35203 Dossier de Preuve FCFA Mai242013

No du dossier de la Cour : 35203

DEVANT LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA

DANS L’AFFAIRE de l’article 53 de la Loi sur la Cour suprême, LRC 1985, c S-26 ;

ET DANS L’AFFAIRE d’un renvoi par le gouverneur en conseil concernant la réforme du sénat tel que formulé dans le décret CP 2013-70

en date du 1er février 2013

DOSSIER DE PREUVE DE LA FÉDÉRATION DES COMMUNAUTÉS

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

Téléphone : 613-236-1668 Télécopieur : 613-236-9632 Courriel : [email protected]

Procureurs de la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada

ME SÉBASTIEN GRAMMOND, ADE Courriel : [email protected]

Avocat conseil de la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada

AU : REGISTRAIRE DE LA COUR SUPRÊME DU CANADA

ET À :

Robert J Frater Ministère de la Justice du Canada 234, rue Wellington, tour de l’est Bureau 1161 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A OH8


Avocats du procureur général du Canada

Christopher Rupar Ministère de la Justice du Canada 234, rue Wellington, tour de l’est Bureau 1161 Ottawa (Ontario) K1A OH8


Correspondants du procureur général du Canada

John J L Hunter, cr Hunter Litigation Chambers Law Corporation 1040, rue Georgia Ouest Bureau 2100 Vancouver (Colombie-Britannique) V6E 4H1


Amicus curiae

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


Correspondants de l’Amicus curia

Daniel Jutras Université McGill 3644, rue Peel Montreal (Québec) H3A 1W9


Amicus curiae

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


Correspondants de l’Amicus curia

Me Jean-Yves Bernard Bernard, Roy & Associés 8.00-1, rue Notre-Dame Est Montréal (Québec) H2Y 1B6


Me Marise Visocchi Me Robert Desroches Me Jean-François Beaupré Me Marise-Catherine Bolduc Ministère de la Justice Direction de droit public 1200, route de l’Église, 2

e étage

Québec (Québec) G1V 4M1

Téléphone : 418-643-1477 Télécopieur : 418-644-7030

Avocats du Procureur général du Québec

Robert Houston, cr Burke-Robertson 441, rue MacLaren Bureau 200 Ottawa (Ontario) K2P 2H3


Correspondants des procureurs généraux de la Colombie-Britannique, de l’Ontario et de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador

Pierre Landry Noël et Associés 111, rue Champlain Gatineau (Québec) V6C 2G8


Correspondants du procureur général du Québec

Henry S Brown, cr Gowling Lafleur Henderson, srl 160, rue Elgin Bureau 2600 Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 1C3


Correspondants des procureurs généraux de l’Alberta, de la Saskatchewan, du Manitoba, du Nouveau-Brunswick, de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, de la Nouvelle-Écosse et des ministères de la justice des Territoires du Nord-Ouest et du Nunavut

Christian E Michaud Serge Rousselle Cox & Palmer 644, rue Main, bureau 500 Moncton (Nouveau-Brunswick) E1C 1E2


Procureurs de l’intervenante, la Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau Brunswick Inc

L’honorable sénateur Serge Joyal 250, Édifice de l’Est Parlement du Canada K1A 0A4


Perri Ravon HEENAN BLAIKIE SENCRL, SRL 55, rue Metcalfe Bureau 300 Ottawa (Ontario) K1L 6L5


Correspondants de l’intervenante, la Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau Brunswick Inc

Intervenant, L’honorable sénateur Serge Joyal

Nicholas Peter McHaffle Stikeman Elliott srl 1600 – 50, rue O’Connor Ottawa (Ontario) K1P 6L2


Procureurs de l’intervenante, l’honorable sénatrice Anne C Cools

TABLE DES MATIÈRES

Onglet Page

A Rapport de la professeure Linda Cardinal 1

B Curriculum vitae de la professeure Linda Cardinal 69

C Prime Minister’s meeting with attachments – Memorandum for the Prime 99 Minister – Report on Constitutional Negotiation, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 406)

D Memorandum for the Prime Minister – Details of proposed CCMC and 144 FMC position on the Senate, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 406)

E Lettre à Finlay McDonald (17 juillet 1935), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et 175 Archives Canada, (fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, vol 684 à la p 420011)

F Diverses lettres, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (fonds R.B. 176 Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, vol 684 aux pp 419975-78 ; 419980- 81 ; 419987-91 ; 419998-420000 ; 420011 ; 420014 ; 420028)

G Lettre au Premier ministre (30 décembre 1886), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et 193 Archives Canada, (fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C-1780, volume 432 à la p 213016)

H Lettre de Pascal Poirier à Sir John A. Macdonald, Ottawa, Bibliothèque 194 et Archives Canada, (fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C-1493, vol 19 aux pp 6935-6938)

I Lettre au Premier ministre (28 avril 1922) et réponse à J. J. Denis (1er

198 mai, 1922), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-2244, vol 72, aux pp 61373-61374)

J Lettre à J. J. Cameron (20 septembre 1932), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et 200 Archives Canada, (fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, volume 684 à la p 420270)

K Mémorandum pour Robert Rabinovitch (13 juillet 1980), Ottawa, 201 Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12)

L Mémorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E. MacDonald (22 mai 209 1979), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 10)

M Report of the Continuing Committee of Ministers on the Constitution to 219 First Ministers, Senate, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (RG11344, vol 407)

N Projet de loi sur la réforme constitutionnelle, 1978, Document explicatif 223 Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 1)

O Mémorandum pour le Premier ministre (15 septembre 1980), Ottawa, 255 Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12)

P Lettre au Premier ministre (10 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et 294 Archives Canada, (MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12)

Q Briefing book for clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed 297 resolution (Book II) (janvier 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 406, dossiers 7, 8 et 9)

R Forsey, E.A. - Notes on the Ryan Proposals, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et 421 Archives Canada, (R4447, vol 67, dossier 3)

S Meeting of Officials on the Constitution: Collation of documents, 429 January 11 and 12, 1979, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, (R11344, vol 407)

T Article de l’Acadie Nouvelle : Élection des sénateurs: Robichaud propose 469 des balises pour protéger les Acadiens, Mathieu Roy-Comeau, 13 novembre 2012

U Acte pour changer la Constitution du Conseil législatif et le rendre 470 électif, 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

V An Act to change the constitution of the Legislative Council, by 497 rendering the same elective, SPEI 1862, 25 Vict, c 18

Table des matières

Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 2

Chapitre 1 : En quoi la question de la représentation régionale ainsi que le fait que les sénateurs soient nommés et non élus, étaient-ils des éléments majeurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ? ................................................................................................ 8

Chapitre 2 : Existe-t-il, au Canada, une tradition de nomination de sénateurs provenant des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC), des Autochtones encore des femmes ? .................................................................................................................... 13

Chapitre 3 : Quel a été l’apport politique des sénateurs provenant des CFC ? ................ 31

Chapitre 4 : Pouvons-nous affirmer que la tradition de nommer des sénateurs des CFC était connue des acteurs impliqués dans les discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ? .............................................................................................. 51

Chapitre 5 : La possibilité de transformer le Sénat en organe élu a-t-elle été considérée au moment des discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ainsi que ses effets sur la représentation des CFC ? ................................................................. 53

Chapitre 6 : Sur le plan des principes de la science politique, est-ce qu’un mécanisme d’élection des sénateurs à l’échelle des provinces, tel que celui qui est envisagé par le projet de loi C-7, est susceptible d’affecter la représentation des groupes minoritaires au Sénat ? .............................................................................................................................. 60

2

Introduction

L’objectif principal du présent rapport est d’examiner les conséquences du projet de loi C-7, Loi concernant la sélection des sénateurs et modifiant la loi constitutionnelle de 1867 relativement à la limitation de la durée du mandat des sénateurs sur la représentation politique des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC) au Sénat canadien

1. Déposé à la Chambre des communes le 21 juin 2011, le projet

prévoit, notamment :

un cadre législatif que les provinces et les territoires sont invités à édicter afin de permettre aux « électeurs » de choisir les candidats sénatoriaux qu’ils préfèrent. Le premier ministre serait tenu, lorsqu’il recommanderait la nomination de candidats sénatoriaux au gouverneur général, de prendre en compte la liste de candidats présentée par une province ou un territoire

2.

État des lieux et méthodologie

La problématique de la représentation politique des CFC comprend deux dimensions : i) la représentation descriptive des CFC au sein des institutions, et ii) la prise en compte de leurs préoccupations dans le domaine des politiques publiques. Les études et analyses dans ces deux domaines sont de plus en plus importantes

3. Elles

s’inscrivent aussi dans des débats plus larges au plan international sur la question de la participation effective des minorités à la vie publique ainsi que sur leur capacité à s’autodéterminer. Dans l’ensemble, les chercheurs canadiens et internationaux s’accordent à dire que la représentation politique des minorités linguistiques et nationales

1

PL C-7, Loi concernant la sélection des sénateurs et modifiant la loi constitutionnelle de 1867 relativement à la limitation de la durée du mandat des sénateurs, 1

ère sess, 41

e parl, 2011. La loi a été

déposée en première lecture à la Chambre des communes le 21 juin 2011 par l’honorable Tim Uppal, ministre d’État (Réforme démocratique). 2

André Barnes et al, La réforme du Sénat du Canada : Foire aux questions, Ottawa, Bibliothèque du Parlement, 2011 à la p 13. 3

Pour un état des lieux dans le domaine des travaux sur les CFC, voir le premier numéro de la revue Minorités et sociétés, paru en 2012, en particulier, Linda Cardinal, « L’autonomie des minorités francophones hors Québec au regard du débat sur les minorités nationales et les minorités ethniques » (2012) 1 : 1 Minorités linguistiques et société 51. Voir aussi Johanne Poirier, « Au-delà des droits linguistiques et du fédéralisme classique : favoriser l’autonomie institutionnelle des francophonies minoritaires au Canada », dans Joseph Yvon Thériault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal, dir, L’espace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montréal, 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 d’enquête sur le bilinguisme et le biculturalisme, Introduction générale, livre I, Ottawa, Imprimeur de la Reine, 1967 (Présidents: André 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, L’Acadie des Maritimes, Centre d’études acadiennes (Université de Moncton), 1993, 299.

2

3

contribue à leur légitimité et à leur développement identitaire ainsi qu’à la cohésion sociale

4.

La représentation descriptive des CFC dans les institutions

Au Canada, les chercheurs ont inscrit l’enjeu de la représentation politique des CFC dans le cadre des débats sur le fédéralisme et la question des droits

5. Le fédéralisme

canadien se caractérise par la division des pouvoirs entre le gouvernement fédéral et ceux des provinces et des territoires. Par contre, plus qu’un principe administratif, le fédéralisme canadien se définit aussi par sa dimension culturelle ainsi que les droits des minorités de langue officielle (français et anglais)

6. Ainsi compris, le fédéralisme

canadien prend appui à la fois sur les provinces et la dualité linguistique.

Ce fédéralisme des provinces et des cultures a aussi influencé la représentation de la démocratie au Canada. En effet, comment garantir la représentation réelle ou effective de la dualité linguistique au sein des institutions politiques ? Cette question est débattue, au Canada, depuis ses débuts. Comme nous le verrons dans ce rapport, les CFC, en tant que communauté d’intérêts, d’histoire et de culture, ont aussi toujours exigé d’être représentées dans les institutions du pays

7. La question de leur représentation politique

fait partie de leurs préoccupations.

Au Canada, les réponses apportées à la question de la représentation politique ont donné lieu à une interprétation distincte du principe d’égalité de représentation. En partie grâce au fédéralisme, l’idée d’égalité n’a jamais été assimilée uniquement au principe populaire. La dualité linguistique ne pouvait pas être réduite à une question de nombres

8.

Elle a été conjuguée avec le principe d’équité, comme en témoigne aussi le traitement accordé à la représentation des provinces moins populeuses au sein des institutions politiques. Comme le suggère Pierre Foucher, « [p]lus fondamental encore que la simple reconnaissance de droits linguistiques, la dualité canadienne a besoin d’une expression politique dans les institutions pour exprimer la réalité francophone dans les politiques

4

Clive Baldwin, Chris Chapman et Zoë Grey, Droit des minorités : clé pour la prévention des conflits, London, Minority Rights Group International, 2007, 52 pages. Pour le Canada, voir les contributions des philosophes Will Kymlicka, La citoyenneté multiculturelle. Une théorie libérale du droit des minorités, Montréal, Boréal, 2001 et Charles Taylor, Rapprocher les solitudes, Québec, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, 1992. 5

Linda Cardinal, dir, Le fédéralisme asymétrique et les minorités nationales et linguistiques, Sudbury, Prise de parole, 2008. 6

David E Smith a récemment rappelé ses deux dimensions essentielles du fédéralisme 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 démocratie : la participation des minorités de langue officielle à la vie publique au Canada » (2006) 2 : 2 Gouvernance 39. 8

Voir Raîche c Canada (PG), 2004 CF 679; Renvoi : Circ électorales provinciales (Sask), [1991] 2 RCS 158.

3

4

nationales et l’impact de ces politiques sur les communautés acadiennes9. » Dans le cadre

du présent rapport, l’étude de l’incidence du projet de loi C-7 sur la représentation des minorités francophones au Sénat fera écho à cette exigence

10. De fait, dès 1871, des

sénateurs provenant des CFC ont été nommés au Sénat11

. Depuis les années 1960, la volonté des premiers ministres de moderniser l’institution a donné lieu à plusieurs propositions de réformes, incluant celle de renforcer la représentation des CFC en son sein

12. Or, le projet de loi C-7 pourrait miner une telle avancée.

La représentation des préoccupations des CFC

De nombreux travaux sur la représentation politique reconnaissent aussi que les CFC ont des préoccupations qui exigent une attention particulière en raison de leur contexte

13. En effet, ce sont des communautés vivant en situation minoritaire partout au

pays. Elles ont des besoins spécifiques qui exigent une intervention formelle de la part des pouvoirs publics. Le Canada s’est doté d’un régime linguistique qui reconnaît cette exigence. La Loi sur les langues officielles

14 contient des dispositions qui portent

spécifiquement sur l’obligation du gouvernement canadien de prendre des mesures positives afin de voir à l’épanouissement et au développement des CFC

15. Ainsi, en plus

de la question de la représentation des CFC dans les institutions politiques, force est de reconnaître que les francophones ont aussi des besoins particuliers qui doivent être pris en compte au moment de la formulation des politiques publiques. Au Canada, le Sénat représente un lieu idéal pour étudier ces besoins comme en témoignent les nombreuses contributions des sénateurs 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 à 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 sénat : une institution importante pour la francophonie albertaine », onzième Colloque annuel du CEFCO, 1991; Louis Massicotte, « Possible Repercussions of an Elected Senate on Official Language Minorities in Canada », Rapport préparé pour le Commissaire aux langues officielles du Canada, Washington, 2007. Linda Cardinal dresse un bilan de la représentation des francophones au Sénat dans les travaux suivants : « La participation des minorités francophones hors Québec à la vie politique au Canada : comment combler le déficit démocratique ? », dans Joseph Yvon Thériault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal, dir, L’espace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montréal, Fidès, 2008, 385; Linda Cardinal, « Vie politique et francophonie », dans Joseph Yvon Thériault, dir, La francophonie en milieu minoritaire. Un état des lieux, Moncton, Éditions de l’Acadie, 1999, ch 15, 325. Voir également Foucher, supra note 9. 11

Voir le tableau 1 ci-dessous. 12

Prime Minister’s meeting with attachments – Memorandum for the Prime Minister – Report on Constitutional negotiation, Ottawa, Bibliothèque 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, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, R11344, vol 406 [Watts Memo for the Prime Minister (Onglet D)]. 13

Pour une synthèse de ces travaux, Thériault, Gilbert et Cardinal, supra note 3. 14

LRC 1985, c 31 (4e supp).

15

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, 434 [Cardinal, « New Approaches »].

4

5

Organisation du rapport

Le rapport proposera une conceptualisation socio-historique de la représentation des CFC au Sénat

16. Cette approche nous permettra de dégager certaines tendances en ce

qui a trait à la question de la représentation des CFC au Sénat sur la longue durée. Grâce à la combinaison des sources primaires et secondaires existantes, nous pourrons également jeter un nouvel éclairage sur l’incidence de la présente réforme proposée sur les CFC. L’analyse permettra au lecteur d’apprécier l’importance que revêt le projet de loi C-7 au sein des CFC.

Le rapport comprendra six sections, chacune présentant les résultats des recherches relatives aux questions suivantes :

1. En quoi la question de la représentation régionale ainsi que le fait que les sénateurs soient nommés et non élus, étaient-ils des éléments majeurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ?

2. Existe-t-il, au Canada, une tradition de nommer des sénateurs provenant des CFC, des Premières nations ou encore des femmes ?

3. Quel a été l’apport politique des sénateurs issus des CFC ? 4. Pouvons-nous affirmer que la tradition de nommer des sénateurs des CFC était

connue des acteurs impliqués dans les discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982

17 ?

5. La possibilité de transformer le Sénat en organe élu a-t-elle été considérée au moment des discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ainsi que ses effets sur la représentation des CFC ?

6. Sur le plan des principes de la science politique, est-ce qu’un mécanisme d’élection des sénateurs à l’échelle des provinces, tel que celui qui est envisagé par le projet de loi C-7, est susceptible d’affecter la représentation des groupes minoritaires au Sénat ?

Pour répondre aux trois premières questions, nous avons puisé dans les archives de l’époque de la fondation du Sénat et les débats parlementaires. Nous avons répondu aux questions quatre et cinq en nous appuyant également sur des sources primaires. Enfin, la réponse à la question six a été effectuée à partir de sources secondaires.

Aux fins de ce rapport, l’expression « communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada » (CFC) sera utilisée pour désigner les Canadiennes et les Canadiens d’expression française qui vivent à l’extérieur du Québec. Les CFC ont un lien historique avec le Québec, mais leur réalité est distincte et doit être prise en compte dans sa spécificité. Ainsi, les Acadiennes et les Acadiens forment une communauté historique particulière et sont présents dans chacune des provinces des Maritimes. À l’ouest du Québec, les francophones sont venus de partout afin de peupler l’Ontario, les Prairies et

16

Kunz, supra note 10; Robert A MacKay, The Unreformed Senate of Canada, Toronto, McClelland and Stewart, 1963 [Mackay]; David E Smith, « L’adaptation possible du Sénat, sans avoir à réformer la Constitution » dans Serge Joyal, dir, Protéger la démocratie canadienne : le Sénat en vérité..., Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003, 246. 17

Constituant l’annexe B de la Loi de 1982 sur le Canada (R-U), 1982, c 11.

5

6

la Colombie-Britannique sans oublier les territoires. Ensemble, les CFC et le Québec forment le Canada francophone d’aujourd’hui, constitué de francophones et francophiles de diverses origines ayant tissé, depuis leur arrivée au pays, un ensemble de liens et de réseaux permettant d’assurer la pérennité du français en terre d’Amérique.

Il n’existe pas de définition statistique précise ou de critère unique pour déterminer qui est un « francophone » au Canada

18. Dans ce rapport, est francophone

toute personne ayant le français comme première langue officielle parlée et encore comprise

19. Selon les résultats du recensement de 2011, 1 067 580 des 7 691 705

Canadiennes et Canadiens ayant le français comme première langue officielle parlée sont des francophones hors Québec

20. Ces derniers constituent 14,6 % des francophones du

Canada et 4,0 % de la population canadienne totale. Néanmoins, la catégorie utilisée pour dénombrer le nombre de francophones n’est pas exclusive. D’autres Canadiennes et Canadiens n’ayant pas le français comme première langue officielle parlée peuvent aussi s’identifier comme francophones.

Les francophones hors Québec et les anglophones du Québec sont aussi considérés, au Canada, comme des « communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire ». Bien que le terme soit parfois employé dans ce rapport et dans d’autres travaux portant sur les minorités linguistiques au Canada, les anglophones du Québec ne constituent pas l’objet central de cette analyse, qui se concentre principalement sur les francophones hors Québec ou les CFC.

Enfin, le tableau 1 montre que les CFC sont répartis sur le territoire canadien de façon inégale. Selon les données de 2011, les trois quarts des francophones hors Québec vivent en Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick. Des CFC se trouvent également dans les autres provinces atlantiques, dans l’Ouest, en Colombie-Britannique ainsi que dans les territoires. À l’extérieur du Québec, le Nouveau-Brunswick compte le plus important pourcentage de francophones, soit 32,5 %. Pour sa part, l’Ontario comprend, en nombre absolu, le plus grand nombre de francophones, soit 542 390, hors Québec.

Tableau 1 : Effectif et proportion, par province et territoire, de la population hors Québec dont le français est la première langue officielle parlée en 2011

Province/Territoire Nombre Pourcentage Alberta 71 730 2,0

Colombie-Britannique 62 195 1,4 Île-du-Prince-Édouard 4 810 3,5

Manitoba 41 364 3,5 Nouveau-Brunswick 235 695 31,9

18

Statistique Canada, Le français et la francophonie au Canada : Langue, Recensement de la population de 2011, Ottawa, Ministère de l’Industrie, 2012 à la p 1. Pour la première fois, en 2011, des questions concernant la langue ont été incluses dans le formulaire obligatoire du recensement, distribué à 100 % de la population. 19

Ibid à la p 1. 20

Ibid aux pp 2 et 3.

6

7

Nouvelle-Écosse 30 330 3,3 Nunavut 480 1,5 Ontario 542 390 4,3

Saskatchewan 14 290 1,4 Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador 2 100 0,4 Territoires du Nord-Ouest 1 080 2,6

Yukon 1 485 4,4 Source : Statistique Canada, Le français et la francophonie au Canada : Langue, Recensement de la population de 2011, Ottawa, Ministère de l’Industrie, 2012 aux pp 2-3.

Avis d’expert de Christopher P. Manfredi

Nous avons pris connaissance de l’avis de Christopher P. Manfredi déposé dans le cadre du renvoi sur le Sénat devant la Cour d’appel du Québec

21. Nous sommes d’avis

que :

- L’affirmation de la part de Manfredi, selon laquelle la représentation des Autochtones et des femmes est un phénomène récent, n’enlève rien au fait que celle des CFC est établie depuis longtemps, ce qu’il omet de souligner.

- Même si Manfredi considère que les minorités censées être protégées en 1867 n’incluaient pas les CFC, conclusion que nous rejetons par ailleurs, il est clair, comme nous le verrons ci-dessous, que ce rôle était bien établi en 1982, et que les rédacteurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ont pu tenir compte de ce rôle en concevant la formule de modification de la Constitution.

- Manfredi n’a pas à porter de jugement sur ce qui constitue la protection la plus efficace des intérêts des CFC. L’action durable de la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (FCFA) à cet égard

22

constitue une meilleure preuve et un exemple plus tangible que ce que Manfredi peut offrir.

- Les propos de Manfredi n’apportent aucun éclairage susceptible de modifier notre étude et nos analyses.

21

Cour d’appel du Québec, greffe de Montréal, no 500-09-022626-121, rapport daté de mai 2013.

22

Voir notamment Rapport du comité politique de la Fédération des francophones hors Québec, Pour ne plus être...sans pays, Fédération des francophones hors Québec, Ottawa, 1979; Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Bâtir ensemble l’Avenir du Canada – Les Communautés francophones et acadiennes et le projet de réforme du fédéralisme canadien, Ottawa, 17 décembre 1991.

7

8

Chapitre 1 : En quoi la question de la représentation régionale ainsi que le fait que les sénateurs soient nommés et non élus, étaient-ils des éléments majeurs de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 ?

Selon Ajzenstat, lors des rencontres en vue de la création de la Confédération, « la représentation des composantes de la fédération à la Chambre haute est un des sujets les plus controversés

23 ». En effet, la question de la structure et des attributs de la Chambre

haute a été au cœur des débats. Presque la moitié des rencontres en vue de l’adoption des Résolutions de Québec ont porté sur le sujet

24. Parmi les enjeux débattus, il y avait,

notamment, la question de la représentation régionale et le mode de sélection des sénateurs.

La représentation régionale

À l’époque, la crainte était grande au sein de certaines délégations, en particulier celle du Bas-Canada, que la représentation des entités fédérées ne soit pas respectueuse de l’équilibre entre les intérêts des constituants, en particulier, ceux du Bas-Canada ou de la future province du Québec – composée, en 1867, comme à ce jour, d’une population à prédominance francophone. En effet, les négociateurs du Bas-Canada craignaient que la population anglophone, en raison de son poids démographique à l’échelle du futur pays, écrase la représentation des francophones au sein de la Chambre des communes et limite son pouvoir d’influence au sein des nouvelles institutions fédérales

25.

Les Canadiens français semblaient bien comprendre que le principe numérique de la représentation d’après la population, qu’ils avaient accepté dans le cas de la Chambre basse, n’était pas à leur avantage. Il fallait donc trouver un compromis afin de les rassurer et de protéger leurs intérêts. Les Pères de la Confédération vont créer un mécanisme favorable au maintien d’une présence francophone importante au sein du nouveau Parlement, soit la mise en place d’une Chambre haute.

La création de cette Chambre haute reposera sur le principe de l’égalité de représentation. Elle servira à limiter les effets néfastes d’une représentation politique uniquement fondée sur la population. Le Bas-Canada aura ainsi une représentation fixe et garantie pour compenser sa faiblesse numérique.

L’importance symbolique et politique de ce compromis est indéniable. Comme l’explique Ajzenstat, « [i]l n’est pas excessif de dire que le sort de la Confédération s’est joué sur la question de la représentation régionale à la Chambre haute

26 ». George

23

Janet Ajzenstat, « Le bicaméralisme et les architectes du Canada » dans Serge Joyal, dir, Protéger la démocratie canadienne : le Sénat en vérité..., Montréal, McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2003, 3 à la p 16. 24

Éric Montigny et Réjean Pelletier, « Le pouvoir législatif : le Sénat et la Chambre des communes » dans Réjean Pelletier et Manon Tremblay, dir, Le parlementarisme canadien, 3

e éd, Québec, Presses de

l’Université Laval, 2005, 273, note 12 à la p 277; voir également André Bernard, Les institutions politiques au Québec et au Canada, Montréal, Boréal, 1995. 25

Ajzenstat, supra note 23 à la p 16. 26

Ajzenstat, supra note 23 à la p 17.

8

9

Brown27

, un des Pères de la Confédération, représentant du Haut-Canada et principal adepte de la représentation d’après la population parle de « concession ». Concéder la représentation d’après la population pour les Canadiens français ne devait pas être associé à un jeu à somme nulle. Il en allait du sort de la nouvelle Constitution à naître. Selon Brown,

[n]os amis du Bas-Canada nous ont concédé la représentation d’après la population qu’à la condition expresse qu’ils auraient l’égalité [au Sénat]. Ce sont là les seuls termes possibles d’arrangement et, pour ma part, je les ai acceptés de bonne volonté. Du moment que l’on conserve les limites actuelles des provinces et que l’on donne à des corps locaux l’administration des affaires locales, on reconnaît jusqu’à un certain point une diversité d’intérêts et la raison pour les provinces moins populeuses de demander la protection de leurs intérêts par l’égalité de représentation dans la chambre haute

28.

Sir John A. Macdonald, qui expliquait l’accord sur la représentation devant l’Assemblée législative de la province du Canada affirmait aussi, que

[n]ous sommes tombés d’accord qu’il fallait dans la constitution de la chambre basse lui donner pour base le principe de la représentation d’après le chiffre de la population; l’application de ce principe se trouve pleinement développée dans ces résolutions. Lorsque je dis représentation basée sur le chiffre de la population, je prie la chambre de ne pas croire que le suffrage universel ait été en quoi que ce soit sanctionné par la conférence comme le principe constitutif de cette branche populaire. Afin de protéger les intérêts locaux de chaque province, nous avons jugé nécessaire de donner aux trois grandes divisions de l’Amérique Britannique du Nord une représentation égale dans la chambre haute, car chacune de ces divisions aura des intérêts différents

29.

Macdonald souhaitait que le Parlement fédéral soit une entité permettant à la fois la représentation populaire – bien que le suffrage universel ne fasse pas consensus à l’époque –, et la représentation de la diversité des intérêts selon les régions. Au cœur de la diversité de ces intérêts, il y avait la reconnaissance des préoccupations des Canadiens français, notamment, ceux du Bas-Canada. Par contre, la question des intérêts minoritaires n’a jamais été limitée aux seuls intérêts des Canadiens français du Québec. Les CFC font également partie de la diversité des intérêts minoritaires qui ont été pris en compte à l’époque, notamment lors de l’entrée des provinces de l’Ouest au sein de la Confédération. Comme nous le verrons plus loin, des sénateurs francophones ont été nommés pour représenter ces provinces et les CFC desquelles ils provenaient. Parmi les

27

George Brown (1818-1880) est un Canadien d’origine écossaise qui s’est fait l’ardent défenseur d’un Sénat nommé. Il a été élu député dans la Province du Canada en 1851 et a été nommé sénateur en 1873. Bibliothèque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 28

Province du Canada, Assemblée législative, Débats parlementaires sur la question de la Confédération des provinces de l’Amérique britannique du Nord, 8

e parl, 3

e sess à la p 87 [Province du Canada, Débats

parlementaires]. 29

Ibid à la p 35.

9

10

intérêts minoritaires, mentionnons aussi ceux des minorités religieuses, des personnes plus fortunées et des voix dissidentes. Le Sénat protégera leurs intérêts, même s’il n’y a pas de dispositions explicites à leur intention dans le projet de constitution. Comme le rappelait la Cour suprême en 1998 dans le Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec, la Constitution canadienne repose notamment sur le principe non écrit de la protection des minorités

30.

Enfin, la Constitution a été considérée comme un grand gage de confiance entre les deux grandes communautés linguistiques. En effet, John Rose

31, député montréalais à

l’époque, déclarait que

[d]ans l’histoire des deux races, l’adoption de ce projet sera le gage de leur confiance mutuelle et inaltérable. Cette réciprocité est remarquable, et la postérité se rappellera avec orgueil l’époque où l’une des races n’hésitait pas à confier sa sûreté et ses intérêts à l’honneur de l’autre

32.

Rose avait bien compris la portée symbolique du compromis qui venait d’être accepté par les Canadiens français au moment de l’adoption de l’Acte de l’Amérique du Nord britannique

33. Les deux grandes communautés linguistiques aspiraient à l’égalité

entre elles, mais elles allaient fonder leur représentation sur un principe d’équité ou de réciprocité. Grâce à ce compromis fondamental sur la nature de la représentation, notamment celle du Bas-Canada, les deux grands peuples ont réussi à s’entendre sur un pacte qui les liera l’un envers l’autre pour l’avenir.

Plus de 100 ans après le pacte original, le sénateur Gildas Molgat et le député Mark MacGuigan rappelaient, dans le cadre de leurs travaux pour le Comité mixte spécial du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada, ce qui semblait être devenu une évidence, soit que le Sénat avait été créé, notamment, pour représenter les intérêts des régions

34. En 1979, le compromis de 1867 sur la Chambre haute révélait

aussi tout son sens dans le Renvoi : Compétence du Parlement relativement à la Chambre haute. Dans ce renvoi, la Cour suprême du Canada affirmait qu’« [u]n but primordial de l’institution du Sénat, en tant que partie du système législatif fédéral, était donc d’assurer la protection des divers intérêts régionaux au Canada quant à l’adoption de la législation fédérale

35 ». Ces intérêts régionaux étaient étroitement associés au fédéralisme des

cultures ou au biculturalisme inhérent au pacte initial.

30

[1998] 2 RCS 217 au para 79 et s. 31

John Rose (1820-1888), un Père de la Confédération, a été député de Montréal-Centre à l’Assemblée législative de la Province du Canada de 1857 jusqu’à l’Union et occupa plusieurs postes au Conseil des ministres (Cabinet). Il fut notamment délégué à la Conférence de Londres en 1867. Il fut ensuite député à la Chambre des communes pendant deux ans. Voir Bibliothèque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 32

Province du Canada, Débats parlementaires, supra note 28 à 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

Comité mixte spécial du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada, Rapport final, 4

e sess, 28

e parl, 1972 à la p 33 [Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan].

35

(1979), [1980] 1 RCS 54 à la p 68.

10

11

Le mode de sélection des sénateurs

L’autre élément important de la structure du Sénat qui a fait l’objet de longs débats parmi les Pères de la Confédération est le mode de sélection des sénateurs. Bien que la structure parlementaire canadienne ait été largement inspirée par le modèle du Parlement de Westminster, les Pères de la Confédération ont étudié plusieurs modes de désignation.

Rappelons qu’à l’époque, la Province du Canada36

et l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard37

possédaient des Chambres hautes respectives fondées sur le principe électif38

. Le concept d’un régime parlementaire bicaméral comprenant deux chambres élues n’était donc pas étranger des Pères de la Confédération. Toutefois, ces derniers considéraient que l’expérience d’une Chambre haute élue avait été décevante. Elle ne suscitait pas d’enthousiasme suffisant pour doter le futur Parlement fédéral d’un Sénat élu

39. À ce

sujet, John A. MacDonald affirmait que :

Je ne me cache pas que les raisons que l’on donne à l’appui du principe opposé sont fortes et nombreuses; je les apprécie d’autant mieux que j’ai fait partie du ministère qui a introduit le principe électif en Canada. Cependant, sans prétendre que notre tentative n’ait pas été couronnée de succès, je dois dire que plusieurs raisons l’ont empêché de réussir autant que nous nous y attendions

40.

Parmi les Pères de la Confédération, Brown s’opposait de façon non équivoque à l’élection des sénateurs. Il parlait contre leur élection par le peuple. Comme il l’explique :

[o]n a dit que la couronne ne devrait pas nommer les membres de la chambre haute, mais que leur élection devrait être laissée au peuple. Mon opinion est assez connue sur cette question. Je me suis toujours déclaré l’adversaire d’une seconde chambre élective, et je le suis encore, persuadé que deux chambres constituées de la même manière sont incompatibles avec les principes de la constitution anglaise. J’ai voté presque seul lorsque le conseil fut rendu électif, mais j’ai pu me convaincre qu’un grand nombre des partisans de ce dernier système avaient regretté une pareille mesure

41.

Entre autres, à l’époque, le Canada ne possédait pas une aristocratie comme c’était le cas en Grande-Bretagne. Le modèle de la Chambre des lords, où siégeaient les nobles du royaume, comporterait des limites évidentes dans le contexte canadien. Voici d’ailleurs ce que John A. Macdonald avait à dire à ce sujet :

36

Voir Acte pour changer la Constitution du Conseil législatif et le rendre électif, 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 à la p 13. 39

Ibid. 40

Canada, Débats parlementaires, supra note 28 à la p 87. Pour plus de détails sur l’expérience du Canada-Uni et de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard à ce niveau, voir Michel Morin, « L’élection des membres de la Chambre haute du Canada-Uni, 1856-1967 » (1994) 35 C d D 23. 41

Canada, Débats parlementaires, supra note 28 à la p 87.

11

12

[u]ne chambre héréditaire est une impossibilité en ce jeune pays, car nous n’avons aucun des éléments propres à former une aristocratie foncière; nous sommes sans fortunes territoriales; nous n’avons aucune classe séparée et distincte du peuple et un corps politique héréditaire ne conviendrait par conséquent en aucune manière à notre état de société. Il se réduirait bientôt à rien. C’est pourquoi la seule manière d’appliquer le système anglais, à la chambre haute, consiste à conférer à la couronne le pouvoir d’en nommer les membres de la même manière que les pairs anglais, avec cette différence que les nominations seront à vie

42.

Le principe non électif et la question de la représentation des intérêts des minorités seront également liés. Le pari, à l’époque, était que le principe non électif permettrait la nomination de sénateurs dont le rôle serait de bien représenter les intérêts régionaux et minoritaires, que l’on pense à ceux des Canadiens français du Québec, mais également à ceux des CFC. Macdonald insistera sur ce lien entre la structure et l’attribut du Sénat de représenter les intérêts régionaux en faisant référence à la limitation du nombre des représentants. Pour lui, « [à] la Chambre haute sera confiée le soin de protéger les intérêts de section; il en résulte que les trois grandes divisions seront également représentées pour défendre leurs propres intérêts contre toutes combinaisons de majorités dans l’Assemblée

43. »

En optant pour une chambre haute nommée, les Pères de la Confédération ont donc déterminé que « le conseil législatif devait être un corps essentiellement conservateur [...] une branche de la législature où l’on puisse examiner les questions sans trop se préoccuper des préjugés du peuple, si cela est possible [...]

44 ».

Bref, les documents de l’époque, comme les analyses plus récentes, n’hésitent pas à souligner que la représentation régionale, incluant la représentation des intérêts des minorités, tout comme le mode de sélection des sénateurs constituent des éléments majeurs du compromis de 1867. Ces deux dimensions représentent des attributs jugés essentiels par les Pères de la Confédération, mais également par leurs contemporains. Enfin, la Cour suprême du Canada n’a pas hésité à rappeler ces dimensions fondamentales qui caractérisent l’institution sénatoriale ainsi que les principes d’équité et du droit des minorités.

42

Ibid à la p 36. 43

Ibid à la p 88. 44

Canada, Débats parlementaires, supra note 28 à la p 345.

12

13

Chapitre 2 : Existe-t-il, au Canada, une tradition de nomination de sénateurs provenant des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada (CFC), des Autochtones ou encore des femmes ?

Conformément à son attribut de défendre les intérêts minoritaires, il existe une longue tradition de représentation des CFC à la Chambre haute. Dans son évolution, l’institution sénatoriale a aussi accueilli des Autochtones et des femmes. Cette évolution est typique de la démocratie canadienne en raison de son principe d’équité, qui inclut la diversité des intérêts minoritaires, notamment des intérêts de type identitaires

45.

Les communautés 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 sénateur francophone. Le Nouveau-Brunswick et l’Ontario ont eu plusieurs sénateurs francophones pour les représenter. Des 22 premiers ministres du Canada, 17 ont nommé un ou plusieurs sénateurs francophones hors Québec. Étant donné que la première ministre Campbell n’a pas fait de nomination sénatoriale, il est plus exact d’affirmer que 17 sur 21 premiers ministres ont nommé des sénateurs francophones hors Québec.

Tableau 2 : Les sénateurs des CFC au Sénat depuis 1871

Nom* Nomination

recommandée par

Province Début du mandat

Fin du mandat

Girard, Marc Amable

Macdonald Manitoba 1871.12.13 1892.09.12

Poirier, Pascal Macdonald Nouveau- Brunswick

1885.03.09 1933.09.25

Casgrain, Charles Eusèbe

Macdonald Ontario 1887.01.12 1907.03.08

Bernier, Thomas- Alfred

Abbott Manitoba 1892.10.27 1908.12.30

Arsenault, Joseph Octave

Bowel Île-du-Prince-Édouard

1895.02.18 1897.12.14

Roy, Philippe Laurier Alberta 1906.03.08 1911.04.21 Comeau, Ambroise-Hilaire

Laurier Nouvelle-Écosse 1907.01.15 1911.08.25

Belcourt, Napoléon Antoine

Laurier Ontario 1907.11.22 1932.08.07

Chevrier, Noé E. Laurier Manitoba 1909.01.18 1911.10.09

45

Les archives montrent que la religion et l’origine ethnoculturelle ont aussi été prises en compte dans le cadre de la nomination des sénateurs. On pense à l’importance de nommer des Irlandais ou encore des catholiques. Par contre, les données sur ces autres dimensions de la diversité canadienne n’ont pas encore été compilées de façon aussi systématique que pour les CFC, les Premières nations et les Métis ainsi que pour les femmes.

13

14

Prince, Joseph Benjamin

Laurier Saskatchewan 1909.07.29 1920.10.26

Forget, Amédée- Emmanuel

Laurier Alberta 1911.05.02 1923.06.08

LaRivière, Alphonse Alfred Clément

Borden Manitoba 1911.10.23 1917.09.01

Girroir, Edward Lavin

Borden Nouvelle-Écosse 1912.11.20 1932.05.08

Bourque, Thomas Jean

Borden Nouveau-Brunswick

1917.01.20 1952.02.16

Bénard, Aimé Borden Manitoba 1917.09.03 1938.01.08 Turgeon, Onésiphore

King Nouveau-Brunswick

1922.10.27 1944.11.18

Côté, Jean Léon King Alberta 1923.08.14 1924.09.23 Lessard, Prosper- Edmond

King Alberta 1925.09.05 1931.04.11

Lacasse, Joseph-Henri-Gustave

King Ontario 1928.01.10 1953.01.18

Marcotte, Arthur Bennett Saskatchewan 1931.07.06 1958.08.18 Côté, Louis Bennett Ontario 1933.12.30 1943.02.02 Robicheau, Jean-Louis Philippe

Bennett Nouvelle-Écosse 1935.07.20 1948.03.01

Léger, Antoine Joseph

Bennett Nouveau-Brunswick

1935.08.14 1950.04.07

Beaubien, Arthur- Lucien

King Manitoba 1940.01.29 1969.02.01

Blais, Aristide King Alberta 1940.01.29 1964.11.10 Veniot, Clarence Joseph

King Nouveau-Brunswick

1945.04.18 1966.06.01

Hurtubise, Joseph Raoul

King Ontario 1945.06.09 1955.01.31

Comeau, Joseph Willie

St-Laurent Nouvelle-Écosse 1948.12.01 1966.01.10

Léger, Aurel D. St-Laurent Nouveau- Brunswick

1953.06.12 1961.12.28

Savoie, Calixte F. St-Laurent Nouveau- Brunswick

1955.07.28 1970.08.23

Boucher, William Albert

St-Laurent Saskatchewan 1957.01.03 1976.06.23

Choquette, Lionel Henri

Diefenbaker Ontario 1958.01.31 1981.03.06

Fournier, Edgar E. Diefenbaker

Nouveau- Brunswick

1962.09.24 1983.02.11

Bélisle, Rhéal Diefenbaker Ontario 1963.02.04 1992.11.03

14

15

Michaud, Hervé J. Pearson Nouveau-Brunswick

1968.03.15 1978.06.05

Martin, Paul Joseph James

Trudeau Ontario 1968.04.20 1974.10.30

Robichaud, Hédard-J.

Trudeau Nouveau-Brunswick

1968.06.28 1971.10.08

Molgat, Gildas L. Trudeau Manitoba 1970.10.07 2001.02.28 Fournier, Joseph Michel


1971.12.09 1980.09.29

Robichaud, Louis J.


1973.12.21 2000.10.21

Cottreau, Ernest G.

Trudeau Nouvelle-Écosse 1974.05.08 1989.01.28

Lucier, Paul Trudeau Yukon 1975.10.23 1999.07.23 Guay, Joseph- Phillippe

Trudeau Manitoba 1978.03.23 1990.10.04

Thériault, L. Norbert


1979.03.26 1996.02.16

De Cotret, Robert René

Clark Ontario 1979.06.05 1980.01.14

LeBlanc, Roméo Trudeau Nouveau-Brunswick

1984.06.29 1994.11.21

Corbin, Eymard G.

Turner Nouveau-Brunswick

1984.07.09 2009.08.02

Simard, Jean- Maurice

Mulroney Nouveau-Brunswick

1985.06.26 2001.06.16

Comeau, Gérald J.

Mulroney Nouvelle-Écosse 1990.08.30 Présent

Desmarais, Jean Noël

Mulroney Ontario 1993.06.04 1995.07.25

Gauthier, Jean- Robert

Chrétien Ontario 1994.11.23 2004.10.22

Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie

Chrétien Nouveau-Brunswick

1995.03.21 2012.06.18

Poulin (Charette), Marie-Paule

Chrétien Ontario 1995.09.21 Présent

Landry, Joseph Gérard Lauri P.


1996.02.26 1997.06.19

Robichaud, Fernand


1997.09.22 Présent

Boudreau, J. Bernard

Chrétien Nouvelle-Écosse 1999.10.04 2000.10.26

LaPierre, Laurier L.


Léger, Viola Chrétien Nouveau-Brunswick

2001.06.13 2005.06.29

15

16

Duhamel, Ron J. Chrétien Manitoba 2002.01.15 2002.09.30 Chaput, Maria Chrétien Manitoba 2002.12.12 Présent Ringuette, Pierrette


2002.12.12 Présent

Tardif, Claudette Martin Alberta 2005.03.24 Présent

Mockler, Percy Harper Nouveau-Brunswick

2009.01.02 Présent

Poirier, Rose-May Harper Nouveau-Brunswick

2010.02.28 Présent

Information à jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothèque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. * La compilation repose sur les patronymes des sénateurs et l’approche « réputationnelle

46 ».

Comme le montre le tableau 2, des représentants des CFC ont fait partie des premières cohortes de sénateurs désignées par le premier ministre Macdonald. En effet, en 1871, Macdonald nomme un premier francophone hors Québec au Sénat, Marc-Amable Girard, pour représenter le Manitoba. Girard sera sénateur pendant une période de 21 ans, soit jusqu’en 1892. Ensuite, en 1906, le premier ministre Wilfrid Laurier nommera Philippe Roy, le premier sénateur pour l’Alberta, également francophone. Le sénateur Roy siègera au Sénat jusqu’en 1911.

Le Manitoba et l’Alberta, successivement, ont donc compté chacune un sénateur francophone parmi les premières nominations sénatoriales pour ces provinces. Ces Canadiens français hors Québec sont nommés au moment de la fondation même de ces provinces. En plus de Girard, le premier ministre Macdonald désignera Pascal Poirier pour représenter le Nouveau-Brunswick et Charles Eusèbe Casgrain pour l’Ontario.

En 1892, le premier ministre Abbott a remplacé Amable par un autre francophone, Thomas-Alfred Bernier. Il assurait la continuité et confirmait ainsi l’importance de maintenir la présence des francophones de l’Ouest au Sénat.

À l’autre extrémité du pays, en 1895, grâce au premier ministre Bowel, Joseph Octave Arseneault fait son entrée au Sénat pour représenter l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard. Wilfrid Laurier poursuit la tradition de nommer des sénateurs dans les Maritimes en permettant à Ambroise-Hilaire Comeau de siéger à la Chambre haute pour représenter la Nouvelle-Écosse.

46

Nous empruntons cette terminologie à Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure; A Study of Decision Makers, Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1952. L’approche réputationnelle fait appel à la subjectivité de certains experts d’une communauté donnée pour déterminer qui détient du pouvoir. Si cette stratégie a fait l’objet 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 à sa réelle capacité à déterminer les sources et les formes de pouvoir, elle a son utilité lorsque les données ne sont pas accessibles comme dans le cas présent. À défaut de données sur la langue maternelle, nous avons convenu que les sénateurs identifiés dans les documents de l’époque par leurs collègues comme CFC permettait de confirmer qu’ils faisaient partis des CFC.

16

17

Laurier nommera trois francophones des autres régions du pays. Ce sont : Napoléon Antoine Belcourt de l’Ontario, Noé E. Chevrier du Manitoba et Amédée-Émmanuel Forget de l’Alberta.

Ces nominations montrent que les premiers ministres accordaient une grande importance à la représentation des Canadiens français de l’ensemble du pays au Sénat et non uniquement à ceux du Québec. Malgré l’absence de directives explicites dans la Constitution au sujet de la présence des CFC au Sénat, le tableau 2 révèle que les premiers ministres du Canada ont établi une solide tradition de nommer des membres de ces communautés afin que leurs intérêts soient également représentés

47.

En 1928, soulignons que sept sénateurs représentant les CFC siègent en même temps, dont trois du Nouveau-Brunswick (Bourque, Poirier et Turgeon), deux de l’Ontario (Belcourt et Lacasse), un de la Nouvelle-Écosse (Girroir) et un du Manitoba (Bénard). Ils seront huit en 1931, grâce au sénateur Marcotte de la Saskatchewan qui s’ajoutera au groupe existant.

Comme le montre aussi le tableau 3, la tradition de nommer des sénateurs des CFC s’est poursuivie à l’époque plus contemporaine, et ce dans presque toutes les provinces. En 1968, neuf sénateurs seront des représentants des CFC. Ils seront dix en 1979 tout comme en 1985 et en 1995. En 1996, ils seront 11, dont six du Nouveau-Brunswick, deux de l’Ontario, un de la Nouvelle-Écosse, un du Yukon et un du Manitoba pour redescendre à neuf en 2010 et à huit à la fin 2012.

Malgré leur nombre relativement faible, ces personnes, comme nous le montrerons plus loin, contribueront de façon exemplaire à la dualité linguistique canadienne et à la représentation des intérêts des CFC au Parlement fédéral. Enfin, au fur et à mesure que le Canada se modernise, il paraît donc tout à fait normal que les premiers ministres nomment des sénateurs pour représenter les CFC. En effet, le ministre de la Justice Mark MacGuigan affirmait, au moment des débats sur la réforme du Sénat dans les années 1970 et 1980, que « [t]raditionnellement, on a aussi utilisé les nominations au Sénat pour assurer la représentation parlementaire des minorités francophones hors Québec [...]

48. »

47

Comme nous le verrons plus loin, les premiers ministres ont nommé des francophones qui se sentaient investis d’un grand sens du devoir envers leurs membres en plus de vouloir représenter les intérêts de leur région et de leur pays. 48

Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34 à la p 12.

17

18

Tableau 3 : Les nominations de sénateurs des CFC au Sénat depuis sa fondation en ordre chronologique par province/territoire

Nom Nomination

recommandée par Début du mandat Fin du mandat

Ontario Casgrain, Charles Eusèbe

Macdonald 1887.01.12 1907.03.08

Belcourt, Napoléon Antoine

Laurier 1907.11.22 1932.08.07

Lacasse, Joseph- Henri-Gustave

King 1928.01.10 1953.01.18

Côté, Louis Bennett 1933.12.30 1943.02.02 Hurtubise, Joseph Raoul

King 1945.06.09 1955.01.31

Bradette, Joseph- Arthur

St-Laurent 1953.06.12 1961.09.12


Diefenbaker 1958.01.31 1981.03.06

Bélisle, Rhéal Diefenbaker 1963.02.04 1992.11.03 Martin, Paul Joseph James

Trudeau 1968.04.20 1974.10.30


Clark 1979.06.05 1980.01.14

Desmarais, Jean Noël

Mulroney 1993.06.04 1995.07.25

Gauthier, Jean- Robert

Chrétien 1994.11.23 2004.10.22

Poulin (Charette), Marie-Paule

Chrétien 1995.09.21 Présent

LaPierre, Laurier L. Chrétien 2001.06.13 2004.11.21 Nouveau-Brunswick

Poirier, Pascal Macdonald 1885.03.09 1933.09.25 Bourque, Thomas Jean

Borden 1917.01.20 1952.02.16

Turgeon, Onésiphore

King 1922.10.27 1944.11.18

Léger, Antoine Joseph

Bennett 1935.08.14 1950.04.07

Veniot, Clarence Joseph

King 1945.04.18 1966.06.01

Léger, Aurel D. St-Laurent 1953.06.12 1961.12.28 Savoie, Calixte F. St-Laurent 1955.07.28 1970.08.23 Fournier, Edgar E. Diefenbaker 1962.09.24 1983.02.11 Michaud, Hervé J. Pearson 1968.03.15 1978.06.05

18

19

Robichaud, Hédard- J.

Trudeau 1968.06.28 1971.10.08

Fournier, Joseph Michel

Trudeau 1971.12.09 1980.09.29

Robichaud, Louis J. Trudeau 1973.12.21 2000.10.21 Thériault, L. Norbert

Trudeau 1979.03.26 1996.02.16

Corbin, Eymard G. Turner 1984.07.09 2009.08.02 LeBlanc, Roméo Trudeau 1984.06.29 1994.11.21 Simard, Jean- Maurice

Mulroney 1985.06.26 2001.06.16

Losier-Cool, Rose- Marie

Chrétien 1995.03.21 2012.06.18

Landry, Joseph Gérard Lauri P.

Chrétien 1996.02.26 1997.06.19

Robichaud, Fernand Chrétien 1997.09.22 Présent Léger, Viola Chrétien 2001.06.13 2005.06.29 Ringuette, Pierrette Chrétien 2002.12.12 Présent Mockler, Percy Harper 2009.01.02 Présent Poirier, Rose-May Harper 2010.02.28 Présent

Nouvelle-Écosse Comeau, Ambroise- Hilaire

Laurier 1907.01.15 1911.08.25

Girroir, Edward Lavin

Borden 1912.11.20 1932.05.08

Robicheau, Jean- Louis Philippe

Bennett 1935.07.20 1948.03.01

Comeau, Joseph Willie

St-Laurent 1948.12.01 1966.01.10

Cottreau, Ernest G. Trudeau 1974.05.08 1989.01.28 Comeau, Gerald J. Mulroney 1990.08.30 Présent Boudreau, J. Bernard

Chrétien 1999.10.04 2000.10.26

Manitoba Girard, Marc- Amable*

Macdonald 1871.12.13 1892.09.12

Bernier, Thomas- Alfred

Abbott 1892.10.27 1908.12.30

Chevrier, Noé E. Laurier 1909.01.18 1911.10.09 LaRivière, Alphonse Alfred Clément

Borden 1911.10.23 1917.09.01

Bénard, Aimé Borden 1917.09.03 1938.01.08 Beaubien, Arthur- Lucien

King 1940.01.29 1969.02.01

19

20

Molgat, Gildas L. Trudeau 1970.10.07 2001.02.28 Guay, Joseph- Phillippe

Trudeau 1978.03.23 1990.10.04

Duhamel, Ron J. Chrétien 2002.01.15 2002.09.30 Chaput, Maria Chrétien 2002.12.12 Présent

Colombie-Britannique Aucun

Île-du-Prince-Édouard Arsenault, Joseph Octave

Bowel 1895.02.18 1897.12.14

Alberta Roy, Philippe* Laurier 1906.03.08 1911.04.21 Forget, Amédée- Emmanuel

Laurier 1911.05.02 1923.06.08

Côté, Jean Léon King 1923.08.14 1924.09.23 Lessard, Prosper- Edmond

King 1925.09.05 1931.04.11

Blais, Aristide King 1940.01.29 1964.11.10 Tardif, Claudette Martin 2005.03.24 Présent

Saskatchewan Prince, Joseph Benjamin

Laurier 1909.07.29 1920.10.26

Marcotte, Arthur Bennett 1931.07.06 1958.08.18 Boucher, William Albert

St-Laurent 1957.01.03 1976.06.23

Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador Aucun

Territoires du Nord-Ouest Aucun Yukon

Lucier, Paul* Trudeau 1975.10.23 1999.07.23 Nunavut Aucun

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

Une tradition et un droit

Dans les années 1960, MacKay et Kunz, deux spécialistes reconnus du Sénat canadien, ont affirmé que la représentation des membres des CFC représentait un droit et une tradition. Parlant de l’Ouest canadien, MacKay expliquait que les sénateurs sont nommés pour représenter les francophones (« senators have been appointed as the

20

21

avowed representatives [...] of the French in Western Canada49

»). Kunz convenait que les réclamations traditionnelles des francophones de l’Ouest faisaient partie des principes guidant la nomination des sénateurs dans l’Ouest du pays (il indiquait que ceux « whose traditional claims to senatorial representation form part of the principles governing appointments are [...] the French in the West [...]

50 »).

Dans les années 1990, Munro, qui est revenu sur la question dans un autre contexte, confirmait les propos de Kunz et MacKay pour ce qui est de l’Alberta. En s’appuyant sur les déclarations des premiers ministres dans les quotidiens

51 selon les

époques, il affirmait que « [l]es Franco-Albertains ont droit à un siège à la Chambre haute en vertu d’un fait de droit, mais aussi en vertu de la tradition »

52.

Nos données révèlent que la même 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 été nombreux à envoyer des lettres aux premiers ministres et à écrire dans les quotidiens afin de réclamer la nomination d’un des leurs au Sénat. Ils ne manquent surtout pas de souligner que la représentation des Acadiens au Sénat est une affaire de justice, de droits et d’équité à leur égard, tant en raison de leur statut unique au Canada que de leur situation particulière à titre d’un des peuples fondateurs du pays.

En effet, en janvier 1885, le sénateur Poirier du Nouveau-Brunswick, dans le contexte de la campagne qui conduisit à sa nomination, explique qu’il se sentait autorisé à affirmer sans hésiter, que « they [Acadiens] would consider their being refused a Senator, in this circumstance, as a denial of their just rights

53 ». Non seulement il

associait la nomination d’un Acadien au Sénat à un droit, mais il était convaincu que ce droit lui revenait comme membre d’un peuple, dont les frontières allaient au-delà de sa province. Hors de tout doute, sa nomination serait perçue favorablement par les Acadiens de l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard et de la Nouvelle-Écosse

54. Il était souhaitable aussi

que des Acadiens de ces provinces soient nommés au Sénat afin de permettre une représentation équitable de la population acadienne.

C’est à un peuple que s’identifie Poirier, un peuple à qui il revient une reconnaissance particulière de son existence, grâce à la présence d’un des leurs au Sénat. D’autres penseront également comme lui. En 1922, Onésiphore Turgeon, qui fait aussi l’objet d’une campagne intense de lettres d’appui afin de représenter les Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick au Sénat, se perçoit aussi, à l’instar de Poirier, comme un représentant de sa communauté.

55 Turgeon était déjà à la Chambre des communes et avait

49 MacKay, supra note 16 à la p 149. 50

Kunz, supra note 10 à la p 319. 51

Ce sont : Le courrier de l’Ouest, La Survivance, The Calgary Albertan, Edmonton Morning Bulletin, Edmonton Bulletin, The Albertan, Le Franco-albertain. 52 Munro, supra note 10 à la p 4. 53

Lettre de Pascal Poirier à Sir John A. Macdonald, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C-1493, vol 19 aux pp 6935-6938 (Onglet H). 54

Ibid à la pp 6938. Poirier sera nommé par le premier ministre Macdonald en 1885. 55

Voir par exemple, Lettre au Premier ministre (28 avril 1922) et réponse à J. J. Denis (1er mai, 1922),

Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-2244,

21

22

aidé à faire élire 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 prêtre A. D. Cormier, « one of our most distinguished and influential Acadian clergymen

56 », afin de faire mousser sa campagne.

Le père Cormier expliquait, dans sa lettre, que la nomination de Turgeon au Sénat serait bien reçue de tous les Acadiens, peu importe leurs affiliations politiques

57. L’idée

selon laquelle la nomination d’un Acadien au Sénat transcendait les frontières politiques était donc courante, car en tant que peuple, leur représentation au Sénat leur revenait de droit.

Ainsi, lors de sa nomination, le 1er

février 1923, Turgeon déclarait qu’il s’était vu investi du pouvoir de représenter la minorité acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick par le premier ministre du Canada. Il explique :

[c]’est à titre de représentant de la minorité acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick que le très honorable premier ministre du Canada, et ses collègues, en me détachant de mes généreux commettants, m’ont appelé à venir humblement – exercer mon activité avec vous [...] la nation Canadienne possède deux langues [...] Oui, je le dis, le répète, et toujours avec foi : la culture des nombreuses vertus des races anglaise et française fera bientôt disparaître les quelques nuages qui obscurcissent encore certains points du ciel canadien. Et, alors, nous vivrons dans une atmosphère pure, salubre, vivifiante : heureux mélange de bonhomie canadienne et acadienne, d’affection française, de British fair play, qui assurera une généreuse justice aux minorités d’aujourd’hui, et aux minorités de demain

58.

Une décennie plus tard, en Nouvelle-Écosse, après la mort du sénateur Girroir, la rumeur selon laquelle le premier ministre Bennett allait nommer un anglophone de la Nouvelle-Écosse fait bondir la communauté acadienne de la province. Celle-ci tient pour acquis qu’elle est dans son droit de voir un Acadien nommé au Sénat. Pendant l’automne de 1934, des lettres d’organisations et de groupes acadiens seront donc envoyées à Bennett pour lui rappeler l’importance de nommer des Acadiens en vue de représenter la Nouvelle-Écosse – et le Nouveau-Brunswick où il fallait aussi remplacer le sénateur Poirier

59.

De fait, en 1935, Bennett nommait Jean-Louis Philippe Robicheau pour représenter les Acadiens de la province de la Nouvelle-Écosse au Sénat. Comme l’expliquait le premier ministre dans une lettre à 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

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds William Lyon Mackenzie King, MG26-J1, bobine C-2250, volume 82 aux pp 69617-69619. 57

Ibid. 58 Débats du Sénat, 14

e lég, 2

e sess (1 février 1923) à la p 8.

59

Diverses lettres, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M- 1340, 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 representation in the Senate is that it belongs to the Acadian section of the population

60. » Il était donc

difficile, même pour le premier ministre du Canada, de nier la réalité de la situation acadienne en Nouvelle-Écosse. Quelques jours avant la nomination du sénateur Robicheau, le premier ministre Bennett écrivait à Monsieur Finlay MacDonald de Sydney au Cap-Breton pour lui expliquer la même chose, soit qu’il ne voyait pas comment il pourrait nommer quelqu’un d’autre qu’un Acadien au Sénat. Par surcroît, 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 the Dominion. I may say that view is the view which is held by my colleagues

61.

Bennett considère donc que la population acadienne constitue une communauté d’intérêts qui a le droit d’être représentée au Sénat.

En plus de l’Acadie, l’Ontario français tenait aussi à avoir ses représentants au Sénat. Dès 1884, Joseph Tassé, le directeur de La Minerve invitait Macdonald à nommer un sénateur français de l’Ontario

62. Il voulait que le premier ministre Macdonald lui dise

si les vacances au Sénat seraient utilisées pour donner une représentation proportionnée à la force numérique de l’élément français de l’Ontario. Il souhaitait que le gouvernement accorde aux 102 000 Canadiens français de la province, un représentant à la Chambre haute.

Macdonald répondit à Tassé que le gouvernement ferait le meilleur choix possible de sénateurs, et qu’il prendrait en considération la population française de l’Ontario

63. En

1887, Charles Eusèbe Casgrain, comme nous l’avons déjà mentionné plus haut, était nommé au Sénat pour représenter l’Ontario et les Franco-Ontariens.

Par la suite, les premiers ministres Laurier, King et Bennett ont aussi nommé des Franco-Ontariens au Sénat. Pour sa part, le premier ministre Diefenbaker sera interpellé par le député de Russell, J.O. Gour, qui souhaitait que le siège vacant de l’Ontario au Sénat soit comblé par un catholique qui représenterait l’élément francophone de la province. Diefenbaker confirmait, le 6 novembre 1957, qu’en effet, un francophone de

60

Lettre à J. J. Cameron (20 septembre 1932), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, volume 684 à la p 420270 (Onglet J). 61

Lettre à Finlay McDonald (17 juillet 1935), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds R.B. Bennett, MG26-K, bobine M-1340, vol 684 à la p 420011 (Onglet E). 62

Lettre au Premier ministre (30 décembre 1886), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds Sir John A. Macdonald, MG26-A, bobine C-1780, volume 432 à la p 213016 (Onglet G). 63 Débats de la Chambre des communes, 5

e lég, 2

e sess (4 avril 1884) à la p 1644.

23

24

l’Ontario serait nommé au Sénat. Gour le remercia de sa réponse64

. En 1958, Diefenbaker nommait Henri Lionel Choquette pour représenter l’Ontario au Sénat.

Depuis les années 1960

Le tableau 3 montre que la tradition de nommer des représentants des CFC au Sénat s’est poursuivie pendant les années 1960. En effet, la représentation des CFC se situe entre huit et onze représentants depuis cette époque. Les représentants des CFC au Sénat comme à la Chambre des communes maintiennent aussi leur intérêt pour la question de la représentation des leurs au Sénat.

En 1966, à trois moments distincts, J.O. Bower, député de Shelbourne-Yarmouth-Clare, demandait au premier ministre Pearson si dans le cadre de sa nomination d’un sénateur pour le poste vacant de la Nouvelle-Écosse, il comptait choisir un Acadien pour remplacer le regretté Sénateur Comeau. Pearson confirma que le fait acadien serait considéré dans la nomination d’un nouveau sénateur pour la province

65. Pour sa part, en

1974, le premier ministre Trudeau nommait Ernest G. Cottreau pour représenter les Acadiens de la Nouvelle-Écosse.

À la même époque, on peut aussi imaginer la réaction des membres des CFC dans l’Ouest canadien lorsqu’ils apprirent qu’aucun des leurs ne serait nommé au Sénat. Réal Caouette, chef du Parti Crédit social, expliquait à la Chambre haute qu’après la mort du Sénateur Blais (un francophone de l’Alberta), diverses associations de la province s’étaient mobilisées pour exercer des pressions en vue de la nomination d’un autre francophone. Une lettre de l’Association canadienne-française de l’Alberta que Caouette a lue devant la Chambre des communes rapporte avec éloquence la déception des Franco-Albertains :

Cher monsieur, vous comprendrez facilement la déception qu’ont éprouvée les Franco-Albertains en apprenant que le successeur de l’honorable Aristide Blais, sénateur, n’était pas un Canadien français. Nous nous expliquons difficilement cette décision prise par le premier ministre du Canada et nous espérons qu’il profitera de la prochaine occasion pour réparer cette omission [...]

66.

Bref, non seulement la tradition de nommer des représentants des CFC au Sénat s’est poursuivie après les années 1960, mais l’absence de désignation pouvait aussi susciter réactions et déceptions. Malgré leur petit nombre, les sénateurs représentant les CFC assurent la présence continue de ces derniers au sein de l’institution. Ils contribuent à la reconnaissance publique du français et à l’incarnation pancanadienne de la dualité linguistique sur le plan politique.

64

Débats de la Chambre des communes, 23e lég, 1

ère sess, vol 1 (1 novembre 1957) à la p 679; (6

novembre 1957) à la p 856. 65 Débats de la Chambre des communes, 27

e lég, 1

ère sess, vol 1 (31 janvier 1966) à la p 435.

66

Débats de la Chambre des communes, 27e lég, 1

ère sess, vol 3 (25 mars 1966) à la p 3221.

24

25

Enfin, depuis la première nomination d’un sénateur francophone jusqu’à aujourd’hui, nous constatons que ces derniers se perçoivent comme les porte-parole d’un peuple à qui revient le droit d’être représenté dans les plus importantes institutions du pays, incluant le Sénat. Pour ces personnes, la nomination d’un sénateur francophone constituait donc un droit et une tradition.

La représentation des Premières nations, des Inuits et des Métis

En plus de permettre à des membres des CFC d’accéder au Sénat, les premiers ministres ont aussi, très tôt dans l’histoire du pays, nommé des représentants des nations autochtones et des Métis. Ainsi, en 1888, le premier ministre Macdonald désigne Richard Charles Hardisty, le premier sénateur métis pour représenter les Territoires du Nord-Ouest.

Les premiers ministres ne font aucune nomination de sénateurs autochtones entre 1888 et 1957. Toutefois, à partir de ce moment, la tradition se met en place. Le premier ministre St-Laurent invite William Albert Boucher, également métis, à représenter la Saskatchewan au Sénat. Depuis cette époque, la nomination de sénateurs des Premières nations et des peuples métis est une constante au Sénat. La dernière nomination d’un sénateur des Premières nations remonte à 2009, lorsque le premier ministre Harper nommait Patrick Brazeau. Jusqu’à présent, 14 sénateurs appartiennent aux Premières nations ou à une communauté métisse.

Tableau 4 : Les nominations de sénateurs des Premières nations, Inuits et Métis au Sénat

Nom Origine Nomination

recommandée par


Fin du mandat

Hardisty, Richard Charles

Métis Macdonald Territoires du Nord-Ouest

1888.02.23 1889.10.18

Boucher, William Albert

Métis St-Laurent Saskatchewan 1957.01.03 1976.06.23

Gladstone, James

Premières nations

Diefenbaker Alberta 1958.01.31 1971.03.31

Williams, Guy R.

Premières nations

Trudeau Colombie-Britannique

1971.12.09 1982.10.07

Adams, Willie

Inuit Trudeau

Territoires du Nord-Ouest (représente le Nunavut depuis sa création en 1999)

1977.04.05 2009.06.22

25

26

Watt, Charlie

Inuit Trudeau Québec 1984.01.16 Présent

Marchand, Len

Premières nations


1984.06.29 1998.03.01

Twinn, Walter

Premières nations

Mulroney Alberta 1990.09.27 1997.10.30

St-Germain, Gerry

Métis Mulroney Colombie-Britannique

1993.06.23 Présent

Chalifoux, Thelma

Métis Chrétien Alberta 1997.11.26 2004.02.08

Gill, Aurélien

Premières nations

Chrétien Québec 1999.09.02 2008.08.26

Dyck, Lillian Eva

Premières nations

Martin Saskatchewan 2005.03.24 Présent

Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M.

Premières nations

Martin Nouveau-Brunswick

2005.09.21 Présent

Brazeau, Patrick

Premières nations

Harper Québec 2009.01.08 Présent

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

La représentation des femmes

Des femmes siègeront au Sénat à partir de 1930. Les premières sénatrices, Cairine Reay Wilson et Iva Campbell Fallis sont nommées par Mackenzie King et Bennett pour représenter l’Ontario.

En 1953, St-Laurent désigne une représentante pour le Nouveau-Brunswick, Muriel McQueen Fergusson, suivie de la première sénatrice francophone du Québec, Marianna Beauchamp Jodoin.

En 1995, le premier ministre Chrétien nomme la première sénatrice francophone provenant des CFC, Marie-P. Poulin, qui représentera l’Ontario.

Tableau 5 Les nominations de femmes au Sénat

Nom Nomination

recommandée par


Fin du mandat

Wilson, Cairine Reay

King Ontario 1930.02.15 1962.03.03

Fallis, Iva Campbell

Bennet Ontario 1935.07.20 1956.03.07

26

27

Fergusson, Muriel McQueen

St-Laurent Nouveau-Brunswick

1953.05.19 1975.05.23

Jodoin, Marianna Beauchamp

St-Laurent Québec 1953.05.19 1966.06.01

Hodges, Nancy St-Laurent Colombie- Britannique

1953.11.05 1965.06.12

Inman, Florence Elsie

St-Laurent Île-du-Prince- Édouard

1955.07.28 1986.05.31

Irvine, Olive Lillian

Diefenbaker Manitoba 1960.01.14 1969.11.01

Quart, Josie Alice

Diefenbaker Québec 1960.11.16 1980.04.17

Kinnear, Mary Elizabeth

Pearson Ontario 1967.04.06 1973.04.03

Bell (Heath), Ann Elizabeth Haddon


1970.10.07 1989.11.29

Casgrain, Thérèse Forget

Trudeau Québec 1970.10.07 1971.07.10

Lapointe, Louise Marguerite Renaude

Trudeau Québec 1971.11.10 1987.01.03

Norrie, Margaret Rosamond Fawcett

Trudeau Nouvelle-Écosse

1972.04.27 1980.10.16

Neiman, Joan Bissett

Trudeau Ontario 1972.09.01 1995.09.09

Anderson, Margaret Jean


1978.03.23 1990.08.07

Bird, Florence Bayard

Trudeau Ontario 1978.03.23 1983.01.15

Wood, Dalia Trudeau Québec 1979.03.26 1999.01.31 Rousseau, Yvette Boucher

Trudeau Québec 1979.03.27 1988.03.17

Bielish, Martha Palamarek

Clark Alberta 1979.09.27 1990.09.26

Cools, Anne C. Trudeau Ontario 1984.01.13 Présent Marsden, Lorna Trudeau Ontario 1984.01.24 1992.08.31 Fairbairn, Joyce Trudeau Alberta 1984.06.29 Présent Robertson, Brenda


1984.12.21 2004.05.23

Cochrane, Ethel M.

Mulroney Terre-Neuve et Labrador

1986.11.17 2012.09.23

Rossiter, Eileen Mulroney Île-du-Prince-Édouard

1986.11.17 2004.07.14

Spivak, Mira Mulroney Manitoba 1986.11.17 2009.07.12

27

28

Chaput-Rolland, Solange

Mulroney Québec 1988.09.26 1994.05.14

Carney, Pat Mulroney Colombie-Britannique

1990.08.30 2008.01.31

Teed, Nancy Elizabeth


1990.08.30 1993.01.29

DeWare, Mabel M.


1990.09.23 2001.08.09

Johnson, Janis G. Mulroney Manitoba 1990.09.27 Présent Lavoie-Roux, Thérèse

Mulroney Québec 1990.09.27 2001.03.12

Andreychuk, Raynell

Mulroney Saskatchewan 1993.03.11 Présent

Cohen, Erminie J.


1993.06.04 2001.07.23

LeBreton, Marjory

Mulroney Ontario 1993.06.18 Présent

Bacon, Lise Chrétien Québec 1994.09.15 2009.08.25 Carstairs, Sharon Chrétien Manitoba 1994.09.15 2011.10.17 Pearson, Landon Chrétien Ontario 1994.09.15 2005.11.16 Hervieux-Payette, Céline

Chrétien Québec 1995.03.21 Présent

Losier-Cool, Rose-Marie


1995.03.21 2012.06.18

Anderson, Doris Margaret

Chrétien Île-du-Prince-Édouard

1995.09.21 1997.07.05

Charette-Poulin, Marie-P.

Chrétien Ontario 1995.09.21 Présent

Milne, Lorna Chrétien Ontario 1995.09.21 2009.12.13 Maheu, Shirley Chrétien Québec 1996.02.01 2006.02.01 Forest, Jean B. Chrétien Alberta 1996.05.16 1998.08.28 Pépin, Lucie Chrétien Québec 1997.04.08 2011.09.07

Butts, Peggy Chrétien Nouvelle-Écosse

1997.09.22 1999.08.15

Callbeck, Catherine S.


1997.09.22 Présent

Ferretti Barth, Marisa

Chrétien Québec 1997.09.22 2006.04.28

Chalifoux, Thelma

Chrétien Alberta 1997.11.26 2004.02.08

Cook, Joan Chrétien Terre-Neuve et Labrador

1998.03.06 2009.10.06

Maloney, Marian L.


Wilson, Lois Chrétien Ontario 1998.06.11 2002.04.08

28

29

Fraser, Joan Chrétien Québec 1998.09.17 Présent Poy, Vivienne Chrétien Ontario 1998.09.17 2012.09.17 Finestone, Sheila Chrétien Québec 1999.08.11 2002.01.28 Ione, Christensen Chrétien Yukon 1999.09.02 2006.12.31 Finnerty, Isobel Chrétien Ontario 1999.09.02 2005.07.15

Cordy, Jane Chrétien Nouvelle-Écosse

2000.06.09 Présent

Kennedy, Betty Chrétien Ontario 2000.06.20 2001.01.04 Hubley, Elizabeth


2001.03.08 Présent

Jaffer, Mobina S.B.

Chrétien Colombie-Britannique

2001.06.13 Présent

Léger, Viola Chrétien Nouveau-Brunswick

2001.06.13 2005.06.29

Chaput, Maria Chrétien Manitoba 2002.12.12 Présent Merchant, Pana Chrétien Saskatchewan 2002.12.12 Présent Ringuette, Pierrette


2002.12.12 Présent

Plamondon, Madeleine

Chrétien Québec 2003.09.09 2006.09.21

Trenholme Counsell, Marilyn


2003.09.09 2008.10.22

Dyck, Lillian Eva

Martin Saskatchewan 2005.03.24 Présent

McCoy, Elaine Martin Alberta 2005.03.24 Présent Ruth, Nancy Martin Ontario 2005.03.24 Présent Tardif, Claudette Martin Alberta 2005.03.24 Présent Champagne, Andrée

Martin Québec 2005.08.02 Présent

Lovelace Nicholas, Sandra M.

Martin Nouveau-Brunswick

2005.09.21 Présent

Eaton, Nicole Harper Ontario 2009.01.02 Présent

Yonah Martin Harper Colombie-Britannique

2009.01.02 Présent

Wallin, Pamela Harper Saskatchewan 2009.01.02 Présent Fortin-Duplessis, Suzanne

Harper Québec 2009.01.14 Présent

Frum, Linda Harper Ontario 2009.08.27 Présent Seidman, Judith Harper Québec 2009.08.27 Présent Stewart Olsen, Carolyn

Harper Nouveau-Brunswick

2009.08.27 Présent

29

30

Raine, Nancy Greene

Harper Colombie-Britannique

2010.01.02 Présent

Marshall, Elizabeth

Harper Terre-Neuve et Labrador

2010.01.29 Présent

Poirier, Rose- May

Harper Nouveau-Brunswick

2010.02.28 Présent

Ataullahjan, Salma

Harper Ontario 2010.07.09 Présent

Verner, Josée Harper Québec 2011.06.13 Présent Buth, JoAnne L. Harper Manitoba 2012.01.06 Présent Seth, Asha Harper Ontario 2012.01.06 Présent Unger, Betty E. Harper Alberta 2012.01.06 Présent Bellemare, Diane Harper Québec 2012.09.06 Présent Batters, Denise Harper Saskatchewan 2013.01.25 Présent Beyak, Lynn Harper Ontario 2013.01.25 Présent Information à jour au 17 mai 2013. Source : Bibliothèque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>.

Pour conclure, les données sur les CFC, les Premières nations, les Inuits et les Métis ainsi que sur les femmes montrent l’importance que les premiers ministres ont accordée à la représentation des minorités au Sénat depuis sa fondation. Cette représentation s’est accrue au fur et à mesure de l’évolution du Sénat. La représentation des minorités fait partie de ses attributs fondamentaux comme l’a également souligné la Cour suprême du Canada dans son Renvoi relatif à la sécession du Québec

67.

Enfin, la nomination de représentants des CFC constitue une réalité indéniable. Les membres des CFC croient que la désignation d’un des leurs est un droit et une tradition en raison de leur réalité particulière, celle de faire partie d’un peuple uni par sa langue et la défense de ses intérêts. Pour les sénateurs acadiens, comme pour les autres sénateurs francophones, cette réalité les autorise à parler en tant que membre d’un peuple unique en plus de former des communautés distinctes au sein de plusieurs provinces. Il ne fait aucun doute que nous sommes devant une tradition de longue date qui a résisté à l’épreuve du temps.

67 Supra note 30.

30

31

Chapitre 3 : Quel a été l’apport politique des sénateurs provenant des CFC ?

Munro explique que le Sénat est un lieu important qui permet aux sénateurs de défendre les droits des minorités canadiennes-françaises de l’extérieur du Québec

68. Ces

personnes se considèrent comme des défenseurs des droits des Canadiens français hors Québec. Ainsi, l’attribut du Sénat de défendre les minorités a pris une dimension particulière dans le cas des CFC. Le Sénat constituera un lieu important pour la défense de leurs droits partout au pays.

Il n’existe pas de documents décrivant l’ensemble des réalisations des sénateurs depuis la mise sur pied de la Chambre haute. Malgré ces limites, la recherche archivistique, même partielle, permet de confirmer l’hypothèse de Munro. L’apport politique des sénateurs représentant les CFC est tangible. En plus d’intervenir dans les débats du Sénat, ils ont déposé des motions et fait amender des projets de loi en plus de proposer les leurs pour favoriser l’épanouissement des CFC. Pensons, notamment, au projet de loi S-3, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (Promotion du français et de l’anglais)

69 du sénateur Jean-Robert Gauthier ou au projet de loi S-211, Loi modifiant

la Loi sur les langues officielles (communications et services destinés au public)70

de la sénatrice Maria Chaput. L’apport des sénateurs représentant les CFC se caractérise aussi par leur engagement soutenu envers ces dernières, en particulier grâce à leur appui indéfectible envers leurs droits et leur développement.

Nous présentons ci-dessous quelques exemples de l’apport politique des sénateurs représentants les CFC, grâce à un échantillon que nous avons constitué à partir de la nomination de Marc-Amable Girard pour le Manitoba, en 1871. Ces cas de figure ont été sélectionnés en raison de la disponibilité des données. D’autres sénateurs ont aussi connu des carrières politiques remarquables au Sénat, mais leur apport politique reste à documenter.

Marc-Amable Girard

Nommé le 13 décembre 1871 par le premier ministre Macdonald, le sénateur Girard a représenté le Manitoba jusqu’en 1892. Il est intervenu de façon régulière et a déposé plusieurs motions sur les droits des minorités canadiennes-françaises tout au long de sa carrière de sénateur. Mentionnons ses efforts, en 1877, dans le contexte des débats entourant l’adoption de la Loi sur les Territoires du Nord-Ouest

71, en vue de faire

accepter la nomination de représentants de la population locale des territoires au Conseil de gestion. Il réagira aussi très fortement au fait que la langue française avait été ignorée du projet de loi, en dépit du fait que la majorité de la population était d’origine française. Cette population, selon le sénateur, devait pouvoir bénéficier des mêmes droits de faire reconnaître sa langue dans les Territoires du Nord-Ouest que celle du Québec et du

68

Munro, supra note 10. 69

38e lég, 1

ère sess (2004).

70

41e lég, 1

ère sess (2012).

71

SC 1875, c 49.

31

32

Manitoba, grâce à la traduction de toutes les ordonnances officielles pour assurer leur compréhension par de la population

72.

Le sénateur Girard proposa un amendement au projet de loi afin d’assurer les droits linguistiques de la population francophone au sein du nouveau territoire. La motion a eu pour effet de modifier l’article 11 du projet de loi et visait à 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, and in the proceedings before the courts

73. »

En ce qui a trait à la question du statut linguistique des Territoires du Nord-Ouest, en 1890, le sénateur Girard a aussi soutenu les efforts d’autres sénateurs, en particulier ceux de Bellerose (Québec) et de Casgrain (Ontario), qui défendaient ouvertement les droits linguistiques de la population francophone minoritaire du territoire. Il parla en faveur de la motion du sénateur Bellerose visant à amender le projet de loi 126, An Act to amend the Act respecting the North-West Territories, pour y inclure l’égalité de l’anglais et du français

74. Le sénateur Girard était convaincu que le Sénat devait protéger les

intérêts des minorités canadiennes-françaises dans l’Ouest 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 will be done for their best interests

75.

Le sénateur Girard a toujours cru que le Sénat devait protéger les minorités canadiennes-françaises, et ce même contre les provinces récalcitrantes à l’égard des droits des minorités. Il a, en effet, exhorté le Sénat de lutter contre les mesures discriminatoires du gouvernement du Manitoba à l’égard des Canadiens français à l’époque. Ses propos étaient percutants. Il était clair pour lui que le gouvernement fédéral devait intervenir dans ce débat afin de rétablir 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

Débats du Sénat, 3e lég, 4

e sess (9 avril 1877) aux pp 318-19 (version anglaise).

73 Débats du Sénat, 3e lég, 4

e sess (19 avril 1877) à la p 437 (version anglaise).

74


ère sess (3 septembre 1891) à la p 548 (version anglaise).

75

Ibid.

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 fairly entitled

76.

Le sénateur Girard, comme ses collègues au Sénat, ne savait pas que près de cent ans s’écouleraient avant que cette injustice causée aux francophones du Manitoba par le gouvernement provincial soit réparée. Toutefois, le sénateur Girard aura eu raison de s’indigner et de réclamer une réparation.

Pascal Poirier

Nommé le 9 mars 1885 par le premier ministre Macdonald et en poste jusqu’en 1933, le sénateur Poirier a aussi été un grand défenseur des intérêts de la communauté acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick, mais aussi des autres francophones du Canada notamment, de l’Ontario au moment de la crise au sujet des mesures restrictives du gouvernement de la province à l’égard de ses concitoyens de langue française. Il révèle aussi une très grande conscience de l’importance de la représentation politique des CFC au sein des institutions fédérales. D’une part, il était convaincu que la représentation politique des CFC avait pour finalité d’assurer la bonne entente entre les anglophones et les francophones. Citant le Nouveau-Brunswick en exemple, il expliquait ainsi sa propre nomination au Sénat en soulignant que :

la majorité anglaise du Nouveau-Brunswick désirait que la minorité française fût représentée dans cette Chambre, et sir John Macdonald – alors leader du gouvernement conservateur – homme d’État doué d’un esprit large – et il serait de ma part superflu d’en faire, ici l’éloge – consentit immédiatement à ma nomination [...]

77 »

Et d’ajouter, dans le cadre de son appui à la représentation des Franco-Ontariens au Sénat :

[q]ue le gouvernement fédéral accède, donc, à la demande qui lui est faite par la minorité française d’Ontario – demande qui ne saurait être combattue par la majorité de cette province – et cette politique aura pour effet de développer la bonne entente entre les Anglais et les Français d’Ontario – entente qui n’est peut-

76


ère sess (27 mai 1891) aux pp 42-3 (version anglaise).

77



33

34

être pas aussi étroite maintenant que celle qui existe dans les Provinces maritimes

78.

Enfin, pour le sénateur Poirier, la représentation des CFC constituait une question de justice et de fair play. Comme il l’affirmait, « [l]’édifice de la confédération canadienne doit avoir pour base la justice et le fair play pour tous

79. »

Poirier a donc profité des débats sur la situation du français en Ontario pour insister précisément sur l’importance du Sénat pour les CFC. La nomination de représentants des CFC au Sénat leur permet d’agir à titre de porte-parole des intérêts de ces minorités.

Le sénateur Poirier avait aussi l’ambition de devenir président du Sénat, poste qui, lorsqu’il devint vacant, en 1930, donna lieu à une campagne de la part de tous les autres sénateurs représentants les CFC afin d’assurer sa nomination. Des membres de la communauté acadienne ont aussi écrit au premier ministre Bennett pour insister afin que leur sénateur soit nommé président. Comme l’explique 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 of the Maritime Provinces and, particularly, the province of New Brunswick

80.

Nulle surprise de constater que l’héritage du Sénateur Poirier sera souligné lors de son décès et non uniquement par les francophones. Pour le sénateur Arthur Meighen, « Pascal Poirier était un grand Acadien. Il était l’historien, le défenseur et l’interprète de sa race. Toute son existence était vouée aux siens, au peuple qui a jeté les fondations de la civilisation dans nos Provinces Maritimes

81. »

Thomas-Alfred Bernier

Autre franco-manitobain, nommé le 27 octobre 1892 par le premier ministre Abbott, jusqu’en 1908, le sénateur Bernier s’est distingué grâce à son appui indéfectible envers la cause des écoles françaises du Manitoba. Mobilisant arguments constitutionnels et moraux, le sénateur Bernier s’est longuement exprimé sur la question, tant dans les médias que les débats de la Chambre haute.

78

Ibid. 79

Ibid. 80

Lettre de FJ Robidoux au premier ministre RB Bennett, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, fonds RB Bennett, MG26-K, M-1340 à la p 419902 (4 août 1930). 81


e sess (30 janvier 1934) à la p 4.

34

35

Bernier était 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? Confederation was conceived and passed and adopted expressly with that view!

82

Pour le sénateur Bernier, la promesse que représentait la confédération pour les minorités a été rompue dans le contexte de la crise scolaire du Manitoba. La Constitution canadienne n’a pas protégé les minorités. Or, comme l’explique le sénateur, elle devait servir à protéger les droits des minorités et non ceux de la majorité :

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 majority does not need such constitutional protection. It can take care of itself

83.

Napoléon Belcourt

Nommé le 22 novembre 1907 par le premier ministre Laurier, le sénateur Belcourt a représenté l’Ontario jusqu’en 1932. Le sénateur Belcourt se percevait comme un représentant de son peuple au Sénat (soit un dixième de la population de l’Ontario) :

Je suis un exemple vivant à l’appui de ce fait [français de l’Ontario]. L’honorable sénateur auquel j’ai eu l’honneur de succéder – feu le Dr Casgrain – dut son élévation au Sénat à la reconnaissance du fait que l’élément canadien-français formait déjà alors un facteur important dans la province d’Ontario

84.

Tout au long de sa carrière au Sénat, le sénateur Belcourt n’a cessé de faire appel au gouvernement fédéral afin qu’il reconnaisse les droits politiques de la minorité francophone de sa province. En 1910, il dirige une délégation de Canadiens français de l’Ontario auprès du premier ministre Laurier, lui demandant de garantir la représentation

82


e sess (3 avril, 1894) aux pp 101-02.



84



35

36

des Canadiens français de l’Ontario au sein de la magistrature et au Sénat lorsque des places seraient à combler

85. Selon le sénateur Belcourt, dans certaines régions de

l’Ontario, il était aussi nécessaire qu’un juge comprenne la langue française pour assurer la justice du plaidoyer ou de l’accusé (puisqu’un interprète ne peut communiquer parfaitement les nuances et significations de, par exemple, un témoignage)

86. Il anticipait

des débats qui ont finalement trouvé une solution, mais pas de son vivant.

En 1912, le sénateur Belcourt dénoncera le Règlement 17, adopté par le gouvernement de l’Ontario afin de restreindre l’enseignement du français dans la province. En 1916, en réponse au discours du Trône, il profitera de l’occasion pour rappeler son engagement envers la minorité francophone de l’Ontario :

[J]e n’abandonnerai pas un instant la défense des droits de la langue française dans l’Ontario. Je ne suis pas mu par des mobiles politiques, comme j’ai été accusé de l’être, et la lutte dans l’Ontario pour la langue de mes ancêtres est la lutte pour la langue elle-même. C’est parce que j’aime ma langue maternelle; c’est parce que je sais que ma langue maternelle a été l’un des plus grands, sinon le plus grand, des agents qui aient servi à diffusion de la science dans le monde entier, que je désire la conserver. Et je vais lutter, mais chaque chose doit se faire en temps et lieu

87.

En 1917, dans le contexte de la décision du Conseil judiciaire du Conseil privé de Londres sur la question de l’administration séparée et indépendante des écoles confessionnelles en vertu de l’article 93 de l’Acte de l’Amérique du Nord Britannique

88,

le sénateur Belcourt s’en prend de nouveau à la province de l’Ontario, qui comme il l’explique, malgré son « pouvoir illimité sur la réglementation des écoles, [...] n’avait pas le droit d’enlever des droits garantis par l’Acte de l’Amérique du Nord Britannique [...] »

89.

Il n’est probablement pas étonnant de constater, à sa mort, en 1932, les nombreux éloges à l’endroit du sénateur Belcourt. Ses amis et collègues ont tous souligné son travail comme sénateur et représentant de la minorité francophone de l’Ontario. Dans une lettre du Consulat général de France à Montréal à M. E. Herriot, Président du Conseil et ministre des Affaires étrangères, la mort du sénateur Belcourt est présentée comme étant celle d’un homme qui a dirigé : « pendant près de quinze ans, la lutte des Canadiens français de l’Ontario contre les lois provinciales qui restreignaient l’usage du français dans les écoles publiques et même dans les écoles privées, entretenues par les cotisations volontaires de la minorité française

90. » Comme l’expliquait la lettre, « [c]ette législation,

mise en vigueur en 1912 et ordinairement désignée sous le nom de “règlement XVII”, avait eu pour résultat de réduire la langue maternelle à l’état de langue étrangère dans les

85

Ibid aux pp 541-542. 86

Ibid à la p 549. 87



88 Mackell v Ottawa Separate School Trustees (1916), 27 OWR 505 (CJCP). 89


e sess (6 septembre 1917) à la p 888.

90

Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, Correspondance politique entre les représentants de la France au Canada et le ministre français des Affaires étrangères, MG5-F, bobine F-2309, fol 85 (7 août 1932).

36

37

écoles fréquentées par les petits Français de l’Ontario. [N]ul ne songe aujourd’hui à remettre en question les libertés acquises par la minorité canadienne-française de l’Ontario

91. » On peut penser que le travail du sénateur Belcourt a contribué à influencer

la compréhension de ces libertés durement acquises chez le Consulat général de France à l’époque.

L’éloge du sénateur Lacasse, paru dans La Presse à l’époque, est également une marque de reconnaissance importante de la part de son collègue :

Représentant à ses côtés l’élément minoritaire franco-ontarien dans le sénat canadien, je serai probablement celui qui regrettera le plus son absence au milieu de nous. [...] Parmi ces causes qu’il 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 énergie à défendre ses droits, sa langue et ses traditions scolaires [...]

92.

Joseph-Henri Gustave Lacasse

Nommé le 10 janvier 1928 par le premier ministre Mackenzie King, le sénateur Lacasse a représenté l’Ontario jusqu’en 1953. Tout comme le sénateur Belcourt, il était un grand et ardent défenseur de la minorité francophone de l’Ontario. Lors de l’arrivée du sénateur Lacasse à la Chambre haute, le député Pierre F. Casgrain (Charlevoix-Saguenay) s’est prononcé dans la Chambre des communes sur cette nomination déclarant combien il était heureux de voir que le gouvernement canadien avait rempli son devoir. Parlant du sénateur Lacasse, le député Casgrain expliquait que King :

a reconnu les droits de la minorité canadienne-française dans l’Ontario en appelant à la Chambre haute du Canada un de ses fils distingués, dans la personne de l’honorable sénateur Lacasse, et je crois que toute la population canadienne-française, de la province du Québec et de toutes les autres parties du pays saura donner crédit au gouvernement du très honorable Mackenzie King pour un acte aussi juste et équitable

93.

Lorsqu’il s’adresse aux membres de la Chambre haute, le sénateur Lacasse invoque aussi la représentation de la minorité franco-ontarienne en remerciant le gouvernement « pour le geste courageux qu’il vient de faire en reconnaissant le droit de plus équitable représentation dans les sphères officielles et administratives du groupe franco-ontarien

94 ». Lors de sa nomination, divers journaux de la région de Windsor ont

91

Ibid. 92

Archives du Centre de recherche en civilisation canadienne-française (CRCCF), fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/13, article de La Presse (13 octobre 1932). 93 Débats de la Chambre des communes, 16

e lég, 2

e sess (2 février 1928) à la p 132.

94



37

38

aussi célébré le nouveau sénateur Lacasse comme le représentant de la population canadienne-française de la région et de la province de l’Ontario

95.

Le sénateur Lacasse sera connu pour sa défense des Franco-Ontariens. Entre autres, en 1933, quand la Commission de redistribution des comtés, dirigée par le ministre H.A. Stewart (Travaux publics), suggéra de supprimer le vieux comté à majorité francophone de Russell, le sénateur Lacasse publie une lettre publique dans La Presse en date du 7 avril. Il écrivait, dans cette lettre, qu’à :

titre du seul représentant au Sénat des citoyens de langue française de l’Ontario, je considère qu’il est de mon devoir d’exprimer en toutes occasions leurs opinions et leurs sentiments et surtout de combattre pour ce que je tiens pour leurs droits intangibles. J’en appelle donc à vous de façon solennelle de ce projet de remaniement des circonscriptions électorales de ma province et je proteste de façon toute particulière contre la suppression projetée du comté de Russell

96.

Ensuite, au mois d’août de la même année, le sénateur Lacasse écrivait à des présumés membres du gouvernement (noms écrits à la main) au sujet des demandes des Canadiens français de la région de Windsor d’obtenir des inscriptions françaises sur les plaques du nouvel édifice qui allait être érigé dans la région. Le sénateur Lacasse soulignait que le ministre des Travaux publics fut sollicité sans arrêt 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 important question, indeed, and particularly at this juncture of our history

97.

En 1934, Lacasse intervient dans le cadre du débat sur un projet de loi visant à constituer la Banque du Canada en une corporation (projet de loi 19) et souligne l’importance de faire imprimer des billets de banque bilingues pour le pays. Selon Lacasse :

[...] je pense que nous ne devons pas perdre cette nouvelle occasion d’affirmer que nous sommes citoyens d’une nation différente, distincte [des États-Unis]. Nous ne devrions pas laisser passer cette occasion sans nous efforcer de stimuler la fierté nationale en donnant à nos billets de banque un cachet particulièrement canadien.

95

Voir Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/2. 96

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 écrit par le sénateur Lacasse (destinataire illisible) (28 août, 1933).

38

39

Je fais appel à mes honorables collègues en cette enceinte, non pas en invoquant la constitution, mais pour l’amour de la paix et de la justice

98.

En réplique au sénateur Hocken (connu pour ses attaques à l’égard des droits des Canadiens français), le sénateur Lacasse déclarait, au sujet de sa revendication pour le bilinguisme des timbres :

[...] Aucun homme public n’ignore le fait qu’il existe un sentiment très fort chez les Canadiens-français, je dirai même un sentiment irrésistible contre toute atteinte apparente ou réelle à leurs droits et privilèges consacrés par le droit naturel et la tradition historique, pour employer une expression tombée des lèvres de l’hon. Sénateur de Grandville. [...] En dépit de toutes leurs dénégations, nos honorables amis d’en face sauront bien nous montrer par leur vote, dans quelques instants, quels sont les vrais partisans dans cette affaire. [...] Je tiens aussi à signaler que d’autres parties de l’Empire ont déjà fait ce que nous demandons aujourd’hui, sans compromettre la sécurité de la couronne britannique. Le Canada n’est pas le seul des dominions à avoir des timbres d’accise bilingues et Sa Majesté le roi ne s’en porte plus mal

99.

En 1952, il dépose, cette fois, une motion demandant au gouvernement fédéral de faire imprimer tous les chèques de vieillesse et d’allocation familiale dans les deux langues officielles partout au pays (et non seulement pour le Québec). La motion, qui a été adoptée, se lisait comme suit :

La Chambre est d’avis que le gouvernement devrait émettre, le plus tôt possible, tous les chèques de pension de vieillesse et d’allocution familiales, dans les deux langues officielles du pays, quelle que soit la province où demeurent les bénéficiaires, et que cette recommandation urgente soit transmise aux autorités compétentes, sans retard, par l’entremise des représentants du Gouvernement en cette Chambre

100.

Lors de sa mort, en 1953, Le Soleil décrira le sénateur Lacasse comme ayant été « un vaillant défenseur des droits des Canadiens français en Ontario

101 ». Dans Le Devoir

du 22 janvier 1953, le président de l’Association canadienne-française d’éducation de l’Ontario, M. Desmormeaux, écrivait que :

[l]e sénateur Lacasse a été l’un des champions de nos causes pour la reconnaissance de nos libertés, dans le domaine du français et de l’école catholique. C’est pour mieux servir ces causes, dans la péninsule de Kent et Essex, qu’il fondait le journal La Feuille d’Érable et qu’il en garda la direction et la rédaction jusqu’à sa mort. Membre du Sénat canadien, vice-président régional de l’Association canadienne-française d’Éducation, président de la Société Saint-


e sess (30 juin 1934) à la p 660.

99

Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/13, article de La Presse (21 juin 1934). 100 Débats du Sénat, 21

e lég, 6

e sess (16 juin 1952) à la p 444.

101 Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/2, article de Le Soleil (19 janvier 1953).

39

40

Jean-Baptiste de l’ouest de l’Ontario pendant un quart de siècle, son œuvre demeure comme un monument à son patriotisme et à ses principes. L’Ontario français perd en lui l’un de ses apôtres les plus ardents et les plus constants

102.

Rhéal Bélisle

Nommé le 4 février 1963 par le premier ministre Diefenbaker, le sénateur Bélisle représentera l’Ontario jusqu’en 1992. Il est entré au Sénat riche d’une longue expérience politique au sein du conseil municipal de la ville de Sudbury et comme député provincial. Le sénateur Bélisle était bien connu pour l’importance qu’il accordait à l’éducation – en particulier en ce qui a trait aux universités Laurentienne et Sudbury –, et à la reconnaissance officielle de l’anglais et du français en Ontario.

Le sénateur Bélisle croyait que le gouvernement fédéral et ses institutions avaient un rôle important à jouer en vue de protéger et de soutenir les minorités. Interrogé lors d’un entretien pour la collection de la Bibliothèque du Parlement Oral History Interview, le sénateur Bélisle affirmait que le rôle du Sénat est d’être le gardien de la minorité : « we are the guardians of the minority and the minority are the provinces and the ethnic groups

103 ».

Pendant les années 1960 et dans le cadre de la première série de débats constitutionnels à l’époque, le sénateur Bélisle soulignera l’importance de l’engagement fédéral dans le domaine d’enseignement. Il affirmait qu’il fallait « trouver une nouvelle solution qui protégerait toutes les minorités et qui fournirait à l’État central tous les moyens de venir en aide aux universités

104 ». Le sénateur souhaitait aussi une

modification à la Constitution qui permettrait de reconnaître « la contribution culturelle de tous les groupes ethniques qui ont aidé à bâtir cette grande nation qui est la nôtre

105. »

Lors des négociations constitutionnelles en vue de l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, le sénateur Bélisle s’est aussi prononcé devant la Chambre haute sur la nécessité d’une protection constitutionnelle pour les Franco-Ontariens. Il affirmait qu’il :

existe toute la différence du monde entre un privilège et un droit. Quand on possède un droit, on peut négocier en position de force, en toute indépendance et liberté. D’autre part, quand on vous a concédé un privilège, vous mendiez vous dépendez de la bonne volonté des autres, vous êtes à leur merci vous êtes dépendants et sûrement pas libres. En somme, je dirai que les Franco-Ontariens ont été mal traités en Ontario. Sciemment ou inconsciemment, on nous a toujours rappelé que nous étions une minorité jouissant de certains privilèges en matière de

102 Archives du CRCCF, Fonds Gustave Lacasse, P37/1/2, article de Le Devoir (22 janvier 1953). 103 Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, Interviews conducted by Tom Earle, numéro de référence archivistique R1026-127-2-E, volume 2568, dossier numéro 5, Rhéal Bélisle (16 juin 1988). 104 Débats du Sénat, 26

e lég, 1

ère sess (26 juin 1963) à la p 177.

105 Ibid à la p 178.

40

41

langue et de culture grâce à l’esprit de tolérance et à la bonne volonté de nos concitoyens anglophones

106.

Le sénateur Bélisle voulait un changement constitutionnel pour que la minorité francophone de l’Ontario soit protégée à l’instar des anglophones du Québec. Selon le sénateur, l’histoire des francophones de l’Ontario « a clairement démontré que nous ne pouvons pas nous fier à la législature de l’Ontario pour la protection des droits fondamentaux

107. » À l’époque, le premier ministre Davis de l’Ontario ne voulait pas

appuyer l’application de la l’article 133 de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1867 sans les structures nécessaires pour garantir son application.

Comme le soulignait toutefois le sénateur Bélisle, dans le cadre de son intervention sur la future Charte canadienne des droits et libertés :

Honorables sénateurs, nous, Franco-Ontariens, ne demandons pas l’aumône. Nous ne quêtons pas de privilèges parce que nous sommes une minorité soumise. Nous faisons campagne pour faire reconnaître par le reste du Canada ce que nous considérons comme un droit. Nous voulons être traités aussi bien que la minorité de langue anglaise au Québec. Les droits linguistiques des personnes de notre langue sont mieux reconnus au Manitoba et au Nouveau-Brunswick où il y a moins de francophones qu’en Ontario. Cette situation n’est pas normale et il est temps de la corriger. S’il ne s’agit que d’un symbole sans importance, pourquoi alors ne pas nous l’accorder ? Nous y attachons beaucoup d’importance. Nous y trouverons un grand réconfort

108.

Gildas Molgat

Nommé le 7 octobre 1970 par le premier ministre Trudeau, le sénateur Molgat représentera le Manitoba jusqu’à sa mort, en 2001. Ancien député de l’Assemblée législative du Manitoba, élu en 1953 et chef de l’opposition officielle de 1961 à 1968, le sénateur Molgat a apporté à la Chambre haute une expertise qui le conduira à être nommé président du Sénat en 1994, fonction qu’il occupera jusqu’en 2001, soit quelques semaines avant son décès.

Le sénateur Molgat s’est vu décerner l’Ordre de la Pléiade par l’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie. Pour lui, cet honneur représentait un témoignage 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


ère sess, vol 2 (23 avril 1981) à la p 2358.

107 Ibid à la p 2359. 108 Débats du Sénat, 32

e lég, 1

ère sess (23 avril 1981) à la p 2359.

41

42

there is a recognition of that and the position I hold in the Senate and which I held previously in Manitoba

109.

Parmi ses actions, le sénateur Molgat a participé à plusieurs études, dont le Comité mixte du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada. On peut penser qu’il a eu une influence sur les propositions à l’endroit de la dualité linguistique et la représentation des CFC dans le cadre des débats sur la réforme du Sénat pendant les années 1970 et 1980

110.

En 1987, il intervient vigoureusement dans le cadre des débats sur la place des minorités francophones dans l’Accord du lac Meech

111 ainsi qu’en 1992, dans le contexte

de l’Accord de Charlottetown112

. Entre autres, le sénateur Molgat exige la représentation des CFC dans les négociations

113.

Par la suite, le sénateur Molgat s’est intéressé à d’autres enjeux importants pour les CFC. Il a, notamment, été très actif lors du débat conduisant à la première élimination du Programme de contestation judiciaire

114 dans les années 1990. Ce programme, mis sur

pied en 1978, permettait aux minorités de langue officielle de recourir aux tribunaux afin de contester la constitutionnalité de certaines mesures dans le domaine des droits linguistiques

115. Des causes importantes dans le domaine des droits linguistiques avaient

été financées grâce au programme de contestation, dont la célèbre cause Mahé c Alberta

116 reconnaissant le droit de gestion scolaire aux CFC. Or, à l’époque, le

gouvernement fédéral effectuait des compressions budgétaires importantes, incluant dans le domaine des langues officielles. Devant cet état de fait, le sénateur Molgat demanda à ses collègues, en particulier ceux du côté du gouvernement, de faire pression pour réinstaurer le programme de contestation judiciaire qui était considéré d’une grande importance pour les communautés minoritaires francophones à travers le pays

117. Selon

le sénateur Molgat :

[d]ans la province du Manitoba où les groupes francophones ne représentent qu’environ entre trois et cinq pour cent de la population selon la définition donnée, à savoir qui est francophone, il est bien sûr que sans cette aide du

109 Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, Interviews conducted by Tom Earle, numéro de référence archivistique R1026-140-5-E, volume 2569, dossier numéro 6, Gildas Molgat (décembre 1988 et 11 mai 1989). 110 Voir Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34. 111 Pour le texte de l’Accord, voir « Documents du Lac Meech », (1992) 37 RD McGill 144 aux pp 180-201 (Entente Constitutionnelle de 1990). 112 Pour le texte de l’Accord, voir Accord de Charlottetown: document, en ligne : L’Encyclopédie canadienne <http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/fr/accord-de-charlottetown-document>. 113 Débats du Sénat, 34

e lég, 3

e sess (17 mars 1992) à la p 1048.

114 Le Programme de contestation judiciaire est un organisme ayant été créé 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 exécutif et la judiciarisation de la politique au Canada. Une étude du Programme de contestation judiciaire » (2000) 20 : 1 Politique et Sociétés 43. 116 [1990] 1 RCS 342. 117 Débats du Sénat, 34

e lég, 3

e sess, n° 128 (23 mars 1993).

42

43

gouvernement nous n’aurions pas pu dans bien des cas revendiquer nos droits. [...] Je vous demande, honorables sénateurs, de faire tout votre possible pour que ceci soit remis en place pour les minorités de langue française à travers le pays. Sans cela, dans dix ou vingt ans, ce sera une illusion de penser que nous sommes un pays bilingue où les minorités francophones peuvent continuer à vivre dans les îlots comme le mien au Manitoba [...]

118.

En 1993, le programme était réinstauré à la suite de la victoire du Parti libéral qui avait promis son retour s’il gagnait ses élections. La promesse fut tenue.

Louis J. Robichaud

Nommé le 21 décembre 1973, par le premier ministre Trudeau, le sénateur Robichaud représentera le Nouveau-Brunswick jusqu’en 2000. Louis J. Robichaud, ancien premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick, était bien connu pour avoir fait vivre l’équivalent d’une révolution tranquille à sa province. Architecte du plan « Chances égales pour tous », il créa l’Université de Moncton, institution entièrement francophone, dont la mission est d’« assurer l’éducation des Acadiens et Acadiennes et l’épanouissement de leur culture »

119.

Le sénateur Robichaud a aussi été responsable de l’adoption de la première Loi sur les langues officielles

120 au Nouveau-Brunswick, ce qui a « fait du français une

langue officielle, garantissant ainsi aux Acadiens et Acadiennes l’accès aux services gouvernementaux en français et faisant accroître le nombre d’Acadiennes et d’Acadiens employés dans les services publics de la province »

121. Son apport à la défense des droits

des francophones et des Acadiens était donc bien connu à son arrivée au Sénat.

Pour le sénateur Robichaud, le Sénat avait un rôle spécial à jouer pour s’assurer de la représentation des minorités au sein de la fédération canadienne – minorités linguistiques et autres. Il a aussi soutenu les causes autochtones, en particulier dans le contexte du projet de la Baie-James. Pour le sénateur Robichaud, l’appui aux autochtones allait de soi. Comme il le soulignait, dans le cadre des débats du Sénat :

[c]’est parce que, au cours des années dans ma carrière politique, j’ai adopté la cause des minorités. Puis, si je suis prêt à le faire encore, c’est que je ne voudrais pas que la cause des minorités soit compromise par un acte que le Sénat pourrait poser ce soir, ou demain, ou après-demain, ou n’importe quand

122.

Le sénateur Robichaud accordait une grande importance au Sénat comme institution de représentation des minorités régionales, telle que les Acadiens. Parmi ses

118 Ibid à la p 2915. 119 Assemblée législative 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 Assemblée législative du Nouveau-Brunswick, supra note 119. 122 Débats du Sénat, 30

e lég, 2

e sess, vol 2 (4 juillet 1977) à la p 1038.

43

44

interventions, il suivi de près le débat sur l’application de la Loi sur les langues officielles à l’aéroport de Moncton

123. Il citait aussi l’obtention d’une ferme expérimentale pour le

Nouveau-Brunswick comme un bon exemple de l’utilité du Sénat. Pour le sénateur Robichaud, « c’est grâce au Sénat que les Acadiens vont bénéficier de cet instrument [la ferme expérimentale] nouveau qui est donné au comté de Kent [majoritairement acadien], et à la province du Nouveau-Brunswick

124 ».

En 1988, il félicitait le gouvernement du premier ministre Mulroney d’avoir adopté la nouvelle Loi sur les langues officielles. Même s’il était du côté libéral de la Chambre haute, il reconnaissait le courage du gouvernement conservateur de l’époque :

Je trouve que, malgré le retard apporté par le gouvernement à soumettre le projet de loi C-72 au Parlement, qu’il a tout de même fait un excellent travail et qu’il mérite toutes nos félicitations. [...]

Il n’était pas facile pour ce gouvernement d’adopter le projet de loi C-72 — j’en sais quelque chose — mais il a eu le courage de le faire et de mettre en œuvre une mesure qui, selon le leader du gouvernement au Sénat, permet une certaine justice, une tolérance et un respect de la culture de l’autre communauté linguistique

125.

Jean-Maurice Simard

Nommé le 26 juin 1985 par le premier ministre Mulroney, Simard représentera le Nouveau-Brunswick jusqu’en 2001. Au moment de sa nomination, le sénateur Simard était député à la législature du Nouveau-Brunswick dans le gouvernement de Richard Hatfield. Comme député provincial, il avait « convaincu le Parti progressiste-conservateur de sa province des vertus du bilinguisme

126 ». Pour sa part, le premier

ministre Mulroney lui avait demandé de venir au Sénat pour s’occuper des CFC. Comme il l’explique, « [l]e premier ministre Mulroney m’avait indiqué que, si je venais au Sénat, cela lui plairait que je m’occupe des minorités en dehors du Nouveau-Brunswick et de tout le Canada

127 ».

Il n’est pas exagéré de dire que le sénateur Simard, comme plusieurs de ses compatriotes avant lui, a aussi consacré sa vie au développement des CFC. Au Sénat, il s’est fait connaître pour ses interventions dans les domaines de l’éducation, de la radiodiffusion, de la Constitution et pour sa lutte contre les compressions budgétaires dans le domaine des langues officielles. En tout temps, le sénateur Simard a utilisé son statut pour sensibiliser le public aux préoccupations des CFC. Pour lui, il s’agissait de son devoir. En effet, selon le sénateur Simard, « nous avons été chargés de protéger les droits


e sess (19 décembre 1989) à la p 919.


e sess (29 juin 1978) à la p 965.


e sess (13 juillet 1988) à la p 4005.

126 Marjorie Pedneault, Un coup de cœur s’est fait entendre : biographie politique de Jean Maurice Simard, Lévis, QC, Les Éditions de la Francophonie, 2011 à la p 251. 127 Débats du Sénat, 35

e lég, 2

e sess, vol 2 (6 mars 1997) à la p 1661 [Débats du Sénat, 6 mars 1997].

44

45

et les intérêts des régions, ainsi que des Canadiens qui vivent dans ces régions. » Et le sénateur Simard d’ajouter :

[d]e toute évidence, on ne peut s’attendre, à mon avis, à ce qu’une majorité nationale comprenne totalement et mesure les besoins particuliers d’une minorité. Les Pères de la Confédération ont donc confié au Sénat la tâche de veiller à ce que les initiatives et les actions parlementaires reconnaissent et respectent les besoins des citoyens canadiens dont les voix ne sauraient l’emporter sur la majorité

128.

Le sénateur Simard a appuyé les nombreuses causes des CFC tout au long de son mandat. Mentionnons, à titre d’exemple, son appui indéfectible aux francophones de Terre-Neuve-et-Labrador qui revendiquaient une commission scolaire francophone pendant les années 1990. Ainsi, en 1996, le sénateur Simard faisait le souhait suivant :

[j]e voudrais que l’on s’engage aujourd’hui à écouter la minorité francophone de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador, surtout la Fédération des Acadiens francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Si j’avais cet engagement, je serais d’accord pour terminer le débat aujourd’hui, si on me garantit que les représentants de cette minorité francophone seront entendus [...]

129.

Il critiquait de façon très ouverte le traitement que le gouvernement de Terre-Neuve et Labrador réservait aux francophones de cette province. Il affirmait que ce gouvernement faisait fi de ses responsabilités « émanant de la section 23 en droit scolaire

130. » Pour leur part, les francophones réclamaient « une structure provinciale ».

Or, comme l’explique le sénateur Simard :

[e]n janvier 1996, le gouvernement terre-neuvien a déposé son programme, sa structure de réforme scolaire pour la province. À part quelques mots faisant allusion à une nouvelle réforme qui pourrait tenir compte des besoins des francophones, il y avait très peu à ce sujet dans cette réforme scolaire. [...] On est allé en cour. Le juge a donné raison aux francophones. Il a reconnu dans son jugement que l’esprit et la lettre de la section 23 n’avaient pas été respectés et que le gouvernement de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador ne s’était pas acquitté de ses responsabilités

131.

Tout au long de la lutte des francophones de cette province, le Sénat a été un lieu rassembleur pour leurs représentants. Grâce au soutien du sénateur Simard, le Sénat leur a permis d’interpeller leur gouvernement provincial et de faire valoir leurs droits.

Lors des compressions à Radio-Canada, le sénateur Simard a fait preuve de la même détermination qu’envers les francophones de Terre-Neuve et du Labrador. Il n’a


e sess, vol 2 (25 novembre 1996) à la p 1161.


e sess, vol 1 (13 juin 1996) à la p 689.


e sess, vol 1 (13 juin 1996) à la p 689.

131 Ibid.

45

46

pas hésité à s’attaquer au gouvernement Chrétien, dont l’action à l’égard des CFC lui paraissait incohérente. Pour le sénateur :

[l]e réseau voit ses ressources diminuer d’environ 22 p. 100, alors que les régions sont affectées en moyenne à 44 p. 100. Les communautés de l’ouest et du sud de l’Ontario écopent, pour leur part, d’une réduction des ressources allant jusqu’à 60 p. 100. Ces décisions vont directement à l’encontre du mandat de la SRC, qui est de refléter la situation et les besoins particuliers des communautés francophones et acadiennes. [...] M. Chrétien et ses ministres ne se gênent pas pour affirmer et réaffirmer leur engagement auprès de la francophonie canadienne. Pourtant, leurs actions démontrent manifestement le contraire, soit un désengagement de leur part

132.

Demeurant fidèle à son engagement de s’occuper des minorités linguistiques de tout le Canada, le sénateur Simard a suivi le dossier de la sauvegarde de l’Hôpital Montfort à Ottawa de très près. Il a aussi fait appel au gouvernement de l’Ontario et rappelé son obligation constitutionnelle de ne « pas se laver les mains de ce dossier et d’assumer sa responsabilité entière, de façon à ce que la minorité francophone de l’Outaouais puisse recevoir à l’Hôpital Montfort ou à d’autres institutions des soins de santé dans sa langue

133. » À l’époque, le sénateur Simard déposait une motion incitant les

gouvernements fédéral et provincial, de trouver une solution « juste et généreuse » assurant l’avenir de Montfort

134.

Enfin, dans son célèbre rapport sur la situation des minorités de langue officielle, De la coupe aux lèvres, le sénateur Simard interpellera les membres Sénat sur la situation des CFC, qu’il qualifiait de déplorable. Il voulait attirer « l’attention du Sénat sur la situation qui prévaut présentement vis-à-vis de l’application de la Loi sur les langues officielles, de sa détérioration progressive, du désengagement des gouvernements au cours des dix dernières années et de la perte d’accessibilité des services en français aux francophones hors Québec

135. »

Jean-Robert Gauthier

Nommé le 23 novembre 1994 par le premier ministre Chrétien, le sénateur Gauthier représentera l’Ontario au Sénat jusqu’en 2004. Dès ses débuts sur la scène politique fédérale à titre de député de la circonscription d’Ottawa-Vanier, Jean-Robert Gauthier s’est toujours perçu comme un grand défenseur des droits des minorités francophones. Lors de sa nomination au Sénat, Chrétien déclarait que : « Jean-Robert Gauthier est un des grands défenseurs du fait français au Canada

136. »


e sess, vol 2 (16 décembre 1996) à la p 1378.

133 Débats du Sénat, 6 mars 1997, supra note 127 à la p 1161. 134 Débats du Sénat, 35

e lég, 2

e sess, vol 2 (22 avril 1997) à la p 2038.

135 Jean-Maurice Simard, De la coupe aux lèvres : un coup de coeur se fait attendre : le développement et l’épanouissement des communautés francophones et acadiennes : une responsabilité fondamentale du Canada, Ottawa, Sénat du Canada, 1999 à la p 107. 136 Débats de la Chambre des communes, 35

e lég, 1

ère sess, n° 129 (23 novembre 1994) à la p 8171.

46

47

Le lendemain de sa nomination, le député libéral de Timiskaming-French River, M. Benoît Serré, déclarait que :

Jean-Robert Gauthier est un fidèle serviteur du Canada et de ses commettants de la circonscription d’Ottawa-Vanier depuis 22 ans. Il est, depuis maintes années, un grand champion de la minorité francophone au Canada, ainsi que des autres minorités qui sont toutes des composantes de la mosaïque culturelle canadienne

137.

Au Sénat, le sénateur Gauthier a choisi de s’engager dans deux dossiers en particulier : les langues officielles et les services aux malentendants. Dans le cadre du dossier des langues officielles, il a participé au mouvement pour la défense de l’Hôpital Montfort, mais il a aussi travaillé à la santé financière de l’Association canadienne-française de l’Ontario, à la naissance de la Direction de l’entente Canada-communauté Ontario, au projet de rendre disponible le signal de TFO (le premier réseau de télévision public francophone de l’Ontario) au Québec et à travers le pays, à la préparation du plan d’action sur les langues officielles et au financement de 12 nouveaux conseils scolaires de langue française en Ontario. De fait, la liste de ses réalisations est imposante

138.

Le sénateur Gauthier a aussi déployé d’énormes efforts pour augmenter la visibilité des langues officielles à Ottawa. À deux occasions, il déposa au Sénat une motion pour faire d’Ottawa une ville bilingue. La première fois, en 2000, l’initiative échoua

139. De nouveau en 2004, le sénateur Gauthier proposait une motion pour changer

la Constitution du Canada faisant d’Ottawa une ville bilingue. Le sénateur voulait que son amendement constitutionnel clarifie le statut de la ville d’Ottawa dans la Constitution. Cette initiative s’est aussi avérée un échec. Or, selon le sénateur Gauthier :

la capitale du Canada, Ottawa, doit être le reflet de la dualité linguistique qui est au cœur même de notre identité collective et est une caractéristique de la nature même du Canada. Désigner Ottawa ville bilingue permettra à tous les Canadiens et Canadiennes d’obtenir des autorités municipales des services en français ou en anglais. Cette réalité constitutionnelle confirme que l’anglais et le français sont les deux langues officielles de notre pays. Il sera évident pour tous qu’Ottawa, ville bilingue et capitale du pays, sera dorénavant respectueuse, accueillante et généreuse, et ce dans les deux langues officielles du Canada

140.

Le dernier grand moment dans la carrière du sénateur Gauthier et son plus grand exploit est le projet de loi S-3, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (promotion du français et de l’anglais), qui rendra exécutoire l’obligation du gouvernement fédéral de prendre des mesures positives afin de favoriser les communautés de langue officielle, prévue aux articles 41 et 42 de la Partie VII de la Loi sur les langues officielles. Le

137 Débats de la Chambre des communes, 35e lég, 1

ère sess, n° 130 (24 novembre 1994) à la p 8242.

138 Rolande Faucher, Jean-Robert Gauthier : « Convaincre...sans révolution et sans haine », Sudbury, Éditions Prise de parole, 2008 à la p 477. 139 Ibid aux pp 502-503. 140 Débats du Sénat, 37

e lég, 3

e sess, n° 14 (23 février 2004) à la p 354.

47

48

sénateur Gauthier a voulu clarifier la Partie VII et la rendre exécutoire dans l’intérêt des minorités linguistiques et la promotion de la langue française à travers le pays. L’action du sénateur Gauthier visait trois changements : « préciser le caractère impératif de l’engagement énoncé à la Partie VII, imposer des obligations à l’ensemble des institutions fédérales pour la mise en œuvre de cet engagement, et donner un pouvoir de réparation permettant aux tribunaux d’en surveiller l’application

141. »

Après trois échecs de 2001-2004, le projet a été déposé une dernière fois au Sénat le 6 octobre 2004. La Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (promotion du français et de l’anglais)

142 reçut la sanction royale le 25 novembre 2005. Dans un

éditorial du journal Le Droit le 21 novembre, intitulé « S-3 : enfin ! », Pierre Bergeron écrivait :

[i]l faut ici souligner l’engagement et l’entêtement du sénateur Jean-Robert Gauthier, qui, contre vents et marées, n’a jamais perdu la foi en son projet de loi. Diminué par la maladie et voyant venir l’heure de sa retraite, il a quand même gardé le cap et remis son projet de loi sur le métier législatif, malgré les aléas des feuilletons législatifs. Qu’il en soit publiquement remercié. Des sénateurs comme lui, on en prendrait bien d’autres

143.

Comme l’explique Rolande Faucher, dans sa biographie du sénateur Gauthier, il tenait « à utiliser au maximum l’influence que lui confèrent son poste de sénateur et sa réputation pour faire avancer le plus de causes possible. Il est devenu celui vers lequel on se tourne, comme par réflexe, concernant toute question linguistique

144. »

Maria Chaput

Nommée le 30 septembre 2002 par le premier ministre Chrétien, Chaput représentera le Manitoba en plus d’être, encore à ce jour, une des sénatrices les plus actives dans les dossiers relatifs aux CFC. Dès ses débuts à la Chambre haute, sa nomination est accueillie favorablement par ses collègues parlementaires, comme permet de le constater le témoignage de la députée de Winnipeg-Centre-Sud, Anita Neville. Elle déclarait :

Monsieur le Président, j’aimerais aujourd’hui féliciter le tout nouveau sénateur du Manitoba. Je parle bien sûr de la sénatrice Maria Chaput, qui devient la première Franco-Manitobaine à siéger au Sénat. Pendant plus de trente ans, Mme Chaput a été une leader très visible de la collectivité canadienne-française et elle a reçu plusieurs distinctions pour son action communautaire exemplaire. J’aimerais souhaiter à la nouvelle sénatrice la bienvenue au caucus du Manitoba et à celui

141 Sénat du Canada, Comité sénatorial permanent des langues officielles, La mise en œuvre de la Partie VII de la Loi sur langues officielles : On peut encore faire mieux (juin 2010) à la p 4. 142 LC 2005, ch 41; voir également Forum des maires de la Péninsule acadienne c Canada (Agence d'inspection des aliments), 2005 CSC 85. 143 Faucher, supra note 138 à la p 545. 144 Faucher, supra note 138 à la p 515.

48

49

des femmes. Je sais qu’elle jouera un rôle vital dans la promotion des vues des femmes francophones de l’Ouest

145.

La sénatrice Chaput préside le Comité sénatorial permanent sur les langues officielles depuis février 2004

146. Elle tente, depuis quelques années, de réformer la Loi

sur les langues officielles afin d’y voir insérer notamment la notion de qualité égale des communications et des services offerts par le gouvernement fédéral. La version la plus récente de ce projet de loi a été présentée en première lecture au Sénat au mois de mai 2012. Le projet de loi a été adopté en deuxième lecture et est maintenant étudié en comité parlementaire

147.

En 2011, la sénatrice Chaput se prononçait sur la question de l’importance du Sénat pour les CFC. Elle affirmait, dans le cadre d’une question posée au leader du gouvernement au Sénat, que :

[l]a représentation des régions et des minorités est au cœur même du mandat de cette Chambre. Il serait, à mon avis, inacceptable que la représentation de ces minorités fasse l’objet du jeu électoral. En ce qui concerne cette proposition d’élections sénatoriales, de quelle façon le gouvernement de madame le leader entend-il assurer aux minorités une représentation garantie au sein du Sénat ? Madame le leader ne croit-elle pas qu’un Sénat modifié se doit de respecter la place des deux peuples fondateurs dans la fédération canadienne ? Et le gouvernement est-il prêt à s’engager à préserver ces droits historiques au sein du Sénat

148 ?

En 2012, la sénatrice Chaput a aussi attiré l’attention des sénateurs sur les effets potentiels du redécoupage des circonscriptions fédérales sur la vitalité des CFC

149. Enfin,

en novembre 2012, elle s’est portée à la défense des intérêts des CFC au cours des audiences du Conseil de la radiodiffusion et des télécommunications canadiennes (CRTC) sur le renouvellement des licences de Radio-Canada

150.

Pour conclure ce chapitre, soulignons combien l’apport politique des sénateurs provenant des CFC a été et demeure constant depuis la nomination de Girard en 1871. De plus, tous reconnaissent qu’ils ont été nommés pour défendre les intérêts des minorités francophones. Chez ces derniers, le Sénat a un rôle important à jouer dans la défense de ces minorités.

145 Débats de la Chambre des communes, 37e lég, 2

e sess, n° 57 (11 février 2003) à la p 3417.

146 Voir Bibliothèque du Parlement, PARLINFO, en ligne : Parlement du Canada <http://www.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo>. 147 Voir PL S-211, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les langues officielles (communications et services destinés au public), 41

e lég, 1

ère sess, 2012.


ère sess, n° 3 (7 juin 2011) à la p 16.


ère 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-canadas-licenses.html>.

49

50

Le Sénat a été un lieu permettant aux sénateurs d’interpeller les gouvernements provinciaux qui briment les droits des minorités francophones. Il est vrai que leur défense auprès des provinces n’a pas toujours été efficace. Comme le souligne David E. Smith, la lutte contre l’interdiction du français dans les écoles à la suite de décisions prises par les provinces n’a pas donné lieu à un renversement de ces décisions même si les sénateurs francophones sont très mobilisés contre l’action des gouvernements

151.

Par contre, la recherche archivistique permet de voir que les sénateurs des CFC ont souvent mobilisé l’opinion publique sur les questions linguistiques, une tradition qui se poursuit. Certes, le Canada a erré pendant trop longtemps dans le domaine du respect des minorités canadiennes-françaises. Par contre, force est de constater que les premiers ministres n’ont cessé de nommer des sénateurs canadiens-français, bien conscients que ces derniers allaient défendre les intérêts des CFC. Ces nominations constituent non seulement une longue tradition au Canada. Elles sont comprises comme l’expression d’un droit.

Les sénateurs des CFC vont aussi défendre d’autres intérêts, que ce soit la cause des malentendants pour ce qui est du sénateur Gauthier, les intérêts économiques de l’Ouest canadien dans le cas des sénateurs de l’Ouest ou des autochtones dans le cas du sénateur Robichaud. Ainsi, la représentation des membres des CFC au Sénat va au-delà de la défense des intérêts des francophones. L’engagement des sénateurs représentants des CFC envers de nombreuses causes constitue aussi un gage de leur sens d’appartenance à la fédération et de leur loyauté envers leur pays.

151 Smith, supra note 16.

50

51

Chapitre 4 : Pouvons-nous affirmer que la tradition de nommer des sénateurs des CFC était connue des acteurs impliqués dans les discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ?

Au début des années 1980, onze sénateurs des CFC seront témoins des débats conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Le tableau 7 montre que trois des sénateurs en poste à l’époque avaient été nommés par Diefenbaker au tournant des années 1960, sept par Trudeau pendant les années 1970 et un par le premier minstre Clark en 1979. Les sénateurs Choquette de l’Ontario et Fournier du Nouveau-Brunswick étaient en fin de mandat alors que la majorité était en cours de mandat.

Tableau 7 Sénateurs des CFC en 1982


Diefenbaker Ontario 1958.01.31 1981.03.06

Fournier, Edgar E. Diefenbaker Nouveau- Brunswick

1962.09.24 1983.02.11

Bélisle, Rhéal Diefenbaker Ontario 1963.02.04 1992.11.03 Molgat, Gildas L. Trudeau Manitoba 1970.10.07 2001.02.28 Fournier, Joseph Michel


1971.12.09 1980.09.29

Robichaud, Louis J.


1973.12.21 2000.10.21

Cottreau, Ernest G.

Trudeau Nouvelle-Écosse 1974.05.08 1989.01.28

Lucier, Paul Trudeau Yukon 1975.10.23 1999.07.23 Guay, Joseph- Phillippe

Trudeau Manitoba 1978.03.23 1990.10.04

Thériault, L. Norbert


1979.03.26 1996.02.16


Clark Ontario 1979.06.05 1980.01.14

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

En 1982, ces hommes incarnaient la tradition de nommer des sénateurs des CFC. Cette tradition ne pouvait pas être ignorée des acteurs de l’époque étant donné la nomination régulière de sénateurs des CFC pendant les années 1970. À lui seul, le premier ministre Trudeau nomma sept de ces 11 sénateurs des CFC. De plus, ces personnes sont intervenues de façon régulière dans les débats constitutionnels à l’époque.

Comme nous l’avons vu plus haut, plusieurs sénateurs ont saisi l’occasion pour faire valoir les préoccupations des minorités francophones du Canada. Ils ont revendiqué leur plus grande reconnaissance, en particulier, dans le domaine de l’éducation en français ou encore l’officialisation de la langue française en Ontario pour ne nommer que

51

52

ces deux exemples. Mentionnons aussi le rôle clé du sénateur Molgat dans le cadre du Comité mixte du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes sur la constitution du Canada

152.

Le sénateur Molgat, connaissant bien la situation des CFC, n’a pas hésité à faire valoir la nécessité de prendre en compte leurs préoccupations dans le cadre de la réforme du Sénat. Le rapport MacGuigan et Molgat sur la réforme de la Constitution canadienne comprend d’ailleurs plusieurs références aux droits des CFC et à la dualité linguistique.

Ainsi, à la lumière, i) de la participation active de sénateurs des CFC au début des années 1980, et ii) des références au droit des CFC et à la dualité linguistique dans les débats portant sur la réforme constitutionnelle, nous pouvons inférer que la tradition de nommer des sénateurs des CFC était connue des acteurs impliqués dans les discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Les préoccupations à l’égard de la représentation des CFC ont été publicisées à telle enseigne par plusieurs sénateurs francophones comme Bélisle, Robichaud ou Molgat que les acteurs impliqués ne pouvaient pas les ignorer. Rappelons les propos sur le sujet dans les notes de service de Michael Kirby ou encore celle de Mary E. Macdonald au premier ministre à l’époque

153.

Enfin, la nature de ces propos laisse aussi entendre que la tradition de nommer des sénateurs provenant des CFC était tenue pour acquise par les acteurs impliqués dans les discussions constitutionnelles. Il est difficile d’imaginer ces personnes souhaitant rompre de façon radicale avec une telle tradition implantée au Canada depuis 1871.

152 Voir Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34. 153 Voir Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 à 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 »; à 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) [...] »; à 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 également Mémorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E MacDonald (22 mai 1979), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 10 à la p 2 [Mémorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E MacDonald (Onglet L)] : elle fait remarquer que la sélection des sénateurs parmi la Chambre des communes et les législatures provinciales était 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 ».

52

53

Chapitre 5 : La possibilité de transformer le Sénat en organe élu a-t-elle été considérée au moment des discussions conduisant à l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 ainsi que ses effets sur la représentation des CFC ?

La possibilité de transformer le Sénat en organe élu a été considérée dans le cadre des rencontres constitutionnelles qui conduiront à la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982. Les documents consultés foisonnent de renseignements sur le sujet

154.

Soulignons, au préalable, que le Sénat, en 1982, était un élément parmi d’autres au sein d’une réforme plus globale des institutions. À l’époque, l’enjeu est de trouver un consensus entre le gouvernement fédéral et les provinces au sujet de la réorganisation du pouvoir au sein de la fédération, en plus de satisfaire aux préoccupations du Québec. Pour le gouvernement fédéral, cette réforme devra aussi servir à adopter une charte des droits et libertés afin de renforcer le pouvoir du peuple.

Comme le souligne David Ablett, dans un mémorandum à Robert Rabinovitch pour le premier ministre, la question du Sénat pourrait disparaître, mais pas celle des pouvoirs que réclament les provinces. Le propos ne vise pas à sous-estimer l’importance de la réforme du Sénat, mais à montrer que celle-ci s’inscrit dans un contexte guidé par des enjeux plus larges ayant trait au fédéralisme et au parlementarisme d’une part, et d’autre part, à la question des droits et libertés ce que les acteurs de l’époque nommaient, en anglais, le « People’s package »

155.

C’est donc dans ce cadre que le gouvernement fédéral considérait la possibilité de transformer le Sénat en organe élu alors que les provinces, pour leur part, ne retiendront pas cette voie.

Le Sénat et le fédéralisme canadien

Le 9 juin 1980, lors de la conférence des premiers ministres à Ottawa, au 24 rue Sussex, la réforme du Sénat est un des items que ces derniers veulent approfondir en vue des rencontres constitutionnelles qui auront lieu à l’été de la même année

156. Ces

rencontres auront lieu à Montréal, à Toronto et à Vancouver.

Dans son compte-rendu de la première rencontre constitutionnelle du mois de juillet 1980, Michael Kirby

157 explique que le gouvernement fédéral ne voulait pas

proposer de position particulière sur la question de la réforme du Sénat. Pour leur part, lors de la deuxième rencontre constitutionnelle à Toronto, les premiers ministres des provinces se sont entendus pour faire de la réforme du Sénat une priorité.

154 Mémorandum pour Robert Rabinovitch (13 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 12 [Memo à 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 à la p 2 (Onglet D). 157 À l’époque, Michael Kirby était le principal conseiller en charge du dossier constitutionnel auprès du premier ministre Trudeau.

53

54

Les provinces souhaitaient alors consolider la nature fédérale de l’institution, en particulier leur représentation en son sein. La question de la répartition des sièges et de la composition du Sénat les préoccupait, car elles voulaient maximiser leur présence au sein de l’institution, mais il n’est pas encore question du principe électif

158. Ce dernier

constituera une voie parmi d’autres à explorer.

Sur le plan stratégique, dans une étude préparée par le professeur Ron Watts de l’Université Queen’s à Kingston (Ontario) et membre de l’équipe de conseillers du gouvernement fédéral à l’époque, il est toutefois question de rendre la réforme du Sénat conditionnelle à la reconnaissance de l’espace économique canadien par les provinces et le partage des ressources naturelles. Watts présente des considérations stratégiques d’importance. Pour ce dernier, le gouvernement fédéral doit éviter une trop grande dévolution des pouvoirs vers les provinces. La réforme du Sénat pourrait permettre de pallier à cette dévolution en favorisant la représentation des provinces au sein de l’institution

159.

D’autres considérations de nature institutionnelle devront aussi guider toute réforme du Sénat canadien, entre autres, en ce qui a trait au respect du système parlementaire canadien. Comme l’explique Watts, la responsabilité du Conseil des ministres envers la Chambre des communes doit être maintenue dans le cadre de la révision des pouvoirs du Sénat. S’appuyant sur l’expérience australienne, il met en garde le gouvernement fédéral de ne pas favoriser un Sénat qui aurait la possibilité de retarder l’adoption des projets de loi sur le budget (supply bills)

160. Watts martèle que toute

réforme du Sénat ne doit pas nuire au bon fonctionnement de la Chambre des communes

161.

La redéfinition du rôle et des pouvoirs du Sénat

Comme en témoigne la synthèse de Kirby, les premiers ministres des provinces semblent s’être accordés assez rapidement pour dire que toute nouvelle Chambre haute ne serait pas élective

162. Ils veulent revoir les pouvoirs du Sénat, la répartition des sièges et

la représentation des provinces au sein de l’institution. L’enjeu est de faire évoluer le Sénat à l’intérieur du fédéralisme canadien. Dit autrement, la réforme du Sénat à l’époque est guidée par l’objectif de revoir l’organisation du pouvoir au sein du fédéralisme canadien.

158 Meeting of Officials on the Constitution: Collation of documents, January 11 and 12, 1979, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada R11344, vol 407 (Onglet S). 159 Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 à la p 3 (Onglet D). La question de pouvoir d’amender la Constitution en ce qui concerne le Sénat a également été discutée dans Briefing book for clause-by-clause consideration of the proposed resolution (Book II) (janvier 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada R11344, vol 406, dossiers 7, 8 et 9 (Onglet Q). 160 Watts n’est pas le seul à conseiller au gouvernement fédéral de ne pas opter pour la voie australienne. Voir Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 à la page 6 (Onglet D) et Memo à 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 : Mémorandum pour le Premier ministre de Mary E MacDonald, supra note 153 (Onglet L).

54

55

De façon plus spécifique, il est proposé de faire du Sénat une chambre des provinces ou une institution de nature intergouvernementale. À l’époque, plusieurs variations ou modèles seront proposés

163. On pense ainsi au modèle australien, aussitôt

rejeté, comme au modèle allemand, également rejeté164

. L’enjeu est de proposer des modèles qui combineront la fonction de révision législative de l’institution et sa potentielle nouvelle fonction intergouvernementale. Ainsi, le Sénat pourrait devenir une institution hybride comprenant une fonction de révision et la possibilité de faire ratifier l’action fédérale dans les champs de compétences des provinces.

La dualité linguistique

La question de la dualité linguistique a été abordée lors des débats sur la redéfinition du rôle et des pouvoirs du Sénat. De fait, dans l’ensemble des documents consultés, la question revient comme un leitmotiv. Elle n’échappe à aucun commentateur. Ainsi, dans sa synthèse de la rencontre constitutionnelle du 24 juillet 1980, Edward D. Greathed, le président du Comité des officiels sur la nouvelle Chambre haute (Committee of Officials on a New Second Chamber) rapporte que les premiers ministres des provinces voient la dualité linguistique d’un œil favorable

165. Le Québec et l’Ontario, en particulier,

souhaitent formaliser le rôle du Sénat dans ce domaine.

Si débat il y a, c’est de s’assurer que les membres des CFC soient compris dans la définition de la dualité linguistique, comme l’affirme le premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick, Richard Hatfield, lorsqu’il rappelle l’existence des Acadiens aux représentants du Québec et des autres provinces

166. Si la représentation effective des

CFC n’est pas toujours mentionnée de façon directe, la dualité linguistique fera l’objet de mesures spéciales. La proposition d’un nombre égal de francophones et d’anglophones pour juger des questions linguistiques et culturelles n’est pas exclusive au Québec

167.

Cela étant, tous les documents consultés font référence au fait qu’un des attributs du Sénat canadien est de représenter les intérêts des régions et des minorités. Mentionnons le livre beige du Parti libéral du Québec (PLQ), dans lequel il est proposé de remplacer le Sénat par un conseil de la fédération, mais dont le mandat serait, notamment, de protéger la dualité canadienne. Le projet de loi de 1978 sur la réforme constitutionnelle est aussi éloquent à ce sujet

168 tout comme les différents memoranda et

études mentionnés précédemment. Ces derniers accordent tous une attention particulière à la question de la dualité linguistique au sein du Sénat. Watts résume bien l’état d’esprit

163 Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 à la p 19 (Onglet C). 164 Lettre au Premier ministre (10 juillet 1980), Ottawa, Bibliothèque 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 à 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 à la p 8 de l’annexe A de Watts Memo for Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D). 166 Kirby Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 8 à la p 12 (Onglet C). 167 Memo à Rabinovitch, supra note 154 à la p 2 (Onglet K). 168 Projet de loi sur la réforme constitutionnelle, 1978, Document explicatif Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada MG26-O20, vol 24, dossier 1 (Onglet N).

55

56

des acteurs de l’époque sur la question lorsqu’il indique que le Sénat devra permettre la représentation des intérêts des régions et des minorités et protéger les droits des minorités linguistiques et des peuples autochtones

169.

La répartition des sièges

Plusieurs fédérations ont consacré beaucoup d’efforts afin de se doter de structures permettant de représenter les différentes unités constituantes de façon égalitaire

170. Comme l’explique Watts, le principe d’égalité de représentation est crucial

aux États-Unis. Toutefois, au Canada, le principe égalitaire pose certaines difficultés sur le plan de la représentation. D’abord, il pourrait contribuer à accroître le déséquilibre entre les provinces. Ensuite, l’égalité de représentation nuirait aussi aux intérêts des Canadiens français. Il importe donc de trouver un système de représentation qui ne pénalisera pas les Canadiens français. Ce système devra leur donner une « voix adéquate (adequate voice)

171. »

Plusieurs propositions concernant le nombre de sénateurs à nommer ou à élire seront donc débattues et commentées par les provinces. Elles viendront du Québec comme de la Colombie-Britannique ou de l’Alberta

172. De fait, l’enjeu principal est de

permettre une représentation égale au Sénat, mais tout en reconnaissant, en l’occurrence, la possibilité d’une représentation différenciée en raison des particularités du pays. Ainsi, le Québec et l’Ontario détiendraient un plus grand nombre de sièges, mais le nombre de sièges dans les autres provinces pourrait être augmenté. Tous reconnaissent donc que le principe d’égalité au Canada ne peut pas être limité à une stricte adéquation sur le plan des nombres.

De plus, si jamais le Sénat s’ouvrait à la représentation des provinces, la question de la dualité linguistique reviendrait en force, car il faudrait identifier des mécanismes supplémentaires afin de protéger la dualité linguistique canadienne, incluant des sièges qui seraient réservés pour des sénateurs francophones hors Québec. Dans son mémorandum, Watts écrit :

169 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) [...] » (à la p 3). Watts n’est pas le seul à faire part de cet enjeu au premier ministre. Eugene Forsey, 1980, dans une note sur les propositions du livre beige s’en prend à Ryan, qui selon lui, sont toutes fausses du début à la fin, ce qui inclus les propositions sur l’abolition du Sénat au profit d’une chambre intergouvernementale. Forsey, E.A. - Notes on the Ryan Proposals, Ottawa, Bibliothèque et Archives Canada R4447, vol 67, dossier 3 [Forsey (Onglet R)]. 170 Voir Lettre 1980, supra note 164 (Onglet P) commentant le modèle allemand; voir aussi Watts Memo for the Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D) et Memo à Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). 171 Watts dans Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D), écrit, « 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 » (à la p 5). 172 Memo 1980, supra note 158 (Onglet O). Voir également Memo à Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). Voir également Forsey, supra note 169 (Onglet R).

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 block or where party discipline does not override the expression of free views

173.

Et d’ajouter que l’Inde, le Niger et la Malaisie sont des fédérations qui permettent à un petit groupe supplémentaire de personnes d’être nommées au sein de leurs chambres hautes. Selon Watts, ces personnes peuvent être nommées « for their eminence or to represent special minorities or interests

174. »

Le principe électif

Le gouvernement fédéral était préparé en vue d’une discussion approfondie sur le principe électif. De fait, le gouvernement fédéral, à l’époque, n’était pas contre le projet de faire du Sénat, un organe élu. Il était aussi favorable à l’éventualité que le Sénat devienne une chambre constituée de membres élus de façon indirecte par les assemblées législatives provinciales et la Chambre des communes – ces personnes auraient eu la même légitimité que les premiers ministres des provinces.

Les modes de désignation des sénateurs de plusieurs pays (Allemagne, États-Unis, Suisse, Australie, Royaume-Uni) ont été recensés dans la majorité des documents consultés

175. Parmi ces modes, l’élection directe comme aux États-Unis, l’élection

indirecte comme en Inde et la nomination ou le statu quo ont été pris en compte.

L’élection directe : L’élection directe est un mode de représentation que l’on retrouve aux États-Unis ou encore en Australie. Or, l’exemple australien revient comme un cas de figure à éviter en raison de la question des pouvoirs

176. Watts explique aussi

qu’en Australie, la discipline de partis vient limiter l’expression des points de vue des régions

177.

173 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 à la p 6 (Onglet D). Watts accorde également une attention particulière à la représentation des peuples des Premières nations au Sénat. Ces éléments viendraient compléter la représentation des différents intérêts au Sénat. 174 Ibid (Onglet D). 175 Ibid (Onglet D), voir également Lettre 1980, supra note 164 (Onglet P) et Memo à Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K); voir également Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34. 176 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D); voir également Lettre 1980, supra note 164 (Onglet P). 177 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 aux pp 6-7 (Onglet D).

57

58

En revanche, plusieurs reconnaissent que l’élection directe des sénateurs pourrait permettre d’expérimenter le mode de représentation proportionnelle

178. La mise en place

d’un tel système produirait toutefois deux types d’élus au sein du Parlement, i) ceux qui auront été élus à la proportionnelle, et ii) ceux qui auront été élus grâce au système uninominal. On peut penser que la présence de ces deux systèmes au sein d’un même Parlement pourrait donner lieu à des conflits sur le plan de la légitimité démocratique des élus.

L’élection indirecte : L’option de l’élection indirecte permettrait aussi d’utiliser la représentation proportionnelle au sein des assemblées législatives à qui reviendrait la prérogative de choisir les sénateurs. Ainsi, les provinces pourraient choisir 50 % des membres de la Chambre haute. Toutefois, ce type de désignation aurait pour effet de créer des conflits d’imputabilité d’un ordre de gouvernement à un autre

179.

La nomination

Ce mode de désignation n’est pas unique au Canada comme en témoigne la situation en Allemagne. Comme le soulignaient le sénateur Molgat et le député MacGuigan, dans leur rapport pour le Comité mixte du Sénat 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. C’est la raison pour laquelle ils suggéraient de maintenir un nombre de sénateurs désignés par la voie nominative

180.

Le mode nominatif sera aussi le choix des provinces à la différence qu’elles seraient responsables de procéder à ces nominations à la place du gouvernement fédéral. Watts prend la peine de le souligner, « [a]t the CCMC meetings all the provinces have supported some form or other of provincial government appointment of all or a large majority of the members in a revised second chamber

181. »

Bref, si le gouvernement fédéral n’a rien contre un Sénat élu, les gouvernements provinciaux n’en veulent pas. Comme le rapporte Edward D. Greathed, le président du comité responsable d’étudier 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 à la discrétion du Lieutenant-Gouverneur.

Par contre, la population ne semble pas du même avis. Dans les sondages, elle aurait nettement exprimé sa préférence pour un Sénat élu

182. Si l’on ne peut dire ce qui

motivait son choix à l’époque, pour sa part le gouvernement fédéral était conscient que

178 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 (Onglet D); voir également Memo à Rabinovitch, supra note 154 (Onglet K). 179 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 à la p 7 (Onglet D). 180 Rapport Molgat-MacGuigan, supra note 34 à la p 35. 181 Watts Memo to Prime Minister, supra note 12 à la p 7 (Onglet D). 182 Les sondages auraient aussi indiqué que le public a de la difficulté à comprendre la complexité des enjeux institutionnels (Ibid à la p 8 (Onglet D)).

58

59

toute réforme du mode de sélection des sénateurs devrait permettre de prendre en compte les points de vue de l’ensemble des peuples et des membres des régions de façon proportionnelle

183.

Pour conclure, rappelons que le débat sur la réforme du Sénat lors des négociations en vue de l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982 s’inscrivait dans un contexte particulier portant sur une réforme globale des institutions et du fédéralisme. Dans ce cadre, l’objectif principal était de rendre le Sénat plus imputable envers les provinces. Ces propositions incluaient, notamment, une plus grande participation des provinces au processus de nomination des sénateurs. La possibilité de transformer le Sénat en un organe élu a été considérée de façon minutieuse par l’ensemble des acteurs. Toutefois, l’idée d’un Sénat électif a été rejetée par l’ensemble des provinces.

Enfin, les documents consultés révèlent aussi que la question de la dualité linguistique a été importante dans le cadre des débats sur la redéfinition du rôle et des attributs du Sénat tout comme dans le contexte du mode de désignation des sénateurs. Quel que soit le mode de représentation adopté, ce dernier ne devra pas nuire à la dualité linguistique, une situation que tous les acteurs à l’époque ont acceptée sans trop de difficulté. Ainsi, ils reconnaissaient que la représentation des intérêts des Canadiens français de l’ensemble du Canada était un rôle et un attribut du Sénat.

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 qu’un mécanisme d’élection des sénateurs à l’échelle des provinces, tel que celui qui est envisagé par le projet de loi C-7, est susceptible d’affecter la représentation des groupes minoritaires au Sénat ?

Le projet de loi C-7 propose un processus d’élection directe des sénateurs par la population, mais par l’entremise des provinces. Grâce à un cadre législatif mis en place par les provinces et les territoires, ces derniers seront responsables des élections des sénateurs au suffrage universel, à l’échelle des provinces. Pour sa part, le premier ministre du Canada s’est engagé à prendre en compte le résultat des élections au moment de sa recommandation de candidats au gouverneur général.

Jusqu’à présent, seul le Nouveau-Brunswick a proposé un projet de loi pour créer des circonscriptions sénatoriales

184 (le projet de loi 64). Au nombre de cinq, elles

comprendront, chacune, deux représentants. Deux autres provinces, soit l’Alberta185

et la Saskatchewan

186, ont adopté des projets de loi prévoyant des élections à l’échelle de la

province.

Du point de vue de la science politique, le mécanisme envisagé pourra-t-il favoriser la représentation des groupes minoritaires au sein du Sénat ? Un « groupe minoritaire », en sciences sociales et politiques, est défini par sa situation dans les rapports de pouvoirs avec d’autres groupes, notamment majoritaires, et non uniquement par le nombre de personnes qu’il peut constituer. C’est ce qui explique que pendant longtemps, malgré leur force numérique, les Noirs d’Afrique du Sud ont été associés à un groupe minoritaire. Ils ont été marginalisés et opprimés par la « minorité blanche », qui, pour sa part, se représentait comme la « majorité », imposant ainsi sa norme à un groupe qu’elle jugeait inférieur à elle. Par conséquent, les Noirs ont été constitués en un groupe minoritaire

187.

Faire partie d’un groupe minoritaire est une réalité construite, mais aux conséquences bien réelles. Les groupes minoritaires sont généralement maintenus à l’écart du pouvoir en raison des caractéristiques qui leur sont attribués. Ils vivent une situation de déficit qui les marginalise et les exclut des institutions, incluant les institutions politiques, et des postes de responsabilité ou encore des lieux de prises de décisions.

La représentation politique des minorités est considérée comme un moyen important afin de combler leur déficit de pouvoir. La science politique a fait de cette question un objet d’étude qui a pris beaucoup d’importance depuis les années 1980.

184 PL 64, Loi concernant la sélection des candidats sénatoriaux, 57e lég, 2

e 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 années 1980 et 1990, les travaux de Danielle Juteau ont été parmi les premiers à conceptualiser les groupes minoritaires en ces termes. Depuis, la sociologie des groupes minoritaires n’a cessé d’étudier les multiples facettes de la réalité de ces groupes ainsi que les moyens mis à leur disposition afin de surmonter leur déficit de pouvoir. Danielle Juteau, L’ethnicité et ses frontières, Montréal, Presses de l’Université de Montréal, 2003.

60

61

Parmi les groupes minoritaires les plus étudiés, mentionnons les minorités ethnoculturelles, les minorités nationales et linguistiques, ainsi que les femmes

188. Ces

dernières sont souvent considérées comme faisant partie de cette catégorie, car sauf exception, elles sont minoritaires sur la scène politique, malgré leur majorité numérique dans l’ensemble de la population.

Il existe plusieurs approches (normative, statistique, institutionnelle) et travaux sur la question des mécanismes favorables à la représentation des groupes minoritaires au sein des institutions politiques

189. Malgré l’éventail de perspectives, les spécialistes

s’accordent pour dire que le principe électif n’est pas toujours favorable à la représentation politique des minorités, en plus de tous les autres obstacles de nature plus sociologique et économique à leur participation, à moins de leur fournir des moyens particuliers afin d’accroître leur représentation

190. La plupart des travaux sur la question

portent sur la situation des femmes et des minorités dans les chambres basses, notamment à la Chambre des communes pour ce qui est du Canada

191. La situation des minorités

dans les sénats ou chambres hautes est moins bien connue.

Parmi les moyens ou les mécanismes suggérés afin de garantir ou d’accroître la représentation des femmes et des minorités, mentionnons les mesures favorables à la parité hommes/femmes, les systèmes de quotas, le fédéralisme, l’autonomie culturelle, la création de territoires. Les partis politiques peuvent aussi contribuer à accroître la représentation des groupes minoritaires au sein de leurs formations et ainsi favoriser leur élection grâce à des mesures d’action positive internes. Dans l’ensemble des cas, l’enjeu est de créer des conditions favorables au renforcement de la capacité d’action des groupes minoritaires sur le plan politique. Comme nous l’avons déjà mentionné plus haut, la représentation politique des groupes minoritaires contribue à leur légitimité, à leur développement identitaire et à la cohésion sociale

192. Par contre, force est de reconnaître

que la représentation politique ne se limite pas à la prise en compte des préoccupations des minorités sur le plan des politiques publiques. Elles souhaitent aussi être représentées au sein des institutions.

188 Aux fins de ce rapport, nous avons inclus les peuples autochtones dans la catégorie des minorités nationales. Les groupes minoritaires comprennent aussi d’autres minorités marginalisées, dont les minorités religieuses, les minorités 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 synthèse des obstacles à la représentation des femmes et des minorités, 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 à la p 32. Pour une mise à jour de la situation de la participation politique des minorités 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 O’Brien, The Politics of Group Representation. Quotas for Women and Minorities Worlwide, (2010) Comparative Politics 253. 192 Voir l’introduction de ce rapport.

61

62

Les travaux sur la représentation des femmes dans les institutions politiques ont donné lieu à de nombreuses évaluations portant sur leur sous-représentation dans les parlements

193. Le principe de la parité a été reconnu comme un idéal à atteindre grâce à la

mise en place de quotas. Les femmes semblent mieux représentées dans des systèmes de représentation proportionnelle. Par contre, les barrières à l’entrée des femmes dans les partis politiques et en particulier, les questions de financement demeurent un obstacle important.

Pour ce qui est des minorités nationales et linguistiques, une attention particulière a été consacrée aux mécanismes permettant de créer des majorités territoriales

194. Ces

mécanismes permettent d’accroître les chances de représentation de ces groupes. Le fédéralisme est souvent le mécanisme le plus mentionné, car il permet de créer des majorités favorables à une plus grande représentation des minorités au sein des parlements. Ces majorités, comme au Québec, en Catalogne ou encore au Nunavut, peuvent se retrouver à contrôler des assemblées ou des parlements régionaux et nationaux.

Dans ce cadre, les chambres hautes sont aussi reconnues comme de bons moyens pour favoriser la représentation des territoires alors que les chambres basses sont plus appropriées pour représenter les populations

195. Ainsi, l’élection de membres de groupes

minoritaires ou leur nomination en fonction d’un territoire donné peut contribuer à accroître leur participation aux institutions centrales.

En outre, l’octroi de territoires à des minorités peut avoir un impact favorable sur la formation des partis politiques et la sélection des candidats. En effet, les formations politiques dans ces territoires ou régions seront contrôlées par les membres du groupe minoritaire. Ces derniers pourront aussi influencer les programmes politiques des partis politiques afin qu’ils répondent aux préoccupations du groupe minoritaire. Ainsi, la création de partis politiques peut favoriser la compétition démocratique des intérêts des groupes minoritaires, l’intégration et la cohésion sociale

196.

Pour ce qui est des minorités non territoriales, il est plus difficile de leur octroyer des territoires, car elles sont souvent trop éparpillées ou elles n’ont pas toujours le

193 Pour une étude complète de la représentation politique des femmes dans les parlements au plan international, voir Manon Tremblay, dir, Femmes et parlements, Montréal, Remue-ménage, 2005. Pour une synthèse et vulgarisation des différents enjeux ayant trait à la participation politique des femmes, voir Manon Tremblay, Cent questions sur les femmes et la politique, Montréal, Remue-ménage, 2008. 194 Rainer Bauböck, « Autonomie territoriale ou culturelle pour les minorités nationales ? », dans Alain Dieckhoff, dir, La constellation des appartenances. Nationalisme, libéralisme et pluralisme, Paris, Presses de science po, 2004, 317. Thomas Fleiner et Julian Thomas Hottinger, « La pertinence du fédéralisme dans la gestion des diversités nationales » (2003) 10 : 1 Revue internationale de politique comparée 79. 195 Patrice Gélard, « Rapport sur les secondes chambres en Europe : Complexité parlementaire ou nécessité démocratique ? », Strasbourg, Commission européenne pour la démocratie par le droit, étude n

o 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.

62

63

nombre pour justifier la création d’un parlement197

. Dans le cas canadien, les CFC représentent des minorités non territoriales. Elles bénéficient d’une certaine représentation au plan municipal comme au Nouveau-Brunswick et en Ontario. La reconnaissance du droit des francophones à la gestion et au contrôle de leurs institutions scolaires en vertu de l’article 23 de la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés a aussi permis de constituer un espace d’influence important pour les CFC dans le domaine de l’éducation

198.

Souvent, l’influence des minorités non territoriales se fait mieux voir dans le domaine administratif, dans le cadre de l’organisation des services comme cela est le cas en Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick dans les domaines de la santé et des services sociaux. L’invitation des représentants des minorités francophones à siéger à des comités gouvernementaux permet aussi d’assurer leur présence au sein de la gouvernance des politiques publiques et leur confère une certaine influence sur la prise de décision

199.

Toutefois, en raison de leur situation particulière, ce sont des mesures supplémentaires comme des quotas ou la garantie de certains sièges dans les parlements ou les chambres hautes qui pourraient répondre au besoin de représentation des minorités non-territoriales au plan politique. Pour leur part, les organismes de la francophonie canadienne ont souvent proposé la mise en place de mécanismes afin de pallier leur manque de représentation au sein du Sénat. À titre d’exemple, en 1966, le Conseil de la vie française demandait au gouvernement canadien de faire passer la représentation des francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick au Sénat de trois à quatre et de deux à trois en Ontario en plus de garantir une représentation des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique

200. En 1978, la Fédération des francophones hors Québec (FFHQ –

aujourd’hui connue sous l’appellation FCFA, pour Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du Canada) réagissait au projet de loi C-60 et exigeait que le gouvernement crée des listes distinctes pour les francophones et les anglophones dans chaque province

201. Par ailleurs, le projet exigeait la double majorité pour les questions

revêtant une importance culturelle ou linguistique. Il reconnaissait devoir protéger à la fois la dualité linguistique et les intérêts des régions et non l’un ou l’autre. Enfin, lors des multiples débats constitutionnels qui ont suivi l’adoption de la Loi constitutionnelle de 1982, il a aussi été question de prévoir un veto absolu en leur faveur sur les questions linguistiques et culturelles

202.

197 Pour un exercice d’imaginaire institutionnel sur la question, voir Johanne Poirier, « Au-delà des droits linguistiques et du fédéralisme classique : favoriser l’autonomie institutionnelle des francophonies minoritaires au Canada dans Thériault, Gilbert et Cardinal, supra note 3 aux pp 513-562. 198 Voir notamment Mahé c Alberta, supra note 116 pour une définition du pouvoir de gestion et de contrôle en vertu de l’article 23 de la Charte. Dans beaucoup de pays, l’action des minorités non territoriales se limite d’ailleurs au domaine de l’éducation et de la culture. Pour un cas de figure, voir Jean-Baptiste Harguindéguy et Alistair Cole, « La politique linguistique de la France à l’épreuve des revendications ethnoterritoriales » (2009) 59 : 3 Revue française de science politique 939. 199 Voir Cardinal, « New Approaches », supra note 15. 200 Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne, Réforme du Sénat et communautés de langue officielle en situation minoritaire du Canada, 22 juin 2006 à la p 7. 201 Ibid aux pp 7-8. 202 Pour une synthèse de ces propositions, voir L’honorable Claudette Tardif et Chantal Terrien, « La réforme du Sénat et les minorités francophones » (2009) 32 : 1 Revue parlementaire canadienne 6.

63

64

La présente réforme a suscité les réactions de la FCFA et de la Société acadienne du Nouveau-Brunswick (SANB). Les deux organismes ont aussi exprimé leurs craintes à l’égard du projet de loi 64 au Nouveau-Brunswick

203, qui prévoit l’élection indirecte des

sénateurs distribués dans cinq circonscriptions comprenant deux représentant chacune. Les deux organismes conçoivent que l’élection des sénateurs fera diminuer le nombre de francophones hors Québec au Sénat. Pour sa part, le vice-premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick, Paul Robichaud, même s’il est convaincu qu’il faut élire les sénateurs « coûte que coûte »

204, s’est prononcé sur l’importance de protéger la représentation des

francophones au Sénat.

L’ensemble des mécanismes cités représente une source non négligeable de moyens favorables à la représentation politique des groupes minoritaires. Dans l’état actuel des connaissances, force est de reconnaître que le principe électif ne s’avère pas le meilleur choix pour favoriser la représentation des minorités dans les institutions politiques. À moins d’occuper l’ensemble du territoire d’une province, comme au Québec, l’absence d’assise territoriale qui caractérise la situation des francophones hors Québec nuira à leur élection potentielle au Sénat.

De plus, cela est bien connu, sauf exception, la difficulté de percer dans les partis politiques est grande pour ces minorités

205. À moins de mesures spéciales de la part des

partis politiques qui se feront la lutte pour les sièges, il sera très difficile d’élire les représentants des minorités en soumettant ces dernières à la libre concurrence des forces politiques.

La preuve en est que, de façon générale, des membres des CFC ne sont élus à la Chambre des communes que dans les régions où les membres des CFC représentent une forte proportion de la population, notamment dans l’est et le dans nord de l’Ontario et au Nouveau-Brunswick. À titre d’exemple, en 2013, il n’y a que dix députés représentants des CFC à la Chambre des communes, soit (en ordre alphabétique) Mauril Bélanger, Royal Galipeau, Yvon Godin, Robert Goguen, Claude Gravelle, Carol Hughes, Dominic LeBlanc, Pierre Lemieux, Bernard Trottier et Bernard Valcourt

206. Ces personnes

représentent surtout l’Ontario et le Nouveau-Brunswick.

203 Supra note 184. 204 Mathieu Roy-Comeau, « Élection des sénateurs : Robichaud propose des balises pour protéger les Acadiens », L’Acadie Nouvelle (12 novembre 2012) 8 (Onglet T). À noter que la Commission du Nouveau-Brunswick sur le fédéralisme canadien a recommandé en 1990 que le Sénat soit élu de manière à « assurer une meilleure représentation des différentes identités collectives du Canada » : Commission du Nouveau-Brunswick sur le fédéralisme canadien, Rapport de la Commission du Nouveau-Brunswick sur le fédéralisme canadien, Fredericton, janvier 1992 à la p 43. 205 Voir Bird, supra note 190; Krook et O’Brien, 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 à la p 28. Rares sont les partis politiques qui vont cibler ou créer des postes ou favoriser des candidats des minorités ethniques. Le cas américain est unique. Les Noirs et les Latinos sont plus présents en politique aux États-Unis par rapport à d’autres minorités dans d’autres pays en raison de l’attention particulière qu’ils reçoivent des partis politiques. 206 Nous avons repris le principe de l’analyse réputationnelle afin d’identifier ces personnes (voir supra note 46).

64

65

Il y a donc très peu de députés à la Chambre des communes qui sont des représentants des CFC : les dix députés en question ne représentent que 3,25 % du nombre total des députés. La proportion des députés issus des CFC est inférieure à la proportion de CFC dans la population canadienne qui est d’environ 4 %. Pour sa part, le Sénat compte huit sénateurs représentants les CFC, soit 7,62 % du total des sénateurs. La représentation de membres des CFC au Sénat compense, dans une certaine mesure, la très faible présence de représentants des CFC à la Chambre des communes. En effet, même si leur nombre demeure relativement faible, cette représentation est essentielle dans le cadre fédéral canadien. Elle répond à un besoin important de représentation d’un peuple fondateur qui a été trop souvent marginalisé dans l’histoire du pays. Plus encore, la présence, même faible, des CFC au sein du Sénat, donne une assise pancanadienne à la représentation de la dualité linguistique au sein de l’institution.

Par le passé, même si le gouvernement canadien a considéré de façon très sérieuse la possibilité de transformer le Sénat en organe élu, le premier ministre fédéral s’est souvent fait conseiller de se réserver le pouvoir de nommer des sénateurs

207. Une telle

solution pourrait servir à combler le besoin de représentation des CFC au Sénat dans le cas canadien. Or, tant l’esprit du projet de loi C-7 que le type de mécanisme envisagé pour l’élection des sénateurs parait peu propice à l’élection de représentants des CFC. Qui plus est, à l’exception de la déclaration du vice-premier ministre du Nouveau-Brunswick mentionnée ci-dessus, aucun parti politique ne s’est prononcé sur la possibilité d’adopter des mécanismes particuliers afin de favoriser l’élection de représentants des CFC. Seul le Québec pourra envoyer, sans trop de craintes, des francophones au Sénat dans les conditions actuelles. Quelques Acadiens du Nouveau-Brunswick pourront potentiellement se retrouver au Sénat, mais aucun autre Acadien des Maritimes ne pourra tenir pour acquise cette possibilité. En ce qui a trait aux autres provinces canadiennes, il est difficile d’imaginer des francophones remportant des élections sénatoriales étant donné leur faiblesse numérique.

Un exemple contemporain qui permet de bien illustrer les effets pervers du projet de loi C-7 envers les CFC est la situation qui prévaut présentement en Alberta. En 1985 et en 1987, l’Assemblée législative de l’Alberta adoptait, à l’unanimité, le Senatorial Selection Act

208. Le projet de loi précisait qu’à chaque fois qu’un siège vacant au Sénat

revenait à l’Alberta, l’élection du sénateur en question serait organisée par la province, qui recommanderait le gagnant au Conseil privé, afin qu’il soit recommandé au gouverneur général pour nomination au Sénat.

La première élection sénatoriale en Alberta a eu lieu en 1989, suivie de trois autres élections sénatoriales en 1998, 2004 et 2012, et ce bien que la Chambre haute ne soit pas fondée sur le principe électif ou populaire. Or, aucun candidat ne s’affichait pour représenter les intérêts des francophones. Aucun candidat francophone n’a été élu. De

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

65

66

plus, comme le tableau ci-dessous permet amplement de le constater, les francophones ont été très rares à se présenter dans le cadre de ces élections.

Tableau 8 Sommaire des résultats des élections de candidats et candidates pour nomination au Sénat en Alberta en vertu de la Senatorial Selections Act

Candidat, Parti politique enregistré ou indépendant

Votes Pourcentage du vote

Élections sénatoriales du 16 octobre 1989 Bert Brown, Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta

127 638 20,53

Bill Code, Alberta Liberal Party 139 809 22,49 Ken Paproski, Independent 30 849 4,96 Tom Sindlinger, Independent 25 491 4,10 Gladys Taylor, Independent 38 534 6,20 Stan Waters, Reform Party of Alberta* 259 292 41,71 TOTAL 621 613

Élections sénatoriales du 19 octobre 1998 Bert Brown, Reform Party of Alberta* 332 766 37,32 Guy Desrosiers, Independent 148 851 16,70 Vance Gough, Independent 135 840 15,24 Ted Morton, Reform Party of Alberta* 274 126 30,75 TOTAL 891 583

Élections sénatoriales du 22 novembre 2004 Cliff Breitkreuz, Progressive Conservative Party* 241 306 11,09 Bert Brown, Progressive Conservative Party* 312 041 14,34 Link Byfield, Independent* 238 751 10,97 Vance Gough, Alberta Alliance 167 770 7,71 Gary Horan, Alberta Alliance 156 175 7,18 Michael Roth, Alberta Alliance 176 339 8,10 Jim Silye, Progressive Conservative Party 217 857 10,01 Tom Sindlinger, Independent 161 082 7,40 Betty Unger, Progressive Conservative Party* 311 964 14,33 David Usherwod, Progressive Conservative Party 193 056 8,87 TOTAL 2 176 341

Élections sénatoriales du 23 avril 2012 Doug Black, Progressive Conservative Party* 427 745 16,90 Len Bracko, Independent 141 830 5,27 Perry Chahal, Independent 65 164 2,42 William Exelby, Independent 81 476 3,03 David Fletcher, Independent 114 940 4,27 Paul Frank, Independent 93 586 3,48 Raymond Germain, Wildrose 299 800 11,14 Rob Gregory, Wildrose 300 883 11,18

66

67

Elizabeth Johannson, Evergreen Party of Alberta 149 844 5,57 Vitor Marciano, Wildrose 246 787 9,17 Mike Shaikh, Progressive Conservative Party* 309 587 11,51 Scott Tannas, Progressive Conservative Party* 351 761 13,07 Ian Urquart, Independent 107 397 3,99 TOTAL 2 690 800 Source : Elections Alberta, Senate Nominee Elections, en ligne : Elections Alberta <http://www.elections.ab.ca/Public%20Website/589.htm>. *Élu

Bref, à ce jour, après 23 ans d’élections sénatoriale en Alberta, aucun Franco-Albertain n’a été élu et n’a pu être recommandé pour nomination au Sénat par cette voie. Ceci semble l’un des objectifs avoués du projet de loi C-7. Le sénateur Bob Runciman confirme d’ailleurs ceci, comme le rapporte le Toronto Sun : « Runciman [...] agreed Tardif would be shown the door quickly in Alberta if she ever had to run in provincial elections for a Senate appointment. And that, precisely, is the point »

209.

Quant aux autres candidats élus de cette manière, le seul Albertain « élu » ayant été nommé avant 2006 fut Stanley Waters, nommé au Sénat sur recommandation du premier ministre Brian Mulroney. Pour sa part, depuis son arrivée au pouvoir en 2006, le premier ministre Harper a recommandé des sénateurs de l’Alberta ayant été élus au suffrage universel. Ainsi, Bert Brown, qui a obtenu le plus grand nombre de votes lors des scrutins de 1998 et de 2004 a été nommé au Sénat en 2007. Betty Unger, élue en 2004, a quant a elle été nommée au Sénat en 2012. En janvier 2013, Douglas Black, qui avait été élu en 2012, a été nommé ainsi que Scott Tannas. L’élection des sénateurs risque d’exclure la possibilité de représentants des CFC. Pourtant, dans l’Ouest canadien, les francophones ont été parmi les premiers à fièrement représenter cette région du pays au Sénat lors de sa fondation. Dans les conditions actuelles, une grande tradition canadienne pourrait être en voie de se perdre.

Il est aussi généralement tenu pour acquis, quand on pense à l’Alberta, mais non exclusivement, que les langues officielles ne sont pas des thèmes que l’on aborde facilement dans le cadre d’élections provinciales ou fédérales. Or, les sénateurs représentants les CFC ont historiquement toujours défendu les droits des minorités francophones et ont mobilisé l’opinion publique sur ces questions. Il est fort à parier qu’un francophone qui tenterait de se faire élire pour défendre les droits de ces minorités aurait encore moins de chance de gagner son élection. Comment ces questions seront-elles abordées au Sénat si des CFC ne sont pas en mesure de se faire élire pour en parler ? La dualité linguistique pourra-t-elle continuer à avoir une réelle signification et présence dans les institutions politiques si le principe électif est le seul qui guide la représentation au Sénat ?

Pour revenir à l’exemple albertain, un francophone s’affichant pour défendre les langues officielles n’aurait pas beaucoup de chance de l’emporter. De plus, quand on

209 Mark Bonokoski, « Ridiculous, in both official languages », The Toronto Star (19 juin 2011) 44 à la p 44.

67

68

pense au pourcentage de voix de Guy Desrosiers au tableau 8 lors des élections sénatoriales albertaines en 1998, soit 16,70 %, un pourcentage appréciable par rapport au pourcentage de francophone de cette province, il s’est placé au troisième rang. Le système électoral qui a été mis en place, même s’il n’empêche pas des candidats francophones de se présenter, ne permettra donc pas de garantir une représentation favorable à la communauté francophone de cette province.

La réforme du mode de nomination des sénateurs proposée par le projet de loi C-7 pose donc un grand défi au fédéralisme et à la dualité linguistique au profit d’une approche plus populaire ou populiste peu amène au principe d’équité de représentation. Or, comme nous l’avons vu plus haut, au Canada, l’idée d’une représentation équitable des intérêts minoritaires devrait, pour des raisons historiques, géographiques et politiques, guider toute réforme des institutions. Le principe populaire ne peut à lui seul faire l’économie de la complexité de la représentation politique au Canada, notamment en ce qui a trait à la représentation des intérêts des CFC ou des minorités de langue officielle au sein des institutions. S’il a sa place au sein de la Chambre des communes, le principe populaire n’est pas le seul garant de la démocratie au Canada. Comme nous l’avons vu tout au long de ce rapport, le fédéralisme et la démocratie canadienne se conjuguent aussi avec l’idée d’équité et de diversité. Il y a au moins huit sénateurs des CFC presque en tout temps dans l’histoire de l’institution sénatoriale. La présente réforme risque de réduire encore plus ce nombre déjà 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 représente un véritable recul sur le plan des droits politiques.

68

69

CURRICULUM VITAE

École d'études politiques

A) NOM : NO. D'EMPLOYÉE

CARDINAL, Linda, Professeure titulaire, permanence 64361 Membre de la Faculté des études supérieures et postdoctorales : oui

B) TITRES UNIVERSITAIRES :

Doctorat École des Hautes Études en Sciences Sociales, Paris, France, Sociologie, 1987

Maîtrise Université d'Ottawa, Sociologie, 1983 B.A. Spéc. Université d'Ottawa, Sociologie, 1981

C) EXPÉRIENCE :

2009-2014

2006-2007

2004-2009

2002 -2004

1999 -1995 -1999 1992 -1995 1987 -1992

Titulaire de la Chaire de recherche de l'Université d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques Titulaire de la Chaire en études canadiennes, Université Sorbonne Nouvelle — Paris 3 Titulaire de la Chaire de recherche de l'Université d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques Titulaire de la Chaire Craig Dobbin en études canadiennes, University College Dublin (Dublin, Irelande) Professeure titulaire, Université d'Ottawa, Science politique Professeure agrégée, Université d'Ottawa, Science politique Professeure agrégée, Université d'Ottawa, Sociologie Professeure adjointe, Université d'Ottawa, Sociologie

Professeure et conférencière invitée :

2012 Bureau des Affaires francophones et francophiles, Université Simon Fraser, Vancouver, octobre.

2011 Centre for Research on Ethnic Relations and Nationalism, Université de Helsinki (Finlande), mai.

2009 Language, Policy and Planning Research Unit, Université de Cardiff (Pays de Galles), février.

2008 Peter O'Brien Fellow, Université Concordia (Montréal), Département de science politique et Institut d'études canado-irlandaises, septembre à décembre.

70

2007 Association allemande d'études canadiennes, Grainau (Allemagne), février; Centre d'études canadiennes, University College Dublin (friande), février; Faculté de Droit et Centre d'études canadiennes, Université Libre de Bruxelles (Belgique), mars.

2006 Centre of Excellence for Gender and Constitutional Law, Université de Tohoku, Sendaï (Japon), juillet.

2005 Royal Flemish Academy of Belgian Arts and Science, septembre 2004 School of European Studies, Cardiff University, Pays de Galles, octobre 2003 Dublin City University (friande), décembre; Queen's University Belfast

(Irlande du nord), octobre; National University of Ireland, Galway, mars

Chercheure associée :

Groupe de recherche interdisciplinaire Irlande-Québec (GRIIQ) Centre for Research on the English Speaking World (CREW), Université Sorbonne Nouvelle Paris 3 Centre d'études en relations internationales, Fondation nationale de science politique, Paris (France) Honorary Fellow, Université de Cardiff (Pays de Galles). Language, Policy and Planning Research Unit. Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur l'immigration et la citoyenneté, Université du Québec à Montréal (CRIEC) Centre de recherche interdisciplinaire sur la diversité au Québec, Université du Québec à Montréal (CRIDAQ) The Women's Movement Archive Project, University College Cork, Cork (friande) (membre du comité international encadreur)

2008 -2009 2007 -

2006-2007

2006 -

2006 -

2004 -

2000-2003

DISTINCTIONS :

2011

2009-2014

2009-2010

2008-2011

2008 -2010

2008 - 2009 2004-2009

2004-2007

Prix Clef de Voûte, décerné par la Fédération de la jeunesse francophone de l'Ontario (FESFO) à une personne ayant contribué à l'avancement de la francophonie et au changement favorable aux femmes. Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, Université d'Ottawa Récipiendaire du prix d'excellence en recherche de la Faculté des sciences sociales, Université d'Ottawa Nommée par la ministre du ministère du Patrimoine canadien au Conseil d'administration du Musée canadien des civilisations Nommée par le ministre des Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes du Gouvernement du Québec au conseil d'administration du Centre de la francophonie des Amériques Boursier Peter O'Brien en études canado-irlandaises, Université Concordia Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, Université d'Ottawa Senior Honorary Fellow, Faculté des Arts, University College Dublin

2

71 .

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

Postes de direction : 2012-2015 Membre du Bureau des gouverneurs de l'Université d'Ottawa 2012-2014 Membre de l'exécutif de l'Association internationale de science politique.

Membre du comité de programme 2011-2014 Coordonnatrice de la mineure et du certificat en études des francophonies,

Université d'Ottawa 2009-2012 Présidente du Comité de recherche 50 « Langue et Politique » de

l'Association internationale de science politique 2009-2012 Représentante de la Société québécoise de science politique à

l'Association internationale de science politique 2009-2011 Responsable francophone des recensions à la Revue canadienne de science

politique 2009-2010 Responsable du comité des candidatures, Société québécoise de science

politique 2009-2010 Présidente sortante, Société québécoise de science politique 2009-2012 Membre du comité de rédaction de la revue internationale en études

québécoises, Globe 2009-2011 Responsable des recensions, Revue canadienne de science politique 2009--- Comité consultatif de la revue virtuelle HistoireEngagée 2008-2011 Membre du comité consultatif de la Revue canadienne de science politique 2008-2009 Présidente de la Société québécoise de science politique 2007-2008 Présidente du Comité des sections régionales — ACFAS 2007-2008 Vice-présidente de la Société québécoise de science politique 2006-2009 Co-présidente, Comité de recherche 50 « Langue et politique »,

Association internationale de science politique 2006-2009 Membre du Conseil d'administration de l'Association francophone pour

l'avancement du savoir 2006 -2010 Comité de direction de l'Observatoire sur la gouvernance de l'Ontario

français 2005 - 2010 Comité scientifique de la revue d'études postcoloniales LIANES 2004 - 2008 Membre du comité consultatif de la Revue canadienne de science politique

Comités universitaires et professionnels :

2012-2013

2011-2012

2012

2011

Membre du comité exécutif du Centre d'études en gouvernance de l'Université d'Ottawa Membre du comité organisateur des États généraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa Comité externe d'évaluation du département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal Comité d'embauche, poste en méthodes quantitatives, École d'études

3

72

politiques; Comité de recrutement francophone; Comité des archives du CRCCF Membre du jury de la bourse de maîtrise et de la bourse de doctorat sur la francophonie canadienne attribuée par le Collège des Chaires sur la francophonie canadienne, le CIRCEM et le CRCCF Membre du jury de la Bourse Diefenbaker, Conseil des Arts du Canada Comité externe du département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal Membre du comité d'encadrement des cotutelles, École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa Comité externe d'évaluation du département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal Membre du comité de la recherche de l'Institut canadien de recherche sur les minorités linguistiques Membre du comité exécutif du Centre d'études en gouvernance de l'Université d'Ottawa Membre du comité d'évaluation des bourses de recherches en études canadiennes de la Canada Ireland University Foundation Comité externe d'évaluation du département de science politique, Université du Québec à Montréal Membre du comité 24 pour l'attribution des subventions ordinaire du Conseil de recherche en sciences humaines du Canada (CRSH) Membre du comité de recherche de l'Association des universités de la francophonie canadienne (AUFC) Responsable des ateliers d'intégration des étudiants de 2' et de 30 cycle à la vie universitaire, École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa Membre du Collège des Chaires de la francophonie canadienne, Université d'Ottawa Membre du comité externe de Condition féminine Canada Membre du comité consultatif universitaire sur la réforme démocratique, Gouvernement de l'Ontario

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

Évaluations d'articles et de projets de recherche :

2011 Évaluation d'articles pour la Revue canadienne de science politique, Politique et Sociétés et Minorités linguistiques et société.

2010 Évaluation d'articles pour Globe, Revue internationale d'études québécoises, Recherches sociographiques et la Revue canadienne de science politique.

2009 Évaluation d'articles pour la revue Recherches sociographiques 2008 Évaluation des demandes au programme des bourses sur la francophonie

canadienne du Fonds québécois de recherche sur la société et la culture (FQRSC)

2007 Évaluation d'un projet de recherche pour le CRSH et d'articles pour les revues Reflets, Revue internationale d'études canadiennes, Recherches sociographiques, Revue canadienne de science politique

4

73

2006 Évaluation d'articles pour les revues Politique et Sociétés, Globe, Francophonies d'Amérique et Lianes.

Experte-conseil :

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

2005-2006

Centre national de formation en santé (CNFS) Ministère de la Formation, des Collèges et des Universités Ministère de la Justice du Canada Procureur général de l'Ontario; Ministère de la Justice du Canada Ministère de la Justice du Canada; Ministère du Patrimoine canadien Procureur général de l'Ontario; Commissariat aux langues officielles du Canada Procureur général de l'Ontario; Coalition nationale des femmes francophones; Commissariat aux langues officielles du Canada

Organisation de colloques et séminaires :

2012 Co-responsable de l'atelier « Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire », Société québécoise de science politique, Université d'Ottawa, 23-25 mai.

2012 Responsable du colloque « limovative Strategies for Linguistic Minority Vitality », Cardiff University et Tresaith Youth and Cultural Center, Pays de Galles, 23-26 avril.

2011 Co-responsable du colloque «Penser la ville : Ottawa, lieu de vie français », Université d'Ottawa, 3-4 novembre.

2011 Co-responsable du colloque « Régimes linguistiques et traditions étatiques : un état des lieux », Université d'Ottawa et Association internationale de science politique, 9-10 septembre.

2011 Co-responsable de l'atelier, «Les nouveaux politologues francophones », Congrès de la SQSP, Université du Québec à Montréal, 19 mai.

2011 Co-responsable de l'atelier, «Les francophones hors Québec comme enjeu de la philosophie politique au Canada et au Québec », Congrès de la SQSP, Université du Québec à Montréal, 19-20 mai.

2011 Co-responsable du colloque, L'appartenance irlandaise au Québec, ACFAS, Université Bishop, 12 mai.

2010 Co-responsable de l'atelier «Bilan de la science politique au Québec », Congrès de la Société québécoise de science politique, Université Laval (Québec), 20-21 mai.

2010 Responsable d'une séance sur les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire au sein de la francophone canadienne, ACFAS, Université de Montréal, 11 mai.

2010 Co-organisatrice du colloque Québec-Irlande sous observation : les petites nations et les crises, ACFAS, Université de Montréal, 10 mai.

2009-2010 Membre du comité organisateur du congrès annuel de l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario

2009 Responsable du congrès de la Société québécoise de science politique, «

5

74

Les voies multiples de la science politique », Université d'Ottawa, 27-28 mai.

2009 Responsable du comité organisateur du colloque «La transformation des institutions et la reconfiguration du lien politique », Université d'Ottawa, 27 mai.

2009 Membre du comité scientifique pour le colloque, « La francophonie des Amériques et ses mondes », ACFAS, Université d'Ottawa, 12-13 mai.

2009 Co-organisatrice du colloque, «Des accommodements pas toujours raisonnables : l'Irlande, le Canada français et le Québec », ACFAS, Université d'Ottawa, 13 mai.

2008 Co-organisatrice du colloque « Philippe Garigue et la sociologie du Canada français : contributions et controverses », Université d'Ottawa, 26 septembre.

2008 Co-responsable du colloque « Gouvernance et démocratie au sein des minorités linguistiques et nationales », Université d'Ottawa, du l er au 3 mai.

2007 Responsable du colloque «Au-delà des mouvements sociaux ? », Université d'Ottawa, 26 septembre.

2007 Responsable du colloque «Le conservatisme : le Canada en contexte », Université de Paris 3 — la Sorbonne Nouvelle, 27-28 avril.

2006 Co-responsable du colloque «Le fédéralisme, le Québec et les minorités francophones du Canada », Université d'Ottawa, 9-11 mars.

2004-2005 Co-responsable du colloque «Le débat sur les politiques linguistiques au Canada et en Europe », Université d'Ottawa, 31 mars, 1' et 2 avril.

F) DIRECTION DE TRAVAUX D'ÉTUDES SUPÉRIEURES:

i) Résumé indiquant un total pour la carrière entière, et selon les catégories suivantes :

Nombre total supervisé : 35 : 25 maîtrises, 9 doctorats Nombre complété : 23 : 21 maîtrises, 2 doctorats Nombre en cours : 12 : 5 maîtrises, 7 doctorats

ii) Description détaillée des thèses dirigées pour les sept (7) dernières années :

Doctorat

- Sophia Muller, Charter Dialogue and Federalism: the case of Quebec (titre provisoire), première inscription, janvier 2011. - Marie-Christine Gilbert, L'antifédéralisme au Canada. Un courant de pensée oublié, première inscription, novembre 2010. - Djamel Cheikh, La mise en conflits des langues : pouvoir, territoire et perceptions citoyennes, première inscription, septembre 2010. - Stéphanie Chouinard, L'idée d'autonomie pour les minorités francophones hors Québec à l'épreuve des juges, première inscription, septembre 2010 - Stéphane Pageau, L'écologie des populations des groupes d'intérêts au Canada,

6

75

première inscription, septembre 2010. - Helaina Gaspard, Le bilinguisme de la fonction publique fédérale (provisoire) première inscription, septembre 2010. - Anne-Andrée Denault, Le fédéralisme, la mondialisation et les rapports entre le Québec et les francophones du Canada, première inscription, janvier 2007 à octobre 2012. - Jackie Steele, Liberty Before Liberation. Towards a Feminist Republican Theory of Citizenship, mai 2005 à octobre 2009.

Maîtrise

- Andréane Gagnon, La grève d'Amoco à Hawkesbury (titre provisoire), première inscription, printemps 2012. - Julien Abord-Babin, L'identité acadienne et le dossier de la santé au Nouveau-Brunswick (titre provisoire), première inscription, printemps 2012. - Mila Younès, Le féminisme mulsuman (titre provisoire), inscription printemps 2012. - Guillaume Guitard-Lortie, Les pays scandinaves et l'identité européenne, première inscription, septembre 2010 à octobre 2011 (recommandé en vue du prix de thèse dans les Humanités). - Joshua Kirchner, Interculturalisme, cohésion sociale et politiques publiques, septembre 2010 à juillet 2011. - Cynthia Dupont, La Francophonie internationale (titre provisoire), première inscription automne 2009. - Caroline Trottier, L'Organisation internationale de la francophonie, première inscription, printemps 2009 à août 2010. - Simon Letendre, Les effets identitaires des programmes d'immersion françaises, le cas de la Colombie-Britannique, première inscription, automne 2008. - Chantal Terrien, Médias et politique : le Règlement 17 et la cause Montfort, mai 2005 à mai 2010. - Maxine Haskel-Léger, The Case of Acadie-Bathurst: Protecting Minority Rights and Representation in the Canadian Electoral System, septembre 2008 à octobre 2009. - Martin Normand, La Partie VII de la Loi sur les langues officielles, été 2007 à été 2008 (prix René Lupien). - Martin Joyal, Le comportement électoral des Franco-Ontariens, septembre 2006 à mai 2007. - Maria Uribe, Le fédéralisme asymétrique au Canada, janvier 2005 à mai 2006. - Eimear Melvin, L'identité francophone nord-américaine dans les romans La Petite Poule d'Eau de Gabrielle Roy et Volskwagen Blues de Jacques Poulin, University College Dublin (Dublin, Irelande) septembre 2002 à automne 2003. - Janique Vernie, Le traité des Nisga'a et le fédéralisme post-colonial, été 2002 à automne 2002. - Nystrom, Jason, La social-démocratie en Saskatchewan et le discours de l'austérité économique, 1944-1998, automne 1997 à automne 2001 - Hudon, Marie-Eve, Le fédéralisme asymétrique et les minorités de langue officielle au Canada, septembre 2000 à été 2001

7

iii) Comités de thèse de doctorat

- Benoît Secours-Décary, Politique et imaginaire pénal au Brésil (provisoire), École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa (en cours) - Tina Desabrais, Femmes francophones et éducation, Faculté d'éducation, Université d'Ottawa (en cours) - Junichiro Koji, La politique d'immigration québécoise, École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa, avril 2011. - Marc Gervais, Minority Governments in Canada, École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa, 2010. - David Leech, Strength Through Sharing: Mi'kmaq Political Thought to 1761, 2006, École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa, 2002. - Guy Chiasson, Pensée et voir démocratiquement le développement local : le local et la question du politique, École d'études politiques, Université d'Ottawa, 2000.

iv) Évaluateur externe

- Kathleen Charlebois, La mobilisation sociale dans un contexte de gouvernance au Québec et en Irlande dans l'élaboration des politiques de luttes contre la pauvreté, Université de Montréal, mars 2010. - Simon Jolivet, Les deux questions irlandaises, thèse de doctorat, Université Concordia, octobre 2008. - Olivier De Champlain, Modernité avancée et évolution des modèles nationaux de développement : une comparaison des modèles québécois et irlandais, thèse de maîtrise, Université du Québec à Montréal, février 2006. - Paul Dobrowolski, La planification linguistique et l'apprentissage du français langue seconde dans les pays fédérés, thèse de maîtrise, Université Laval, Québec, juin 2005. - Jennifer Cann, Language Policy and Its Implementation in Higher Education in Wales and New Brunswick, thèse de doctorat, Cardiff University, Pays de Galles, janvier 2004.

v) Stagiaires, professionnels de recherche et post-doctorats

- Mélina Leroux (stagiaire de recherche, 4e année), La gouvernance communautaire au sein de la francophonie d'Ottawa. - Édith Leclerc (postdoctorat), La gouvernance des forêts en milieu minoritaire francophone, septembre 2012. - Rémi Léger (postdoctorat), La gouvernance communautaire en milieu minoritaire francophone, janvier 2012 à août 2012. - Koldo Diaz (stagiaire doctoral, University Barrio Sarriena Pays Basque, Espagne), Identité, jeunesse et médias sociaux au Pays Basque, janvier 2012 à avril 2012. - Marie-Hélène Eddie (professionnelle de recherche), janvier 2011 à décembre 2011. - Joël Madore (postdoctorat), Les savoirs de l'engagement : les minorités linguistiques face à leur avenir, septembre 2009 à août 2011. - Kathleen Charlebois (postdoctorat), La gouvernance intracommunautaire au sein de la francophonie canadienne, septembre 2009 à août 2010.

76

8

77

- Eloisa Gonzales-Hilado (stagiaire, Université Carlos III, Madrid), Un droit à l'autonomie pour les minorités nationales au sein du Conseil de l'Europe, février 2009 à février 2010. - Stéphane Lang (postdoctorant), Le développement du bilinguisme judiciaire en Ontario, janvier 2005 à mars 2007. - Anik Sauvé (professionnelle de recherche), janvier 2005 à février 2010. - Gemma Ubasart (stagiaire), Les mouvements sociaux en Espagne, septembre 2004 à janvier 2005. - Nancy Johnston (stagiaire), Les politiques linguistiques au Sénégal, septembre 2004 à mai 2005. - Nathalie Plante (professionnelle de recherche), septembre 2004 (encore en poste)

G) COURS SUPÉRIEURS : (pendant les huit (8) dernières années)

Séminaires 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 Séminaire de méthodologie, 2009-2010, 2010-2011, 2011-2012 Séminaire de doctorat sur la francophonie canadienne, 2009 Sorbonne Citoyenneté et identités au Canada, et Histoire, société et politique au Canada, 2006, 2007 Identité et culture en Amérique francophone, 2003, 2004 Citoyenneté et identités au Canada, 2001, 2002 Théories féministes, 2000 Analyse du système politique canadien, 2004, 2005, 2012-2013 Séminaire en politique canadienne et québécoise, 2000-2001, 2001-2002

H) SUBVENTIONS DE RECHERCHE EXTERNE : (pendant les sept (7) dernières années)

2012 Centre national de formation en santé

A 1 000 $ Recherche (coll. Manon Tremblay, Hôpital Montfort)

2011 SAIC G 6 000 $ Colloque international

2011 CRSH G 8 400 $ Colloque international

2011- CRSH G 187 000 Co-responsable 2014 dans un projet de

recherche dirigé par Anne Gilbert

2011- Centre national de A 40 000 $ Recherche 2012 formation en santé

9

78

2010- Ministère des Collèges et G 32 500 $ Recherche 2011 Universités

2010 Association internationale d'études québécoises

G 500 $ Conférence

2009- Fondation du droit de G 21 804,00 $ Recherche 2010 l'Ontario

2009- CRSH C 1 000 000 $ ARUC, 2014 Recherche

2008- Ministère du Procureur G 108 713 $ Recherche 2009 général de l'Ontario

2008- Fondation du droit de A 5 000 $ Recherche 2009 l'Ontario (en coll. Avec

Mark Power et François Larocque, Faculté de common law)

2008- CRSH C 20 000 $ ARUC, lettre 2009 d'intention

2008 CRSH C 9 050 $ Colloque

2008 Ministère du Patrimoine canadien

G 3 500 $ Colloque

2008 Ministère du Patrimoine canadien

G 5 000 $ Organisation de la Journée internationale de la francophonie

2008 Institut canadien de recherches sur les minorités linguistiques

A 5 000 $ Colloque

2008 Secrétariat aux Affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes

G 2 500 $ Colloque

2007- Ministère du Procureur G 60 306 $ Recherche et 2008 général de l'Ontario coordination

d'activités

2006 Ministère du Procureur général de l'Ontario

G 14 480 $ Recherche

2006- Ministère du Procureur G 84 690 $ Coordination du 2007 général de l'Ontario plan stratégique

sur les services en français dans le secteur justice

2006- CRSH C 45 000 $ Recherche 2009

10

79

2006 Institut canadien de recherche sur les minorités linguistique '

2006 Fondation canadienne pour le dialogue des cultures

2006 Ministère du Procureur général de l'Ontario

2005- Commissariat aux langues

2006 officielles

2005- CRSH (en coll. avec Anne

2007 Gilbert et J. Yvon Thériault)

2005 Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du commerce international

2005 Coalition nationale des femmes francophone (en coll. avec Rachel Cox)

2005- Ministère du Procureur

2006 général de l'Ontario

2004 Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du commerce international du Canada

2003- CRSH

2006

2003 Ministère des Affaires étrangères et du commerce international du Canada

2002- Patrimoine canadien et

2003 l'Association française des municipalités de l'Ontario en coll. avec C. Andrew (U. Ottawa) et Claude Denis (U. Alberta)

2002- Patrimoine canadien

2003

2002- FCAR

2005

A 5 000 $

F 2 500 $

G 16 000 $

G 32 000 $

C 100 000 $

G 5 000$

G 5 000 $

G 155 000$

G 5 000 $

C 53,563 $

G 2 000 $

G 45 000 $

G 26,000 $

C 71 924 $

Colloque

Colloque

Recherche et collaboration à une consultation sur les services en français

Recherche

Recherche

Colloque

Recherche

Recherche

Appui aux étudies canadiennes

Recherche

Appui aux études canadiennes

Recherche

Gestion de la revue Politique et Sociétés

Gestion et numérisation de la revue Politique et Sociétés

11

80

2002- CRSHC C 29 607 $ Gestion de la 2005 revue Politique et

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

I) SUBVENTIONS DE RECHERCHE INTERNE : (pendant les huit (8) dernières années)

2011 Université d'Ottawa, 3 000 $, colloque; Faculté des sciences sociales, 3 000 $, colloque.

2009 Université d'Ottawa, 1 000 $, colloque 2009 Vice-rectorat à la recherche, 100 000 $ pour la Chaire de recherche de

l'Université d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques 2009 Service de la recherche, 5 000 $; organisation d'un colloque dans le cadre

de l'ACFAS; Faculté des sciences sociales 5 000 $ 2008-2009 Deux assistanats de recherche, 10 000 $, Faculté des sciences sociales 2008 Vice-rectorat à la recherche, 5 000 $; Faculté des sciences sociales, 5 000

X 2 $; École d'études politiques, 500 $, Faculté de droit, 2 000 $; Centre d'études en gouvernance, 1 000 $, Service de subvention de recherche et déontologie, 3 000 $, organisation de trois colloques

2006 Service de subvention de recherche et déontologie, 3 000 $; Faculté des arts, 3 000 $ ; et Faculté des sciences sociales, organisation d'un colloque, 3 000 $

2005 Fonds universitaire d'aide à l'organisation de colloque, 3 000 $ 2004 Vice-rectorat à la recherche, 100 000 $ pour la Chaire de recherche de

l'Université d'Ottawa sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques

J) PUBLICATIONS :

i) Résumé indiquant un total pour les 7 dernières années, et selon les catégories suivantes :

Livres rédigés par l'auteure ..................................................................................... 4 Livres édités par l'auteure ..................................................................................... 18 Chapitres de livres ................................................................................................. 54 Articles publiés dans des revues avec comité de lecture ....................................... 41 Contributions majeures sur invitation et/ou rapports techniques .......................... 29 Résumés de communications et présentations .................................................... 178 Autres .................................................................................................................... 32

ii) Description détaillée des publications d'après les mêmes catégories pour les sept dernières années :

12

81

Livres édités par l'auteure:

18. Linda Cardinal, Simon Jolivet et Isabelle Matte, Le Québec et l'Irlande aux XIXe et XXe siècles : culture, histoire, identité, Montréal, Septentrion, 2013 (sous presse)

17. Linda Cardinal, Minorités, langue et politique, numéro spécial de la revue Politique et Sociétés, vol. 29, n° 2, 2010.

16. Linda Cardinal et Jean-Michel Lacroix, Le conservatisme : le Canada et le Québec en contexte, Paris, Presses Sorbonne Nouvelle, 2009, 213 p.

15. Dimitri Karmis et Linda Cardinal, Les politiques publiques au Canada : pouvoir, conflits et idéologies, Québec, Presses de l'Université Laval, 2009, 402 p.

14. Joseph Yvon Thériault, Aime Gilbert et Linda Cardinal (dir), L'espace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montréal, Fidès, 2008, 564 p.

13. Linda Cardinal, Le fédéralisme asymétrique et les minorités nationales et linguistiques, Sudbury, Éditions Prise de parole, 2008, 456 p.

12. Nicholas Brown and Linda Cardinal, Managing Diversity: Practices of Citizenship in Australia, Canada and Ireland, Ottawa, University of Ottawa Press, 2007, 208 p.

Chapitres de livres:

54. Linda Cardinal et Simon Jolivet, «Les modalités d'intégration des Irlandais catholiques au Québec et en Ontario. Le cas des conflits scolaires au tournant du 20e siècle », dans Linda Cardinal, Simon Jolivet et Isabelle Matte, Le Québec et l'Irlande aux 2riXe et .210C siècles : culture, histoire, identité, Montréal, Septentrion, 2013 (sous presse)

53. Linda Cardinal, Éric Champagne et Marie-Hélène Eddie, « Consortium national de formation en santé », dans Caroline Andrew, Ruth Hubbard et Gilles Paquet (dir.), Gouvernance communautaire : innovations dans le Canada français hors Québec, Ottawa, Invenire, p. 31-43.

52. 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 français hors Québec, Ottawa, Invenire, p. 95-105.

51. Linda Cardinal, « Language Regime in Canada and in Québec: From Competition to Collaboration? », RECODE Working Paper Series, European Science Foundation, University of Helsinki, Online Working Paper n° 2, 2012, 13 pages.

13

82

50. Linda Cardinal, «L'avenir du français dans un Québec interculturel », dans Gérard Bouchard (dir.), Actes du symposium international sur l'interculturalisme, Montréal, www.symposium-interculturalisme.com, 2012, chapitre 7, 23 pages.

49. Linda Cardinal et Martin Normand, « Des accents distincts : les régimes linguistiques ontarien et québécois », dans Jean-François Savard, Alexandre Brassard et Louis Côté (dir.), Les relations Ontario-Québec : un destin partagé, Montréal, Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 2011, p. 131-158.

48. Linda Cardinal, «Fédéralisme et langue », dans Michel Seymour (dir.), Le fédéralisme multinational : Un modèle viable?), Bruxelles, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2011, p. 247-268.

47. Linda Cardinal, «Minorités, langue et politique », présentation du numéro, Politique et Sociétés, vol. 29, d 2, 2010.

46. Linda Cardinal, « Language policy-making and planning in Québec and in Canada », dans Rudy, Jarrett, Stéphan Gervais et Christopher Kirkey dir.), Quebec Questions. Quebec Studies for the Twenty First Century, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2010, chapitre 13, p. 186-203.

45. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, «Immigration, langue et diversité culturelle en Ontario », dans Vera Regan, Isabelle Lemée et Maeve Conrick (dirs.), Multiculturalism and Integràtion. Canadian and Irish Experiences, Ottawa, Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa, 2010, p. 13-42.

44. Linda Cardinal, «Le Québec et le monde atlantique », Bulletin d'histoire politique, numéro spécial sur le thème L'idée de république au Québec sous la direction de Marc Chevrier, vol. 17, n° 3, 2009, p. 17-28.

43. Linda Cardinal, « Quelle citoyenneté pour les minoritaires ? Une réponse républicaine », dans Mark Dubrulle et Gabriel Fragnière (dir.), Identités culturelles et citoyenneté européenne, Bruxelles, P.I.E. Peter Lang, 2009, p. 51-72.

42 Linda Cardinal et Dimitri Karmis, « Introduction », dans Dimitri Karmis et Linda Cardinal, Les politiques publiques au Canada : pouvoir, conflits et idéologies, Québec, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2009, p. 1-6.

41. Linda Cardinal, Stéphane Lang et Anik Sauvé, «La coordination des langues officielles et la formulation des politiques publiques : apprendre à travailler autrement », dans Dimitri Karmis et Linda Cardinal, Les politiques publiques au Canada : pouvoir, conflits et idéologies, Québec, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 2009, p. 155-180.

40. Linda. Cardinal, « La participation des minorités francophones hors Québec à la vie politique au Canada : comment combler le déficit démocratique ? », dans Yvon Thériault, Anne Gilbert et Linda Cardinal (dir), L'espace francophone en milieu minoritaire. Nouveaux enjeux, nouvelles mobilisations, Montréal, Fidès, 2008, p. 385-430.

14

83

39. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andrée Denault, «Les lois linguistiques du Canada et du Québec à l'ère de la mondialisation: pour un changement de paradigme », dans Linda Cardinal (dir.), Le fédéralisme asymétrique et les minorités, Sudbury, Prise de parole, 2008, p.

168-197.

38. Linda Cardinal et Biljana Kostadinov, «Les nouvelles avancées du fédéralisme asymétrique : Le Canada en perspective », Collected Papers of Zagreb Law School, vol.

57, ris 4-5, 2007, p. 727-741.

37. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andrée Denault, Èmpowering Linguistic Minorities: Neo- Liberal 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.

36. 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. 434-

459.

35. Linda Cardinal et Rachel Cox, «Représentation et légitimité des groupes de femmes francophones vivant en milieu minoritaire au Canada », dans Marie-Blanche Tahon (dir.), Les frontalières, Montréal, Éditions du remue ménage, 2007, p. 96-117.

34. Linda Cardinal, « La jeunesse francophone au Canada : une recherche aux accents prometteurs », dans Michel Bock (dir.), La jeunesse au Canada français, Ottawa, CRCCF et Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa, 2007, p. 267-270.

33. Linda Cardinal et Marie-Joie Brady, «Citoyenneté et fédéralisme au Canada : une relation difficile », dans Alain-G. Gagnon (dir.), Le fédéralisme canadien au 21e siècle :

fondements, traditions, institutions, Montréal, Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 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.

32. Linda Cardinal, «Les enjeux de la diversité linguistique au Canada et au Québec », dans Jacques Palard et al (dir.), La diversité des identités au Canada et dans l'Europe des régions, Québec et Bruxelles, Les Presses de l'Université Laval et P.I.E.-Peter Lang, 2006, p. 93-118.

31. Linda Cardinal, « La judiciarisation de la politique, les droits des minorités et le nationalisme canadien », Écrits en l'honneur de Claude Ryan, Forum Constitutionnel/Constitutional Forum, vol. 13-14, ris 3-4, 2005, p. 60-64.

30. Linda Cardinal, « Neo-institutionalism in Québec Political Science », dans André Lecours (dir.), Neo-institutionalism: theory and analysis, Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2005, p. 128-150.

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.

28. Linda Cardinal et Luc Juillet, «Les minorités francophones hors Québec et la gouvernance des langues officielles au Canada », dans Jean-Pierre Wallot, La gouvernance linguistique : le Canada en perspective, Ottawa, Presses de l'Université d'Ottawa, 2005, p. 157-176.

Articles publiés dans des revues avec comité de lecture :

41. Linda Cardinal, Éric Champagne et Marie-Hélène Eddie, « Nouvelle gouvernance publique et innovation : le cas du Centre national de formation en santé », Gouvernance (sous presse).

40. Jérémie Connut, Carolle Simard, Maya Megen et Linda Cardinal, «L'embauche dans les départements de science politique francophone au Québec et au Canada. Un bilan des années 2000-2010 », Politique et Sociétés (sous presse).

39 Linda Cardinal et Anne Mévellec, «La représentation politique des francophones à la ville d'Ottawa », Francophonies d'Amérique (sous presse).

38. Linda Cardinal, Marie-Hélène Eddie, Marc Johnson et Martine Plourde, «L'analyse différenciée francophone », Revue du Nouvel Ontario (sous presse).

37. Linda Cardinal, «L'identité en débat : repères et perspectives pour l'étude du Canada français », Revue internationale d'études canadiennes, nos 45-46, 2012, p. 53-66.

36. Linda Cardinal et Eloisa Gonzales-Hildago, «L'autonomie de minorités francophones hors Québec au regard du débat sur les minorités nationales et les minorités ethniques », Minorités linguistiques et société, vol. 1, n° 1, 2012, p. 51-65.

35. Linda Cardinal et Martin Papillon, «Le Québec et l'analyse comparée des petites nations », Politique et Sociétés, vol. 30, d 1, 2011, p. 75-94.

34. Linda Cardinal, «Politiques linguistiques et mobilisations ethnolinguistiques au Canada et en Grande-Bretagne depuis les années 1990 », Cultures et conflits, n'79-80, 2010, p. 39-56.

33. Linda Cardinal, «Pourquoi le Québec devrait-il renouer avec le débat sur son avenir au sein du Canada ? », Note critique, Recherches sociographiques, n° 3, 2010, p. 423-434.

32. Linda Cardinal et Martin Normand, «Philippe Garigue et la sociologie du Canada français », Recherches sociographiques, n° 3, 2010, p. 386-403.

16

85

31. Linda Cardinal, Stéphane Lang et Anik Sauvé, «Les minorités francophones hors Québec et la gouvernance des langues officielles : portrait et enjeux », Francophonies d'Amérique d 26, 2008, p. 209-233.

30. Linda Cardinal, «Bilinguisme et territorialité : les enjeux de l'aménagement linguistique au Canada et au Québec », Hermès, n°51, 2008, p. 133-139.

29. Anne-Andrée Denault et Linda Cardinal, «Rupture et continuité : une relecture des récits des effets de la révolution tranquille sur les rapports entriles sociétés acadienne et québécoise », American Journal of Quebec Studies, vol. 43, 2007, p. 67-81.

28. . Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andrée Denault, « Empowering Linguistic Minorities: Neo- Liberal 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-Andrée 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.

26. Linda Cardinal et Stéphane Lang, «Les Franco-Ontariens et la pensée constitutionnelle de Roy McMurtry », Mens, Revue d'histoire intellectuelle de l'Amérique française, vol. 7, n° 2, printemps 2007, p. 279-311.

25. Linda Cardinal et Rachel Cox, « La représentation 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.

24. Linda Cardinal, 'Language Politics and Horizontal Governance', International Journal of Sociology of Language, n° 23, 2007, p. 89-107.

23. Linda Cardinal, «Langue, droit et politique : la théorie libérale et le débat sur les langues minoritaires », Supreme Court Law Review, n° 31, 2006, p. 217-233.

22. Linda Cardinal, « Gouvernance linguistique et démocratie : la participation des minorités de langue officielle à la vie publique au Canada », Gouvernance, vol. 2, n° 2, 2006, p. 39-49.

21. Linda Cardinal et Gilles Paquet, « Theorising small nations in the Atlantic world: Scottish lessons for Québec?, British Journal of Canadian Studies, vol. 18, n° 2, 2005, p. 214-231.

20. 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.

17

86

Contributions majeures sur invitation et rapports techniques :

31. Linda Cardinal, François-Olivier Dorais et Nathalie Plante, Le milieu associatif à Ottawa: vitalité, engagement et appartenance, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2012, 25 pages.

30. Linda Cardinal, Éric Champagne et Marie-Hélène Eddie, Une étude de la gouvernance du Centre national de formation en santé, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2012, 48 pages.

29. Linda Cardinal, C'est l'temps. Le premier mouvement de revendication pour des services en français dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario, 1975-1977, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2011, 52 pages.

28. Linda Cardinal, François Charbonneau et Tina Desabrais, Francophonie et éducation postsecondaire en Ontario. Résultats de la recherche sur la gestion de données et la mise en oeuvre de mesure permettant de quantifier l'éducation postsecondaire en langue française en Ontario, Toronto, ministère de la Formation, des Collèges et des Universités, 2011, 29 pages.

27. Linda Cardinal, Élaine Déry, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, La gouvernance communautaire en Ontario français : une nouvelle forme d'action collective ? Volume 1 : Un portrait des groupes communautaires, Ottawa, Observatoire sur la gouvernance de l'Ontario français, mars 2010, 49 p.

26. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, De la théorie à la pratique : les mécanismes d'offre et de demande des services en français dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : le point de vue des fonctionnaires et des usagères et usagers, volume 2, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2009, 93 pages.

25. Linda Cardinal et Anik Sauvé, De la théorie à la pratique : les mécanismes d'offre des services en français dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario, volume 1, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, 2008, 74 pages.

24. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, 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.

23. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, Les jeunes francophones en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages.

22. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, 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

87

21. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, Les immigrants francophones en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages.

20. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, Les francophones appartenant à une minorité visible en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages.

19. Linda Cardinal, Nathalie Plante et Anik Sauvé, Les femmes francophones en Ontario : un profil statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2006, 38 pages.

18. Linda Cardinal, Sétphane Lang and Anik Sauvé, Les services en français 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.

17. Linda Cardinal, Stéphane Lang et Anik Sauvé, Apprendre à travailler autrement : la gouvernance partagée dans le domaine du développement des langues officielles au Canada, Ottawa, Commissariat aux langues officielles, décembre 2005, 62 p.

16. Linda Cardinal, Stéphane Lang, Nathalie Plante, Anik Sauvé et Chantal Terrien, La francophonie ontarienne : un portrait statistique, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2005, 97 p.

15. Linda Cardinal, Stéphane Lang, Nathalie Plante, Anik Sauvé et Chantal Terrien, Les services en français dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : un état des lieux, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2005, 127 p.

14. Linda Cardinal, Stéphane Lang, Nathalie Plante, Anik Sauvé et Chantal Terrien, Les services en français dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : répertoire, Ottawa, Chaire de recherche sur la francophonie et les politiques publiques, octobre 2005, 207 p.

13. 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.

Résumés de communications et présentations :

178. Linda Cardinal, « Le mouvement social des carrés rouge représente t-il la fin ou le renouveau du nationalisme au Québec », Séminaire du CIRCEM, Université d'Ottawa, 21 novembre 2012.

19

88

177. Linda Cardinal, «Le Mouvement C'est l'temps : le temps du renouveau en Ontario français », colloque du réseau Histoire Engagée, Université 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 français, Université d'Ottawa, 20 septembre 2012.

175. Linda Cardinal, Éric Champagne et Marie-Hélène Eddie, « Innovation et nouvelle gouvernance publique : le cas du Consortium national de recherche en santé », Société québécoise de science politique, Université d'Ottawa, 23 mai 2012.

174. Linda Cardinal, « Savoir et engagement au sein de la francophonie: deux chantiers en cours », Réseau de la diapora djiboutienne d'Ottawa, École secondaire Garneau (Orléans), 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 à Ottawa », colloque de l'Association américaine d'études canadiennes, Ottawa, 18 novembre 2011.

171. Linda Cardinal, « Les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en français », Faculté de droit, Université d'Ottawa, 17-18 novembre 2011.

170. Linda Cardinal, « La fin du projet linguistique canadien ? », colloque « De la question nationale à la question sociale ? », Université d'Ottawa, 10 novembre 2011.

169. Linda Cardinal et Anne Mévellec, « La représentation politique des francophones à Ottawa, 1980-2010 », colloque Penser la ville. Ottawa, lieu de vie français, Université d'Ottawa, 3-4 novembre 2011.

168. Linda Cardinal, « La mobilisation des savoirs et les partenariats de recherche », Symposium sur les langues officielles, Ministère de la Justice du Canada et Patrimoine canadien, Ottawa, 31 août, 2011.

167. Linda Cardinal, «La coproduction des savoirs : enjeux conceptuels et méthodologiques », Alliance de recherche sur les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire, Université de Moncton, 30 août 2011.

166. Linda Cardinal, «Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire », présentation dans le cadre des activités de l'Assemblée de la francophonie de l'Ontario, Ottawa, 18 juillet 2011.

20

89

165. Linda Cardinal, «L'avenir du français dans un Québec interculturel », Symposium Interculturalisme 2011, Université du Québec à Montréal, 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-Hélène Eddie, «Le mouvement C'est l'temps et le domaine de la justice en Ontario », présenté au CRCCF, 2 mars, 2011.

162. Linda Cardinal, « Les droits des minorités et la question des droits de la personne », présenté au CRISEF, 18 novembre 2010.

161. Linda Cardinal, «L'identité canadienne-française hors Québec en débat : bilan et prospective », présenté au CIRCEM, Université d'Ottawa, 14 octobre 2010.

160. Linda Cardinal, «Le mouvement C'est l'temps », congrès de l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, Strasbourg (France), 1-3 juillet, 2010.

159. Linda Cardinal, « Les régimes linguistiques et le développement des services aux minorités : le cas de l'Ontario », congrès de l'Association des juristes d'expression française de l'Ontario, Strasbourg (France), 1-3 juillet, 2010.

158. Linda Cardinal, «L'autonomie des minorités linguistiques : le Canada en perspective », ICRML, Université de Moncton, 16-17 mai, 2010.

157. Linda Cardinal, « Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire en Ontario français », ACFAS, Université de Montréal, 11 mai, 2010.

156. Linda Cardinal, « L'identité francophone en débat », CREFO, Université de Toronto, 9 mars 2010.

155. Linda Cardinal et Nathalie Plante, « Profil de la gouvernance organisationnelle des groupes de l'Ontario français », Alliance de recherche sur les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire, Université d'Ottawa, 13 novembre 2009.

154. Linda Cardinal, «Fédéralisme et langue : les avancées et reculs du fédéralisme canadien », Laboratoire de recherches et d'études sur le fédéralisme et les institutions, Université d'Ottawa, 15 octobre 2009.

153. Linda Cardinal, «Fédéralisme et langue : les enjeux », Conseil privé, 6 octobre, 2009.

152. Linda Cardinal, «Une politique sans héros? Commentaire sur Daniel Innerarity », Université du Québec à Montréal, 29 septembre 2009.

151. Linda Cardinal, «Fédéralisme et langue : l'incidence du fédéralisme d'ouverture sur les

21

90

régimes linguistiques canadien et québécois », Université du Québec à Montréal, 28-30 septembre, 2009.

150. Linda Cardinal, «L'action collective des minorités linguistiques : comparaisons canadiennes et européennes » congrès de l'Association française de science politique, Grenoble (France), 7-9 septembre 2009.

149. Linda Cardinal, « Considérations théoriques sur les rapports entre langue et politique », congrès de l'Association internationale de science politique, Université de Chili, Santiago, 10 au 15 juillet 2009.

148. Linda Cardinal et Martin Papillon, «Le Québec et l'analyse comparée des petites nations », congrès annuel de la Société québécoise de science politique, Université d'Ottawa, 27-28 mai 2009.

147. Linda Cardinal et Guy Laforest, « Language Planning and Policy-Making in Québec », 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 », Université de Cardiff, pays de Galles, 19 février, 2009.

145. Linda Cardinal et Anik Sauvé, «Les mécanismes d'offre et de demande dans le domaine des services en français en justice », Réseau des intervenantes et intervenantes francophones dans le domaine de la justice, Toronto, 12 février 2009.

144. Linda Cardinal, « The Other Atlantic World : Quebec and Ireland in Comparative Perspective », présenté au Centre d'études canado-irlandaises, Université Concordia, 28 novembre 2008.

143. Linda Cardinal et Anik Sauvé, «De la théorie à la pratique : les mécanismes d'offre dans le domaine des services en français », ministère du Procureur général, Toronto, octobre 2008.

142. Linda Cardinal, «Philippe Garigue et la sociologie du Canada français », présenté à l'Université d'Ottawa, 26 septembre 2008.

141. Linda Cardinal, « La diversité linguistique en Ontario », présenté au colloque biannuel de l'Association d'études canadiennes en friande, Dublin, 15-17 mai 2008.

140. Linda Cardinal, «Les nouveaux enjeux politiques : les rapports entre le Québec et la francophonie canadienne », colloque Vue d'ici et d'ailleurs. Francophonies minoritaires en perspective, ACFAS, Québec, 7 mai 2008.

139. Linda Cardinal, «La comparaison Québec-Irlande : un nouvel objet d'étude », colloque Culture, histoire, identité : le Québec et l'Irlande, d'hier à aujourd'hui, ACFAS, Québec, 6 mai 2008.

22

91

138. Linda Cardinal, «Portrait et gouvernance des minorités linguistiques : perspectives comparées », présenté à la conférence Métropolis, Halifax, 4-5 avril 2008.

137. Linda Cardinal, «Commentaire et réactions à l'étude de Statistique Canada, Les minorités de langue officiellè prennent fa parole, Université d'Ottawa, colloque du CIRCEM, 10-11 mars.

136. Linda Cardinal, «Bilinguisme et valeur des langues à l'ère de la mondialisation : le cas du Canada », présenté à l'Institut des langues officielles et du bilinguisme, Université d'Ottawa, 25 janvier 2008.

135. Linda Cardinal, «De la politique au droit à l' empowerment : le développement des minorités de langue officielle au Canada », présenté au ministère du Patrimoine canadien, Gatineau, 21 novembre 2007.

134. Linda Cardinal, « Le développement des services en français dans le domaine de la justice en Ontario : un exemple de bonne pratique », présenté au ministère de la Justice du Canada, Ottawa 24 octobre 2007.

133. Linda Cardinal, «Les langues officielles au Canada », Chaire d'histoire nord-américaine, Université Paris 1, 30 avril 2007.

132. Linda Cardinal, «Après le multiculturalisme ? La gouvernance des politiques publiques de l'identité au Canada », présenté au Centre d'études en relations internationales, Sciences po, Paris (France), 20 mars 2007.

131. Linda Cardinal, « Citoyenneté et fédéralisme : comparaisons Canada-Europe », présenté au Centre de droit public et constitutionnel, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Bruxelles (Belgique), 9 mars 2007.

130. Linda Cardinal, « State Intervention and Identity Policies : Quo Vadis ? », présenté au Centre d'études canadiennes, University College Dublin (friande), 23 février 2007.

129. Linda Cardinal, « La Charte canadienne des droits et libertés et la juridisation du débat linguistique au Canada », présenté à la conférence annuelle de l'Association allemande d'études canadiennes, Grainau (Allemagne), 16-19 février 2007.

128. Linda Cardinal et Aime-Andrée Denault, « Empowering Linguistic Minorities in Canada and in Wales », présenté au congrès de l'Association internationale de science politique, Fukuoka (Japon), 9 au 13 juillet 2006.

127. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andrée Denault, « Citizenship and Linguistic Policies in Canada in an Era of Globalization », présenté au colloque « Citizenship, Diversity and Gender », Université de Tohoku, Sendaï (Japon), 4 juillet 2006.

23

92

126. Linda Cardinal, « Quelle citoyenneté pour les minoritaires ? », présenté au colloque « Conceptions et évolutions de la citoyenneté », Institut d'études politiques, Université de Rennes, 16 juin 2006.

125. Linda Cardinal, « Le débat contemporain sur les langues minoritaires : l'apport de l'analyse comparée à l'étude des minorités », présenté au congrès de l'ACFAS, Université McGill, 18 mai, 2006.

124. Linda Cardinal et Anne-Andrée Denault, « Les politiques linguistiques canadienne et québécoise et la mondialisation », présenté au colloque «Le fédéralisme, le Québec et les minorités francophones du Canada », Université d'Ottawa 9-11 mars 2006.

123. Linda Cardinal et Stéphane Lang, « Les Franco-Ontariens et la pensée constitutionnelle de Roy McMurtry », présenté au Centre de recherche en civilisation canadienne-française, Université d'Ottawa, 19 janvier 2006.

122. Linda Cardinal, « La recherche internationale sur les conditions critiques d'émergence des langues minoritaires », Commission nationale des parents francophones, Ottawa, 28 octobre 2005.

121 Linda Cardinal, « Étude du projet de Loi S-3 », présenté au Comité 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 », présenté à la conférence 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, «Représentation et légitimité des groupes de femmes francophones au Canada », présenté au e congrès sur la recherche féministe en francophonie plurielle, Université d'Ottawa, 5-8 juillet 2005.

118. Linda Cardinal, « Gouvernance linguistique et démocratie : la participation des minorités de langue officielle à la vie publique au Canada », présenté à la Fédération des communautés 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 Société québécoise de science politique, Université d'Ottawa, 24-26 mai 2005.

116. Linda Cardinal, « La dévolution au Royaume-Uni », commentaire présenté à la conférence Que reste t-il de Cool Britannia ?, Université de Montréal, CÉRIUM, 5-7 mai 2005.

115. Linda Cardinal, « Language Rights and Political Theory », présenté au Département of Politics, University College Dublin, 23 février 2005.

24

93

114. Linda Cardinal, «Les récits de la citoyenneté au Canada : quelle place pour le fédéralisme? », présenté à la conférence sur le fédéralisme organisée par la chaire de recherche en études québécoises et canadienne de l'Université du Québec à Montréal, 28-29 janvier 2005.

Autres :

37. Linda Cardinal, «Qui d'Ottawa ou de Québec fera le premier pas? », Le Droit, 13 septembre 2012.

36. Linda Cardinal, « Que restera-t-il du projet linguistique canadien en 2015? », L'état du Québec 2012, Montréal, Boréal, 2012, p. 460-462.

35. Linda Cardinal, « Les francophones seront-ils bien représentés par leurs élus? », Le Droit, 21 juin, 2011.

34. Linda Cardinal, La mobilisation des connaissances : réflexions méthodologiques et formalisation d'une approche. Note de lecture, Ottawa, Alliance de recherche Les savoirs de la gouvernance communautaire, 2011, 4 pages.

33. Linda Cardinal, François Charbonneau, Pierre Foucher, Gérard Lévesque et François- Olivier Dorais, «Juges bilingues : le Sénat doit lutter pour l'égalité », Le Droit, 15 décembre 2010.

32. Linda Cardinal, «Les fausses inquiétudes du candidat Hillier, Le Droit, 6 avril 2009.

31. Linda Cardinal, « Michael Ignatieff et les francophones hors Québec », Le Droit, 17 mars 2009.

30. Linda Cardinal, «Au travail! », Le Droit, 12 décembre 2008.

29. Linda Cardinal, «Réflexions sur les nouveaux enjeux politiques au sein de la francophonie canadienne », Monde commun, www.mondecommun.ca.

28. Linda Cardinal, compte-rendu critique de l'ouvrage de Nicola McEwen, Nationalism and the State: Welfare and Identity in Scotland and Québec, (Pieterlen: Peter Lang, 2006, 212 pp, pb, £23.50, ISBN 0820466506), Scottish Affairs, n° 60, automne 2007, p. 119-124.

27. Linda Cardinal, « Le discours de la FCFA est insatisfaisant », Le Droit, 3 octobre 2007.

26. Linda Cardinal, « La refondation de la francophonie canadienne : une tâche nécessaire mais difficile », Le Droit, avril 2005.

25. Linda Cardinal, «Le bilinguisme de façade », Le Droit, 18 janvier 2005.

25

94

Activités avec les médias :

Télévision (45) :

TFO-Relief, Entretien avec Gisèle Quenneville au sujet des États généraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa, 31 octobre 2011. Rogers, Entretien à Ginette Gratton reçoit au sujet du chantier de recherche sur Ottawa, 31 octobre 2011. TFO-Panorama, Entretien avec Gisèle Quenneville au sujet des mécanismes d'offre de services en français 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 français dans le domaine de la justice, 2 février 2009. TFO-Panorama, Entretien avec Gisèle Quenneville au sujet de la crise parlementaire, 12 décembre 2008. TFO, Panorama, Entretien avec Gisèle Quenneville sur le sujet des données sur la langue et l'immigration de Statistique Canada, 5 décembre 2007. TFO, Panorama, Entretien avec Gisèle Quenneville sur le sujet du leadership de la Fédération des communautés francophones et acadiennes du Canada, 18 octobre 2007. TFO, Panorama, Entretien avec Gisèle Quenneville au sujet des élections fédérales, 15 décembre 2005. Rodgers TV, Francopinion, Entretien avec Ginette Gratton, Bilan de la scène fédérale, 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 identités franco-ontarienne et acadienne, le 16 juin 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fédérale, 12 mai 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fédérale, 13 avril 2005. SRC, Entretien avec Mireille Allaire, la situation du français dans les municipalités ontariennes, 18 mars 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fédérale, 6 avril 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fédérale, 12 mai 2005. TFO, Panorama, Panel sur la politique fédérale, 20 janvier 2005. TFO, Table ronde sur l'Université franco-ontarienne, 5 janvier 2005.

Radio (39) : CBON- Sudbury, Entretien sur la vitalité de la francophonie ontarienne, 25 septembre 2012. SRC-Windsor et Sudbury, Entretien avec Caroline Borduas sur les résultats des élections au Québec, 6 septembre 2012. CJOF, Entretien avec Denis Boucher sur les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en français de l'Ontario, 17 novembre 2011.

26

SRC-Toronto, Entretien sur les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en français de l'Ontario, 17 novembre 2011. SRC-Sudbury, Entretien sur les 25 ans de la Loi sur les services en français de l'Ontario, 17 novembre 2011. CJFO, Entretien avec Véronique Soucy sur les étapes des États généraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa, 7 novembre 2011. CJFO, Entretien avec Denis Boucher sur la représentation politique des francophones, 21 juin 2011. CJFO, Entretien avec Denis Boucher sur les États généraux de la francophonie d'Ottawa, 16 juin 2011. CJFO, Table-ronde sur les États généraux du Canada français, octobre 2010. SRC-Saskatchewan, Entretien sur le projet de loi C-232, juin 2010. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Benoît Cantin sur les services en français en justice, 4 mars 2010. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Annie Poulin sur les services en français en justice, 3 mars 2010. SRC-Sudbury, Entretien avec Maude Rivard sur le programme de contestation judiciaire, 8 octobre 2009. SRC-Ottawa, Émission Carl Bernier et Cie, Entretien sur le programme de contestation judiciaire, 8 octobre 2009. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Gisèle Jeanson de l'émission Au-delà de la 417 sur la publication du rapport annuel du Commissaire aux langues officielles, 26 mai 2009. CBON-SRC-Sudbury, Entretien au sujet du développement des services en français dans le domaine de la justice, 13 janvier 2009. SRC-Ottawa, Le monde selon Mathieu, entretien au sujet de mes recherches sur les minorités linguistiques, 18 avril 2008. SRC-Ontario, Entretien avec Gisèle Jeanson de l'émission Au-delà de la 417 pour commenter la candidature de Madame Hilary Clinton à la présidence du Parti démocrate aux États-Unis, 4 mars 2008. SRC-Ontario, Entretien avec Gisèle Jeanson de l'émission Au-delà de la 417 pour commenter l'enquête de Statistique Canada sur la vitalité des minorités de langues officielles au Canada, 11 décembre 2007. SRC-Ontario, Entretien avec Line Boily de l'émission sur les Arts et les Autres sur ma nomination à la chaire d'études canadiennes à la Sorbonne, 3 novembre 2006. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Geneviève Jeanson sur la rencontre de l'AFO à Toronto, 9 juin 2006. France-Culture, Entretien avec François Garcin sur les langues officielles au Canada, 10 mai 2006. SRC-Edmonton, Entretien avec Emmanuelle La Mer sur la course à la chefferie du Parti libéral du Canada, 3 avril 2006. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Frédéric Bisson sur la journée internationale de la francophonie, 21 mars, 2006. SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Mario Giroux sur les langues à l'ère de la mondialisation, 10 mars, 2006.

27

96

SRC-Toronto, Entretien avec Ramin Pezeshki sur les francophones dans la campagne électorale, 17 janvier 2006.

- SRC-Montréal, Entretien avec Éric Larouche sur la rencontre des premiers ministres à Banff et la question de l'éducation supérieur, 12 août 2005. CBC-Ottawa, Entretien sur la candidature de Gilles Duceppe à la tête 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( off-snore resources itdms. "Tt: is difficult to tell at the present time.ifthére is-a modifiCailon of our exi5Lih9 Positions which .1je "acceptable to hotte roderai Cabinet Ministers and the provinces; Nevr- theless, if tiffe ,are to barqain tu-gOod d faith, w advance some new positions 3inç, 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 reconvenés on August 26.

GiiidancçtOn 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 açkage Patriation with amending formula and. Charter of Rights (including mobility rights and minority language ricihts) applies oniy:ta the federal government with provincial eptingin.

Packale Sanie as Tackagc I, except that. the Charter of Rigeit4 would be binding upon boih leVel4-6f 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.

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 çan tOlerate.at any given point in time. That is, whilc it may helegal, Is ,t PolitieallY wise (or the "federal 90veYnment to net 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, çonstitutes agreement with the provinces, I L

also raines the question of whether Ministers want tu he able to elaim legitimacy for thcir actions by seek-i0g 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 Épring, 1981.

Thus Ministers nec« td addres, threg speci,île 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 hàvé 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 department? 'Un so doinq, We wooleMke:i't-.clear te

the

provinces that we cOuld flot guaraeteeé4binot approval of the posif;ions we were advanéinyil.à.t .

tn-order to make 'ho neqotiations Meaning-ful 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.diegâetbe commUnicatiens pin outlined in thediSeussion-.:PapetIpage-14), ta see they agree witb. tbee:eeptgAis being.A3vërl,

I t'ishould alsb bë 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-là1t budgut and measurte which may be requieed to 4MpieMent. the gavernmenUs energy Pregraffi,- IrLparticulât,:::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 complétion of Lhe Fir st_ i e linstrs COnference . o r_aftet the budget debate is,ovet (thus delaying its introduction until Close te.Novembet I).

Ministers ma also witnt to discass in n. pre-liminary way the process which the Joint AddteÉ,s will take, in the lieuse. For o's;ample.'; will to a COMMittee? Will debated in COMmittee7of- the-WhOle? Win the vete on the

-rcsolution ho a

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-liamentar Strategy'whICI will , - deVellopcd in con)unction wi.th-pe(YAnd Mr. t i.rr

.

oLfice STÀ1,71,ÏJst -

âi l'ho-Meeting

Following ote meeting with Yonon wodnesdaY morning, Mr. Chrétien will prepa're a '1„?.ed of rocommend- atIOns for Ministers on the contrdi i.:;suu5; raised in the discussionpaper and thi-s memorandum. This Indy heiP to focus Ministerial discussion on the key strA- Legiç 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 thé provinces-.

• Miçhael J Ki bY

MJ L K : t c

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).

The memorandum is divided into three main sections;

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.

A summary timetable of relevant events appears below:

May 20

May 21-24

June 9

June 17

July 8-11

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'.

SECRET

Week 2 - Constitutional talks . continue in Toronto.

Weèk 3 - First phase of intensive con-Stitutional discussion concludes 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.

August 14-15 Quebec National Assembly discussion of constitutional reform.

August 21-22 Annuel Premiers' Conference to be heid in Winnipeg.

August 26-29 Final CCMC meeting in this round of talks. To be heid in Ottawa. Possible extention into week of September 2.

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. Powers .over the Economy

11. Communications

12. Senate/Second Chamb r

.105

July 15-18

July 22-24

July 24-25

July 28 -August 25

SECRET

106

/ 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 unreason-able in his emotional reaction against the concept of the economic union.

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 off-shore 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;

107

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 Senatê 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.

SECRET

/I âtatus Report: Progress Made on the 12 items

This section of the paper is divided into three parts:

The People's Package


- 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


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 for-mulas 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.

112

113

-10-

S 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 two-thirds 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 w-ould 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 régime 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 à 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 Cana-dien 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 funda-mental 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 entrench-ment of minority language education rights;

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 entrench-ment if an acceptable general override (not-withstanding) 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 faceraliàm combined. with its free adherence to the federal system. At the officiels meeting, Quebec did not ask that provincial self-de-termination 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 éther 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.

115

116

- 13- SECR E T

There was also•wide 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 them-selves 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 eca►-omy. - The federal stand on resources ownership and.inter-provincial 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 owner-ship 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 post-poned despite pressure from other provinces for it to be discussed.

At Vancouver, Ministers spent some time in private sassions on the resources issue. Mr. Chrétien 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 représent-atives, 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. Chrétien 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. Chrétien 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 workablé 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 revenue-sharing formula.

Ali the provinces argue,that offshore res-oarces 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 position. iiowevor.wheu it comas-ta implementing e 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. Chrétien maintained his initial position. At the end of the second week, he was therefore pressed by the provinces to table a precise proposai con-cerning 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 adminis-trative 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 féderal minister to override provincial views might be made more difficult than in the MemOrandum de F771A.er-standingl

SECRET

- 15-

éhe 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.

118

Fisheries

The draft Mémorandum 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 consider-able 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 environ-mental 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

R T

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 differ-ences. The federal position is that exclusive federal jurisdiction should be maintained, but that "légal mechanisms" not necessarily of a constitutional nature 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 prin-ciplé 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 differ-ences 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 accept-ance 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 recog-nition 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 clari-fied powers of its own. The result has been that the pro-vinces 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 enforce-ability.

5. Equalization

The initial federal objective to secure consti-tutional 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 discus-sions) 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) on the need for a new second chamber,

b) that the new second chamber not be an elected body,

that it be composed of provincial representatives, bût 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 (B•C•) 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

g) that there was a willingness to discuss further the establishment of another category of suspensive powers.

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 représentatives 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,

(ii) use of the federal spending power in areas of provincial jurisdiction,

(iii) federal legislation to be administered by the provinces,

(iv) use of emergency powers, requiring ratification within a certain petiod after imposition,

The Committee retained for further examination:

(v) aPpointments to major federal boards or commissions in areas related to provincial jurisdiction,

(vi) matters which might emerga in the overall process of constituticnal review which might prove to.be apprcpriately handled in this way.

Considered for inclusion in this list bUttentatively rejected at this time moere the ratification Of constitu-tional amendmentai a role in appoiàtments to the Suprema Courti determining "compelling national interest" on federal invoivement in naturel resources issues, ratifi-cation of treaties, approval of intetgovernmental dele-gations 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 ratifi-cation 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 iden-tified. 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 constitu-tional 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 featuré 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 pro-Vided 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 con-sultation 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 require-ment 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 deadlock-breaking 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 oné which would allow Parliament to set the allowances, salaries and pensions of judges by means other than through an Act of Par-liement, 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 pro-vincial concerns and then referred family law to the Committee of Officiais dealing with the Supreme Court and the Charter of Rights. There was complete agree-ment 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 ordérs: Ontario and Quebec felt this could be handled by provincial legislation. There was general recognition that compréhensive family law legislation must recognize the mobility of Canadiens and that deficiencies exist in the présent 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 juris-dictional 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 juris-diction in the whole field of divorce and expanà-ing 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 hé 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 annul-ment 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 main-tenance 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 legis-lation. 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 - SECRET

Communications

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

Initial Federal Position

To strive for agreed ob-jectives as a guide to future discussions;

To stress the integrated nature of the four issue areas (cable television, broadcasting, telecom-munications and radio spectrum);

To stress the intra-provincial/inter-provincial principle 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 intrapro-vincial 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;

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.

Some difficulty in the telecommunications carriers

in area;

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 Sub-Committee, 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 govern-ment 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 inter-national 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 intra-prnvincial activities of the telecommunications' carriers. Ministers_then requested officiels to de-velop 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 interpro-vincial aspects of telecommunications carriers with general provincial mare-motintcY 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 tele-communications 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 federàlproposal 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 Sub- Committee 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

- 29 - 3) Cable

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 prefer-ence for the Vancouver draft over the federal draft•while 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 alter-natively 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 flexi-bility, 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 object-ives, 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 govern-ment 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 thé issues which will détermine 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 prèssed to do so. The Most useful perspec-tive 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 thé 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 prin-ciple 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

- 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 emOtion it hia-ganirated-Orithe-ààrt àf paâàli

-rike Kr. RomanOW),'little comprômise on our hard line posi-tion 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 it. To achieve this viii require that the federal 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.

136

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,

Phase Promotion of the option of 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 post-September 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-à-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 non-confrontation 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 co-ordination 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 unila-teraily 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 action -- large or small is likely to give rise to 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

SECRET '36 -

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 Constitu-tion 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 consider-able 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 Consti-tution 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, thé Tact that there will be the perception of no significant change will give bath Mr. Lévesque 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, patriation by itsalf be controversial and will provoke criticism by certain circles in Quebec, including bath Lévesque 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 govern-ment, 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 govern-ment. 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 entrencâment of a broader Section 121, Canadian citizen-ship 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 "central-ism" 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 commu-nications (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.

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

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

144

CONFIDENTIAL

August 21, 1980

145

CONFIDENTIAL

August 19, 1980

MEMORANDUM TO TliE PRIME MINISTER

Federal Position on Second Chamber Révision

This papes considers feders1 government strategy. concerning the issue of second chamber révision for the August 26-29 CCMC meeting and the September S-12 First Ministers' Conference, Sections I and II review negotiating considérations, SectionSIII and IV analyse longer-terra objectives and alternatives, and SectionsV and VI lay cut the considérations and Teçommendations 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 révision 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 législative 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 précise 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 Çonsiderations

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 thé 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 fédéral position on .this subject at the August CCMC and September First Minister Conference is desirable for the following reasons:

(1) In order to influençe 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.

(3) 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 ÇCMC 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 fôr a revised second chaffiber with realiatic powers or an effective institutional alternative càuld. 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 with-standing decentralizing pressures.

(4) 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 o-Jgations 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 issüea politically rather than judicially.

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 bé 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 thé 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. Thià 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 révision,. the impact of a revised second chamber upon , the operation and- procedures of the House of Commons

1-èei t; be clearly borne in mind. In àrder to achieve a strong union- in S coUntri -CcmpCsed of:Vigorous regional and provincial diveriitieetnéce is;a need for a better expresaion of régional end provinCial .viewpoints in. the second chamber. This would enhance the political acçeptability of. thé 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 impor-tant factor to be takehinto consideration.

(4) Sirice some areas of Overlapping jurisdiction betweet-

federal 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.

(5) The institutions through which areaSof joint federal-provincial concern are handled Shou ld- bé 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 differshOée, between the federal and prOvincial governMentSandhel4 the federal government to get its point acrosStothe.--publiC

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

(ii) initiation of législation

conducting investigatory étudies

(2) representatiOn oe regionalend minority interests ) ensuring effective. represeàtaticn for lissa populous

regions and provinces

prOtecting minority rights linguistic rightS, rights of native peoples)

(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 juris-diction (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 adminiÉetered 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 législative 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 operàtive section in the Constitution concerning the "economic union".

(iii) PrOmotiOn Of federal-provincial consultation and agreement on particular areas of joint concern" (i,e., in those areas outlined in (i). and

(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 incréasin.g its representativeness by introducing an element of proportional,*-representation, and the extent to which political review rather than expanded judicial revïew 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 apeci-fiad as required-to establiah constitutionality:

(i) declaration in the bill that it is a derogation;

(ii) . ratification before it becomes law by an intergovern-mental council or the second chamber, subjeCttO e vote requiring one of the following forms of majority:

(eF 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 thé Federal and provincial covernments were represented as 11 equal units;

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 pluà 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 requiremént 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 repeeeeee: within-S(or possibly 7) yearse enabling reviewed.

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 tô challenge successfully the constitutionality of such derogations.

Since both provincial and fédéral legisletion_involyine derogations must be- subject to review and ratifiCatiOn, thé..

e euggested procédure 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 federâl 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 thé western ore-vinceS 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 7rench-speaking Canedians through the system of representationor through special voting or procédure' 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 distr±-bution of seats.

While equality of provincial representation les perhaps thé most appropriate forts fer an intergovernmental council, in a legislative chamber the particular Cenadiah Oolite:kt wculd OeobàblY 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 spécial voting pattern (e.g. Bill C-60 double majority requiremént) or (ii) 4pprova,1 by a special duality committee of the chamber composed equally of in francophone and anglophône Canadians Beige Paper proposai). either prOcedure it would be preferable to have the francophone .component- includé 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 considéred for a revised second legislative chambet, but such an arrangement would be less appropriate in a second chamber or an intergoVern-mental council which was composed of governeental_représentatives 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 rolè 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, howevér

i has . parliamentary cabinet systeM and Australien experiencè suggests that the power of auch a senate would need te ..)e limited to a suspensive veto and the eClusich of the power to delày supply bills in ordér to ensure that

CONFIDENTIAL

151

such a second chamber would not rival the House of Commons or undermine cabinet responsibility to that House. The Australien expérience 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 élection by.proportional représentation by province thus enabling a broadening of regional repregentatitm in Ottawa for each national party without having to intro-duce a component of proportional representaticm '(end, hence two classes of members) into the House of ComMons.

(2) Indirect élection. 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 asseffibliée usine proportional representation in order to ensure représentation of minority parties and interests. Tri Malaysia and Nigeria a simple majority system ef elect±en 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 élection) proposed in Bill C-60. The disadvantaee of such a system would be that the members wôuld 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 sincé 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 un-equivoeally 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 for-Such enatrange-ment in a revised Canadien constitution (e.g. Canade_West FoUndation, Canadien Bar ASsoCiatien; Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation, 3.C. government, Pepin-Roberts 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 régional views, and therefore its powers would need to be defined and. limited accordinely. On. the other hand, it would provide a basis for including intérgovernmental 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 appéats to have oUtlived its legitimacy in public eyes.4

Acceprability to the public and to governments;

(1) To public (as indicated by opinion surveys):

(i) préférence for elected second chamber;

152

CONFIDENTIAL

(ii) second preference for balancad federal-provincial representation;

(iii) difficulty of public understanding overly complex institutions.

(2) to federal government:

desire to legitimize regional representativeness of federal institutions;

(ii) concern to avoid blocks to effective federal action;

(iii) desire te balance federal concessions to provinces with-provincial. concessions te federal government.

(iv) interest in providing a political (i.e., non-judicial) process for reviewing and approving dero-gations 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.idVindi-al-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:

concern that federal policies and actions take account of provincial governments' concerns, especially where they have impact on areas of provincial jurisdiction;

(ii) concern about being by-passed as spokesmen of regional and provincial views;

(iii) preference of some (e.g., Saskatchewan) for political rather than judiciai resolution of derogations from common market.

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 derogationà 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

(i)

153

CONFIDENTIAL

chamber would have two distinct memberships and proce-dures for handling the ratifying (i.e., intergovern-mental functions) and for handling the general legis-lative 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 consti-tutional provision leaving the method of selection for each provincial législature 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 législation 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 legisla-tive review function. In the exercise of this function the Orovincially appointed Senators would have mnlv oné 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 thé method of appoint-ment 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.

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 in-appropriate in so far as it is proposed in both variants that the chamber would have no .initiating powers and would be confined to ratifying fédéral .initiatives. In both cases, the nossibility of the second chamber:becoming a "bouse of obstruction" is reduced by limiting its veto on most federal législation to a suspensive veto of 90 deys. The knowledge that obétruction 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, thé fonr.variants_would nrovide a significant_ vote for federal appointees who could act as genuine spokes-men 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, there-fore, 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 représentation within each province from party lists.

(ii) The House of the Federation (e.g., Bill C-60) composed of members indirectly elected, 50% by the provincial législatures and 50% by the House of Commons, to reflect prpportionately the provincial or federal vote., at the last élection.

(iii) The Provincial House (e.g., Atlantic provinces and Manitoba at CCMC July 1980) composed of representatives appointed by the provincial government or législatures (PoSsibly with method of élection left by the constitution to bé determined by the provincial legislatures as in Switzer-land) for a fixed term and voting freely, with up to 25% of the membership appointed by the Federal govern-ment or the House of Commons.

(iv) The Federally appointed Senate (e.g., existing Canadien Senate) with all members appointed by the Federal govern-ment.

The first of these variants would have the greatest public appeal and would provide an alternative way of-broadening the régional representation of national parties in Ottawa -to that of intro-ducing a component of proportional représentation 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.

154

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 féderal initiatives in

. certain specified areas, non-voting federal spokesMen would participate to present federal proposais. Most prOVinoés would favour equal representation in such a bedy, but B.C. Ontario, and Quebec at the CCMC and the Beige Paper advocated weighted or régional représentation. Chairman7 ship would rotate.

(ii) The /ntergovernmental Council (, Australian tcàhS Council) would be an extension but not a replaceMent of the First Ministers' Conference, with powera voting pattern Of this council specifiCd in the con-stitution. The provincial. délégations 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.

(iii) The Combined Intergovernmental Council, which would ,take the foret of the Federal Council for ratification-6f federal initiatives in specified areas, and of. the Inter-gOvernmentel Council for dealing with derogaticns to s.121 and with other intergovernmental negotiations.

0f these variants, the Federal Council would appear the most appropriate for ratifying federal initiatives in 'nattera affècting' 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 third-variant 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 distinét institutions would cover between them the full range of functions outlined in Section III (b). By keeping the second législative 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 législative chamber (or for that matter with abolition of a second chamber) easier because membership and procedures do not have to be inter-linked. 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 révision 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 legis-lative 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 législative 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 régional membership must be provincial government repré-sentatives 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 procédures of the House of Commons, while enabling immediate action on the concerns which the provinces regard as primary.

(b) The Intérim 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 intérim measure would be to proVide for the performance Of the intergovernmental functions by the establish-ment 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 sti-pulating 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 législation 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 agree-ment 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 proceduré 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 révision 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 "unilatéral" federal action about which the provinces are concerned and for safeguarding by a political process the économie 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 tenta-tive 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, implémentation 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 condi-tional upon provincial concessions over the economic and other issues under discussion. Furthermore, although the CCMC discus-sions 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 parti-cular 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 Pepin-Roberts variant is net adopted, an ultimate outcome involving two distinct institutions is to be are-ferred. 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 and•would increase the likelihood of provincial.. aJceptance.

s. The preferred form of federal second legislative .chàmber. (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 difficult-ies. 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

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 a•néw 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 doéuMent "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 govérn-

ment instruction;

(b) as a second step, to look at thé deSirability of a w dg

rale of review of Sousa of Commons législation 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 nstitu-

tion or of having two separate institutions for thosir

functions;

; 160

161

CCNFIDENTTAL

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

(whether there àhould be égualaty of representation

by proVinCe or region or a weightecl ,forMula)) and

(e) to consider whether the new body or bodieà 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-prOt•itcial concert.

Rola of the new iMatitutict

There was a general view in the Commit:tee t.nat vê

,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 e3

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 législation ta be adMinistered

provinces.

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 bée d

and commissions;

matters which have or might emerge in. the overall

process or constitutional'review which MinisterS . _ deem .appropriate.

The Committee considered the failowing matters,

action by the: new institution, but the géneralView

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 areas ce prOv;:n'ciai.i:

urisdiction.

(iii) 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 thé 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 à 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 représentatiOn 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 Procédures

It was generally agree&that memberw WOuld castra

bloc vote by 'province on instruction by theirpeo-

vincial 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 critéria 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) Basià 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- Othér

consideratione. One preferred equality fart Pive:

régions 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

It•was 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

CONFtpEntrÂta .,

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 e 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 delegatés alone would debate.and

vOte on matters eor ratification. Both delegates and

agents wculd debate bills under legislative raview.

Arguments in favour of havinç 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 agréement 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 pointà emergedl

(i) there was gene, synpathl for accommodating.the

dualism concept:

(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 défini

such a concept;

(iv) it was felt that the Mechaniems .or dealing with-dUalisM

cOuid only beptdperly discussed when a:more—canote'

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 membérs 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

COMMITTEZ 'REPORT

CONFIDEUT/AL.

A.PPENDIX

MiniSterial Document

Points of à Senate Consensus

In priVate dIscussidn, „the Sinisters 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 coealàeration be liven ta the poSaiOility of federal represeAtat s et the eame. the rale and poWera of the second chambi a discussed.

that on representa

a) a majority wanted equa- reSentation On el province by province basic

b) some:wantid elweighted rapresen:.atei.tca,e on an undeterMined number per four regions as a oasis

one province wanted egual represente ç 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 de a actions in such areas as:

a) dedla-atory power

b) federal spending power

c) amendments to the Constitution

d) other powers as contained in the British Columbia proposai

and, that there was a willingn'ass to disc!.:sa. further the establishment oi another category of suspensive powers. •

This consensus is to be used as discussion, aster governments have given consideration.

oasis furthar

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. Chrétien 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 constitu-tional 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 cons-titutional 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 jurisdic-tion. 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. Chrétien should make clear at the CCMC August meeting, that the implementation of the partial solution would be conditional on a satisfactory reso-lution of the "economic issues" at the same time. Mr. Chrétien 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 dis-cussions 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 represent-ation 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 propor-tions) 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 Minis-ters (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 pro-vinces 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 juris-diction 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 deroga-tions 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

V 4 e

Memorandum for Ro,15er Rabinovitch

Const:tutional Discussions

secret

201

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 has diverted attention among the 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 is-lratœ 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 yeti 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 or not. In Montreal, thepmzInsluA.121dgd any 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

ce,•-4 44.

2, The main federal achievement was to put some 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 aria—thUr-Imettferg-unilateral action, and to isolat° the 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 intereste 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. a f - a_, / 4.4

203

It hes uetmen2qt!blished that the federal government wàuldinsistoriirrrnIragertliet is, on the provinces choosing a renîmed—Sénate 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, that the Government is now in the •ositio g_to negotiate back from a provincia consensus in order to achiove anything other- Man a provincially appointed Senate not the best position to be in,

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, two conceptuel aspects the idea of duality, and the idea of Coderai provincial equality represent the pillars 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 thus seem desira• e o osera government to have a 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 separate-items 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 thé basic balances of theoverall national system. That is, "duality

the idea of two fo din •eoples has been and is the essentia reason lie have prov ne a governments with great powers over rights, language, educatfUn and culture. Büt we have national institutions to demonstrate our essentiel unity. if yoûUTII-Uespite our duality. Transforming national institutions so that they need liElfloàe122th the capacity to be unified and to be divided would represedt a profe r-errier:----ouri ar

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. 0nauta_uid, however, that it was on the table but not a reed. Mr. Romanow took this bail and ran, se ng ou '.s un ers an•ing that "if that is the base"' officiais in Toronto can start from the not-agreed best-efforts draft as a reference point.

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 thé principle of equalization payments rzinces• D.C. alone opposed entrenching the present systen oT federal payments to provincial governments because, as a have province, it7reTérredpaymenti 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 pa' e ts to rovinci han the 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. Mr. e oug on is issue --=-"-T- annot 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-against-powers bargaining dynamic, the federal effort has been directed at getting economic powers into the same comnittee an resourcese 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 commirtée, 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 much more in evidence than provincial. The provinces havé —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, howevere they appear more opposed than ever to entréa-hing. -On -princrales ttey accept the idea but not 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 détermination to stay at the table and avoid justifying federal unilatéral action suggests the matter can be pushed hard.

Finallye 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.

g

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 Auguste

David Ablett

209

n Office of Cabinet du The Prime Minister 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."

ego r. SIttle R, G, ROY.',11 50

MAY 919

Ottawa KM 0A2

210

Hon.Mafc Lalonde Hon.John Reid Mr. Tassé 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 the provinces. It seems to me that, in addition 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 Senate. The Ad Hoc Committee of Ministers 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 consulta-tion 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

2

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 others. This idea would provide a second chamber 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 important for an effective new second chamber. The 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 support for those views in each region. The House 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 popular mandate for it can be secured. It will not be supported by present power-centres - provincial governments, the House of Commons, the Senate or perhaps even the federal Cabinet. All are afraid of a new 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 several versions of an elected Senate. As indicated 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 each provincial election. They also felt the 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 Senate being elected at each federal election. I think there are many arguments against this version:

1. It would put the Senate elections entirely into the federal general election context. In that sense, it would reduce 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 regarded as votes of non-confidence. Its veto on legislation should be suspensive only in the case of matters that are designated as essential for the program of a government. The limitations in 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:

1. Direct election on one two bases:

(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 held in each region. It would also be 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 be positive. I had some indication of this on 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 in each of the two Territories. This year they 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 in Ottawa. He does not think that most westerners 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 regula-tory and other agencies that affect them and their interests.

Capacity to achieve an elected Senate

Jim Hurley has made a point that may be important. An elected Senate, unless it 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 act in order to fill the seats in the House. If 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 province. In short, a change to an elected Senate 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:800-010/004

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?

2. 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 législation 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?

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 consîder 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 govern-ments, including

(al an equal number of seats for each province;

(b) an equal number of seats for each of five regions;

(c) a more nearly equal distribution of seats that would be weighted according to a province's population; and

(d) 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.

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

Z en ••-• a 0 Ç 0 tk Ç *.e0 >5 '13 k'à pb 0.1 > ,u i..... G 01

Z . Cie 3 .....) -c -cl e e -2 e

"a °, 0 0 e2, Z..". g 0 le

k• .... GUO; ••• 0 0 g .z %)

ze 0 ..... .. ... u . ., ..., 0 in 4 te le, z c.) r•Ç

Ci1 '"••• Ca ''Ç ' 2 ,, ,....., ..e3 ,..). ..z 0 ...g. -,.....

4 e4 .0 :yr ... 0 0 Z 0 Z z 0 -.... 0 :-.. .....

0 0 e•Z 0, "0 g "g g • .... ..... cu

>- 0'2 -`"-, Z u • .- t3 eu ...... 0 r.,3 • .t. e c4 -

.. ., - .„ 4 0 .,-à Z ezt 0 ;c. 0 te e ù ....-

e.. ..• o %, 'e" --.. -‘ k.. 1.., ts> %./ t e:3 01 eu Z 0 0 '0 F;) ce ...-2 'Z1 4:::' .1: 0t. -0 ?1 -.• -.° 0- en

=-) 4-,

...... .Z:, .%) ib. ... e ,1 e, re; bd) .". -0 ' •-•

tee, b 10 74 ''' -2 ' g -.. vu to 4. vu

ex; u g 0 ...z 0 g ,ev 0z § . .0 ...., 0 {* .- . -.. •... .....„ iz, 0 e

cs1 ...• e,

O Ce Ç z

G •Ç 4 G

e , ,. 2 'z"..'%' .:.-.e ;`'?' ,-, l' 'i* ... o t • , L 2 o,

-t, cu o • 1:3 ••'' ''e ,..:, .- ... z - ..... - s ,s

,, ..., ..... -, --, ,u „ t-, • „., 1.,_ pà G G ...Z

, G aG 1 i 0 e >e. c% G S.....„ Z IG 0 0 0 ,... z 0 •-• - r.....- 33

v s.., .... % .e.... Ea-,- ›e• I 'e .4.1 ,.., e ° .b.‹., .., 2 , ..••• ,„... , ;.-.. ‘;,,, .e... , 1 , .•z. orz: _.,..s .a ... .„,.„ ........

,s... a ,.,., -- çà e ei r. "ut.3 4? a ,-.- a .,-3 •%, <a n ..n

V] o e , Irs z Fe,,,, z e e `:$ a ts *- e ..e. .. , ,•:, „ z a.. tu Cl ... e k o '•'. ii R. o ".". et o ÇJ 3 F., ,.°.:- -e • z.,

.e « .. ... u Io

... e.

M cd el.) 1 .••••• . — tu 0 ..0 "5.• Io •A c.4. Ci.) 4 4 •-•

ga • 4 G CA G 4 , ›. rs ,,* U

,,?. e 0 ›....- 0 til G Q U Cl ° ô ô eri 11 u nis« u >, Cu e e '.: .0

..= E ....-.; 4) iil. O -. C..) e 1-e e (-3 e • 0 r.. vl e 0 .- .sz -0 0 0 .0 ci

_..„ „, ,_ le = .., 0) cd a.) «=•.• e -5 o en 01 U (,/,

.£2, = . •

0 .M vl 6 cŸ en

g„ = = ....., re z n '',:o' E e.) ou eu _ (.... ,.c o 0 • ..... 4 E

c c Ct. Ct. 71) • •-• e... 0 .e e o et) ..

M el -..m =

= ...., 0 = 0

,-, 9 LL' .le... e u ,r, E

0 e •,5 U = 0 ..cl

t-. c.. e , u --« > e> un 04

..0 •••-•

, sf„

/ G

.4 U > ... Èl• . G E ô

o 0 ... ..., ..c o .0 o -=

'2 x el. n <dl ." ,..,`-' ,,, , 4.. — u <1 u) 0 E e.) oe u ‘.. u ..c r) ° -0 u e 0) t.) ,,... C. 000 =

e c . ‘.. E .E ' .- .-..

4 ..• > ">

..-. = s.' me _ .0 0 ‘...., 0 e ..- ._, 0 › 0., 0 4..• G

t ,3.) c..1 1:4 ezi

U " 75 "ni (.) 6 k..>' ° a , g

4 › U › e u.) e ,e ii. •-• o ,e el u .... Z

4... c., .,... k....., G

0 0 Ge

b

to c ,,) c ..... 0 Ce 04 F-.. ,t..n) g

;a 0 .,....

.,n

e 'cet :1 ' re, g 2 g, â ... >

=

1..«1 01. •A ,

CA e .0 H › ..0•c 0 :', ‘<5. 0. e ›,

cd .0 .0: en cd 0

CC; u ._

e E f..?, •,. 2 = k ..o u - to

0 C ,-. , •... cl u

O. 2 c

41 " - 't . . : -...!: :- 1 . , : s, 01 7. . . .21 e 0 e -o b e 2 ca f,, ._

- 0

a ,.) u,

..• 0 0.•;_, 0 - u ..0 ‘.. - - u...°) : :

a

227

228

e ar

e a

num

ber o

f n

$ 4,) , tm cd 0 6) V> 0 6> U U i:: 0 e CI I) 0 › e 0 y O4 0 u 9. e.0 ,. • o .E 0e)

A. `" . 0 1 0,••• 'el ° 2 .... .1 CIO e 0 u tu) - 0 0..0 f.. ..... ,.. ... i- . u o .4 ic., ci. > x .1 .. a3 -5 El E u ..,„, 0 c:1 ug °

U

fl

a. la u t.... 0 « « ...

ri

yy,

en 0 t> u cn en = mo a I. ''' 0 ••5 0 2, , 0 .. 0 Ir . 4) 'n

= C14

c

OO

= t. = = = am0 r'ri e

44 t .5, 4-.7, -4,3 u , --- ,_, i- .9 I., 0 4) 4,4 c 0.> c, 4:, = Le

cd 'e e 0 .. o g

u e e cli:3 a 4) (.)

4 6) le le 3 0 ,-'e u A (...

e '''‘: u > a.

; 2 e .3.)

,17, ..te e0 0 à te • 0.." = Aii_ O Z 6) 0 7., •-$ u c.) e 0' ,cn '''Zi • 0 4 0 cd q$7. .41 0 -17- ,..« 1.) Q . 0 . e 4.) 4 0 .0 0 0 . .r. 0 -0 tIo ... .... - n « e -. 6) 0 cl 0 '0 cd 4) le cr.1 1211 ,,,

gé. ...I E .-. sil' o g o ce 2 .... in cn . = c '""' c a. '-' i.. t- e., ..... ,., 1s eJ O 0 43 4 = « 0 Q .e 151 te 5 I- >c u ce ..=

›.....5, A fie eo • . . . ,, , : 1-- - la -ei) g • E 2 g 0 0 , • g u ....

u▪ ... e„, ''''' c

8 e .".. 4 = O. 410 19, 1....; mi ,., =. e, 0 •E 0

es cri

e 0 ,-,,J ,... 4 , 0 .-0 ,r, 0..8 et

« t ..-é .0 = 4 U 0 0 4

a (e, .0 41 u) 0 ▪ 4) 43

0. Q .,-. • -• t) 0 Me X .0 .i

0 -- G? >,, fu el ...2 fi

4 0 - o a • ei e e >, 1.... u e ..-• ,e . e ele tr, a) ....' t,ti "I0 Cl• ee 71 0 . .... ..-. >, . - ej ••••••••

là ... 'Cà t) e) ta. -0 • o .. > e « u e « e r..

.„, :0.. .5 .0 1) E = 4,3 ")." : =- ox • u a) g „, .0 4-. o *i.! › •••• o

1-1 _cg ce ce 0 0 ,.„, .z., - - ,., 0 • II = U ten« 0 t g "C> 3 4. ‘,.., -ri .._,, ...-• 0 ..; 2 ci té. 0 oe O e tu w Q -0 0 e n « e • = 0:1 a U tD t.t..1 0 >,

: ..-. 1, .. ,,,i . . Cn -0 e 0 .... e ''' tu es u =

e 4,5 ,.. o 61' cl g -ci • « ne •- 4.0 u 4e• ••• u .1) « « « .« e t.... _. « eo 0 -. u 4_, • e •.„ .-. 4-, 0 0 › • 0 a. 8 04 0 97 Q VI ..0 ' • 0 nt • t... = ..c .- VI

I. = CI

C.> 14 . V U CU en u e = ,,, ...t. ...,e ie.?, ....., c: = osi v, 4., •az ..., e 3 Li ,• e E„ g (.1 . lej cd , 4 -0 te 0 ..-. 4 $•e 10. vl • 4$. r•U 1::3 (,) e., 4.. a > à 8 ;=, E- 4.--- -0 ,,1 c4 E- Lu ,,"; e4 t1.1 .0 g. e C: .0 .0 ......

4) to o 4) • =I ... . -6. 4•». 6 ''S

'e .10 .g "0 .., 10 u ..:1 iii el A e :4 •-• v, e 2. ';':: • 4') 74

el me 'fi e le es •... - ,... a› en > - •-• o e « ci po e >,.se • 0 mi

ê • 2 ' on = e 1 t . . - • - . = nu

.E ., ° ti 4-, c...., 0 me 0 «, elc g • ›, g .9 ..... 0 e ... .. = , 4 0 • CI g ,.-. 1... u cd CA

es a 0 C G • 2 ,.., 0 -0 Cel I: •O E ce >.‘ 0 W 4 0 RI -0 I-. )-' e . ,... 1,.. . 0 >••,0 • = . i., t» . 0 .c • tà eu tà tu 4.. 0

4.4 4' › = n a) 't. ..q -, . >% -ti â ,,.„‘Z Z -2 ...? ..› ce '0 - M JO e .4 . le cl e --, t... +-+ U O ...z z ''' u es el0 .r. t.- e e ,: "C 0 e > ''' E 6) 6) ez1 .-: ..e *, u 0 « u 0 u 7.'d y on Q MI ••••_, 6) C.) 0 cd :73' ,.. cd 4 LI • e 0 -. .2 là) A ..ce U ,..c s = ... .5 â e 3- .1. . g , 0.• . - 1.... .......e • E 0 Fa .4 ei) e . u a. (.) U Ge -00. >st_ 0 41 g'-' -' ,: e 0 e >, e 0 v) e 8 u .9 4., 0 ne 0 0 0 0 t.... ce --. e

..z t.. -0 03 4-, ''-' 4 ta,, 4. 4. 0 cci ne te .e = t- u (0 0 CUI (à g ••••• 0 cil 0 eU • r•; 'e 4 cl -e r, -0 e. 0 e = oe ce ..a' > re 'C •-•

1:1.>< « 0 c g eu E II ° ••4 0. •-, o.i eu e ‘.../ ,,, ,... e E c.., g 0,,, ›,,,,u 3,... c., .... c:,, ° n'9' .4§) ' e 0 e , = 0 cd *- 6) 4-e de 0 63 C6 •-. e E 5 ..._ ... e.,. - ,.0 ,

i) • .... e 0 •e•• Il c,3 .z; - 5 I. '...7, e0 >i 0 "-.. 0 'I) 0 ).< m fi e d • o ca, 0 mze •,.. - 0 . ce, „, ,.., ›. • : cl. ,,.• >-,0 lu 0 . ',i, 7,, 0 -ci 0 ci, - i,, el u .1-,. .. Q • > • r? 0 0 CAS (0) c... g

1.e ,... - -0 0 t) c u e 0 ,..c 0 ..e ( 3 .1; . ne,„) ,., =› .4 0 ,: .

4-, te. .5A

e u 3

cl•

a. tu. ce u •.-, i„,„ cl •• .= "‘ ° 'au e 8 u 04 0 o ça :0 « U el 0..4. :.e. cd 0. 4 3 'r.) E Ô.

229

Pro

tect

ion

a

= Â

o o o 1.0 ..... _ .» ..... (.1 o 0 e e Mi = ''''

C7 . . E §.-. t e .

..= 4 u= „s a d.) - ›. tu u 1.. o ai e o ° o ..... Q 4... 0 tu ee'lebe >1 .... ea) O e 0 4) e ..e d a.. us

e - da e cd 4., -c2 0_. e .4 0 L. • y 4 ..... J 0 u •-•

› a) e o o ca= ....,, 7 1 .0 >, .--. e ,- o '0 ces 4, 4,:i .0 c.) 0 e 0 a.) • <ai ..0 1-..--, 0 o sa ..9 2,, e

2 ô 'g =--, 0 ezi. Û

,e • u • - cl ...e

2. ICCy.

. 4.4 E 7. u to

0 0 5 0

= .0ô 8 tr. 1...c >, e = c.- 0, o ,A e o ca o:› *o.' E e e .„• U G G -

o ° te

-.agi e u 0 <I .. z 0 u ,••3 5, mi 0 •- = = ci ,A c, > 4.) o 1, .e, ,.= '' .0 iri os o «1 - ce) ' u ....te 0 - O ,... ei.) .57 2 e Z va e ... 0o ÿ 00 G G +;. ... ..0 Cl • C „ cl U ta,1 0 U a 0.-0 CZ 0 a

it ô gl. ..5. 0 cd ... 0 G . E 5. E ça .... o d • • 1,) a. e . e ci g 0 .1 0 u 0 0 c., ve °' Û cA •••••' Cà 7:1 0n r I e ..ee 70.... .0° c....4

4 e 0 Q e) le e 1")

(1 .5 0 c., ..., 0 .., ,./) e3 a ''-n . ° 0 le 4 00 0.

.0 6) et) e ,

•U= e agi th e -0 .e ...8 a. 0 e > da te •0 5 0 -0 0 - - = 4 • 1. .- Û = a - . 0 tri 0 e .., -. - ,....., e ..--, o ..... as e -

,e L. 0 - 0 .... ,)c TI : U ^

I. = cl G C.) u u e eu 1) g 0 4. 0 e,, ,.«: i•-• ...... io !..), cloo 0, -0, 0. • ci -ctueu.bd ,.. e cl 00 0 a-1 04 a> .. = t- ..e •r, o. z cl ,.. •.-..... . -z• nt _0 0 0 esi) "5 cicl e ou 2 . cl .... O

. cts o = ms ,I:) ...ê 0 2 -di u o o ca :-.. o 0 Ë e t 1.) 1«.'4 a) ..,... 1:1_. cs.l ',-.. e c.,) U 5,. ,..° -- goo a) 4) o 0 - aa e .--.. El o.

o e .r.: .... ..,:e u ag a. a, • ....,

e = 4.) .e0 tz41 /4..., V o ..... d •-. ccs .:.,- ca ta ' an -0 ae 4..., .= r ‘'" i••• = = N -3-1 .•• , •••-• > • ‘ td)

• Cà ..-• • •-• <d t.• = el :4":1 ca E <:) o 4. 0 et O c Cl f'' G u ee'e ris . c .-2 0 10 , 'tà 01 F.

cd U e -0 G- - "C7 ,n G .- G nil 5. e4 e 1... e o ......., d U 1Z...1 0.) • .- co> u c.) ctà 4 Q = .'" ..4... +.+ • a 4.) ..0 4 1.., .C-) g _e ,G = U ,i) ^ JO nt I., a • c.D 0 .::: C E bo "e d = +... ca.

a ..,_ - , e , cd ja .:, o ..... da Mt

0 G el ..0 a. ,-. ‹

G ..... 44 a a.) n- a3 tx e ea. ,° (..) 15 e r) e ..1 >,O...0 ,-.1

eii t.t = u (.1 = 0 --.. ,13 ei 0 - ..;.-.: 0 e 3 •Ic IO. g: , 1... = .1-. • «I o c.) CO e! et) Tzt {-• ..... ej I. I« .... ,.. = e

el .4 4 • 4.. MI 0 O = 4.= 4.« 2 g +,C a '0 L. 4Z 0 t.° 1:/..... > 2 . .14) • e 8 . . n ....-.

-o e 8 ,,,› ai (il 0 ct. - <I = . te

el 4. e u c .e.., 4 mi 4 "0 4.# ** I) b„, 4.1 1:3 ,..7 C ce> o 0 1.) ..., . es = i.. .> U xi " 4 là Î; '1:3 (..) :Li.) '"' lee e .-9 ca ..... , ..at e › e ..c: 5 .9, a *4 .°+

b 0 4 el cu 4 ton. ..». ,0 a.> ...

d ‘.... 4.• .0

e c • e ,,,,,, ... • u o ... tao r?, 2, T.-. e -a ° ..... .$ e. ..2 = vf .4 =I a ‘ -' eu 0 = = (.) E

e e e) e e :€5 .,,E1 to

T.: .= .!..-..e u ne .0 0 ..... ci, ... ,..

0

-

e

011 .4 Q j. 4) ch a le qj 0 .... , ....

..... •,...,

. ..1 4

G •40

Ce 1, :le o • d a.

....>, e e'' te., de e ....CID

‘, . ••

de tas)11 a; ra

cet <5 .... ,c, 4,, =

,.. e -•,__. ,....c.n

a. 4 0 uo

5; 4' ' Ta.' a.

lae cd u

a: ..= c.,4 - e. 8 e, .5 0 gto

0 ..•... a d =

y .... M .2

= 0 e

.0 1...' a: e.4. -1 .2 1

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

'„ o ,A • - '5

ef. E 8. ,-", a • unè 0 ^-, ,1 .....

04 cl ..-• ns 4. Ci 10 e 4.) e •... u .-

a) G 4, h. 0 1 e$ el

r., 'ô e •• e cn E Q ...e ... ,, U y t. tà U -cl .... TC G =

-.... '''' G (..) ..-. a '-' U d 1. e le e = = 2 ir4 ,1,1 0 = .- ca) • .= e da 0 0 0 me 7.?, f, p., ..r.J ra

a a .d: .-0 .... oà:, o 2 tt.c 2 0 L. u 0 0 0 .0.0 y U 5 te. :".. 5 CO -0 O. 0.0 C.) 0 U

Ph.. El u.: a. o 4.) 0.. •:-..: iX e cl 8 a '.3 .% g E c e4. = .,È,' si:1; 2 d E .e.

dt) 1.) "Cl • a '' t'ZI •,-, G° g ro catia CI .0 0 ,e, 0 O ... O ' C el 0

coi N o ‘.. 30_, 0

as a.

âÿ0

e . ›.-.. 0 0 . 0 _4- 0 ,. .0 0 3 IX *- 4. e -td a e

act cp 'A tâ el 0 0 JI

,,, >, G. dO 0 = 7-. G *I El) 6è

230

med

iate

ly a

pp

lica

ble

?

T1 e le "er..) nt G) ..0>>'

0 '..... 0 •-• ..,, M. C 2 e .e ',-.; ..., e u e >, li =s" coe -."-- .a c-- ç..) e - u y 0 0

‘.. u u) , o.) Ei la

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

0 y

o

)... O e u

° 0 = toc° .r.' 0 ,, - > )-) ,...) 8-. el u .> 2 e E -0

„} .e.

E t

0 0 ‘-1) o a-. . tr3 ....-a ... 4, me U c 8, U

U 0 U C E el l'l ' U ..--.

:= :e l' - '' , . ..,:4:17.t l el . . . . .UN61' 4401 ) : 4)0" ...4 C e ?...; • r

0 a' 0 .." .) '''

ee cu

u 0 0 ,3) y 0 4)). ,...„., „..im

F.)we':' •-'' •

u. E -t, 1.. 0 .. . . . . 0o . . 0> 0 e

..= es ,-. = E" (.9 .0 0 ... t.) e) CI tt» CU 4) 0 0 4.., = e = , - - 0 ta -0 -0

4.) 0 et -- ., ›. -= 0 0 .... 0

G) 0 0 .-' Q .... 4) .0 Y 0 =

..Z" CY 0 41 .,.. .2 y' ecie- ..=-; U= ,9 o e ..._- c,› cm os aD el 0).- ,fle aly t.45 61 ,. cu u me ce 0 0 e e• .0 E .. 0 ..., Ft f.")

,.0 et) te- .... 4-• 0 • 0 -e 13 y a . = e eu .m. pç e:1 i... „.. ..« C.• • CU ej 0 (e) .t. ttû )"' e) ‘.. ,- 0 0. 0 .0 0 ià

1... b•• "y:1 y ej ).. ,..1 .0 e....° 01.' 4) .2 6•3 F ta u c el c -te •-. 0,

0 0 I-„ 0 4.) 0- 174. cu = ,-, •-• z t•-• - .0 0 0 0

.0 .•;:re .. "n • (i• „1- 4) = 0 -•-• •E 0 3 me e., , ms o.> I; 0 d) , E o - ..o 4, ta e. ro /• 0 - . e [4.4 . •-• u = •-c1. = = . (21 2 .r.n = 1:1 n , e-) 1.... oè 9) e - -t1 o% t.-. -2 ...; 4,1 0 „ 0 .. 2 'ri c '...'. .- 0 0 _ le.) ..., y i 0 c_.1 el • i 0 78.0 e a ,..... Le. "° 7.... 0 i": 0 ..e. 'g 'à et ° .... ,..., ...0 0 te 0 ›..N 1... 1... 0 0 cit. .01

4 C.) 0.1 •:$ • -"' .2 e = .... 0 ,.., .= ,,„ = 1.3 0 = E tu ,• ~ cu to go .0 I' -9, ei„ oz -' en ,,, „

,,, ,., .....° 51 it i .4° 8 t c e . . x0t1 .1) . :` n't) ucse ;":01 . ) . 3 c; or. ); ( «), ":9: i . 4, 62

4 0

i.. tot .... - ).. c .... .... C..) 4.• e4 = .4 0 ••.-1.

to 0 = a. a.) =

4.... ta. °

dt .e4 1- •-• = .2 o 04 ..7.1 4) .0 = Tu') 0 •-• p. 4) 0 •s et ti)E4),-0 ‘.,..4 2 0, 0 t on c.> .11 Ge -.J = Ce.. •••1 e 0 '',7

tua 0 e 4.. b., MI .0 U Eje

ea , * e :.,.. . t . (91. . 7:) "te .. :15 .1:' 4 le ›

.^. 0) ;.1.1 4è .0 os., 4) s e (..? ,b a 0 e •- 0 0 0 = u 9; 0 z -8 •,-..-: 0 0 cto e,o elà 14 ee 44 0 4er:e = 0 = 0 ,...„ ci 0 .5. ,.... iz., „, . u 0 ,,, 0 .0 ..., . ..0 0 ,5 0 .... - cl

ç..,) Me U e cd T). ''' ''''J 0 1... .-e) 'y 0

Ce •) el e .--.`")0 ng E 18 . (07 0 °Y.3. 4 me•

› '•

3 (,) 00 t- e : •-• 0 ,... c ,„ .... I-• ,,, =

= ..... Mi e - .7... * ° : .0 ? ,,, = > Lu 64 te

, U c.) ..-o >..› . !.2 ..0 ..• _n u s- ... 0 c u u ..--, o 0 el ç") a ai o n . .... o 2, C. = ta, = ... -a s... es • - "6 e .9) *-0 -se e .0 0 ,.., .., .i0 4.... ro

~cd

0 <A V ..eg 4'.... 4 r..L1 a .4. (...) 22 ,... m o 0 ° .: e 5 .. t# Te 0 tese 0 2 .F., c u „ E cd cn 0 "Li .4 dà C n = F'4 41 à) CI) Ce f4 "5 ."' .".' e' OcnClo '1.) .., 5 o o 0

i. 0 ,.e 0 e••• 0 0 0 ,_ -0 e b ,,, ..e .0 a. cu u (h c4 Co T. . 0 .... i. 0 3 U a

11.) 4, 0 10 ›.., our 1 I.. I 1,.) 40 el IL:l ..= Mi e ,0 0 ,... = = ,I) = eu 4 ,". e..) 0 tà ..... "0 cd u% 1) cl , ,1 e 0 e„,_ 7"-) a oz: e n as -, e os -e , › ill e U 4. - 4-. ••••• e. "El e

L1" b•-• le .1e 1.):: = ,-..

o Y e n t me 00 . -4 ) OC E: 73 7; 1.- .tu -0 •)-- -i.-3) .0 Y- 0 •.= -e "a C.) ed °) '."'

0 •- 0 ...„ ,, -,

0 .4) 0 -a 0 .0 , , 0 0 -, W.: 0 • e 7,:i ..e>« -5, L.,-.1 , , .1 . 07..° 8.. '45 •21 = tn ..C1 ••••• ;14 C

C. C' ° "5 t'I

, 0

.. ut. ot... el .=

= - 0 -g, .... = .5 à' , et 5 •-• e e o e .....) V to y 0 8 .0 s. .

0) 8 0 •,:). ie,.. = ?,0 .... o .2 o u 0 e 0 -o Y .e . ,....5, =,- . . .

0 ° 0- ... a ,,... R 0 70 0 -. .. ,, .e -ca e e o.) --) u u o 7-77 e 0 i. e me a,>U .e a 6'1 t).

•-• z 0 e «là et =u ,....„..„e .ce,... m =

u ...., 0 .'"", e cg , 0 • 0 E crà 4.) -.. eu = tg) = ,..r e* on •-• e, c,0 •-• u ne c.) a, cp 0.) 1. 0. o.) 0 cA g 2 ...... = .e .0.0 0 .- -0 ›....... 0 le 0 e ,•..., E ta <à e u 0 u u e e• o 0 e es e Y , ...., e ..= -;:.; I.-., Lz. ,/, on 0. ra 0 e c„ 0 ,, ,„, 2 ..e.r.: - 0 u > - - •-. 0 -

g - . •- 8 ,,9- à ô ,0 .-.

,... ,.., .i.-.; - .-. 0 - - 8 u e > ca N

4 ..0 4 ,c.., Q .03 eL) a, ÿ s' = 0 0 = ..= › ....

y c0

- E 1:1-,•) ........ 00 'ab° e: : Do

'l „me : ô>. i... 4. u , a.) 1..1 0 es ..... .e CI... 1) a ='e

u 1.... 4. ... 0 4 0 0 014:." C• U "5 2 2 e5 .ii '4 ,.= n .... •- (... a a.

- i,.. tu - eZ3. E , u CJ:1 eg.0 C.) • • • •

-o U

730 S le.e.e E 7 Col

;9 2 ..izi2 X I) "C3 1.... = = M

--i n E I-. .e CI 1.... 0 'I0 4) ° ° C.) .• "c' -4--.) e m u = tà .--. 0 =

e mi" Cl O 0 <4 c.) 0 > 0 0 4. 1-,,) o e e . , ".e. -0 ° u -. . •e a Q - - - = ...1 _,,,à .g 0 0 _, n

.- t.0 -o C4 4 (.1 ^ .4 U e..0 0 Z.1 c. e -a e u .., es

0 el U 0 4 ,... L. u° b I U 0 0. 4) C• ,e, t'l °' m 5 4) 4 e . ° 4 H * O Orl 0 1.) . 1« O 0 r) Id là 2 '-',A ti "0 m ..... z e = rz, -,., = „. e c:t. cl .,.... .0 O.) 4.) U . 'el u 0 *". ut ... O.5 il:) to e E.., ,A

. ).•1 .e.. •-• 4,) ° -bd i.Z.1 *à -0

2 1 0 e e.1 4, cl 2 n o e ,>u c ),,._ .,38

u ,.., 5›.. «, 0 0 . > .6. ,,,,, . -0 <- gl cu 41., e 0 0 «9

O

E

a.) •-• 0 •-e > •-• g ne' t e, u e eto & me 2 0 - N • e 5. 0. 4 e >< 0. el "5 et) • U 04) U

231

. .c) 4) .0 ..,•_«.. "0 7, . g 'A T. 4.) g 4) g-. ' >". 0 .2). 0 .0 --"' 0 1., ..= .... ej 4 .-• el

1:1 tu ci C.1) 'V .4 Tl rj ' = 0 U v>, u = U Ci. C'S 4 U a.) u 1:5

> 0 > RI y.., 4.) 4 •.-. 0 -a .-' .0 ..i '-ec. ,1- 0- .0 ..0 ,... _ c„„ 04 = U E , e '' e e r C e0U°° o .... tz", g o G .2 („) e .... •,-.1 4 .... 1:5 e - 0 0.1 .0 00 "" t.... e e itt4 .?:, )1 a De ,L, oià U 1-. Ti 15 e. A ce. 2 ..n g ..... ...., 4> c 'cl E r 0 t;tl 4> '4 U

,.= ,,i .1:••• 0 1 ..;‹, c.$ "Cl =SC ta. +-• ...4 = .1... I. ...

,et 4.4 el ..... •-•

• ,e %,../ ..-.... . et) tu cu «1.9, ° •11 ..-' C.) ... e u. • - >,

G L

e .= >,- .a -... oueou0„,...;) . 0 -1:1,22 "-' .4 , 04 -...., .0 4.) u e et) d 4) ,,, C.è r. .0 • . c) ; u u 0 .0 ›., . .e. vj „et .5,

e -o 0..... ,_, çà. p.. 4... .4 ,.., '-. ...t `"' u 00 t .2 5.) e -e el. Il -* > e 0 ezt >, .1.) .2 c; a ›, ...I ,..., 1... u

ÿ

a

O

üa

c

4) Toi r.n él 4,) u tr, e oy «-• 1-. E [--4 u j g a n 00 0 ae 4 0 t›. T. = n.k4 0 4 .4 u es O[ a -. 0 . Caf, '" i., ..4

'0' "5 u a .â

- .1 -ms a e là o a .4 e 2 e u 2 ,,,, '5 ,,p > .7.3 ' o 2 17.3) U .ty os te g 4 g te te 4 ,.... 4, e- 0 , e .- ,zi , tx. (1

u5..= e-‘ - ..„') 2 Ì °Ù.- 9' "e

>-, .!.-.. ' G 4> U •C --.> .>"." "CI 10 CA 0 2 .., - u • ... = "0 el 0 .> 0 g O ,-..., 4 0 ....... 0 4. ne .4 .. (,,, c.-. ..., 44) 0 ... t) 0 0 0 eç...)'1 0Cre:)e0..000 0 . ›. ie 00 4 C) 1e 72 0 44 .1-> se) ,4--- 4....... .... r.,) 'L«. 0 .0.) -.-. V 0. Q 1) *I e •,...• 0 0 cl 04.5 ..2 ,..i 10 à-7. . el' "9 4) e 0

cd = 0 .... e 0 ..» 52 E "e .....• &) 0 lu 2 ne ,,.

,.= 1-. a. z

" .> =a, ool 'eto 0 w 71, e 8 , .e .1 .- .... , >. ee „ E ...... 4. .0 -.... 0) ') ..-. 1... .. 0 4 t01,£) 00 .... E ,... , u o ..... e œ ........ ›.,. . E ,. • - •4 .-t:1 "4e

0 o •,•. • ..o._ ,,. ••c.). e 5,, , P. tn 0 o 6.1 .0 rl g >"' eei 2 e 0 Q c '''. Q • •... 0 .+" .> .„. eqs t c -5:-' 0 _ ,A > t••• *e ,.3 ce") Fi .F1 tà .5

cd

5 •M 2 . % ,-. .40 .. .0 -Ci 4.0

. T. , cl ,d* u -5 › c..) 1.. 4. = >, 3-,_ ..... t.) 5 9 .00 ,-. 8-, su, X --.. u 10 .-octlema,a .0 -,r, ,_, to _0 .., e 6) nt 0+ '90 4 .=.' 0 ;1'4 › ta ,.., u 43 *e u o '454 g ce d h 7-À *e ..1 .14.z..,., .._.. ..„ 0 0 61 =cd .Lj

o fil '.10 2 .0›, ..ia 0 ,1/4. ,..e cd ,.., < -Ze3 4.... CI 4 ,... en u .4 0 ci. ..... • e g. ... 00 el I. «I r 1 ,te ”,, ...I, * .... =VI «S, , Fo CI. eà'à

cu 0 ....b 4.0 1.0 e ,.2 E= ›. 1 ; - .._ y 0 4..

et se ..-. 1.5 e a ei 0 * o et ur - ao • - .. ,.... -tt ...à 2 8 .2 .... e fg u e 04-° .Cpp

L. g • 0 '''' •••-• tom 1-4 ..-.) 4, biy...• (U 4.) 0 te) .--, . >.. .2 ›E. .,,, 4. y til) • •••4 M . ...d 1:34 0 04 e$ e

e .-...:: o ...;.• ›, o e te 0 ....7'.. U un 01 46, .4 te cl u u g 75 0 Mi 0 04":' 0 g e .= u u 4, o ,c1 cd 4) = re te g _c 7... 4. c a .E g y el 2 u ..2 u A .4 e 04 ..I .0 a. '' 0.. e ...e, e to.t. ..... -

a a. te, eà e >, >, o 4-0 ..c. 2 ,.à4

,... `,'..l e zî e 04 "W 4‘è es a -0 0 es el

a e cd

'en+

'O

c `c:: t) .;...

-o 4-. me Lm 4) 4: 4. › = ..,., g .0 e cu F.. 0 bA tu '1J 0 04 è . , .... a a; e.. ,.. 0 0 4 0 ,.. Ci .0 0 (..) 0 0 e 1.. 0 0 >4 t... ... cn fa.* L-: e e., e. E -0 u , Ri -e 0 ') 0 U ti 0 CTieTicgide U 0 1). u >, 0 > 0 14 E ne eu Iiii 0 e 2 e ..= 44 el = 4 te 4. .4 0 e E - le 4> = 4. ›ry

e 'É ...„.0 5 oe .., ,e E 4.. 0 E e "0

a e un U 0 >.., e--. •%:, o mi cl (-9 8 5 0 u ...

0.

...I 0 Zr. 0 1.. C "0 vl u id "0 '4. . 4:: CI 0 = .0 el .= e * gà .... a •-,-,-., e a te e 0. e 0 .4 e ;Ira 0 0 a > 4è 'Z e 00 te ° e co o e {1.' ,1-> 3.1 - o ms -e •:--.; g .... M 4 14 >, nt 0 ctè 0 ,f4a, .= 0 0"a e 2 o ..., c>:; _.- ..... 0 4, , là 4. ...„ t.; V o u ., m ci, u U 4è ).. ",.J4 tà C.) ciè 0 c.) ..e Y .., cl ..." e ._,... 0 o C __,= 42 m Fa. 4 ''' e. 74 0 ... o -.7. 71. a, o e 0.13 o 1 . e ....--. ri .- u a e 7.1 e •et: .4 = (..) -... _ , 0 0 t - , . "5 ... o o te .

0 - 4,) 4 •4 60 0 0.1 ..1 2. el.

.0 c•-• 0 eya ".. 1-. u ..e. e 0 . 00 e E E - 40 e 0 ..... .-

orll'II -e

bere 90 • :'S. e : U

:II '..' .0 V1 ci To t là A.a. ..rD -... 0 -0 •e u flè Z: 0 Id 1020 ^ . _ : 0 " C lu ..2 ,- - •;;; z - o I.. , 0 o 0 .C.. o el SZ ..1 ta. tel4 0 Ç..) I" elt u5e 0 .... eo ee 0 .4 0 ‘`" eâl .. .. ..... ›. L'.. e 0 a 5

'' ° o 0 cg) clè ,,,,, mea li u .e...> ..0 g g E g ..... U 0 r, >, u e u --. a a CO 0 izi Ri e - e .., â • .4 Cl ,E -o = .0 , .0 ...,

1:2 ".1 Ef ,,,„ .... . e . 0 ,...._ - -, e e a, = E e 'S

0 0 e z e 0 4) 60 A CCS 01) 44 e f:i ,.. 6. e .0 e u ,.., ,.... ne- E a.,e "0 4+ te :1 *". 0 '4 C.i gy.'"' çD E 7-1 _fi cd té, ee C.) CI n ^ CI .I. * = = 0 0 ....,

„, , e a c.) u t. ‹,.„ 0 là a " - • I..1 tà t.r.. 47.: 4. {. •••••• 4., le Io o es 5 .e

0 e 1:à .6)°,_, .0 -. . u 1.... _.,d - e -0 - -. u= 0 0 1"« >< 0 .. .., Ni = u

..... '....,‘"" '9 06, .. es •,0 , 4 "5 Te C o u •.... ,... •.... P. te u :tie 5 Io te oe 00 o e ele - et 1...

>b el= a) 0 1•-• te e .e d 0 0 •;:: 0 ize = c. o.') 0 0 .... ..0 0 0 < • e. .... = . .4 e > 0., e 2 us',:: .0 o ..0 a C'e e. ..«.=. e .._.> i, 4.2. o o *4 C•4 ei .c,, 6 el c. el r- - 4 u tb e o e a 0 0 c.> 2 E 0 0,00 .= 4, 0 0 0

ej .1.0.) el) 1..! "fj 0 ...* 0 6- e .0 ..e. u 3 4,3 A e e4 .-e u a.- crt,. a. /à

232

a. c.) r- a ...., E-4 c `-' en uvuun.

>, 4- o o.) u C ' >-, .--' , .... 0 -0 c 0 --. .= -c o E 3 . ri . ,...' 3 a a - 0 0 4 •.-., es '-' .... u u na u 0 ... 0 = 0. e .e .„

0 rin' c1 'Zi '' 0 u ,

.... po 0 0 0 0 :9. Iii = 0 de =

= 0 •-• = CI. el vo cn U fa« 41 4. C...) .... c I- = 0 V1 C .

ni -.., 43 es = ta.

0 .4 ... ,..-. ;11 0 0 mi ,I5 0 01 e °U .0 4. • . ln. = 4) ... 4 0 ce> '0 , e ;- C F. .e. = 0 0 u mi e u u F „ ,..., ., a c.- _ ,,„ cs.4 g-i u 0 g....= --a c ci

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

;,--- = . (2. ,... c e , CU e u z' es.) Pi u e 5 ..4' m E ,, 'is. Z -53

>, 4) su 0 0 tu .., 0.)

•01 C4 0 .e e ° u a -0 ....

ÿC7ÿ e u 0 c eu .5 ,:: e)

4-2 .... ...

e mi -. tel 41. RI < ,L11

CI 0 = ' e:, 8 E zu .,. uo u= o pet) › u .c u - • .- ta

e., eL e: 0 g. .) ''n•-• >, 4-, e P. Y, ›ri ›,.e... 401. e 0 e ''' V' 2 e ..-_, o•,„ o 0 0 o e a. e c ca, E P• U 4. Ci CA ..) e 0 --, -- da ,..) e > 4-

.'es 0 c) e el 'tzue. 4â 15- t...., tu o ,-. u x I, ,-=. ..-e e'' n •1:2 -, ei> -4"; ele eu 4" 0 2

tU ..1 = .... = 1-1..) _

ue 49 •re -4 0 .„.

r.>`•-•,-, C3 0 a. ue t,:l' me ,' 0400-1......-.0o) ta. 0 -5 cL.) 1...• t- ' e î. - e . u .0 . ,.

0 g-, et)

7 mi u o.) 0 un'

t...... .... - u- 9 •5 Ê .gi, cl. ta • .: ,...: liv ,151' ;(*"'-8 ,t.)

. .› = .. '. ?... c,:s

0 ‹, .0 E u -0 u na .-....-

••-• fa..`n E .9 sa c 0 u

: ..ile E ... o

e > to ci 2 3 ..d = ;-a• Els

Ja ni 0 --..., .c u -ra c 0 Çn ..= 0 cs ,= e - 1 8 . ,.... 41 m. 0 •

0 ja, 4à) ".,5., ° = • ... , e

2 7'1 e 0 •• c -0 .0 c 4) la. Ci 4 4) E ..." .... ... sa _.0.) yj e -° iM 5.: t) e :15 4 4. 4

..W/ g., ..... ... 4) ‘. ... gi tA = = 4) 4,

u à 1 S.. = 4..) oe :73 ...si* 0 = 'et 0 0

,.. ni eu.on. 0,,, Çu i....- 4) g e..... = 1.) ..= 5: Z' .0 ..' E e.-. C.) *u ci' m 00 () ça

0 Q. I"' •-• d' 0 >:, ...., ..... ..= ...., ,, 0 e t.o 4. 4) 0 Z 4. na > ré U 4) °

4. u 4. e , E-i :z d . 0 v) c na ,- 0 ..... e 0 .5 •.....4 »i.s.: ..... a le t.) Z)) g:, ... M ' 52 C ° l'd >b . 2), Ts 4.) 71

) 0 0 tj el) V X . u na o. ÇA o.() ..= az 4.) .0 C c.. („) e az .e >e .• ., cl.) et ..=

, u 0= ••,, - • 4. il E -.

/ 4./ ira = CU

= = P>. O.) ci) su L.. ° cd > 4 c'e .54 *5

4 .., 0 a) t u n.f. E .% +.‘-' es -0 -. .••• c...) cd (...) 5 ,c 0 le . là 03

ce co .= u .-z, e E. 0

eeu 03 1:4

.... 0 0

.. •-. .... u . ..,+-•

u) e u V) 0 0 c e -, . . t:s ,..?.

c- .o.) .'e 'ru 1 ce- .-- ''- e ,... .rs

-01 '1.) 0 ...5 4) e „, .0 ., V-0 =

emq et .-8 ›.-t tà el el., ,,> Vis , , 0 ,, IZI 1.., U •I. ..e •( 1 ,,c, -0 e te 61 ., ,J., e > u 0 = = •- = - .4 r sil. 1.4 ... Z 4> ,C)

° tU cl.) = r- -0 .... oa 4. '''. i.; 4 %) u Z. Ce/ -... e tl) c 1... , _ u tlz '.›

93. cn 01 •,0 ..... , cd 0 LI 0 -0 -e cl, %) ....

.- „, 4) U tT.) •5 sa -0 = 0% lu _ .... c,.. "Ci ... ° ..... (.:, - e ccs = -a 0

. cd cf.e .., 1.•

a. a. tu .E C.) =

., c„.._ •••••••• • .-. '- 4, 43 a '-' •• e u 0 = ‹.... - 0 0 ,-. :te 4 4. .0 ça CM tO Z 01 --",

0 0 b.. 0 e = ..., 0 ...

,... «, , .,:, cie 0 .e 4) › e c .0 0 , ° -° Cil &..'u (-1 e,3 .-› u la cia u u n...., E •:-1.° 7.1 c E qa ... oa ..e...

0 -5 .4 > ‹n 0 cd cd = 0 cd e e 4., P C1. 'Z' le .„:e 0

0 0 0 u -.cl -,:x a c„i •-- ,..c ..o IZ:1 „4 0 1.>

• -. cd -- ••-• f.) 0 1.) agi.- ....., eu s. 0 '. eu

CD 0 ' ...,u tato es ...4 '' . )c?t` ô '' k 0) c "E /

0 "Cf 1-. .; (là .17 = y, +-> tel 0 OI) i

er> O) ''' 15. .; * là ta. . r... ;• = Cle [--4 `1) 6•0 ''' < .= •;-.; C e. .• cn

0 '-' E -.5..

:p le '4:1 G w C.) i0. ••= 10 to 4. • -', e = Cl

233

= 0 = › = u e : _s...... o m tc,.. cl . g fo

= u a

_ De u 2 2 0 = «s oss 4, =

,.. u e e - _. ID f.., e ... e -o e 4- •.- O'-r-eEuomo a O e. ,:e) u e) L'• s. ey 0 ..... 0 0 ... .= °

0 to :.-..r.. e ,..- › 4e.' .1'

o

, 0 -C u e:: 1-4 e u e..9 o t ç.i ,... = .- <V .C1 u .0 ••••• 0 ,.._. CO :I .^ -•"' ....

y •••.• 0 .I...

.4 0 „ , e c •i4 ,,, ga. c 0., la..c.) e ... 4. Te o u ..... 0 et) en ,..., = elè cl 2 .2 0..z E TA .2 -e.. e e , 0 0 ..0 0 ,„ -0 u 4., C.) ••-• 4.4 .e c.) .......... - 0 >., ej• = 0 = 0) -, a.) ,_ ,...,0 .... .e và 0 «s

44.) ... u .... 0 .. _ 0 O , O 0 0 ,,.,

= 0 0 c;) 4-, ce) me 1-e .e .0 .e = 4,,, t (-) On v, mi . u M 0 ci .... .... •.-. •,_

4) u 0/1 ..1 ce 0 < e'l) .... it) el U tu h)

U 42* 4.1-. ..-. U 1.-• > ta 0 0 0 T)

0= 11 0 C 44 _ci g ÇA u en `-' E-. o 0 u o ... e a.) a ed . ....e 0 u .,_, _0. : ta 0 0 Ilu -o Z ty3 ,L, ..... Clà 4 = "Ci '71 ,.0 Tt • 9:. g - ,9 E"'" "'" 7,9. t ci .e u a

u e e -Fi cn . o e e e ,.= ..,, „.9. 0 = . „I 0 = u s,:.::: ... 4., 4. e Cc3 c ell 0 ,,ç CL) .^. frb 0 u

MI 1.-. 1-. %.0 .... .4 4) 4,~âââ

'd U I:e ~Op

0 Ch rn h . . . , a e% e, Me Û 1.-, -i..). 0 N ° (7 g u 0 0 ne 0 4-. 0 C

o 0 .**1 0 oi .... 6)

e --, u › e e> al 1° . L., ,... ›.. o o 2 L'"'. le ) CU 0 2, 1 0 .,..?,. 1- 0 .,.0 . 0. e 4 c) 1-. ..., q t1 0- ›, e a« ..5 = c ., .,,z p., = .

c4.- .-4 . „ s. , .0 Clà 6) 0 e ..c 2 a ... 0 4 ,.8

u , ..0 ....0 4, .". 4 .1:1 Cà u cl 0 0 u e = cl ci 0 4, ...., ... .- a-, 0.1 0 0 .. 0 0 4.) U CL) .4 . 2 c4 4) • - 4,1

E LI T, u .0 .... u tn ci 0 0 0 01- 3 2 .4 il '0 = 0)) CO «. 1:e

0 6, .-. .5 ,C2 a t E <2. 2 ,1).) u -'4 ► 6à eu 4-e c- • Cu u ci 2 ti Z ,,, .C1 A 1-4 '-' 0 col U 1- --. Pr 1... ej CI p s- e u u, ..= >, 4: . e 0 ..... e 4,... a _, u ,.., t.• ai = ''. ° M `d e e u L. o o u uee,1-E2„,.e ma

u ,. , vi t) g .0 ..., V 3 y 3 0 [, 0 0 e t- 1--. 3 c..) .ge d.)

.....

2 -0 ID U _ e ., •• = 70 d., eu 00 "0 MI Y% "0

ei 4 oz 4 u

-9 e ra. u .9., u c .2 ...e oc (n.... c u., = . 03 0 0 (31 0 ,.0 0 --e, 0 .m 0 e 0[ ..0 Li., = >, .4:i u _.-`) --,.. c -0 e• -, 0 .._ ...... = , --. u .70 .....› . 0: u , ,,; To .5.,) = C C

= c «-' g '-',,, E .:-1 e - e a) ... o ,..) o 0 a ..0 u '-. * 0 -o .1) e, ee 0

u ‘.. (...) o --. -3 -.....e ..... ,...,, 0 .4 t -• - 4) cl 5 ..., ,_, h., . '-' 0 CO y eI., ‘3, 0 5 .8 •e •-„7.1 ,-• i_e =u .... $... o

0 e .r- en i a ,.= -te - oc. , 2 -. e - = u o r) e g-- .c., u 0 0 00 u -.... 0 a. - el = c) › arl ,-, lel 7.3 • •-• ta« Cl . = 6)

0 0 et> 0 .e' 1 0 arj •••1

O ° 0 s- .... „,

L. u >, ..c 0 4) - d .e, 0 •- „... Z 7:1 c › 0 u) -.. " 10 0 u >,,, a. e, 0 c 0 ,

el. . 0 0 (I U C 7-1 e 1,-, cd) r6 U f t% u E 0 >, L. °0 -C2, II „, 0 ,,, U -"'" .•0 c.) c, cl ,3

48 ce = ... • zi. cl

= ru 11, p ., - . s.. e c.) 0 el 1- e .... 5 ‘. ,8 ,m, u e ›., _ e 0 o „,, e e. a) ...--. 4:... .,. 1..• 0.) u > ei e

2 ,e g = 47n, E 0 o eu Tu• g E E 1 ed

.... ,.,.. C.) 0 ,.. .0 ,, s >, 0 0 ,4

el c.,.. - 0 0 .0 ›.., 0.0.0 (..) :Il .. c c.,,J :..,.. e ..o c > me u h. .., .a ki... a> 2 "g g CO 0 ..., bo zo,) 0

E u -0 e E u ee 4) u Lt. -1 rd

4) In. e 71' .0 F. 41 u 0 ' M 0 0 ,_ .0 g, „(i..) o u • > ci

0 es ...., 00.-ou 0 4-, 00 0 o..) u e e ti, '- e u 0 el. cl v, ,..„4- g u 0. Le 0 -.C. = f .8 - tse u __, 6) > b4 0 t.4. * O '-' 4 U ,d, ,a, , -0 -0 p -,1* U '•-• ÿ ÿ 4-, 0 0 0

0 m p,r) •-• - 40 U --. '--,14141r- Ou.0 CUL. 0 0 0 '(';1 cd 0 4 4-1 '00-' «e'r.0 ''S eu

0 m 4 0. 0 ci 0 4 _ = te ee 0 .- ue.cet t., - ., cs, el ,.« 0 .0 E 1.) = .. DA Cl U-t z' E u ,.„.,e r a-, e -0 el .... 4. c.-, -0 ..= TU. 4.) 0 4

0 40 "0 0 0 > c..... , _0 0 ••-) 0 ,.c > -. ,.. u «I c h .) a 0 ..--. 2 b . "0 o 'r..- .• e ., C) = - e 0 ii-; 0 .= 0.0 - u 4,, = 0

0 0 -ce _, -,› É„,. ° et e cd 0 4 n 0 ci) izj .=: 0 14, 0. 5 o u "0 r %° 0, o La =a ..... , ,E s•-• 13 ç ° 0 2 o - e. > le e 0

4i) <-2.5

re2 jte L,'21

uee'oc.:>\:,>,-;',1 0e2c .>4> e izt.e''' :1.-1 u -oi, >u r"' 1.., ,...1) -e 2 cd ami "g e ,-,-, z go.,.2

a o e .... -a 0 ..0 cl - .e ,.z.-, '0 C•3 ea 0 (1 .«.- 8. ›, u •- °y 'Û m - -j 4',' 5 -0 , '4 (e' 4 .«... O.) 6) 1,.) e g 0 0 0 ..c i.f.. E. .5 › u 2. 8 E-4 .-..

q, e ee ra, e ,...., ta ee E (...) e g' ° '7...c 8 8 0 2 2 X -ei -0 0 4"' (7) cl la ".)''' U 4%., 1..., .0 TO - u o e o ..a 0, 4.., 04

C..) 4 7..." o e 4. a. u

_a e

aui E °

0 </)

0 âw

cd O QA

234

ck) 0. II .:LA 2 iti; . le. 01 . 40 0 0 U d.)^0 j u Cil "0 4è > = •• = 'Z'a c1.1 0 > 0 e '-' 2 e

H

2O

le-4: °

, !". '0 CIO

.... „....... . e - ..,... *.e. 6' É tà le: 0 .2, ,„

0 ek.x = e m i , - -.. o.° n 0 ,__-• ,77, e t- e u e 0 e ,,, ,,, o. au o =

0 e ,,:. „ o .- 3 5 u „e e -be - ....' , ôâa 1"-

_,..,i) ...->sm, (5 Lne p._ '-'4 ..... .... o -= 3.) ms ed e

-a ... 0 ..,, a 0.--, .... 0 u • e •••••, ni, a .

m u tu e ,- = 0 E .e CA 0 •C V] n. e 4..

0 3 > c ,, tlj ..• 0 r$ CI I 04

el.' h Cn (:.cd

> 0 o I' 0 0 e .= ..c o

-" 1.. el ..- ci 2 e o .1:2 mi ,,, .4 4) iè oe M

u te.• 0 O ' ..., e „ u nt 8 o o e az

0t, .. cd Ja Q -a i« H I. 0 o 2 u t- • . Ti ,u, 17 ,...., e a el.)

13 o me , 0 5 t.., 5. . -4. (,-,; 70 3 ,9 06'a=ci u e 2 ' - - el. 2 U 1:1 ,,,

..C) E g c ... = e u 1„C.d.... ch .... 0 U C) u a.à 'E o .-

o t. fi ....,„, 0 '..a.• >. 0 el 0 .... e o 3 -14

,4À .1 o ... ,-• - 0 0 c.-. e 71) o ci cri ' , ..k-, pe. . p. - 0. , . c1 .._. o « ca.,e

„, ci fa. ...."`' .,0 ,... eià Cl e

0 4« .?:qi '-‘ ,C) ... › Ca Ci el)

p- -0 04 .6 .243 0 TUe ? 0 ,

r.. ,..3 ,e, ,.... Q u o" .a.-• ch 0 = C.: 0 1-• 03 eu . 5 a, ,.e +.4 0 7 Z -0 e ,.., 0 t- u ,° r:1,4-

N cd c 0 4.1 C en -.... ,-• .. i... .., 0 0 y 0 .-. czt .... 0 '«. 4. ou C.) 0 ..0 C. .0 cd 0. •Z (...) ..0 ..., o u-n 0 a • •••• › = ,

o u 3 5,, ci te o ,2. r-,,,...t, c nt .,.., ts; ... c.J o e 15 3.' ,.., 0., e GU

> 2 4. e ià u -b

te .5). .... Md e cn _>., *.%) izo ..9 0 ‘....7. 0 .cei co)

GL Ca ." ...X = = 4.5. C...1 0 U cà.) . ci 0 ..= c., *d = e ad .-. 0 • ‘... c.le

4, 3 cd g ;9.. e.„-,,.., 0 > . ,. ..... ,.. .= E •-. 1... 61 a .4 g .8 E = g .:

O .2 E

el >. 0 '''m Z 'm t4 o -"27-1-8 o ..= o .ie '10 MI cl 0 "Cl cj; e • -2, '-: -t-ez Z

,... (/) = g) u e e•• ,4 a, ,4 te e "É : -2. -. s 6''' , , ,- -

r.T., 3 (..) e " e

e w

ork

of

the

H

5 tue b«. ..... 1:14 E o M -o .3' on '''''..-, E __,

u o 0 u o g

cu 0 u r.: o o >, ,..› , e,

5 0 o •-• o ,.. e i-, e e o > ,,..,

o .-. u e

1... e cr.. e .-

0 p., a e 2 ,e,

'2 0

• u .... t...; ,..,....„„ t- ... . .;._, 0 y .1 0 04 )4 `" od

u 2 cgU .0 .e., -

u >

in e «, 0 ut-. e o a o >

..i = 0 u

2. 50 5 --.

45. * c'e Q

z ri us-• 4) o

; o t

.aueeeE

U a.

O.

ee

u z

= 0 0 ..= N e 5 c.) g .r., 0 ,....

.8 •,... cd C.) e 0 .e. u ,, cu <„, 0

9a = 0 A.) ,... VI

‘..0 te' 0 >-. 0 Cà • &) 6.> ...".1 0 CI. = n ei U cil

.0. .1=1. Ce .0 0 '.-.0 0 _o > „ ..,.

e o .-. 0 ,..0

kW = ... e = ...0 ,,.., E

u .0 0 ..= .,., 0. ..p el 0 -0 1-. -0 â ".c.-.i P CL) n 4... 0 1... .4... Z 0 :r) RI .-. e. ......, ....

0 0 .9.., 1C c.. .1à 0 0 e. e .0 c.) 0 u e .0 ..g: 0 e 0 te c.) mi o E e • -0 e a, col e U 0 0 4) E o ._. .0 ,..., 0

.1:2 0 E e , = c' ci a., a, .n v) 0. Cd * do

al ''''' ...le ›...,,, cd ,,, e O 3 • - 0 c = 4/)

oà" e:' 0 ..=

..

O. 0 CI

E -1;1 -o te' 5 -11V QQr _a •e.- cl u c.> Z a : ee 0 U N. E ? 0 = ° • Li; c% ."'°

0 0 0 •-.. .0 0 ... .. Ti -.-. i". .0 0 là „a P. 4 .... n e ° L.. I... C "0 = a.. th 0 4! .14 C e C

dA e -0 >u ri) -.Q u o "' o -, 2 P. a. o

0 ..ri x -a n o ,- •- 0 ..... ti"..- *.i) e r'n o VI eu o

o , e •Ir U U 0 i„ 0 0 0 - e 4 o ....., ..., o c o

u zi .e., o 0 o a, e › 4.) ..... 8 .. U en 5 ,_, .:..- „ o Io a.

>., u u e o .) !;-_, !.. d u ,,,, cu ..- 17 cd .., •

1... ''' - = ")4, > .o... ...... ,-. o = o oi c 10 L)...? o -0 o a› gr,:e.F o o o 0 1') › 0 1.) °I) _neL) U ... ..... e LI., .7., 7z

cd O

;d4

= [...4 Ci. di _ 72.1 .0 Cei " elà ..-• 0 ›,.. U 8 t..••• ..te ":"..>‘.,0 0 Cl. (,) *C '.4 .e 0 = '-'. 3;5, 0 0 nci 1, = 7,1' 0 ,... cl a :te- u = .e 0 0.,!:: ... = ...

o > o u 02.4 . .e.. .....f., „, .... - c; e >-, e e 5 0 0 os - e. e -

r^ EL E..., e. .rà 0 V) • >-% tél +•• '.... te .-1 E-. .1:1 o es' ›.. ›.... 0 "--1

O„ „j 0 -5 0 ni ..... ... eeetE - •,- .ci mb 0, Co a.) ,-. -. UU 0 0 r. cd ° ,... u

O o 0 0 U

4.. 6.) 0 -0 oz 0 -. ,... = 2

6 X 0 - a) L) .. •-• 0 ,L) Vr '' 0 0 .0 0 - -. •- 0., = 0 e 0

0 °N 0 .,$ E 4-, E .4 , .-.. c.) 0

0 cil 0 0 (,) 0 n cz us c.. e .t-... -0 SC) 8 '-r, ., eu I-. 0 I) ›

›. e ce ‘. u -- el") a. a.) ..e se. , gu ,, E0 u ,-, >0

C .14 Ce' 0 •éà Cf) G

o G .). > .0 0 2

.... e_., o 0..., ... e ."•' ).:' ,1) ,e, e

ec...) • u c. cl ,e0c., 0 0 0 0 0 0 c„ e >, • - -e › c.) -, me , , 0 ........ ... ..-, e o = 0 0 e 1.1 'G y.. 0 2 V) u >, cn U •e gL, t u " G I-•

(.4 d ‹,, 0 i 5 e 7,i 11

0 eu .+2. "0 u ,.... 0 0 .0 ,... c .)- = = e .= -,....) ..)- . e ,i›

-‘ . ° 0 0 - e 0 .- ci. --. .4 !If) 4' ) ej ."' • . ' . -el .• .

o ›-, = ,... n gliv 4.4 •-ê, q) G cn • cl 0 ce ce) tu)

':à) ›. 0 1.4 'ci" 4» 0 ., .r. 0 ..0 ci e ns cl. 0 .2 o •.& u e m• e ,,,, .0 . aoe d u,0,...e ...+4 7. 0 = ›4,.t... u . ,. u 0 E ‘••• i... _ 0 y, e - ‘.. 0 pl 0 0 ••••-• ,••

.-. cn = _.f. 5 -ci -ct a- e .1 e el. u .-. le .... > ss: e cts u > ozi i•-• -.° .8 , ,e

8 :I' -. e (..b e .e .e,r, .: u u o ;7; o

cl ^ b.0 ▪ - a >, o ...-. = ,.= ".. Q o «, 0 . e OR cg 'et u e 0 ,n 0,0 ,.r. TU .. , tsi meg .0 0 '-' bOu e 0 . cl.) 0 C t 0 ,,,, r_ 1.1

e ez ,,.,) .e‘ Z cl .0 70 -5 e ''d e .S .1> •_ - 0 -0' 0 < c., (...) o(..) P. _ u U

u ".e. 5

L

n

Z

ce ;1-* 0 0 eiy .4 0 0 .0 c-' 0 5 (.., 1:1 ,.... ce ,,, F'' E _ 0

, e ta, 0 ,.= >., u E 0 e (,, (.... 0 .= 5 0 0 0 e .-. .4 ,., ,.... 0 5 - 0 0 L, 0 .-. 0 op o 0. 0 ••=2 ,.... e 0 y:, ci

o e o eu > 0 tz, e (..,,, c„,5 b-- . o -ci ;... n .. o ..-.-... u e seià 0 u nz u i,

eu e .r. °» (I ..... o Q o m .....e. ou:... ee 1: e e .0 e 0 ,,, .,, = ri) e (......., ..0 = 0

0 0 e o e e 0 0 u .x74 0 0

.. E .. 0 .. .5 gi j .4 - e ,-"vs cc0 ga. e

1. .-.; e E - 0 0 u

d.) .... ..-à 10 C;

. 0 0 . e -., ° *;-1 o

235

si 32 si u e) .c u ..... 0 cos- tu tstro 0

-51 e :a .e e .e. .... (.1 . w.1 U 0 tg) Fci 0 ..b/ sl th s- .= •-.,... .= = a. 3 th É os u e •.-..= .1 ▪ to..2 sss vs" .2 4 › 01) 6) 4)

O 0.14., e 6 , 0 -0 je 0 /-- e .e. ,a cf; = 70 . cel ..... bz, 0 c.... iii e := ''' z ' u t = (4), 41 _ ...> A 4-i •' 3 • 0 -. 9 U .2:1 '">'. u 6 2 cc$ -„, •e u

«.-.. c..... U e -. Q 4 0 e ..= •-- 0 >, .... „„ ,,,, ,.... o •- - ., I-, f- - = - (2, 0 •g; - E -• E 5 4 = 0 <.... •:-... 5

A. tn ^0 4.> 0 el .0 e, 0 0 a- tr, ..-... 2 3,-,.e) ,.... {-'''. :,0"" E 14 je mi g -2 r) ' "' • f.- e. 0..

t.. 0 0 0 .0• .0 0 0 •...) ... 0 mid c..... ..0 U U 0 U et 3 E el e cd 4) 0 0 C ❑ cn 3 .0 .... o 0 e cl 0 .- 5 0 ,, e .4 .... ,t) u 3 = e Sa. t." .. u

e.0 tn..» 5 0.4 : c% .:2 .e.•.fe. : cli. 0

,4

el u 05 e e,... >,.. ,.= re -ou o _gi 2 0 e ‘-é,) 0- 0 0 0 ,,, .., ,e) ...m .«. --. -. 0 t... Ç) cu ca • -. c.-, ta. cn .1-", ^ 0 ,..-. • '-' a.) • -, • -4 • -. • •-•

u , , €_, os pj 8_, ‘.; •••, =

"2. E t-, u = 0 pj >,., e u . ,_, .0 . . ,... 2, E 2 x ..0 u «0 4.. . 0 - 0 . m u 0,. 2 ; - te.0 f,-, "fi cl.' 2 . -'-' '5 E v, ou e .0 ski o t.-, C.)

'0 1.) I.) "0 0 J:: ,,o) ,,,j = U a) * U ,t)

O .0 I .... .-. „ci 0 cn C 0 0 Er e r 4-. .. ..ci = -= el.-".0 -.5 .= n' o u I-' U os J) ezt oz u 6. 0;) ...

..= ,.. u ro-. ej >c 0 ° 0 (.et> ••••• u .4 ..'"' ."'e 4) '..' '14: "e'

t> :,,,

"§ 2C u -C .-. e. '>•-, 1_, U 0 .,-. 644 ..... ‘.., 4 là-1

.0 t) •e' *8 . r.e .e) e .1:: .. ‘.. u .r.. .0 Z 0 QI > m) •)-• el eu el)

u ID E-'•2, 0 e 1:e 4. = u eu .à4 t) -a no

'a' Ir, • cd' ra* u 0 „, --I 4.4 › ....., ..... c ..= = 0 U •4 8..0 o g

U o u E- 1.1.1 e 5 e Z -2 9›. ,tv 8. e e ..= ,-. o v) I: 8 E 4.1 E u ‹,',i

ro 0 ▪ on

o

236

e 0 0 ci c>

-0 6) 0 = 11 0 c 0 O <,9 •?... u CD

el .4 -•-• eu .ref n.k. U là .-^ ,,, ... u › ... .-. .... ,0 ›, ru Le 2 LE .2

.0 ..= e 0 -..-. -0 c.... .,... „.) c... u 0 go ..0 ..... 0 a cd 0 a c... cd •. - ,- -o u .0 u C.: •,:r. = 4.) .14 4. U .... cl ,i'.*: o ..0 e çc,' = .4 cl. ,,, ch F. ... 1••• D,é u n .0

0 (13 = el i• 03 a.:1 U Mii .° = 0 OZ

° U 0 tg1 3 . e, - _ „, Ti. cd ... > .

u -7, ..zto• ,,,, _ ›... 8 Q0' ti = , , ) . s F .1 U> . e t9 2b ' : . x - : -- -5 . , na - ' t ed 1". .••• cl .0 c....0' 1.... 0 - C> >< 7 C.) •"" «17

9 . 00;3 C.) 0 .4

cd C34 g 4,) 0 -0 ,A Q 0 4) , . 7. _ ..... z..) .4 e el) el ei ..., es • -, E 0 Ti .4 e g = e ... Q 01 F.1 0 •- t) -0 0 0 e. ue .-5'.., et') e° '.«. •ern.... tU I-. .1)

tn =

es s b... ... = • clà ut

u .." az a> cl

4-..e .- c..

'0

l il) 5 a e

u a> a> , .- E - 0

cn ..... a> 0

ito e tn cd 0 0

0 ..0

i... cl *r.,, .... u cl

tn ....... - - . ' e ,A 4) .0 ?ti >4

•.-. ni

..-. .0 C 0 e

. ee: . - 1:: 0: : :e Ee° 4«tc:)

.::; let! ::: ..::: ,e) 91 (e) ea

(/) E e • 01 te

,

..., ,c/ =

cu_ 1E1. u V. . . . . .,1> U u (2 4 ç,4

- o s. •.. x = ›,

o u .0> e .<73 2 e-. eu e el O ..1 (1 >.) (.3 mi

CLI ...0 X E ...= ,:j ....., U ... th CL = mt, IO -tr: 1-

'a- ..0 o CA r) >, eu (51 01- oe , u ,..,..o .

75 0 0 90 tu .11 4 ,,..:. 0 d.s. <i) .... 00 - > •.- •-. C.) e 0 u Cd 1) *A 10 ,..0 e •."5 ,..m •E eu u 1.., = ..ge = e (.... v) ›..• P.• lez ,,,, .„„ C Cd. ° 0 ou e -.. ,... 0 al i. D .

ctl i; 2 "te> = o ree •,.e ,.... 2 z 14, <A a. =

u t. , .. = et') ce n e o o 4 .0 CO e u ,5 () 42 il 1g cl ....cn 0 ...à = = .,... •.-. -IL) e 0 e•- 0

o e 0 0 .«.. c/ 0 '0 4... 4... C 0, CL 0 P..‘ Ce 6) .0 -01 4-. cl r... ..... ,...

(..) 4) • .." MI

e ..-. 0 0 0 t4) y = ,..,es 4 otA .5 6.) L,Q

.- ...1 o o . 0 .; = - : te 5 _40 ... te C.> ..4 •.-. c) cl •-• u .. u-uleet2uo ..... ..... 0 ..0 - _ei CE, -= „ O u 0 4.-. = c“..) .c) es Q u

v) o ••-•

0 1... >, '-.- 5 tr.

u co u 4 .0 04 cl

a> 'le , L., là 0 ' o -' 0 ,•o; o 0 cu .,

tt - 0

..0 e › 6) 0 = -- u 0 - .0 u 6) te a 2..„ u e u o. o 73

-2 e2

a m

e -..s. -0

o 0 e (... 0 'e1 e e cl. cn

U u u U Pa eu !,3 4) u 0 .- 4 0 E 3,q E a.> ..- •••-•

t., u e 0 .e >,....... u ..... o 0 E-m ./0 0 ta,c) 1... .- 0 0.-îi. -to u vl •a' .- 0 u

_cl E e o u , cl .

0 v, 0 m u 1.-

.0 u 0 '-' 0 ..= 4. 2 e

d) = ..5:'

0 ei=à .-. 0 Ca e = .., ,r o u 0 tà o u

O là 0 › w, 4., o e 2 g .-i u . .) .4..... cn Cy -a cr6 Ti ''' ,2

g) tt) cl 0 40 0 0

0 = c...... .b e a. > -ra •- e o • e cn oe 0 .' 0 0 6) 0 Ô0 °> d 2 = cd .o 0 ..• = 2

el) cl _ E o ew ' -0 .....

01 U 0 .... ...

• . • 1 ›., U e... U 5. es •-, a.) 0 vr . ci. = ... 4 e

0« 4 d) 1.) (1 CIO = 0 0 0 .0 a>

0> 0 0 4 Q 4.. 1. n cl•-ie u c- u 0 0> 0-0 o L.. e 3

F, 4. .,an a> • • : et.4 6) e3 Q '''' E ° -'-' 4-d u ..0 ... , 0 0 0 , ,, .0 " F., 4 i.« g U .0 •-• ...4 ...., ... ... u

• ci ,'" cl 0 0 0 ..0 0 el 1' (.) E o.. 0 v) ..••• c•,, 4> a

-

3

O

C 4. M

64 0 U .W/ .44 +à

0 e 0 e 0 ki...e . , u • › > 0 0 to n ,.....= 0 0 Q4 ce •0 0 t). u 'C › _ et 'Ci su e el e

1-. 0 4. 4) â = = CI = = 3 a •e os- ci •

0 . ..• 0 e te t 8

.a" 0.1) >•eS 04 *,,n u 0 0 ... fou ‘, 0. rx 0 se 1 0 0 0 a ••••-• .5 tif -5 4 ••••' .1%

el ••-e 01) cr 1•••

U a 0 4. ,.., u o 0 o e 0 , 1... ‹„ cu 0 ,..-. ..... ...... ... 0 ..1 e a a!), U el 0 tA r.. "r., *c o •••••• ,.t....,•-e •e u .0 e u .„..

, ,o

M 0 cy

0 e 0 ' . « ), : u y 4.- - ' f. )e I . .4" - •.' s" . : = 8e: )'« . . ::

• •_. - e ,.., 0

u - . , . Eele e 4:1 ..-. ... e E

e 1.. ..e -0 '?) -a. 5 cg) 5

8 ., Le.,.0 cl Ueu,9,19= >, a 4> .0' 0 (..) .e, ,... E cl.... = -•° ms .0 0 .0 •!:".. '43 _eu S 8 tu.. 0 z = • c.) 0 e...

Q ? „e .-7-, 0 cn • 4> 9, é.; a 0 0 -• el • 4.1 4.

0 U M 1./ 2 (•••‘'' , MO 2 TU ›* 4 1-• 1-, 4 M

el S:: 0 0 1. Cd lu u e -..z 0 cl...

1.) .... t2 eu .--0. c... e.4 .10 .M CA • 4

a. .3) ,- E, .1:3 -a 0 0 .0 0 ,... .4, o .= 4> 4> m e 0 ..0 o 4'2 3 e 0 'e* g 8 e kl. E cl, 'ru ... 0 e ta a cm U

ta* • FI. ° -0 .0 u u

237

s •••-• ,,, . wu 0 = •... .•-• . 4« 0 u e',4. 1 e S 2 ..>,2 t; .e

C ÿ s 12 -0 . 0 1... e o 1.... 0 o 0 .6 0 = 4 c' ),. ,,, c n 2. .e „‹ z., .... Cl M 4 ,0 0 Mg , 0 ••e: 1 /4.1 pi L.> 0 0 et) 0 4 0 ne .+Z "0 MI "0 2 g e Cti t•-e lm ett 0 et) S y 1. u cu ctl ce 0 .44 4., u u ,;;,, -. e .9 41.) - 5 :5 ., 0 .5 u „,z, .; c„, Cd 6; 0 M t 03 CI •••••

te *•e+ are 0 .a ô 0 .0: = o c.) u U 0 .4 4 u

146 = .e .5'2 e .§. 4 '4••• eÿ 4 -0 e 0 cl 4,, 3 e ..à) 3 e ,..., v, e .,„ 00 0 u = - 4.) tià>" .0 , 0 o 64 4 u oc 0 MI -0 c...• = a 2 0

-• . ei 1 e 4:4 10 u u 41 el a

0 e u â„

..2. u ac, -5 . ti 'l 04) • > -a

0. e ;... „, = me .0

0 me 0 u tg

'5 É' 5. 11 k«) 0 .-• 4 13:1 cc% e

4) 1., 4 4 = c2 Db. ms e e •-• W e (5 0 mi .... 0 0 .0 . 'e 4,, 3 8... a t;,' M U 0 . •M MI 0 au 6) 6) 0 M. 8, • ... 4. *9. gme x.a. '« ...: 0 u 44.4. JI 4". Gy

0) '.. 0 e, t)

0 r) 0 . 4 8 51 4) 0 t M M ne 63 cif

e 3 0,.

oà, 5 1,-.. .... La ,. 0 u .._... el e co 0 6) 0 0. U 64 .4 ''''' C e M é..1 Q • (A Cà c4 e - E u CA 0

M M M _. 0 zi .0 .4 M ...; 0 Ti 4•A a en 4 ..... ,u = -c ni m 0 e ,..••••• ,.., (,) 0 .Q ...?...0 u ...t = u , C" 4.4 = t cl 4'1 M 1". M 0 0 0 >>% tlà e' ..9. 03 e) M 1)

.2 0 .e ° a <...<....4 01 c... e g ..., u ..0 . el ri.) e a e a 0 o e 0 ..„ F.I u ,e ..., 2 e ° '''' .., a e 'E .1 'E*4 •-e '::: eiw .0„,„ 0,t4m0„

4,1 ..... a e u 5 Ç., .4zi - __ .0 u 0 0 o a e ._, . ,... .0 ›:-.--1 ,R 5 444 .0 ) fl 44....1 cd •••••• af te8 ..e.aeu .- .a« *à' .,<•,:: •ii. .-. c> 7 (..... g f, :5 4,5 `g 0 u ,-, a « <,„ 2 E § 0 4 * ,... 4. e .0 04 m Ç.4 ,....7.... se 1) 'g 4. t) = 2 -a e u - .2 2 e c•-•) w u g °

c

5' utu C., 0 0 -a 0 e 0E-0 ,..0.... , . tt: 0 m 0 0

,..... -5 -0 0 0 .a 0 bu el .1.) c.,

C/3 3 0 o cl cl L, ...S .8 .4 te. = 0 = 4) ..„ e e .> ....9 0 . .... t.,- - F-' '0 = e -e '' -.5. 2 • O e :a cl 0 - ‘•-•, 4-) 'e 0 "3 ,À1 ne o e ,E ›-' • ..t„.. C u e u .i.", ° CI f.1.. .... 0

00 0 = o E i a 0. o u 0 et U u ÇD .e i.. .01 '-' V) e, ,,„ ..1 .c: 1"" 4" '4" qà '' 0 e = o M.F149. ou

t --.. ›,-:4 u 4..

0 „a 0 .7..,?* ,.. .0 . .E) u ..; 5 u su = 0 .e., , e 5 4 o a Cà A '111.51 0 13 Z 4,

›, o ••••• ... ce ° E .2 2 •.° 0 0 E•••• 2 u 0 4:1 0 .- 0 0 F-cu

"r- u (..., .e r0 Et u 0 0 e .-e' 4 tg) ,. .

03 0 °Q S Ca e 8 8.;73r8 c., °._e on 0 e .0

238

239

240

= n i.... e 0 ,..1 0 ... .,5 .8 fl di -- or j t ,:1 w et.,

C., = 4) CA 4 •:-

0

... U 0 u u p, 0 k1. . tt . .1 4) •ced 0

ce T ..c. > ,:,......„'ii. u u

o '.0 en

0 MI mi R 1-l

e 0 M te cd

•4'•e "e

'Z,',* .c) >s u I-. e .°-:.,' Zi E a m su r ‘ -0 -0 U cl e Ci) ss

u = 0

• 2 .8 u b+, ".". . ..I 4..

o ,t). a n l'er i1 ,o.. .- s4s" g" ô .cd (..r a 4) E • .1:1 • 'ee

E 0 se 0 4-. e se 4.4 t..) e' ,8

sU 0 ,4 Cn :`.. 4, ••> 4 GO t1 'el le .ki

= »-M .".. Cb ,1>

^... 47:, ''Fi 44) U ts )‹ . i...

1:::%.

e • 4

eu elà n c.) 0

•/) u

a) ....

td c..)• -ed

Rf n e ,...

: : 2e h. . . .ae ; ; ...

••• t• .)

Mt .• ,-e. e

—

li>

rA E 2 %g É e

_ela

du 4g *)

, en .• ^.

...0

c>13 e 44°' eq e° ue - - ' 1 : - .e • 2 . - 9 e".--' 5 • • •

0

Cid

td D1

or ç • o n

• ° 4) E st)

èi) âi 8 U

ce

241

se e

n oe

uvre

= tâsv Cl t ère "ve • O. CU ...

•-• 0 0 "--. CI

; ' 9' el ›., ,z, E .-, r- o • a. ,-. g o . •0

.... -0 .-. - •t) .,...) ,... , e fa. ozi ,,, 7,5 ....., c

V •:.-,. .0 - c „, e g u ,„•-• wg..) ..o u 0.•

o tom. 2 N cs' ,,c4 -':) ., :01 C1 "e u 4 .4. Z (cl r 1 il...) MI ›, = u 41 ej 4) — •,,, -0 o I.) i... ..M

4 ". Idi) es 0 C ee. .(1.-- 0 4 1..., VI = g' M

0 = MI 3 . 0 "0 en v, 0 • ^, . 4 et)

2

a 0 j : •▪ -0 ... 0p O «+0 N. r) -e) 0

Ci. . o 0 1 y., te MI n e

= Z .., ce CA O.

CA • 4. O 0

e.r.: e • d.,

o et --.

u. le -o • .' .g ,.... ; = E --a..r. ...., ,A tu e • ..a.b ... ar ...-2, a oor au-romi.-.. rm. ,à, ,

• te 'a> "É. IL,) •.•

e E o el

e „ 5-' 0 .0 :- 0 Q 10 .... cl▪ «3 4) mi

( %., ... CM -r;1 e ,-. .,- 'e. u e 4.) 0 . -. ..... c.; 0 cd e:'4 4 "X:3 cd en 0 eu M en ci) M 0 M e ee. ,„„ .78 4) 0 st) d.) 0 E .Cl :n es 01 E al -e:1 ' ' Me = .„ p en te° u e .(7i -ri , sc,› .-0 ...." ue -..• u •... 4 u .0 ,,, 4,

4 eZ, 4 ti ›, e u •••' ,CI › VI in. T. ' g t.,) 0 c., c c 0 ‘, , ,.. tu 0

0t -.-a ..7.1 (1 te. tu -4 w • s. •

e ie. •e-e M el) 0 el) en ,... I u m m U IE 4à e -0 ---e c.) -0 › et) e e e o u —

1 •.• d 0 e -0 (0 0 E 6.4 .-0 0 2 c... e . (.1, 0 , .1 . 0

. <ed ,..., . eu "ti .4,) = t).

u u o a) u .0

t.

= t.., cu .o ".• rs 41. eu . .0

t 4) 2 .cg Ce 'ce 4, le — e

4-• o u e e u c

mi e (--

pl nd

0.,,, e e ••-• • cr tro ei 0 . ,„ _

,U .... ..= -0 O 4, 4) = ... • ....

as '10 ''' oo E e --. Â. e c •-, a t..

e ee

- u "°- :11. Z.1), 2

e u es) e u >

Io lu • e -0 ••-• ..es e :E cd 5 a a ,,,

a e -ce o 1 => a Io u › u a e a. co) •t) ta. 5 O 0 0 u -0 ,.., 4) O -0 a. cl

L., e • 0 -........ "1).

' v.;

g: 4. cl e 4 0 O cl uE E

E ▪ e) cr ,c,1 e H 1-) cl 4 et Z eS = i'41.; (..) e

=

ti) C6.4 0

•

a.) • A e

E • •-• 4, 0 1..›

o e 44 — e •;:,- -or ,..1.). -a' = ..ri . „ 4) 4)

ri 't) •.,-.c9 -0 a. 0 g ,„ • - • - z. - , .,--.

U Ce e) e = be •u = 4> e .... u ni $. .... 0 CI, MI 0 ti M. " 1.) en 4.) bo gz E a, 'il '0 .cl té. › 0 "" Cif """ •-• 0 0. O 4 = T. 3 0 4 ) :3 ) 1 C 4) C., t' 4, su g c. <1, ee sU ZJ Mi Mi 0 U = >N .4. 4.) ,1) , $-4 1... /- 0 0 0 • r, a> .. •4 4 ,A O.) là e

0 Ua ,.., •.' 18 't, '4, = o. e 0 .... 4) 0 ' 0 . . cd 0 '01

t«

R .e07"9.a.)4) = e e CA a d a. u ., -o -or ii... = ..o e ..,, •-. ga i o oi o x „, cri •.-• ii 2 ". r) „.. = -.ce> 3 E d) eti ir. 7:4 r) I- 0 49 e

a ..... = el ..., 0 .... = •.+ ,e ..0 .m 0 C 4. CI › t e

z e •--,..-• .-

• r•-:. .0 e e • 4 elr el g u g e, c 0 2 c c Z ...z ri c ,8

e es

-0 e > c ;,3 - 11 a e ‘e 'S d o 0 c •.) e te

e e e ,..0 u .:. z e e -0 ,,,i ... ". s-e le 4) cil MI ml t) g) (...) 4.) ...... (.1 e (...) n• -,,-,' e c = = .-.. . -_. ..---,.'-' .,,,e = 4.) tA = I.2 CY 0 45 .10 cd ,,_, le •e-e

= -0 ci cr --, e ,,, 0 CA I.< le e e' e tu = ----, 0 el) vl 0 = ,... = a..)

.t....":.: Eu L L '' u 4 . ) ue à c .. a a = 0 ...4. i„, u u r, te ..0 ..0., .1., „,"' Ti 2. -Ci --- 'a c-,3" bu 0 („3 a Cui ',._ a 5 0,

•e a da e cd . - M • r)

Es 0 .er. .-.. el) <2 = •à) e e u e .,,, o e Cr 0 g) 4) E a -.. .,,, 'ce c.,

O N 4, .) • •-• • Mt) e e q) oe 'cLil (4 t2 8 ,.... 2 4. e! 1A- ‘..),.

e• u —0 2 .z.' e '41 = 0 = e u ..e -0 0 u g.) e e u,

e -,-,3- su u .,.., ... = cr,-,-• e en 4) inel M 4) E '15 t a .ti "a g . 4 '1') U jj .e - ... •;.- ,1 = e

; eel " : 3. , ,. . . . -• < e e -ci le•- - e.-- , .. • x,

,.. 0 ,,_. w -0 .t.2 e or cr il exe .e E E

.., e O e ms 0

-. = ...

0- u ',...

cl

e

•

242

cr• 'e u 0

e 0 u Qa

e cd C

ti Q.) TA. CA 0 .0 Cà • 0

'n 0 0

s-t e -0 Q . fi e (0e, O 4. e o e -'1 >:.:") '"" ....• Ci 0 Q. ç") Z. e

_ .... o e C • °!. " ';î 5 .2 _. „,

-u vi e .... .... - .,. ,3 ....

cd

4.1

.... 1... t) t., 0 Ir ..... 14,. ,,..,. duo .... e e t3,., e. c, u, .„ , ,,,,) ,,,:, •,.. ,. - ,,, ....... ,:.,

r.1, .z3 u 1... 'es tu) o e,..e Z. '''', Z. 0 cle 41 '''') c:3

' czt sq., ‘... 1.. - -0 'fi 1... .t.) 0 . *E t..' zel' 1.. ...fi .i C:'',.‘) ......, ,,,,, Z.,..., Il fi (U .1'4 '''

%à .le ‘.1 te il ..r., ••• e V IV e) 1U tà t:3 0 0 e • -‘

= e) .t7.1 Le ‘%à tZt ,. • %à . t ..: e e . , U § . ,1 S e 3

... .; il › CS Z --* 1.' Z .., 1/4 ..... Z Gt . •-..., e -0 0 > (.4 ...., A.. ..,_ cl, t2 tzt, -. •-) tue , ,..1%....) t3 ,q, 41

`fei Z Ià` 0 ,o 0 tu tu -- o e <,3 eu <4 ex> 4 o <1 ° -.." e .z....0. e "es •,-

e C..) `t3 t3 e <•3 t.e, -.. •,... tà .o, z., -tzt .7-..., ..... tu r... ss• ..› . .... ...... % 3 , .i„?, ,iire 9. '47,3 ,.., '''' .%; I) ''... . Ci

10. ... 2 (:; _ ,,,, ‘t» 0 .' :1 • ''"% --, or ti `---. il 'es -,% -='. • les 0 ti

§ 2 1 e Z --. .. LO) ..-. t.è • e •-• see Z --' cm )•{ 4... -c3 i.. c., t3 •-. Ca Cr 'il Ct Z,. ,e,) 0 .1/4 4) 4) .-. L.) ti 1/4 ,1 ,-. • Z Z0 fi, fi `r., Z. Z-.)) P I..

...,. zt -.., ,, ---.- ,z) ...0 c),. ..à ,,, . 'V 4:Z,

ç• a) (1,a e.-, ‘. z.... , >c ,.; ,, z 1"1 e '?1 u e it:2 'Z3 ,,II r•••

1:1•4 '. , .... ki t1 fi 11) k. '') 7:7 '41 04 *0 E 0 ;.40 k. ..0 k.b clee '5> - tl ';'

eu = • e

• e .- c.) e 0 le t.) ,

-. ='g rd >

t 0 2 .6 e le 4 ''' u O tu a..,,:j

•-• -- u .... .• e t) t • ,,,

E .0

,... u e..) ...= &)

0 -0 c e or u) Ta.' a u b 1.- el.) > > d 0 cd • g

g 'V 0= oe >e s • - et ; E . a .0 ,1 9 :0

0 te) c.) es ,,, ..: u c e c.) u O ca

.1.-.., 0 e '3.) E = th 0.:- e ..I eu u5 = = 3 ,-. ci)

0 es 0 ci .-4 V .e

1:21I el 0 e ce a •,;1"1)(1 •.

rà 4 ve c e :,7... .0 . = . ,... 4- 4) 1.-. cd • - g o ..; :_. *a. -ce 0 ,.. CL ,jc, 4) CL c ..a. .e2-0u. 0 ,...

0 ..... 4.) i... >,• > 0 t.) > i.... 4) c.) ra "0 0.'0 4- 0 CA ......." 0. 5

. i •à (à) .. ,) 4) .... Q .c -0 > e) '....,° " ' . 'n ' 4-.1 ze Su "ou . t >4 n '''' . . e 1

e e cd e 0) 0 0 , y_ ••••• c.) .•eu = cd g cd -C) ,t) g e

• •• 13 ='. (4) 8:5 = • 5 s' t--. C. .0 0 • u ..

0 C-) -o o •= cr r, ,- ..,, .0 e ms • e (..) ' c... .- v, c o o cts _ AL) .... ...q .1.) '4. 2) 41) 0 0 Ç.,D o n 4-. 0 0 E '10 e - cn u '5 -eu 0 .4 .... leb., 0 U := 0 ^C

-. 0 ..7.: g .< 0 u -CI -,72 ,.., .-. .... a) c0

u il ..-, t) C g - t) cl b

Cr -4+ cd 4.1

1.. • -> ctà G. ,.., .... ..0.) 4) .4•) (r.1 .0 t: fi M "C1 d 1". .0 e C.) 0 ' "' cy, . 4) *-• cd .3 c.)

C c) 0 fi 1"1 0

.P.. -2 e ,... c ..„, z •5 -0 a,.„, 2 e u et) u n' (11'

c a) 0 e <:, ,-,...,. 0. 0u Q. 5 5 e E

te 0, „... t«, 441 cl 0

cl ci • 0 = 4.) cu CA e 0 1.. Q

0 k.... .-.. 0 â.2) 0 1... 0 L4 .... 2) 0 4.) 4.1 1... Cil 0 4) .0 0 t "0 2 •,...° ej=> le e le le ,,,,,, CA <A y 0 S.. 44- ,-... le 0 e 3 0. 0 cr 0 c,: ci 4) z r) g 2 e 0 e c- r) . c

,,, u c„ - .--. >e la. u"' 0 l:L'e 1., le e lle .%) •••• 0 ....' 4> 0 4, 4.) , e ---. 4.) 0. 01) `0 g e - s-. t '0 0 1... 0 o 4.C. el 4 o "0 1-, 5 5 e 4..) <-) cn ,.71 0 0 •-, ccs --.-z. u e ,i 5 z = 0.. t) cd • 4...) dl c.) c5. = ..érs

el .....2 re> 1-4 ‘-' 1C • ^-, -

e (...) mià 4.-..! .4., ......1:1 1:1 O • c.) • à• . •...... su z, 0

,› . - . :us.

.9 .0 2 u • 0 .0 E .,;-: -c) %1 • u

c....., ,..., -0 e «, 7:.., a.) c .5

c g te, e e tu eJ 1-. ,..... .9 .....a.) Cà 10 ,,,,0 .0 0 ..-.

7,.' = 0 g 0 O 0 r % ....

O -0 -0 1-4 4 e. C/1 't_. 0 E E 8 cl

2 ud , , ,nz uu= 6. . . . ,a) ,..., c.) u ,..., cd

= a 0 = c„ fi . U O là .....° ,c1 4) = = -

• u "0", c e > Cà. c u ).< 2 4> in.

cd

243

':, lul 1' *e 2 O . . • e = 0 a. n ..„-,. ..a e .5?: .. • . cd e ,.) • „ me e là 0 113 Cn I... ... = ct el ere Ce

0 .. 1. it. >I V 0 • o. •••• •. S.. e 5 tIl =e8 me a = n e eu. 0 --.. • I-.

a) cu • .te z xt, mt, • •G o. g n• 0 gl. 0 ..... . 0 crne 4, "... r) e

0 „...là .f , . .9 > . . , - t a E , . . là P..'

In • ..... .1, ee .1» t.4 le 4 :::: D tz e = le à 1 r :' 10 el , a , a) ;...- ,.., .,-,Ç,

N.. c ..4 .44« es e 0 L. , . e

u oÉe ee

4

g/ e e •';• _... ,..„„ 0 ii, e 41 es • •.,.

C•J tO ;/ • 13 5 0.) > e o .5 *.e ...1 7-4 .ci g c e c., 0 ..

O 0 ..e e ., ,.. ., ,... e ..0 g 2 gr t 2 ea. ità n .. •@, ,., 0 0 .„- 0 ..... . .; C à 0 C à le! gi s- tu 4) .

'te n:4 C4 .e.' ..., c, 'D i. .?:, 5 4, 0 = = mu • c, ‹,- - . q.> .., -. CI. 0 0 """ • .., 1"? r t:e .... re) 0 1.e ,» .e 0

: V 4 4 t e : : : • • :6° ) 41 :: c f .0nre:

. 4'. = 1) 04 0 es 04- .1", 1, 8 el ' > 4 . .4., ,... mi: -0 u ..... 4•1 0

S. '4à ..t. 4••1 ‘,. .... o 4) Q tri .0 0 0

t• e• •.r .2 = „• .„, u -cl -,11 2 e <L, •.,J = ,... . e le .,..., $-. e ..., .... ta. ,..,

'''' .e ,,, ca •

e -Z 41 c.% .e eà e 0 ... « cr 'tg)

R 13 - cl = e a 1 0 a

., a >o e '03 (.) 0 cl .- e -a ✓ "es e ... z, e ,,... 1 il

cxr o a ,13 ,,, e ,..,

0.0 se ..= e ••••••, = u

e e gb. ,,L., e Q .gi 1 I p., 2 1., .0 cl- g 0 0 Q. 440 là t< 0 1:0

.." a 0 1 U = e

0 te. 0 e

e z 0 cr

e 0 L. ao "4., u ,..1 e . ›-

c 4e e 9, c.-. e = ° rà ° .0 ru .....0 =r.:, -..„, e p. e e i". el U

Q qie 4.1 CI = 44. • U0Egile 04 U a. a a 49. 'e e e 4, ..--# ce 3- d el p

. .0 • -4 O 1:4. *4-. ' e oh n u e 4) 0 .0 u 0 ›, .-, 0 u 1-. 719 -ce :r.s .17.

1„.-â v, .9 `d, ..e e a... o 0 u rz •44, ce e •-•'•

.b.p ,Q.• k e ..._ ee a ....., a a o › = e 4t 1 ..., •U 4 0. ° 4à = e g; u , = = 5* u a• ' U 15 i..1 ).. ,... 4,

t>0-°' 2 u ... zIt ... ,•• 1. • ••1 +4 0 0 0. 43.1 e el. O ... nEe a e

n;: 0 = 0 = le Ev ce CA C e x Q.1:3 = z e4 QI c. c - 4 me o, t, a x •;..3 4., :1.) ce a - nt

.... sa E .0 o a 1... Q CU u ..... 43

CU e e 4.) 0..) 0

Ce p.4 = • E

O u L. o

>

a

2 e ' o o ,.e e , 2 rie ..er.

• o =C? ! 4r5 !

• loi o. :vo -o : : ebe 0 I..

Al U e° 0 C.) C.) 64 E Tl c.? ..-à n

4. u ik. u ,t 2 u ., 4. eu '4'1 %I )4. i e.1. »lZit e.4) l.tU th& ..0

16 ttei ••••• z e 0 e tu ,.. o. ‘2 •• e-- 2 e e ,,i iz.. k,, • izt • ..., , . ., , ,3 - - . ,,,,..., , le

a e e .> tu cr cy,

le'- g e4 .e... te 'ne. ›,'n . u ri sd î• • ..-. a e ei 'nC e:;z: ,3 t. %)

e E tu e'• Ok in te n. tu P ee

hl e -0 u v 4 e "4 •-• e , .... t.e le. e ..,..a tà Cr ,„, eu et %, ,.. e.) n Cs

m :Z 1:141:3 e -. eti 4.-e-44-e "es ..,. 4-, er, u 1e 73 qe ‘4.) r„._.-. r .1411 › e o

- o e a %, a ,,,, ..e .7:.:, .D.--.... .., Q, ---, ›. e e ., ., E %;

be e c+ lu -te .... cs t.. , **. \tu (c. qà -.... 1-. -2 ... ,,,, çli ::-.---• c,„,. ,-. :,.. % ,3 c. • , „ t: ,-, ,,, , ,.. e ci .r,

ts ..e „, a .5 ck, e in .!'..! zi, 0 ,„ •- 1» ..... . - , .441 In .*l.l IZI 2 e:r '11t) U ej ee e. e 0 ...,t. 2 E o , 2 1

, z ., e 'e3 I.. p e te, ,n c) ., "a ..t. •z, .., >le *Z is.,.* .k. l's - e 8... = Zr ,32 te,

.+ 1 ' tj el ‘4t.) '*: i3: e* ‘/ ,zt.'› Z t..e e ,...• -0 %qt, e u ..«." .4.4 C4.1 m. 14,, ., Oet:•43.4.. c4 e --...... Z t t e Q. '... 'É ,t ,,%à ''. ts

:--4 ,:t ,. z.. %à ., cyleu -1 „› .... z , . Z ' e4) ti '.... , ,k; '.i) ... eu 41 -tre c3 .... ru 4-, 'czt E.tc• .z.4 -e.-- zi ,...0 ..,% 0,.

k. .' c.. e 0 .z3 .11 0 .44 .444.

.'"a t) 0 ig".' tr -.... •2 '- •-• % -. o e t',",,.,. sa . ... te a -- r-*-- a .... ,1 Cli„ ..›..

•-• eu '1:1. D' e 'e. cu >e °à *- I- ô e t., '' 4- s- ° tu stu . ,,,,3 1;2 (X) %eu ,,„, •••• a,„. i> "e, D Q e

"U eu t z ' t • ''. b.0 t % teà M .2 . te à

t et e ,,z, 5 o e 'e e 'e sLà ..• t., • .. 4+% L) ‘e 0 "I qil 10 e.•

.11 (.0.1 u 0 .... 4•7 P ' C:11 '.•'›

ii. 0 ';e 0 0 1:l ° 0 t'A (li e: ' ...e e ,•• .% • to ,, a .... _ z ,o, z ,,,, e m e. .3„, ...tà

.> t ,.. ;t:1 Qt Q . lé 0 '..1 . .0 Cy ".• ,e., •.... ih. ,e.. .;

,5 .,3 IL u e ,t,, fz, _ c., ... .., ... : ..5.t -, . z ... . .. -,3 .e. ,...... ze ,...,- izt ..... --e• ,„ •_. .4

QL, r, ›,,zt .., -t:{ a . u .., e •-. .4e .... e

,a ..e. .., „z.., o. "à E o 2 Q. ,u .a. --. e o a e 4-, o Q éj : e n o.ua e izzi e ... - o -. e *ts 2, ., q, e %,,, , . ...., Q. t• h, 4:3 e e rr,e ,....) ,z1 To)

.C..4, •••• V3 '..... .b: . "k.S. 1.., k ' :;) .e k C• tl. (el 1 ••'

e'5%, e i., , ,,, • "zt - ..... - , ,-. z m ,. -= --z: e ì sa '4'1' I.. 4t *4 (-) I:

z a 2, e.: ;it- %, ,-, ,.! u ,,, u k- ., ..., ,.. t: ... -tu - „ ,,a › c .... 2 ',3.4 .syr.; cs .e . 0 e ....F , ....e .!..) ty p › w2 . 0 z

1,.. col P••• elà e , .„, (..) . o. u › o › rc.,.. z . 2.. h

Cà Ze.è L34 .> °..° e 5 a t e te ts -.. .e... a, es (.)

,,, c> = * 4. z 1... )... „ mc. ,,, c.,, t,,, "e t,, •••• te a,-... 1* -* ul c.. lu tl.. 'a mu a..2 "3 'et e"

244

, g el al

> 10 .0 U › 5 .,?:, 7i > mi •c) a u el .cd a .0 0 Z• ' •5 0 u

> 10 Cr 21 • c >. 5 _ cr. a u O 0 w u 0 . F u -0 <,, 0 = • e 0 ...., ›). ce o u r, 1:1 0 (le 0 =

0 (tà 5 ,_ 0 .... e V el 0 1... u .... de stli = y = 43 te. a = .... «, ,-. -0 zr •-a. 0. g) /. RI e C. t ...) 4) ,3..) 17 .a. co g' tt) el Cr '0 G.,r3 . ( 0 ,G G el e th 4 O ter. 0 6L) .. 0 0 0 0 3 5 e r, ,.. _ <,„ O. 7° a - t; 0 - u- „ o e e E RI (..) >< 4) eti I"' g) cr ........ 0 o Ti ii 04 cd a e -0 c V1 tgt G ' où I- m 0 .z1 › 0 te .- '.1..) DO u 8 e ri0 0 0 u - ., 0 - .e 4.), su te„,-. u .e (-) .,e1 U a -0 MT .,,s, U I Q • t> E e -12 L. 4 u, . , Eu 6. ‹ ,,,.e_. a 3...,?, ..0"' cd* "Cj

0 G 4.1( 0 I.1 C Cà 0 •el ,.. RI 0.3 . u .014 4/ 4 CI oc 4-, G et. et ,cci 3 „ „,... ..0 KI/I cy Io ..... ,u 44$ .0 = mi LI CJ .4.) 00°> • 9:1 04.1 t e2 Cl ° > 7:1 Cl fl) G = .0 su 4) 'u G I. 4.d

0 u e c 0, c.> o - u a tr. e .. 0.1 .42. g, C) CI •re e Z ' u 4 .àà'd‘u ...e a 0 - .,.... „, ).. • 2 no 0 .o .o I. 0 • ei) su Ch «I CI P. u 0 a Ia 0 izi su ... a.. . ., -a O. e, = .... 4 03 p.13 .1n* clà Ge ttI . u te% ..ei Ce ..c 0 V) › = = 4, •" tr. t.4 0 ... 0 = 0) 4 0 0) 0) r0 C.) ' C 0 va 4)

4.0 -9 e el a 5 e •-• `d. . 0 .- 0 ;-.... 0 - rc, L4.4 4. = 4) 0 ' 0 '«. e c.

coma6) 4.) II-. u •"-4 0 Y.. = tA .E./ e 0, u e >u -e«e E •4. • e -e , . as ,.. .,sz u ..9 8 5, 0 ....0 .-

0 o c Ab '..= u ...4 ;:-.4

eig le Cr MI e = ei 1:j • = en „ - )„..,- .,,,- 'cl 0) v El.. a e e tz .at tu c cd a' a le ..14 ir, e = .0 ...... (e) e eco 7)) .= ..., A e 0 •,-; 0 -, -0 :7-.. - 0 = u t) e 0... "Cl tA u a cua-à su ,.... u rs- - = xiP A °u 0 Xé w a> 0 ,e, 4.0 ee ... E "G 0 (DO +4 17 t 4.> I. ... Q = Ind a • e, o -z E .(1 ,,,,,- „- , cg 1::1 , ^01 '"'. ../ If) le

ir) - - - ii... u Ir 4) 4J

G u 0 Cl' . E .e ,u 'a t)

c, ... ci. 'tri t .... â le .e e a o '‘... ° tt.) ,,, ‘4) 4 8 eài=. 8.,'-i t .,,,, >, ;.1c.) e.:.0 ,4 C.) o. z ),..1 -te crq: )4 0 I:). 6... e...1 ..0 = a ii,s- 0 ..= < el X - > u Cl .0 ie C.) O c).TiU •,...

rf gi 0.1 0) ll$ 1 44" eg .... _ , _,•. . 52 t st . to (1) 43 4 t... • 711 E•C eg e ..... ../ • 4-,

,,,i el C ci) el 0-• 0 ,... > .q S ›. - e 4.) 0 .0 , „u . ›. . e t:11" c ' MI 4) 0 44044 CI G td-o 0 0 e 0. ... , . , e e a eu • a e u ,_. .13 , ,.., 0 . 0 ÿ'' be e 0 CU 0.4 et/ E ' t 5 : ° .. 0 -{- = Cà 'el G te, e _o u o c. e ....g" .1.4 ..Zl) = ele C.) c'e .... „. - - ,,,,„ ).. cl e o U .0 a ,, on › e u >.t c, ni

-4. - .•Z = = 0

et a•

.0 tu C.)

.. ic a "› a cd 1.....-. E a u e G.) ;2) g N

ci ms ,-. 4 ,4, Cd 4.) a „0212...) urrAe,

I. ..- c• ci tu 0 CU me ni o •. cn ce cc> il mi .0 E a e . o ‘.., ..f.,' 1° 'cob 0.1.1 ,,e ne u ...c s,* n 10 el 0 2 0, a - "a -• › ,,,, "0 »;.• 0 N lj .1) . u rar, sl.,‘' eu • de •R1 • &, e Ti ,,,.

= el e e z u U -o mu 0, a „0, o a % e 0 ce .0

Clc c.) ,8 0 8 e u .4: e 2 a ... du a › z a z; i0 s • ..a .o 0 0 0 „ ...„_, u o. o ii. 5 ca.

..C1 . >». g, 0 () e e u ,u .1 .., ...... 2 0 4- 'g o. ..-. z cm ....) e Cl). ïi 2 e 07 0 cd = 2 Ci o r,e, u•5 o mi cn 0-> 'ni I;2 $: e - e c y ,

• •= ›, c t 3 • = Fr. a) E 0 mi .,t,-, Cà ,0 o., ,-, g 2 g 4e, to _ 5 , • . . . ,I 2 •E ,t «r o.. e .. . u ... .0 0 0 2 col il c,> "e 0 U .4à 0 .4, mil (,) -0 .e > ca 1:j t9 .clu u u 0 .a

a z 0 PMI 5 0, 2 2 -es _ «I ,5 5 g '..z 2 O o ,-., .5 .M e . ‘.4 8, = = .0 c I. ,t) * c V)

..- e g a a cd e ee 4.) a •.4 = po 1.4 '11; U U -o ..o ..o c.)

245

.... :..0

411 U 0 là ..•

.i..03 • ''' 5 0 15 ,, 0 a.) .. I-. <,1 , e ,..„ u cl -0

...' 2, cd .0 ci es E u g a. 04, e

0 . "0 ..., (...) U c::, ...0 .). al e •-• 0 .. '0' e

.02 4 e e 0 0 0 M y I.• 04 a. et.,,,, 0.. te 0 ct; -0 0 u z.-: 0 0.à 0 0 ....-... :75 s., - 0 ;.. ,. ,.„ ,a) a ,,, u u 0 0 -...

0 - E ` g

Lo U U I-. g :0) "a: tà g : . . ..c „e 1 e

= . . 8 rJ u u c et q ô. ,d, ..0 = 0 .. c›:,-,.2 Q a cn st)

03 e •

s. ,u F.,. a a •-0 u • a ,a) .o 0 n4..t.' Q .... et 1:1 cn

bD

0 0 a >

ne

0 - mi> 8.,

u ..a. G) ,... -ci .-. .:.:

u a 7 " a ni O Ur. 0 e .2 -„,

0 et e ..., , 4-4 v) Ok•cil .1 10 su cu -0 0, .! 2 ,, 0 ... •5 a) u

4-, #) 0 41) -0 ..... _

3 ^ ^ sa) tà 1... c's la. e su e tb o ..., u - ....., , <.,, .... .... 0 > t. me cà ... 4

> . YI 1". 0 cs .4)) MI ,... .., 5 0 .,r, 0

u .c.,-- i- v) e 0,. ,1 , ..., 0 . j., ad

eu ri ,e3 .. u = .-. 17 en = zu eu .42 0 0 ,-.. ,

0 t) tu flà 0 4,) cu Cà ne 4> 0 00 4... O 4-4 >4 e Le e

là OS .._>. 0 e 1.) Zy 0 U le...-. 0 cr ce '9 e ce'r) &) e Y a .0 -. O ,e "te se , 6. I e 4. .... CA U su 4) e

on 1-. y el.) I: u .0'" 5 *r... = ,1-) U u a ce

CI +5

'8 u 0 • • n4 4-#

i. ,a) oc ee50"e 4. e($1

"Cf ni a (;) a 0 YI)

g.) 0

O u

Cr •-. u

3

N

O V cl O VJ

'a 0 G a. :7:: . > 0 0 0 0 y e e e e c.) Io r3 ej e u u ., 7; 4> « r. cr e 0 •.1.) 0 "IP, 4., e 0 ^0 g ' E

.o ot Q ..." 0 ‘e) ...-_,-, M

y › e a', •"zi o

4 e .4 M "e .5 ,u 4,1 ,., an

Q. U .rd â

465 ni u g u 2 04 = a>

aè >Ne) e u e 6, y tir) Q -0 . U kt . -0 u 5 i.. er -a .8 e no e u _. a u e a e no E eii a a) le

le ,g, ...,.., = a a .- o.- -, .;-; e

H e ... „e a 0 0 TiOt ‘e a CL' .1 Cu, gr 0 .0 ..0 4.) '...1

4.-4 0 U te4 0 • 0 â 0 4.) le 4.4 • ..-4 CI 4-4 el u t.• Ç.44) 0 10 --' .... 0. 0

4) 0 ly sej tA ^1 Cr u u *a 2 0 efjà Ci el. GO1 «

4' 0 .0 'y U 0 4. ‘-. "0 0 r.e, CI •••• = 0 '-'el U t.ael 011 ...te 4.) .•••1... e 6. a a B. e" „§ u e 0 e o

a ,,,1

:5 ,,,I, Y y st g, cn 0 1.., CI • m• ettl -•

C1 *. 2 . Si :fe se) eej ça .... a. Y 0 ei 0 u .5 s.," s .... ,.. .5 . 1. u e ..... __. tr.. le ).0 01)4":lia. le

ou .... 4.)

0 ..., e y 0. ce

e 4. ne 1-• a b ._ 0 0 0 •-• 0 - = 0 s ô O. cti 0 8e u = 0 .. 0

es g . 1 ->, a 0s 0 cl. -e, .. 0 4•4

••••• = cr. e 44 0 0 •0 0 0

4.. 0. .n. k. .. e , a 0 . - ,_ 0

.4j 0

...... Ci

A A gr < u a :0 A4 :., < -o b y sa.)

M "iii u,.

0 Or el n 43' A< E 5; , 1 a a On i El;

" go

..sp me ,y ,,,,, `04 U rt ,.e all 0 .

o •:-.... ho u cl --- :0 ci '' E .e 41i El cts At • -. i. 4) "1:1 04 e'e t iel. ..4,0 c1J o b , = 1: 71. ... ô 0 0 Irl L = " et • ça..;' u

fà 0 0.0 0 là E :7 ...)., U ^04 ,... 0 ►Se .... se) .4«eel irj al) 0 e d . 01 .1' `Ë r su e 1... 8 ,,, .... 0 ,u GO '"" 0 0 ^. Y1)

0 ..... _. CI , 44 C 444.4 e '-' 0" 0 0 6 • -a.. el C) U o e e e e p 4•1.

246

4.1 .40 U e U e . 4) '0 â ix

"0 -ci e ' 2 g c ci°4 • • . . • g u

0 1=1 cd .,3; e r. ci

5 4J 4.1 c 0 Q 0 = so. VI 0 g C.) E ic e., -,• , .., e 0 ca c.

tu LI ro. cd mi te -uoeco- e 90

ees 0 u •- tA

mi n ,erd> 4..) I, I. Q 4) 0 ^ >4 ' g 5, b.4 0 .,. ,:,, u .O .-.-- .0 ,..,..., -0 6 u vl ni Ca4 L. • r 0 e e ne 5 ee t ,, C :ri"..

E 0 2 2 t.. 0 e , u , 0 j C O/

0" g ›. 41 4.1 ....s g

0" g Z •Q' A e 0 _

Ô o cci o c.) ..... U io. ;..• cg mi .0

..ci

t tu 'e e .'

id n » .-. e.

n.

cd ce1u

(-)' 0 g

ri .g. z 0 .... 0 u ,or ei,

„... e .e ._. ,r. ct..) ci

...,....; 41,..- 6, •••••1 4É,

°.,a 0 d 0 0 C.; O. ,...1 .2 ..o ...., •r. ,,,i

E 1) .2 Ô ..1 L. cy e iis. ,.

U j 5

O U

,... . e •-• - .4 -0 0 0 su g .0.) •C -.1

0 cd d) 0

•

Q g ee 0 6) • ,

..e/ .0 cn .• C u

.... 0 c g Cl t g (.) g g t...... "*. "0 • .... c 0 4> ".... ,tj +.+ 0 ee+ e.s " +-e 0 0 0 , .- 0 te - d e 6) u 0 cd ,-.

oi a..- .0 Ç) 72 i:3 •« .••• ,,, ..., • 0 cl -o 6 ...: vi ,.. x ..è u - o nt .àd

e u ..... cd e

e 0 0 'î.'.; 0 '-à sty .çf-) U E tz.., .... 0 c .=

.1:1 4) 4.) ,..... E t . 2 U 1.-... 0 u -. ,...... > 0 -0 i... e y? E .-. = = 7:74 .à. 0., 0 o e <,)

g, u le u V <I> g g --,, > 0 0:1 I, tr .4-• Cri Q ,.#., ,• 1 g 031) ;El e e QI ° UUri

E <' ô' «I ci> clà eu o' e«° ZZ 4) e ti el V) -,a c.... c u el e . = 0.) tm

U s... d> g 1... E ut 4> 0 t.. 0.. .5 '0 g g E cl C. ci

el 0 ci • ....,._ VI U CU

e o e •-i e c.- -ei. 5 el ‘... = .... 01) "a • ..".. 60 7 .. .22 0 = t 0 g 4) i.... 0 .1> td) .510 ‘...,, --.

IO 4.> 0w.Ce 1-- CO .,› CO./ ci> c... <-1 ,-. cy, c1.1 .... C • •-• ..... le 0 • C u rj a4u) z g <1 v, ...i r_. '4) I? ic -ci el 8 8 O u u tu e 1- 0 • • ri e) ..

0 el> 0 C.

de 1.. +a. 0 cl t's

.,., > • e ,- (...) 0 0 ce el)

..... c

e'S e-e > . -.. ••• U c; cd C = .a.)

7a.0 5. et vl tl) b

,,e) fa. eeco .".

,., o 6 > a 0

e > 0

x ,...0 u .2 '6 L' e

u te, e e eu e mi c6 g 0 e 6)

0 C 0 ari e 2 n• cr

.. "0 el Ç...)

ni '"' .z. ..,?,i' o. o,ro u 0 u u

G 0 ';-.. ,O el) L. 0u ,A y 0 '°•') u o -cte>' 8 ecp ue -0 .,,

g) Cr

e = ,..r

oe e 0 .42.

,_,

- s" '' E

e

0 ii g tu

1... +0 - ,-.

.4) '.., -.

....sc .4.) t.. c.-.

0 0 0 ,

I: 10 0 g g Ca 01=1 • t 4. .r . L.. CI ....

E o et .5, 4 et e.) CL. U 15 0

5C O o -0 *1.)

n:1 0' .2 `'" •

C.1)`•0 CD e e 0 ..à, 0 • 1, mt) t: = Ce re

cd cr o ce co ...es 0 0 .....

• .... g cd n e o e u s.0 4-0 i'' ...m •.tc b., 1..1 1* 44 0 • M 0 0 g 4r, ,4 '1 = . . . . 0 o ne tA tz..• GA Ei u ozT,

-. tà et te cd e 1-• c ..e eL...4., o ess c••• ...

1.., . >•-• e U 64 ,4"..A ... /0.1 to-• n su ..m .,.„, 44 =

40, 0

6.) su 0 e -k-') tu u •-• e e 0 4.•

I-e 0 col 4 Ci 1.. ,c1

s+ 0 Cr e4 ccre 4 .1

E

5 u F..›.. ....•> 0 U oue.) 0

e •••• e e 0 e -ce

u a u 0 «d el) t-.

‘.. e 0 cd 0 0 mi 04e 4-: e. 6)

•tej 0i) "Ci 6,, LI Qe1 GA Q ..."2/ (Je u elW e 0

, e. , _. •;-... G.› u ,n m 0.0 0 I. = . -4., 0 U 4.) ° • • ...4 U a %I 5 cl u le

'0 U

cn 4.1 0 e --.2 72'.--, •-

1r, 6.• 1.4

i,-; ci •cd Io 1 • s e'. :12 1) • . . , ' ' ' Li E . = 0 is. cd it,

cl a e u u u •- 1. 11 1...4 Mt tà) r.

FI u ++ el) •-• = . C

o u o •,..... I' 8 41 e ..t. ,,, ,.., ..) e c., su . u ,....o. e -o j <g ,... 0 . 0 r-, -0 ...Lu crig ,uc ,e.° g .-.9 crj .. cl 8 „, ie g 7i ue '''...1 ' ci .5 'É 1 . . 02 - m .1 .... tn ,.... u - O. 0 w . 8 ,,,, 0 '4) 0 '0 00 › ^,... g 1./

,, = el 0 0 "r) , a1'0 4. I°. .9 j j s•-•

L:, ae -o lao cro-

o c) •,, e C u u ,/, ce u e z u t > e e ...4 0 •-•••• 0 VI

rzt eat) . , =0 =De ci 1:10 ...0 =0 eià e 0 4) ...... 0 ..""

0 2 --- 4' 'i'...), .9 '5 0 - _ 70 c,, Cu g .1.5 .,-,1 = `6 e ul ni' c`• et te.$ 2 r) M

,0. 0

tq o

4 = r = 4 U

O C 4.)

• .--.

247

,,,, u00 0 = u crC 0 bl) c "Ci

' .9. v; ,t, u = e a = ..,1 4) u - ....

_le, Mi o 3 0 0 0 - ..... =

0 ...1 ,,) ›. = 4.

= u UUp 0 a a. r.'.. e .. -st

en -0 :c5 z

0 c41 cr e Ct 01,.... el 'a' u 0. al U "0

.!". "" vi 5 e ,rd u cn e e 5 se eu , ss.., 0 't e u •r: e a t... ...... 0 C, • i. . . g) '14- Cl" (I ) u

R..... g

!,...... el 'al') • "' .V.,o e e Ict ,..., y 1...

t D. .4 Q 1... 0 0 ..0 6)

,0 0 0 = c ,r) 0

E U +E v9 0 e eu o o lu Cr, e ..= o 0 ,-. 0 .. se mi e il 4.1 . 0 .__

0. 1:3, -...• >0 = 0.4rt.

u 0 ,../ U u "Cl

u = e es ri, ce, <0 0 0 u ). •.- en x = 0 -0 y 1:2 0 mg ci 0

....1 01 U t"' Cl .,... = = 0 .... = C a e cr a se o

. . ..,...> ..,.6.) ..1,. 2 cd ce y e 00u 74) L6) bi) U U le U t... -0 0r. = e 0 I.-. s 6) y . ty) Ch

Cl .0 ... -7:1., 0 n "C. M g ..,i (i.) 0 0 nt

4) 0 w. •-• cr •E; " -0 -, -0 i0 L.. cj. 0 0

= , ..0

= I-. •«1 V ld L. >, Ci 4.) cd = a 2 o 1! .e, 0 0 u os 0 > 0

X (0) e.) Ce. 7 60 F::

el)0 0 (1) u › ›, 0u7Uu 0 ti 0.) 7 -ci

'Cf 0 ti) 0 0. . -,`") 5 = cl. > el .... - • 1... = 42 E 0 E - -> o ie, e cl...- - na - 'eu o to _ cu ô ..... u y •„; e 0. 1... h.,

0 ,.,4> ti) c 0 C st> er E a. e o 0 i... y .... u e a %-. e .r, ,.. 0 .is .- iz = elle 4, C e. A el

...... _ce u sa) ..ÿ en a 4) = 4.) .4

6)

= '-•-• 4) Cr; .5.

.M --. 4) S 5 eu -0 , licjA:1 su

A V 4) - 0 ....u. ci 0 •.•••I 0 •''.. "0

›•• = CD .. en Ca0 ,.= e... c...

°en Cre 15 0 1.) «I ". el = 60 Q 6) .,.= 6) 0 =

• ...I '-. e.) 0 .. el -LI (el

O oi ea -0 E i : •cd le S .... 0 0 V 0 .-.

1 = = '' e CA -9 r) e tu 0- ,i ce. 12 os › a i.... o Cl 4.) 4> x - a

ho 0 6) te/ ou ,m se en •-• e a 0. 0 .....a 1... a o eu a e a . y e 0 ..z.

Le -..,I) 0 Ch Le :D-E

Ei v. 8 u z, 0 0 .... u 0 e e..) .,,e, c,i) et, .0 0 css •,-, ',1 .-

ce -. o ezczi t ) • IL) se n Ti e ..... >.. .1.-2, -2. d, U 0. 6) = 0.

4) VI a -a -ta › g <, E ',I e tz -te> 0

... 10 h.

-.• -. 0 4. 0 •Fe.

e 0 ty = ..‹Î E E

r % a s-, c

eu u mi a u; a - , nci oe

ca.el-t... te e a «ô = a e :=-.. 0 o eu y a t - F'•-• 9. • el 1-'9 „cl o u - ,e °I) -o -0 § , u u ,r a ,e •-• -°2 b •L

a 0 - >

"i; g e; . 0 _. L ..... 2 tA ID E , . ..., 4.1 1••• 0 • •••1

..a a ej •_,- , a y at y.p. 0 os e •-. 2, a o irt

, m .... C 4> N t ii) 'a g u 0 a 0 e 0, ta. c .......... 4) .^.

0 •• ... co •cc 0 0 6.0 7 .0 0 Cl s u 4

. ••0 0 0, y

••••• u 0 0 6) (1 • .-• 0 e e T., :2 tli:. e, -,,, ;..e -0 u 0 5 ll ;,E., 4:-... 2 1V.. :+ -- u o (.15 = = e 8 7,1

6è e... - 1.... 0 .1 10 4:i) 5 vf A. = 0 0

0 te. = 7 0 *U .1) 0 u _ a ~Qy

el, 4. e .-. •-• ree 0 2 -0

-0 > = e e 4,;,. :1 •=1

4, p. 6) G.) 61 VI a 0 a a 0 . - se o e e .._. .... u a il) a , se e 04*, e 0 ,ece ss uuecr..ea us ie) u or or 0

ee -el u e = u me ..... 1..... c 4) 4è 0 0 ci („) 4) a.) tu • -

41. ......, -.0 2 2 - Io , eu ru so 0 ''''' 0

c.-- do +-• - ..«. (n .... U 0 , cl U C 71M {.« .e e Li, ar

ej 1:0 M ea fa ell ,..... e a se a 0 ,)4)

0 se ô E .o e a e v, 'c'? 0 u u v. gu I) e ,„ o. tl a u e .e.-- ou a e- e'l

-0 44 El ......

- ,t1.) e a -0 _ i_., 0 ci . 0 • . MM C CIS

...... a •••••1 41) ee c .,_, .6.. «i C....g 6 60 .. e%

0 0 cej t": a ,e„ est = tu.-- .1:0

eu a> 0 C "0 v) 27 , , 0 ..e,

Ce uU

(J e c.. .u v, ux r,i ,.... 0 0 ‘.. 0,, u 0 4 El

04 0

..... 0 0 0

ta El

0 e . ....,-., . . = . „„ „,

cu o •••• • .•

E 0,... .... uuU

el 41 e E Cr 0 -0 20 4) *". el "e '''

Û

L. -1 É

k.d .

U

•" kk)

kk) KI *73 :.«..' : :I.. ..te: ._.,

= = a) :

V \ 0 .32 w_ t•

,...,

.r.: .;,-,. te a el ,,,

ci r:

Ir fa 0 ei •

0

os 0 ci«, > ,..:•_,- ce

tr

g ...î., il. • ;, ,, ,..1 a. 2 . .,%-.

eu e 0 .... •.- 4.

C v2 "0 Ch

v)

a) 0

..... -0

Ir«

se ,i i.. os VI àé CM CLI GU ‘k el.

Ck le

••••

191

C ce

n. o m .4.) %-..e u ...... 'IC

a ar 0 (/) .2 zu ilel ue -°; mi: Ce' ,0%.5". : .0 e le

...0 .0.4r) <il ce, Ig t .1 e ma 6) =

4è 2 1) el

° e u 0

sec-. e c, .,,-. c u 01 = cu ca)

cr a C0 tu 1.) = CI. ''' n. n 5 Ce

E

o u ao u e ,„ e

et.4 -... e o sti

e e, rez, 4,5 e .- a e 0 a -9 2 .-°-) 0 eu e..... - g t) , ,..... CI 4.

o •-•

1-1

0. CA

248

. ..) = . - u u -4 t) g) g) g) t . -0 0 0 0 u . . 0 ,.. -,, .- ..-.. 0 ,. u E r. u u .c)

U fa. fi

5 cl ,-,i- e )1> e

0 cr.:.e. P. 0 ° (D ).t Cs e le 1, e „, •5 - . es q., tu) = 0 ..= â '• '''' › u su o u cr u a tt, e › •..... 0

• Cr s già ,,eu là Z e r.", -,:t * • • - - ..„, 0 U) g) = in 6.) •.›.• ..'" 0 -cl

o> .- ce -ci u su `ts e . n3 E ° z1)..M .,..,,,9. ❑e, 0 z i= rl e e . 4., - 0 L.. 1r <., 0 ,... cn u "0 tee

r, en d) e` 1.. ,,3 .,,,3 ,•••• , , N ' I:, ,... -&-;

U 7._ e

• u 'u 16... •••••••• • k• Ctà • >.„1) pu '.." ".,-.Cn

: Q• . t: Cf/ cn 0

e e en bo eu • > ci) u, u 7 - , ci ou r- 0 ce3 cn . su cl el •U 4 --. ,U

Ç.f •-.. U .C) 0 0, e4 2 00 °.' •'-' . '-' - e -o a. I- -le 4-. eu --) e eu

o cl> cri (11 ei.) c., -, .... Ct, ,(1.) 4) = g3..fi o. F. 4.1' ...., u U 6.) "fi tu fi % tu • . • 5 P. 2. U e.

2 e U u 0 ,,. cri_ sTe e a 7e. e e• 1 e7 u E e '''' .., -4, i.. e V) .L.

0 y el. ei Cr ,I, 6 le na)

0, 0 = e › e e e e '%9... et., u ;fi

"Cf E Li1 u (.7

uoilu

u''' -0 0 () en •4.) .....,(1 4.' 7,) g „ ... tt es

)." = ,a, 4° g) .5 izo -. * e b..' -Pe ...0 - ..-. "... • •-• cn 0 ri, .4 .> 1- ej 0 0 0 su 1... a z a, tn,. ci 0 = = = n % tià ‹U ..Z... , h .) p. ''e h . 1.9 ne CI .et; • 1::$ 1. y +4 1. • O u 0 .e ,v, ..,.t.,

• ... e • 0..• <1 ,_.1.) 9.= tà u

e a) .0 •c) e 'e u e e ,...9 •._ s., .„,, = i5 .., 0 , u .a., , ... ,.., u u ., u t- ..... -g „ei,„ c..1 s. --,;- p. s.,...1. 6... 6 c..5 e • 0 O Ê 0 . 0 ._ .,, tu .... ,..., . cl. > ct, oo•e u - 0 0 ..

r.. fa. 04 ci. .... fi cl 4.. X = .... , 'u X fii. cl

..e. j:1‘ 1::"1 u(:_-' .4.5 Ili 0°-> ..... 'je'<.)

= ... '-' 0 0 .,-, ..,,,..._ u .... g4.›2 ...:§ a..- 0, 1... Ce '-' „e e 4) e x ..., te-. 0

el -I... '.... .., cl fi • a 0 0 ; ...e. ,-. i.e.....) t e • , eu , , , ok • 06) .....9 e I , ,...1 ei ,1.), ,...

U 0 ,c0 el .,4 = cl F.

<':i.... e u .- e e ‘.. ..c, eu u) a.. -re -c e 8 2 ..à> 0 0-• ,n .e.) Cr .0 _9. -e. e ta. P. 0

U d) 6) 6) = 6) I U

.,= ,...,e• •

'I0 0 Mt e ,., .0 . a) ci • rcl be - (,) - 4) .... . •,-. T; .z.2, ta• = u r• 0.

0 (i) u

= : U cu cn le L'I el' 0 '.-L . e E a ›.-,' 1 1.) = F. cr u = la 0 121 cià 0 .."' a) cl .-- 0

n 3 2 3 'le 6) 6) 4.1 g ... =

s-, = c• l r0, • -. cr o ti) o cs• .' O • a 8 e e cl. c''' -3 -, Ei

..... en u .... i... .e '0 ''e ue

..-- eti e u cu . eu -st en = U - -,e1 . "- :0 =I ) te

c re

...1 ‘01"« >,e1 e ).. e E cn ,-.« - ‘,... 44 • 4 C r ‘

• ... 4 5 d) se n g; ,.„, .,••,; 0 > b... ...., u 1::7 cî 4 v> .t.. ,_ Il 4') e) 2 e 0 .? cg = .Z. 111 cd g cl id 0 . r: = e u o .s.-• .4 <,,) 0. 2. o tz te ,,, su a. u A. bi) el)

►L., L. cd G. ,

= Z = te$ 124 u > u u = u u •••, A I

... = 5

"... ...' e' ...1 ‘e.) QU .12 ...: 0 el :T§re 0 0 0 u a.) 0 s«. ei 4 -0 , .e --. = _. 0 -0 ...-à .... 0 4 "0 ...' = fi 4 • ir, • ›. cn cd e 10 •=4 . • ..... 0 •*0 0 • .4 4 • = 41 le "U = te u u su o t- o • u su e •.--, .`") 0 1.1 . , . .4 . ) 41 . gli e mi 1 ,-. Io o e o su eu c

s..... -y c„ .a, i;,,, G. 2.t.) 4

8 .2 >,‹ cc; a. - 0 .9 e e 1.., u Ple [ te, .e);

o uy,,,•-, , 4, -es 3 `11 ç) oe su vu .Jo e e .-, ,.. e - e e 0, `1:1 ki. u - 1. e ej 0> 0 -zi . a., • Q.

a.) ....t ‘"É -cr 41 g . '• N .

0 ,u.. 6,

• - 0 ... .... u .,:„ ,„ ..8 . . . 6J U • U 4 cn • *". • '''' = • •-• ..0 ,t) Cr Â. E e e, 4) e Cil lz, U ,i1 44 41 6) F. = e. 4 C) C .--'> = y., -0 6) = 0 • 0 •-• e

U in.." E

.,,_, .._. •.-. - ,,, ..,.... 0 r % 4; u fi :8 C fi .fi i.-. '0 2 .6 e,) ss

' 3 2 ' ' ' , . * E g ,..c,, 0 . 0 u 0 u cl 0 4-4 cl 01) 4 ..-.. u ta.‘u 0 cn •-- 5 Z U ..... u

i.C u › e

e e eu •-• u .-, C ei 4 cl cl cd ..M •-• rei Ei elà -0 r..-- -'' _2 e cl -

:21 .e = LI . -cri e) = ,,u = su . 10 4 . 4 = = F. 0~• u '0.' x ,cl 11«) tu 10 te 47 (.) e30 "0 .- c2 't u ..>"' Vo le g II . el • 05

«9 i-i- ° › e c„,- -0 •-• 0 Cr 4 mt 4 .4 = ‘•.> ..-. 4 = Cà, .,s8-4 ,C1 ià 0 cz a) en cd ''' 4) e sU e ,...r" 'A' -, n - g U :0 lm

C e e e e 0 - M cu .4 MI 0 e .., = a . n e - u e .....° u su 0 •;..-...8 e .‘ ,..-- ,,,,, .... iz ;-, • 0 U 0 là ..0 „U, > 10 Cd .0 • e ,,„ • 4.) 0, e = er , ii.. .si, •0 U

-. .4) 4 eU el el = u c• a...:-.'.. ei

mooeu eo.iiu- el F. 0 cn ', ) rj sn O r ,ê u o ."3 u cl▪ .

cd T:, '.e. cr -o '2 o "(,) o.o P. A...2 a. u c.) Q ,............, le e te) (...) t?.. .0

u •,

249

250

c ..z.:.4) el) n 0 2

neU .e 4> ,T, ,ù s e, a> c c 0 la el le - J3 ..E. cre tu o ... Jo >4) lece

e 0 , I-• U n -•-• :0 e n le 7 . oe ô 5 e

0 i••• a) e 8 'a 0 • = 04 u su e 0 o e -a , 0 4) e•-•• E • ee 0 E ..., u 0 . 0 0 0 ô ed .e * 0 ..r...• u ... ' - e E 0 i••• u., (0. 0. 1... 0 •,-,

e es kp , L.9 • oe L . ,` ' à a - •, .1 ..... u e cr .... e et S «t 9 ce = el •cl Z e• • 0 5 oc ro) 1.• 0 b eu 4) 0 rs '' ..... u

el) ..;;; •U -0 .3, ,4) ..... 0 cl = 0 -, 1) •••• 0 '0 rie en 0 0 4.1 0 u ›. 10 U ett) 1... ..., le tu .1 e ..., .±.) 's Ir he C.) ,70-

4) ,0) ••••• ...0 u e .--•._ cr'eu e 0 tu 0.) Ri 71 ae oe Il 'le Rie e ° .. -0 4 0 ...«. Q 4. Ri ,6) , uel 9. 'c

Ÿ cr t1,1 RI 4 u e g e ri I. fj.. rn I., f.1) la CI ..... u u <,1 g 8 E = t [ ÿ = 0 «i () T) .4 . 0

4) co) et) en 0 r-C 0 .9 C...) U 0. 0 ••4) 0 0 . 6) IV 7,7, 'a , > E ce) = = le e1 9 2 0 --. re 0 E le 0 ‘-• . . e E 2 tu V, tà

= . = 2, VI 4 0 C = e... ... CI 0 me 0 Ce e -0 et p e o 4.) r.: 4) 4) 2 On » e u .4 - •,,.. ch e = 0 , in„, a C I-. C C.> CL) ,0 ..0 > su E 0 u e U 0 u‘-. 0 e >, „a o no

vue' 2 -à' 7" e z eol > u Zi e 0 0 e Ll E ..e li, ,,I 4. '1«. el)

a) 11> '',... 0 le e... e. u u e La a , os e i„, - a r,L te e g) a su o .... 0„) te .t. -- o = ..g) a e In tu ..43 5.0 ,. e "a' ..e -0 ,. , ,ci tpl 6) C«) ,rd 0 2.1 ci> L. -' CL ..0 1:3 ..- = ,s-z 0 a 'cl ,....f 0 4. = C ,a 6) ... 6) te e 4)

1-. - a.,z; 5 tâ a oe ,,,s e u 2. , ej su 0 ,, u g .e.... .7< .,:i ,,, j0 , „te

o, 0 t r ...... y, el g) •X 4.0 ej " ,u 0 t.. -0 -0 (4 e e e .= ,, •;,..• g: ,41) -1 e c -'. g.„ e u o .... .F., 4> U 0 , Cl. ,... CU 0 cil ... 0 ici 0 L. •• 0 MI 0 (....) 0 t., = LI ce ,u ., . . . .0 .01)., eugzi c.) o o cd U '•-• e a> c ,.c, e da •E 0. •E ci) .0 eu 0 u ..4., .... 0 1..• su 0 QI cn - I. = Ci. e 1 0 ...- 8 :.-.., cu ..... ...à 4 o 0-oe eyou„ e o 6. ,cu 0 e tu e 0- Fi e e "' u, v (A 6' CC 0. y . e .., to . ,..; si en' cl •••••• o e , u gm 1 - u -li rs C.) 4. ‘.."/ U

› Ri 0 6) 4 i.. e 0 a.-o a. -o ›...1 là (,) Cl..... `'' .4 '.'.'

. i o u • à ..a = = y el 0 c sa.., es eu ,• ,U. •,... 0 eu 0 so ..... .ou u •,.. me . .z. E .2 5 15 „:, e 0 'i..). x • -- fi 2 E t ...» s..., •,-7, le a 0 0) 0 E "u 0. ,..,= 4,1) .0 y.: = ra 0 tià c.- vu .0 :9 ).• 0 0 ,n cl "Cà () . .t A • (1) ;:. 1... E e . eu cs4 'é' .... ... 4., 0 El u e It.. 0

un u e Cn 4 ,-

0 c el 0 ••-• 'le -, 0 4) 0 .1 u {/1 •••••• r•-• v.: se .. . ..... „s , el ‘... 4>

el Cà .0 le ,,,.„0 l....> . u ni "li .... u

fi 0 ei • MI ...e. 0.0) = 1:1 6) 4 U 0 0..e,... e e e e m 10 M .-' 0 › Ti ,,, e'e .- o e tr) -.g „ c o ..› .." le u = 0 ee

I.. Cà 4. .11 0 0) E u s'-2 . 2' et ,.... es -01 y„ 0 e 4) 1 a I. '0 0 -0 ce) •-• 4) 0 • 2 E s.. -, ,-• c z .... 0 Tt, 0 cs$ .0 0 ce. a u E ''' e ez,.. ,

ggt. en 4 4) = le 0 *.t) u cr ,e2, ••ele c ....1 U u •• .,_, 0 .n1 td e:d C Z "eu 4) n c - e 4è .0 E 'e . 6- .41 ...0 1.. cd 4 0 e u 1-..

1.) 4.) cr CV ,0 .1 I-. e u 4.) › •-a ai 0 E u 2 0,) •et 4.To -0 $... Ti en ;:. en e in. et el e es 01 . 2 U.

> a 0 eu 0

a

~

Ô

r

c 0e. ,--• , ....., o u u

0 ..0 ,... cl ,.3 te. 0 ne t..• c .-. ‹ rel et e cr e '4) ç) e) › r) (..) 0 *0 ,,,, 0 .. ,',1 -0 et et is 9

g) u «1 •-• tu 0 " 1... ,0 cr u r. o ... 4 04 ‘6> 40 e .... "0 e e V) ... "O = (Là u e z 0 u ' g -0 e tu 0 3' 'a' e .es 4) ,.., el) Cà- e .... u • -: el) 'Mi '6) x ,-... 4 L. 0 ul = ›. , -5 7..) 5 . 0.. 6> 0 .e 0 0 cn ''' .2 .0 0 rii t 0 0 .4 0 s.)- E 0 u E e

0 et. ,t) E sP:,. 8,, C .4q :0 Ri •4 ,Ri 0 g>

U 0 ;J« 0 ,e, t = 0 .... ..a. '' ' a t .0 o .a. 0 e • i .. › cl se) U 1. Il Il .>."4 -5 0 4 os 4-. 0 (I.) • -. = 0$ c.)

cu .3 m = ttj = = 4) it › t.) 0 oc-) 'V 4) e 0 1... m. = 0 su Me 0 r.' ..c ... e -e .... 0 0.. . 2 ,..ci. 1... ts. > 1 0

0 , 4)4 el. e ,..„e

••• e••• Cl U ') 0 ei

sll 0 0

u 0 `C >< '-« le. ...el c») 4.9 e• u ).4 Al u e 10 m cl. al cr u u ..1, EI < cr e eu 4.4 o.. à ai .... e .0 ;-‘ ei0 e >. tu 0 -0 so ga.... .c) ô e 2 e ra le e 0 u tu o '3 e as . o - te o ,... E ,i) 10

a tii O -na os 6. -- ,i., t,„, «g 0 tu 1 ,- zr y s.. 0 " = 6. 1::: , ..u.

‘..,d -C" 4) .ril ra.,.., › •-• c Z -LI I. „ .1) a. e. L. .4,) e = c .,:i .0 e e.et> e 6) 0.) 6. Ri 9:1 4 'et .e' 0 ° G

.4 6) 6) 0 g, ..0 1... • -• .-.

a eal E 4) (-4 -E3 u C.' Z .o ,... -o e (11 4.1 a.m. u s...

CD

251

Il „Il ›,‹ 1.) ......0 •U U ^ U el U \ (1> X e. nt 0 17 6 -5. "0 .... ", 0 4., 4:,

U

+

S

a co a' la. cr (e) e .o ••-• u u $.... eu r. o .0 cu

et 0 0 el."0 ..... 4 <4 're ^ ,4 › 0 0 E e a t... u • o el „„ u o -o o o u eu a (,) e.... tz o „ -o - 1- e 4. $.. o, o o 04 E › 4. e > 8 • e ,,, 0 c,

0 4 c'l E U U 6) 0 Cl 0 • ‘-' a) 4) • > cl C.,-, •4 1... 1-. = a) V •e, -ce ..,,4 e 0 3 0 - o 0 o „« "0 0 4.1 -c u .0 ..1 0 - x 0 e

,4..) -zi ''' ta. u I!. 0 o ,T) :- il ce. ,_, le c.d 0 o n, 0 4.) o ,..0 0 - ,..1 et a .73 ... > ...... là e n. cn o 4.. e E ""' u ZQQQn ';:e cid) 0.0 ,2 , -0 , e 0 •-. ,..„ .43 .0 •- i.... , ..) = cn .... = 10

cl 0 0 = 0) * U .4) ---„... e cr u t ,,u o e 0 r», oe = *

.8 , 5, _ ,£.1 a.) = M ' enu = - .0 c. le e U ...ce •0 0 E ve3 u o .... E 0.0 u 4" 0

eu •.° u, .... cu 0 .0 0.90 t9 .0

•e..... 0 0 4 Cà El o > 0 0 'il* o 10 E 8 d a

no E .1). e3 ect 0. I.) "". ta. 4. I.. 0 le 0 .." el" tif tU 0 !....:i G' CJ eCIS 0 4.) 6) rts 0 -0 0

e .,>•<. e e e 6. 0 0 n. 0 • ... 0 4

.... gy, tl, .... ° ri., Io me n 0 ccl mcee 18 •••., col u 0 y E io

•

o ed 0 4.1 u .0 e 0 0 2 e E `) l, r„. § 0 ,... › ..0 %.7.' › t Ifs oa ; . -,z, . ,..... 0 . . •-• . I : ,,,112 to Q ..'e . s Q sü t) (.4 •U "0 y %-• X) u g g• 8 u .„, .„, _ o cD ne or = 7., ..ite 2.1 -.,.. = • - ta. p. su e E '.°3,,, 'G t..7 E › o cn •ez >e, ••• -. 0 e 0 le. 1.. en 03 te. = .0 - cezt cp. 0-11 f.L. 0 0 e 0 0 eu el ce . o ... • 0 o a 2 ct. E L, cl.. U uf ..ti ..= cl cu a. , toi ,,, -0 ..= ,L) I. ne C ...„ 04 4. Q 4.) = Çà. cl là o AD IZ.. 4e le . 0 el "" il 0 a e e.-1. i- . 0 ..,, . , «, . .,.._.. , . ,., u „„ . e. .... 0 e•à• 0 (1 0 0J 4 e) ,51 x 8.. 0 tLII = ›.

0 .0 «I g .8 o 4) .• ') sU '.. t) Ca) 0 el) ..i.:i ..e ..,.. 4 4) 41 ni h* 90 c a 4-4 .0 40 0 ..., •ri cl -a o o. e - 1... u a, .

..... o 041 = {X 2 te 0 Ct. a to u it, e - 4 et u 0 0 E ees el 2, ...o 2 = o eet u eu e _ ..... cn ....+ ..o. ..... ,.., el

0 "44' U j)... ...„

.ece 0 N0 ..... 44 ...41e çao) Or U 0 0 .... "Cl r) E ..g ? - u .r..3 ,,i . ,:-., ..... .0 o -to cl Le) â 0 0 0 ,d) c,i. ne ',"1 ...

..tee, cl.) '10 c: c'el •cià ê). e -c) 'ee x .1a E .1:, ,„ > t). a 4. '" 4 ... 0 il. a") U el 0 y 0 %II° ese

MM 0 0 › lm) « 5 cn. a . o i.. eg 4) › •r..., „„, 0. c9 cu cl 0« g o le eo -0 0 "CI u 0 .0 0 .. 0.3 . ge

1:3 = = 0 t..., à> .à. e ie, m. • ci „, 12 'V) tn --1 .%) V 0 • -, cd 0 'e/ .... 2 ... = eu m se ,-..)-- 4-• Dy 0 &a cl nt 0 0 0 le) u o ›..., <cc cu e g = -8 .1e, '"7 eJ = 4 › 0 E e Cl 40 Cr '1, Tj 1 1 cir- e ,, 0 e'• cl.) en e---. cd e, e

mu o 4 „,,- i. I" à 24. Q ,.. ..0 E 2... o '5 0 h. li, E o E u4. u oci .. e El = ,, cn

0 .... "0 ei4 15 .4 o 8 eu ca ot ..c e o >, > o 4 . .1 66) 0 0 (..) V O. e 0 4 cn •U bt) a. > U., .La (..) U u 1...,

ciè lec eic e I crj e 4 ...1 d) ce u ." ... e g e• .... •.. .... le . ....,t) . . o= ... -, o• u cl y= „u0u.-/0 › tr.. o 1- et a ej ,, „ 8., -... ne a u o ,:c 2 Q

0 .0 0 0 <A el') u ai 04 •

u 1.1 Q (à (e) 4 y o È1*, -. a u - - .0 4) Cie 41:3 0 (y c 0 cl.) .4; ta,, 4 GO> 0 u e .-• (a)*z 0 le I" E,..„45 g ... , E u 0 ID 4,..., a ...d., 5_ . o -. o U 10• 0 ' C te - ..o =

A ,•./.. 4) re 0 ô eci :es to 01-: t).04• "8 ''');: o'n 5 a

o ..= .r) .. ..0 u

e o e > - 2 me 'G o e ‘) E c eu C..) o . U c 0 st) le •••• r• •

0 c VI fa•I" 2) U ce e) 0 h. 0 cci 0 o el E *0 O. 4) el .çcS 0. pi 4 •4) ... ezI I. I..

Y , E e •-• 0 ..-• 0 = 0 e •--11. 0 0 2.). g, là..-. = o 0 ,.,, ,,, 0 ‘.. 0 •--. su 0 0.3 .... -, ,... VI cr 4.) 'là o o o o o el U 0 0 e Cs) fat

0 °. U § 0 4 c 6, 2.1. .t, 75 .. 0 et.•`-•••• «, , ... a 44 0 ""' , •-. 0 CY u u 15 mj 'I° h. 0 to> 1-.

°â° 2 -1 be . ". .1, col t> 0 cià = 2

- c....

0 cef 'es o 4EEuE l:e cu 1.4 cén

"0 > te ... o. 0 e „;

ce u ce .•-• = . $. ....., bi:, 2 U

.4.c - e 4.4 IO 0 eil .8 U -5 U setj = u .C2...43 U e .4 e a h a CA .0

oej d r4 = c , .?.. à", = (-) 'A à 0 o o h o . o "io e"). ..= ,.. .0 0 V 0à 4.) 0 ‘1) .A.) E 0., '0 >., ? (.) .1 . • 71 i... ;= .. ...., 1.. •• ,.. ri' • • ..., ... 2 0. MI 0 -. (..i.l. c...) ct. .13 U .,, Ce I-. u 0 -cc u •-••

cd U •U X eL * .7 .4 o E

ce_ o u tO rà 0 Ot 0.. 0 e • l 4 `..

t' 1:2 › 10 ,t) 0) ce. -0 0 0 ceè a a) a U o .k.,. „, 8« e Z là

''''' 491 g a Io es e 0 o t..... .* Ln •^.. o (1è fa 0.0 0 0

4 0 ,. mo h. z o ,.1 c e) tee .-1 ., J ..3 ,... 0 <,1 ,... 0 co ami é I-. 0.) - V 04 . ". Ti S ' ta. o E-1 =

o ro e u o ,0 = r. a. 01 u a .... 41' u 0 8 o cl

... u .,. ed . 4.4 u L). .1 cA s

e E o o .,o eu o ..... E

e .c .- - ,,,,

..... e ;.. e o 4 E

0 ,..... el) V te're') e... c.) 'g .

00 .= = a. •!:à g Ir.° ‘9.e o a h u à o eu 2 2 ,A C.) u E 0

0 u 4, .... "e . u 1--- os a U =e,§d 0 0 3: t; ..• c'4; P. „, 00 0 - ce u 0 z 0 4d 13 0 cl ,cd ^."'. er 01 W.

4 - e eu o 4.) 1.* 0 a -,e, .5. à . c Cl. =1 0 ..-w mn cio 0 6.1 ..-i 4.) à. pl U +.:, '''' .4

be cu leà a cl u 001-' t 0 g . „:, . ... 4 ...1 C) • Ê Ci 'e e 8' .

o 0 u .0 = 3 b „ 4.) ...r a. > co 44. eu < C 04 u ..0 (1 ° ° 44:1 2 Z i..4. 11".à

:g N ta 4e sty z fl = 0 = o o e u 4 .-:-. 90 to ..ei 0 e et

E<...lc...13.. t.r., o o no )4 z.. ??.. U - .""ru me u o C W E 4.4 o

â

252

4 41 .../ = 4.) = .co 4) <41 = 0 E e 70 > ... 4) .... 1:24.3 :44"1:7 4; e a: -n°

o c.> c â5 .... 0 le

u a.. e e ii) Tl "0

4 0.. a 73 a a c . co 0.. a. a 2 .0 e E a

o a 0 a. e $...,e 4 .e. -0 ...... u -.., o te 71:b ,.. 4 E e .0 u

le o .,) c.) ..e u 0 = = C u = = = en e 64 =

e .... , 0 e ..., 4 = C.3 > .0 4 , 2 .e Q ., . ..., 4.4 rt . ...„,„ C.) 4.4 u "5 =g2C 'e elce e <Cà ,3 .a. ..., .• e

in e • e e ci 6> ea - 9 4.) ta a' e. . 7) ci co cre le (..) . 0 o âo ra.TS ..- 1.- a 0 e 0 a u u 0

e = o.... su „ = ..... .9 .... 4) 6) I) 4

E a e

-a e E . tu 0 0 . t :I A.,) 4 cl) .ÿ › - - . le 0) al e -o ..4) ..-45 4> ..,,,, 6> cd e .-- G Ô R.. r0 cA g '0 b....0 .4.1 0 0 und - a. e .... 0 "'ô e 0 À0 c e ma 0 ...F. co 0

x .... u ,.. e a 4.. c ms e ,u -.... a «.2 *.,..- cr .. - e .- E , e 0.. of o 0 a to -a e ô e a ,0 Cl le cl. tn 4.) V V X) ..4-0 Cal 4) 2, 52 le 4 4.) c a c e a .n 6.. t 6) ....; a 0

O 'T:$ e,4 'Cl 8 ue .5 ce e ce, _ . . . . .. . g . , . g ; . . ,. . , .,... «cf 0 u >, e ...5 le e e ...... *05 g' e

te0"= r % E le el = "I) u 0 ..0 .O • •••••• ..... u %.., u ... u / . ' "eu .-e te'.' .3.9 0 4) a-.: oh •';'.e u oe e e e .*". 4.4

cÿ g e M o 0 r$ E d g ei› ...., ..

a. ei e 41 1... t) e • ... > ‹ e • . c.) e ... tA ...à 0 -te ..... ,4 0.) 4. = C) = s"' 4 e 6) su ri,

',Il ee '9' ..8 ..., ,44 > su

C.) 0= 49 ,....,r % f.. U) = Ce , ,(1.) 4) V C) 4 0

c'eo È. :.0 .... „,..0 .0 = 2 0 = = - c 0e 12 .2 u 0 ":, .3,) E ça e - v .... -0 1• t; u CA .0 ta < 4> e 2 -e-.1 0 c . a

0,-. ,..) 04 .teU ie ,., • ..I vo 0 K•e-, el' n -cr 4> e r.! c O. c le = • 4 ,..,e' 'CI ..--. 4 es C')

U 4 -4, c 4, ô e 0 ••••11 > -- co u 0 a Ce MM a a. v, .0 0 e e e C

e e 4> .0 0 • a p. e ' e 4, 0 *' ..a .4. CA ,3 . 4.) ° 0 .....-- i...el 0 0 0 ta mi •-• .... = •;•.: i. ms • u a -a 'V ue le oo 5 ...,

66) • .. 4.) = 4) '01) cil ..= ic .= ct. C 4) CC1 ..., r., C.> 0,... n •• -ce ce e a

c 0 E 8 -a' (-) m cd) a .9 Q ›.. 6, $. 8 - c O . 4) g>

4 .a. ' •-s 1). st t oe 0 i- ..-,- e !...) .9. (e. .., . . (..) „.... 4 U 0 t 2 ...., Er % e tr,

ô Z il e. a.. - . d ' e 0 g 2 -8 er . r, 7. -2...) u e ru u e., .e

„es e 0 a.su ) e .n$ 0.-z U o e..a.) e., ‘o u

U C/ g O I... =

tai a C.) M Pd 4.1 7 0 0 p

E

c a e 4., 2 c ki 5-1 'cl te „e ... t.., _ „., "e 0 cd 0 cd 1. •,-.

e ,c 2 0 *2 Cr cci 0 0

1::• 1 ..."' = 0.) f..) ne (I «I .° a« e 0 c e U 0 Cr ;le ....

0 e 2 t' 'e go .5 5 • t e 4-- u 0 .., 0 O .. ,„ 5 e 1,2 ... e • . . . • .ee ri ..4 Tee> ; s 2u :8°

8 4) vl 9 ;C ....

O

g ,,, . j > • 0 .., ,... ce

.z.. a t e

a E e .

et) sit) O e -0 X = = 0 4) '..:.

cl, „I

4

N .

n4U: obee j :“ . 3 . ):. . . . :

agi

E u > a 0 0

,s o su Z zeu E oo e

,9 s..4.1 = cul. 9t) a. ca 4.1 6.4> =

V % 0 l'. Z3, .4E,

0 Q ' '"" 0 e e 44, .d. e

u

.... 0 .2 ;,-...-....E e 0 o.> 0 ‘"' a E 5 CD ,,,, .6. 5 ...a 4) 4) e .. a 0 x ...1 a .- u cr 4> 0 4> -a - 4 «° . O 2^ . a. a) -Zà" *te '«ei

..0. a 0 E e o o e E ' 8 ce e e _'5 e e 5

" 5 a..= m .4> •-• i., - a..5 a i- w -0 4) .c 0 %, 0 y = = ,...1 ta 0 a E a nt1 0 2 'e

cd u• E il U u 0 0 ,..-,.; 0 „__.1> • C 0 --i U 0 , E 0 w ...., a> , se e„ „„, .... 1„,,I .4) . e. a r.: .0 u :,5 0 ci .0

O 0 0 '`',... '0 0. c..) cd 4. u 4 'SJ

•.9 C.) .... V) e O -. -i-+ 0 -. U '0. e u e cd cti 4.) 0 '.c 0

0 0 0 '0 cr ics o u ..,M ..0 0 ▪ O.

0 a.) (...) g e „i 'a • e nid 0 6.> I- 0 .2 2 v ,......: . , 2 È; 4/ e el '.° < ,g ci ci > 1.. u▪ "le a '- 'A' g .2 0 _a

e E. U .-.

-a e ;a ec4. -8 Cl ..... ...... 0). .... ,E, ,,cd E s-,1 = = .... e u e

ic cr a. eu E E É. ,a a U U U ..= o a

O M c

253

eg n t Ott 'te '4) u ,..r a.) mi L• = = 1 u u z 2 g g ,u g 0 'el - U e> 5 e- 12 ' b 0

Cr ,2 im C 0 tu •.. 0 u 0 ‘4.) u •^ a .; 0 vf

U '' •‘-' -4... 0 0.,:a e e u u '''.'z -5 2 >" a •a,

4 . 4 .,, 0 .e U *. E • eu E cl 0 0 0 0 ef 0

y

$-. = b< o

El u 4. o to C..) •es u

in. .ei , '13 e 0 Y- < el F le LW~I- 0 u

-0 *r.,• eu el>

tà e 0 ..,) u u ,... a

: e (...) u m a.) g' e .e.-; u 0 ,u 0 u ..... ,_ - 0. 0 aè = 76, u c.) e.. bo t., cu te ei le F-I MS ‹là x

0.1) u iis e o e e 6.)

o E ta .;) .o 'V ,,0 6 cn e e

GA U ,,,, 4 "0 4 0 0 tu U ,u. e 6) 0,0 t.. `4 Mi el) (I) 4.4 oy

,,,I''' •.." 0 ;•""' 1.Z. 4.) U e e -0 0. 0 .-. 0

0 -0 cl <4 u0urrs>15

«e.) .a uz f.> ,crf u 1:1 0 e . 8 u .+'5 8 c-) , ,,, ., E s" e u e a) ,.,„ a _ s... -0 ie 41.; u 4.) ... - -. $... - 4 Ci

st) = Z 6) se) e -.4:1 ":-. (1 0) = M ..,e 6) 6) ue er. U 9

2 m U ,ccf et, --, y, .... u x 01...a‘ •Ie i.-1

s... •cc; :.,) s-: a a 01) 0 „„,,,u •5 o.) u•.: u) a) e le 'te .... .rus u ,u •-,.;;; u

e -o - e ul 4 6) C..1 130 .t",„ = • 4 .4. '0) e ..0 ..09 ... el r L. ri C 0) u e ... u ..> I-. {-, el ,,, api u ,0 u -

1-. -. 0 IO e (1.) e. e

= u a Q u x --. 0 cl > a tao is 4.) = 0 s., 4 VI ..0) ,,, 4 u - 0

6) = sa..10 4.) •-• g _ 4) _ ,._ u .... 4.)

Cd 3 u c t) , ,,,, 0 MI .0 e- 0 e

U _ ..e, s° -es 0- i • 5 .0 Me 0 -. 0

U 4.) • cA U 1... '-'. › 4,) u 0 •1-' u u t>41- t). c4 u '-' 0 0

e '-',.. o u 1.,_; ..,...1 0 a.f .(11 e c E ,..,= •eer, •„r 5 <,; u g st) 0 "c" .1, >, ., c.“..) ei. cn -- el tu g u o ...0 0 tel •

..«S 0 ew -e, , 0 ..g ,.. Q., u e 0.0.e, e 64 ti 7. ,..., ' ci 0. Cd e e 21. e ez .- 1- .4 e -, Q. () e ed e se .-. 6.1

,.., 0 = ..0 6) " 4 •,-. 41 4. (.7.3 u •.. „ttle.)

0 1-• 0 0 1..,

• -cf ‘ Ij 0.cr, 0 r., ccf us....,.le 2 ..e.). , (.9 tu- a f"1.9 24.

4e.)9 (51 ,i) t ..-.4 to CU r \ cy ..e 6)

e z. ot)'-' .E cle 4' a) -o .4) e '''0 e. ,, 0 = , 0 tu ,,,., ..... . su

> le ''''' b 4 e e cd +." = g le 2 e.) '.‘ g -nie **-' le e) YI% **.4 7:"

ttà 6) tà •E;-, ....,.. c„; , = 4. 0 a. 4' -o o 0 .-. et 'n o f.....- - .1 <4 >

a 2 d eL) L. ,-. MI du 9 :44, 0 Q/ «3 ... ,C1 fa, ..... f=1 4 ,,, r4 O.) vl>

e U ,t". ,-. 0'4 ee tu CI e di e

c) c..) "o C.) • 4 e ul

gL. Cl) et 0 e e 1... (..1 ,Z (..) U ° .."' 5 el c% 0 2 • e •cl... 00u Tt) o u 4--,...9, u 04 0 e 1) o g) tso e „, 0 ci cil ... ,,, M. ct) t.-j 'CI Cr ..-.. 1... ....

Co, • 4 4 .--g

le di ,n 0 .- 1.k a I- an ctt e 4. .5 CL. › . e e 0 .... --I e O > I- >

izs a E 0 -o - di e. .;3 9 as cri â ° n

0 . ' M. 0..cu

U...- tuf cr 0 4 0 e 0 T)

b1)10 me I:: '' t 2 e 0 0 0 in - C

2 .-0« se

• Ma ,,,, È.‘. = - , 4,, 0 se 0 cd - ,,

D 0 u di . .., "CI 10 :::,:à u0 0

43 su 0 L. a 0 cià « ,. 0

1-. ..... cl g, e ê u .=, 73 ---.- epp = .te e U (-) .1.1 = 0

$-. -.-. e: .... = 0 ÇA C7' U M :7 0 0.'4::

.- 4. ô '13 ... g a g c»......, u tu 0 g k.. t.. •,0 0 4-4 SU 0 e?.> e

u u `1 k., . 6l at. 1:1 es

,1 elt MI ,1 „, .. to 0 ,... r n. = ,,,I , ,„ et -e .,) +-""cei Eetu20=di e ce -0 4

:•Ei e _

u► e -= a z 1... e a -a

z cd a) e e 0) le * 0 .. 0 1 0 ) = ., `1),

t. 1 ' •-• C 0. g) 9 0 4 0) = r A .1.j me• 0.. C, n

I. g 'eel e g

sa) , 0 e 4:2 ii -0 cl ct g. el) 8 2 u e '7' e t ho U et/

tg) cl 0 U 0 U 0 u e „...... e d, 0 •-•

.. g ni

t/ . 7---, QI' cr : -le di C.) ‘...) P. -, U 0 -e u ,,,, •... ›, Cr' e: (1) 0 ,5

U ,,,e: ie:e t.11:, g „ . . . .

1..1..

: 71 = . I. ,,,, e su 4) e U2'u di e .2 2 e „) t.. 0 u 0 ..,

0., cd a•- ••-• . e .4' ..o 4. U 0 ..,

'4-; 0

04 t) 0. .-.. Z6. C '' e El v, .2 v, dos .4.. = cd f..t <1.1 ... 4) ne r.... 4.; Ya .e., = .1 4,1 E su = E e

:9 0) cd = le -e 0) 0 6 • e MI g "0 5 e .e s-. e ..,,,, U V) 1C -0 u ... cd

0 e3 el, g u 2,,, u . 4, i::J re -s ;,0 0 0 .4 Vi "CI e 4 '4 4,

t 'N

e e 1/ el Cd c..) = 0 0 '-o E ..1=. z E

a 0 a) u a u e a) e a) 1.... a.) 4 ,..: ,1 4" u es U o '0 -o z 0 . _et u 0 ›_ a

1.. ,,, .. = ,e.:1 u - ...... •.-. a) ,_ .-. o 0 ,,,‘,un 71-° e t....,,,,, ›

... . 0 . 0 le .b e, s... ... <a) e ,...,. tià o.+

Çà 4 u

e) () .2 :5 Ô o

z ..-. ,, E 2. Ir_

..m Q o ...1 ,4; U 2

MI a trl.‘". =

0 0 el

•-.. 04 R. = C.) el Me 12.

• .-- 'e 17, = CCI ..-. ,.., i e -

e., es ‘`â es

› e e -. g v) g: ••::: e.) cd cd 0

0 e., 0 eu 0 `n cr, ,U e .,,,„ ...1 •e u ,.., ,....,, 'Cl

te (...) 6) 1. :cf, el) 4 0

1:3 PI 'CU 0) e e:4 () a. - mi e a n 5 ,j 'ii.te ... u - .e eq) cz e ci ..c,e 04' ...2 0° ''' ❑ u u

1-'34 a cd '-'e '7 u e - ,... 6) tel "e . o... .4,)

(I)

0 ... 4. cd ,0 0 4_, Cà 'p 8-. ..ri = g 4..ei 2 ..11--1 • er..2 4) e (> 0 <0)

ek, e • .. El = .e 4-'1, et tu 7, ;ta '4.-.1u e .2 +4.1 gi ..9+ c9 vi Ir ..... 0 '0 0 0 ,0 U U 3 u •E iy •••••• tni 0 t 'el Ue rà ()

/...1 10 C ilà (..I F. et - . ° ". e , 1: . !,

cs u -0 z , -..o e ce ai •C'e eL'"' • mi ..1 ,,t, g, e_,) e -(7., e E su Z El 0 ,g4 e.)

.--‘7-i 0 e 5 ‘5. e c: g 5 4 pl 'il Cà 4 rcy 0 Ce 0 00. 1::1

0 ..- •-• ,-1 *0 QI 4.-. A !A 0 F: 1")

0 ro g 2 0 4.) 0 0 4 0 -e 0 0 ,I i., re n 4 '-' 4.) s..? 1-. = f...o

(..) .a. Es' 0' -te et. e e 1) -. 2 ' 41 ,_. . ..:.,- .z... A. CL e • ,_, .0 . c.) e 'z 0 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

QUÉBEC

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.

Québec Delegation

Ottawa, September 13, 1980.

258

DISCUSSION DRAFT

L-- The Provinces of Canada unanimously agree in ,-"L-----

principle to the following changes to be made to the Consti-

tution 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 off-

shore resources

Equalization

Manitoba - Saskatchewan draft less paragraph 3. (APPENDIX H)

Charter of rights

Fundamental freedoms

Democratic right&

Judicial rights

Discrimination rights

- all existing laws deemed valid

- non-obstante clause

Official languages of. Canada

Use of official languages in federal institutions &

services

S.133 applicable tOOnt,ç Qué 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 announce-

ment 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 "peace, order and good government", etc.);

culture;

social affairs;

urban and reaional affairs;

- reaional development;

transportation policy;

international affairs;

- the administration of justice.

(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 APPENDIX A

•. BEST EFFORT DRAFT (1979)

Draft Proposai Discussed by, First ministers

RESOURCE OWNERSHIP AND INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Cl) (present Section 92)

Resources

(2) In each province, the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to

a) exploration for non-renewable naturel resources in the province;

b) development, exploit-ation, extraction, conservation and management of non-renewable naturel resources,in the province, including laws in relation to the rate of primary production therefrom; and

(1) Carries forward existing Section 92

(2) The draft outiines exclusive provincial legislative jurisdiction over certain naturel resources and electric energy within the province. These resources have been defined as non-renewable (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.

development, exploit-ation, 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

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 inter-provincial and international trade and commerce. Provin-cial 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

b) is a law in relation to the regulation of international trade and commerce.

Taxation of resources

(5) In each province, the legis- (5) lature 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

The effect of this new pro-vincial legislative responsi-bility over trade and commerce diminishes the scope but doea not eliminate the federal government's exclusive autho-rity over trade and commerce. The exercise of the provincial power is subject to tdo limi-tations. 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 govern-ment 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.

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,

a) production from a non-renewable 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 pro-duction 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 manufact-urcd from wood.

Existing Powers

(7) Nothing in subsections (2) to (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.

(6) 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 extract-ion from its natural state, Given the varying resources covered by this section, the wording of this sub-section is thought to place the appropriate limitations on provincial powers.

(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

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 theréin."

*"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.

"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."

Option 1

Option 2 (a)

Property in lands, mines, etc.

Option 2 (b)

Ownurship of property

Cition

Owncrship of property

*NOte: Numbering>s tied in to numbering found in Hill C-60.

268

Zti9 APPENDIX C

BEST EFFORTS DRAFT

Council of the Provinces

Council 1. There shall be a body to be called the Council eetablished

Membership

Appointment

Head of delegation,

Tenure of members

Qualifica-tions

of the Provinces.

The Council shall have thirty (30) members.

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.

Federal 7. The federat Cabinet may designate any person or government spokesmen pensons, including federal Cabinet ministers,

who shall be entitled to appear in and speak to

any matter coming before the Council.

Votes 8. (e) Each province shall have one vote on every

matter before the Council.

Ratification

(b) The vote of each province shall be cast by

the head of that province's delegation or his

designate.

(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 consider-

ation, 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 jurisdiction2

(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 appre-

hended 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 âid not reach a conclusion. Ministers alep reccçnized the fundamental definitional eoblem attached to the word "culture".

273

274--- APPENDIX D

REST EFFORTS DRAFT

August 12, 1980

Appointment of judges from Quebec

Term of office

Procedure on vacancy in Court

,rocedure where no consent

Tho Suprenté ÇoUrt of Canada

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 of the person being considered for appointment as ,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.

Supreme Court )f Canada

Constitution of Court

Eliqibility for appointment

0esignation of -,Chief Justice of Canada

Alternate designation

Tenl.re of office of judges of court

Salaries, allowances and pensions of judges

•itimate appellate :urisdiction of .outt ppeals with .cave of '7airt

/. The Supreme Court hzis exclusive eltimate appellate civil and criminel jurisdiction.

8. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies with leave of the Suprema Court from any judgmcnt of the highest court in a province, or a judge 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.

,,ppeals from 9. An appeal to the Supreme Court lies from an (Invcrnor General opinion pronounced by the highest court established in Councii by Parliament on any constitutional question referred references to it by the Governor General in Council

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.

l'ai rt~ct references ay Governor General in

AmDeals from erovincial ..eferonces

eirect erovincial -eferences

tppeals

aintevc.nve hd:eperatien i CoUit

(*:•1$: it

TRANSITIONAL

..:entinuatioe ef laws

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.

In:ieJation of -Supreme Court of Canada

.'ontinuation In office of judqes

276

271-

APPENDIX P

BEST EFFORTS DRAFT

FAMILY LAW

Repeal head 26 of section 91

Repeal head 12 of section 92 Marriage in the Province".

Add as new legislative authority provisions, the following sections:

"Marriage and divorce".

"The Solemnization of

Marriage jurisdiction

Divorce -provincial jurisdiction

Divorce jurisdiction of Parliament

Rclationship between Irma of provinces and 'aws of

liament

"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.

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.

(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.

(3) 1dhere the legislature of a province enacts

a law in relatien to any natter over which i.l has con-

current 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 (4) The legislature of each province may assuming ' authority 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

Registration and enforcement of order

Authority to make laws

Power of legislature to confer jurisdiction of superior court judges

3. An order for maintenance or custody made

in Canada has legal effect throughout Canada.

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.

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.

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

Continuation of existing laws

Add as one of the transitional provisions, the following section:

"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

92.1(1

Supported by Nine Provinces

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 ad-

1 jacent to the province ; 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 androm-ous 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.

(b) A separate section in the British North America Act, in the 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 repug-

nant 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;

(b) the allocation of quotas to foreign countries and the licensing of foreign vessels;

(c) conservation of fish stocks.

(4) 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

(b) licensing of fishing vessels other than foreign vessels

taking fish from the residual quota;

(c) all matters not referred to in this subsection and

subsection (3).

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.

(b) If no agreement can be reached within a reasonable

period of time, the Provinces concernedshall refer the

particular matter in dispute for expeditious arbitration.

283 APPENDU R

BEST EFFORTS DRAFT

EQUALIZATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT

Governments of Manitoba and Saskatchewan Proposal

(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 legislatures, together with the Governnent of Canada and the Go ts of the Provinces, are oannitted to

(a) pramoting equal ppportunities for the well-being of Canadiens;

(b) furthering eccnamic development to reduce disparity in opportunitiee; Md,

(c) providing essentiel public services of reasonàble 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 camparâble 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 resolu-

tions 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 popula-

tion 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,

(b) 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.

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 time„b 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 Legis-

slalive 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 qualifica-tions 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 pro-

vincial 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 none-

theless 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;

(2) at least two of the Atlantic Provinces;

(3) 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.

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;

(2) a resolution made for the purposes of this Part may be revoked et any time before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

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.

Art. 55. Notwithstanding Articles 53 and 54, the following matters may be amended only in accordante with the procedure in Article 49:

(1) the office of the Queen, of the Governor General and of the Lieutenant—Governor;

(2) the requirements of the Constitution of Canada reapecting yearly sessions of the Parliament of Canada and the Legialaturea;

(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 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;

(6)

91

(7) the principles of proportionate representation of the Provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and

(8) except as provided in Article 16, the requirements of this Charter respecting the usa of the English or French language.

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:

(à) 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 harmoniza-tion 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 cç'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 SÉNAT 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

* • • 2

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 Federal-Provincial 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 under-standing 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 Federal-Provincial 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 decision-making 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 RÉGIONAL DISPARITIES

31. (I) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial govcrnments, are commilted to

(o) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians: (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (e) providing essential public services of reasonable quality ta ail Canadians.

(2) Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to taking such =us-ures as are appropriate to ensure that prov-inces are able te provide the essential public services referred to in paragraph (1)(c) with. out imposing an undue burden of provincial taxation.

PARTIE II

PÉRÉQUATION ET INÉGALITÉS RÉGIONALES

5 et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement législatives du Parlement et des législatures

31. (I) Sous réserve des compétences

5ctun.0

relatdià régalitédes

Engagements

et les législatures, ainsi que les gouverne. ments fédéral et provinciaux, s'engagent à:

a) promouvoir l'égalité des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de

1 0 leur bien-étre; 10 b) favoriser le développement économique pour réduire l'inégalité des chances; e) fournir à tous les Canadiens, à un niveau de qualité acceptable, les services

1 5 publics essentiels. 1 5

12) Le Parlement et le gouvernement du Canada s'engagent à prendre les dispositions propres à mettre les provinces en mesure d'assurer les services publics essentiels visés à

20 l'alinéa (1)c) sans qu'elles aient à imposer un 20 fardeau fiscal excessif.

Commdmcni tu mu.« ttlu.11 opporhentle,

ornmilmtnt repcCting =Lw publia ..tnuee

EmplemM relatif aso strok=puNks essentiels

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) promote equal opportunities for Canadians;

(b) further economic development to reduce disparities in opportunities, and to

(c) 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 suffi-cient 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 Québec 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 sub-stance.

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."

L

O

•

44(1)A 1 0 RI

3 1M 00 i e s

8 à-3

303


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 uncon-ditional basis.

A number of concerns were expressed about the likelihood this section would authorize equaliza-tion payments being made directly to individuals, and so bypassing the provincial levels of government.

The Alberta Chamber of Commerce supported recogniz-ing 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 disin-centive 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 dis-cussions 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 "Manitoba-Saskatchewan" 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 commit-ment 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 pro-posed change in this provision.

305

17

306


PART III: Constitutional Conferences

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES: SECTION 32


PART III PARTIE III

COIUMV04e.ii cadeaux.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCES

32. Until Part V contes into force, a con-stitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shah 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 shah not be hcld.

CONFÉRENCES CONSTITUTIONNELLES

32. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie V, le premier ministre du Canada convoque au moins une fois par an une conférence

35constitutionnelle réunissant les premiers ministres provinciaux et lui•méme, sauf si la 35 majorité d'entre eux décide de ne pas la tenir une année donnée.

Conférence. condurtioene


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)


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.


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.

(2) Such constitutional conferences shall include the direct participation of representatives of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada for matters on the agenda which affect them.

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 Governor-in-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."

310 - 2 -

Comment

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


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 discussed more fully in the note on section 37. The interim 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 Canada (section 36).

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

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 procla-mation 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.

Section 33

314

Section 34 Amendments of Provisions Relating to Some but not all Provinces

Section 34 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 Parlia-ment 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.

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 inter-action 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.

Note:•

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 aiiow•ing 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)


The Canada West Foundation recommended that the requirements for agreements by the federal and provincial authorities under the interim amending pro-cedure 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.


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


PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for its Replacement

SECTIONS 33 - 35


PART IV PARTIE IV

Imam MocedureW umodee COMMunqsol Canada

INTERIM AMENDING PROCEDURE AND

RULES FOR ITS REPLACEMENT

33. Until Part V cornes into force, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Scal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Communs and by the legislative assembly or government of each province.

PROCÉDURE PROVISOIRE DE MODIFICATION

ET RÈGLES DE REMPLACEMENT

33. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie V, la Constitution du Canada peut être modifiée par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-

5 risée par des résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes et par l'assemblée législative ou le gouvernement de toutes les provinces.

Procéduft prwnairt de meumm

5

Amenriment ar mmwom Msorqstosom but nos all provinces

MWilicaWmi rond de Certains

5emw=

34. Until Part V cornes loin force, an 34. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie

amendment to the Constitution of Canada in V, les dispositions de la Constitution du relation to any provision that applies to one 5 Canada applicables à certaines provinces or more, but not all, provinces may be made seulement peuvent être modifiées par procla- by proclamation issued by the Governor mation du gouverneur général sous le grand

General under the Great Seal of Canada sceau du Canada. autorisée par des résolu- where se authorized by resolutions of the tions du Sénat et de la Chambre des commu- Senate and House of Commons and by the lOnes et par l'assemblée législative ou le gou- 10 legislative assembly or government of each versement de chaque province à laquelle la province to which the amendment applies. modification s'applique.

35. ( I ) The procédures for amendment 35. (1) L'initiative des procédures de !tee

described in sections 33 and 34 may be ini- modification visées aux articles 33 et 34 tiated either by the Senate or House of Com- 15 appartient au Sénat, à la Chambre des com- 15 mons or by the legislative assembly or gov- muses, à l'assemblée législative d'une pro- ernment of a province. vince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci.

(2) A resolution made or other authoriza- (2) La résolution adoptée ou l'autorisation fion given for the purposes of this Part may donnée, dans le cadre de la présente partie, be revoked at any time before the issue of a 20 peut être révoquée à tout moment avant la 20 proclamation authorized by it. date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.

Rules applicable to smendenern procédures

ldent Id m


English version no change.

PARTIE IV


ET RÈGLES DE REMPLACEMENT

33. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie V, la Constitution du Canada peut être modifiée par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-risée par des résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes et par l'assemblée

législative ou le gouvernement de toutes les provinces.

34. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie V, les dispositions de la Constitution du Canada applicables à certaines provinces seulement peuvent être modifiées par procla-mation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des résolu-tions du Sénat et de la Chambre des commu-nes et par l'assemblée législative ou le gou-vernement de chaque province à laquelle la modification s'applique.

Procelum mwitelrede modifiemen

Modification s rée:mi& cmamet prosimes

318

TAB 18, SECTION 33 PART A

- 319


PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Its Replacement

SECTION 33


PART IV PARTIE IV

Intcrim proceurefor mendirls Cormitutiona Canada

INTÉRIM AMENDING PROCEDURE AND RULES FOR ITS REPLACEMENT

33. Until Part V contes into force, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by résolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and by the legislative assembly or government of each province.


ET RÉGLES DE REMPLACEMENT

33. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie V, la Constitution du Canada peut être modifiée par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, auto-

5 risée par des résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes et par l'assemblée législative ou le gouvernement de toutes les provinces.

Procédure prerre mure de moddieut Ion

5


No change.

320

TAB 18, SECTION 34 PART A

REVISED



AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVINCES: SECTION: 34


Mnaltimmd mMeam menswwmt beffle provinces

34. Until Part V cornes loto force, an amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to any provision that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and by the legislative assembly or government of each province to which the amendment applies.

34. Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la partie ,lochnutlen t

V, les dispositions de la Constitution du 2„eltde .5 Canada applicables à certaines provinces 5 Pro

,.Ar,-3 seulement peuvent être modifiées par procla-mation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par des résolu-tions du Sénat et de la Chambre des commu-

lOnes et par l'assemblée législative ou le gou- 10 vernement de chaque province à laquelle la modification s'applique.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAIS

No change.

321



AMENDMENTS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVINCES: SECTION 34

SUMMARi OF PRINCIPAL REPRESENTATIONS

The Fédération des francophones hors Québec, Mr. Nystrom and the Société 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 Société 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



RULES FOR AMENDMENT PROCEDURES: SECTION 35


Rule 35. (I) The procedures for amendment appliablt described in sections 33 and 34 may be

tiated either by the Senate or House of Gom-mons or by the legislative assembly or goy-ernment of a province.

• (2) A resolution made or other authoriza-tion given for the purposes of this Part may be revoked at any lime before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

35. (I) L'initiative des procédures de modification visées aux articles 33 et 34

1 5 appartient au Sénat, à la Chambre des com- 15 muses, à l'assemblée législative d'une pro-vince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci.

(2) La résolution adoptée ou l'autorisation Id—IL.° donnée, dans le cadre de la présente partie,

20peut être révoquée à tout moment avant la 20 date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise.

Idem


English version no change.

35. (1) L'initiative des procédures de modification visées aux articles 33 et 34 appartient au Sénat, à la Chambre des com-munes, à l'assemblée législative d'une pro-vince ou au gouvernement de celle-ci,

(2) La résolution adoptée ou l'autorisation donnée, dans le cadre de la présente partie, peut être révoquée à tout moment avant ta date de la proclamation qu'elle autorise

Initiative des procé-dures

Possibili-té de révo-cation

323



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.


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

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

Section 36

Section 36

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



SECTION 36


Lonaillon on use4mimm 2cmAm

36. Sections 33 and 34 do not apply to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Con.

36. Les articles 33 et 34 ne s'appliquent pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procédure différente est

itcencitœax re'?"1,:e Prm•Œre prooedure

stitution for making the amendment, but the 25 prévue par une autre disposition de la Consti- 25 procedure prescribed by section 33 shall be tution du Canada. La procédure visée à 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 libertés, amending the Constitution, including this ainsi que les dispositions relatives à la modi- section, and mav be used in makinR a general 30fication de la Constitution, y compris le pré- 30 consolidation and revision of the Constitu- sent article; cette procédure peut également tion. servir à toute codification ou révision généra-

les de la Constitution.


i'imit- 36. 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 procédure différente est prévue par une autre disposition de la Consti-tution du Canada. La procédure visée à l'article 33 s'impose toutefois pour modifier la Charte canadienne dei droits et libertés, ainsi que les dispositions relatives à la modi-fication de la Constitution, y compris le pré-sent article,

Reatricuon du recours à la procédure prœlcone

327



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.


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 pro-vinces 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 prov-inces agree; this would be accomplished by use of the amending procedure set out in section 33 above; or

(b) automatically two years after the Constitu-

tion Act, 1981 cornes into force, if prov-inces 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).

"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



SECTION 37


Cœmftioto foret of Pull V

37. Part V shall corne into force 37. La partie V entre en vigueur à la E10,4e vtgutur de la

(a) with or without amendment, on such première des dates suivantes: pan. v day as may be fixed by proclamation 35 a) avec ou sans modification, à la date issued pursuant to the procedure pre-scribed by section 33, or (b) on the day that is two years after the day this Act, except Part V, cornes into force, 40

whichever is the cartier day but, if a referen-dum is required to be held under subsection 38(3), Part V shall corne into force as pro-vided in section 39.

fixée par proclamation prise conformé-ment à la procédure visée à l'article 33; b) deux ans après l'entrée en vigueur, exception faite de la partie V, de la pré-40 sente loi.

Il demeure entendu que, si la tenue d'un référendum s'impose conformément au para-graphe 38(3), la partie V entre en vigueur conformément à l'article 39. 45


No change.

330

TAB 18, Section38, Part C REVISED


PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure and Rules for Ità Replacement

PROVINCIAL ALTERNATIVE PROCEDURE: SECTION 38

A. SUMMARY•0F 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 representa-tions:

(a) The 80% population qualification gives a veto to Ontario and Quebec (Mr. James Richardson, Premier Blakeney);

(b) Parliament is being asked to approve in advance the federal government's counter proposal without knowing what it will be;

(c) The section does not allow provinces to put forward an alternative to section 42 which is objectionable (Premier Blakeney);

(d) Only a national rather than a regional majority would be needed for adoption.

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. Further-more 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 pro-vincial 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;

(ii) two Western provinces with a combined population of at least 50 per cent of the population of the region;

(iii) two Atlantic provinces,

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% Que. 27% Man. 4% P.E.I. i% Ont. 36% Sask. 4% N.S. 4% Alta. 8% N.B. 3% 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 legisla-tion 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 govern-ments;

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 pro-vincial 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).


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 agree-ment 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 presîüfe 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



SECTION 38


Provincial siterniti.e procrdurc

38. (1) The eovernments or legislative 45 38. (1) Les gouvernements ou assemblées assemblies of eight or more provinces that législatives d'au moins huit provinces dont la have, according to the then latest general population confondue représente, selon le

Proposition de remplacement

census, combined populations of at least recensement général le plus récent à l'épo- eighty 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 alter- présenter une proposition commune en vue native as they consider appropriate. 5de remplacer la procédure prévue à l'alinéa

41(I)b).

under subsection (I) may be deposited with ser le texte de la proposition visée au para- (2) One copy of an alternative proposed (2) Chaque province concernée peut dépo-

mise au point

the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada by graphe (1) auprès du directeur général des cach proposing province within two years élections du Canada dans les deux ans sui- 10 after this Act, except Part V, cornes into 'Oyant l'entrée en vigueur, exception faite de la force but, prior to the expiration of that partie V, de la présente loi, étant entendu period, any province that has deposited a qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette copy may withdraw that copy. période.

(3) Where copies of an alternative have (3) Dans les cas où, deux ans après l'en- 15 Itererodum

been filed as provided by subsection (2) and, 1 5 trée en vigueur, exception faite de la partie on the day that is two years after this Act, V, de la présente loi, au moins huit provinces except Part V, cornes into force, at least remplissant les conditions démographiques ejeLit copies remain filed bv provinces that visées au paragraphe (I) n'ont pas retiré 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 années suivant l'échéance des eighty per cent of the population of all the deux ans, un référendum pour déterminer provinces, the government of Canada shall laquelle des procédures suivantes sera adop- cause a referendum to be held within two tée: years alter that day to determine whether o) celle qui est prévue à l'alinéa 41(1)b) 25

(a) paragraph 41(1 )(b) or any alternative 25 ou l'éventuelle procédure de remplacement thereto pronosed bv the government of proposée par le gouvernement du Canada Canada by depositing a copy thereof with après dépôt de son texte auprès du direc- the Chief Electoral Officer at least ninety tete général des élections au moins quatre- days prior to the day on which the referen- vingt-dix jours avant la date du référen- 30 dum is held, or 30 dum; (b) the alternative proposed by the prov- b) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition inces, des provinces.

shall be adopter!.

Procedure fur palatins alternative

Itétérthdim


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 (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.

38. (1) Les assemblées législa-tives d'au moins sept provinces dont la population confondue représente, selon le recensement général le plus récent à l'épo-que, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces peuvent présenter une proposition commune en vue de remplacer la procédure prévue à l'alinéa 41(1)b).

(2) Chaque province concernée peut dépo-ser le texte de la proposition visée au para-graphe (I) auprès du directeur général des élections du Canada dans les deux ans sui-vant l'entrée en vigueur, exception faite de la partie V, de la présente loi, étant entendu qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette période.

(3) Dans les cas où, deux ans après l'en- eirel.'dm trée en vigueur, exception faite de la unie V, de la présente loi, au moins ztie provinces remplissant les conditions démographiques visées au paragraphe (l) n'ont pas retiré leur texte, le gouvernement du Canada fait tenir, dans les deux années suivant l'échéance des deux ans, un référendum pour déterminer laquelle des procédures suivantes sera adop- tée:

a) celle qui est prévue à l'alinéa 41(I)b) ou l'éventuelle procédure de remplacement adOPtée par le earlement et dont le texte est dézose auprès du directeur général des electtons au moins quatre-vingt-dix jours avant la date du référen-dum; b) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition des provinces.

Propoptoon de remplacement

Pusubtlité de <MU 30 rant

TAB 18, SECTION 3 8 (1) • 339

PART A

REVISED


PART IV: Interim Amending Procedure

and Rules for Its Replacement

Provinc..11 ahernaine procedure

ALTERNATIVE FORMULA PROPOSED BY PROVINCES SECTION 3 8 (1)


38. (1) Les gouvernements OQ assemblées législatives d'au moins huit provinces dont la population confondue représente, selon le

recensement général le plus récent à l'épo-que, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces peuvent présenter une proposition commune en vue

5 de remplacer la procédure prévue à l'alinéa 41(1)b).

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 assemblées lêgisla- troroimoode tives d'au moins sept provinces melelœens dont la population confondue représente, selon le

recensement général le plus récent à l'épo-que, au moins quatre-vingts pour cent de la population de toutes les provinces peuvent présenter une proposition commune en vue de remplacer la procédure prévue à l'alinéa 41(1)b).

38. (I) The governments or legislative 45 assemblies of eight or more provinces that have, according to the then 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 alter-native as they consider appropriait,

Proposition de remplacemeni

340 TAB 18, SECTIQN 38(2) REVISED PART A



ALTERNATIVE FORMULA PROPOSED BY PROVINCES: SECTION 38(2)


Prœadure fur perfecting alternative

(2) One copy of an alternative proposed under subsection (1) may be deposited with the Chief Electorat Officer of Canada by each proposing province within two years after this 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.

(2) Chaque province concernée peut dépo-ser le texte de la prOposition visée au para-graphe (1) auprès du directeur général des élections du Canada dans les deux ans sui- 10

I O vant l'entrée en vigueur, exception faite de la partie V, de la présente loi, étant entendu qu'elle peut retirer le texte au cours de cette période.

Pessitetié de au mixt

JANUARY 1981 P ROP OS ALS

No change.

TAB 1 PART

341 SECTION 38 ( 3) REVISED

(3) Dans les cas où, deux ans après l'en- Référendum

trée en vigueur, exception faite de la nartie V, de la présente loi, au moins âge provinces remplissant les conditions démographiques visées au paragraphe (I) n'ont pas retiré leur texte, le gouvernement du Canada fait tenir, dans les deux années suivant l'échéance des deux ans, un référendum pour déterminer laquelle des procédures suivantes sera adop- tée:

a) celle qui est prévue à l'alinéa 41(t)b) ou l'éventuelle procédure de remplacement adoPteQ par le Parlerrent et dont le texte est dézose auprès du directeur général des elections au moins quatre-vingt-dix jours avant la date du référen- dum;

t.) celle qui fait l'objet de la proposition des provinces.

342 TAB 18, SECTION 18(3) PART A

REVISED



ALTERNATIVE FORMULA PROPOSED BY PROVINCES: SECTION 38(3)


Releeed. , (3) Where copies of an alternative have (3) Dans les cas où, deux ans après l'en- I 5 Mimé» been filed as provided by subsection (2) and, 15 trée en vigueur, exception faite de la partie on the day that is two years after this Act, V, de la présente loi, au moins huit provinces except Part V. cornes into force, at least remplissant les conditions démographiques eight copies remain filed by provinces that visées au paragraphe (1) n'ont pas retiré leur 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 années suivant l'échéance des eighty per cent of the population of all the deux ans, un référendum pour déterminer provinces, the government of Canada shall laquelle des procédures suivantes sera adop- cause a referendum to be held within two tée: years Act that day to determine whether a) celle qui est prévue à l'alinéa 41( I )b) 25

(a) paragraph 41( Mb) or any alternative 25 ou l'éventuelle procédure de remplacement thereto proposed by the government of proposée par le gouvernement du Canada Canada by depositing a copy thereof with après dépôt de son texte auprès du direc- the Chief Electoral Officer at least ninety leur général des élections au moins quatre- days prior to the day on which the rcferen- vingt-dix jours avant la date du référen- 30 dum 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.


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



COMING INTO FORCE OF PART V WHERE REFERENDUM HELD: SECTION 39


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 Coming into Force of Part V Where a Referendum is Held

Section 39. 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 legis-lature 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 legis-latures - it might require only the con-sent 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 require-ment 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



RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 40


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


PART V: Procedure for Amending Constitution of Canada



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


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.

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.

348

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



SECTION 39

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER•6, 1980

Contins int° force of Part V 'dure referendum held

39. Where a referendum is held under subsection 38(3), a proclamation under the 35 Great Seal of Canada shall be issued within six months after the date of the referendum bringing Part V into force with such modifi-cations, if any, as are necessary to incorpo-rate the proposai approved by a majority of 40 the persons voting at the referendum and with such other changes as are reasonably consequential on the incorporation of that proposai.

39. Dans les six mois suivant la date du 35Eyttaten référendum, une proclamation sous le grand ",8,11,:uva

p1 sceau du Canada est prise en vue de faire nutenattet entrer en vigueur la partie V, éventuellement modifiée dans la mesure nécessaire pour incorporer la proposition approuvée par la 40 majorité des votants et pour intégrer les autres aménagements justifiés qui en décou-lent.


No change.

352



SECTION 40

Rulcs for sure:urdu'',


40. (1) Subject ici subsection Parlia- 45 ment may make laws respecting the rules applicable w the holding of a referendum under subsection 38(3).

40. (11 Sous réserve du paragraphe (2), le stèli,r.,1 Parlement peut légiférer pour réglementer la 457é1V d

a:,,, tenue du référendum visé au paragraphe 38(3).

Drett de cote Right lo «ut

5

(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 à Toccasiop du référendum visé au para-graphe 38(.31Se droit ne peut, sans motif valable. faire l'objet d'aucune distinction ou restriction.


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 sion Seal of Canada 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 qualified.

353

Duty of Commis-sion

(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.

Rules fo (4) Subject to subsection (1) and referen taking into consideration any rules um approved by a Referendum Rules Commission

in accordance with subsection (3), Parliament may enact laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under subsection 38(3).

(5) If Parliament does mot enact 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) Fout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote 211 référendum visé au para• graphe 3$(3) ce droit ne peut, sans motif valable, fairerObjet d'aucune distinction ou restriction.

(2) Dès que s'impose la tenue du Constitution référendum visé au paragraphe 38(3), de la commis- il est constitué, par proclamation sion référen- du gouverneur général sous le grand daire sceau du Canada, une commission réfé-rendaire composée:

a) du directeur général des élections du Canada, président; 11) d'une personne nommée par le gou-verneur général en conseil; e) d'une personne nommée par le gou-verneur général en conseil :

(1) soit sur la recommandation des gouvernements de la majorité des provinces,

Proclan ation

Orem de .vie

354

(ii) soit, si les gouvernements de la majorité des provinces ne pré-sentent pas de candidat dans les trente jours suivant la demande que leur en fait le directeur gé-néral des élections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi pré-senté étant choisi parmi les per-sonnes recommandées par les gouver-nements des provinces dans les trente jours suivant l'expiration du délai de trente jours ou, faute de recommandation, parmi les personnes que le juge en chef estime qualifiées.

(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission référendaire fait déposer devant le Parlement les règles applicables à la tenue du référen-dum visé au paragraphe 38(3), qu'elle aura approuvées par décision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne siège pas, ce dépôt s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de séance ultérieurs.

(4) Sous réserve du paragraphe_ M et compte tenu des règles déposées" ,conformément le Parlement peut légiférer pour réglementer la tenue du référendum visé au paragraphe 38(3).

(5) Faute par le Parlement d'avoir légiféré, conformément au paragraphe (4), dans le délai de soixante jours suivant le dépôt des règles visées au paragraphe (3), celles-ci sont mises immédiatement en vigueur par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada.

(6) Dans la con utation du délai visé au paragraphe (5), ne sont pas comptés les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est prorogé ou dissous.

Mandat de la commission

Réglementation du référendum

Proclamation

Computation du délai

(7) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1), les règles arrête es en vertu du présent article ont force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre règle de droit fondée sur la Constitution du Canada.

Valeur de force de loi des règles

355

19

356



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 brief-ing 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 legisla-tures or governments of all provinces agree, if within two years of the coming into force of the Act;

(2) automatically two years after the Constitution Act, 1981 coules into force; or

(3) 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 accord-ingly cornes into force within six months of the date of referendum (section 39).

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 être modifiée par proclamation du gouver-neur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée à la fois:

a) par des résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes: b) par des résolutions des assemblées législatives d'une majorité des provinces; cette majorité cc ferend:

(i) chaque province dont la population, avant la date de cette proclamation, représentait, selon un recensement géné-ral antérieur quelconque, au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de la population du Canada, (ii) au moins deux des provinces de l'Atlantique;

(iii) au moins deux des provinces de l'Ouest, à condition que la popu-lation confondue des provinces consentantes représente, selon le recensement général le plus récent à l'époque, au moins cin-quante pour cent de la population de l'ensemble des provinces de l'Ouest.

Procédure normale de modification

(2) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article, «provinces de l'Atlantique. Les provinces de

la Nouvelle-Écosse, du Nouveau-Bruns-wick, de file-du-Prince-Édouard 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



GENERAL AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 41


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, educatïon, 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);

(b) 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;

(c) section 41 gives a specific veto to two provinces (Ontario and Quebec) and not to the others, there-fore provinces are not treated equally;

(d) 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;

(e) 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;

(f) 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.

360


(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 thé 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.


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. 2i% Que. 27% man. 4% P.E.I. - i% Ont. - 36% Sask. - 4% N.S. 4% Alta. 8% N.B. 4% B.C. 11%

363

It should be noted, however, that the formula re-quires 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 popula-tion 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 38% New Brunswick 31% Newfoundland 25.6% P.E.I. 5.4%

Western Regions

British Columbia 39% Alberta 29% Saskatchewan 16% Manitoba 16%

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. All provinces and the federal government explicitly agreed to its provisions in 1971.

2. 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.

3. The Victoria formula (or variations of it) continues to have broad public support (the Pepin-Robarts Report, the Canadian Bar Associa-tion Report, the Ontario Advisory Committee on Confederation Report, the Quebec Liberal Party "Livre Beige").

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 opting-out provisions which might lead to a checker-board 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.

5

(iii) au moins deux des provinces de l'Ouest don la population confondue représente. selon le recensement général le plus récent à l'époque, au moins cin- 30 quante pour cent de la population de l'ensemble de ces provinces

(2) Les définitions qui suivent s'appliquent au présent article.

.provinces de l'Atlantique. Les provinces de 35ere--aset.e. la Nouvelle-Écosse, du Nouveau-Bruns- I Mhe'Pn. wick, de l'île-du-Prince-Édouard et de Terre-Neuve.

«provinces de l'Ouest. Les provinces du Manitoba, de la Colombie-Britannique, de 40 1 la Saskatchewan et de l'Alberta.

365



GENERAL AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 41


PART •

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDINO

CONSTITUTION OF ( ANADA

41. H) An amcndment tes the Constitution 5 of Canada may be made by proclamation issucd by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by

(a) resolutions of the Senate and House of 10 Commons; and (b) resolutions of the legislative assem-blies of at least a majority of the provinces that includes

(i) cvery province that at any lime 15 before the issue of the proclamation had, according to any previous general census. a population of at least twenty-five per cent of the population of Canada, 20 (ii) at least two of the Atlantic prov-inces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined popula-tions of at least fifty per cent of the population of ail the Atlantic provinces, 25 and

(iii) at least two of the Western prov-inces that have, according to the then latest general census, combined popula-tions of at least fifty per cent of the 30 population of ail the Western provinces.

(2) In Phis section,

"Atlantic provinces" means the provinces of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland: 35

"Western provinces" means the provinces of Manitoba, British Columbia. Saskatche-wan and Alberta.

PARTIT V

PROCEDL RE DE MODIF ICA TION DE LA

CONSTITIMON Dl' CANADA

41. (I) La Constitution du Canada peut être modifiée par proclamation du gouver-neur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, autorisée.

a) par des résolutions du Sénat et de la 10 Chambre des communes; 4) par des résolutions des assemblées législatives d'une majorité des provinces; cette majorité doit comprendre:

(i) chaque province dont la population, avant la date de cette proclamation, représentait, selon un recensement géné-ral antérieur quelconque, au moins vingt-cinq pour cent de la population du Canada, 20 (ii) au moins deux des provinces de l'Atlantique dont la Population confon-due représente, selon le recensement général le plus récent à Sépoq_ue, au moins cinquante pour cent de la popula- 25 Lion de l'ensemble de ces provinces.

General /noceur( far agnencling Com iNtion of Cafe&

Definition:

Mbnik petrol

-Wcatetn prormcc•-

roccW ,rc gorntee de middisatme


PART V

PROCEDURE FOR AMENDING CONSTITUTION OF CANADA

General 41. (1) An amendment to the 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



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 representa-tions, 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 Minïsters' 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) a majority of voters voting thereat;

(b) a majority of voters

(i) in every province having or having had 25 per cent of the population (Ontario and Quebec);

(ii) in at least two Atlantic prov-inces;

(iii) in at least two Western provinces having the oombined population of at least 50 per cent of the region.

If section 41 is amended as a resuit of an alternative proposai by the provincial or federal government under section 38, then the require-ment for regional approval in a referendum under this section would change accordingly.

It may be asked why only a referendum author-ized 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)


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 Legislatures-for

- an amendment under section 41 was not forthcoming, could the referendum be held.

Section 42(3)


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


.tmendment authorited by rcfcrcentum

42. (1) An amendaient to the Constitution 42. ( I) La Constitution du Canada peut of Canada may be made by proclamation40élre modifiée par proclamation du gouver- issued by the Governor General under the rieur général sous le grand sceau du Canada, Great Scal of Canada wherc so authorized autorisée par un référendum tenu dans tout by a referendum held throughout Canada le pays conformément au paragraphe (2) et under subsection (2) at which lors duquel la modification a été approuvée:

(a) a majority of persons voting thereat, al d'une part, à la majorité des votants: and 5 h) d'autre part, à la majorité des votants 5 (b) a majority of persons voting thereat in de chacune des provinces dont les résolu- each of the provinces. resolutions of the rions de leurs assemblées législatives suffi- legislative assemblics of which would be raient, avec les résolutions du Sénat et de sufficient. together with resolutions of the la Chambre des communes. à autoriser la Senate and Mouse uf Commons, to author- 10 proclamation mentionnée au paragraphe 10 ire the issue of a proclamation under sub- 41(1). section 41(1),

have approved the making of the amendment.

Nodificanon morisée pst réfélcacturn

Malweimain dmfueldum

(2) A referendum referred to in subsection 15 (2) L'ordre de tenue d'un référendum AUtenetiOn de

(1) shall be held wherc directcd by procla- mentionné au paragraphe (I) est donné par newe'n mation issued by the Governor General proclamation du gouverneur général sous le 15 under the Great Seal uf Canada Authorized grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par les by resolutions of the Senate and flouse of résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des Commons. 20communes.


Amendrnent 4 2 . (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 limit for referendr-

(3) A proclamation issued under subsection (2) in respect of a referendum 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 être modifiée par proclamation du gouver-neur général sous le grand sceau du Canada,

autorisée par un référendum tenu dans tout k pays conformément au paragraphe (2) et lors duquel la modification a été approuvée:

a) d'une part, à la majorité des votants; b) d'autre part, à la majorité des votants de chacune des provinces dont les résolu-tions de leurs assemblées législatives suffi-raient, avec les résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes, à autoriser la proclamation mentionnée au paragraphe 41(1).

(2) L'ordre de tenue (11_ référendum mentionné au paragraphe (I) est donné par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada. Cette proclamation est assujettie aux

I conditions suivantes:

Moddiumm àworiMk par référendum

.Autorlaallon de référendum

a) le Sénat et la Chambre des oamnunes ont, conformément à l'alinéa 41(1)a), adopté des résolutions autorisant la modification de la Constitution du Canada;

b) les dispositions de l'alinéa 41(I)b) applicables au projet de modification n'ont pas été observées dans les douze mois suivant l'adoption des résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes;

J le

gouverneur général en conseil a autorisé la proclamation.

(3)La proclamation visée au paragraphe (2) fixe la tenue du référendum pour une date comprise dan.: les deux ans qui suivent l'expiration du délai de douze mois men-tionné à l'alinéa b) de ce paragraphe.

Délai de tenue du référendum

373 TAB 19, SECTION 42 ( 1) PART A REVISED



AMENDMENT BY REFERENDUM: SECTION 42(1)

AS TABLED ON OCTOBER 6 1980

Arnendment by

referendurn

Mndifierran motoMeWper Weendum

42. (I) An amendment to the Constitution 42. (I) La Constitution du Canada peut of Canada may be made by proclamation 4tlêtre modifiée par proclamation du gouver- issued by the Governor General under the neur général sous le grand sceau du Canada,

Great Scal of Canada where so authorized autorisée par un référendum tenu dans tout by a referendum hcld throughout Canada le pays conformément au paragraphe (2) et under subseciion (2) at which lors duquel la modification a été approuvée:

(a) a majority of persons voting thereat, a) d'une part. à la majorité des votants; and 5 b) d'autre part, à la majorité des votants 5 (b) a majority of persons voting thereat in de chacune des provinces dont les résolu- each of the provinces. resolutions of the rions de leurs assemblées législatives suffi- legislative assemblies of which would be raient. avec les résolutions du Sénat et de sufficient, together with resolutions of the la Chambre des communes, à autoriser la Senate and House of Commons. to author- 10 proclamation mentionnés au paragraphe 10 ize the issue of a proclamation under sub- 41(1). section 41(1),

have approved the making of the amendment.


No change.

374

TAB 19, SECTION 42 (2) PART A REVISED





Aulhouwhon dmkrendum

(2) A referendum referred to in subsection 15 (2) L'ordre de tenue d'un référendum Amr d.

(I) shall be held wherc directcd by procla- mentionné au paragraphe (1) tst donné par i

mation issued by the Governor General proclamation du gouverneur général sous le 15 under the Great Seal of Canada authorized grand sceau du Canada, autorisée par les by resolutions of the Senate and House of résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des Commons. 20communes.


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 référendum mentionné au paragraphe (I) est donné par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada. Cette proclamation est assujettie aux conditions suivantes:

Autorisation de référendum

a) le Sénat et la Chambre des =runes ont, 5Bnformément à l'alinéa 41(1)a), adopté des résolutions autorisant la modification de la Constitution du Canada;

b) les dispositions de l'alinéa 41(l)b) applicables au projet de modification n'ont pas été observées dans les douze mois suivant l'adoption des résolutions du Sénat et de la Chambre des communes;

&) -le gouverneur général en conseil a autorisé la proclamation.

376

TAB 19, SECTION 42 (3) PART A REVISED





No proposai.

JANUARY 1981 PROPOSAL

Time lirait for referend-

(3) A proclamation issued under subsection (2) in respect of a referendum 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 visée au paragraphe (2) fixe la tenue du référendum pour une date comprise dan,.. les deux ans qui suivent l'expiration du délai de douze mois men-tionné à l'alinéa b) de ce paragraphe.

Délai de tenue du référendum

377



AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVISIONS: SECTION 43

S.43 (Amendments relating to some but not all provinces)


The Fédération des francophones hors Quebec asked that s.43 be amended so that minority official language rights could not be reduced under s.43. The Societé 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.).


(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.

CONFIDENTIAL

379

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 Parlia-ment 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.

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 there-fore 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.

Section 43

Section 43

380



AMENDMENTS OF PROVISIONS RELATING TO SOME BUT NOT ALL PROVISIONS: SECTION 43


tincndImmnf mwmon. ,Wmptommx buqnot all prydnce,

43. An amendment tu the Constitution of Canada in relation to an> provision that applies to one or more, but not all. provinces may be made by proclamation issucd by thc Governur General under the Great Seal of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Communs and of the legislative assembly of each province to which the amcndment applies.

43. Les dispositions de la Constitution du Modewalie, Canada applicables à certaines provinces 20=d: seulement peuvent être modifiées par procla- pictvinœt matton du gouverneur général sous le grand

25scvau du Canada, autorisée par des résolu- tions du Sénat, de la Chambre des communes et de l'assemblée législative de chaque 25 province à laquelle la modification s'applique.


No change.

381



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.


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.!

CONFIDENTIAL

382

Amendments Without Senate Approval

Provides that where the Senate refuses to au-thorize an amendment by passing a resolution, the House of Commons may override that lack of consent by re-passing the resolution. Ail such amend-ments 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 Com-muns 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 reso-lution. 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 reconsidera-tion 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.

Section 44

Section 44

MOdi-ficaticn sans résolution du Sénat


383



AMENDMENTS WITHOUT SENATE APPROVAL: SECTION 44


Ammtmem, .1WrigiSono rtwhaum

44. An amendaient to the Constitution of 30 44. La Constitution du Canada peut tire modirmi.il Canada may be made by proclamation under modifiée par proclamation, dans le cadre du ni,7,74'we subsection 41(1) or section 43 without a paragraphe 41(1) ou de l'article 43, sans une 30 resolution of the Senate authorizing the issue résolution du Sénat autorisant la proclama. of the proclamation if, within ,ninety days lion, lorsque. dans un délai de ouatre.vinzt- atter the passage by the House of Comment 35dix jours suivant l'adoption par la Chambre of a resolution authorizing its issue, the des communes d'une résolution à cet effet, le Senate has not passed such a resolution and Sénat n'a pas adopté une telle résolution et 35 if, at any Ume after the expiration of thosc si, après l'expiration de ce délai, la Chambre ninety days, the Flouse of Comment again des communes adopte de nouveau la résolu-passes the resolution, but any period when 40tion. Dans la computation du délai ne sont Parliament is prorogued or dissolved thatl pas comptés les jours pendant lesquels le not be counted in computing those ninety Parlement est prorogé ou dissous, 40 days.


without Senate resolu-tion

ation of period

ts 44. (1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada male be made by proclamation under subsection 41(1) or section 43, as appropriate, 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.

(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 visés au paragraphe 41(1) ou à l'article 43, il peut être passé outre au défaut d'autorisation du Sénat si celui-ci n'a pas adopté de résolution dans un délai de cent quatre-vingts jours sui-vant l'adoption de celle de la Chambre des communes et si cette dernière, après l'expiration du délai, adopte une nouvelle résolution dans le même sens.

(2) Dans la computation du délai visé au paragraphe (1), ne sont pas comptés les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est prorogé ou dissous.

384



INITIATION OF PROCEDURES FOR AMENDMENT: SECTION 45


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 proclama-tion authorsied by il.

386

- 387 TAB 19:Sec. 46: PART B 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 Eléctions 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 t1

40 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 choosé, 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.

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 the•Charter 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.

390

391





Rulei t'or teDrendum

Right to rote

46. ( I) Subject -to subsection (2), Parlia-ment may make laws respecting the rules applicable tu the holding of a referendum under section 42.

(2) Every citizen of Canada has. without unreasonable distinction or limitation, the right to vote in a referendum held under section 42.

46. I I) Le Parlement peut, sous réserve du 5 paragraphe (Z). légiférer pour réglementer la

tenue du référendum visé à l'article 42.

5 rtéstemcmation des référen-dttrm

Droit de rote (2) Tout citoyen canadien a le droit de vote lors du référendum visé à l'article 42: ce

I ()droit ne peut, sans motif valable, faire l'objet 10 d'aucune distinction ou restriction.


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.

(2) Where a referendum is to be held under section 42, a Referendum Rules Commission shall forthwith be estabiished by commission issued tuider the Great Seal of Canada 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.

Establish-ment of Referencl-un Rules Catmis-sion

D ty of s-

sion

(3) A Referendum Rules Commission shall, within sixty days after it is 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.

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).

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 référendum visé à l'article 42; ce droit ne peut, sans motif valable, faire l'objet d'aucune distinction ou restriction.

(2) Dès que s'impose la tenue du Constitution référendum visé à l'article 42, de la commis il est constitué, par• proclamation sien référen- du gouverneur général sous le grand daire sceau du Canada, une commission réfé-rendaire composée:

a) du directeur général des élections du Canada, président;

le) d'une personne nommée par le gou-verneur général en conseil;

c) d'une personne nommée par le gou-verneur général en conseil : (i) soit sur la recommandation des gouvernements de la majorité des provinces,

(ii) soit, si les gouvernements de la majorité des provinces ne pré-sentent pas de candidat dans les trente jours suivant la demande que leur en fait le directeur gé-néral des élections du Canada, sur la recommandation du juge en chef du Canada, le candidat ainsi pré-senté étant choisi parmi les per-sonnes recommandées parles gouver-nements des provinces dans les trente jours suivant l'expiration du délai de trente jours ou, faute de reeommandation, panai les personnes ,ete, Je-juge en chef estime cpatitiees.

Droit. de vote

393

(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission référendaire fait déposer devant le Parlement les règles applicables à là tenue du référen- dum visé à l'article 42 , qu'elle aura approuvées par décision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne siège pas, ce dépôt s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de séance ultérieurs.

a) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1) et compte tenu des règlls déonsées conformément . au paragraphe (3), le Parlement peut légiférer pour réglementer la tenue du référendum visé à l'article 42.

(5) Faute par le Parlement de légiférer, confonmément au paragraphe (4), dans le délai de soixante jours suivant la réception de la recommandation de cammissicn référendaire, les règles reaxnnandées par celle-ci sont mises immédiatement en vigueur par proclamation du gouverneur général sous le grand sceau du Canada.

Mandat de la commission


c.lamation

(6) Dans la amputation du délai visé au paragraphe (5), ne sont pas comptés les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est prorogé ou dissous.


(7) Sous réserve du paragraphe (1), règles arrêtées en vertu du présent article ont force de loi et l'emportent sur les dispositions incompatibles de toute autre règle de droit fondée sur la Constitution du

les Valeur de force de loi des règles

394

Righi ch

395


REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION ACT -


RULES FOR REFERENDUM: SECTION 46(2)


(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 référendum visé à 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.


Establish-ment of Referend-un Rules Commis-sion

(2) Where a referendum is to be held under section 42, a Referendum Rules Commission shall forthwith be established by commission issued sader the Great Seal of Canada 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


REVISED





No proposai.


Duty of s -

sion

(3) A Referendum Rules Commission shall, within sixty days after it is established, by majority decision recommend to Parliament rules for the holding of a referendum under section 42.

(3) Dans les soixante jours suivant sa constitution, la commission référendaire fait déposer devant le Parlement les règles applicables à la tenue du référen- dum visé à l'article 42 , qu'elle aura approuvées par décision majoritaire. Si le Parlement ne siège pas, ce dépôt s'effectue dans les dix premier jours de séance ultérieurs.

Mandat de la ccmmission

398 TAB 19, SECTION 46(4) PART A REVISED





No proposai.


Rules for • referend-um

(4) Subject to subsection (1) and upon consideration of any recommendations made by a Referendum Rules Commission in accordance with subsection (3), Parliament may enact laws respecting the rules applicable to the holding of a referendum under section 42.

w Sous réserve du paragraphe al et compte tenu des Orles dénoséel conformément • au paragraphe (3), le Parlement peut légiférer pour réglementer la tenue du référendum vigA à l'article 42.


399


REVISED





No proposai.


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 légiférer, cenfoi.duesilt au pAragraphe (4), dans le délai de soixante jours suivant la réception de la recommandation de commission référendaire, les règles

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 REVISED

THE CONSTITUTION ACT-




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 délai visé au paragraphe (5), ne sont DR% conptés les jours pendant lesquels le Parlement est proxv96 ou dissous


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 réserve du paragraphe (1), les V règles arrêtées en vertu du présent de force article ont force de loi et de loi des l'emportent sur les dispositions règles incompatibles de toute autre règle de droit fondée sur la Constitution du

401


REVISED





No proposai.


402



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).


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 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 Constitu-tion 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 amend-ment 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 amend-ing formula (section 41) with the consent of Parliament and six provincial legislatures.

Section 47

404

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 denomina-tional 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.

Section 47(2)

405.



CLARIFICATION RE: USE OF AMENDING FORMULA: SECTION 47

Linotation On use of encrai encodons formas


47. The procedures prescribed by section 41, 42 or 43 do not apply to an amendment to the Constitution of Canada where there is another provision in the Constitution for making the amendment, but the procédures prescribed by section 41 or 42 shall neverthe-less be used to amend any provision for amending the Constitution, including this section, and section 41 may be used in making a &crierai consolidation or revision of the Constitution.

47. Les articles 41, 42 ou 43 ne s'appli- Rcsincsioe de

quent pas aux cas de modification constitu- pr"

tionnelle pour lesquels une procédure diffé- nonnos 5 rente est prévue par une autre disposition de 15

la Constitution du Canada. La procédure visée aux articles 41 ou 42 s'impose toutefois pour modifier les dispositions relatives à la modification de la Constitution, y compris le

20présent article; la procédure visée à l'article 20 41 peut également servir à toute codification ou riN.11On générales de la Constitution.


Limit 47. (1) The procedures 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.

(2) The procedures prescribed by section 41 or 42 do not apply in respect of an amendment referred to in section 43.

Idem

47.(1) Les articles 41, 42 ou 43 ne s'appliquent pas aux cas de modification constitutionnelle pour lesquels une procédure différente est prévue par une autre disposition de la Constitution du Canada. La procédure visée aux articles 41 ou 42 s'impose toutefois gour modifier les dispositions relatives à la modification de la Constitution, y compris le présent article.

(2) Les procédures prévues aux articles 41 et 42 ne s'appliquent pas â la modification visée l'article 43.

Restriction du recours à la procédure normale de modification

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 repre-sented 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 repre-sentation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitu-tion 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 Constitu-tion 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 insurrec-tion 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 Fulton-Favreau 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 amend-ments 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, accord-ing 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.: provin-cial 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 qualifica-tions 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 accom-plished 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 améndment. Amendments made undee the general amending formula, pursuant to section 41, bowevêr, 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



AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT: SECTION 48 AMENDMENTS BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES: SECTION 49


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 pro-vides 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 Lieuten-ant 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, notwith-standing 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



MATTERS REQUIRING AMENDMENT BY GENERAL FORMULA: SECTION 50


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.


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 Con-stitutions, 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 pro-visions added by this Act (The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and the commitments relating to equalization and regional dispari-ties) 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.


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


CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: SECTION 51


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.


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.


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-in-Council of 1879 (see item 3 of the Schedule).

• 415

TAS 19, SECTION 48 PART A

REVISED


PART V: Procedure fr'Amending Constitution of Canada

AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT: SECTION 48


Amodrocntà by Parliament

48. Subject to section 50, Parliament may 48. Sous réserve de l'article 50, le Parle- mcer..1..” exclusively make laws amending the Consti- ment a compétence exclusive pour modifier , tution of Canada in relation to the executive 25 tes dispositions de la Constitution du Canada 25 government of Canada or the Sonate or relatives au pouvoir exécutif fédéral, au House of Commons. Sénat et à la Chambre des communes,


No change.

416



AMENDMENTS BY PARLIAMENT: SECTION 48 AMENDMENTS BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES: SECTION 49


Arnendmcntà by Par liament

48. Subject to section 50. Parliument may 48. Sous réserve de l'article 50, le Parle- muddicitico

exclusively make lavis amcnding the Consti• ment a compétence exclusive pour modifier r,:rikG„,„, tution of Canada in relation to the executive 25Ies dispositions de la Constitution du Canada 25 government of Canada or the Senate or relatives au pouvoir exécutif fédéral, au House of Commons. Sénat et à la Chambre des communes.

Amendment.i by Kowinctai klpiattitle

49. Subject to section 50. the legislaturc 49. Sous reserve de l'article 50, la législa- modirmation of each province may exclusively make lavis turc de chaque province a compétence exclu- r:ra,„, amending the constitution of the province. 30 sive pour modifier la constitution de celle-ci. 30 Provlbeialbi


No change.

417

TAB 19, SECTION 49 PART A REVISED



AMENDMENTS BY PROVINCIAL LEGISLATURES: SECTION 49


Ametemenu bymovincial IfflUturel

49. Subject to section 50, the legislature 49. Sons réserve de l'article 50.1a législa- Modir.ation

of cach province may exclusivcly make laws turc de chaque province a compétence exclure„„f„, amcnding the constitution of thc province. 30sivc pour modifier la constitution de celle-ci. 30 efflndalet


No change.

418



MATTERS REQUIRING AMENDMENT BY GENERAL FORMULA: SECTION 50


•

(b) the Canadian Charter of Rights and 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

50. Toute modification de la Constitution Procédure du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-tes se fait scion la procédure visée aux arti-cles 41 ou 42:

35 u) les fonctions de la Reine, celles du gots- 35 vcrncur général et celles des lieutenants-gouverneurs; b) la Charte canadienne des droits et libertés; c) les engagements énoncés, en matière de 40 péréquation et d'inégalités régionales, à l'article 31; d) les pouvoirs du Sénat: e) le nombre de sénateurs représentant chaque province au Sénat et les conditions 45 de résidence qu'ils doivent remplir;

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:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province;

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


50, An•amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with a procedure prescribed by section 41, as modified by section 44,or b section 42:

(a) the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province; (b) the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; (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.

Matters

irtg arrend-ment under general amend-ment proce-dure

.1) le droit d'une province d'avoir à la Chambre des communes un nombre de députés au moins égal à celui de ses sénateurs: g) les principes de la représentation pro- 5 portionnelle des provinces à la Chambre des communes prévus par la Constitution du Canada.

-419

50. Toute modification de la Constitution du Canada portant sur les questions suivan-

Recours , obl igatou:e

tes se fait selon laprocédure visée aux arti- à la procedure normale

cies 41 ou 42:

de modification a) la charge de Peine, celle de gou—verneur général et celle de lieutenant- gouverneur ; b) IL Charte canadienne des droits et libertés; c) les engagements énoncés, en matière de péréquation et d'inégalités régionales. à l'article 31; d) les pouvoirs du Sénat; e) le nombre de sénateurs représentant chaque province au Sénat et les conditions de résidence qu'ils doivent remplir;

.1) le droit d'une province d'avoir à la Chambre des communes un nombre de députés au moins égal à celui de ses sénateurs; g) les principes de la représentation proportionnelle des provinces à la Chambre des communes prévus par la Constitution du Canada.

420



CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS: SECTION 51


Conicquential a mcndmenis 51. Class 1 of: section 91 and clam I of

section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the British North America Act, 1867), the British North America (No. 2) Act, 1949, referred to in item 21 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 mod.dkang^ rubrique I de l'article 92 de la Loi constitu-l r'"1"" tionnelle de 1867 (antérieurement désignée sous le titre: Acte de l'Amérique du Nord

158rirannique, 1867), l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord Britannique (n" 2). 1949, mentionné au ri. 21 de l'annexe I de la présente loi, et les 15 parties III et IV de la présente loi sont abrogés.


Consequent- 51. Class 1 of section 91 and bal amma-class I of section 92 of the ments Constitution Act, 1867 (formerly named the

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 constitu-tionnelle de 1867 (antérieurement désignée sous le titre: Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique, 1867), l'Acte de l'Amérique du Nord britannique in" 2), 1949, mentionné au n' 22 de l'annexe I de la présente loi, et les parties III et IV de la présente loi sont abrogés.

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"

4. Copyright (section 91, head 23). (P.78.)

5. Muséums. (P.78.) 6. "Control cf trade associations" (combines?). (P.79). 7. Marnage and divorce (section 91, head 26). Pp.81-2).

8. The training, ré-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)

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 inter-provincial 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 régulation 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."

(P.77).

11. Unenployment insurance (section 91, head 2A). (P. 92). (I understand that the Quebec Libéral Party has struck out this proposai.)

2.

422

(P.136.)

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)

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 Legislatuïes.

1. Control of nuclear energy, where Parliament would retain oniy 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.)

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 subject to the veto of the Federal Council see below), the 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 for a new Upper House, would reluire a constitutional amendment.) (P. 47.)

2. Instead of the Senate, there would be a Federal Council, This "is conceived as a special intergovernmental institution

(Pp, 58, 109).

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 central government with a riOt to vote. Thé feaeraf 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 number, with "full participation and voting rights." (Pp. 52-3). So 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' .... A weighted vote factor, deVéléped on the basic of the relative

size of each province would establish the relative value of this 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).

(d) "Ratification", by a two-thirds majority, 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)

(h) "Ratification" (by simple majority, or other-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)

425 -t

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 wouide 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. French-speaking 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

) "The mmittee to ensur.e that the Civil Service

co r eflects

levela" (p.S4). This can only mean that from tep to bottom, would have to be Fren Duelit Cemmittee would have power to enf

would have a erecise mandate Canadien dualiSm at all half the Public Service,

ch-speaking, and that the orce 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 thé 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 French-Canadian, 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 deal with the .... impeachment of judges" (p, 58). By whme

efore

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 (of Commons) and of the legislatures merit inclusion in the

new constitution" (p.40).

In Education.

The proposed'Constitutional Charter of Rights and Liberties would guarantee the right of "any French or English-speaking person or any native person . to request and 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 in glâsh, or any English-speaking person to have his children 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 Û3.42).

This needs explanation, and examination.

L. powers of the Queen, the Canerai the Lieutenant-Governors.

"In reality," says the Beige Paper (p.45),

Do they? This moula severely restrict the power of each House (national or preVinCial) to order its business.

Denial of Freedom oLnlesed_le,guage

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 "paînamentary 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 Lieutenant-Governors 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. .

M. Professer Edward McWhinney, Q.C., Profes or 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 Vancouver Province, Janua.ry 11, 1980).

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 attachm►ent -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 Newfound-land on the Division of Constitutional Responsibilities in Cotmunications" Newfoundland

TAB 4: Senate (Canada)

- document 840-153/025: *Report of the Committee of Officiels on thé 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.

- document 840-153/0301 "Report of the Committee of Officiels on Fisheries" CoMmittee of Officiais; with attaehment document 840-153/022: *Position on Fiehéries

* - Nove Scot la,

Newfoundland

TAB 8: Egualization and Regional DevelopMen eove Scott!: and.

New Brunswick)

- Secretariat Note; ThisJtem was discuesed by the cOMmittée.Of Officiais On Indirect talai:04m

and Spending Power. 'An excerpt ofthis.eub-eomettee's report (see document 840-153/028) dealing with equalizatiOn is Lncluded under this

tab.

- document 840-153/017: *Agenda Item en Bqualization and Regional Disparities

e Committee 4:d 'Officiels

TAS 9: Charter of Rights (Canada)

- document 840-1537034 *Report of the Committee of Officiels

on Charter of Rights* Committee ef Officiels

- document 840+153/004: *Canadien Charter of Righte and • FreedoMs

* - Federal

TAS 10: Ipending PoLete ada,

- document $49-1$3/0e: 'The Federal Spending Power, EUelizaiont Revieed Repert of thé Comitteé Of Officiels on

Inq

directt

°.Paxation, Spending and Equeiltatmion* ComMittee pi

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 in Bill C-60 concerning the Queen and the Governor General

e - Éederal

- 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

o

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 on timee of meetings

- Discussion of items other than to committees:

Indirect Taxes

• Spending Power

and agreement

those assigned

- Equaliza tion

Offshore Resources

• Suprema Court

• Monarchy and Bill C-f0

- Reference to other items te confirm reeched et Toronto,

positions

14:00 - 17:00 - Meetings of Sub-Committees on:

- Naturel Resourcea

- 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

10:00-12:30 - Meetings of Sub-Comcnitteea:

Fisheries

The Senate

• Any other euh-committees for wbich e further meeting is desirable and possible

436

- 2

14:00-1 1 0 - Plenary session

- The Amending Formula

- Iteporte from Sub-Committes

• Remaining ',robinets

o

438 DOCUMENT: 840-153/ 025

CONFIDENTIAL

MEETING OF OFFICIAIS ON THE CONSTITUTION

(Draft for Discussion Purposes Only)

s

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. 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.

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 fîxed 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 govern-

ment 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 subs-

tantial 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



The Senate

Federal

Ottawa January 11-12, 1979

447

CONFI DE NT IAL January 10, 1979

THE SENATE

Purpose of this paper

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 accep-table. 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 compre-hensive 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


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.


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


Voting would be different for. Category A and B matters.

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 - 4 -

Manitoba proposai

For most matters the Senate's veto could be over-ridden 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 seven deys if such step is authorized by a two-thirds Commons 111› 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 signi-ficance" would recuire the approval of a majority of French-speaking Senators as well as a majority of English-speaking Senators.

•

•

./5

451

- 5 -


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


A small Senate of about 60 seats, with equal repre-sentation from five regions.

Manitoba proposai

(a) The representation of the Atlantic and Western regions must be increased.

(b) Ideally, each Province should have equal representation.

(c) 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 allo-cation might be as follows:

Newfoundland 10 Nova Scotia 10 New Brunswick 10 Prince Edward Island 6 Quebec 20 Ontario 20 Manitoba 10 Saskatchewan 10 Alberta 10 British Columbia 16

The number of seats have been kept even to permit an equal number of Senators to be appointed for over-lapping 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

Share of total

Populations

Present Senate

House of the

Federation Seats % Seats %

Yukon .1 1 1.0 1 .8 Northwest Territories .2 1 1.0 1 .8

TERRITORIES .3 2 1.9 2 1.7

British Columbia 10.8 6 5.8 10 8.5 Alberta 8.3 6 5.8 10 8.5 Saskatchewan 4.0 6 5.8 8 6.8 Manitoba 4.4 6 5.8 8 6.8

WEST 27.5 24 23.1 36 30.5 ONTARIO 36.0 24 23.1 24 20.3 QUEBEC 2E1,8 24 23.1 24 20.3

Nova Scotia 3.6 10 9.6 10 8.5 New Brunswick 3.0 10 9.6 10 8.5 Prince Edward Island .5 4 3.9 4 3.4 Newfoundland 2.4 6 5,8 8 6.8

ATLANTIC 9.5 30 28.9 32 27.1 Total 100.0 104 100.0 118 100.0

18ased 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



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 constitu-tional 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. Executive gôvernment of Canada, the Senate and House of Commons (but -there are exceptions which would corne under.6).

4. Provincial constitu-tions.

Constitutional pro-visions that apply to one or more, but not all provinces.

6. Other constitutional provisions.

To be approved by

Parliament, and all provin-cial legislatures.

Parliament and legislatures of provinces concerned.

Parliament,

Legislature of the province.

Parliament, and legislatures of provinces concerned.

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 Fulton-Favreau 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 ter-ritorial limits of any such province upon such terms as may be agreed to by that legisla-turc, and may, after the like consultation and 10 with the like consent, make provision respect-ing 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 territo-ries, 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

Amendmènts relating to thecamendmerit from time to time of the Constitution of a Province, except as regards (a) the office of the Lieutenant—Governor, (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 legis-latures 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) 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 Legislatures;

(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 te a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing the Province;

(7) 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 reason-ably 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.

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) Prisons 92(10) Local Works and Undertakings 92(13) Property and. Civil Rights 92(16) Generally all matters of a

local or private nature.

(b) 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 dele-gation of legislation at this time are:

1. Should a provision permitting such delegation be now inserted in the Constitution?

2. Should the possibility of délegation be confined to certain heads of jurisdiction and to revocable authorizations made in relation to specific statuts s?

3. Shouklthere be a requirement that a certain minimum number of provinces should participate?

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 by a formula which would require the consent of the Parliament of Canada and at least seven provinces, together comprising at least 85% of the popula-tion of Canada.

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 légis-lative powers could be part of the discussions regarding the amending formula.

Ô

•

s

460 ANNEX 2

EXCERPT FROM THE VICTORIA CHARTER (1971)

389

PART IX

AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION

Art. 49. Amendments to the Constitution of Canada may 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 twenty—five per cent of the population of Canada;

(2) at least two of the Atlantic Provinces;

(3) 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.

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;

(2) a resolution made for the purposes of thia Part may be revoked at any tiras before the issue of a proclamation authorized by it.

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) 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 Legialatures;

(3) the maximum period fixed by the Constitution of Canada for the duration of the House of Gommons and the Legislative Assemblies;

(4) the pavera of the Senate;

(5) the number of members by which a Province is entitled to be repreeented in the Sonate, and the residence qualifications of Senatora;

(6) 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;

•

•

462 AliNEX 2 (Cont.)

• 391

(7) the principles of proportionate representation of the Provinces in the flouse of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada; and

(8) except as provided in Article 16, the requirements of thia Charter respecting the use of the English or French language.

Art. 56. The procedure preacribed in Article 49 may not 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, including this 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, 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.

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, sub-ject to the other provisions of Part I.

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 prov-ince 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 provi-sions of the Constitution of Canada which refer to one or more, but not all of the prov-inces, 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 approv-al of that province's legislature,

(e) For matters not otherwise provided for—including most of the exceptions ta the exclu-sive power of amendment of Parliament—the consent of two-thirds of the provincial legisla-tures is required.

•

464

Annex 3 (Cont.)

(f) The Parliament of Canada may exciusively make laws to amend the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive Govern-ment of Canada, the Senate and the House of Gommons, except as regards

i) the functions of the Queen and the Gov-erndr General in relation to the Parlia-ment 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 Consti-tution of Canada for the duration of the House of Commons, except that the Par-liament of Canada, may in time of real 9r apprehended war, invasion or insurrec-tion, 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 prov-ince 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 repre-sentIng the province;

vii) the principies of proportionate represen-tation 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 formulae—in 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 u m cp r-- 2 cte-- e 112 le le › U

.

e . 2, p g

dm

...2 0 .3 9, . 8 _. V3 .4 4 `.

e •_, _., z„.. _ E., 0 _ - ,,, ...., . c 7, 0 , -0 u.-. ° .7 3 7 eZD g 7e: .n fi -e, ..A 2 .. tzrzi.es ,g.n .1,, pj 1-1 V - 4; ,ti. ô - ,.. 0:Z.Z1 -.5 - .à % b.. .:= a a, ,,-,. . ü'. e e 0 p. ,..) • G) 4. ,a 1... , 0 G

4; 'Ê,.. 2 te , t 0 a a .a F., ,2, c‘i 4 G. ''',0. ".7. 'ie •e 4 •9 .0 c !fl-. g -U

.7, •-•%? Ts ::: -5. e e 5 rA 'f= ! •--> ; à , ":-A 4: , ,,, ‹,, -, , 2, .,.., ,.,:, 0 0 ,..,.z , 0 s21e.:.-

..,e -- e '-c,? ,,..• , 0 0 - 0- e .z) ?,-."4 A -el .e":»p 65`,8 0.' t''' 4'"•5'ei <0 '2 0 ...1'' i «2 .

d Cl

..° 4 - '-'i 5 4 '.: '-',,, _.., VI Cl 4,--• a, d •r. . i..., .,-; ',......, GI ..g ,..,....,, m°.i, - I: Fi ,2 0 2 •r

'em-1 ''r ' Oe ..›:'.., r-.., 7.'7'4 .0e. "g .: --"éj ‘ri é ''0' }. g./ 0 C" -

,.: 45 -

. -a à ...9. e ..4' - t> "° ,,,, ..„ Z .. ,e,, lz a ec -• m f-, 0

..: :É.,. .5'. ,.;3 n' . - 0 4. ;... - 5 e c..1 - a ,.‘,, ,.. ..,.. ee0 2 0 Y.>' •••-• e

'a ••5. ag tf, CO e' '4 • Ei E .....,

g fa 0 .., , . :z. . .4- ?..,- y tz0 .-,1 4 0- , 6 ''" .0 171. -Fr, - ..z.) ,à. +5' „ --=, -0 -c 0 •--- e - s ..,,.. = -.. ti ;a, . ... a o ›‘ - .... e:. a ,_ 0'0 '-..'2 1.- ». .7,3 ,.., .>:, d 0 4-1 ...8 :,:i •z; e s 0 4 , à •-.7, 0 -. - E

5 _ se . . - g . 0 . „= ;g . g CJ 4 te e 0 <., 0 0 ,0). Q

. „. 0 .,. c,. 1-, . 0 . 2 ,-. e, c., .z - ,,, ." fd 0 0 ^ »p a)

Q'..- 0 -,« e b e ._ :.». 0 a - 4 r.,..e ._,' 'g ti: g* -&1-. &•. e, %..2 1, - 2

P. '-' 9, ..... a rc.. .._..,-, o a 0 P....0 -.., Q -..., e .. '7.") .,S E 1 t a o a., d .-='• ,.. 12 A 2, o>, 0 m ',?_,.-•*, 5. 0 c.) ••-• o t'II 4 .> >" ° ). A t> E,' e " ' 4 4 -e ,E ;e: ..0 0 4 '.0 - 'il ?., '' %' .9. "ô ---4 . a a - - :g ra a -_, P. -w e 0 = a 9.), o .' J. ,,.., 2' `à):•1 c - r° 75 .e.; e s .2''0 .' g - 3 0 0. -2 . g,

0 . c., 0., p - F2 ...0 0 -, >..5 .7› a .. ... o , .. p„.. c

•S ''-' ...4 e>«, ..ÉÔal Egi:., 111?; c, Ë e.›,• C e 'Ô ° ..a G e e . -0 0 - 0 to - - r, 1..; A -- --,f, g -r-' 4 ta tj i-,' :2 t . er, g = t 'ec G .. 0 ..9., a e. .;.5

4..1 .z, 0 ,,e ro i. › e.3 .., -4, • •-• - 0 0 .e c . . . . , _. - , , ...t> . 9 al n... }, ..... o ,... a)

*:c5 ';' ?': ?; 1°. ....," eec.n g go ..°.? 'a 4 0 Q e. ' a. •;.....r, •eF. - •••• , - a e • D '.1 .o ,,.> Q , Q u ,..,,,. , Q el .5 ,-' 4) 'e ° i" ,e ›,t: ...: : ! '!'; '-e r'5• 74 ''' ''..' 4 àa Te 71 - ° ';', 7, 41 à e P e.F.' .,%, =eg,"_àeap ,.S 0 .?-1 ;É g.:.t t e:a''.4.,

o to 0 0 e ,, Ô 'e 44 ''' ... e ..1 en 4 w ., • e _ ... 0 0 a el „ ., . Q S - '..1 ...:, ':

*. ... .,,, ne .z _ 71., g e• To g g c:

a a ..8 „c2, ',4 .4-, ,.., , , e ° 5 ••••' ... .e. 0 ...,-,1 ,...., p,.., 0 : e :-* i ?; 20' 7-cc> 9 r,-.> '''', -9 41 -:5- ': °:73- g ''' ›. 7 ._. , ,... - a.... , 0 c., , R ,...... à •... >' -a- '-';' :, ° ° e ': -r.:"' ..

4 e.,.> 6') Ô '7: -..› '-' 1:-... 0 ''e e 0 ..-...i 0 0 . 4

... Q ...g .... U

7. ,- ›.r.) ,..,5 0 8 ...e 0c4.-4 Û

. ,..,g,:, 4 ..7..i 0 Ze e le ...%' 4 ..c 0 1.; •..m.73

.11 ›' --"" ..= g

's •11., ,. ,4 ,-,. 1:= • p., oe M : 2 : , - : -- -* ' >. . ,4 to Q CI ;.> r„..1 ,,..-1 ,a ^ 0 ,--, ',g' Ci y -, - 1-• i '... 4; e ô Pn e ILI 0 . -, d zti .- ,,e,. ,, ,,,- .1) 2 2 Fr 3 I-. . g. 1›, ... -.-_i ,,, .-;. g ..t> e) o,e,74:,iiM -'.. ' - g -e. c:, 0- E- p-t ''' T> '. `n 7'. "Q I .'-..›' a' 2 '' lr.. E77, :-.% ô 7.3 '.Z: :-. '7-'' ' e - « _ ce t .,e,45 7, ,à,,.,. o 0 0 c9 ve. " S ›,.7:; -';›* to-1- 2 o >>,.1,_,.. 2 r.. „...G g, ,.. c ::.,) P. 4 0 c a 9, -0 -.....,.... 0 .5 a .„_,0 ...,,,.

a ..- ... ,,„ • 5.f., c. . . ...e , . - T.. 4.. 0 .., G - - ,,..., __, T.:

a Q P, ,i3 :4 ^ '2 ô' .5 :z. 0 51 _5 `" g e -.8 -e ce' ci' t 'n 24 .,.› e E, t.,2; ...z. . r.:2 rr, gi -7.-:, ...a., ...> 0 .... .- ....) e v 1 ,,,, â a P.... -,--:, .,

-. , . ..'' '-' a r. ......_ '-' <-1 .= 2 , 7.). :A" fil '4 f .- .2 .., to ro 4 ...• P-I r.--- 'ti 4 P.....-> "0 -.-> Q

0 0 _a Q aq

.-› e '''0' ._. '' b.' A gl,'' tel

,-..: - a e .5 'm .a e `")'7-5 eo ,.......--' -5 ›-, 1.1 2 257.5. ... ....-• ,5 1.-1 {-, --, 12 - g 14. C.; 0 • - U eq , -s ""': ri, "à ...% P • . ki • c g e -a :,.,, -..z .._,

tia 4 e '" ..c, 8 Ê ,:a E o., o n ... , - ..7 L E': ° 0. f..) 0 ....., ...ç,' 'G e. '-'il>11' 4 <1 > e, l'... 0 41. .. 21

,..„- -k"...5 ;.---. ...5 `?" 0 a 0.2 .a e 0 4 •G - Z c...0 'à' 7-1..j -à .., - e.2 ;i -,..: --- g :d -.,. oed°5 ° co cr> .. -Po

- -1 „,„ •.m z-,, c. -e. eD ... re ,7 o, 0 ,,-. r- .-C1 .g'g a •

11. e›, g G..e o•5 ..4 0 ,^ a 0 9. 0 171 s -à "1.Q...G ,... -.,e.,'._„ S G ..„ ---, e ho 'r., .,... 4

4

‹. ..., ._

!; a 'À' >-...'-‘9 2 e Q ,

co

cjot e> 11 à« ? r Z e

•

❑

`.5

..A r5 l', 't3 ..›J g '7. 2 el e c.:g

g ii s, F.2, . .... . .F ..=> . ,,,

1, d if 2 ...0 .M -e 0- .à. -,, -0. 2 "EU'

J~ g od 'S §.9 e?..-,---... ...,,,5 ,.., s, , --:.; ei ---, P e . , rrr.> -''..-Zi ,-j

.PA .-‘,1 g .- F, 7. 7.• .3 , 4 ,' à- _-‘.) ,..m

,. 4 ...); '5, - .1 ''' o dr., -, .";" Z,M

'«- g 2 g . . t -1 ' _. ..,.. ❑

, 7, ...tr

2 a -, e ,-,..,

. c,-, ... M ,, .' à z.... ,:i O -E.5 .. ,..,. . k,-. .P ..3i 1111,

466

aa F e e 5.;

:0.7; •iT;

.22 E :7' g g C.)

ANNEX 4 (Cont.)

CU 0 a) .0 el > -•.> •:td • ••• E

e 4 2 e F) . g

(in DD à•

Q cil bn p,

zœ7;i e-!"*"ft'e

• o 7-› 4 p ô ci '" T.0 8 e ":e.' C , -e .4, , -4,-• 0 0,) 7,*

.•.è1 O

"->>• G.

10 98 »74r, :74e0 ; n • ,e1 571 O -° 5 -5 ,2.) lem' F. •t7 "

ny 4 el ›

° 0 ;o % 0 e -7> " — 2, •,„1.-;

2 n +01 7, 'a 8 -0" -o.... 5 41 5e4 .1) 0 e --

51 `-> ,q./

0

.-0 7.4 o t23

C. g e ge73-e-à" Q -... ee•-ù . O c.2 C)

g ? esJ

Q.C) e% °C.'..ra> C.>

° ° 5 ° -6' E., Ti Û _4' 73 ,8 .e

'.e 8 ;•'-' 5. 8 '' 2 'e °,3 2 ; 2 t. 2 5 .g e. .5, gà e ..d q2 02 CO I

, .2 e 4 ......? e • 0 ... •-• ..,-,,3 C F:, ce '''O. g 8. '. -. .9 ›.,1., -...ze .3 ..-...$ 2 k,£) >:,. >... y, ,e. :-1, 9 E.,• -' '57'1 - , ...., . C) . .3 -1 -> 8 ^rz 11 -

-,e e 1-ci «1 .a. :-.: cd ..:-•4 .,5. '7' t.= -,r, >, "- ,0, v, ..c

"--- -•« p 9 9 ›, t F., - • to ‹; •-,.• E e .0 2.,.> o. 0, 0 î› e .. 0 J/J '''' 72 EJ g' e .9.

5 .. .... a. :-._.51 •- 8 - _..e -...) ..e, ---' s'-' e 2, É«

-0 2 , s«. rz .e 2 lej t gi 2 gi .am 4

T: ,., 0 4 _ ,. ci ,c. ..e 2 g c%) :-.1 ...>• ee E ô e 0 ..4 -; •,.› E g) ,,,?w ,2 e - 5 -' ›.

es" , b •7 ,q - 5 i„ .,... -. . •-; - 9 .z. ,-. Of w- _ .,., .., . _ .:.• ,..g. ,.,. e --' , .E .2 P. - ' e" 1:->> 'il, .â '-; -> .-e e a P--.- 1 'à -0 El 50

.,- . É .,..-e -no P-. ,,-.2,w - 4 "0 7: 1-'2 4 ,:c,° tr 4 ,t,' ,,,5 11 :

.. 4D4 ; e

...,,-‹ -tac ;'::` 9 ci ,,, <» .2 .9 e, ,r, .,.. E . 5 «2 ;,..,

,..,› b- .<4- a, e ...,•-,-,• , v.1 ,-..-..• Ti.,.;.... .. 'r.4,....,L,.› .0 -! k':;,

❑

t :='- ÿ,û

É g' 5 --' ,,, -1.,,, -. 9 3 ° P:1 E ',7, c 0 ? 4 0 i-.2 .--,-, ,.. 71 ,t -3 _ 4, 1,

• . M C. ) ra .1 . ';5 ,e' :) 8 -.L'' — — ''.. . ., a a r.; 4 ,:a 9 cl

,,) :-•:.",i

O ...., 7, a o .22 ‘9 41 n o a c.: e :- •-' ..5 1; .fri. s t.„.. 2 •zrz 5 ,. '"e F 8 R e, .7 P) S 2 .-e ,. '';' Tg --1 e 43 -7 '3 -4'2 --' 3 --e 2 a , ',,.. '''' ,... :.-..- ',...",> 9. •.:•-• - •- .., e' -.24 a 4.1 e.., o - ...:. e, , ,..) z..2 0 •;-„, ,., l' ..2.

F. .,. .9, •*#. r, g 1° 'à 5 41) -r° li 5 a ''' .2 ''' --' •2 ›‘ -5 •s 7 -a - .,-.... --5, 7,.., ef..,-,..., Q ,..r. F.,. 0, › ,..L, t› b., '• .., -, c,.. P• - F.— 4 t M" ..z, sZ.j. ,.'„,' 8. .'..9'. 4,5 5 2 -=> 7 -..,.....--. .? P., 9. -7; J g 5 r:. , -2 ., 2 — 'a .:..---7 -i ,.:.'e E - >, --e• ..e •;.., -4 •-• r.,e ,,e, -0,, 7,- ,. 0 .0., 0 .._, : ..,...,0., ,.>e ..«, :1 , us .7.,-_,, .....,= ...,; _i ,r.„. 0 r.,

... .--. ^ 7z; ..z: %, 9.;," .... .. ;) f., a) '--, 0 0 '.'.-j ' t, ‹ ''": 7:. -,.. i"-.

l' 7e 7- "C-• ''''' '' ..: 5 •••' .?1 .= ..3 8> E t. 5 -:.-., ... : • 0, _ '9 0a>ie ^...4'9 'r4' ,$. 4-. "-« - eCy 0=.9,.?

7"C." ci a e -', - -7.1> . - , 'a, a 9 .•.e o at ,- C, -d a- .7 .:-; ..8 e = 0 m e 0 -1:, , d o .,-1 -.,.. F..; - a > 1 . . ,e . . .à

. . a , i. - - ' , • ? 7 :+' ' ' ' Zi F '! , . : e . , „U • - - ' -e, • - t: -' g ,»2 e z 2 ... e z ;:-

z. ; , 5, 4 ,'. ,e,...-9 '''; --i-j c•-:, ie .:.--. à 17-1' T-, ‘., . --'; , ry

.,, : F, :.:1 ": =,--:.. .5.,-, . ',-: :7e 7 - : El 2 e 7: : .: : : « 'C P . • : • 5 3

T.' 5 rs › a 73 Er 2 0 .9 • .., e, .0 e -•'; .g.- E L.5 '4

5.?.

›, _5:.1 .,., 0 . ;_. „.-d '-. 7,, - ...., ,,:_,:, ; , --> e a >,. a o '72. .- ., ,- -,,,g ;.-; e E 4" et. .-, ...,% -.. 0 , 1S'

2, 2 2 c,.2 ai 0 ,9 e.) 'el g 1",75 ' rn 8-• .7... . É., e F.5 5.-,› z.--; 0 0 i74 7, ,o .:3 te e. e 'Z' ,...., 5 'Z' 5 5 ô

.

5.e

"2 5 ° 9' '-''' '" .3' '2' à' .., ,,, . . .., .,.., ..., ...--,..

467 ANNEX 4 (Cont.)

. . 0 .... e 4 c.i. -11 l. .e3 gr .12 il. G) 1›, ›‘ Cel 1 '> s e 8A) •-•-‘ 9. - . t' .t' b .1, -à -e -ri ''' 1. 7 ,o - o ci ...., , Q t-.0 0 Ir:, 2 .7, 0 ,.,. ".•. Tu' "..... ' e I- = 2 "e.0 o.- ' - F__.,› z ;.;- oe a -,.. 5 4= " ' `-) ce .d 'es `'4 t :3 -e Il 1) .0. ' to .- `'-e' b 'n' ° ..a >, -° TI t' 5 4 5 . te --, = • -... eie 4 • g.e. r... g ° >',, y 4 k ... y 0 . .„., 1 , . , ,; .' -. ,-o, 87 . . ' Ç2,,, -e E g R. F.. 7, 0 .1.. LI ,,, .,..rte

^ "e, 0 - ..4 <`; P ,, ... ,..., u, c, ,,,, <-, ... .... d o ,. à, +1> 8 5.n e 1 .,e 4 5) ''' A .. .5 ce ,.,, x to Ô, o 71 - .... ., „ 2 g. 8 o r9.-

•g o p . 45., - "E 5 , 0 0 6. " ;*•-''

te .,.,.., ° tn e . a <,., a ‘,,.1 ,. a 0 "1i ° ° '-' .2. g 0 ':i g, -e -c t, 1 0 o 8 L P. .:--. É' ,) _, . , e 0 o ..o o ,, a •,-4 e .j .2 'o) p. e .. .F. F. 19., ... ..^ ;t: e4 ..p re . ,e, ,,,, - F,..- -. e c 4-*

,. - ..1,, =, -.-.1 .,, <.. ....- 0 en ,Je 0,, 59 ti) te 0-' Z' y ;.-d .- 4 à

I a • ..- - `1, `) P '2, a ',"7. °e e....> 5 ;.,,; ,à0,9 o 24 -5' r- o• o "Ô 7- --. 9, FI ,.., -, ',L.,'

z.i. c,+ r-, .9. ? elO :,,, ....., e a _ E ' .„.2 17.1 e e' ' - 41 el ^n col el 'ô - , .›.---' 9.., 3 e e„, p , .0 8 ,... = Q T2 5 0 ga..a -....2.3... e ?„..,,i ,.., e ... .w .> -. 5 ,1 - e, ,e 5 '' I;

to '2;1 ,o â n' ''7- 5 ô 8 4 .1,, 2 2 2 'ô e -9.•

F. 8 • ..,. b s 'n e., .1-1 4-; 7,_ , ,•-..) .9, ;., 2 o a a - '"' --.„7 2 g a' Ta 2 e r., '''5 . g I" . ' '-re.3 .'›r n e -0 ej ..8 .7.".5.: '1 ,

a ° -I o to o c - o • c a . ei

8 ›'• . - -o -,:c c -o pz 0 en .0 › ,à 'e (., ° "0 ..e 17"..1 4 g e -.- .o ,- ...., ,„ 0- 4 _?. , 4 ., .0 .--. el 0 ...... 2> ,.?..., -a 3 e -5 ,, .. ,7 4 k . - - o g, . , , ., , , , o 2. ; 0, , .. - 8 •r, ,... .,_ _, o.. 1 -.0 ..., ....

Z. e

. - . ›, ... . . . - r., 4, ,4 = S ,b, R 0.:.-- à, ...., 8 o 0 p, ,-. a i... p, 0- tO 0 ''A F., . ,,, c,)

1 m°,' -° o e ° -,.. o o g 0 ^ y g rt.' --_ .). a I ... -2 0 4

.,.. •..^. ' LO "' •-•- u-,, 5 e _.- .3 -OE,1 "9 ,.. '" f z-i e•-' .- p., 03 4 '9 .g e--.. 0 • .. e -e-' —. 0effi,..0 e>es......, 00 - .,10 ':2 2,-* â "e-l g ".› .._, g ng' e › P.. d •-• 8 8 2., 2 0 °•• 01 a -a a g -4 P. Ë, 4 :74. m k, ... o •

..2 3 5 .0 2 0 5 '..2 ••?; 33 2. ci ie". 45 a e-•,.5.? to' c a b •" e„,, ,c,, :e › ,4 g. 8 0 '',5 e' eJ er. .7%.

.2 >0 '8 ":"' 2, .• ."'' a ° ""' „ ° ' ces.

.F

3 o e c., - e el

./:= to e e .3 o ? a ' e 0 0 " r-,e r2i. W. ' .`2 a 0 -cl ô' 0 o e• - ro' P4 e ° '`' t ô • ,':› -2 Ô

t.,,$ › ..., ,,,., ,o o ..- - „i ••-• .r, .5..... , a -g 8 , o ,, G.7",b tr! '5 1,), u,) : .9. ° .- ..› -e-

Q -i. 74 -5 5, -° .4. f, to te, Rd. ...i 0 -3 e .. e e'. - .à e '5 .1.> w . .e. -9 P e 'd. 5 -5 ->,, .,> ,.-e . c.,>

ï e 5 r> °' 0 to .f, o ° a -e 5) 5: g " 1:2 e o .-P ° -..› .'="1 ''' o 'à 2...› cri•

p. ...0 g ". g 'et

e ''.4.'› 'gr.' !I) .f."›.24 '73° el 2' ) e" .; , - ,1 . g -:: , Z> 7% -- G; : ht ' 4 10> ' -9 - ; .° ( . )°' ' '. ''' ' 1 I . c . )E ! 7. . _Q> . :2 , :I . ;..) li L:,- - - '4L5'' ' › .O .° "1: I --'n ' e ' 2 Au . , .m 'e3 ,-,_e -LI • -• o..: 72 . 3 ,., " 5-;-1,51 >-':# o g ‘,--9 A • 7, ' 5 e / te g ... 85 ° 'e r- •e• -2 - 43, Ti ;..'"e ,,..1 „ •.. o ."..- el. n 3 ^ c ),•^' --- ,. :=•' r5 ._<• ;LI ei 2 ° - ..= F-• '-. 5 " Re. ."' e.) .-- >•, „ chi ,4 ! si ..., 0 .., t., - o ... , .- e ..4 c › '-'..- ''' ..0°) o e ,... 4

e .--i ee-. ' 1 4 'czi - F.. 5 0 c. '0' • . . - , ...> 0 › 0 ° o, g .51 'à .2_'1,-, 2 a 5 a -,

4>> , a 5' 5 y ,., g 0 5.-e .... 5 r, c,..". ô' -',; --' F5 G •„7„1„ ..:.• e a -JI E e z, 5 g e., .,- a ô Ei• 2 E ,_,....--. 2.; •-o› o .-L-1 ,,_-,,Y. •2C j;,' er o -.,3 .,%;.2. e , d ,,e 'à' .5, -5 ,S„, F.,..'

0 p ,.,.F., e g„,. 0 c.) '0 .., à 5 0 ,c .m. 0. 5 le . cj ..-.. e - <d •Fh. .,, 0 - .., e. o a o k 5 '-. o .- . .13 „, .e re 2, t „ ,.. o , - g. o 2 .2 g 8 ..."... - ri 5 0 a. r.^

R. r, 0 '5 5 0 --. o a --> o 2 ;5, .› c.. fa e0,..,•, g4 t. cl ooà . -r-> 0., 1 2 e ., e• 52 e e P. a.,,‘,.-i ".". .-. „ ° 52 ,t0.,.,

5 t‘o ,...• ,c 0 -.. R, p. 0 ,,,,„ e ,.,1 ..... kr - , .) o •-• 9 Ei , '7; g . ,..,-. ...,_ t.., ià ,-.:.., . 5 e. o „.... E-, --. g o -ci a y ',7i '''' b-i e9., . 4 Eo' °"4°e"e'-'*---051-°'''^0 .5 'a .e'

«.-' c'g ..* el '--« ° e ° '-...' - g ° g e ° '... 14 ea Ô g Fr -e a.22.,•z; a a e• 3 ro al, o - zr, .4 d R. • - 9 ..- ',,, 0 a c. a Ft ,-, çà 0 0 '0

5e°...2-e- .-T.4 ie ,,e ,. _., •0 &.., or, -.3 ,-..

15 13 :9) ,_t a› , .7%! I :.".5 . e, j". - - 'n «rn '..› '-'nà -5 .2 Tà à '5 -> r. -F, 8 ,-,›, e g e , e ,--. „. _ e _ ..,

"f• 0 " -,-e ;g ..,4' 5, e j.i -, ? ,,, -‘; ..e, :....., <, _ . '-... a •17i › . g e •::-., .‘ ✓•-rÉ ›e' . ..e, . e ,..1 rz. a. , e ..., s, m tO e tn.,,."' ,.„ , ti?› aÿ ,4.2 4,1 0 ›, 4.

5 g à:1 4 5 4 '0 .0 ',.. 0 o ,•••

•a ° ,-9, te a o ..5 ; .52 -g 'el ,..,e,`" ° : : Z1 75

0. e o ,,, ,a . › ;,, 4,; y 2.; ce F , MI '-'c' S : 2 ›''.‘ :4 87.5 e e r:' "' 0 . e s .g .›.e. .0 '''',, .7

:,,,,. . t. 0 0 ‘;) 0 •--.' F. e c C 0 9 p..., ".> e • e, :5 ',3 o - o Q O -4, o a e - e 0

.. :... r• •"" •-• 0 0 F. 0 0 •••• 0 •,- . — 0 e0 >, , 0 ;'"i 0 Ta -5 ',;, ,. 3: .4 ''' '4 . 9., „e 2 - -a › o

O . „E ,_o_ L3 .4 .2 2, Â 1-472 . 'o' -0, _ o e ,_ 5 , - ,.› 0 a ,. o 8 ... .e ...„ - -r= o a,

e ..3 7,1 :4, 1,, .;°. e t) e 7,5 -..' - Q e el à r„: . :: — ..g. -5, e. .r.-", ;Te.' ,i" ",4 'É :o= 74 o

52 Z; .41 '9 •9- 12. °. -' e e2 = 7, Ele ° ..e' ,71 .. ï:-•› '-u> e 7i ..› 'Vi />

'..7> 4 e., --. . . ›, _e -..> 0 ,,,j.i <Q . :_-: i.s ... e ,à ..c

,QA 4"›,..1 'â ,. r,i 1 ";$' ô 8 -.77; 41 e 7... ".? ir -gist, - - . . g 73 8 ›, t, '-e-1 :5' e te.0 5. .•• 1 F1 e 21-2 - 0`."Qs:.° , 1-1 8 4-.1 ac ',e'.,' o° 'Zi -g g. 5), 45' -, -.' ç4, o g ..r.,, -,..a c., .73 - - c ,, e e — . ,à . 0 e › ,,-,5 , cr , ,e, z, 0 0_ ,--. •-• 0 -.-à ,,,,. -.-. 72 c 0 -,1 .C, 2 .,3 ..7; e-. ,t,«, •5.- o -4. 2>à•E, 0 : _. :-. 7_, '" 7_> : : : 1 ! .,8 : 1 ! 4: . ..-_-, . ' FI ,0 • o 5 . a " •-• •e °.-• o -•-• 2 te =-• 5 g- g. .9er,3.- .-8 g . _al = ,....„,

37 >, G. t,,, . , ,, ...-e g .. te -.3 - tee = , ...., 5.). ... > ..:,,,› .12 Te 7 ..5-.. c; .E... 2 73 e03 g '5 -... f _ ,,„.ti . - g ‘,5 .5 c ...,0 _4 .2 .-',... .,..;' .L'• t b ..te 9 Î :21 .,,-1 7 41 e r-i ,.J .^°L T3 e ... _ -e -,-.,. -e o> <<! ..e -;.., 0 r, vf O d 'O .;',' '.. Q 0 j 9 .„ g ;-..- E ,. SQ, 4-, ,o ,,e 0,:4›.,-.34,.., 4)7,ez.0"..ii ..F.S.44.-' 0 ,,,..003 W , 5,, y.„,5 ,-.. G " • " ..2 o ° o p •-o a _ -,-,, P-4 ,e ,, > c., .4-, . g' : >, e ,, 2, •-e g._,,;`,; ..5, Ô '.: 'e ".F -• = .,1 .9. = g cr ... , . ' '-'

..> -.a 0 ..2 0...› e''o-'00,'= a -,-9 "

•'zi .7'-

'• 8 2 .'c' ''' 0 gz- ,,,, 0 t-. >.., ,,, ..-. ..- ., .' • g y 0,„ 5 2...• 4..., tn FeJ 0 a -e ..m 0 > -5, ''' a " a 0 0 c 0 0 ,..,„._ er, .. 0. Z m c) .... 53,1 -. ,,,,m 5 e-11 ""' --.> g c ô e, -e, .2 . g ''''' '"°' 0 .--4 ,.'.' g e

7'1 '10' :e e 8 g P -e .. .« -P1 .,-' - . ?., 75. r.. --L, : g - .72 ,.8 9 ,, p :‘,_, rp n.'if' g g ,2 ,s g ..,-, ..,,, 5,.. ,,, .e 1 ,,,,- b . . t,.. = 4. 0 --,i F, --,., „ Q Fi Q -..› ":$ g - ..., ie, ° . ›, . - .:..; 7) '''' Ê 0 -e" .,.,1 › .b -5 S -e e c,,. ..eg C. c.4 1,4 e' oe" >5° '-i' ." -ea F.,' ' Q .., ...,4,- .-. te

-...., g ' -.. "-' .,,2= , , ftz.3 _...0 :: 7i "P. Q Q , ',1''' ,i . ,- ! 0..' 0 Q 0 ... .,, r:Lt ...e 13. , 0 c.1 ..9 .,$Q .2 -'n 4_,-,Q •-,i" a g 'z' 'â e 72 '' if! •or .,3 ''' .0- cs- --.0"' " te 4 -'à.. ,.'' Ife, te „t1 y .3.1 «1 ---. 0 ...., • ,7, !....: .,, 2 . 0 •ree'.; g ,e, g g F 12 g ..-. g .,53' „ . ..-.,.., .,-. %-, '..:-1 ,_'-', ,.., 4 e 0 :,- ';.: 'Z'' 4 Q ...","«, e-e

a n.., - ›, o .c e •,- -.- a ar a 5 -., .-- a - - ;.. i. e = o ,- = G •-• a o „, 0 ^ ? ^ , e>

_.' , ol (5, =, a ,, 0 = 0, ...., e - 0 m 0 c., e -,-' c-:, 0 <„, 9. • . . . . r „ 0 :s ...Q ,,, sze P p ••••-e ,a rc; 0

-.h.-, • ” n e *r> ?'' 4 0 .....7 Q 7.3 0 1, re , a - o e•• . 74 ta) › '. e e .- ., E.' 0 >, .' ,..- ..m e g g g g F.0 c -tly e' ..,± . g.., >.: ,,,?, „ t „ ,, m ..,, e ,,là i tj g g e, e „.c. : 6 ._." 14 F 5 . '.n e . -..,: e, " );:..' È:: "g : U 5 ''. . _ ,.. . -t, 0 . - - . .. -•-> i. •- e „, •-a-i =;'•;' 1-i .5 eià,=e e',.^00--,1

7' t e e ii', ‘4 i--' -. ° ? -g 0 e . e.> ''' g'. 5, '-2' '2"' .8 1'4 8, 7, e..›.; 8 .r5. 5 - e . 0-, c,,.:- d -,,-, g, â'2 -td' -‘8Ê8 -o•°=e2 1 ‘. e . '' - •:-1 7.°., 9 5. 75 "o> a ...? LI' , :.5' ,, 1 5 "-, .d .. e - 'g ,,;,72, E '-' •à e, :,-, -à Î.- ,.e' re .--.-• --..4 a•

77, 8, . le ? t . -rn o ..5. ..'.7, 9 -.9 e"' ;> 4 'à .2; co) 2 e ,.›.; ' II' "2 e Q.

0 50 .... --3 51 7"..› , 5 5 '-' o o , ', ré .0 g 14 •ap- .. ..,-f 6, ,:. ... 3-, .:.i .... P. . p.i P. 0 e ..e., ,,c .._, i.5 . p., P .2 .0 ..p 3 a a .1:: a -° " '.- - r° " ° _ -,.. - - 4 .I., .-• -e-e

4438 ANUEX 4 (Cont.)

.•

s

• .5! à -.4 3 'ô 2 -et e g ,•,c gL. • em e. 5 •-• g g g

g =. •• .71 .-> .3 • 3 0 c )

" • ) • ), • *. e „e,

›, r4 • e • '%- ge.'E.-

-7-; — g 0.

cc 7. 1:,?1, -g 4

d .2n.

• -o> '7, *à. g g g

' ? • o

.e> e, g to ':1); ••▪ ••-=•

t

• r 3

0

v

°_ • ô

• c o e—

Tm °

n ,

37

• t

\ ©\ g

e3 7eI ;• 7, e g 8

En collaboration avec:

www.lavoixacadienne.com

www.lecourrier.com

www.gaboteur.ca

1811

56d-

1 Avis public

Services d’évaluation foncière Déménagés temporairement À compter du 16 novembre, le bureau des Services d’évaluation foncière du centre de Service Nouveau-Brunswick, situé au 360, rue Pleasant, à Miramichi, sera temporairement déménagé au centre commercial Northumberland Mall pour permettre des travaux de rénovation. Nous regrettons tout inconvénient que cette situation pourrait occasionner à nos clients.

1817

77d-

1

8 ACTUALITÉS ACADIE NOUVELLE | MARDI 13 NOVEMBRE 2012

Élection des sénateurs: Robichaud propose des balises pour protéger les Acadiens Le projet de loi néo-brunswickois prévoit l’élection de dix représentants sans en préciser la langue

469

FREDERICTON - Le vice-premier minis-tre Paul Robichaud est prêt à débattre de l’élection des sénateurs au Nouveau-Brunswick et de la représentation des francophones à la Chambre haute.

L’Acadie Nouvelle révélait en primeur le 2 novembre que la Société de l’Acadie du Nouveau-Brunswick (SANB) et la Fédération des communautés francopho-nes et acadiennes (FCFA) voulaient partici-per à la contestation judiciaire entamée par le gouvernement du Québec contre la ré-forme du Sénat du gouvernement fédéral de Stephen Harper.

La FCFA et la SANB craignent la dimi-

nution du nombre de représentants des communautés francophones en milieu mi-noritaire à la Chambre haute si les séna-teurs sont élus plutôt que nommés par le premier ministre.

Au contraire du Québec, le gouverne-ment du Nouveau-Brunswick a décidé d’aller de l’avant en déposant à l’Assem-blée législative le 1er juin le projet de loi 64 visant à faire élire les sénateurs. Le gouver-nement fédéral s’est engagé dans son pro-pre projet de loi à nommer au Sénat les candidats qui se feront élire dans les pro-vinces.

Joint par le journal, le vice-premier mi-nistre du Nouveau-Brunswick, Paul Robichaud, s’est dit prêt à discuter des craintes de la SANB et de la FCFA.

«Il y a probablement une possibilité d’élire nos sénateurs tout en nous assurant de protéger ce dont les organismes aca-diens se préoccupent», croit-il

Car la priorité des progressistes-conser-

vateurs demeure l’élection des sénateurs, coûte que coûte.

«J’ai de la difficulté à concevoir qu’en 2012 nous n’élisons pas nos sénateurs au Canada. Finalement, la démocratie arrête à la porte du Sénat canadien», insiste le député de Lamèque-Shippagan-Miscou.

«La formule pour y arriver n’est peut-

être pas la formule que l’on connaît pré-sentement pour les députés fédéraux et provinciaux et les élus municipaux, mais il faut quand même avoir le débat pour arri-ver à un scénario qui va faire en sorte que vous, si vous voulez un jour faire partie du Sénat canadien, vous aurez la possibilité à tout le moins d’être candidat au lieu de de-voir vous fier à la bonne grâce du gouver-nement 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 conser-ver leur représentation au Sénat, c’est-à-dire cinq des dix sénateurs néo-brunswic-kois.

Le projet de loi prévoit uniquement la création de cinq circonscriptions sénato-riales, lesquelles auraient chacune deux re-présentants au Sénat.

La proposition du gouvernement pro-vincial est en ce moment devant le Comité permanent de modification des lois. Paul Robichaud n’exclut pas la possibilité de modifier le projet de loi pour inclure cer-taines «balises» afin de protéger la repré-sentativité francophone.

Il n’est pas clair cependant à quel mo-ment aura lieu un éventuel «débat» sur la question. Aucune consultation publique n’a eu lieu ou n’est prévue pour le moment.

«Lorsque le comité permanent va rame-ner le projet de loi à l’Assemblée législative (...), à ce moment-là on aura un meilleur forum pour avoir des discussions un peu plus publiques sur le projet de loi», a af-firmé le vice-premier ministre.

La FCFA et la SANB devraient savoir d’ici la fin de l’année si elles obtiennent le statut d’intervenant dans la cause du gou-vernement du Québec. Le dossier pourrait se retrouver devant la Cour suprême. ■

Paul Robichaud se dit prêt à discuter des craintes de la communauté acadienne concernant le projet de loi sur l’élection des sénateurs. - Archives

DE LA

PROVINC Hl Du cANAD PASSÉS DANS LES

DIX-NEUVIEME ET VINGTIEME ANNÉES DU REGNE DE SA MAJESTÉ .ffieguffledffletieffleee."*Weneeel eweeg"Melene

LA REIT\ E VICTORIA

ET DANS L.A. SECONDE SESSION DU CINQUIÈME PARLEMENT DU CANADA.

Commencée et tenue à Toronto le Quinzième jour de Février, en l'année - de Notre Seigneur mil huit cent cinquante-six.

t.

SON EXCELLENCE

SIR EDYIUND WALKER HEAD, BARONNET, GOUVERNEUR GENERAL.

TORONTO: IMPRIMÉ PAR STEWART DERBISHIRE & GEORGE. DESBARATS,

Imprimeur des Lois de Sa 'Très-Excellente Majesté la Reine. Anrko Domini, 1856.

471

ANNO DECIMO—NONO ET VICESIMO

ITICTORI2E

CAP. CXL.

Acte pour changer la Constitution du Conseil Législatif et le rendre électif. Réservé pour la _signification du plaisir de Sa Majesté le 16 Mai, 1856. L'agrément Royal donné par Sa Majesté en Conseil le 24 Juin, 1856 ; et

proclamé par Son Excellence Sir Enm-trren WAL10ER HEAD,. Gouverneur Général, dans la Gazette du Canada du 14 Juillet, 1856.

TTENDU que dans un acte passé dans le parlement du royaume-uni, dans les dix-septième et dix-huitième an-

nées du règne de Sa Très-Gracieuse Majesté, chapitre cent dix-huit, pour autoriser la législature du Canada a changer la cons-titution du conseil législatif de la dite province et pour d'autres fins, il est statué" que la législature de cette province pourra changer la constitution du conseil législatif de la dite province, et faire d'autres dispositions relatives au même -sujet et à d'au-tres y mentionnés : à ces causes, Sa Majesté, par et de l'avis et du consentement du conseil législatif et de l'assemblée légis-lative du Canada, décrète ce qui suit :

Préambule.

Acte impérial, 17 & 18 V. c. 118.

1. A l'avenir, le conseil législatif se composera de ses /nem- Comment le tires actuels, et de quarante-huit membres qui seront élus dans conseil sera les proportions, aux époques et en la manière ei-après pour- constitué. vues, et pour cet objet, la province sera divisée en quarante-huit eolléges électoraux, dont vingt-quatre dans le Haut et vingt-quatre dans le Bas Canada, conformément à la cédule A.

II. Les conseillers actuels continueront comme auparavant . d'occuper leurs Siéges aux conditions stipulées dans 1 acte im- 1er

e

ss

périal, trois et quatre Victoria, chapitre trente-cinq, pour réunir continués. les provinces du Haut et du Bas Canada, et pour le gouvernement du Canada.

• III. Les membres électifs seront élis pour huit ans. Terme de

1 service.

V. Nul ne pourra être élu conseille'r législatif s'il est con-cussionnaire public, ou convaincu de félonie ou d'un crime infamant.

VI. Le membre de l'une des chambres ne pourra être élu pour l'autre chambre.

VII. Le conseiller législatif électif perdra son siége dans l'une des conditions suivantes : la concussion des deniers publics, la banqueroute, la faillite, le recours au bénéfice d'une loi quel-conque relative aux débiteurs insolvables, la conviction de félonie, ou d'un crime infamant ou la perte de la capacité fon-cière voulue par le quatrième article.

37111. Le ou avant le premier jour du mois de septembre qui

suivra immédiatement le jour où cet acte recevra la sanction royale, le gouverneur émettra des ordres pour l'élection des douze conseillers législatifs qui devront représenter les douze colléges électoraux qui auront droit' les premiers d'élire des membres, au conseil législatif tel que ci-après pourvu. Ces ordres seront adressés aux officiers-rapporteurs par le greffier de la couronne en chancellerie, et rapportables le premier mardi de novembre suivant ; et toutes- les deux années après, les ordres des élections périodiques seront de même émis le ou avant le premier jour du mois de septembre, et rapportables le premier mardi du mois de novembre.

IX. Les ordres d'élection seront faits suivant la formule B.

X. Le gouverneur choisira les officiers-rapporteurs des cols éges électoraux, parmi ceux qui dans les limites de ces col-éges, peuvent être par la loi, les ofileiers-rapporteurs des élec-ions des membres de l'assemblée législative.

Disqualifica-tion en certain cas.

Membres de l'autre cham-bre.

Forfaiture du. siége en cer-tains cas.

tarit pour la. • première élec-tion.

Et pour les élections sub-séquentes.

Forme de writ.

Le gouverneur nommera les. I officiers7rap- porteurs:

t

472

604 Cap. 140. Conseil Législatif Électif. 19-20 VICO'''. Qualification des conseillers.

IV. Nul ne sera éligible ou ne pourra siéger ou voter comme conseiller législatif, à moins d'être sujet-britan.nique par nais-sance ou par naturalisation, domicilié en Canada, et d'avoir trente ans accomplis,—de posséder en cette province pour son propre usage et avantage, comme propriétaire en loi ou en équité, des terres ou tènements tenus en franc et commun soc-cage, ou d'être en bonne saisine et possession pour son propre usage et avantage, de terres ou tènements tenus en fief, en fane-aleu ou en roture, de la valeur de deux mille louis cou-rant, en sus de toutes dettes, charges et redevances, ni à moins que sa résidence ou que ses terres ou tènements comme susdit, de la valeur susdite, ne soient dans les limites du collége élec-toral dans lequel il se présentera pour être élu. ou dans lequel il aura été élu.

Lieu des die c-fions. XI. L'officier-rapporteur d'un collége électoral fixera, aussi

au centre du collége que possible, le lieu de l'appel nominal des candidats et de la proclamation du candidat élu.

473

• 1.856,, conseil Lésvislatif Cap. 140.

XII. Les _électeurs - des conseillers législatifs, quant à la capacité, seront- les mêmes que ceux de l'assemblée législative, et ils voteront aux endroits où ils ont coutume de voter à l'élec-tion de ces derniers. La circonscription et l'étendue des. col-léges- électoraux sont fixées par la cédule A.

XIII. Les lois. qui • affectent l'élection des membres de l'as-semblée législative- pour la capacité des électeurs,—l'émission et le rapport des ordres,—offielers•rapporteurs,—les pouvoirs et les obligations des officiers-rapporteurs, des députés officiers-rapporteurs, et des clercs d'élection et de poll,—l'empêchement ou la punition des• délits commis aux élections ou à cause des élections,---les élections contestées, et pour toutes les choses liées ou incidentes aux 'élections, sauf l'incompatibilité de ces lois avec le présent acte, s'appliqueront dans les cas analogues à l'élection. des- conseillers législatifs.

XI V. Le candidat au conseil législatif devra, s'il *en est requis par. un autre candidat, par un électeur ou par l'offi.cier-rappor-teur, faire eh personne, une déclaration écrite suivant la for-mule C : et les dispositions des lois d'élection qui, avant la passation de cet.acte, avaient -rapport à la déclaration de l'éligi-bilité. des -candidats à l'assemblée législative, sauf le quantum

• de•la propriété foncière, affecteront précisément de la même manière, la déclaration de l'éligibilité du candidat au conseil

• X.V. L'existence du mandat des conseillers législatifs élus commencera le- iour• du. rapport des 0-,.-.dres et se terminera le jour qui „précédera: celui. du: rapport de I 'ordre. de l'élection de leurs succes.se urs. .

605 Qualification des électeurs.

Circonscrip-tion des col-léges.

Les lois d'é-lection actuel-les s'applique - réait au con-seil.

D éclarat on

Manière de compter le terme des er-vice des con-seillers.

XVI. Avant de prendre son siége, l y conseiller législatif serment prêtera serment devant le greffier du, conseil suivant la formule "face' D.

XVII. L'ordre dans lequel les colléges électoraux auront droit d'élire des membres pour le conseil législatif, sera déterminé par le sort,, aussitôt que possible après la mise en force de cet acte, en la /nattière pourvue dans la cédule E, et il en sera im-médiatement donné avis par proclamation.

XVIII. Pour le tirage au sort, les: colléges électoraux seront réunis par groupe de quatre, suivant la. formule F.

XIX. Les élections périodiques des conseillers législatifs pour,représenter les différents colléges électoraux auront lien dans l'ordre déterminé par le sort et seront annoncées. par pro-clamation comme susdit. Les douze colléges électoraux nom-més dans la liste du " Premier tirage " seront ceux qui auront droit les premiers d'élire des membres audit conseil ; ceux nommés dans la liste du " Deuxième tirage " seront ceux

L'ordre de sortie des con-seillers sera fixé par le sort.

Colléges élec-toraux formés en groupes.

Elections:pé-riodignes des conseillers.

qui

• • „e? .etetex-eaee

606 Cap. 140. Conseil _Législatif _Eleetif. 19-20 View.

qui auront ensuite droit d'élire des membres au dit conseil ; et ainsi de suite.

Les conseil- XX. Le conseiller législatif électif pourra résigner son siége Cers électifs de la même manière et dans les mêmes circonstances que le pourront rési- n'ambre de l'assemblée législative ; il pourra le garder jusqu'au

jour qui précédera celui du rapport de l'ordre de l'élection de son. successeur. S'il résigne ou sort au ferme de son mandat, il sera rééligible dans les conditions prévues par cet acte.

Indépendance XXI. Le conseiller législatif électif sera, dans les mêmes du conseil. circonstances que le membre de l'assemblée législative, as-

sujéti aux lois " qui assurent l'indépendance de l'assemblée législative de cette province."

XXII. L'acceptation par un conseiller de la place d'orateur du conseil législatif ne rendra pas son siége vacant.

XXIII. Dans le cas de vacance accidentelle prévu par les articles vingtième et vingt-et-unième, l'orateur du conseil législatif, le conseil législatif et les membres individuels dLl conseil législatif auront les mêmes pouvoirs et seront sujets aux mêmes obligations que l'orateur de l'assemblée législative, l'assemblée législative et les membres individuels de l'assem-blée législative ; et alors le rapport des ordres devra avoir lieu au moins dans, les cinquante jours qui suivront leur émission..

XXIV. La vacance accidentelle du siége d'un collége élec-toral arrivant dans les trois mois qui précèderont la vacance régulière et périodique de ce siége, ne sera remplie qu'à la date •de cette dernière vacance.

Terme de ser-vice d'un con--sellier élu pour remplir une vacance accidentelle.

Nomination de l'orateur

XXV. Dans les cas de vacance du siége d'un collége électoral accidentelle non prévue par l'article précédent, la durée du service du conseiller élu pour remplir cette vacance sera la même qu'aurait été régulièrement celle du service de son prédécesseur.

XXVI. L'orateur du conseil législatif sera, comme par le passé, nommé par le gouverneur, et pris parmi les membres de ce corps.

L'orateur XXVII. Le conseiller qui sera orateur lors de la passation de actuel. cet acte continuera de l'être jusqu'à ce qu'il soit remplaeé.

Ce qui cousu_ XXVI I.I. Chaque élection générale' des membres de l'assena--tuera un par- blée législative constituera comme auparavant un nouveau lement. parlement.

gner. •

Rééligibles.

Orateur du conseil.

Pouvoirs de l'orateur en cas de vacance.

Vacance sur-venue avant la vacance pério-dique du siége.

Golfe .....................

Grandville ...........

De la Durantaye .

Lauzon.......

Kennebee.. ...........

De la Vallière ......

Wellington ..........

Saurel .................

Bedford .......... ..

Rougemont....

Montarville . • •

De Lorirnier ....•

Cap. 140. 607 1856. Conseil Législatif .électif.

CÉDULE A.

BAS-CANADA. Noms des

Collèges Electoraux Circonscription des Colléges-_Electoraux.

Les comtés de Gaspé, Bonaventure et Rimouski.

Les comtés de Temiscouata et de Karnouraska, les Pa-roisses de St. Roch des Aulnets et de St. Jean Port Joli et leur prolongation en droite ligne jusqu'à la ligne provinciale, dans le comté de l'Islet.

Le reste du comté de l'Islet, les comtés de Montmagny et de Bellechasse et les paroisses de St. Joseph, St. Henri et de Notre-Dame de la Victoire, dans le comté de Lévi.

Le reste du comté de Lévi, et les comtés de Dorchester et de Beauce.

Les comtés de Lotbinière, de Mégantic et d'Arthabaska.

Les comtés de Nicolet et d'Yamaska, les townships de Wendover, de Grantham et cette partie d'Upton qui est dans le comté de Drummond.

Le reste du comté de Drummond, le cômté de Rich-mond, la ville de Sherbrooke, les comtés de Wolfe, de Compton et de Stanstead.

Les comtés de Richelieu et de Bagot, les paroisses de St. Denis, de la Présentation, de St. Barnabé et de. St. Jude, dans le comté de St. Hyacinthe.

Leà comtés de. Missiscoui, de, Brome et de Shefford.

Le reste du comté de St. Hyacinthe, les comtés de Rouville et d'Iberville.

Les comtés de Verchères, de Chambly et de Laprairie.

Les comtés de St. Jean et de Napierville ; St. Jean Chrysostôme et R-usseltown, dans le comté de Cha-teauguay ; Hemmingford, dans le comté de Hun-tingdon.

-4,1•

476

608 Cap. 14J Conseil Légialatzf 9-20

Noms des Collèges Electoraux Circonscription des Collèges Eloottitrit ti.x.

..141101« bleafflilif.1.6.11..11.41•0.61.411M.0101

Les Laurentides..

La Salle ...........

De Lanaudière...

Repentig u y. .........

Les comtés de • Chicoutimi, de Charlevoix, de Szterwntty et de Montmorency, la seigneurie de Beauport, k pet. roisse de Charlesbourg, les townships de Stonohnin et de Tewkesbury, dans le comté de Québec.

Le reste du comté de Québec, le comté de Portnea ut toute la partie de la. Banlieue de Québee, qui. so trouve dans la paroisse de Notre-Dame de Qu.éboo.

Le reste de la cité et'banlieue de Québee.

Les comtés de .Champlain et ,de St. Maurice, la ville} des Trois-Rivières, les paroisses de la Rivière du Loup, de St. Léon, de St. Paulin, et le township dm -Hunterstown... et son augmentation dans le comté do Maskinongé.

Le reste du comté de Maskinongé, les comtés do Dor-thier et de Joliette, moins la paroisse do Sté Priul t moins le township . de Kildare et son augmontation# et moins aussi le township de Cathcart.

La paroisse de St. Pauli.- le township de Kildare son. augmentation,,. et, le township de Catheart, d a nt4 le comté de joliette, les comtés de L'Assomption -I.

- de Montealm.-

Stadacona•• • s• • •_•

Chaouinigane....

Mille Isles ...........

Inkerman.— • •

Alma. .......... . • .

Victoria. ........... . •

Rigaud. ....... . •

De Salaberry.

Les comtés de Tencebonne et des Deux-Montagnes.

Les comtés d'Argenteuil, d'Outaouais et de Pontiac.

Les paroisses de la Longue-Pointe, de la Pointe-aux Trembles, de la Rivière des Prairies, du Sault aux Récollets, dans le comté d'Hochelaga, et cette par-tie de la paroisse dé Montréal, qui se trouve à l'est de la prolongation de la Rue St. Denis, le comté do Laval, cette partie de la cité de Montréal, qui se trouve à l'est des rues Bonsecours et St. Denis et do leur prolongation.

Le reste de la cité de Montréal, la paroisse non com-prise.

Le reste de la pa,roisse de Montréal et les comtés do Jacques Cartier, de Vaudreuil et de Soulanges.

Le reste du comté de Chateauguay, le reste du cornt6 de Huntingdon et le comté de Beauharnois.

Midland .....

Que.en's..• • .1•8•

Conseil Législatif _Electif.

HAUT CANADA.

Cap. 140. 6Ô9

• Noms des Conéges Electoraux

•

Circonscription des Colleges Electoraux.

Western .....

St. Clair. ..............

Malahide .............

Tecurnseth. ..........

Les comtés d'Essex et de Kent.

Le comté de Larnbton et la division ouest de Mid-dlesex.

Les divisions est et ouest d'Elgin, la division est de Middlesex et la cité de London.

Les comtés de Huron et de Perth.

Saugeen . .......... Les comtés de Bruce et de 'de Simcoe.

Grey et la division nord

Brock OOOOO • • . •

G-orc ........

Erie ..........

Niagara ...............

Burlington

Home ..................

Les divisions nord et sud de non:1de Waterloo.

La division• sud de Waterloo et la division nord d'Oxford.

La division sud d'Oxford et le comté de Norfolk.

Les divisions est et ouest de Brant et le comté de Ha dimand.

Les comtes de Lincoln et de Welland et la ville de-Niagara.

Les ‘,divisidns, nord et , iend de,Wei tworth et la cité-de Hamilton.

Les comtés de Hahon et de Peel.

Wellington et la division

Newcastle .....

La division nord de York et la division sud de Simcoe..

La cité de Toronto et le township de York.

Les divisions est et ouest de York (excepté le township de York) et la division sud d'Ontario-

La division nord d'Ontario, le comté de Victoria et la division ouest de Durham.

La divisioniest de Durham et les divisions est et ouest de Northumberland.

Noms des • -Colléges Electoraux

Circonscription des Colléges Electoraux.

Le comté de Peterborough, la division nord de Hast-ings et le comté de Lennox.

La division sud de Hastings et le comté de Prince E dward.

Les comtés d'Addington et de Frontenac et la cité de Kingston.

La division sud de Leeds et les divisions nord et sud de Lanark.

Les comtés de Renfrew et de Carleton et la cité des Outaouais.

La ville de Brockville et le township d'Elizabethtown, la division sud de Grenville, la division nord de Leeds et de Grenville, et le comté de Dundas.

Les comtés de Storrnont, de Prescott, de Russell et de Glengairy, et la ville et le township dé Cornwall.

Trent

Quinté ........... • • •

Cataracoui..

Bathurst ...........

Rideau... .............

St. Lawrence...

Eastern. .............

610 Cap. 1'40. Conseil Législatif Electe: 19-20 VICT.

FORMULE B.

PROVINCE DU CANADA.

VICTORIA, par la Grâce de Dieu, Reine du Royaume-Uni de la Cl-rande-Bretagne et d'Irlande, Défenseur de la Poi.

A P Officier-.Rapporteur d

ATTENntI qu En conséquence, nous commandons et ordonnons qu'après

avoir d'abord proclamé dans le dit collége électoral de immédiatement après la réception de ce présent

bref, et avoir pat telle proclamation fixé (en en donnant au moins huit jours d'avis) un jour et un lieu pour l'élection d'un conseiller législatif pour représenter le dit collége électoral de , dans notre conseil législatif, 'VOUS fassiez faire au dit jour et au dit lieu le choix libre et indépendant d'une personne convenable et prudente, comme conseiller légis- latif, pour représenter le dit collége électoral de 3

dans notre conseil législatif, par ceux qui seront présents au jour de l'élection qui sera fixé par telle proclamation comme

susdit,

Salut :

479

1856. Conseil Législatif Electif. Cap. 140.

susdit, et que vous fassiez insérer le nom de tel conseiller légis-latif dans certains actes d'élection (Indentures), entre vous et ceux qui seront présents à telle élection, (que la personne ainsi choisie soit présente ou absente) et que vous fassiez en sorte que la personne ainsi choisie pour venir au dit conseil législatif, soit pleinement et suffisamment autorisée à faire et consentir pour les communes de la dite division électorale de les matières et choses qui, avec l'aide de Dieu, seront ordon-nées par le conseil commun de notre dite province sur les dites affaires, de telle sorte qu'à défaut de tels pouvoirs ou par l'élec-tion irrégulière de tel conseiller législatif, les dites affaires ne soient en aucune manière interrompues.

Et nous ne voulons pas qu'il soit fait choix d'un ministre des églises d'Angleterre ou d'Ecosse, ou d'un ministre, prêtre, ecclésiastique ou prédicateur, soit suivant les rites de l'église de Rome ou sous aucune autre forme de profession de foi reli-gieuse ou de culte. Et vous nous certifierez sans délai en notre chancellerie dans la cité de la dite élection ainsi faite distinctement et ouvertement, sous votre sceau et les sceaux de ceux qui seront présents à telle élection, nous en-voyant un. double des dits actes d'élection (Inden-tures) annexé à ces présentes, ensemble avec notre présent bref.

En foi de quoi, nous avons rendu ces lettres patentes, et y avons apposé le grand sceau de notre dite province du Canada.

Témoin,

A notre hôtel du gouvernement, en la cité de dans notre dite province du Canada, le jour d en l'année de Notre Seigneur, mil huit, cent et dans la année de notre règne.

Par ordre,

A. B.,

Greffier de la couronne en chancellerie.

FORMULE C.

DÉCLARATION D'ÉLIGIBILITÉ.

Je, A. B., déclare et atteste que j'ai trente ans accomplis ; que je suis sujet britannique ; que je suis domicilié en (insérez ici le nom du collége électoral dans lequel le candidat résides;) que je possède dûment, selon la loi (ou selon l'équité), comme propriétaire pour mon propre usage et bénéfice, les terres sui-vantes (ou tènements) tenues en franc et commun soccage (ou que je suis dûment saisi et en possession pour mon propre usage et bénéfice, -des terres (ou tènernents) tenues en fief, en

39* roture

Cap. 140. Conseil 'Législatif Blec«f. 19-20 VXCT,

roture, ou en franc-aleu (selon le cas) c'est-à-savoir, de (ici insérez • une description exacte et claire des terres ou tènemente formant la qualification de la proprzété du candidat et de la situation d'icelle . propriété) lesquelles terres (ou tènements) je ,déclare être de la pleine valeur de deux mille louis courant, en sus de toutes rentes, hypothèques, charges et redevances dont elles pourraient être chargées, affectées, ou qui pourraient être dues et payables sur. icelles ; et de plus, je déclare que je n'ai pas collusoireme'nt ou spécieusement obtenu le titre ou la posses-sion des dites terres (ou tènernents) ou aucune partie d'icelles, dans le but de me qualifier ou de me rendre éligible comme membre du conseil législatif de cette province.

FORMULE D.

iSMIZISIENT 1.1i5A1,1.ÉGMAIVCE.-

Je, A. B., promets sincèrement et jure que je serai fidèle et porterai vraie allégeance à Sa Majesté, la ,Reine Victoria, comme légitime souveraine du -royaume4uni de la Grande-Bretagne et d'Irlande, et de cette province du Canada, dépen-dant du dit roy-aume-uni et lui appartenant, et rque je> la défen-drai de tout mon pouvoir contre toutes conspirations et rattentats perfides quelconques, qui pourront être tramés contre sa per-sonne, sa 'couronne et sa 'dignité ; et que je ferais tete pouvoir .pour.., découvrir et l'aire connaître -et. S ,Masjosté, ses héritiers et successeurs, toutes trahisons et conspirations et at-tentats perfides que je saurai avoir été tramés contre elle ou aucun d'eux ; et tout ceci je le jure sans aucun équivoque, sub eterfuge mental ou ...restriction secrête, et 'renonçant à tous par-dons et dispenses d'aucune personne ou personnes quelconques à ce contraires. Ainsi que Dieu me soit en aide.

CÉDULE E.

TIRAGE AIT SORT.

1. L'orateur du conseil législatif, fera placer devant le gou-verneur en conseil, douze bottes marquées 1, e, 3, 4,_5, 6,7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

2. Les noms des quarante-huit colléges électoraux seront écrits visiblement et séparément sur autant 'de morceaux de papier de même forme et de même grandeur.

3. Le ,greffier du conseil législatif placera ces papiers, un. à un, dans les boites,après les ,avoir montrés et, puis roulés pour en cacher, l'écriture.

4. Il mettra , dans: chaque botte les, noms des colléges 'élec-toraux qui,> suivant cédule F, feront partie du groupe ,gOrret».-pondant atl numéro de, la boite.

5.

1856. Conseil Législatif Bleaif. Cap. 140. a re 5. Ayant secoué les boites, il retirera, à quatre reprises diffé-

rentes, un morceau de papier de chaque boîte qu'il déroulera, montrera et lira à haute voix, et, il inscrira sur une liste le nom écrit sur le dit papier.

6. Le greffier du conseil législatif préparera de cette ma-nière quatre listes des noms des colléges électoraux, sur quatre différents morceaux de papier qui auront préalablement été intitulés respectivement : "Premier tirage," " Deuxième tirage," " Troisième tirage," et " Quatrième tirage," et chacune des dites listes contiendra les noms de douze colléges.

7. Ces listes seront alors et là authentiquées par les signa-tures des conseillers exécutifs présents et la contre-signature du greffier du conseil législatif, et demeureront de record dans le bureau du conseil exécutif.

8. Il sera rédigé une minute en conseil du résultat du tirage qui sera communiquée au gouverneur, sans délai.

CÉDULE F.

GROUPES DE COLLÉGES ÉLECTORAUX.

BAS C ANARA,.

GROUPE 1.

Golfe Grandville, De la Durantaye et Lauzon.

GROUPE 2.

Les Laurentides, LaSalle, Stadacona et Chaouinigane.

GROUPE 3.

Kennebec De la Vallière, Wellington et Saurel. t.

GROUPE 4.

De Lanaudière, Repentigny, Mille-Isles et Inkerman.

0-1-WU-FE 5,

Bedford Rougemont, Montar-ville et De Loximier.

GROUPE. 6.

A ma, Victoria, Rigaud et De Salaberry.

igelqeeeteFt'l ke-beetieezei.):

614 Cap. 140. • Conseil Législatif Electif. 19-20 Viol',

HAUT CANADA.

GROUPE 7.

Western, St. Clair, Malahide et Teeurnset11.

GROUPE 8.

Saugeen, Brock, Gore et Thai-ries.

GROUPE 9.

Erié, Niagara Burlington et Horne.

GROUPE 10.

Midland, York King's et Queen's.

GROUPE 11.

Newcastle, Trent, Quinté et Cataraeoui.

GROUPE 12.

Bathurst, St. Lawrence, Rideau et Ettaterri.

TORONTO :—Imprimé par S. DER3ISHIRE & G. DESBAILiti'd Imprimeur des Lois de Sa Très-Excellente Majesté la B-oino.

483

STATUTES OF THE

PROVINCE OF CANADA • PASSED IN THE

NINETEENTH AND TWENTIETH YEARS OF THE REIGN OF HER MAJESTY

QUEEN VICTORIA AND IN THE SECOND SESSION OF THE FIFTEI PARLIAMENT

OF CANADA.

Begun and holden at Toronto on the Fifteenth of February, in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty-Six.

HI S EXCELLENCY

SUI EDMUND WALKER HEAD, BARONET,

GOVERNOR GENERAL.

TORONTO:

PRINTED BY STEWART DERBISIII RE & GEORGE DESBAR TS,

Law Printer to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.

Anno Domini, 1856,

HeinOnline -- 1856 vol. 11 1856 vol. 11 1 1856

484

HEINONLINE

Citation: 1856 vol. II 1856 vol. II 585 1856

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Wed May 22 15:49:23 2013

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text.

485

ANNO DECIMO—NONO ET VICESIMO

V1CTORI/E REGINIE.

, CAP. CXL.

An Act to change the Constitution of the Legislative Council by rendering the same Elective.

Reserved for the signification of lier Majesty's pleasure 16th May, 1856. The Royal Assent given by Her Majesty in Council on the 24th June, 1856 ;

and Proclamation thereof made by Bis Ezeellency Sir EDMUND WALKER HEAD, Governor General, in the Canada Gazette of the 14th July, 1856.

1V7 HEREAS by an Aet of the Parliament of the United Prearnble• V e' Kingdom passed in the seventeenth and eighteenth Imperial Act,

years of the Reign of Her Most Graeious Majesty, chaptered 17 & 18 V. one hundred and eighteen " to empower, the Legislature of c. 118. " Canada to alter the Constitution of the Legislative Couneil " for that Province, and for other purposes," it is enaeted, That the Legislature of this Province may change the Constitution of the Legislative Council of the said Province, and male other provisions relative to the same subjeet and to other subjects therein mentioned : Therefore, Her Majesty, by and with the adviee and consent of the Legislative Couneil and As- sembly of Canada, enacts as follows :

I. The Legislative Couneil shal] hereafter be composed of How the Le- the present Members thereof, and of forty-eight Members to be eleeted, in the proportion and at the limes and in the manner

g'is! "7 hall ecol nsi tistuted

hereinafter provided ; and to this end, the Province shall be hereafter. divided into forty-eight Eleeioral Divisions, twenty-four in Upper Canada and twenty-four in Lower Canada, in the manner set forth in Schedule A.

II.. The present Couneillors shall continue to ho]d their seats Present Couv- as heretofore, subject to the conditions contained in the Impe- ci lors con rial Act of the third and fourth Victoria, ehapter thirty-five, tnued. " to re-unite the Provinces of Upper and Lower Canada and " for the Government of Canada."

• III. The Eleetive Members shall be elected for eight years. vice of Clseï.

IV.


486 586 Cap. 140. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. 19-20 VICT.

IV. No person shall be eligible or shall sit or vote as a Legis-lative Councillor unless he be a British Subject by birth or naturalization, resident in Canada, of the full age of thirty years, and be legally or equitably seized as of freehold, for his own use and benefit, of lands or tenements held in free and common soccage, or seized or possessed, for his own use and benefit, of lands or tenements field in fief, franc-aleu or roture in this Province, of the value of two thousand pounds currency over and above all debts, charges and dues, nor miless his residenee or his lands or tenements as aforesaid to the value aforesaid be within the limits of the Eleetoral Division for whieh he shall seek to be, or shall have been, eleeted.

Disqualifica- V. No person shall be eleeted a Legislative Couneillor who lion in certain is a public defau]ter, or shall have been convicted of felony, cases. or of any infamous crime.

Members of VI. No Member of one House shall be eleeted a member of the other the other. House.

Forfeiture of VII. The seat of an Eleetive Legislative Couneillor shall be seat of Elec- forfeited in any of the following cases : if he be a public de-tive Council- faulter, or beeome a Bankrupt, or insolvent, or tape the benefit lors in certain cases. of any law whatsoever in relation to insolvent debtors, or be

eonvicted of felony or of any infamous crime, or shall eease to hold a property qualification required by the fourth clause.

Writs for the VIII. Upon or before the first day of September next following first Election. the day on which this Act shall reeeive the Royal Assent, the

Governor shall issue Writs for the eleetion of twelve Legis-lative Couneillors to represent the twelve Eleetoral Divisions first entitled to return Members to the Legislative Council as hereinafter provided ; and the said Writs shall be transmitted to the Returning Officers by the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, and be returnable on the first Tuesday of November fol-

And for sub- lowing : and in every second year thereafter Writs for the sequent perio- periodieal elections shall be issued on or before the first day bons.dical Elec- of September, and returnable the first Tuesday of November.

Form of Writs.

Governor to appoint Re-turning Ofir- cers.

IX. The Writs of Election shall be in the form of Sehedule B.

X. The Governor shall appoint the Returning Offieers for the Eleetoral Divisions, from among those persons who might by law be Returning Officers at Elections of Members of the Legislative Assembly for places within the limits of sueh Divisions.

Place of Etec- XI. The Returning Officer for any Eleetoral Divisions shall tien. fix a place as nearly as may be in the centre of sneh Division,

for the nomination of Candidates and the proclamation of the Candidate eleeted.

XII.

Qualification of Elective Councillors.


487 1856. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. Cap. 140. 587

XII. The electors of Legislative Councillors shah, as regards Electois : qua-their qualification, be the same as those of Members of the lification, &e.,

Legislative Assembly, and shah! vote at the places at which ipnl

they ordinarily vote at the election of the latter : The boundaries sog

ace of vot-

:Indaries of and extent of the Electoral Divisions are defined by Sche- Divisions. dule A.

XIII. The laws relating to the election of Members of the Legislative Assembly, as regards the qualification of Eleetors,—the issue and return of Writs of Election,—Returning Officers,—the powers and duties -of Returning Officers and of Dcputy Returning Officers, and of Election and Poil Clerks,—the prevention or punishment of offences committed at elections or with respect to elections,—to controverted elections,—and to all matters connected with or incidental to elections,—shall, except where sud] laws may be inconsistent with this Act, apply in analogous cases to elections of Legislativc Coun-cillors.

Present Elec-tion Laws to apply in like manner as they do to the Legislative 3 Assembly.

XIV. Evcry candidate for election to the Legislative Council Candidates, if shall, if thereunto required by another candidate, or by an required to

elector, or by the Returning Officer, make in persan a written ration

aofdecla pro-declaration in the form of Schedule C ; and the provisions of perty qualifi-the election laws which prior to the passing of this Act related cation' to the declaration of qualification of candidates for election to the Legislative Assembly, shah, with the exception of the amount of property qualification, apply in a precisely similar manner to the declaration of qualification of the candidate for election to the Legislative Council.

XV. The period for which the Legislative Councillors shah serve shah commence on the day ol the return of the Writs, and shall end upon the day next preceding the return day of the Writs for the election of their successors.

XVI. Every Legislative Couneillor shall, before taking his Oath of office.

seat, take the oath in the Schedule IP. before the Clerk of the said Council.

XVII. The order in which the Electoral Divisions shah be Pyet

ortinoifntaen

entitled to return Members to the Legislative Council shah be order in which determined by lot, as soon as possible after the commencement the several i

of this Act, in the manner provided in the Schedule E, and v

nc

isioln°srai

shall-

shall forthwith be made known by Proclamation. become en- titicd to repre-seiaati

XVIII. For th:: purpose of such determination by lot, the electoral divisions shah! be unitcd in groups of four each, as in

Proclamation.ves.

ScheduleDivisions to

F. be formed into groups.

XIX. Pcriodical Elections of Legislative Councillors to re- Periodical present the several electoral divisions shall take place in the Elections of

order determined by lot and made known by Proclamation as Councillors. aforcsaid ;


Period of ser-vice of Coun-cillors, how reckoned.

488 588 Cap. 140. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. 19-20 Vicr.

aforesaid ; the twelve Electoral Divisions named in the List of the " First Drawing " b.eing those first entitled to return Mem-bers to the said Council, those named in the List of the " Se-cond Drawing " being those next entitled to return Members to the said Council, and so on.

Elective Conneillors mai resign, ezc.

• May be re-eleeted.

To be subject to Laws for securing In-depence of Legislative Assembly.

XX. An Eleetive Councillor may resign his seat in the same manner and under the same cirenmstances as a member of the Legislative Assembly; and he rnay hold his seat until the day next preceding that of the retut n of the Writ of Election of his suceessor. In case of his resigning or going out at the expiration of the period for -which he is elected, he may be re-elected subject to the conditions eontained in this Act.

XXI. Elective Legislative Councillors shall, under the same circumstances as Members of the Legislative Assembly-, be subject to the laws for securing the independence of the Legislative Assembly of this Province.

Appointmcnt XXII. The acceptante by a Councillor of the Office of the as Speaker not Speaker of the Legislative Council shall not, however, vacate to vacate. his seat.

Power of Speaker, &c. in case of vacancy.

As to vacan-cies a short time helore periodical vacancy of sanie seat.

Period of ser-vice of Coun-cillors elected ta Sil acei-dental vacan- cies.

XXIII. In cases.of accidentai vacancy provided for by Sections twenty and twenty--one the Speaker of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Council and the several Members thereof, shall have the same powers and duties as the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, the Legislative Assembly and the several Members thereof ; and the Writs shall be made retnm-able within fifty days at furthest from the issue thereof.

XXIV. An accidentai vacancy of the seat for any Electoral Division happening within the three months next before the regular periodical vacancy of sueh seat, shall not be filled until the time appointed for filling such periodical vacancy.

XXV. In case of any accidentai vacancy of the seat for any electoral division, not provided for by the next preceding section, the period of service of the Councillor elected to fill such vacancy shall be that at which his predecessor would regularly have gone out.

Appointmcnt XXVI. The Speaker of the Legislative Council shall, as of seeakel.' heretofore, be appointed by the Governor, and shall be selected

from amongst the Members of the said Council.

XXVII. The Councillor who shall be Speaker at the time of the passing of this Act shall continue to be so until lie be replaced by another.

New Assem- XXVIII. Each General Election of Members of the Legislative bly to

P

make Assembly shall make a new Parliament, as heretofore. new uha- ment. LOWER


Present Speaker ta remain till replaeed.


LOWER CANADA. SCHEDULE A.

Names of Electoral Divisions. Limits of Electoral Divisions.

De la Durantaye....

The Counties of Gaspé, Bonaventure and Rimouski.

The Counties of Temiscouata and Kamouraska, the Pa-rishes of St. Roch des Anlnets and St. Jean Port Joli, and the prolongation thereof in a straight line to the Province Line in the County of L'Islet.

The remainder of the County of L'Islet, the Counties of Montmagny and Bellechasse and the Parishes of St. Joseph, St. Henri and Notre Dame de la Victoire, in the County of Lévi.

The remainder of the County of Lévi, the Counties of Dorchester and Beauce.

The Connties of Lotbinière, Megantic and Arthabaska.

The Counties of Nicolet and Yamaska, the Townships of Wendover, Grautham, and that part of Upton which lies in the County of Drummond.

The remainder of the County of Drummond, the County of Richmond, the Town of Sherbrooke, the Counties of Wolfe, Compton and Stanstead.

The Counties of Richelieu and Bagot, the Parishes of St. Denis, La Présentation, St. Barnabé, and St. Jude, in the County of St. Hyacinth.

The Counties of Missisquoi, Brome and Shefford.

The remainder of the Connty of St. Hyacinth, the Counties of Rouville and lberville.

The Counties of Verchères, Chambly and Laprairie.

The Counties of St. John's and Napierville ; St. Jean Chrysostôme and Russeltown in the County of Cha-teauguay ; Hemmingford in the County of Hun-tingdon.

The Counties of Chicoutimi, Charlevoix, Saguenay and Montmorency, the Seigniory of Beauport, the Parish of Charlesbourg, the Townships of Stoneham and Tewkesbury, in the County of Quebec.

• Gulf .................. • • • •

Grandville

Lauzon ..............

Kennebec .......... • • •

De la Vallière

Wellington .

Saurel ..........

Bedford .... .

Rougemont

Montarville

De Lorimier.

The Laurentides....


490 590 Cap. 140. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. 19-20 Vian.

Names of Electoral Divisions. Lirnits of Electoral Divisions.

La Salle The remainder of the County of Quebec, the County of Portneuf, and all that part of the Banlieue of Quebec which lies withi n the Parish of Notre Dame de Qucbec.

Stadacona

Shawinegan

De Lanaudière ........

Repentigny. ............

Mille Isles ................

The remainder of the City and Banlieue of Quebec.

The Counties of Champlain and St. Maurice, the Town of Three Rivers, the Parishes of River du Loup, St. Léon, St. Paulin, and the Township of Hunterstown and its augmentation, in the County of Maskinongé.

The remainder of the County of Maskinongé, the Coun-ties of Berthier and Joliette, with the exception of the Parish of St. Paul, the Township of Kildare and its augmentation, and the Township of Cathcart.

The Parish of St. Paul, the Township of Kildare and its augmentation, and the Township of Cathcart, in the County of Joliette, the Counties of L'Assomption and Montcalm.

The Counties of Terrebonne and Two Mountains.

Inkerman ........

Alma ............

Victoria ........

The Counties of Argenteuil, Ottawa and Pontiac.

The Parishes of Long Point, Pointe aux Trembles, River deS Prairies, Sault aux Récollets, in the County of Hochelaga, and that part of the Parish of Montreal which lies to the East of the prolongation of St. Denis Street ; the County of Laval, that part of the City of Montreal which lies to the East of Bonse-cours and St. Denis Streets, and their prolongation.

The remainder of the City of Montreal exclusive of the Parish.

Rigaud ....................

De Salaberry ..........

The remainder of the Parish of Montreal, and the Counties of Jacques Cartier, Vaudreuil and Sou-langes.

The remainder of the County of Chateauguay, the re-mainder of the County of Huntingdon, and the County of Beauharnois.



UPPER CANADA.

Names of Electoral Divisions

Èimits of Eleetoral Divisions.

Western ..............

St, Clair . . ....

Malahide ...........

Tecumseth ........

O .

..

•

The Counties of Essex and Kent.

The County of Lambton and the West Riding of Mid-dlesex.

Thc East and West Ridings of Elgin, the East Riding of Middlesex and the City of London.

The Counties of Huron and Perth.

Saugeen ............. The Counties of Bruce and Grey and the North Riding of Simcoe.

Brock .................. The North and South Ridings of Wellington and the North Riding of Waterloo.

Gore ................ The South Riding of Waterloo and the North Riding of Oxford.

Thames ........ The South Riding of Oxford and the County of Norfolk.

Erie .......... The East and West Ridings of Brant and the County of Haldimand.

Niagara ............. The Counties of Lincoln and Weltancl and the Town of Niagara.

Burlington ........ The North and South Ridings of Wentworth and the City of Hamilton.

Home ........ The Counties of Halton and Pecl.

Midland..... The North Riding of York and the South Riding of S imcoc.

York ........ . • • • ..... The City of Toronto and the Township of York.

King's ............... Thc East and West Ridings of York (except the Town-ship of York) and the South Riding of Ontario.

Queen's ........... • • • • The North Riding of Ontario, the County of Victoria and the West Riding of Durham.

Newcastle... The East Riding of Durham and the East and West Ridings of Northumberland.

Trent ............... The County of Peterborough, the North Riding of Hastings and the County of Lennox.


492

592 Cap. 140. Constitution Lep:. Council, Élective. 19-20 V1CT.

U.'PER CANADA.

Names of Electoral Divisions. Lirnits of Electoral Divisions.

Quinté

Cataraque ................

Bathurst ............ O •••

Rideau ........

St. Lawrence ..........

The South Riding of Hastings and thc County of Prince Edward.

The Counties of Addington and Frontenac, and the City of Kingston.

The South Riding of Leeds and the North and South Ridings of Lanark.

The Counties of Renfrew and Carleton and the City of Ottawa.

The Town of Brockville and Township of Elizabeth-towu, the South Riding of Grenville, the North Ri-ding of Leeds and Grenville and the County of Dun-das.

Eastern O OOO •••• The Couuties of Stormont,Prescott, Russell, Glengarry and the Town and Township of Cornwall.

SCHEDULE B.

PROVINCE OF CANADA.

VICTORIA, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingclom of Great Britain and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith.

To the Returning Officer of Greeting :

WHEREAS

We therefore command you, firmly enjoining that having first made Proclamation in the said Electoral Division of

, iinmediately after the receipt of this our Writ, and thereby notified (giving not less than eight days' notice thereof) a day and place for electing a Legislative Councillor to serve for the said Elentoral Division of , in our Legislative Council, you cause on the said day and pliiee a Legislative Councillor, the most fit and discreet, to bc freely and indifferently chosen to represent the said Eleetoral Divi- sion of , in our Legislative Council, by those who shall be present at the day of election to be fixed by such Proclamation as aforèsaid, and the naine of such Legis-lative Couneillor so chosen, in certain Indentnres between you and those who shall be present at such élection (whether the

pinson

HeinOnline -- 1856 vol. il 1856 vol. 11 592 1856

4 18.56. Constitution Leg. Counc

3

il, Elective. Cap. 140.

person so chosen shall be present or absent) you cause to be inserted, and cause the said person so chosen as aforesaid to corne to the said Legislative Council, so that the said Lcgisla-tive Councillor have full and sufficient power for himself and the commonalty of the said Electoral Division of severally. from them to do and consent to those things which then and there by the favor of God shall happen to be ordained by the Common Council of our said Province, upon the said affairs, so that for default of such powers or through improvi-dent election of such Legislative Councillor, the said affairs remain not undone in any wise.

And we will not that any rninister of the Churehes of England or Scotland, or a Minister, Priest, Ecclesiastic or Teacher, either according to the rites of the Church of Rome or under any other form or profession of religious faith or worship, by any means be chosen. And that you certify forthwith unto Us, into our Chancery at the City of , the said election so made, distinctly and openly, under your seal and the seals of those who shall be present at such election, sending unto Us one part of the said Indentures annexed to these pre-sents, together with this Our Writ.

In testimony whereof, We have caused these Our Letters to be made Patent, and the Great Seal of Our said Province of Canada to be hereunto affixed.

Witness,

At Our Government House, at the City of in Our said Province of Canada, the day of ' in the year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and and in the year of Our Reign.

By Command,

A. B.,

Clerk of the Crown in Chancery.

SCHEDULE C.

DECLARATION OF QUALIFICATION.

1, A. B., declare and testify that I am of the full age of ffiirty years, that I am a British subject, and that I am a resident in (here insert name of Electoral Division in which Candidate resides), that I am duly seized at law (or in equity) as of freehold for my own use and benefit, of the following lands (or tenements) held in free and cornillon soc-cage, (or duly seized and possessed for my own use and

3S benefit

593


494 594 Cap. 140. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. 19-20 V1CT.

benefit of lands) (or tenements) held en fief or en roture or en franc-aleu (as the case may be) that is to say, of (here insert a correct and cicar description of the lands or tenements form-ing the property qualification of the candidate and of their local situation,) which said lands (or tenements) I declare to be of the full value of two thousand pounds currency, over and above all cents, mortgages, charges and incumbrances charged upon or due or payable out of or affecting the same : and I further declare that 1 have not collusively or colourably obtained a title to or become possessed of the said lands (or tenements) or any part thereof, for the purpose of qualifying or enabling me to be returned as a Member of the Legislative Council of this Province.

SCHEDULE D.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.

I, A. B., do sincerely promise and swear that I will he faith-ful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria, as lawful Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of this Province of Canada dependent en and be-longing to the said United Kingdom ; and that will defend Her to the utmost of my power against, all traitorous conspiracies and attempts whatever, which shall be made against Her Per-son, Crown and Dignity ; and that I will do my utmost endea-vour to disclose and make known to Her Majesty, Her Heirs and Successors, all treasons and traitorous conspiracies and attempts which 1 shall know to he against Her or any of them ; and all this I do swear without any eqUivocation, mental eva-sion or secret reservation, and renomicing all pardons and dis-pensations from any person or persons whatever to the con-trary :—So help me God.

SCHEDULE E.

DRAWING BY LOT.

1. The Speaker of the Legislative Council shall cause' to be placed before the Governor in Council twelve boxes marked respectively 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12.

2. The names of the forty-eight Electoral Divisions shall be plainly written separately, upon a like number of pieces of paper of the same shape and size.

3. The Clerk of the Legislative Council shall place these papers in the boxes, one by one, having first shewn them and then folded them so as to conceal the writing.

4. He shall place in each box the names of the Electoral Divisions which form the group in Schedule F, corresponding in number to such box.

•

HeinOnline -- 1856 vol. H 1856 vol. H 594 1856

495 1856. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. Cap. 140.

5. Having shaken thc boxes, he shah four several times withdraw one piece of paper from each box in succession, un-fold each piece of paper in turn as it is withdrawn, exhibit it, and deelare aloud and write down on a list the mime written thereon. •

6. Four lists of names of Electoral Divisions s'iall in this way be made by the Clerk of the Legislative Counoil, or four separate pieces of paper previously headed respectively " First Drawing " " Second Drawing " " Third Drawing " and " Fourth Drawing " in each of which liste there will be twelve names.

7. These lists shah be then and there authcnticatcd by the signatures of the Executive Couneillors present and the counter-signature « of the Clerk of the Legislative Council, and shah re-main of record in the office of the Exeeutive Council.

8. The result of the drawing shah be embodied in a Minute of Council and communicated without delay to the Governor.

SCHEDULE F.

GROUPS OF EL ECTORAL DIVISIONS.

LOWER CANADA.

GROUP 1.

Gulf, Grandville, De la Durantaye and Lauzon.

GROUP 2.

The Laurentides, La Salle, Stadacona and Shawinegan.

GROUP 3.

Kennebee, De la Vallière, Wellington and Saurel.

GROUP 4.

De Lanaudière, Repentigny, Mille-Isles and Inkerman.

GROUP 5.

Bedford, Rougemont, Montarville and De Lorimier.

GROUP 6.

Alma, Victoria, Rigaud and De Salaberry.

38* UPPER

595


496 596 Cap. 140. Constitution Leg. Council, Elective. 19-20 Vier.

UPPER CANADA.

GROUP 7.

Western, St. Clair, Malahide and Tecumseth.

GROUP 8.

Saugeen, Brock, Gore and Thames.

GROUP 9.

Erie, Niagara, Burlington and Home.

GROUP 10.

Midland, York, King's and Queen's.

GROUP 11.

Newcastle, Trent, Quinté and Cataraque.

GROUP 12.

Bathurst, St. Lawrence, Rideau and Eastern.

TORONTO :—PRINTED BY S. DERBISHIRE Jr. G. DESBARATS, Law Pxinter to the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty.

HeinOnline -- 1856 vol. Il 1856 vol. Il 596 1856

-ID TEM

S

ACTS OF THB

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OP

PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND,_

I PROU

TEl Banane YEAR OF THE BRION OF HF& PRESIINT MAJWTT QUEEN VICTORIA, A. D. 1853,

TO

Tiel rivartivry-Irrni BAR Or Tag SAME MUON, A. D. 1862,

V OI,. I I.

appùlor,-ffle 161 Lb" IdeelaSlyz-illb«.132 bel mhde by Creirti

498

Chap. 1R. REVLSED EITALITYEB. 1862

CAP. XVIII,

An. Act to change the constitution of the Legialative Courke, by mua ering the mine élective.

(hand .8.pra 17, lEGLI

1:11[ E. it enaetcd., by the Lieutenant Gcrvernor, Couneil and Amembly, are followe:

Cezbail,locrw be tunIallbribel

Orcalthe tn be dividod !nie dubitierià dl> le4gle

Irian' Pan ri-erg& iimétbri

ba pal le voi

litaenre tricea En Prive» Œrseity.

I. After this receive lier liajegty's [usent, no se- poiinement ahall tie. made toi Legialative Coma of *nt

by the auth.olity of the lOrown.

11 no Lieutenant Governor in Connuil inunediate;_y .Éln receiving officiai n'aine of irae usent &el dechirer by pro-elamatim, titi» Act to be iii forcer Erni the_renpon, tbA apoint-meula of ail persane thela holding sesetio in the Leglelative Connoil, to gizeh Beate shah determine, and their places kootnig vacant, and write alliai be inunediately imaect for the deetian

membeni to tem hi the Ir.e0elaere Conneit, agreenbly te t' ais Ad, in the foret and manne( ueed for the election mei:abers to aeree in the General Anaembly.

M. The Legielative comia compoeed of tbirteen member», to deoted in the milord= and in man.ner burin prwrided, that à to ea : four rnernbers for I'rinoe CuŒuty, fixer tnembere for Qeoen'a Count-y, four niemberE for Ling% County, and one member for Charlottetown, end oommon end royalty the

rir. nie Rimera] noua teet that Mura rani:abat te &mye in the Lueelatiee Coma in thia I erd, gen be &Med into dectorel digricte, and there aile be nnany diviziune in each of mach [n'Aride, at or near winch a

conveniently held, as may be requisite for the parpoee cf paaag one day the rieeteIN RIA the poil, when poil »hall be recirared, Elbe be takeu in the 'nid at or nui' the place in mal dietrict, for that pur herim- s.fter came& and appointed.

V. The Electoreil dirtrieta in the sereine minden En Chia Island., flan Le know]] and deecribed a.e Followsk, that ia to in the county of Prince Conran, the &al dùrtrint &hal]. com-priee and ieelocle th se.earal townelifipe following, that le te say, townships 1:111.1nbere, one, taro, three, four, frve, neveu, eight, aine, ten, eleeen, twelve, thirteen, fourteeo, and Etleein, and &image Island ; and the second crietrict 01911 °emplis' 0 and includo tewnshipai nureen erirte'en, ep Veen, eighteea„ nineteen, twenty-five, twenty-mix, tWEI.ELI7-613ffli, teenty-eie Princeteern and ty, the seeeral ialands in Richmond bi.y.„ and Indian idem and that for the conuty of Queen%

à *ad. I..r ehhkr I m iLuedirn-

Li« u.i qui! 11, IlmE I u n raell Morr lif

th 171C.'..rOittéle Chap. 1e.

County, tbe fn-st distkgs skie ni_intpring alla int-hile township' nimber twoly-onr, twority-two, twant-T-Lh Tee, twetrty, four, Wray-Link, 1kb-t'y, tbirty-une, thirty-two, sà-ty-fivis nad Éitijr-Mirie Peteir Wied ntril 81L. Piolet% Wied ; the reffliel. dieriot *Nue* enri inw gd tqwriehhifi iburibers 'brrr, 1.liirtydbvs, tbirty,Kix, thirty-nerfor rode. «shit, foet-nine, .afty-tuvue., fitle-edght, ninty, ana aime

ÉtIlid G Villilleres mud tIit ihitd 'iiaLriii ehill eipm- prise ind inewle Chiirlottenwn iniaLum. end reyeity tierce Ana Ihr the aridaty oE Kii Celine, the droit dit- triet r rom prisa mina iaclarli townFibi-pa nonhvrR thirty.. fit, taittipainb, fort ,. Ir ltw, nority-t-tm, fiertItte„ foith- &Er, nete-griX, Ibri.-odriren. ami (iflptik and that

incawal .ditdrEnt eit111 irrirriTiratu nid ireutin hen iiity-roner egit7elierilb ÉdinT-Oiem il !Il-oing% iley-1111 minai firty-two, dfre-three, Pitt'-fear lirty-livit_ i F thrt roynihr, commun ami tsmorred Land, itowetnmiltli. i'soirerore Imbue, &t4 tlyét irfigia j bibeibur Z.L.rrny tbasling.

VI, Niai thr pari elretnrol 11111111 re Wei Vif 11 niereerm ierre etrimali Uns lieue, item nxid nagerk of Charlie/4,min, t've notinifin end. rnienIty Maireur, elTich dan rent@ unti nimbe.

V11- n'Amy taule punie of thi tiivelLyere eau' Lur itrionTdi, 1.140 thel mei4 ffredhold preriorty. er the iosiert efe ii hnrigireli mardi grummey, Arien Cell holt pirtily frnebeld und monnttnie, in ire» i,nne hunired Teminpleriurenen 4 etc douai hien hem ptmentil.t.in uF Mai mei for I parlorinr uiti eicodir mou.tIti pronom j. tIir tir ef *rit or thall k tJtl I Tate enr Tnennhar in terint in titi 'nimbe eue-mie or thlu Mima, end due Imita thvÉlus; 0f plagie

lebiebe tua Prairliey yutu mi tain eaietier, efr u ratine.« or Incubera of ibn Houe of Annenhly, tanier und leiittiu of tete Mir l'arme} Dulnitan *die" neruhrwii tt fuie iu tari Aiternbly.

WU, Dra"' einem. ai wli d to Tate Ln t ileeterill âi Act, Imam thiim. Ont, iri whic Ifie Rani, minai 19% it >Dy ciretion in inch difitrint in thepelliz. mg divirinn in which hn beliaor.

rl IL.IÂ eisewhemF t. nanqr# 14f uuLidua4i i dit" Iii Lfi l and Wren by every inide regiiaeit ergoter,

when. requirea, allah 'lm in the rom

Ir A_ eu an err r that sari. by lem qualifie t(li rata a# tai einctian for the delorinsal aigrtnet Dr ifnn tbs unie mai b ,) in the Cieunty Err Clennty, in the of the pn t.y which bave norr btaii tain clown In the [mil beelt alla rend t Mil &hitti UmeJorat poilied r

butera 11150-triebirilà»ter

leriaterel irlF 'eau in I Ide

Rte d en ed 1.4. 9e101 eau g 'Uffizi am

[WH. tir

grPa if 10141-leelskri tra

eerier,

500

Chap., I& BEVISED STICEFTle. 18651

Pan lumb.ii • fouger «.1.11 er omantideolé

QuoLtilcoillora =ti

Coda ak imnia Ly caim-adtbié.

gim e. a vote for any candidata et thia mea ot. any Qther pdklling vtinon, and that tha place of my la et ïa th$ electoral dietrict of Coranty, (bu the euem ay be,) and il% ta the bard my know- Iode and Ligie( within titis polling d vii no.

Se hep Erie Geel

Xvivry cimier to vote in any electoral district* ïa whieh he doem sot reeidar !hall Mea in tha polliiig division ii whieh the preperty un which hs daims b vota for atich '01E:corail digritt ie Eiturate, and 21.0t elleWbtrei ; eilà.d the oath d quali5reion to be aihniniatered f0 and Wien by every surit nonmideal elector. when repired, abat' be in the farm fel-lowing :

1, 4. à511.,, rater, that I un by Law qualified tovota at tiniu g eai= for the elortorai district of Conty, (ede. the tiae may be,) in light of tbe property aad Whial have now been 'Lekeu &mira the pull book and rend to me, and that somrdine to the beet of roylmorwledge and belief the Mid property lieu in thim pelling dit on, and that t have pollua. Or eiveci lm vote for any candidate et thiu d'action, either i.a flan paire divis:eu, Or auy 4thur in thiu &tenni. &lem* and that the p1œ of Lay abode ia Dot within teS eloeterul district. W.) hep me Goa.

X. The lma relating to the election of tnenibera the. flouse of Amembly, far as regarnie the lame and retarn ut write. of cluetion, Sheridan retarning cificeru, the power!' e dutieu of the Sheriffn and retarning effieers, and of elecitioa and pull florins, the adraieietntion °aga to alertom tha preventicro par puhishreent of afferma ternipitted at embolie, or with respect. Lu el1ediC1118, te. CaltrOVerted electiona, and to kW marrons connected viitb or incideo tel ta election» ami, ex-cept when Luth lawe rnay be incoonisteot with titis A. npply in eaaliigo calmi io et tune a 1, latine C'-%11111ligiarkr16.

X I Ne pereon 151117111 he eligible, or mile ait or vote ea a Ontrzeitor, anime be be e British subjec, 0f die

'lige of thirty yawl., and shah have ken a raaident Prince Ede -gel Island for at Lue ove rani et any tune mire ta. the mec of the weit af eatetion.

X_11 AL aven, court ta be holden for opening Any dreige' imadex thin Act, every canclitlatia propeed ahu11, before the m'id *an be &termine or adjourned, auteur» and Lake the foi-lowin ostb. before the r9likeriff or prviirling officer, 'NIG la herch7 requirad te administer thE mune :

A . B., do imam, that am a British guillieet of the full aga of tbirty yen", ent that I have hema raillent iu Prima

144:1=4.4esuredare. rude.' tù }oroF

Piqua 41Iam-Men Ir media

Iiimmiprreg le+ sulil,r bar 01010.1

mil d pitopere Gesraillii• maki gilde

18 E 2 2.,54h VICTORIA ChÉrp. 18. red.

Edward blond, fis 1 DI a met, t the Mire or the 1.-rit ingutd fur (Li *Embua,

heire rie Oce.

k

LII. id 'prou oondidoto ladin eheil !dam crr Ifflt ±0 Wei and irubeeriEe «nota oath hereinbarrre proecribed, "Ln

incapelle of beiri5 Bleded. at 'merl GlAirti ar of limbe rri-kreffied as e Igeiteavo Counalllût, waid.or tillé &Éli ; bof elle

ami: of tearq Abel' tendideto be ontored -or merda in tho O books or Jir po veine& ;1u aime @holà erp[rogril i.t or fure the dm or .B.Ijoenturrit of atoll Court.. ma emperle

MY. N ronde. eue, Councillar pukao M'imiter, or aila]1 hue betil cionviotad cil t

folooy Or Of Mar ilifiEleffll

XT. tee, me« or L'ho llorbie! of Amorzobly doke rdeobrid a Olitùber a the leakia.lievie ii1. mad view wgreei.

Vel. Tho ikuki. of Art doetimo Log-lem«. Cenrurielor gen Ira forgor lu ou. or Lie fullorlog higic w Fie br% e publie &huile i tikrttpir or 1-111011111dli i uDtiJià thii Wu. die' 1C I» eimacifirer 1 Maki:catin lariotrnut giplakinue ba coariotod nf finkti7 cor or Ray inlimous crime.

XVII. Tharriorneir ole:rtkic or a minribeir Coma tee !lm eltectrord elkariti cf Clkiriettotrim. Nha tete pli mn, "eneelaberl ▪ yeAr ; nlootiou own auxalier for exit ur thr Uhür 'Linde dell iikko plibm oyiury rugeth rire, duel Wel. attic irrt.leotion or tira Clonnoll nad origry Klein raddion pholl 1.oondo within toone .dpfn thip knoitorsikry of film Ligy Ltd Ai.rt viii 1J heu omis

%Vin. la «dor to rudi pgritaral iuleur.iati, nue nr tlle m'imbu% for esoh eleetônia cl.Mriet„ teepr. that Dt Chiade.. tokirp, it•Qh detormired by 1M 1.110 reliM"uue ihrol enurunil, !bail he Affintegia to bave Win qintrd. for four yem, morio ur long igkurl n11 caler member« of CO M& frieR1211111 bore-indue wiAloutd., elual ho tlawnei Le hava hum aloatorl for eiglit "film% more er irrea Lh Juge ofb eluctiun ▪ thmt omis iri3o4 member Éafit 11E1.1 Llie elonion of rira 1113131:ffltele

Any LagiLlative. Criannillee May reeign kin hy writioe, lamier hieâund stil anal, addrassed tin tha Lieutenant. amener or aller .aduLLnietruticir fie Lhn tinta king uf hba Colffly.

X OiBit dliby Éleda. u t =louncil &hall, from any Carle, Le- coma rachrit nwril tirs morille lebel the maint would han. beCOME VECallt bjr porieliehi mitiremeM,.111.e

Prèbruiemilga. Mer N ru-itskide. a P men ban.

How Caatinedl.ka,

aie

agir. Lb

Paeroin or Ni, ✓emit, 41hei.. 121 ▪ urirromog..

502

Obap 18, REVIS ED BTATUTES. 1862

Whuà lune rit ai *Kim. rotarn-

Pourim.

Forai hi" with.

&MF. la bai einem.« ▪ cimÉiGii

and fiEvorel miaulera of the Cannal dual have the mime powera and duti in ta tbe 431-ection of a ne* member

supply aneb additi=eeacariey s.s the speaker and Elevere moinlwrs of the Home of A.greambly in respect to any troc-hi/R-W.1 racancy in that House: provided that the irrite for anch eleebinn 'the be made reurnable within fLfty dayaat film-due from the issoue theme

I. Prerided &lel that every macla new member fibe hidi mat in the Conseil at the timo wboû it menid have

boni 'montai:1 in ciourge m FeriodiDid retire ment by the mendier wtokie pface be occupies.

EXIT In mail cane, forme membore the be capable of reeleetion, if otherwiae quabfied.

XXIII- If any mem.ber or the Council shati lue abonnt from hi place in the Cnunoil for ono entire eeasion, withisrut the leave of said Commit, Lia seat she bi diniared. vacant on the firgt day of the oext engning Redon, i su.eh member shall nen bo stin al. .sent, end notice of suai vacancy- 8.11.111/ ha given to the Lientematt Governor, and proaeedings therenpan Wren, aa hereinbefore provided

IMF, Tho Lsr*I5 of this Island relating to the vanatirkg oF raite of nitlillberd5 of die Mue of Aesembly upon the ,sent- mena by hem of 011.1.'03 met or enuotunient, entier the came eircumstancesi, apply ta the vackfung of the fiente d Legiaative Couneillera Ioder this Act.

XXV. Every Legislative CounciLlor before taidrpg his Beat, tee the following ea.th:

I r B. , do sincerely minise and sweer, that I grill br faith- full, and bear trias allogiance to filer liajegty Queen Victoria, aa lawful Sovereign of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, Fuld of Oda Til ttd, 1:lep-en-dent on and belonging ta the mid United Kingdom, and that I will defend hier to the nunost of my power agninst ell tralticircinA ocinepiratio and attenopts. whatever whieh ahati be made againgt her pet-son, eowo and dignity ; aod tlaÉ 1 will de my ntmost endeavur

eliselone, and malle Iitiown to Lier Nlajeerty, lier boire and me-

oeasors. all tremons and traiterons conspiracien and attempte *Li& I shed] know to be againat ber Ma, eerT, or any of the, and ail Ille I de.J elven without any equivocation, montai cg secret reseritition, ithcl rIenoixtieitig a11 parcloaa and digietag-

fiions from any pensum' or flemme whalsliever to the contzac, halp me

Go

X.X171, The Criown ehall have no power tir; lia-moira gag Legiodatire Quand' when eleeted nad« thim Act.

Furan miçren.-efralleble.

ikt, at iii2Y suswkier eo 6r dee erecETagan t if Limon far Oro malice.

LEM ce AM«. maxi mur »Ma ar

mipismegi or dem, 11

4 oftly latere Cecunali.

41W.11 te bia u-kan by

ogeneii &p.. pair' Praddiedi

Power; erivi-11.pe, ta-, 91 14g. mai 0 moutalran ledIrLecale.

• tuarrial i1 ia•t.bia ivre Ptitlimmi

14thtimairioei g Ya a. 1i, ro.

'prüge

1862 23th VICTORIA. °hep. 113, 557

VU,. The LegialnEve Cooncil alun appointa Pfflident from hm «wu morobere.

Every member of the Lieginiative Uotincil alun beld hie Nu for the terra and subject te the previsione for vs satine ijiel /aime heureip expreaRed and the eonneil SA a body, and Ltde merdera individuelly, s'Ali passes and confirme to exorcise und eujoy aEl the iin.thority, powers,priviiegta and bonus. Dcrier exerciaed. and enjoyed by the Legielative Couina of thim exoept ae otherwiBe providded by this Act.

XXIX. The presence of the President and of at least six membere shah le. nocessary ta vonstitute a meeting for the et-«eu of the powers of the Coula ; hot a sehnller anshber may adijourn from. day (Lay, artd m'y campe] tho attendance of Ahmet memihers, ia sua manner .m1 trader euh persa]tiee ae the mies, of the Couneil ehald presoribe.

XXX. Aü cluenia.he whieh Brille in the Legietative CQuirmil be determined by majority of votea of the mem:Fere

prremot, other than the Prendent 7, but when the votes are equal, the 'President aboli. have the casting vote.

XXXI The Liwbglative Conne] nuay eetabiiab mies for Us ermenk.ownt, and the attendance of its tuerobers.; it Easy ponish membere for dieorderly conduct or for a breaoh or ita raies, and with the concorrenoe of two-thirde of aU the mernbere, rnay elpe] Bay EGIErniber fer cause: pecrvided that the rue and ordere of the. Legialative. Coula existing at the dulie this Act del core into opération, ohm]] continue in force., as far sa applicable, =Li] abrogated or altered.

XXXIL Rach gehered elaction of naembers of the Holm of Assembly shall ix aks a new parfis[ ent aa heretcfore.

XITITI. The thirty-fourth section of the hereinbefore re-crited Act, of the nineteenthyear of her preeeot Miajeetfe roign,. chapka. tweraty-ome, eau eid the 'mue hereby rspealtd..

Thi Àet not go into opera-don, for he of any forcé zir etfect, outil Ber Majestys meut thereto Ale lm licouven > Eu:id notleaticia. theroof inhhatied in the Reli,va aosegie. newapaper of this

Ituirlwr lanW mol oleotwcy

lÉrhein/g

"Mtéhle

Mcns otleu* quei+-

UDE/.

AztherbLe Ma k, Mil&

h irriendele Cham-

m.• 1111i At re«.Itei aie IerjErty. iffloat dix. or Nier. Imai r sa aie. poi.ri le derisumb Nem b le 'grue...Ume Drikeipr rigueur.% lier Fruizipai 8sritiry u1 nits fier 138 CoLbdtio, da ted 15th For. 'Sa Lad a. Prmalanualari d tif Liwitriliat lacirerite da artel 1.12a larme lo

hi b zurot

egiried b à* 1 477 Gemanit ciawrokpaT tàbia Island, 4e Ii ta of Dic. of Ltd

lm» ma. 8*