? This moula severely restrict the power of each House (national or preVinCial) to order its business.
Denial of Freedom oLnlesed_le,guage

In Education. The proposed'Constitutional Charter of Rights and Liberties would guarantee the right of "any French or . to request and English-speaking person or any native person receive primary and secondary education for their children in their mother-tongue, in the province in which they reside".(p.33). There is no guarantee for any French-speaking person te have his chiidren glsh, or any English-speaking person to have his children in educated in French, or any native person ta have his children educated in English, or in French, if he so desires.

K. Provincial Appointment of Lieutenant-Governorst_ and Definit.ion of their FiiilEtres 3.42). This needs explanation, and examination. Canerai L. powers of the Queen, the
the Lieutenant-Governors.

"In reality," says the Beige Paper (p.45),

428

8. liapart from Certain minor royal prerogatives, the autonomous powers of the Queen and of her representatives are limited te the choice of a Prime Minister when there is no parliamentary majority in the House of Commons." This is all wron from start te finish.

The Queen and her representatives do net have the power to choose a Prime Minister when there is no "panamentary majority in the House of Commons" (meaning, presumably, no clear majority for any one Party). If a Government fails to get a clear majority at a general election, it has a right to mett the new House. If the new House sustains it, it stays on. If the new House defeats it, the Queen, the Governor General or the Lieutenant-Governor, cails on the Leader of the Opposition to form a Government. The Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governors have the power, in certain circumstances, to refuse a dissolution of Parliament or the Assernbly.
-

The Queen, the Governor General and the LieutenantGovernors have the power, in certain (very rare circumstances) te dismiss a Government. If a Prime Minister dies, or resigns for personal reasons, the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant-Governors have the power to appoint a successor, after soundings as to which member of the majority party is most likely te be able to form a Government. In. Canada, the person thus chosen will hold office only tin the party in power can choose e new Leader, by Convention. All these powers are necessary. I can elaborate on that, if need be. . Professer Edward McWhinney, Q.C., Profes or M. of Po1itical Science, Simon Fraser University, a noted authority on comparative federalism, says of the Ryan proposais: "Although the Ryan paper speaks of Federalism, the patterns of the new constitutional system that emerge more closely resemble a confederal league or association." (This quotation is frein an acute analysis in the . y 11, 1980). Vancouver Province, Januar

430

MEETING OF OFFICIALS ON THE CONSTITUTION

COLLATION OF,-DOCUMENTS

Ottawa January 11-J.14 1979

431
TABLE 0F CONTENT S Agenda - document 840-153/006: Proposed Agenda TAB 1: Resource Ownership (Alberta) and Interprovincial Trade (Canada) - document 840-153/026: "Revised Report of the Committee of officiais on Resource Ownership and Interprovincial Trade"
Committee of Officiais

- document 840-153/002: "Resource Ownership and Interprovincial Trade* - Federal - document 840-153/019: "Alternatives to Section 109 of the B.N.A. Act" - Federal
- document 840-153/021: *Newfoundland Amendment - Section 92* Newfoundland

- document 830-67/016: "Suggested Revision of B. A. Act s. 109 - Resource,Ownership" Newfoundland TAB 2: Indirect Taxation (Ontario" - document 840-153/027: "Indirect Taxation: Report of the Committee of Officiais on Indirect Taxation, The Spending Power and Equalization" - Committee of Officiais - document 840-153/014: "Indirect Taxation' - Ontario document 840-153/016: "Legislative Jurisdiction for the Provinces in Respect of Indirect Taxation" - Federal - document 840-153/032: "Proposed Revision of Ontario Discussion Draft on Indirect Taxation" - Saskatchewan
- document 830-153/013: "Proposai on Indirect Taxation" Ontario TAB 3:

Communications (Saskatchewan)

- document 840-153/023: "Report of the Committee of Officiais on Communications' - Comettee of Officiels; with attachment document 840-153/007: "Report of the Meetings of Saskatchewan and Federal Officiels on Communications" Federal and Saskatchewan - document 840-153/0124 "Position of theGovernment of Newfoundland on the Division of Constitutional Responsibilities in
Cotmunications" Newfoundland Senate (Canada)

TAB 4:

- document 840-153/025: *Report of the Committee of Officiels on th Senate" Committee of Officiais document 840-153/011: *The Senate* - Federal

432
- 2 -

TAB St

Supreme Court (Canada) document 840-153/024: *Report of the. Committee of Officiels on the Supreme Courte - Committee of Officiais document 840-153/003: *The Supreme Court: Courts and JudiCiary* - Federal , document 840-153/008e 94anitoba s commente on the Redraft on the Supreme Court* Manitoba

TAS 6: Family Law (Ontario) - no docUtent TAB 7: Fisheries (Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and British Colt:mi:dal. "Report of the Committee of Officiels - document 840-153/0301 * on Fisheries" CoMmittee of Officiais; with attaehment document 840-153/022: *Position on Fiehries - Nove Scot la, Newfoundland and. TAB 8: Egualization and Regional DevelopMen eove Scott!: New Brunswick) the - Secretariat Note; ThisJtem was discuesed by Officiais On Indirect talai:04m and Spending Power. cOMmitte.Of 'An excerpt ofthis.eub-eomettee's report (see document is Lncluded under this 840-153/028) dealing with equalizatiOn

tab.

*Agenda Item en Bqualization and - document 840-153/017: e Regional Disparities Committee 4:d 'Officiels TAS 9: Charter of Rights (Canada) *Report of the Committee of Officiels - document 840-1537034 Committee ef Officiels on Charter of Rights* - document*840+153/004: *Canadien Charter of Righte and FreedoMs - Federal ada, TAS 10: Ipending PoLete 'The Federal Spending Power, $49-1$3/0e: on - document m t q EUelizaiont Revieed Repert of th Comitte Of Officiels pi ComMittee ion* Spending and Equeiltat Indirect .Paxation, Officiais TAS 11: Declaratory Power Canada). no document

433
3 TAB 12: Patriation and Amending Formula (Canada) - document 840-153/010: "Patriation and Amending formula" Canada TAS 13: Monarchy (Canada) - document 840-153/029: "Revised Report of the Committee of Officiels on the Monarchy and Bill C-60" - Committee of Officiais - document 840-153/010: "Draf t of Possible Ravisions of Clausel e in Bill C-60 concerning the Queen and the Governor General ederal
- document 840-153/013: 'British ColUmblesCommente on Aspects of Bill C-60 not yet considered by the Continuing Committee of Miniatera on the Constitution' - British Columbia - document 840-153/015: 'Preamble" - Ontario o TAS 14: Final List of Delegates - document 84G-153/009

434 items4,44 Matelgalettak

grrrnea

nen et 14, est ln COMIL111,11

tpseere,t4 ..ftee.11

Ottani,* Joluary 11-12. Ill,

435

MEETING OF OFFICIAIS ON TEE CONSTITUTION Ottawa January 11-12, 1972

AGENDA

Thursday, January llth 09:30 - 12:30 - Plenary Session - Establishment of sub-committee and agreement on timee of meetings - Discussion of items other than those assigned to committees: Indirect Taxes Spending Power - Equaliza tion Offshore Resources Suprema Court Monarchy and Bill C-f0 Reference to other items te confirm positions reeched et Toronto, Naturel Resourcea

14:00 - 17:00 - Meetings of Sub-Committees on: - Charter of Rights and Freedome - Communications Friday, Januarx 12th 09100-10:00 Plenary session Items not reached in plenary session on January 11 Problems emerging from Committee discussions Fisheries The Senate Any other euh-committees for wbich e further meeting is desirable and possible

10:00-12:30 - Meetings of Sub-Comcnitteea:

436

- 2 14:00-1 1 0 - Plenary session - The Amending Formula - Iteporte from Sub-Committes


, robinets Remaining '

438

DOCUMENT:

840-153/ 025

CONFIDENTIAL

MEETING OF OFFICIAIS ON THE CONSTITUTION

(Draft for Discussion Purposes Only)

REPORT OF, THE COMMITTEE OF OFFICIALS ON THE SENATE

Ottawa January 11-12, 1979

439

CONFIDENTIAL January 12, 1979.

THE SENATE

This paper reports on the meeting of federal and provincial officiais in Ottawa, January 11, at which there was a discussion based on the federal paper (Document 840-153/011) which had been prepared pursuant to the decision of Ministers at the December 14-16, 1978 meeting in Toronto. The paper identified four "elements" or matters which would have to be considered in designing a reconstituted Senate, and provinces were asked to indicate their preferences with regard to each of these four elements. The four are: 1. 2. 3. 4. The method of choosing Senators. The tenure of Senators. The powers to be given a new Senate. The distribution of Senate seats among provinces or regions. After a general discussion of the purposes of the Senate, and of some of the broad options available, officiais discussed each of these elements in turn. The views expressed were necessarily tentative or offered as "reflections", because a number of delegations had not had an opportunity to obtain

440
- 2 -

detailed guidance from their respective governments on all elements. Also, for two provinces, the question of reconstituting the Senate is not a high priority matter; and for one province any change in the Senate that would detract from federal-provincial conferences as the primary forum for resolving intergovernmental issues would be undesirable. What foliows is a summary of the views which were expressed in relation to each of the four elements. The Committee of officiais recognized that the four elements were, by necessity, interrelated so that, for example, the nowers decided for a reconstituted Senate should be aoprooriate havina regard to the method whereby Senators are chosen.

1. The method of choosing Senators Eight provinces prefer that provincial governments appoint ail Senators. One province would prefer that half of a province's Senators be appointed by the provincial government and the other half by the federal government. The remaining province, New Brunswick, opposes direct representation of provincial governments in national institutions such as the Senate, and suggests that the federal government should appoint all Senators, as at present.

441

- 3 -

Conseguently, no province favours the method of choosing Senators which was proposed in the federal Constitutional Amendment Bill (Bill C-60). That method envisages that half of a province's Senators would be chosen by the House of Commons, and half by the provincial legislature, the seats being divided among the political parties according to the popular vote at the most recent

federal or provincial election respectively.

2. The tenure of Senators Three options were considered: (i) tenure for the life of a given legislature; (ii) for the life of a legislature, subject to earlier termination at the discretion of the provincial government; or (iii) for a fixed term of years that would exceed the life of a legislature. Six provinces favoured Senators being anpointed for the life of the legislature. Ministers of two of these provinces had previously expressed a preference for fixed terms, but in relation to the Bill C-60 proposais. If provincial governments are to appoint Senators, the "life of the legislature" would probably now be preferred. One of the six provinces would find a fixed term equally acceptable. The federal proposai in Bill C-60 was also that Senators be appointed for the life of the legislature.

442
- 4 -

One province prefers having Senators appointed for the life of the legislature but recallable by the provincial government.

Manitoba prefers a fxed terra of 8 years; and New Brunswick (which prefers federal appointment) suggests a fixed terra of 7 to 10 years. One province spoke of a "limited terra", which would probably fall under this option but could conceivably fall under the first one.

3. The powers to be given a new Senate The various aspects of this e3ement are comnlex, for several reasons. First, it was difficult for some provinces to say whether there ought to be a cateory of legislation which would be subject to an absolute veto by the Senate, because it may be agreed in the course of the constitutional discussions that legislation, such as the federal use of its spending and declaratory powers, should be considered by the provincial governments or legislatures under an alternative procedure. Secondly, the discussion gave rise to a consideration of some possibilities that were new to officiels present, such as the possibility of dividing legislation into two categories, each subject to a suspensive veto but only one of which would be

443
- 5 -

subject to Senators voting on instructions from the government which had appointed them. On this question as many as five provinces were unable to express a view, so that no conclusion can be drawn at this stage. Subject, therefore, to these inherent difficulties, the conclusions were as follows:

New Brunswick prefers that the Senate retain its present powers. Four provinces prefer a suspensive veto, some of them suggesting a longer delay before it may be overridden than is envisaged in Bill C-60 and one saying that there should be a second Commons vote to override a Senate veto. British Columbia, Ontario and Manitoba prefer the identification of a category of questions in regard to which the Senate would have an absolute veto. Two provinces were not in a position to express a view. Federal officiais said they thought that in general a suspensive veto would be appropriate if a substantial proportion of Senators were to be appointed by provincial governments. Two provinces found "interesting" the Manitoba list of matters (Document 830-67/049) recommended as Senate powers, although one of these provinces noted that a susnensive rather than an absolute veto might be desirable in relation to these matters.

444

- 6 -

Six provinces opposed the Bill C-60 proposai of a "double majority" voting mechanism for measures of linguistic significance, although four of these stated that they believe an alternative method of protecting the position of the French language should be sought. Four provinces did not express a view.

4. The distribution of Senate seats among provinces or regions Five provinces prefer that each province be given an equal number of Senate seats. Several of these provinces objected to the principle of combining provinces into regions for the purpose of allocating seats. British Columbia prefers that five "regions", of which it would be one, be given an equal number of seats. Ontario and Quebec prefer that the distribution of seats be weighted, by taking population into account. Two provinces did not express a view. Conclusion At the Toronto meeting Ministers decided (see Document 830-67/052) that: (a) the Committee of officiels considering a reconstituted Senate should attempt to outline a draft proposai for consideration at the January meeting of the Continuing Committee; and

445
- 7 -

(h) governments should try to be in a position to make decisions on this question at the January meeting of the Continuing Committee.

While the broad outlines of a reconstituted Senate that may be acceptable to most provinces may be discerned from this report of the officiais' discussion, further work by members of the Committee of officiais is necessary before the next meeting of the CCMC; some delegations may want to seek further guidance from their respective governments.

Nicholas Gwyn Chairman of the Committee on the Senate

446
DCCUMENT: 840-153/011 CONFIDENTIAL

MEETING OF OFFICIALS ON THE CONSTITUTION

(Draft for Discussion Purposes Only)

The Senate

Federal

Ottawa January 11-12, 1979

447

Purpose of this paper

CONFI DE NT IAL January 10, 1979

THE SENATE

This paper has been prepared pursuant to the decision of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution taken at its meeting in Toronto, December 14-16, 1978. The decision of the Continuing Committee At the Toronto meeting Ministers discussed in executive session the question of changed constitutional provisions relating to the Senate. They agreed as follows: (see Document 830-67/052) that the federal government would prepare a paper for discussion purposes outlining the various elements and principles to be considered in reconstituting the Senate; following which provinces are to indicate which elements and principles they could each generaily find acceptable. Note was made that the draft proposais put forward by British Columbia and by Manitoba shouid serve as the bases of this paper. The paper shouid be made available to ail delegations by January 11, 1979. that the officiais meeting in Ottawa on January 11 and 12 should establish a Committee to consider the question of the Senate and to report on this matter at the next meeting of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution. Note was made that this Committee should review the paper to be prepared by the federal government, and shouid attempt to outiine a draft proposai on this matter for consideration at the January meeting of the Continuing Committee; that federal and provincial governments should trv to be in a position to make decisions on this Question at the January meeting of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution.

Principles This paper does not attempt to set out in a comprehensive way what are the relevant principles, because the results could be the subject of unnecessary contention among governments. The federal government's views about underlying objectives and principles are stated at length in the paper entitled House of the Federation by the Honourable Marc Lalonde, released in August 1978. However, on one principle there seems to be general agreement among governments, and that is that the House of Commons should remain supreme, so that carliamentary government will be preserved. ./2

448
Elements This paper is therefore mainly a check-list of those elements which have to be discussed and of the considerations which attach to them. The paper is divided into four sections, each dealing with one of the four main elements, which are: 1. The method of choosing Senators. 2. The tenure of Senators. 3. The powers to be given a new Senate. 4.. The distribution of Senate seats among provinces or regions. For each of these four elements the proposais of British Columbia and Manitoba are noted as well as those of the federal government which formed part of the Constitutional Amendment Bill (Bill C-60). The Manitoba proposais were put forward for discussion purposes only in Document 830-67 049. Also, for some elements, certain other options are listed; and there are "notes on relationships to other elements". The interrelationship of the various elements should constantly be kept in mind because the elements which eventually make up a reconstituted Senate must of course be compatible with one another. Indication by provinces as to which elements they prefer Provincial governments are asked to decide which elements they prefer, and to indicate their preferences according to a scale along the following lines: 1. Desirable 2. Acceptable 3. Barely acceptable 4. [Inacceptable 1. THE METHOD OF CHOOSING SENATORS British Columbia proposai Apppointedby each provincial government. Manitoba proposai Appointed by each provincial government; or, alternatively, one half by the federal government and one haif by each provincial government. Federal proposai Half to be chosen by the House of Gommons, and haif by each provincial legislature, the seats being divided among the political parties according to the popular vote at the most recent elections. Senators could not also be members of Parliament or of provincial legislatures. Other options Direct election by popular vote. 3

449
- 3 -

Notes on relationship to other elements The method of choosing Senators will determine to a large extent the political authority they can command and the power which they can effectively exercise. Therefore this element is intimately related to element number 3, the powers to be given to a new Senate. 2. THE TENURE OF SENATORS British Columbia proposai The life of the provincial legislature. Manitoba proposai A fixed term of eight years. Initial appointment of one-half of the Senators shouid be for four years to permit some overlapping thereafter. Federal proposai The life of Parliament or of the legislature in question. Notes on relationship to other elements If Senators are appointed for the life of the legislature they may feel they have more of a political mandate and be more "representative" than Senators who have been appointed by a government or legislature no longer in office. Element No. 3 is therefore related. 3. THE POWERS TO BE GIVEN A NEW SENATE British Columbia proposai matters. Voting would be different for. Category A and B

Category A: An outright veto for the Senate on - most constitutional amendments (any one region bas a veto) - appointments to the Supreme Court and to major federal agencies and commissions - use of the federal declaratory power - use of the federal spending power in provincial areas of jurisdiction - federal laws administered by the provinces A province's vote would be cast as a bloc by a Senator who is a provincial Cabinet Minister. Category B: A suspensive veto of three months on almost ail remaining legislation. A province's complete contingent of Senators would be free to vote as they individually choose. .../4

450

Manitoba proposai

4 -

For most matters the Senate's veto could be overridden by the Commons passing the same law again at its next Session; or after, say, six months have elapsed, whichever cornes first. A negative Senate vote on a government bill would not undermine the government's authority. Consideration should be given to the proposais of the Committee on the Constitution of the Canadian Bar Association that the Senate's approval should be required for the following matters (in the absence of such approval the legislation would fall): Two-thirds approval for measures to regulate intraprovincial trade that are declared to be essentiel for the management of national or international trade. - general economic objectives binding on the provinces (also subject to yearly review). use of the declaratory power, unless the province concerned agreed. Majority-approval for use of the emergency power in matters other than war, invasion or insurrection. ratification of treaties respecting matters predominantly within provincial legislative authority and multilateral trade treaties. Federai proposai

The new Senate would have only a suspensive veto: after a certain time delay the government wouid have the option of presenting a bill for royal assent. However, certain urgent bills may be presented for assent after the Senate has had them only 1 seven deys if such step is authorized by a two-thirds Commons 11 vote. Senators would, as now, be able to initiate legislation other than money bills. They wouid be eligible for inclusion in the federal Cabinet, and as Ministers could answer questions in the Commons and take part in a Commons debate (though not vote). Ministers who are MPs would have similar privileges in the Senate. The government of the day would not have te command the "confidence" of the Senate in order to survive. Senate approval would be required for Supreme Court appointments (this proposai is now likely to be dropped), and for senior appointments to certain institutions established by Parliament, such as federal crown corporations and regulatory bodies. Measures or provisions of "special linguistic significance" would recuire the approval of a majority of Frenchspeaking Senators as well as a majority of English-speaking Senators. ./5

451
- 5 -

Notes on relationship to other elements As already noted, the powers to be given a new Senate should be decided with reference to the method of choosing Senators and to their tenure. To the extent that a double majority vote on linguistic matters is seen to offer special protection to one or more provinces (such as Quebec) rather than others, element No. 4 is also related. 4. THE DISTRIBUTION OF SENATE SEATS AMONG PROVINCES AND REGIONS British Columbia proposai A small Senate of about 60 seats, with equal representation from five regions. Manitoba proposai (a) (b) (c) The representation of the Atlantic and Western regions must be increased. Ideally, each Province should have equal representation. Failing agreement on (b), the Provincial representation might be equal for ail Provinces other than Prince Edward Island, Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia. Prince Edward Island would have less Senate seats, whilst Quebec and Ontario would each have approximately double the number of seats allocated to the other Provinces, with British Columbia somewhere in between. By way of example, the Provincial Senate seat allocation might be as follows: Newfoundland Nova Scotia New Brunswick Prince Edward Island Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta British Columbia 10 10 10 6 20 20 10 10 10 16

The number of seats have been kept even to permit an equal number of Senators to be appointed for overlapping ternis. (Note: The Manitoba paper does not specify how many seats should be given to the Territories.)

452
- 6 -

Federal proposai
The distribution of seats In the present Senate and In the proposed House of the Federation Present Senate % Seats 1 1 2 6 6 6 6 24 24 24 10 10 4 6 30 104 1.0 1.0 1.9 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 23.1 23.1 23.1 9.6 9.6 3.9 5,8 28.9 100.0 House of the Federation % Seats 1 1 2 10 10 8 8 36 24 24 10 10 4 8 32 118 .8 .8 1.7 8.5 8.5 6.8 6.8 30.5 20.3 20.3 8.5 8.5 3.4 6.8 27.1 100.0

total Populations Yukon Northwest Territories TERRITORIES British Columbia Alberta Saskatchewan Manitoba WEST ONTARIO QUEBEC Nova Scotia New Brunswick Prince Edward Island Newfoundland ATLANTIC Total
1

Share of
.1 .2 .3 10.8 8.3 4.0 4.4 27.5 36.0 2E1,8 3.6 3.0 .5 2.4 9.5 100.0

8ased on population astimatea for January, 1978, as published In Canadien Statistical Review, StatistIca Canada, 1978.

A further option One other possibility is a Senate with five regions, with four having equal representation and the fifth (British Columbia) having roughly one half of the number of seats given to each of the other four regions.

Notes on relationship te other elements The distribution of seats is related to elements 1, 2 and 3, inasmuch as the more power that is exercised by the Senate, the more critical is the question of the distribution of seats. TRANSITIONAL ARRANGEMENTS This is not really a further element, but appropriate arrangements for effecting a transition from the present Senate to a new one will be important and governments ought to give them careful consideration.

453
DOCUMENT: 840-153/ 010 CONFIDENTIAL

MEETING OF OFFICIALS ON THE CONSTITUTION

(Draft for Discussion Purposes Only)

Patriation, and Amending Formula

Federal

Ottawa January 11-12, 1979

454
CONFIDENTIAL

January 10, 1979 PATRIATION,


AND AMENDING

FORMULA

The purpose of this paper is to elaborate upon the general consensus reached by Ministers at the December 14-16, 1978 meeting of the Continuing Committee on the Constitution (see Annex 1 for the appropriate excerpt from the Record of Decisions for that meeting) in order to assist further discussion of the particulars of an amending formula. What follows are notes (not a draft constitutional text) on the various possible component parts of an amending formula. Notes are also included on the question of legislative delegation, since it was agreed by Ministers that this subject should form part of the discussions on an amending formula. A POSSIBLE
AMENDING FORMULA

Six separate types of constitutional amendment would be covered by the formula. They are listed in abbreviated form below, together with an indication of whose approval would be required for amendments. Amendments regarding The amendment formula and natural resources. Provincial boundaries. 3. To be approved by Parliament, and all provincial legislatures. Parliament and legislatures of provinces concerned.

Parliament, Executive gvernment of Canada, the Senate and House of Commons (but -there are exceptions which would corne under.6). Provincial constitutions. Constitutional provisions that apply to one or more, but not all provinces. Legislature of the province. Parliament, and legislatures of provinces concerned.

4.

6. Other constitutional provisions.

Parliament; and seven provincial legislatures covering 85 per cent of Canada's population.

Notes on each of these six types of amendment procedure now follow. For comparison, Part IX of the Victoria Charter is reproduced in Annex 2, and the FultonFavreau Amending Formula is reproduced in Annex 3.

455
- 9 -

1.

The amendment formula and natural resources Any future changes in this amendment formula, which is to be entrenched in a new Constitution, would require the unanimous consent of Parliament and all provincial legislatures, as would any future changes in constitutional provisions which affect the provinces', ownership of and jurisdiction over natural resources.

2.

Provincial boundaries Any change in a province's boundaries would require the approval of Parliament and of the legislature of the province in question. It should be noted that a separate provision for amendments regarding provincial boundaries is desirable, because such changes are now specifically provided for in the BNA Act 1871 In the absence of a separate pro vision, such changes would probably be covered by procedure No. 5 With the inclusion of procedure No. 2 in the amendment formula, section 37 of the Constitutional Amendment Bill would be deleted. The relevant excerpt from the Bill is reproduced below.
'37. The Parliament of Canada may from lime to cime, after consultation among the First Ministers of the Canadien federation at a meeting duly constitutcd for that purpose, and with the express consent of the legisla- 5 turc of any province affected thereby, increase, diminish or otherwise alter the territorial limits of any such province upon such terms as may be agreed to by that legislaturc, and may, after the like consultation and 10 with the like consent, make provision respecting the effect and operation of any such increase, diminution or other alteration of territorial limits in relation to any province affected thereby, l5 37-40. These designated provisions relate to the alteration of the limita of provinces and territories, the laws for the territories and the creation of new provinces. They derive from the British North America Act, 1871 (B.N.A. Act, 1871). (For cotning into effect, see s. 125 ad the Introduction hereto, categories 4 and 5.) 37. This section would modify s. 3 of the B.N.A. Act, 1371 by requiring the federal authority to call a meeting of first ministers for consultation prior to altering provincial territorial limita. At present, only the consent of the province affected is required.

3. Executive government of Canada Amendments relating to the executive government of Canada, to the Senate and to the House of Commons would require only the approval of Parliament, with the provision that certain specified exceptions would be subject to procedure No. 6 (see below). Articles 53 and 55 of the Victoria Charter would have had a similar effect (see Annex 2). 4 Provincial constitutions Amendmnts relating to thecamendmerit from time to time of the Constitution of a Province, except as regards (a) the office of the LieutenantGovernor, (b) the requirement of yearly sessions of legislatures, and (c) the limitation on the duration of legislative assemblies (see Procedure No. 6), would require the approval only of the provincial legislature. (Compare with Articles 54 and 55 (1) to (3) of the Victoria Charter.)

456
- 3 -

5.

Constitutional provisions that apply to one or more, but not all, provinces The approval of only Parliament and of the legislatures of the provinces to which the amendment applies would be required (see Article 50 of the Victoria Charter).

6.

Other constitutional provisions Ail other constitutional provisiona'would be subject to the general amending formula, which is that the approval of Parliament, and of the legislatures of at least seven provinces representing at least 85 per cent of Canada's population (including the population of , the Territories) would be required. it will probably be'desirable to specify in the Constitution that this general amending formula will apply not only to all residual matters but also, for greater certainty, to the following specific matters. Items (1) to (7) parallel those in Article 55 of the Victoria Charter, with a slight modification in the case of (7). (1) (2) the office of the Queen, of the Governor General and of the Lieutenant-Governor; the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting yearly sessions of the Parliament of Canada and the Legislatures; the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons and the Legislative Assemblies; the powers of the Senate; the number of members by which a Province is entitled to be represented in the Senate, and the residence qualifications of Senators; the right of a Province te a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the Province; Section 74 of the Constitutional Amendment Bill. which reads as foliows: 74. The total number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased or decreased by the Parliament of Canada, but so that, as nearly as reasonably may be, the proportionate representation of the provinces therein that is prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed. Note: The amendment procedure would thus continue to enable Parliament to change the number of members, but any change in "the proportionate representation of the provinces" would be subject to the general amending formula.

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

(7)

457
- 4 -

Items (2) and (3) above form part of the proposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The rest of the Charter, except for provisions that apply to one or more but not all provinces, would also be subject to the general amending formula. The reason for specifying (2) and (3) is for greater certainty, because otherwise they may be presumed to fall under procedures 3 and 4 relating to the Executive Government of Canada and Provincial Constitutions. The general amending formula would also apply to any provisions which may be inserted in the Constitution regarding regional disparities and equalization. THE ENACTMENT OF AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF CANADA Amendments to the Constitution of Canada (except those under procedure No. 3) would from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of. Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of such provinces as are required to give their approval under the various amendment procedures described above. See for comparison Articles 49, 50 and 53 of the Victoria Charter. THE ROLE OF THE SENATE If the composition of the Senate is to remain as it is now, or will not be essentially different, it would be appropriate to ensure that the will of the House of Commons will prevail, as regards constitutional amendments, in the event of any conflict with the Upper House. Compare Article 51 of the Victoria Charter which provided for a Commons "override" with regard to amendments (but not with regard to the Senate's initiation of amendments under Article 52). The question of such an override would have to be reviewed if changes are made in the Senate that would warrant giving it a key role in constitutional amendment. DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE POWERS In the Fulton-Favreau formula there was provision for four or more provinces to (a) authorize Parliament to enact specifio laws, in relation to these provinces, within what would otherwise be a provincial field of jurisdiction under the following sections of the BNA Act. These sections covered much of the ground in which delegation to. Parliament was likely to be desirable: 92(6) 92(10) 92(13) 92(16) (b) Prisons Local Works and Undertakings Property and. Civil Rights Generally all matters of a local or private nature.

enact specific laws within a field that would otherwise be under federal jurisdiction.

458
- 5 -

There was to be no transfer of jurisdiction, but rather a revocable authorization, specific to each law in question, for the other order of government to legislate. With regard to delegation of federal powers to provincial legislatures (that is, (b) above), there was provision for fewer than four provinces to participate where the statute was shown to be of concern to fewer than four provinces. The text of the proposed amendment to the BNA Act is attached as Annex 4. The Annex includes the commentary which accompanied the draft text in The Hon. Guy Favreau, The Amendment of The Constitution of Canada, Ottawa, February 1965. There were no provisions in the Victoria Charter relating to delegation of legislation. The questions which arise in relation to the delegation of legislation at this time are: 1. 2. Should a provision permitting such delegation be now inserted in the Constitution? Should the possibility of dlegation be confined to certain heads of jurisdiction and to revocable authorizations made in relation to specific statuts s? Shouklthere be a requirement that a certain minimum number of provinces should participate?

3.

459
CONFIDENTIAL ANNEX I Excetpt from Record of Decisions, December 14-16, 1978 meeting of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution Agenda Item 12: Patriation and Amending Formula (Canada) Pursuant to a decision taken at Mont Ste-Marie, officiais met to examine this question on December 13 and presented a report to the Conference on this matter (see document 830-67/032). Quebec was present but did not participate in discussions on this item. Ministers discussed this question in executive session and arrived at a general consensus on the following: that there should be a short list of matters requiring unanimity in an amending formula. This would include (a) amendments to the amending formula itself, and (b) amendments relating to the provincial ownership and jurisdiction over natural resources; that boundary changes could take place with the consent of the provinces involved. The consent of the Parliament of Canada could also be required; that ail other matters couid be amended formula which would require the consent Parliament of Canada and at least seven together comprising at least 85% of the tion of Canada. by a of the provinces, popula-

Note was also made that most members of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitition did not support tbanotion of referenda in respect of the amending formula. Alberta stated that its position on this matter was described in the Resolution adopted by its Legislature (i.e. that the amending formula reflect the principie that existing rights, proprietary interests, and jurisdiction of a province cannot be taken away without the consent of that province). It also wished to point out that its position was not one requiring unanimity but rather the consent of the affected province. It agreed, however, to take the above consensus under consideration. British Columbia indicated that its position remained that of requiring the approval of a reconstituted Senate for constitutional amendments. Ministers agreed: that Ontario and Canada would jointiy prepare a discussion draft on this matter elaborating upon the general consensus reached by Ministers at the meeting. Note was made that this draft should be distributed before January 11, 1979. that the officiais' meeting on January 11 and 12 couid perhaps examine the discussion draft to be prepared by Ontario and Canada.

Note was also made that the question of delegation of lgislative powers could be part of the discussions regarding the amending formula.

ANNEX 2

460

EXCERPT FROM THE VICTORIA CHARTER (1971)

389

PART IX AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may Art. 49. from time to time be made by proclamation iesued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assemblies of at least a majority of the Provinces that includes (1) every Province that at any time before the issue of such proclamation had, according to any previous general census, a population of at least twentyfive per cent of the population of Canada; at least two of the Atlantic Provinces; at least two of the Western Provinces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined populations of at least fifty, per cent of the population of all the Western Provinces.

(2) (3)

Art. 50. Amendments to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, of the Provinces may from time to time be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada when so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of each Province to which an amendment applies. Art. 51. An amendment may be made by proclamation under Article 49 or 50 without a resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue of the proclamation if within ninety days of the passage of a resolution by the House of Commons authorizing its issue the Senate has not passed such a resolution and at any time after the expiration of the ninety days the House of Copinons again passes the resolution, but any period when Parliament is prorogued or dissolved shall not be counted in computing the ninety days.

461
ANNEX 2 (Cont.)

390

Art. 52. The following rules apply to the procedures for amendment described in Articles 49 and 50: (1) either of these procedurea may be initiated by the Senate or the House of Commons or the Legialative Assembly of a Province; a resolution made for the purposes of thia Part may be revoked at any tiras before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

(2)

Art. 53. The Parliament of Canada may exclusively make lava from time to cime amending the Constitution of Canada, in relation to the executive Government of Canada and the Senate and House of Commons. Art. 54. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make lava in relation to the amendment from Cime to Cime of the Constitution of the Province. Art. 55. Notwithstanding Articles 53 and 54, the following mottera may be amended only in accordance with the procedure in Article 49: (1) (2) the office of the Queen, of the Governor General and of the LieutenantGovernor; the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting yearly sessions of the Parliament of Canada and the Legialatures; the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Gommons and the Legislative Assemblies; the pavera of the Senate; the number of members by which a Province is entitled to be repreeented in the Sonate, and the residence qualifications of Senatora; the right of a Province to a number of members in the House of Gommons not less than the number of Senatora representing the Province;

(3)

(4) (5)

(6)

462

(7) (8)

AliNEX 2 (Cont.)

391

the principles of proportionate representation of the Provinces in the flouse of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and except as provided in Article 16, the requirements of thia Charter respecting the use of the English or French language.

The procedure preacribed in Article 49 may not Art. 56. be used to make an amendment when there is another provision for making such amendment in the Constitution of Canada, but that procedure may nonetheless be used te amend any provision for amending the Constitution, or in making a general including this Article, consolidation and revision of the Constitution. In this Part, "Atlantic Provinces" means the Art. 57. Provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, and "Western Provinces" means the Provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta.

463

Annex 3

The Fulton-Favreau Amending Formula What follows is an excerpt from The Canadien Constitution and Constitutional Amendment, released by the Government of Canada in August 1978.

NOTE - This excerpt does not reproduce the actuel draft legal text of the formula: it is rather a paraphrased summary of the legal text.

No amendment to the proposed 1964 Act, to Section 51A of the British North America Act of 1867 (a province's representation in the House of Commons shall not be less than the number of Senators for the province), or to any other provision of the Constitution of Canada relating to i) the powers of the legislature of a province to make laws; II) the rlghts or priviteges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the legislature or the government of a province; iii) the asaets or property of the province; or iv) the use of the Engiish or French language shall corne into force unless IR is concurred in by the legisiatures of al( the provinces. The provisions of (b) do not appiy to provisions of the Constitution of Canada which refer to one or more, but not all of the provinces, in which case on the approval of the provincial legislature concerned is required. Provisions of the Constitution of Canada especting education in any province other than Newfoundland can only be amended by the concurrence of ail provincial legislatures, except Newfoundiand, and similar provisions respecting Newfoundiand ragea the approval of that province's legislature, (e) For matters not otherwise provided for including most of the exceptions ta the exclusive power of amendment of Parliamentthe consent of two-thirds of the provincial legislatures is required.

A Proposed Act to Provide for the Amendment in Canada of the Constitution of Canada (1964) Part I (a) The power to amend, repeal or re-enact any provision of the Constitution of Canada is accorded to the %liement of Canada, subject to the other provisions of Part I.

464
Annex 3 (Cont.)

(f) The Parliament of Canada may exciusively make laws to amend the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive Government of Canada, the Senate and the House of Gommons, except as regards i) the functions of the Queen and the Governdr General in relation to the Parliament or Government of Canada; ii) the requirements of the Constitution of Canada respecting a yearly session of Parliament; iii) the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons, except that the Parliament of Canada, may in time of real 9r apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, continue a House of Commons beyond such maximum period, if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House; iv) the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented In the Senate; v) the residence qualifications of Senators and the requirements of the Constitution of Canada for the summoning of persons to the Senate by the Governor General in the Queen's name; vi) the right of a province to a number of Members in the House of Gommons not less than the number of Senators representIng the province; vii) the principies of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Gommons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and viii) the use of the English and French language. For these matters, the amending formulae would be one of the preceding formulaein most cases, (e).

(g) Provincial legislatures may amend their own Constitutions except as, regards the Office of Lieutenant-Governor, (h) Provisions net covered under the authority of (f) or (g) are subject to the procedures of (a) to (e) of the Act. (i) Parliament and the legislatures retain any amending power they might possess under specific provisions of the Constitution. (j) The expression "Constitution of Canada" is defined.

Part II
(k) Sections 91(1) and 92(1) are repealed. (I) A section was added to permit four or more provinces to authorize Parliament to enact specific laws within what would otherwise be a provincial field of jurisdiction, and simllarly to permit Parliament to authorize four or more provinces to enact specific laws within a field that would otherwise be under federal jurisdiction.

ANNEX

4165

Excerpt from The Han. Guy Favreau, The Amendment of the Constitution of Canada, Ottawa, February, 1965. THE DELEGATION OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY
sli

' ..,

: 7e

..A 2 .n fi -e, .

.z)

e
g

0:Z.Z1 -5 2 te , t

. 0

..
a

e 5 rA 'f= ! --> ; , ":A 4:


p ..g ,..,. . .,
.e" : 65 ,

% b.. .:= a, ,,-,. . a a .a F., ,2, ci 4 G. ''',0 .

., tzrzi.es ,g.n 1
,

. r-u m cp
pj 1-1 V

' . e e ".7. ,,, 'ie e 4


1 'e

8 _.

2 cte-e e ,,, V3...., .4 4 ._, `. ,,..

?,."4 A el .,-; ',......, i... , GI


-

.i, m

`8

.' '' t' 4' "5'ei Fi ,2 0 - I: 0 2 r

.., e -- e 'c,? '.: <0 '2


m''r '

9 -., .,.., g ,,0-, c , !f 2 0


e

112 le le U e . .3 E., 0 _ 9, _., z .. 0 _ c 7, , -0 u. . U 0 G) 4. , 1... , 0 0 p. ,..) a . l

-.. -ti ;a, 2


a 2'

,,,,- .. ...9. e ..4' - tz0 t " fa 0 .., a , . :z. . . .4? . ,- y .-, 14 0 , a, .,,
n' . ... - 0a4o ;... 5e c..1a- ,_ 0'0 - - -. .... . e:. ,

,.: 5 4

>

o a., d .-=' ,.. 12 A o>, 0 m ',?_,.- *, 5. '.0 - 'il ?., '' %' .9. " ---4 2, 3 P. . a a '0 - - :g ra a--_, 00 `) 1 7 . . :c 4 r 5 e ; e s .2' .' g . . , S ''-' ... e>, ..al Egi:., 111 ?; c, e eF. e. Q ' a., ;. ....r , ,. 4 0 Q ...? 'a eec.n g go 1. ....," , a D '.1 .o ,,.> , ,. , t . er, g = t 'ec e G .. 0 ..9., a Q e. u .;.5 P e.F.' .,%, e Te 71 - ';', 7, 41 , 0 1 =eg,"_eap .S .?- ; g .: .t t e:a''.4., a a a i 2 7. 41 :e -:* ?; 0' cc> 9 r,> '''' , -9 :5.... , 0 ., , R ': :73 ,.g . . ''' 7 ._. , ,... c a . e -r.: ... >' a'-';' :, ': "' . 's 11., e g o M : 2 : , - :---* ' .> . i '... 4; e Pn e ILI

1, r. 5 ,..e

._, ' 'g ti: g*, -&1 & e %. .2 . 0 c. 1-, 0.2 ,-. e, a c., P. '' .,. 9, ..... a .rc.. .._..,-, o

." f d 0 0 P....0 -.., e ..0 Q 0 -..., 0 4 , -w 0 e . c. =

Z ,e,, .. .) , Fr, -.z. . +5' '-. 2 ' 1.- . .7,3 .z - ,,,


-

-2 . g,
4..1

C e 0 ' 0 .z, 0 .e Q el .5 ,-' o to 0 0 e ,, ..8 c2, ',4 .4-, 0 0 ') . 4 4 e.,.> 6 ...
, 4 to 0 . -,

lr..

- .1) 2 2 Fr 3 I. . g 1, ... -.-_i ,,, .-;. d zti -.-- ,,e,. ,, ,,, ' -- , . t> e) o,e,74:,iiM 7 -'.. T> n 7. Q 77, g e. c: 0 E p t ''' I ' ...' a' ,. 2 '' ,, ,. ve. '. ` ' -" * to-1' e 7, E_ :.% 7.3 '.Z: :-. ' -''e,45 ,.c ::., o) 0 0 c9 " S ,.7:; '; ce t ., 2 o ,>>,.1,_ . g, ,.. .... 0 .5 aG ._, 0...,, ,. P. 4 c a 9, -0 -....., 0, __, .., ,,... 4.. T . T.: r.. 0 ...e . . . . c. , ...G 5.f. 5 n 24 0 -e a ..... ,, :4 ^ '2 ' .5 :z. .,. e 51 _ `" g e -.8 ce ' ci' t ' a Q P, ,i3 , t ,2; .. .z. . r. :2 rr, gi -7. :, ..a . , ...> 0 .... .- ....) e v 1 ,,,, a P.... -,--:, ., . E , . ..'' '-' a r . ..._ -- '-' <-1 .= 2 , 7.) :A" fil -. .., 4 ... P-I ... r. - 'ti 4 P.....-> "0 -.-> Q to ro '4 f . -.2
. .

e ). A- t> E, ' e "' a 9.) , o .',E ;e: J. ,,.., 0 o ' >" .. tII 4 .> o 0.,c.) p,- F2 >..5 , .. p. . c -- .7 a . ...0 0 -, ... ,f, g -r-' A -r 1 .; , 4 ..a G e e . -0 0 - 0 to - i-' :2 a) ta tj c . . . . . , _ , , t> ... . 9 al ... }, ,,e ro ..... o i. ,... e.3 .., -4, - n *:c5 ';' '? : ?; 4) *. ... .,,, ne .z _ 7 1 r5 74 ., '-e 'e 4 e i" ,e ,t: ...: : ! '!'; 'e To ''' ''..' ' _44 g g g c: e ''' ... ... 0 0 e ..1 en 4 w ., a el ., . Q ,.., S - '..1 . ...:, ': U , . e , 5 ' ... .e. 0 ...,, 1 ,...., p,.., 0 Q ... g .... 4 7 ,- .r.) ,.. ,5 0 ...e c 04.4 ,.., g,:, 8 '7: -.. '-'e1:-. .. 0 ''e e 0 .....i . .73 1 .7..i 0 Z e le ...%' 4 ..c 0 1.; ..m 1 ' --" " . .= . ,. ,4 ,-, ^. 1:= p., 1 CI ;.> r..1 ,,..-1 ,a ^ 0 ,--, ',g'-Ci y -, - - .

, d 0 - 0- -z e s21e.:. - r. ''i 5 4 , '-' ,,, _.., VI Cl 4.. -- 4 a, d . . Cl 1'' 7 .e. " 0 ... i 2 O ..:' .., r.., 7. 4 ' ' 0 g .: -"j ri '' 0' }. g./ 0 C" lz a ec - m f-, ..: : ,. .5'. , .;3 . CO 5 e' '4 Ei E 1. - ag tf, 0 . 'a 6 ''" .0 17 --=, 0 -c 0 --e s ..,,.. = 7, 0 ,.. ..,.. d ee0 0 Y.'>- e , ....., -. -. 0 - E ,.., .>:, 1 ...8 :,2 4 0 4:i z; e s 0 4 e <. e ._ te :.... 0 0 a -, ., ' 0 ^ p a) 0 0 ,0). eb Q Q t e _s . . - g .0 .= ;g . g CJ '7.") .,S E 1 4 .. 4 4
.

.7, ,.,:,-%? 0 0Ts ,..,. ::: , -5. 0

2, p g ...2 D . 37 e g - 4; 4; ,ti. Z - ,..


7
G

dm

0Q 0 _a .- e '''0' ._. '' a e ,-..: ,.......--' eo ... 1.-1 {-, ,5 0 - U ....- eq , -s " e cg 4 '" ..c, 8 tia ....., L E': .. 0.0 f..) <1 > e, . l' -- 0 ,..- -k"...5 ;. -. ...5 c...0 ;i -,..: --- g
aq

b .' .5 'm -

co

""': ...% ..., ' `? " 0

-Po

cr>

..

r i, ki P. eo -an:,., , -. .z, _, .. ... - ..7 o., E ,:a >11 'G .e. ''il ' 4 41 .. 21 . a 0.2 a e 0 4 G - Z e.2 '' 7 1. . j - .., :d -.,.

5 -,

1.1 2 257.5. --, 12 - g 14. C.;

A. gl,'' tel a e `")'7-5

..

..A g

oed5

d if 1, 0. 2 .M e "EU' od J~ g , 'S .9 ..., ,5


F .PA .-,1 g .4

> . .Fg. =ii s, F.2,

r5 '7 .2

, l' el . ,,,

.
e c.:g
't3 ..J

2 0 ...0 .. - -,,

. .,e?..-,---.. ., eis, --:.; ---,,


,-j7. .3 , 4 7. _.) ,..m dr., ,. -,

, o, -1 ..4

4 0 9.

. ..., ._
!; a '' Q , co

.g'g 0 171 s - , g ,... G..e o5 a "1.Q...G -.,e.,'._ S G .. ---, .,... e ho 'r., >-...'- 2 e
9

... .m z-, , c..-C1 -e. eD re , 7 0 ,,-. 0 ,^ ra 11. e

Pe. , rrr.> -''..-Zi


', - , ...); '5 .1

.";"
u

o '''

Z,M

cjot

? e> r 11Z

`.5

g2g . .,.. t -1 _. .. u' , 2 ,7 ...tr a -, e ,-,.., , Oc , ... M ,, .' . z.... ,:i - -E.5 .. ,..,. . k,-.

'-

.P

..3 i
1

111,

466

ANNEX 4 (Cont.)

>

a)

CU .0

-.>

el

:td

p,

bn
o

F) . g

(in DD

Q cil

z7;i - 4 p '" T.0 C , 8 e e ci , - .4 , * 7, 0 0,)

e-

..1

-4,-
G.

"!" e. t'e : '


*" f

"-> >

74 :74 0 98 r, e0 ) 1 O - 5 -5 ,2. ny 4 el

71 e1 , 5 ;n e

e -7> " 2, ,1.-; 2 n +01 7 , 'a ) 8 0" 0 -o.... 5 41 5e4 0 .1 e -5 `-> ,q./ 0 7 4 o t23 . .- C. g e ge73-e " Q -... ee O . c.2 C)
1

0 ;o

lm'

F .

t7 "
%0 F

aa

e
e

5. ;

g
Q.C)

? e sJ e%

:0.7 ; iT;
.22 E 'g g C.)

E.,

_4' 73

, 8

-6'

C. '..ra> C.>
.

Ti :7

>... y, 2 k,) >:,. ,0, v, ..c ,. ..., . C) . .3 `1 -> 8 ^rz .9. EJ g' J/J '''' . E .> o. , 0 t F., 0 - to ; -, e .0 2., 0 .... a. :._.51 8 - _..e -...) ..e, ---' 4 5 .. le ,c. ,., 0 4 _ ,. T: . j t gi 2 gi .am -0 , 4 .e 2 rz , 2 s 2 1...> ee E e 0 .. -; ,. E :-. . _ .., -g) ,,,?w e - 5 -' . ic% Of w-_ - .,., ' .,... -. . -; 9 .z. ,-. b 7 ,q 5 1: > il e " , 50 0 El ;,.., . 1 es , . '-; -> .-e e a P--. > ' " ' 9 e 4 --' , .E .2 P ci ,,, < .2 .9 e, ,r, .,.. E .5 2 '::` ,, -ta c ;
e ''. O g ' F:, c 1 9 E., -' '57' .. 9 9 "--- - p , C

.' e 8 ;'-'

..d q2 02 CO I

8 8. '.

2 t.- 20 ; 2 ... '' 2 'e , e3 , .2 , . .$ -...ze .,1. -. .9 . -4 .3 ,5 ... . 1- .'7' :.: cd .: . ci 1 a


72

e. .5, 5 .g . ,-, ,3 4 .. .... ? e


e

g
, e. :-1, -,e e e
s -

>, "t.= -,r, 11

ci

'' e 2, ..e 2 g

,. .:. ,..g. ,. u
.. 4D

--' O

_ 4, 1,

t :='-

e ,

',,. . ''' ' 2. -' . l' . ''' r li 5 a ' 4 ) g . .9, *#. r, .,-. . --5, 7,.., ., s F. 7 - ,.. ., Q ,..r. 9 4, ' , t b. ef..,a -..,..... --. , . . ' , ' 8. '. . sZ.j. ,.', . , 5 2 => 7 - 5 F. 4 t M" ..z .. P ..e E >, -.., -, c, 9. -7; g 5 r:. , -2 . i :.'e .,; _i ,r. e r., ;.. , 4 - 'a .:..---7 2 , ,.> -_ .....,= .. .? ,,e, P. J 0 . e .., :1 , us . ., 0 .._, : , ..,...,0. ,- ,. ... 0 e -, 0 ,7 r., a) > '--, 0 0 '.'.-j ' t ;, .... .. ;) f., .--. ^ z; ..z: %, 9 3 7. -,.. i"'": ' E t. 5 ' .?1 .='r4' .. $. 8 ..: 5 '' ''''' l 7 7- C- " -> y -', ." ci ..4'9 , 7" '9 0a>ie : 0, _ -:.-., ... . 7.1 .e . . . a> 1 . .,-1 , -.,.. F..; , d o .7 .:-; ..8 e = 0 m e 0 -1: e , a C, d z 2 ... e z a 9 ..e o at ,'a 2 g , ' t: ` - - ' e, . ,U , '. : e ;:. . a , i. - - ' , ? 7 :+' ' ' ' Zi F ! ..,
1 5 1-

5 ,. '"e F8 R 2 a , --' 3 --e .:- - ,.> .", 9. ,... :.-..- '

' . M C. ) ra .1 . ;5

,,, -1., , -.o ...., 7, a

,. ., g' 5
,e

. 9 22 9
'

, 4 ., - . .,.. e - -n o P-. w -.2, -...,-,-, "0 7: .<4a, , ,


3 1 n

...

3 .2 .--, -, ,.. 71 ,t ',7, c ? 4 0 i P:1 E .. 2 zrz 9 o a c.: e :- -' ..5 1; .fri. s t 4 .


:)

b-

1-'

v.1 ,-.. -.. Ti.,.;....

r 2 4 ,:c , t

.. 'r.4,....,L, . .0

5 ,t,' ,,, 11 :

,,)

, -! k':;
:- :.",i

8 -.L'' ''.. . ., a a r.; 4 ,:a , 43 -7 3 e 7 P) S 2 .e ,. ' ' ;' e . Tg --1 e , ,., ; ' e, , ,..) z..2 0 a 4.1 e.., o ...:. ' -.2 4
, .7, ,

cl

4 2

.2 ''' --' 2 -5 F .,. 0, ,..L, .

" .

'

"

^.

4-.

eC

0=.9,.?

a e ,

, T.' 5 rs e a , --> .

: F,

. :1 ": :

- -. 11' 7- T-, ., . --'; , j c :, ie .:.z. ; , 5, 4 ,'. ,e,...-9 '''; --i 'C P . : 5 3 ry : .: : : e 7 2 5 '4 : : :7e 7 3 - : El 0 ..--:.5., . ',=, L. '; .g.4 e - -, .., e, . 72 Er 2 0 .9 %E -.. 0 , 1S' a 7 _ .,., " et. .-, ...,

,.,

>,.

5:.1

0 o

,,g ;.-; e E . .- ., ,- ;_. '.

,.2 ai 0 ,9 e.) 2, 2 2 c 5 te e. e 'Z'


,.. .. , 5

'Z' 5 5 5..., ,,, "2

. ,75 ' rn l g 1" ' e

-, - . , o ; 0 0 i74 7 e -, z. 5 5. eF 7... . . 8 .

.d

9 '2 .5.., .,.., ...--,.. ' ..., '-' '' '" .3 ' ' '

'-. 7,, - ...., _,:, ; .? ,,: , . :3

467

ANNEX 4 (Cont.)

.. 0 ....

,o -,.. 4
>

. te g.e. r... g

+1 8

re . ,e, ,,,, - F,.. F. 9 ... ..^ ;t: e ..p -' Z' te ,, 59 ,.., -, ',L.,' o ' ro o " 7--. 9, FI 5 9 24 5 .., 3 e e, p , el ^n col el ' - , ..---' 9 e' ' . 2 17.1 .> -. 5 ,1 - e, ,e 5 '' I; .41 ,.., e ... .,,i w ?' . T2 1 1 F. n ,, n 7- 5 ,_ , ,-). .9, ;., 2 ;7 2 2 2 ' e -9. 8 .., b s ' e., . - 4 ' '' 8 4 .1 o a to 5.: 1 a 7.". -I .g. 'I e ' 0 e j ..8 . ' ,ei '' '5 o to o "0 ..ec o c a ,. 8 ' . -o -,:c c., -o -a pz -4 _?. , 4 ., .0 .--. el 0 e (., 17" ..1 4 g e -.- . ...... 2 ,.?.. 3 0 .., 4 0 k . -o g ,. , ,., o 2. ; ,0, ..o - ...., 8 r , , ,... 0 .,_ _, o.. 1 -.0 ..., .... e 5 ,, 7 ,, , , ,, 4, R 0.:.- ...., 8 o ,4 = S b p, ,-. a i... r . , p, 0tO 0 ''A F , . ,,, c,) . . , ... . . . 0 , 4 Ze 1 ' - o 0^y m 5 g rt.' --_ .). a I ... -2 0 .,.. ..^. ' LO "' -. e e -,.. o_ .-o .3 g -OE,1 "9 ,.. '" f z-i e' .u,, p., 03 4 ' .g e-.. 0 .. e e ' . 0effi,..0 e>es......, 00 .,10 ':2 , a g -4 P. , :74. 2,* e l g .._, g g' e P.. d - 8 8 2. 2 0 01 a -a ... o mk .F e , ..2 3 5 .0 2 0 5 ..2 ' ?; 33 2. ci ie". 45 a e-,.5.? to' c a b " ,, ,c , :e ,4 g 8 5 er. . % es. c e el e c., '3o a ""' . ."'' . 8 2 to":"' e,o e .3 o ? a ' e - 0 .0 " r , r2i. W. ' .` a 0 cl ' 0 o e - ro' P4 :e .9. '`' .. ' , : -e -2 , o ,, G.7" ,b tr! 5 1 u,) t ., .5..... , e a -g t. , $ ./:= ..., ,,,., 8 o ..- - i r . .> w 9 ,.- 5 , R. ... i. 74 5 - .4. i 0 -3 e .. e ' . e '5 .1 1 . .e. P e 'd. 5 5 -> , , .,> e . c .,> .0 f, to te, r p. .. eo P -.. .'=" ''' o ' 2... to .f, o a -e 5) 5: g " 1:2 e 5 r> ' c i .0 g ". g et

, te . ,o .,. .,

-. y ;.d

" ' --, `-) es -... eie t = ce d y 4 k ... y >' 0 . .., ) 4 5 ''' A .. .5 , 0 tn a0 <,., a , .1 ,. a _, .e , .e o ..o o ,, a 4 4-*,,. e c .,,I <.. .... -, a 0',"7. en , a ..- - `1 `) P ' 2 e . 0 8 ,... . = 3... e ga..a -....2 5 0 r-, ,,, ....., e a _ . c,+ .9. ? elO : z.i a - '"' --.7 2 g a' Ta 2 e r., '2;1 ,o

e ci 4 c.i. o ...., 11 , l. 5 4=
Q

r .2 l 1, .e3 g 1 i. G) , t .0 0 Ir: 2

'

`'4

5.n 71 e - 1 .,e

,,

1 oe '> s e _., z ;.;a : -e Il 1) .0. 1 .; ',.,-., ,o, 7. ' 2 ,,, -e ce ,.,, x to 1 .... ., "e i .j .2 'o) '-' p. .2. e , - 4 ..1, =, . .1 e.... > .- ;. ,;, , 0,
F

Cel

..

9 ' 1, -- . -"..... . t' ".. Tu' ' .t b e . I- - = 2 -ri 'n' ' to .`' e' b ..a >, .,..r te , - E g R. ,, ... F..,..., 7, 0, .1. . LI ,,, ^ .... "e 0 u c, ,,,, <-, ... 2 0 d 0 p . 5. , "E 5 , g. 8 o r9.-, -g -o 04
.

8A)
7,

-e

0 ,.,.

''' o. . 7 "e.0 - ' TI t' 5 4 .:--. '


. 6 " ;*-''

P o..4 <`; ,. , ,)
0

g 0 ':i g 1e c t, 1 .F.
.,

o 8 L P.
4

,Je

ti)

"

'r.3

r . n

en

, '

>

--

"-

".

0 '' ,

e' eJ

7 .

> ' 0

2,

e -

'

Q -

, , )

'

1 e .--i ee-. ' ,... .:. r, c,..". ' -',; --' F5 G 71 . ' 5 y ,., g 0 5.-, 2 a 5 a -,4> '1, o, g .51 ' .2_ e .... 5 5 > , a 00 '0' . . - , ...> , 5 g e., .,- a Ei ....--. ,_, 2.; o .-L-1 ,,_-,,Y. 2C j;,' er o -.,3 .,%;.2. e , d ,, e .5, 5 ,S, F ,. .' e a -JI E e z 2 E o 0 p ,. F., e g, . 0 c.) '0 .., 5 ,c m . 5 le . cj ..-.. e - <d Fh. .,, 0 R. .., e. o a o k 5 '-. o .. . g. 0 . o 2 .2 g 8 ..."... - ri 5 0 a. r.^ ,r 0 '5 5 2, t ,.. o , o 2 ;5, .e re .13 , - 0 --. o a --> . to c.. fa e0,.., g t cl oo - 0., 1 2 e ., e 52 e e P. a.,, ,.i ".". .-. 52 t0.,., ,. .. ,c 0 .. R, ,.,1 ..... kr - , .) o - 9 Ei , '7; g . ,.. ,-. ...,_ t. ., i ,-.:. ., , . 5 e. . . . E-, --. g o -ci p. ,,,, 5 o . a y ',7i '''' b-i e., . 4 Eo ' "4e"e'-'*---051-'''^0 .e' 'a al, .-' ..* .4 '-- - 9 '-...' '... z; a a e 3 ag c. a Ft ,-, 0 0 '0 14 ea g Fr -e a.22., ..- ',,, 0 o -g zr, d R. .5 ro
t ' ' ,. 0 . , 0 4 . . -r > 9 e c' el e g e

> G; c) Q L - '4 . n e .; , 1 -, . g -::, Z 7% --5:- ht > 0 '4 1 ' 9 - - ; (. .' Au . , .m 'e3 ,-,_-LI - e" ) '. '' '1 ' ,I . E .! . 7 . _> . :2, :I . ;. ) li :, - - L5 '' ' .O 1 : " I--' ' ' o..: 3 ,., 1,51 o g --9 A 7, ' 5 e / te g ... 85 'e r- e -2 - 43, Ti ;.. '"e ,72 ,..1 . .. o " ."..- ; el. n > ':# 3 ^ c ),^' >, --h .-e.) ."' Re. " ..= F- '-. 5 ., - o ._< ;LI ei :=' r5 ,. i ,4 - c , .- e c'czi ..4 '-' ..- ''' ..0 ) c. oe ... ..., 0 .., ! 2 - si F 4 .. 5 0 4
e .' r.' !I ) .f." 4 .2 '73 ''.4 'g

2 ) el '

-,^ ;g .. ', e 4 C a,
,71 F.
e

--

'n rn

.. '

0 , 4. 0.

eo

c 0 9 .. :... O

o . E

1 :9) ,_t a , . %! I :.5 ." 7 2 T '5 -> r. -F, 8 -,, , e 5, e j.i -, ? ,,, -; ..e, :.. . , .. <, _ . e ..., s, m tO e tn.,,. "' ,. g :1 5 4 '0 0 .. ', 0 :, ,,,, ,,. . a 0 ;) --. ' ,a t. . 0 ;,, 4,; y 2.; c e F , MI S
15 3 '-' -5 .

5e.

52 Z; .41 .. , ,,1-1 8 ..r. ,..a c.,


0 -,1

74

-.3 - tee

,t, 5.. ..-_-, . ' FI ,0 o 5 .e-. g . _al = ,... .,37 >, ,,, a . " - , e,,
.C , 2
3 .,

,_o_ L .4 .2 2, 1-472 . 'o' -0, .. 7 1 :4, 1 ,, 2. '9 9 -1 . -' 7i e e2 = 7, .. 'Vi El .. : ' u /> 'Zi -g g. 5), 45' -, -.' 4, o g 4-.1 ac ',e' .,' o .73 - c ,, e e
- > e e e'

p..., ".> e e, :5 ',3 o - o Q O 4, 0 r "" - 0 0 0 0 , -. 3 A .;. e t) e 7,5 -..' e 3 ,

F. ^

' -' c' -

..7;

, .

: 1 -1 2 ., ,

..5, '.:

.72 ,.8 9 ,, Q
e

,,,, 0 t-. tn FeJ 0 c 0 0

-... f _ ti . 5 , .5 c ..., 0 _4 .2 .-' ,... .,.. ;' .L' t b .te T3 7 41 e r-i ,.J .^L, ... 7 _ -e -,-.,. -e o> <<! ..e -;. ., 0 r, vf O d 'O .;',' .. ' Q 0 j 9 . g ;-..- E ,. SQ, 4,,e 0,:4.,-.34,.., 4)7,ez.0" .ii ..F.S.44.' ,,,..003 W 5, y.,5 -.. G " " ..2 o o p -o a _ -,-,, P-4 ,e ..> ,, > c., .4-, . g' : .7' >, e ,, 2, -e g._, 'e ,;`,; ." F = g cr ... , - .= .,1 .9. -.a

G. t ) , .. .., 5. . ... > ..:,, ,


, o

.12

Te

.. - c; .E.. . . 5 .

.- ...-e g .. 2

-4. 2> E, 0 : _. :-. 7_,'" 7_> : : : 1 ! . 8 4 , : 1 ! : o -- 2 te =- 5 g- g. .9er,3..-8


,

5 , 9, te a o .. ; .52 -g 'el ,.., e, : : `" 5 : ''. a 0 e e e e r:' "' 0 . e s 0 .g . .e. .0 '''' 5 ,, .7 9., 0 >, , 0 '"i 0 Ta - ',;, ,. 3: .4 ''' '4 . e - -a o _ o e ,_ 5 , ,. 0 a ,. ... -2 -r= o 8 ... .e o e el : . :: ..g. e. .r.-", ;Te.' , " ,4 ' = : i " e , o '..7> 4 e., --. . . , _e -..>10 5, ,,,j.i <Q . :_-: i.s ... , ..c QA ,.." ' ,. ,i , ";$' 8 -.77; 4 e 7.. . ".? ir - gist - 3 1 e . . g 7 8 , t, '-e:5' e t .0 5. . 1 F1 e 21-2 0`."Qs:. 0 e , ,-5 , cr , ,e, z, 0 0_ ,--. - 0 -.- ,,. ,, -.-. 72 c
Z1 7 2 :4 87.5 e ; Q r 4 1 r 1

,e, ..2-e, e ,--. . . _ ie .-T.4 e _ ,e.., ,.  a 17i . g e ::. , . a.'-... a , -r e' . ..e, .e ,4.2 , ti? 4,1

ge

". r, -.3 ,-.. _., "f 0" ,..1 rz.


0 &..,
o

te 73 0 e 3 g '5

,,.

co) ,:.

' t e e i' 4 i -' -. ? g 0e. . 5, ' ' 8 4 8, e...; .r5. 5 - e . 0-, - 8 :-1 7.., 9 5. 7 5 "o> a ...? L I' , :.5' ,, 1 c,, .:- ''' g d -,,-, g, '2 -td' -88 .o=e2 1 . e . '' 5 "-, .d .. e - 'g ,,;, 72, E Q. '-' e, :,-, - , 4 .e' re .--.- -..4 a 7, 8, . le ? t . 7 -1 rn o ..5. ..' . 7, 9 -.9 e"' ;>,4 - e ,..; ' II' "2 e 0 50 .... 3 5 7" .. , 5 5 '-' o o ,,' r .0 g 1 ap.. .. ... 32 f ' 6, .2; , .:.i .... P. . p.i P. 0 e ..e., ,,c .._, i.5 . p., P .2 .0 ..p 3 a a .1:: a _ -,.. - " '.- 4 r .I. . - -e-e "
7

-.. ":$ g - ... , ie, 3 _ .0 , . - .:..; 7) '''' 0 -e" ...., g ' -.. "-' .,,, , tz. . :: 7i P. Q Q ,...' ' i .-. . ,- ! te .., , g 3 a 'z' ' e 72 '' cs --.0 "' " if! or ., ''' .0- .,53' te 4 r e' .; g ,e, g g F 12 g ..-. g . ..-. ,.., .,-. %-, '..:-1 ,_ '-', ,.., 4 e 0 :,- ';.: 'Z' 4 Q ..."," , e-e e > _. ' , ol 5, =, a ,, 0 = 0, .. . . , e ( rc; ne *r> ?'' 0 .h.-, ., E.' >.: . ,,,?, _ta) ,.. . -t, 0 ...-e -, .'. .. e e . ,, - . e : l i tj g --> g i. e,
= 2 f .. " Q ' ,1 ' ,4 , ' 74 t m ,, ,

' '-' ..- ., .' g y 0, 5 2... 4..., a ,..,._ -eer,.. 0> -5, ''' a " a -. ,, m 0. 0 0 .. Z m .... 53, ,m 5 p :,_, rp n.'if ' g g ,2 ,s g ..,-, >.., ,,, ..-.
c) 1 ,

i ,

c.

e.>

'

4 -e e c 0 C. g e c. 1 , e' o e" >5 '-i' ." e F., a ' ', Q n Q -, e 13. , 01 c. ..9 .,$ .2 -' 4_, i" ,.'' Ife , te t1 y .3.1 1 ---. 0 ...., ,7, !.... : ., ,2 . 0 -'. a.n.., i. , .c e ,- -.- - a a ro a 5 -., .-- a ;.. o e , = o ,- = G , 0 ^ ? - ^ , a 0 m 0 c. e -,-' c:, 0 <, 9. .. r 0 :s ... Q ,,, sze P p e ,a 0 .....7 Q 7.3 0 1, re , e . a - o 0 >, .' ,..- ..m e g g g g F.0 c tly ' .., . g.., , -ai =;';' 1-i .5 ei,=e e',.^00--,1 ._. " 14 F 5 . '.n e . -.., : 5 e, " );:.. ' :: "g : 7, U ''.
... .,, r:Lt 0 Q
... 4 e '-2 2 "' . 1'

e11 ""' -.> , :e 7'1 '10' ..,,, 5.. ,,,

0 ..2 0...

.,.,1 .b -5 S 0..'

e 1 -, e8gP e .. - .4.?., -- r.. -L : g Q .e , b . . . P .,-' t, . = 0 75. ,i F, --,. , - Fi 1 ,. ,, .. 4

e''o-'00, '= a -, 9 - " 'zi ' 8 2 c' ''' '"' 0 . c e, -e, .2 . g ''''' --4 , .. '' g
.'

gz

4438

ANUEX 4 (Cont.)

5 ! -.4 3 ' 2 -et . e g ,,c gL. e. 5 - g g em g

, ) *.

.71
"

.->
e

.3 3 c)
e, )

=.

0
e
0

'%- ge.'E .7 - -; g
7

r4

. 1:,?1,
o

-g 4
'7,

cc

> -

d .2n. ggg
* .

' ?

.e>

) ':1; -= to g

t Tm c

e,

r 3
n e , o

\
;

t g

7,

e3 7eI g 8 e

ACTUALITS

469

ACADIE NOUVELLE | MARDI 13 NOVEMBRE 2012

lection des snateurs: Robichaud propose des balises pour protger les Acadiens
Le projet de loi no-brunswickois prvoit llection de dix reprsentants sans en prciser la langue
FREDERICTON - Le vice-premier ministre Paul Robichaud est prt dbattre de llection des snateurs au NouveauBrunswick et de la reprsentation des francophones la Chambre haute.
nution du nombre de reprsentants des communauts francophones en milieu minoritaire la Chambre haute si les snateurs sont lus plutt que nomms par le premier ministre. Au contraire du Qubec, le gouvernement du Nouveau-Brunswick a dcid daller de lavant en dposant lAssemble lgislative le 1er juin le projet de loi 64 visant faire lire les snateurs. Le gouvernement fdral sest engag dans son propre projet de loi nommer au Snat les candidats qui se feront lire dans les provinces. Joint par le journal, le vice-premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick, Paul Robichaud, sest dit prt discuter des craintes de la SANB et de la FCFA. Il y a probablement une possibilit dlire nos snateurs tout en nous assurant de protger ce dont les organismes acadiens se proccupent, croit-il Car la priorit des progressistes-conser-

Paul Robichaud se dit prt discuter des craintes de la communaut acadienne concernant le projet de loi sur llection des snateurs. - Archives

LAcadie Nouvelle rvlait en primeur le 2 novembre que la Socit de lAcadie du Nouveau-Brunswick (SANB) et la Fdration des communauts francophones et acadiennes (FCFA) voulaient participer la contestation judiciaire entame par le gouvernement du Qubec contre la rforme du Snat du gouvernement fdral de Stephen Harper. La FCFA et la SANB craignent la dimi-

vateurs demeure llection des snateurs, cote que cote.

Jai de la difficult concevoir quen 2012 nous nlisons pas nos snateurs au Canada. Finalement, la dmocratie arrte la porte du Snat canadien, insiste le dput de LamqueShippagan-Miscou.
La formule pour y arriver nest peut-

Avis public
Services dvaluation foncire Dmnags temporairement
compter du 16 novembre, le bureau des Services dvaluation foncire du centre de Service Nouveau-Brunswick, situ au 360, rue Pleasant, Miramichi, sera temporairement dmnag au centre commercial Northumberland Mall pour permettre des travaux de rnovation. Nous regrettons tout inconvnient que cette situation pourrait occasionner nos clients.

www.gaboteur.ca

www.lecourrier.com

www.lavoixacadienne.com
181777d-1

En collaboration avec:
181156d-1

tre pas la formule que lon connat prsentement pour les dputs fdraux et provinciaux et les lus municipaux, mais il faut quand mme avoir le dbat pour arriver un scnario qui va faire en sorte que vous, si vous voulez un jour faire partie du Snat canadien, vous aurez la possibilit tout le moins dtre candidat au lieu de devoir vous fier la bonne grce du gouvernement qui est en place. Pour le moment, le projet de loi 64 ne contient pas de mesures qui garantiraient aux francophones de la province de conserver leur reprsentation au Snat, cest-dire cinq des dix snateurs no-brunswickois. Le projet de loi prvoit uniquement la cration de cinq circonscriptions snatoriales, lesquelles auraient chacune deux reprsentants au Snat. La proposition du gouvernement provincial est en ce moment devant le Comit permanent de modification des lois. Paul Robichaud nexclut pas la possibilit de modifier le projet de loi pour inclure certaines balises afin de protger la reprsentativit francophone. Il nest pas clair cependant quel moment aura lieu un ventue