|
Canada
A Time For Action
Prologue
"Seemed to me quite united for
the whole length of my sojourn . . ."
Report of Jean Talon on the present state of Canada, 1667
"Canada is a vast Country of
different elevations, capable, with its different Climates and
degrees of exposure to the Sun, of yielding all the crops of olde
France, without a single exception. Having, like France, warmth in
the South, cold in the North, and a temperate zone midway between
these two extremes.
"There are in many places
naturall Meadows where grasses grow in great plenty, and of such
good quality as to provide ample nourishment for all kinds of
animals.
"Colde and dreadfull though the
Winters be, the Climate is neverthelesse so healthfull that people
are seldome sick and live a very long time, and the land, which is
very uneven because of the Mountains and Valleys, is covered with
a thick growth of trees which form one large Forest and which, to
my mind, stifles fine, rich harvests.
"The fertility of the soyl is
showne to us by the plentifull harvests which are produced each
year from the cleared and cultivated land, all the more so as the
fields are sown only from the end of April to the 15th of May, and
yield their harvests at the end of August or the beginning of
September. Thus all things necessary to life can be expected in
abundant measure from this one Country if it is cleared and
cultivated.
"The whole Country, variously
watered by the St. Lawrence River and by other fine Rivers which
empty into it, affords communication by means of these same Rivers
with severall Indian nations rich in furs, particularly those
which live in the North.
"Concerning the nations in the
South, which we can reach by journeying up Lake Ontario, if the
portages with which we are as yet unfamiliar are not too
difficult, which, however, would not be without remedy, if these
nations prove not to have the same plentifull supply of furs, they
may have commodities of even greater value.
"It was on the first of these
expeditions that Monsieur de Courcelles and I sent Seigneur de la
Salle, who has a great eagernesse for these enterprises, while on
another occasion I instructed Seigneur de St. Lusson to push
toward the West for as long as he could find means of subsistence.
"When travelling from
Newfoundland to Cape Breton Island, I was obliged to anchor off
the St. Pierre Islands to take in water in quite a beautiful Bay
with a capacity for fifty vessels. There I found thirteen
fishermen, all of whom were French, and four local habitants,
among whom was one Englishman who spoke our language perfectly.
"What I discovered with my own
eyes, as much on the voyage I made last Winter as on my visit to
the advance posts last Spring, has strongly confirmed me in the
hope that New France will be able to supplye the Mother Country
with a great deal of wood suitable for the construction of its
vessels. In addition to ribs and planking, all appearances ensure
extreamly good masts, since there is fir, spruce and red pine from
which to make planks of such length and thicknesse as one would
desire for a vessel's deck, bridge, cabins, beams and bow.
"I am not bolde enough to promise
that the search for Mineralls will prove successful. But I am
quite convinced that there is copper, iron and lead in Canada;
this Country is so vast that it is difficult to come down on the
exact place where they Iye buried. Neverthelesse, I perceive that
every year new knowledge is gayned as application is given to this
search.
"I work as much as I can to unite
the isolated settlements and bring them closer together, and I
strongly believe that in the future settlers should be part of a
community, hamlet, village or town; to showe that this is an easy
matter, I undertook to establish three villages in the
neighbourhood of Quebec, which are already well advanced; I intend
two more for the families which you purpose to send this year, and
for whom the instruction which I have received directs me to
prepare forty dwellings.
"Canada has come out of the
inaction in which I found it on my return, and all its habitants
thus far, including the women and maidens, have an open door to
work so that, owing to the succour which the King graciously gave
to families, and other bounties which He bestowed, the monies
invested in the harvesting and cutting o f wood as well as the
rest of the enterprises launched by His Majesty, everyone is
stirring, and no one dare put his hand out to beg any more,
unlesse it be a childe too feeble or a man too olde, maimed or
sick with an incurable illnesse.
"The young people of Canada
devote themselves, indeed throw themselves, into the study of the
arts and sciences and the learning of trades, especially the
seafaring ones, to such a degree that if this inclination is
fostered a little, there is ground for hoping that this Country
will become a nursery of navigators, fishermen, sailors and
artisans, all having a naturall disposition to these occupations.
"The People are a medley, being
composed of severall elements, and although the habitants come
from different provinces of France, the temperaments of which do
not always accord, they seemed to me quite united for the whole
length of my sojourn."
Excerpts from the correspondence of the
Intendant Talon, 1665-1673
Table of Contents
Prologue
"Seemed to me
quite united for the whole length of my sojourn . . ."
Chapter I -- A Time for Commitment
Introduction
The Canadian challenge
Renewing ourselves
The Canadian model
Values we must share
Values we are free to
choose
Learning to live with our
differences
The means of discovery
Pre-eminence of
citizens and of their freedoms
Full respect of native
rights
Full development of the
two linguistic majorities
Enhancement of the
mosaic of cultures
Self-development of
regions
Fostering economic
integration
Promoting national
solidarity
Interdependence of the
two orders of government
Strengthening Canada
as a united country to serve all Canadians
The early years
Today
Federalism in practice
The federal government's
perspective
Proposals for action
Chapter V -- A New Constitution for Canada
Deficiencies of the
Constitution
Working toward
constitutional change
Major premises guiding
renewal
The process and timing of
change
Conclusion
Chapter I
A Time for Commitment
Something moves as it has never moved
before in this land, moves dumbly in the deepest runnels of a
collective mind, yet by sure direction toward a known goal.
Sometimes by thought, more often by intuition, the Canadian people
make the final discovery. They are discovering themselves.
Bruce Hutchison
Introduction
With this document the government launches
a new and intensive effort towards the renewal of the Canadian
Federation.
Canada has recently entered a period of
reappraisal. Canadians feel that the time has come to reconsider
what we are and to determine what we want to become. From the
Atlantic to the Pacific, we have been discussing our history and our
future. This document deals with these two aspects of Canadian
reality.
We made a country out of a continent. It
has been a great adventure. We built it with our own hands--a
country stretching from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island, from Point
Pelee to the northernmost reaches of the Arctic Islands. It took
scarcely longer than the span of a man's life to do it. Many
Canadians still remember the era of new settlements, the clearing of
the land, the great beginnings, the time when there were only five
million of us, when our major cities--there were a dozen or so-- had
populations of barely more than 20 thousand, when the railway and a
handful of newspapers were the only means of linking region with
region.
We came from everywhere. Some of our
ancestors crossed the Bering Strait, others left the distant shores
of Europe, Asia and Africa, still others came from the neighbouring
lands of North America. Our first immigrants came from every
province of France and Britain: later ones came from every corner of
the world.
In order to adapt to the new continent,
discover its spirit and learn to survive in its environment, our
ancestors had to borrow the ways and customs of our native
peoples--a first instance of the cultural interaction which was to
recur every time a new ethnic group landed here. Haphazardly brought
together along trails, roads and portages, our families mingled
their labours, sufferings and joys, joined their traditions and
buttressed their courage, so that this country could develop
socially, politically and economically.
We claimed an immense, almost unfathomable
land in which "the soul-- or the personality--seems to have
indefinite room to expand," said the poet Rupert Brooke. A land
which could encompass the 33 countries on the European continent,
including the Soviet Union as far as the Urals. A country so
enormous that the inhabitants of its various regions often visit
neighbouring foreign cities--Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, New York
or Boston, for example--long before the metropolises of other
regions. A land so vast that many of us will never perceive its
sweep, from north to south and east to west, except through the
sometimes magnified and sometimes muted projections of the mass
media.
If every part of the country looked like
the next, whoever had seen one would have seen the others. But from
the rocky coves of Newfoundland, to the gardens of the Niagara
Peninsula, the flatlands of Saskatchewan, the rolling hills of the
Laurentians and the peaks of the Rockies, where is the resemblance?
We are all molded differently by our physical environment.
Molded differently, but in the same way as
well. Gilles Vigneault's wintry land is not his alone; it is the pays
of all Canadians. Indians and Inuit are not the only ones
enraptured by the boreal magic of our northlands. The strange sense
of boundless horizons does not rouse only Westerners, no r does the
relentless d rift of eternal glaciers move only the people of our
mountains. In this country what the eye cannot see, the spirit must
capture.
Such is the adventure of Canada. It has no
analogy and no precedent. It has been difficult, but it has not
ceased to challenge and exalt us. If it is to continue to do so, its
form and manifestations must be renewed. History is beckoning us. It
is exhorting us to apply ourselves to Canada's renewal with the same
determination and selflessness that were shown by those who
originally built this country. The time for commitment has come
again.
The Canadian challenge
How many times has it been said that this
country could not work? The dissonant voices of communities strung
like beads between two oceans, each affirming its will to survive
and its regional identity, could easily have led to another Babel.
The Intendant Talon, the first of our
statesmen to appreciate the immensity of the task begun in New
France, was already concerned about unity three centuries ago. "/
work as much as I can", he wrote to Colbert, "to
unite the isolated settlements and bring them closer together";
he noted that their temperaments were not always in accord; and
he was relieved that "they seemed to me quite united for the
whole length of my sojourn."
Since then, unity has continually been a
preoccupation of all governments of Canada. We were long obsessed by
the prejudices and antagonisms which our forebears brought with them
from the "old" countries and which were intensified by the
quarrels we drifted into here. A number of us still bear the scars
of these quarrels, for some wounds cut very deeply. For example, the
West, which we took almost a century to settle and develop, has
often despaired and perhaps still despairs of catching up with the
East, "where everything started." Many areas of Quebec,
Ontario and especially the Atlantic, have similarly felt neglected
and still feel neglected.
Nevertheless, the country was built. In
this vast land, people gradually discovered that their distinctive
qualities could usefully complement one another, that their
aspirations could be reconciled, and that some of their basic values
could be shared. Our collective will to live together was founded on
this discovery. It has been the basis of a political balance between
our various regions which is still fragile and must be secured.
Another delicate balance must be
established more firmly--that between our French-speaking and
English-speaking communities. For many years, the presence of a
strongly-rooted French-speaking community, in a country where the
majority felt itself to be essentially British, was perceived as a
source of complications and difficulties with which one would still
have to bear for some time. Now, it has become clear that this
community is anything but temporary: it has survived, it has
developed, it has established itself permanently within the Canadian
fold .
But French-speaking Canadians remember the
advantages they did not have, hopes that were not realized and the
respect that they were denied. They are determined to see that the
inequalities of the past are not repeated in the country at large,
and especially not in Quebec, where they are concentrated. Human
societies all too easily lapse into indifference: too often, they
tend to extend respect only to the strong. French-speaking Canadians
have too often learned that promises come to be respected when those
who receive them can demand that they be honoured.
The same lesson has been learned by
Canadians of other ethnic backgrounds who have settled here over the
last hundred years. It has often taken a long time, and considerable
effort, and extraordinary patience, to put an end to the vexations
and the discrimination that have made so many Canadians who are not
of British or French descent feel like second-class citizens in a
country to which they have given their undivided loyalty. Even more
bitter was the experience of Canada's native peoples, and even more
pressing the need to recognize fully their dignity and their right
to equal opportunity--a right they have yet to enjoy.
For the benefit of generations to come,
therefore, we must strengthen the still delicate balance between
regions, language communities, and ethnic and native groups, so that
it will never again be compromised. This task challenges our hearts
and minds, as it will test our wisdom.
Renewing ourselves
This test must begin with a form of
exorcism. Too many outdated myths and old hang-ups persist in
various parts of the country. They are like millstones around our
necks; we must break the chains that bind us to them. Let us forget
once and for all about the Plains of Abraham: the vanquished and
vanquishers are dead. Let us "decolonize" Quebec in our
own minds: Quebec is in full renaissance. Let us recognize
the vitality of the Atlantic Provinces and dispel the pernicious
notion that they are no longer capable of the major role they played
in building this country. Let us see Ontario for what it is: a
province open to all and developing to everyone's benefit, not a
bastion of selfishness. Let us celebrate the success of the Western
Provinces in growing out of their dependence on the East. Our
national mythology must come to reflect the realities of
contemporary Canada.
This watershed in Canadian history gives us
a unique opportunity to reshape our national destiny and to reshape
it as we see fit. To this destiny, our whole country, all our
regions and all our people must be committed. To accomplish it, we
require a political framework: this will be considered in the
following chapters. We require much more--a new openness of spirit,
a new dedication stirring and moving in the hearts of Canadians.
For in the final analysis, it is the
collective will of all Canadians which will ensure this country's
survival. This collective will can assert itself only if the
Canadian people become fully aware of their identity and understand
what it means to be part of Canada, as suggested in Chapter ll.
To achieve this understanding, Canadians
need to unleash their curiosity and discover the other regions and
communities of this country--just as the early settlers did. The
beautiful passage by Bruce Hutchison which opens this chapter is
prophetic, since it dates from 1957. Following in the footsteps of
Cabot, Cartier, Mackenzie and Fraser, we must make the final
discovery. It is for each of us to do this in our own way, in the
circumstances of our particular lives. This document is addressed to
all Canadians equally: it does not seek to give pleasure to the
clear conscience of some or to arouse any sense of guilt in others.
Over the course of their history, Canadians
have developed their own identity, their own conception of
government and society and their own world perspective. The
principles of the renewal proposed by the government must be based
on this identity, this conception and this perspective. These
principles are set out in the third chapter of this document.
In conformity with those principles, the
government pledges in the following chapters to improve the
operation of our federal system and to renew our Constitution. In
this vital task, the government will seek the cooperation of
provincial governments. A time-table for the various stages of the
process has been worked out. We are determined not to allow undue
delay in this undertaking, which in our view is crucial for the
country.
The renewal proposed by the government is
worthy of our aspirations. It will require the efforts of both
levels of government and all citizens. Canada is well able to
undertake this renewal, which will significantly enhance the
economic, social, political and cultural well-being of all
Canadians.
We shall complete it as swiftly as
possible, so that we may soon devote our energies and resources to
the innumerable other tasks which require our attention.
Chapter II - Affirmation
of the Canadian Identity
Our country is as young as the first
days of creation. Life here is still to be discovered and named:
this dim face and this silent heart of ours, all of these
landscapes from before the coming of man, waiting to be inhabited
and possessed by us, and that indistinct word uttered in the
night, all of this calls forth the day and the light.
Anne Hébert
The renewal of the Federation does not by
any means require some basic change in the character of the Canadian
people. In order to bring it about, we need only be ourselves--but
more consistently and more faithfully than in the past.
In a word, the current crisis of confidence
is a crisis of our maturing. It will make us an adult nation, more
sure and more aware of what we are and of what we can become. By no
means must we renounce our national personality, our regional
characteristics or our distinctive cultural traits, whoever we are
or wherever we live in Canada. On the contrary, we must assert the
Canadian identity, establish once and for all what this identity
consists of, and express it more vigorously through our actions,
both individual and collective.
We have been obsessed with this search for
identity for a long time. "The future of Canada, I believe,
depends very largely upon the cultivation of a national
spirit", proclaimed the parliamentarian Edward Blake, scarcely
six years after Confederation; "we must find some common ground
on which to unite, some common aspiration to be shared, and I think
it can be found alone in the cultivation of that national spirit to
which I have referred." But for a long time the linguistic
duality and regional diversity of Canada have been perceived as
almost insurmountable obstacles to the creation of "a peculiar
national temperament and bent of mind", in the words used by
Archibald Lampman in the 1880s. Well before Hugh McLennan explored
the idea of two solitudes, Pierre Chauveau deplored the fact that we
Canadians, "English and French, climb by a double flight of
stairs toward the destinies reserved for us on this continent,
without knowing each other, without meeting each other, and without
ever seeing each other, except on the landing of politics. In social
and literary terms, we are far more foreign to each other than the
English and French of Europe." And Henri Bourassa warned that
in Canada "there is Ontario patriotism, Quebec patriotism, or
Western patriotism, each based on the hope that it may swallow up
the others, but there is no Canadian patriotism, and we can have no
Canadian nation when we have no Canadian patriotism."
In many respects, Blake, Lampman, Chauveau
and Bourassa were right. More than ever, the survival of the country
depends on the national spirit of Canadians. The renewal of the
Canadian Federation must reflect a distinctly Canadian conception of
the state and of society. We have built a lot of passageways between
the two staircases on which our two linguistic communities are
climbing "toward their destinies", and many more remain to
be built.
But there was a basic flaw in the concept
of national identity held by these early Canadians: they sought to
cast Canada's identity into the inevitably more homogeneous mold of
European nationalities. This was impossible, even at a time when the
French and British were the only groups coexisting with native
peoples within the Federation. Millions of people from other ethnic
groups had to settle here for us to realize that Canada was
irrevocably destined to be the country of diversity.
This is the first and perhaps the most
important lesson which we must draw from our history. For to affirm
Canada's identity we must first take stock of the nation's roots.
"A nation is a group of persons who
have undertaken great projects together in the past and who hope to
accomplish great things together in the future", said historian
Frank Underhill, paraphrasing Michelet. The history of our first 110
years is full of great accomplishments; we have had so much to do
that we have rarely taken the time to embroider these
accomplishments into our national mythology or to tell each other
how great they were.
Of course, Canada is still a young country.
But this is no impediment to the crystallization of the Canadian
identity, since this identity is based on traditions that are much
older than the country. Well before 1967 we commemorated the
centenary of the first colonies in the West, of the first landings
on the Pacific coast and of the founding of Vancouver. The first
Loyalists, drawn northward by a deep attachment to British values,
began arriving in Ontario and the Maritimes two centuries ago.
We are celebrating this year the 370th
anniversary of the founding of Quebec City, the capital of New
France, which even as a colony was continental in scale. This same
land became the focal point of a long period of survival, followed
by a remarkable renaissance. The first French settlement in Acadia
occurred even before the founding of Quebec, almost
contemporaneously with the first influx of Scottish Highlanders into
Nova Scotia, but much later than the winterings of several
nationalities in Newfoundland .
In all parts of the country these
immigrants encountered native populations rooted in this continent
for thousands of years, without adequately recognizing the part they
were to play in the establishment of the country.
The Canadian model
These successive migrations transplanted in
Canadian soil the values of great civilizations. We therefore share
with the societies from which we originally came or with which we
interact, such as the United States, universal values, and others
which are more particular. But the synthesis which we have made of
these values is highly original: with the passage of time and the
required adaptation to distinctive realities, these values have
acquired specific Canadian characteristics.
These values motivate our behaviour as
individuals and determine our personality as a country. They govern
the relationships among the different groups in Canada and determine
the character of our social institutions. They define the form of
our government and prescribe the rules governing our political
institutions. They shape our aspirations, forge our ideals and
provide direction for our future. In short, these values determine
what we may legitimately call, without undue pride but also without
false modesty, the Canadian model. This synthesis of Canadian values
is not fixed or unchangeable and hopefully will never be so. Canada
is not a closed or rigid society -- quite the contrary, the dynamism
which it draws from its openness and diversity, as well as its
continuing development and progress, bring a perpetual process of
renewal to the Canadian People.
There are times when our value system
changes almost imperceptibly as a result of the trimming, pruning
and grafting spontaneously practised on it by Canadians. But there
are other times when the Canadian model must be updated in a more
explicit way, through conscious and persistent efforts. We have now
entered such a period of deliberate reappraisal, comparable in many
ways to the troubled times in the last century which preceded
Confederation.
Values we must share
The renewal of the Federation requires
first of all that we become aware of the values which we need to
share, regardless of the community to which we belong or the region
where we live.
This country, which Jean Talon already
called Canada three centuries ago, has molded us and has made us
much more alike than we generally think. With our tendency to
emphasize our distinctive characteristics as members of one
linguistic community or another, or inhabitants of one region or
another, we must often be reminded by foreigners how much we have in
common. We are all too prone to reduce culture to language or ethnic
origin and, consequently, to underestimate the cultural values which
we share.
Can there be a Canadian, for example, whose
outlook has not been deeply marked by the stretches of seemingly
infinite space--the high seas of our maritime regions, the boundless
horizons of our prairies, the endless unfoldings of the St. Lawrence
Valley, the limitless reaches of our Great Lakes? We all feel the
call of the north, "a window which opens out on the infinite,
on the potential, on the future", the French academician André
Siegfried noted some 40 years ago. We all have similar perceptions
of nature and of the relationship between man and his environment;
for the brute force of nature is more evident and man's dominion
over nature more precarious in this country than elsewhere. Canadian
art and literature bear abundant witness to these cultural traits,
whichever language they may be expressed in, whatever may be their
region of origin.
We also share a great number of social and
economic values. Our spirit is North American. We all believe in the
pre-eminence and fundamental freedoms of the individual citizen, in
equal opportunity for all, in democratic values and respect for the
rule of law. Canadians also believe in the dynamics of individual
enterprise, in the effective use of government institutions to serve
our collective development, and in the sharing of the country's
wealth and income among individuals and regions. New and constant
efforts are needed to achieve a better integration of these values
in Canadian society, and the renewal of the Federation provides an
opportunity to make further progress in this direction. We may be of
different minds as to the means to be used, but we have no
difficulty in agreeing on overall goals since a national consensus
truly exists in these areas.
However, other values must also be
enshrined in our national consensus. They concern language equality,
cultural diversity, the dignity of our native peoples and the
self-development of our various regions. The current crisis demands
that we make the efforts necessary to entrench these values and to
accept their practical consequences.
Basically, all that is required of us in
this connection is to accept that what we ask for ourselves be
extended to others. We all assert our right to speak the official
language which is ours by birth or by choice, and to deal with
government institutions in that language. We all insist on our right
to preserve our cultural heritage and to seek the assistance of
governments in doing so. We all wish to see our regions develop in
their own way, and expect to be able to choose, with those among our
fellow Canadians who are closest to us, the lifestyle which we
prefer.
The renewal of the Federation must lead to
the recognition by each of us that all other Canadians have, in
these areas, aspirations similar to our own. In the name of the
diversity which we call upon to justify our own enjoyment of
individual and collective freedoms, we must accept that these
freedoms be extended to all other Canadians and that they be given
the means to exercise these liberties.
We must go a little further: not only to
accept that other Canadians and their communities are different from
our own and want to stay that way; but also to respect them for what
they are. There can be no place in a renewed Canada for arrogant,
domineering or contemptuous attitudes toward this or that community.
Friendship, solidarity and respect among our different communities
are essential values of the Canadian identity. Dedication to these
values will enable us to achieve much more than the mere survival to
which our more pessimistic thinkers would limit us; we will be able
to grow, to develop, to fulfill our great potential.
Values we are free
to choose
Once these values have been well integrated
into the national consensus, we will at last be able to devote
ourselves, serenely and without compunction, to the cultivation of
Canadian diversity. Each community, for its own betterment and to
some extent for the good of others, will be able to develop its
language and its culture and its regional characteristics, whatever
these may be. In all other respects we will be able to choose the
values that shape our attitudes, our aspirations and our lifestyles,
and to resist in all good conscience pressures from those who would
impose on us, in the name of unity, a sterile and pointless
uniformity.
For although some Canadians have until now
been satisfied with too narrow a national consensus, one which
excluded values essential to the unity, stability and prosperity of
the Federation, others have attempted to extend the consensus too
far. Canadian identity is not a steam roller, and one of the key
goals of our federal system of government is precisely to preserve
and promote diversity. Uniformity would make Canada totally
uninteresting, and eventually deprive the country of its raison
d'être. Northrop Frye, the well-known Canadian critic, has
perhaps expressed the essential difference between uniformity and
unity better than anyone:
Uniformity, where everyone
"belongs", uses the same clichés, thinks alike and
behaves alike, produces a society which seems comfortable at first
but is totally lacking in human dignity. Real unity tolerates
dissent and rejoices in variety of outlook and tradition, recognizes
that it is man's destiny to unite and not divide, and understands
that creating proletariats and scapegoats and second-class citizens
is a mean and contemptible activity. Unity, so understood, is the
extra dimension that raises the sense of belonging into genuine
human life.
Learning to live
with our differences
Why do we tend to complain about the
distinctive character of other Canadians, while clinging so fiercely
to our own? Why is it often difficult for us to accept that the
institutions and symbols of the Federation should respect and
celebrate the distinctive characteristics of other Canadians, while
insisting that ours be respected and celebrated?
The admission made by an Inuit from
Povungnituk to the visiting ethnologist applies to us all. "And
so ignorant are we", he said, "in spite of all our
shamans, that we fear everything unfamiliar. We fear what we see
about us and we fear all the invisible things that are likewise
about us, all that we have heard of in our forefathers' stories and
myths. "
In many respects, Canada is a country which
is still unaware of itself; it is therefore in many respects a
country still afraid of itself.
In spite of all our
"shamans"--our politicians, our intellectuals, our
journalists--we are all too often unaware of what we have in common;
so we fear that we may be too different to remain united as a
country.
There can be no doubt that we are
different; but we don't quite know to what extent and in what ways.
Thus we fear the imaginary harm which the distinctive features of
other Canadians might cause us, but we find it hard to believe that
our own differences might similarly frighten them; for we are very
comfortable with what makes us different and have good reason to
consider ourselves harmless.
Our forefathers have left us many stories
and myths concerning aspects of regions and communities other than
our own. But we are still too often unaware that things have changed
and that these myths are false.
How can we dispel these outdated myths? How
can we become aware of all the values and experiences we have in
common? How can we establish the Canadian identity while learning to
live with our differences?
The means of
discovery
To this end we have means incomparably more
powerful and more efficient than those which were available to
earlier generations of Canadians. These include the airplane, the
railways, the automobile, our education system, newspapers and
periodicals, books, radios, television and films-- in fact,
everything that conveys human beings, their thoughts, their
impressions and their hopes. It took La Vérendrye months to reach
the Rockies; nowadays, a Montrealer can travel to Calgary in a few
hours. It used to take months for news to travel from Halifax to
Winnipeg; today, events can be relayed by radio or television in a
few seconds. Books were until recently a luxury item which only the
rich could afford; but mass publication has made them accessible to
everyone. Not long ago, pictures could only be the work of artists,
hanging in the homes of the rich, or else locked in the minds of the
few who had the opportunity to travel; in our age television,
photography and the cinema have brought an incredible wealth of
images into every home. Our grandparents proudly remember the day
when they heard a John A. Macdonald or a Wilfrid Laurier; today,
radio and recording techniques enable us to replay at will the
speeches of our politicians, to better understand and appraise them.
We therefore have all the means required to
clarify the indistinct word heard by the poet Anne Hébert, and to
bring forth the day and the light she glimpsed. But no government
will ever be able to establish and develop the Canadian identity by
way of legislation. Governments can help, support and facilitate the
discoveries of Canadians; but this important dimension of the
Federation's renewal can only be accomplished by the Canadian
people.
In a democracy, it is up to the people to
decide where they will travel and what they will read, watch or
listen to. Thus, it is up to Canadians to discover the similarities
which bind us together and the differences from which spring our
diversity and which we can agree to preserve together.
Chapter III - The
Principles of Renewal
The strength of Canada and the
rationale for Canada is founded upon each of the regions
complementing one another and balancing the weaknesses and
strengths. These conditions change over time and sacrifices are
involved but the commitment to one country is essential if the
benefits of Confederation are to endure over time and through all
circumstances.
Brandon Declaration of the Premiers of the
Western Provinces
A fundamental renewal of the Federation is
needed to resolve the crisis threatening the stability, unity and
prosperity of the country.
The great debate on national unity has
clearly indicated that most Canadians understand the need for
renewal of the Federation and are determined to carry it out.
"In every generation, Canadians have had to rework the miracle
of their political existence", said Arthur Lower. The country
best exhibits this resilience in time of crisis, so that even now it
is springing back.
If it is to be successful, the renewal must
be built on fundamental principles reflecting the basic realities of
a diverse, complex and changing society. Drawing on our collective
reflection, the government has defined the following principles and
proposes that they guide the renewal of the Federation.
Pre-eminence of
citizens and of their freedoms
The renewal of the Federation must
confirm the preeminence of citizens over institutions, guarantee
their rights and freedoms, and ensure that these rights and
freedoms are inalienable.
The renewal of the practice of federalism,
of its institutions, and of the Constitution must all be determined
by the spirit and will of Canadians themselves.
No law of any Parliament can of itself
develop understanding and friendship among Canada's communities or
reinforce their solidarity. The people themselves must give life and
form to the Canadian identity through their individual and joint
actions.
Canadians will progress more rapidly in
this direction if their governments recognize the pre-eminence of
their rights and freedoms by entrenching them in the Constitution.
Perhaps it is not essential to do this in a unitary state where one
supreme Parliament, representing all the interests of the citizenry,
can provide an ultimate guarantee for the rights of citizens. It is
different in a federal system where different orders of government,
representing different interests of the same citizenry, can have
opposing views. Hence, in a federal system, the Constitution through
its protection of rights and freedoms must serve the ultimate basis
of national unity.
Canada is no exception. The supremacy of
the Constitution necessarily follows from this first principle to
the extent that the Constitution records the rules of democratic
life, protects fundamental rights and liberties, provides for the
distribution of powers and guarantees the independence of the
judiciary.
Full respect of
native rights
The renewal of the Federation must
fully respect the legitimate rights of the native peoples,
recognize their rightful place in the Canadian mosaic as the first
inhabitants of the country, and give them the means of enjoying
full equality of opportunity.
Justice demands full respect for the
dignity and rights of native peoples.
In the past, we have not duly recognized
the contribution of the country's first inhabitants, the Indian and
Inuit peoples, to Canada's development. The settlement and
development of lands which they were the first to occupy have often
been carried out at their expense. More than any other group in
Canada, the native peoples have suffered indignities and have not
had the respect of their fellow citizens. Programs of support have
often produced a state of dependence that eroded self-reliance.
For years, the Indians and Inuit have been
demanding recognition of particular rights and of their proper place
within Canadian society. They realize that they should be able to
preserve their culture and their way of life in accordance with the
same principle of diversity that the other Canadian communities
invoke.
The renewal of the Federation must foster
cooperation among Indians, Inuit and other Canadians in order that
the descendants of those who first occupied this country might make
their contribution, with equal rights and opportunities, to the
strengthening of national unity, so that they too are recognized as
founders of the future Canada.
The full
development of the two linguistic majorities
The renewal of the Federation must
guarantee the linguistic equality of its two major communities,
the English-speaking and the French-speaking, and assure that
Canadian institutions exist to help each group to prosper.
We must recognize clearly that there are in
Canada, two major linguistic groups which are concentrated in
different parts of the country. Each has the feeling that it forms a
majority and consequently, seeks for its members equal status and
equal rights.
The French language community forms the
majority in that part of the land which extends from northern
Ontario, encompasses the whole of Quebec, and stretches east to the
outer reaches of Acadia. The English-speaking community forms the
majority in the most eastern regions of the country and within that
expanse of our territory extending from southern Ontario all the way
to the Pacific coast.
We can say, therefore, that French-speaking
Canada forms a bridge between the English-speaking population of the
Atlantic provinces and that of the five most westerly provinces.
Within the geographic area of each language community there are
significant minorities of the other-- English-speakers or
French-speakers.
Neither of the two linguistic communities
could impose its will upon the other or try to subordinate the other
without causing the Federation to fall apart. This political reality
requires that all Canadians, regardless of their official language,
develop mutual respect and understanding and an open and friendly
attitude toward each other.
This reality certainly does not mean that
most citizens have to become bilingual. However, it does mean that
the equality of our two official languages must be recognized and
guaranteed, and that the practical implications of this equality
must be accepted. It means that the establishment of language
equality within federal institutions must be completed and that,
wherever numbers justify, provincial services must be administered
to minorities in their official language. It should finally lead the
institutions of the private sector to recognize that it is useful
and even necessary in many parts of the country to operate in both
official languages.
The enhancement of
the mosaic of cultures
The renewal of the Federation must
lead to respect for cultural diversity and fortheright of every
citizen, regardless of ethnic origin, to equal opportunity. Every
cultural community should be able to re/y on the goodwill of
governments in preserving its own cultural heritage and in
discovering and appreciating those of other communities.
For more than a century, people of other
ethnic origins have come to Canada and settled beside those of
British and French ancestry. A large number of them have joined the
English-speaking majority and others the French-speaking majority,
without in the process losing their individuality.
With the sheer weight of their numbers, it
is natural that the French and British cultures occupy a major place
in Canada. But there is no question of having only one or two
official cultures; Canadian society must promote cultural diversity,
clearly and explicitly.
This diversity will only be protected if we
ensure that Canadians of all ethnic origins have equal opportunities
and full protection against discrimination.
Our French and British traditions have not
been weakened by the multicultural character of our society. On the
contrary, by good fortune this increasing diversity has helped to
reduce the old rivalry between them. They have also been invaluably
enriched and revitalized in all fields--from the arts and sciences
to economics and politics. Our two principal cultures will in no way
be diminished by the determination of new communities to preserve
their own cultural heritage.
We must therefore do more to develop and
enhance all the elements of the Canadian mosaic. We must also
significantly increase exchanges between our cultures, so that every
Canadian has the chance to discover, appreciate and respect the
heritage of his fellow-citizens.
The self-development
of regions
The renewal of the Federation must, in
all fields, promote the self-development of regions by avoiding
excessive centralization.
Canada has always been, and still is today,
a country of regions. Our geography dictates this and the people
demand it. The federal structure of our system of government has
made it possible for regional identities to develop and determine
the nature and operations of social institutions to a much greater
extent than in most countries having reached a comparable stage of
development.
However, we have not always been able to
resist, even in the private sector, certain tendencies toward
excessively centralizing methods of economic or social organization.
In the public sector, wars and the depression led to the temporary
ascendancy of the federal authority which, however, was later
reversed, often in favour of provincial authority. For these and
other reasons, our Federation is more decentralized today than it
was a century ago.
The renewal of the Federation, while
strengthening its unity, must therefore enhance the self-development
of its regions. This can be achieved through a more functional
distribution of powers between the federal government and the
provincial governments. A renewed commitment to reduce regional
disparities is also required if all regions, and not only the more
affluent, are to have the ability to develop in their own way and
preserve their particular lifestyles and cultural traditions.
Fostering economic
integration
The renewal of the Federation must
lead to closer economic integration between the regions of the
country and make it possible for all to share its benefits more
equally.
The Federation gives its regions privileged
access to a national market of over 23 million people. Access to the
national market has thus enabled and still enables each region of
Canada to raise the productivity of its industries, the
profitability of its firms, the financial base of its public sector
and the income of its residents.
But the integration of the Canadian economy
remains to be completed and perfected. The free circulation of
goods, services, capital and workers is not always adequately
assured. The two levels of government have not yet succeeded in
reconciling to their mutual satisfaction the imperatives of national
economic integration and of regional self-development. It will be
necessary to take these matters into consideration when the division
of legislative powers is under review.
In addition, all of the regions have not
benefitted equally from access to the national market because of
differences in location, size, scale, resource endowments,
infrastructure and economic organization, which may place a region
at an advantage or disadvantage. Federal and provincial policies
designed to correct these imbalances have not always proved as
effective as they could be, and must be revised.
Promoting national
solidarity
The renewal of the Federation must
extend and strengthen solidarity between citizens of all regions
and communities.
An old proverb says that a chain is only as
strong as its weakest link. The same is true of human societies,
particularly ours. Competition between regions can be invigorating;
but it must be tempered with stronger and more extensive bonds of
national solidarity.
The freedom and self-development of
individual citizens, regions or communities can only be realized to
their fullest extent with the occasional support of others. This
basic truth, which the Premiers of our Western provinces so
eloquently called to our attention in their 1977 Brandon
Declaration, is a further raison d’être of the Canadian
Federation.
Our history is full of instances where
national solidarity has been crucial and economically beneficial for
all regions in turn. Confederation, by accelerating economic
development in Quebec, stemmed the tide of French-speaking
emigration to the United States. Quebec, by supporting financially,
through the federal tax system, the construction of our
transcontinental railways, made possible the settlement and
development of the West.
Ontario, until recently, bore most of the
burden of inter-provincial equalization and thus financially
assisted the improvement of public services in the less affluent
provinces; but Ontario was in a position to do this because other
regions had earlier consented to tariff protection in order to
stimulate the growth of manufacturing industries.
We are all aware that British Columbia and
Alberta carried part of the cost of equalization as soon as their
economies became buoyant enough for them to do so. Thus, all the
citizens of Canada have enjoyed a more equal access to social
benefits and public services, the cost of which is nevertheless
borne to a greater extent by the taxpayers of the more prosperous
regions through the federal tax system.
e are also aware that the oil-producing
provinces of the West have agreed to spread the increase in the
price of domestic oil over several years, so as to minimize
disruption of other regional economies. They agreed all the more
readily to this since earlier policies, again based on national
solidarity, spurred the exploitation of their oil resources .
Solidarity is therefore essential for the
unity of the country and must be strengthened. It must also be
extended to areas other than the economy and public finance, such as
language and culture.
Interdependence
of the two orders of government
The renewal of the Federation must
establish clearly the authority and role of the federal and
provincial orders of government, recognizing their interdependence
and sharing of internal sovereignty, with each order equally
subject to the Constitution.
The Canadian Federation is by definition
based on two orders of government which must be equally subject to
the Constitution and share internal sovereignty. Although Canada has
acquired a higher and broader allegiance, most of the provinces
existed as political entities before joining Confederation and all
have developed strong provincial identities. Each is free to
determine its own political development provided it does not weaken
Canadian unity.
The courts, through their interpretation of
the Constitution, and the people, by expressing their will through
the democratic process, have set limits to the centralizing
tendencies of certain provisions of our constitution and have
preserved the autonomy of the provinces. They have likewise
conferred on the federal authority most of the powers necessary for
the government of the Federation as a whole.
Such is the spirit of Canadian federalism.
Some of the provisions of our Constitution are at variance with it
and must be modified. In addition, the division of powers between
the two authorities must be clarified and made more functional. Some
of our government practices restrict the internal sovereignty of the
two orders of government and must be revised.
Although sovereign in their respective
spheres, the federal and provincial governments of the Federation
are interdependent and must act in concert with each other. The
interests of all the citizens and communities, more than any
constitutional provision, make this cooperation at all times
imperative.
Strengthening
Canada as a united country to serve all Canadians
The renewal of the Federation must
produce a Canada that has the strong support of all Canadians and
to which their loyalties can and will be firmly attached. A Canada
strong in such support and loyalty will be best able to serve the
interests of Canadians.
Canada is far more than the sum of its
parts. Whether it is in negotiations with respect to foreign trade,
offshore territorial limits, fishing zones or defence, or in
influence in international affairs generally, the unity of a Canada
speaking for all Canadians is an inestimable advantage.
In the forum of nations Canada must speak
and act as one: its international sovereignty is indivisible. This
international sovereignty is therefore vested in the federal
authority. Provincial authorities may make use of this sovereignty,
but within the framework of the Federation.
Internally a united Canada, acting as a
single community, can provide the structure and financing of
programs that reduce the hazards of life for all Canadians--
programs such as unemployment insurance, family allowances, old age
pensions, equalization payments, regional development assistance and
oil subsidies, to mention only the most important. Political unity
also makes the strength of all parts of Canada available for support
in times of need. It provides all cultural communities, and
particularly our French-speaking community, with an environment
highly favourable to development and innovation, together with a
broader sphere in which to fulfil and express themselves. Within
that broader framework, concerted effort can also be devoted to
scientific research, technological development, environmental
protection and other programs to meet the needs of an advanced
society.
For such purposes and for all the common
action that a great community makes possible, the regions and groups
that make up Canada must be united. Their unity requires a political
framework and appropriate institutions. This framework is the
Federation and these institutions the ones which make up the federal
authority. The Constitution must define this framework and these
institutions.
The unity of Canada must transcend the
identification Canadians have with provinces, regions and linguistic
or other differences. But for Canada to be deserving of the
transcendant loyalty that such unity involves, there must be a sense
that it does serve, as a country, the vital needs of all its
citizens and communities. Each must feel that Canada, and the
federal Parliament and government acting on his or her behalf, are
the best guarantors of the security, progress and fulfilment that
derive from the common action of free citizens in a democratic
country. It is toward such a Canada-- united and strong --and such a
sense on the part of all Canadians that our efforts must be directed
in the renewal of our Federation
Chapter IV - Renewing
the Practice of Federalism
...Undoubtedly, there is no simple
rule for the myriad of relationships necessary among three levels
of government in a country as varied and vast as Canada. We feel,
however, that something can be done to make intergovernmental
relations more meaningful, more direct, more efficient and more
relevant to all Canadians...
Final Report of the Special Joint Committee
of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of
Canada, 1972
Federalism can be an inefficient, confusing
and demanding way to govern a country, but it does not have to be
so. This is fortunate since, as far as Canada is concerned,
federalism is the only system of government which can ensure that
the needs and interests of citizens are well served.
The early years
In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation might
have established a unitary state with a single, central government
responsible for all matters. Alternatively, they might have
established a confederation, with sovereign member units joining
together for certain confederal purposes. However, the political,
cultural and economic circumstances of the time dictated that
neither of these avenues be chosen. Quebec, Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick would never have accepted a unitary state. The early
failure of the United States' attempt at a confederation precluded
that option.
Instead, what was given shape was a state
in which each citizen would be directly represented in a single
Parliament as well as in one or other of the provincial
legislatures, and in which both "orders of government",
the federal and the provincial, would function within distinct and
fairly well-defined areas of authority. This new country would have
a federal rather than a unitary form of government, in order to
permit people in the different provinces to retain control
themselves over matters of particular importance or concern to them.
Citizens would be better served, if they, rather than a more or less
distant central authority, could decide about such questions. At the
same time, the federal form was chosen, rather than a loose
confederation which could provide neither the stability that was
sought nor a lasting guarantee of shared benefits.
The responsibilities of the federal and
provincial governments, as set out in the British North America Act,
were intended to ensure that provincial governments would be able to
control matters of local interest, while the federal government
would have the capacity to deal with matters of concern to the
country as a whole.
It is true that in 1867, and for many years
thereafter, the responsibilities of the provincial governments were
rather unimportant in the context of the times. Health services,
education, highways and municipal institutions may have been the
areas of potential government activity that were closest to the
local community, but they were in general at a rudimentary stage of
development. Furthermore, the key sources of revenue at the time,
the customs duty and indirect taxes, were denied to the provinces.
The federal Cabinet for its part, was not in the least reluctant to
use its powers under the Constitution to disallow provincial
legislation or to prevent its passage into law by ordering
Lieutenant Governors to "reserve" their signatures on
provincial Bills. These powers were used 149 times during the first
40 years after 1867, only 32 times since.
Two developments, one peculiar to Canada
and one global, helped to shape the Federation as we know it today
and brought Canada's governments together as partners, whether they
liked it or not. First were the many judicial decisions,
particularly towards the end of the 19th century, which gave larger
meaning and substance to the power of provincial legislatures under
Section 92 of the BNA Act and thus reduced the scope of the
authority of Parliament. The other phenomenon was, of course, the
growth of government--everywhere--beginning during World War I and
accelerating in the '40s and '50s.
In those early decades, however, government
activity and intervention were limited. Governments in Canada were
not interdependent and did not regard themselves as such. They had
little business to do with one another: there were no shared-cost
programs; no income tax collection agreements (because there was no
income tax); no Trans-Canada Highway Program (because there were no
automobiles); and, of course, no controversies over airport sites!
Today
Evidently, things have changed. A detailed
recital of the relevant developments would fill volumes. Perhaps the
essential point today is that all governments in Canada regard
themselves not only as being affected by the actions of the other
governments but as being dependent in some significant way on one or
several of those governments: for advice, for technical assistance,
for financial aid, for access to markets or to resources, for the
administration of programs, for information. The importance of this
interdependence needs no underlining. The increased involvement of
governments in Canada in the lives and activities of citizens has
made the federal system more complicated, but it has also greatly
extended its potential benefits.
The increase in the interaction of the
federal and provincial governments is not widely known. Almost 40
years elapsed from Confederation, in 1867, until the first
conference of federal and provincial First Ministers was held, in
1906. In sharp contrast, in just the last 10 years (1968-1978),
there have been 20 such meetings. Federal and provincial Ministers
and senior officials come together at formal meetings an average of
500 times a year. There are federal and provincial programs
concerned with all manner of things, from the gathering of Irish
moss in the Atlantic provinces to highway safety, sewage treatment,
and medical care (in all provinces). This year, the federal
contribution, alone, towards federal-provincial activities, will
approach $14 billion out of a total federal budget of $48.5 billion,
taking into account the shared-cost programs and direct federal
transfers to provincial governments.
Thus federalism in Canada is big business.
Like many major enterprises, it is sometimes inefficient and results
in some duplication of effort. It is not always clear where
responsibility lies for a given activity or situation. Yet, everyone
resident in Canada is affected every day in one way or another by
our federal-provincial system. Whether, for example, a company is
seeking a permit to drill for gas off Labrador, or an individual is
going to the doctor, applying for legal aid, drinking a glass of
water, buying a case of beer or, indeed, buying almost anything, the
impact of (and on) the federal-provincial system is felt. Both
orders of government, as everyone knows, impose a tax on most things
one buys. These taxes go to finance, for example, our health
insurance and social assistance programs, both of which came into
being as a result of interaction between Canada's governments and
both of which are managed by and are under provincial jurisdiction.
The provincial and federal governments jointly establish water
purification standards and carry out all manner of other useful
activities together.
With little change in the terms of the
Constitution, but with much talk, accommodation and compromise among
our governments, Canadian federalism has done more than merely
survive and become somewhat more complex. It has provided individual
Canadians in every province with a high standard of government
service. It has helped to reduce disparities between provinces and
regions, and between people of different income groups.
Federalism in practice
Canadian federalism can be viewed from many
perspectives. It can be seen, and is seen, as having cultural,
linguistic, economic, political, and other dimensions. It is
something of a drawback that what is essentially an arrangement for
the sharing of legislative authority between governments is viewed
in so many different ways. Federalism is credited or blamed often
enough for situations which it may have had little or no part in
creating; on other occasions, its value is not appreciated. It may
not be recognized, for example, that the system is working well when
a government whose programs are affected by another government's
legislation, complains about that legislation and brings about the
removal of a harmful or wasteful provision.
The experience of recent years, probably of
the past 15 or 20 years, suggests that where a government gives an
opportunity to the other governments to comment on proposed
legislation, policy or programs and where it pays attention to their
comments--without necessarily accepting them fully--the action that
government eventually takes is likely to prove more effective than
it would have been otherwise. Where this opportunity is not
presented, difficulties of one kind or another are more likely to
arise. These can take the form of additional cost, or of duplication
of services or regulation.
In a sense, governments in Canada have a
special advantage over governments in unitary states--to the benefit
of the citizen. When a government acts or plans to act here, there
are often 10 other governments ready to praise or criticize; 10
other entities in the same business as the first--the business of
governing. Governments do not, it should be admitted, always regard
this as a benefit. They quite often prefer to respond quickly to
what is perceived as a public demand, or to deal without delay with
a situation that seems to require their intervention. Nevertheless,
they do a great deal of consulting, and the results have, on the
whole, made government better.
Federalism is a system that marries a
substantial measure of provincial autonomy with a high degree of
sharing: sharing advice and experience between governments; sharing
the cultural and linguistic riches and values of the communities and
regions of the country; and sharing the economic wealth and
opportunities among provinces. Sharing of economic wealth tends to
be stressed more than the others, perhaps because it is the most
readily quantifiable. This has its disadvantages; it tends to leave
the impression that one region is always receiving and another
giving, as though financial flows were the life blood of the
federation. No doubt economic and financial sharing is vital.
However, were there no sharing of experience and views among
governments and politicians -- and, even more fundamentally, no
interaction between our cultures and languages--federalism would be
a much less beneficial arrangement.
Calculating the costs and benefits of a
complex intergovernmental system has its place. not least because
the numbers involved indicate the use to which taxpayers' dollars
are put, and the taxpayer is more than entitled to a regular
accounting. But dollars and cents are not the end of it. If we do
not see federalism in Canada as the governing of and for the people
by 11 governments, each of which functions within its jurisdiction
with responsibility and in response to the requirements of its
electors, and as 11 governments which often have to work together
for the benefit of citizens, then we are missing the fundamental
point.
It would be rash to say that governments in
Canada have never lost sight of this point. Party contest, political
ambition and vested interest have undoubtedly detracted, on
occasion, from a clear focus on the most effective result for the
citizen as the basic criterion of governmental action. But most
often difficulties between governments have occurred because there
have been sincerely-held, contradictory views about whose
jurisdiction an activity was in, or what would be the best way to
provide the service in question, or whether the program proposed was
likely to meet the needs it was intended to serve. Moreover,
differences and difficulties have the excitement of gladiatorial
combat and receive much attention from the media. The reality is
that the differences have been much less extensive than the areas of
agreement.
Federalism is so much a part of Canada that
it has been taken for granted rather more, perhaps, than has been
good for a true appreciation of it. Federalism in Canada will never
be free of disagreement. If it were, our Federation would be in the
final stages of disintegration. For it has been said that a crucial
benefit of federalism is the unlikelihood that the governments of
the constituent parts and the central government will all decide at
the same time to do the same foolish thing to people.
In the last decade or so, many changes have
been made in the practice and operations of Canadian federalism,
from the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans (1966), to new arrangements
for equalization payments (1967), the funding of family allowances
(1973), and Established Program Financing (1977) for health and
education shared-cost programs. These and the hundreds of other
federal-provincial activities and programs, which have been dealt
with at federal-provincial conferences and meetings and which
involve billions of taxpayers' dollars, testify to the considerable
adaptability of the system.
There are, of course, limits to the
capacity to adapt without changing structures. It is probable that,
by reason of certain structural features of our Federation,
intergovernmental relations and negotiations have assumed a larger
role in Canada than may be necessary or wise. Other federations
appear to rely less on this means of achieving a balance between the
central government and the state or provincial governments.
A more active and authoritative expression
of regional views in a second chamber of our federal Parliament,
untrammeled by party discipline and the need to maintain
"confidence" in a government, might produce more effective
adjustment of policies and programs, with less reliance on
federal-provincial negotiations. Provincial participation in
appointments to the ultimate tribunal ruling on problems of
jurisdiction might reduce the tendency to substitute political
contest for judicial interpretation. Some changes of structure are
clearly desirable, many of which involve constitutional change.
These are dealt with in the next Chapter.
The federal
government's perspective
In the light of the preceding sections and
of the principles set out in Chapter lll of this paper, the federal
government believes it would be useful to give its own perspective
on the purposes and objectives of federalism in Canada
The federal and provincial orders of
government are distinguished from one another by the different
purposes they have to serve. They are also distinguished by the
different means and instruments that are available to them under the
Constitution. They nevertheless share a common purpose, each acting
within its own jurisdiction, of serving taxpayers and other
citizens.
The division of authority between the two
orders of government should permit the fulfilment by each government
of its responsibilities in as clear and accountable away as
possible. As a result of the growth of government and of the demands
made on government in recent years, responsibilities and
jurisdictions have come increasingly to overlap. This has made it
more difficult for citizens, and indeed for governments, to know
which government is responsible for dealing with a particular
problem or area of public concern.
The federal government believes that
governments will need to work together to clarify their
responsibilities so that, in turn, they will be able to plan and act
to meet those responsibilities, and so that their electorates will
be better able to judge how well their elected representatives are
serving the public interest. Where the complexity of the situation
is such as to render complete clarification impossible, the two
orders of government will need to have mechanisms which will allow
effective consultation between them. This consultation would be
intended to resolve issues as they arise and to effect the greatest
possible degree of harmonization between federal and provincial
activities.
The federal government believes that to
achieve the common purpose of serving taxpayers, and other citizens,
governments in Canada should be working together toward the
following objectives:
(1) to bring about a less contentious
federal-provincial relationship;
(2) to make the process of consultation
more expeditious and less demanding of time and other resources:
(3) to ensure the greatest degree of
freedom of action for each government to fulfil its constitutional
responsibilities, including access to necessary financial
resources through its own taxation or equalization payments;
(4) to permit greater accountability of
each government to its legislature, and to its electorate;
(5) to enable the intergovernmental
process to be better understood by taxpayers, by citizens and by
those engaged in it;
(6) to eliminate wasteful duplication of
legislation, regulation, policies, programs or services, and
generally to make the effective provision of services by
governments less costly
Proposals for action
The federal government commits itself to
working with the provincial governments toward the achievement of
these objectives. In particular, the federal government proposes:
A. As part of a major effort to improve
intergovernmental understanding:
(1) to take deliberate steps to ensure
that, for its part, the federal government takes fully into
account the constitutional responsibilities and priorities of
provincial governments, by consulting the provinces when preparing
a legislative proposal, formulating a policy, or designing a
program that is in an area of shared jurisdiction or that could
have a significant effect--financial or other--on an area of
provincial responsibility or an activity within that area;
In practice, it will not be possible in
every relevant instance to consult the provinces in a manner that
they would regard as adequate. There will be circumstances, for
example, when legislation or programs will have to be developed
quickly and put in place before such consultation could occur. It is
the government's intention that such instances should be kept to the
absolute minimum. This statement of intent should be regarded as a
standard against which the federal government's action can be judged
by the governments of the provinces and by the public. The meaning
of the term "significant effect" will be established with
practice and experience over time.
(2) to request that the provinces, in the
same spirit, consult the federal government when preparing
legislative proposals, formulating policies, or designing programs
that are in areas of shared jurisdiction or could have a
significant effect-- financial or other-- on an area of federal
responsibility or an activity within that area;
(3) to offer to develop with the
provinces ways to make the federal-provincial consultative process
more expeditious and more effective.
B. As part of a major effort to
eliminate wasteful duplication and to enhance the capacity of
governments to work together:
(1) to clarify with the provinces
existing responsibilities, on a sector-by-sector basis and to the
extent possible, so that governments, legislators, public servants
and, most important of all, the public will have a much clearer
knowledge of where responsibilities lie;
(2) to study jointly with the provinces,
as a matter of high priority, ways in which wasteful duplication
of activities between the two orders of government can be
eliminated or avoided, including the possibility, in appropriate
cases, of providing programs or services through jointly-sponsored
agencies.
Several provincial governments have already
indicated a strong interest in reducing duplication of services and
programs, and have suggested that they would be willing to work with
the federal government to deal with the problem. The government
envisages this most important undertaking as being managed jointly
by the federal and provincial governments, under arrangements which
they would work out together.
The government considers that these
arrangements should provide for participation in the undertaking by
people from the private sector. Some of them would have expert
knowledge on how to eliminate waste and duplication; others might be
representative of those affected by government programs,
particularly where competing government services seem to exist. It
also considers that those who will be studying sectors of government
activity should arrange to hold public hearings, and that full
reports on all the findings that emerge from the study should be
made public once they have been communicated to First Ministers.
The Government of Canada believes that the
federal system, with its capacity for adaptability and renewal, is
the only system which can guarantee to Canadians the benefits of
belonging to the larger entity which is Canada, while fostering the
different vocations of the provinces and regions. The system does
not operate, however, in an automatic fashion. The present state of
federalism in Canada requires careful tending, or some of its
benefits will not be realized
The objectives and proposals for action
which have been set out in this Chapter constitute both a pledge and
an invitation. The federal government pledges to work toward these
objectives and for the improvements in the system which are
envisaged in the proposals for action. It pledges, moreover, its
full cooperation with the governments of the provinces. It extends
to them an invitation to work with the federal government in seeking
to bring the science and practice of governing in Canada to the
highest point that can be achieved, in the interest of taxpayers and
other citizens.
Chapter V - A New Constitution for Canada
... The present Constitution needs a
fundamental recasting. It needs to be rethought and reformulated
in terms that are meaningful to Canadians now. For this reason we
call for a new Constitution: one that is a new whole, even though
it may utilize some of the same parts... But we insist on a new
perspective which will embrace all the constituent parts in a
whole that is at the same time distinctively Canadian and
functionally contemporary... The views expressed to us by very
many Canadians in ail parts of the country, as well as our own
analysis of ideas and events, have convinced us that Canada needs
a new Constitution now. . ."
Final Report of the Special Joint Committee
of the Senate and of the House of Commons on the Constitution of
Canada, 1972.
As we have seen, the renewal of the
Canadian Federation requires that all of us, as Canadians,
vigorously reaffirm our desire to live together, our adhesion to the
values on which the very existence of our country is based, and our
acceptance of the objectives and principles which, more so in the
future than in the past, must inspire the efforts of every one of us
and lend dignity to the actions of our governments. This renewal
also calls for measures to be taken by the federal and provincial
governments without delay to improve the functioning of Canadian
federalism and to reduce the tensions and friction between
governments. All of this makes the need for constitutional renewal
imperative.
Our Constitution is not the abstract
document that some imagine it to be. It is the cornerstone of
Canada's federal and provincial governments and it defines the
powers and responsibilities of both. It enlightens Canadians and
enables them to exercise their democratic rights, by indicating
which order of government they must turn to, in seeking the public
services they need, and to which order they must pay taxes to defray
the cost of those services. It also prescribes how the people in the
various parts of the country are represented in the federal
Parliament and its institutions.
In short, the Constitution describes the
system of government that Canadians freely chose to watch over their
destiny and that of their country. It is therefore the legal
foundation for national unity. Consequently, when we decide, for the
purpose of consolidating Canadian unity, to renew our system of
government, we must also renew our Constitution.
Many Canadians, for example, are no longer
satisfied with the representation of their region in Parliament or
with the division of powers between their governments. But in order
to establish a better system of representation and a better division
of powers we must amend the Constitution. In general, the new spirit
which must motivate Canadians today, the reinforcement of the common
bonds which unite us, and the wider political consensus we need to
forge--all of these must be reflected in a new Constitution.
The government has resolved to provide
Canada with a new Constitution by the end of 1981.
To do this it will use all of the
powers at its disposal and, in doing so, will consult the
governments of the provinces.
It urges the provinces to cooperate
with it in order to renew the constitutional provisions which
cannot be amended without their cooperation.
Deficiencies of the
Constitution
It is certainly no insult to the Fathers of
Confederation to say that after 110 years of use, the system of
government they established in 1867 for the original four provinces
no longer corresponds in many respects with the needs of Canada
today. Our constitutional framework has generally served us well. It
has allowed the Federation to expand and to take its full place in
North America by the admission or formation of six more provinces.
It has promoted the demographic and economic growth, and the social
and cultural development, of all of Canada's regions. This
development has not occurred at the same rate everywhere, and
regional disparities have arisen. But the Constitution of 1867 has
enabled us to contain these disparities and to alleviate the more
serious inequalities created by them, until more permanent solutions
can be found.
We must not, however, be complacent in
taking stock of the deficiencies of the present Constitution; we
must evaluate the seriousness of its flaws and determine what are
the most urgent changes. We have more than enough catalogues to
choose from, since in Canada constitutional analysis and review is a
highly developed science and a widely practised art. The Joint
Report of the Senate and the House of Commons, which was cited at
the beginning of this chapter, heads a long list of documents which
have, in the course of recent years, explored the inadequacies and
deficiencies of our Constitution.
In the government's view, the process of
renewal must remedy the following deficiencies in our constitutional
legislation:
(1) Our written Constitution is made up
in large part of Acts of the British Parliament which we have not
yet succeeded in patriating and modernizing, Acts which
consequently still bear the imprint of a colonial period that has
long since passed.
(2) The provisions of our Constitution
are scattered throughout a large number of different statutes,
many of which, including a number of the most important ones, are
practically unknown to the Canadian public. This is the case with
what is called the Statute of Westminster, which almost 50 years
ago invested Canada with full international sovereignty and
formally sanctioned Canada's accession to independence, except for
the amendment of certain provisions in its Constitution.
(3) The present Constitution contains no
preamble or statement of principles. Its spirit is not described
and its nature and objectives are not specified, making it more
difficult to understand and interpret. Its language is obscure and
anachronistic, its style plodding and uninspiring. It also
contains antiquated provisions, and others which are no longer
compatible with the true spirit of Canadian federalism.
(4) For these reasons our constitutional
enactments are of little educative value. They contain little to
inspire the pride, solidarity, magnanimity and serious commitment
required for the pursuit of a national ideal. This has hampered
the development of a Canadian identity and patriotism.
(5) There is a serious deficiency in the
present Constitution, namely the lack of any declaration of the
basic rights and freedoms of Canadians. Equally serious is the
inadequacy of the language rights guaranteed by the Constitution,
which has jeopardized the progress of the French-speaking people
of Canada, led them to withdraw in spirit into Quebec and added
strength to the separatist movement in that province.
(6) The division of legislative powers
and areas of jurisdiction between the federal Parliament and the
provincial legislatures in the British North America Act of 1867
is neither as precise, as functional nor as explicit as might be
wished.
(7) There is only limited capacity, in
the Upper Chamber of Parliament, for the expression of regional
and provincial concerns. The members of the Canadian Senate are
appointed under the Constitution by the Government of Canada and
no provision is made to ensure that a wide spectrum of views is
brought to bear on the development of national policies.
(8) The status of the Supreme Court is
not set forth in the Constitution. It is defined only by an
ordinary Act of Parliament by which the appointment of judges to
the Supreme Court is left exclusively in the hands of the federal
Executive. This legal status and this appointment procedure are
called publicly into question from time to time, thereby
detracting from the court's standing as the ultimate interpreter
of the Constitution and supreme arbiter when constitutional
differences arise between the two orders of government.
(9) The procedure for the amendment of
the Constitution is not adequately defined in our constitutional
enactments and still requires, for certain matters, the
intervention of the British Parliament.
The new Constitution of Canada must be
a modern document which will overcome the inadequacies and
deficiencies of our Present Constitution.
It must define the form of government
and the political structures chosen freely by all Canadians.
It must command the respect of all
Canadians and provide them with an enlightened basis for
patriotism.
It must reaffirm the independence and
full sovereignty of Canada.
Working toward
constitutional change
The Constitution of Canada has its most
important expression in the British North America Act which was
passed by the Parliament of Great Britain in 1867. There have been
few amendments over the years. The Act stands today but little
changed from the way it was conceived and written over a century
ago. But it has become clear that the Act is not the kind of
constitutional document which can serve as a source of inspiration
to us all. And, after a century, it is no longer an effective guide
to our federal and provincial governments in this modern and
complicated world. An essential part of the renewal of the Canadian
Federation must be the renewal of our Constitution.
During the past 10 years and more, the
government has sought to bring about constitutional changes. The
Constitutional Conferences from 1968 to 1971 were a major investment
of time and energy by all concerned in an effort to reach agreement.
The government put forward a series of White Papers on various
aspects of the Constitution, including the principal publication,
"The Constitution and the People of Canada." This work led
to the development of the Victoria Charter in 1971 which would have
provided important protection for the rights and freedoms of
Canadians, a more secure basis for our Supreme Court, a means of
amending our Constitution here in Canada rather than in Great
Britain, and various other improvements. The Charter was rejected by
the government of Quebec which, while agreeing basically with the
changes proposed, felt strongly that further changes were necessary.
In 1975, the Prime Minister of Canada
invited the provincial Premiers to take part in a further attempt to
bring control over the British North America Act from Great Britain
to Canada, and to agree on a new system for amending the Act, once
it was brought home. The Premiers responded in October,1976, by
suggesting that additional questions be added for discussion, and a
further set of federal proposals was sent to them in January, 1977.
Even as those proposals were being sent, however, it had become
clear that events in Quebec were making the task of constitutional
renewal more important and more urgent than ever.
During the early months of 1977, the
government reached the conclusion that its best course was to
encourage the growing debate among Canadians about national unity,
and that the premature disclosure of its own proposals could have
the effect of choking off discussion. It watched, therefore, with
wholehearted interest the birth and development of many
organizations across Canada devoted to renewal, and to the ideas for
constitutional change which were beginning to be expressed at the
meetings and study sessions which these groups arranged. The
government itself established the Pepin-Robarts Task Force on
Canadian Unity which has been listening for many months to people
from across the country and receiving a wide variety of proposals
for constitutional changes.
The government has felt, however, that it
could not stand idle for too long and make no new contribution to
the great debate now engaged on the future of Canada. Many
individual Canadians feel, rightly, that they have a responsibility
to contribute to the search for a new national understanding. So
also, the government believes that each government in Canada,
provincial or federal, has a responsibility to make its contribution
to the ongoing debate, from which we all hope to distil the
essential wisdom which will guide us in the renewal of our
Federation. That is why the government announced in the Speech from
the Throne, last October, that constitutional proposals would be
brought forward at this session of Parliament, and has been
developing these past months the principles on which these should be
based.
The government sets only two
conditions for the renewal of the Constitution.
The first is that Canada continue to
be a genuine Federation, that is, a state in which the
Constitution establishes a federal Parliament with real powers
which apply to all parts of the country, and provincial
legislatures with equally real powers within their respective
territories.
The second is that a Charter of basic
rights and freedoms be included in the new Constitution and that
it apply equally to both orders of government.
Major premises
guiding renewal
The third chapter of this document sets out
the principles which the government believes must be given full
weight in the renewal of the Federation. These same principles must
also become the foundation for any renewal of the Constitution if
that new document is to be a reflection of Canadian aspirations.
The renewed Constitution should contain a Statement
of Aims which would reflect the understanding of what Canada
means to all of us -- native peoples, members of our two great
linguistic communities, and people of many lands and cultures who
have chosen to make Canada their home. The government will be
putting forward a Statement in the hope that it may assist the
search, by the people and by governments, for those ideal words
which will best express what is in our hearts
If the principles referred to above hold
true, then it is also essential that the new Constitution provide
protection for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizen,
including language rights. The government will be putting forward
its proposals for a Charter of rights and Freedoms. The
Charter would embrace not only the major political and legal rights
and freedoms, many of which have already been recognized in various
federal and provincial statutes, but would establish new rights for
Canadian citizens to live and work wherever they wish in Canada, and
would provide new protection for minority language rights. The
government has expressed on many occasions its profound conviction
that the citizens of Canada, whether they speak English or French,
should be able, in those situations where numbers warrant, to
receive basic government services and schooling for their children
in their language. The Charter would be intended to provide a
permanent constitutional guarantee that fair and reasonable
treatment will always prevail.
The government recognizes that the
inclusion of such a Charter of Rights and Freedoms in a new
Constitution would leave it thereafter with less power to influence
the life of the citizen. It is fully prepared to see its power
limited and would propose to act itself to impose such a limitation.
It hopes that it will be joined in this action by the governments of
the provinces for the sake of all the people of Canada.
By those same principles it is essential
that the distribution of legislative powers under any renewal
of the Constitution, be so arranged as to ensure the most effective
functioning of the federal and provincial governments in the service
of the people. There are powers which must be exercised effectively
by the Government of Canada, if the full benefits of the Federation
are to be enjoyed by everyone. Others must be exercised by
provincial governments, if the people of each province are to have
the greatest opportunity to pursue their particular aspirations and
lifestyles.
By any comparison with other federations,
Canada would appear to be one of the most decentralized. A solution
to Canadian problems will not be found, therefore, in any massive
shift of powers from the federal government to the provinces. The
solution is more likely to be found in a judicious combination of
changes. The experience of the last 110 years has shown that the
federal Parliament has some powers which are not essential to ensure
the development and proper working of the Federation as a whole, or
which the provincial legislatures could use in a way that is better
suited to the diversity of regional needs and aspirations.
Conversely, the provincial legislatures have some powers which they
cannot exercise effectively.
In other cases, legislative areas which are
of prime importance today, but are not covered by the sections of
the British North America Act of 1867 bearing on the division of
powers, have had to be dealt with by the courts, because no
provision existed whereby governments could determine how best these
legislative areas could be allocated.
Related to this process by which powers are
attributed, but in a special way, is the strong movement toward
urbanization of Canada's population. A largely rural country has
become heavily urban: several cities now exceed the populations of a
number of provinces. Those changes have been met only partially by
adjustments in practice, which have in turn created their own
problems. This new reality will require attention. It may be one of
several areas where legal interpretations have placed too much
restriction on the powers of one order of government in order to
prevent the loss of powers of the other.
Lastly, some powers of the federal
Parliament, such as the spending power, have a very broad scope and
could be more carefully delineated in order to better ensure the
internal sovereignty of the two orders of government.
We have been able to adapt, but often with
considerable difficulty, to these various deficiencies of our
constitutional enactments. Having undertaken to draw up a new
Constitution, we must modernize and make more effective the division
of powers. It would be vain, however, to seek to divide these powers
into watertight compartments. The complexity of government functions
is such, nowadays, that even in the case of those compartments
considered the most "exclusive" to one order of government
or the other, both have had to act in concert and will have to do so
even more in future.
It is, however, possible to clarify the
division of powers, so that citizens will know better which order of
government is responsible for what, without imprisoning either order
in a constitutional straitjacket. And given this possibility,
governments will have to strive to eliminate needless overlapping
and duplication. Certain exchanges of powers between governments
could be considered, in order to allow each order of government to
legislate more coherently in certain sectors. The government is also
prepared to examine with the provinces the extension of concurrent
jurisdictions and the recognition that one order of government or
the other has primary jurisdiction in specific areas.
In any case, we will have to attach much
greater importance than was required, in the circumstances of the
Fathers of Confederation in 1867, to how the respective powers of
the two orders of government should fit together. It is not only the
framework of the division of powers that must be examined and
adapted to the needs of the hour, but also the joints and hinges
that ensure the interlocking of federal and provincial powers. The
quality of this interlocking will have a great influence on the
effectiveness of government activity and the degree of harmony in
federal-provincial relations.
The federal government is prepared to
examine these matters with the provincial governments, in depth and
before the people of Canada, so that the best possible solutions can
be worked out to serve the interests of the citizen.
There are features of our present
Constitution, including the "unwritten" part of it, which
the government feels should be studied. At present, there are a
number of important principles and institutions of our system of
government that are touched on only very indirectly, or not at all,
in our written Constitution. Some of these are fundamental to the
operation of the Canadian Federation. Some have a functional, others
a symbolic significance. It seems appropriate that our new
Constitution should have something to say about such principles and
institutions, so as to fully reflect our shared aspirations. The
government will therefore be putting forward proposals regarding
constitutional provisions for certain institutions of the
executive of our central government.
There is a further institution of our
federal system in need of major change. The Canadian Senate does not
now serve the need of the Federation for a House where the full
range and depth of our regional problems, and the effect of national
policies on those problems, can be discussed with independence and
authority. The House of Commons cannot fully serve this function, as
party discipline under the Parliamentary system requires that a
national viewpoint be adopted. The Senate, appointed as it now is
entirely by the federal government, has not been able to provide
that recognized forum for the achievement of genuine understanding
of the sometimes conflicting natures of our national and regional
objectives--and for the search for solutions.
The government believes that to meet these
needs a new legislative body, the House of the Federation, should
be provided for in our Constitution as a replacement for the Senate.
Essential features of the new House would be the recognition of a
role for the provinces in the selection of its members, and
provision for proportionately greater representation to the eastern
and western parts of the country, with substantial adjustment to
ensure adequate representation for western Canada which, until now,
has not received a share commensurate with its growing importance.
Our Supreme Court is now based on a
law passed by Parliament which could be changed at any time. The
Court, as a pillar of our whole system, should be provided for in
the Constitution, and not depend for its essential position on the
actions of any Parliament or legislature. As it is called upon to
judge the powers under the Constitution of both the federal and
provincial governments, it would seem only appropriate that the
latter should have a voice when appointments to the Court are made
by the Government of Canada.
To complete the renewal of our
Constitution, two further things will be required: an Amending
Procedure, and the Patriation of the Constitution. It is
essential that agreement be reached at an early point on a procedure
for changing those parts of our Constitution that cannot now be
amended by either the Parliament of Canada or the legislatures of
the provinces. We will have to go to London for action by the
British Parliament to make many of the changes that will emerge from
the work of renewal. This is demeaning for an independent country,
but a legal necessity since we have never remedied the omission in
the legislation of 1867 to provide a complete method of amending the
British North America Act in Canada. A method by which all types of
amendments could be made in Canada was agreed upon at the Victoria
Conference in 1971 but the Charter that emerged was not, in the end,
accepted by Quebec or by Saskatchewan. It is now imperative that we
find a means by which all change in our Constitution can in future
be made in Canada.
Patriation of the Constitution will be the
result of the final action by the Parliament of Great Britain in
respect of Canada. That action will be to terminate the British
Parliament's power to legislate with respect to our Constitution --
a power, unwanted by Britain, which has endured solely because of
our own failure to agree on a complete method of amendment. When we
have reached such agreement we can, at last, encompass the total
transfer of our Constitution to this country. After more than a
century as a nation, we shall have "patriated" our
Constitution. We shall have reached the end of more than 50 years of
effort to achieve this goal.
From these many considerations, the
government has concluded that the new Constitution should meet these
fundamental requirements:
The new Constitution of Canada should
outline the basic principles and objectives of the Federation and
establish all of its essential institutions.
It should contain a charter of
fundamental rights and freedoms and a statement of language
rights.
It should confirm the internal
sovereignty of the two orders of government and divide the
legislative powers and jurisdictions between them in as precise
and functional a manner as possible.
It should make new provisions for
certain institutions of the executive of our central government.
It should ensure more effective
regional representation within federal institutions, particularly
through the establishment of a new House of the Federation.
It should enhance the status of the
Supreme Court and ensure provincial participation in the choice of
judges.
It should define the process for
constitutional amendment.
It should be brought home to Canada.
The process and
timing of change
These, then, are some of the major areas of
change which the government believes must now be examined-- by
governments and the people. A question of no small importance is how
best to proceed with this task, in a way that will be most likely to
lead to a successful conclusion. Canadians and their governments
have been talking about constitutional reform for a half century or
more, and much energy has been devoted to the subject, without
success. The process which is begun now must be capable of inspiring
confidence that success is possible within a reasonable period of
time.
In examining ways of meeting this
objective, the government has been mindful of the considerable
latitude which is given to Parliament by the present Constitution to
make changes in those parts which pertain to our central
institutions of government, including the Senate and the Supreme
Court. It is also quite possible for Parliament to include, along
with such changes, provisions in a renewed Constitution which would
set out a Statement of Aims and a Charter of Rights and Freedoms to
which Parliament would subscribe, and which would be applicable to
all activities of Parliament and the federal government thereafter.
Provision could be made for provincial governments to join in
supporting the Aims and the Charter, at once or when they saw fit.
The government believes that these matters.
on which there is full capacity for Parliament to act, should
constitute Phase I of constitutional renewal. The government
pledges itself to consult with the provincial governments respecting
all aspects of Phase 1, and to seek to work out proposals for action
by Parliament which would have maximum support from the governments
of the provinces. The government pledges itself to seek passage of
such constitutional legislation before July 1,1979. It is expected
that the questions of an amending formula and of patriation would be
considered during these consultations. If agreement could be
reached, these matters could then be dealt with as soon as possible,
rather than await Phase ll.
A Constitutional Conference is already
contemplated for the autumn, and there should be ample opportunity,
between now and then, for public consideration to be given to the
kinds of proposals which the federal government will be bringing
forward. Between that Conference and the goal of legislation by July
1, 1979, there should be sufficient time for further
federal-provincial discussions, public debate and full consideration
in Parliament.
Phase II of constitutional renewal
would cover all those sections of the Constitution on which the
federal government and the provinces must discuss together what
should be done. The review of the way in which legislative powers
are assigned to the federal and provincial governments would be the
major part of that work. The task is large and difficult, covering
as it does the long lists of activities in which governments at
every level are engaged. It will involve an examination of what is
done now, of what problems exist, and of how to apportion the tasks
to governments so that our federal system may function better and
the people be better served.
Previous constitutional work has hardly
touched in recent years upon the distribution of legislative powers,
but we have had sufficient experience to know that a great deal of
effort will be involved. If that effort is put forward by
governments with determination, we believe it should be possible to
work out proposals for change so that a new and complete Canadian
Constitution could be brought into being by July 1, 1981. We will
celebrate that year the 50th anniversary of Canada's accession,
through the Statute of Westminster, to full independence and
international sovereignty. It would be singularly appropriate if we
could celebrate that anniversary with the proclamation of our new
Constitution. The Government of Canada, for its part, is prepared to
devote all the energy that will be needed for the task, and pledges
its willingness to work with the governments of the provinces until
the renewal of the Constitution and of our Federation is complete.
The process of constitutional renewal
should encourage full discussion among the people of Canada, in
Parliament and the legislatures, and among governments, so that
all can make their contribution.
Given the need for renewal, the
process should be designed to achieve within a reasonable period
of time the changes which are desired.
Phase I of the process should cover
those substantial matters upon which Parliament can legislate on
its own authority; this phase should be completed and legislation
passed by July 1, 1979.
Phase II of the process should cover
those matters which require joint action by federal and provincial
authorities; the goal should be to complete that phase and to have
a new constitutional document for Canada by July 1, 1981.
The government will soon be informing
Parliament and all Canadians of the details of its proposals for
change under Phase I of constitutional renewal. There is no
expectation that these proposals would be passed by Parliament
without change. Indeed, the government would not be seeking passage
of legislation at this session of Parliament. Rather, it would be
introducing legislation so as to provide a basis for thorough
discussion in Parliament, with provincial governments and among the
public. The final version of the proposals on Phase 1, which would
result from this process of debate and consultation, should provide
an important and urgent first step towards constitutional renewal.
Conclusion
". . . But I have fought the
battle of Confederation, the battle of union, the battle of the
Dominion of Canada. l throw myself upon this House; I throw myself
upon this country; I throw myself upon posterity; and I believe
that --I know that, notwithstanding the many failings in my life,
l shall have the voice of this country, and this House, rallying
around me."
John A. Macdonald
"If there is anything to which I
have devoted my political life, it is to try to promote unity,
harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country. My
friends can desert me they can remove their confidence from me,
they can withdraw the trust they have placed in my hands; but
never shall I deviate from that line of policy."
Wilfrid Laurier
In the few lines above, Sir John A.
Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier, each in his way, told something
of the constant strain of the search for unity, and of their deep
resolve to continue the search. They, and countless others, gave
themselves to the task so that we today are able to enjoy the
benefits of Canada.
Nothing worth having in this life comes
easily. The creation and development of Canada has been no
exception. So many people of differing cultures and languages and
local traditions, living on a land which beggars the imagination by
its extent and its variety! So many tendencies, all so reasonable,
to go our different ways! Yet, so much to be gained by building one
"house" for all, with many "mansions" to serve
our special differences! So much to be gained by understanding and
respecting each other's ways, while sharing each other's burdens, in
this Canada of ours!
It is clear that we have not yet found that
ideal balance that will make it possible for all Canadians to enjoy
full pride and satisfaction in belonging and contributing to the
larger whole, while continuing to enjoy the fulfilment which comes
from their belonging to the French or the English-speaking
communities, or to particular groups, provinces or regions of
Canada. We are, however, now engaged in the search for that balance,
in the search for renewal, more intensively than in all our history.
Canadians can be confident that their search will be successful.
In this paper, the government has suggested
a number of principles for renewal which it believes may serve as
helpful guideposts in the search. It has suggested ways in which we
can affirm our Canadian identity. It has proposed a full
re-examination of the practical workings of the federal system, so
that misunderstanding and friction between governments and regions
can be reduced, so that unnecessary duplication and cost in
government can be eliminated, and so that the citizens can be better
served. It has proposed a timing for the renewal of the Constitution
and a process by which it can be achieved with no undue delay.
From the discussion now engaged, the
government is convinced, will come a new national spirit among
Canadians to work for the creation of a richer life together.
Governments in Canada will be inspired by that same spirit to
cooperate with each other for the common good. Symbolic of that
spirit and serving as an inspiration and guide to future generations
will be the new Constitution for Canada, which can be brought into
being within a few short years by the goodwill and dedication of the
people, and of the governments they elect.
That is why the government will pursue with
the utmost resolution the process of renewal which it is undertaking
today.
That is why it urges all the provinces to
cooperate in this renewal
That is why it urges all Canadians to
support the efforts of their governments in consolidating national
unity and thus ensure the stability and prosperity of our Canadian
Federation.
|