Québec's Positions on Constitutional and Intergovernmental Issues From

Menu Contenu Ministère du Conseil exécutif Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes Home > Institutional and constitutional documents > Québec's Positions on Constitutional and Affaires intergouvernementales Intergovernmental Issues from 1936 to March 2001 canadiennes

The Minister responsible Québec's Positions on Constitutional and The Secrétariat Intergovernmental Issues from 1936 to March 2001 Press Centre

Interprovincial trade agreements Québec's offices in Canada ● Table of contents Intergovernmental meetings ● Description of the method used in this document Council of the federation Intergovernmental agreements ● Index (PDF) Francophonie and cooperation Institutional and constitutional issues

Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes Last update : December 6, 2004 875, Grande Allée Est - 2e étage - Québec (Qc) G1R 4Y8 - (418) 643-4011 Online as of : September 3, 2003

Menu Contenu Ministère du Conseil exécutif Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes Home > Institutionnal and constitutionnal issues > Québec's Positions on Constitutional and Affaires intergouvernementales Intergovernmental Issues from 1936 to March 2001 > Table of contents canadiennes

The Minister responsible Table of contents of the Québec's Positions on The Secrétariat Constitutional and Intergovernmental Issues from 1936 to Press Centre March 2001 Interprovincial trade agreements Québec's offices in Canada Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4 Intergovernmental meetings Part 1 : Positions of Québec Council of the federation

Intergovernmental agreements First Government of Maurice Duplessis Francophonie and cooperation (August 26, 1936 to October 25, 1939) Institutional and constitutional issues

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers General principles

● Intergovernmental policy Conducting intergovernmental relations

Government of Adélard Godbout (November 8, 1939 to August 8, 1944)

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Unilateral powers

● Intergovernmental policy Financial aspects of federalism

Second Government of Maurice Duplessis (August 30, 1944 to September 7, 1959)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Institutions ● Intergovernmental policy Financial aspects of federalism

Government of Paul Sauvé (September 11, 1959 to January 2, 1960)

● Distribution of powers Sectorial jurisdictions

● Intergovernmental policy Financial aspects of federalism

Government of Jean Lesage (July 5, 1960 to June 5, 1966)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Language rights

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism

Government of Daniel Johnson, Sr. (June 16, 1966 to September 26, 1968)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy Financial aspects of federalism

Government of Jean-Jacques Bertrand (October 2, 1968 to April 29, 1970) ● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism

First Government of Robert Bourassa (May 12, 1970 to November 15, 1976)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism

Government of René Lévesque (pre-referendum period, November 25, 1976 to May 20, 1980)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Financial aspects of federalism b) Aboriginal Nations c) French-Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada

Government of René Lévesque (post-referendum period, May 21, 1980 to May 1985)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism c) Aboriginal Nations

Governments of René Lévesque and Pierre Marc Johnson (May to December 2, 1985)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) Sectorial jurisdictions b) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) French-Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada c) Trade

Second Government of Robert Bourassa (period preceding the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, December 12, 1985 to June 21, 1990)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) Sectorial jurisdictions b) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism c) Aboriginal Nations d) French-Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada e) Trade

Second government of Robert Bourassa (period following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, June 22, 1990 to January 11, 1994)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Individual and language rights

● Institutions

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism c) Aboriginal Nations d) French-Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada e) Trade

Government of Daniel Johnson, Jr. (January 11, 1994 to September 26, 1994)

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Intergovernmental policy a) Financial aspects of federalism b) Trade Government of Jacques Parizeau (September 26, 1994 to January 29, 1996)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Distribution of powers a) Sectorial jurisdictions b) Unilateral powers

● Language rights

● Intergovernmental policy a) Conducting intergovernmental relations b) Financial aspects of federalism c) Aboriginal Nations d) French-Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada e) Trade f) Transportation

Government of Lucien Bouchard (January 29, 1996 to March 8, 2001)

● Status of Québec

● Constitutional reform process

● Constitutional amending procedure

● Distribution of powers a) General principles b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) Unilateral powers

● Language rights

● Institutions

Part 2 : Speeches

Adélard Godbout : Declaration during the debate on the Act respecting an Agreement between the Governments of the Dominion and of the Province of Québec for the suspension of certain taxes during the war, Québec Legislative Assembly, April 1942 Maurice Duplessis : Opening statement before the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10 to 12, 1950 (extract)

Maurice Duplessis : Declaration made upon the first reading of Bill 43 on the implementation of a provincial income tax, Québec Legislative Assembly, January 14, 1954 (extract)

Jean Lesage : Statement on shared-cost programs, Federal-Provincial Conference, Québec, March 31, 1964 (extract)

Jean Lesage : Selected extracts from the book Un Québec fort dans une nouvelle Confédération, June 1965

Paul Gérin-Lajoie: Speech to the Members of the Montréal Consular Corps, Montréal, April 12, 1965

Daniel Johnson père : Opening statement given at the first meeting of the Constitutional Conference held in Ottawa, February 5, 1968

Jean-Jacques Bertrand : Opening statement given at the second meeting of the Constitutional Conference held in Ottawa, February 10, 1969 (extract)

Robert Bourassa : Statement on the Victoria Constitutional Charter, Québec National Assembly, June 23, 1971

René Lévesque : Statement on the referendum question, Québec National Assembly, December 20, 1979

René Lévesque : Statement made at the Meeting of the First Ministers in Ottawa from June 8 to 13, 1980, June 9, 1980

René Lévesque : Declaration at the Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers on the Constitution, held in Ottawa, November 5, 1981

Gil Rémillard : Speech given at the Symposium on “Rebuilding the Relationship: Québec and its Confederation Partners,” Mont-Gabriel, May 9, 1986

Robert Bourassa : Speech upon the tabling of the motion proposing that the Québec National Assembly authorize the amendment of the Canadian Constitution in compliance with the Meech Lake Accord, June 18, 1987

Claude Ryan : Reconciliation: A Québec View. Speech given at a seminar on language rights and policies, Kingston, December 8, 1989 (extract)

Robert Bourassa : Speech delivered at the Québec National Assembly upon the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord, June 22, 1990

Robert Bourassa : Message to the people of Québec following the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, June 23, 1990

Gil Rémillard : Speech at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting, Whistler, February 24, 1992

Jacques Parizeau : Message to the Nation upon the issuing of the referendum briefs, Québec, October 1, 1995

Lucien Bouchard : Statement following the Meeting of the First Ministers in Calgary, Québec, September 16, 1997

Jacques Brassard : Ministerial statement on the territorial integrity of Québec, Québec National Assembly, November 12, 1997

Lucien Bouchard : Preliminary statement the day following the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal government’s Reference concerning Québec’s accession to sovereignty, Québec, August 21, 1998

Joseph Facal : Who fears Quebecers’ Democratic Determination? Brief presented before the Legislative Committee of the House of Commons entrusted with reviewing Bill C-20 (An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference), Ottawa, February 24, 2000

Joseph Facal : Globalization, the Federative Deficit and the Case of Québec. Speech delivered on the Occasion of the XVIIIth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Musée du Québec, August 3, 2000

Lucien Bouchard : Speech presented before the Québec National Assembly upon the passage of Bill 99, An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, December 7, 2000

Part 3 : Documents

Document 1 Correspondence between W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, and Adélard Godbout, Prime Minister of Québec, regarding the Constitutional amendment on unemployment insurance, 1940

Document 2 The 1942 Tax Rental Agreement between the governments of Québec and Canada

Document 3 Preliminary brief on the Constitution presented by the Québec government at the Federal-Provincial Conference held in Ottawa from January 10 to 12, 1950 (as reproduced in the proceedings of the Conference) Document 4 Documents on the Constitutional amendment, 1951 (pensions for the aged and the blind): An Act to improve pensions for the aged and the blind (Assented to March 7, 1951), a letter from Maurice Duplessis, Prime Minister of Québec, April 18, 1951 and a telegram from the federal Minister of Justice, Stuart S. Garson, May 4, 1951 (correspondence taken from the Debates of the House of Commons)

Document 5 An Act to institute a royal commission of inquiry on constitutional problems (Assented to February 12, 1953)

Document 6 Resolution of the Québec Legislative Assembly authorizing the 1960 Constitutional amendment (compulsory retirement of superior court judges upon reaching the age of seventy-five), January 21, 1960

Document 7 Resolution of the Québec Legislative Assembly authorizing the 1964 Constitutional amendment (old-age pensions and supplementary benefits) June 15, 1964

Document 8 Correspondence from January to February 1966 between the Prime Minister of Québec, Jean Lesage, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, regarding the Fulton-Favreau Formula

Document 9 Statement by the Prime Minister of Québec, M. Robert Bourassa, as regards the Victoria Constitutional Charter, Québec, June 23, 1971 (communiqué)

Document 10 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the right of Quebecers to decide on their constitutional future, May 4, 1978

Document 11 Québec-Canada: A New Deal. The Québec Government Proposal for a New Partnership Between Equals: Sovereignty-Association, 1979 (extract)

Document 12 The 1980 referendum question and an extract of the Official Report of the Directeur général des élections (results)

Document 13 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution, November 21, 1980

Document 14 Constitutional Accord, Canadian Patriation Plan, April 16, 1981 (accord signed by the provinces, except Ontario and New Brunswick)

Document 15 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution, October 2, 1981

Document 16 Constitutional Accord of November 5, 1981, concluded without the participation of Québec Document 17 Order-in-Council No. 3214-81 regarding Québec’s opposition to the project for patriating and amending the Canadian Constitution, November 25, 1981

Document 18 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the conditions without which Québec cannot accept the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, December 1, 1981

Document 19 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated March 20, 1985 on the recognition of existing aboriginal rights and the resolution dated May 30, 1989 recognizing the existence of the Maliseet Nation

Document 20 Draft Agreement on the Constitution, Proposals by the government of Québec, May 1985, and the correspondence between Messrs. René Lévesque, Prime Minister of Québec, and Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, regarding these proposals

Document 21 Agreement between the government of Québec and the government of Canada pertaining to the Francophone Summit on November 7, 1985

Document 22 The 1987 Constitutional Accord, June 3, 1987 (“The Meech Lake Accord”)

Document 23 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly to authorize an amendment to the Canadian Constitution in accordance with the Meech Lake Accord, June 23, 1987

Document 24 An Act to establish the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Québec (Assented to September 4, 1990)

Document 25 An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec (As assented to on June 20, 1991)

Document 26 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly asking the federal government to abide by the process established in Bill 150, November 27, 1991

Document 27 Consensus Report on the Constitution: Final Text, Charlottetown, August 28, 1992, (Charlottetown Accord)

Document 28 An Act to amend the Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec (Assented to September 8, 1992)

Document 29 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the 1992 referendum question and an extract of the Official Report of the Directeur général des élections (results)

Document 30 Bill 1, entitled An Act respecting the future of Québec, 1995

Document 31 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the 1995 referendum question and an extract of the Official Report of the Directeur général des élections (results)

Document 32 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the right of Quebecers to define their political status, May 1996

Document 33 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly authorizing the amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, April 15, 1997

Document 34 Decision by the Conseil des ministres no. 97-092 on the fifteenth anniversary of the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 1982, April 16, 1997

Document 35 Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 21, 1997 on the October 30, 1995 referendum and the Referendum Act

Document 36 The Calgary Declaration (declaration of the provinces and territories except Québec), September 14, 1997

Document 37 Guidelines from the government of Québec regarding Canadian intergovernmental relations, December 4, 1997

Document 38 The Social Union Framework Agreement, February 4, 1999, that Québec did not sign

Document 39 Declaration of the Gouvernement du Québec respecting Québec’s participation in international forums dealing with education, language, culture and identity, March 24, 1999

Document 40 An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State (Assented to December 13, 2000)

Part 4 : Timetable

Document

Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes Last Update : December 6, 2004 875, Grande Allée Est - 2e étage - Québec (Qc) G1R 4Y8 - (418) 643-4011 Mise en ligne : December 2, 2004

The Minister responsible Description of the method used in this document The Secrétariat Press Centre This document describes and lists the positions and recommendations adopted or formulated by successive Québec governments concerning Québec’s status and Interprovincial trade agreements constitutional powers. It updates the study entitled Québec’s Traditional Constitutional Québec's offices in Canada Positions (1936-1990) that was published by the Secrétariat aux affaires Intergovernmental meetings intergouvernementales canadiennes, which then expanded the scope of a study made in 1978 by the ministère des Affaires intergouvernementales du Québec on Québec’s Council of the federation positions regarding the distribution of powers. In addition to document updating, the Intergovernmental agreements recent version offers three new parts made up respectively of speeches, documents Francophonie and cooperation and a timetable of events. Institutional and constitutional issues The study now covers a period of 64 years, i.e. from August 26, 1936 when the first government of Maurice Duplessis was sworn in, until March 8, 2001, the date when Lucien Bouchard’s government ended. It makes no claim to be exhaustive. Furthermore, since the source of each government position has been indexed, the reader can procure an overview not only regarding the nature of these positions, but also their scope, consistency and the issues at stake.

Entitled “Positions of Québec,” the first part of the document presents the positions and claims of successive Québec governments in chronological order. The drafting of this part required research into various government sources such as supporting documents, accounts of intergovernmental meetings, communiqués, white papers and legislative discourses.

The classification adopted in the 1991 document was kept intact yet subject to some changes involving a new heading added to the six preceding ones, among other changes.

Bearing the title “Status of Québec,” the first heading under part 1 of the document reviews government statements regarding the place that Québec should occupy within the federalist context of Canada, as well as statements dealing with Québec’s accession to sovereignty. This heading especially delves into the fundamental interpretations that Québec governments have given to the Constitution Act, 1867, and to issues relevant to the process by which Québec’s political status is determined.

The second heading addresses the constitutional reform process. It includes statements pertaining to constitutional policies of various governments, as well as their positions as regards major milestones in the evolution of constitutional affairs as seen from a Québec perspective.

The third heading looks into positions relating to the constitutional amending procedure.

The fourth heading presents positions taken by Québec regarding the distribution of powers. It is divided into three sections: general principles, sectorial jurisdictions, and unilateral powers. The first section covers the principles, criteria and objectives that governments have invoked with regard to the general issue of how powers are distributed. It also includes statements describing the manner in which governments have viewed the interplay of powers. The second section inventories the positions that governments have taken either to affirm and define their jurisdiction over a particular sector of activities, or to claim new ones. Unilateral powers encompass spending, reserve, disallowance, declaratory, residuary and exceptional provisional powers.

The fifth heading, “Individual and language rights,” raises the positions taken with regard to such rights within the context of Canadian constitutional reform and within various institutional contexts characteristic of Québec.

The sixth heading reviews Canadian federal institutions, such as the Supreme Court of Canada, the Senate, FederalProvincial Conferences and the office of the Lieutenant Governor.

The seventh and last heading “Intergovernmental policy,” is broader and subdivides into several sections to facilitate consultation. The section on “Conducting intergovernmental relations” includes statements on intergovernmental relation policies set forth by various governments. The section on “Financial aspects of federalism” is a look at various items such as financial autonomy, shared-cost agreements, intergovernmental financial transfers and equity in federal spending. Finally, the remaining sections integrate the positions of principle on certain major intergovernmental issues, especially relations with Aboriginal Nations, the French-Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada, internal and international trade. Some government positions belonging to one and the same period could have been reported under several headings used in part 1. To avoid multiple repetitions, references were inserted into the text to indicate positions or declarations that, despite their integration under one heading, are also relevant to other headings. As such, for each chronological subdivision, the reader may procure a broad vision of the field covered by each of the headings. Moreover, the index makes it possible to find positions for the entire period covered by the document based upon specific themes.

In part 1, the chronological subdivisions generally correspond to the succession of governments. Nonetheless, the period covering the Lévesque government (including that of Pierre Marc Johnson) and Robert Bourassa’s second government was divided on the basis of major events related to the question of Québec’s political status, which wielded influence over the constitutional and intergovernmental policies of those governments.

The second part of the document offers a selection of speeches delivered by the prime ministers and ministers of the Québec government. These speeches are reproduced either integrally or from extensive extracts. They are associated with historic circumstances or they rest upon fundamental issues in the constitutional and intergovernmental domain.

The third part provides a selection of documents linked to Québec’s evolution and its positions in constitutional matters, as well as more generally in intergovernmental relations. It also includes Canadian framework texts that Québec did not sign (The Constitutional Agreement, November 5, 1981, which in turn led to the adopting of the Constitutional Act, 1982, without Québec’s consent; the Calgary Declaration; and the Social Union Framework Agreement, February 4, 1999, that Québec did not sign). Finally, the last part of the document includes a short timetable. This is a reference tool intended to facilitate the forming of an historical perspective based on positions, speeches and documents incorporated in this study.

Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes Last update : December 6, 2004 875, Grande Allée Est - 2e étage - Québec (Qc) G1R 4Y8 - (418) 643-4011 Online as of : December 6, 2004

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

FIRST GOVERNMENT OF powers not ceded, their political entity MAURICE DUPLESSIS and special constitution. They there- (AUGUST 26, 1936 TO OCTOBER 25, 1939) fore remained, in their own sphere, sovereign states. The powers and attributes of the provinces do not flow from the central government; on the contrary, the central government was born of the common will of the provinces.2 3. The centralization that some circles averse to provincial rights seem to want is a national and social evil [...]. The country’s prosperity does not depend on greater centralization of legislative Source: Archives nationales du Québec Roger Bédard powers. On the contrary, the closer the ••• Constitutional amending procedure legislature’s contact with the communi- 1. The federal pact, by participating in ties for which it legislates, the greater the nature of conventions, can neither the likelihood that the legislation will 3 be amended nor modified without the be truly productive. agreement of all the parties, i.e. of all •••Intergovernmental policy the provinces.1 Conducting intergovernmental relations ••• Distribution of powers 4. The province of Québec is ready to General principles cooperate closely in establishing an 2. The provinces, to give birth to the fed- equitable and effective unemployment eration, agreed to transfer to the federal insurance system that is national in entity a portion of their powers, but scope, but does not encroach on pro- retained, apart from the legislative vincial rights and autonomy.4

1. Brief submitted by the Québec government, public hearings of the Royal Commission on Dominion-Provincial Relations, May 12, 1938, p. 4 (quotation). When a paragraph reproduces a statement in full, it is indicated by the expression “quotation”. Otherwise, the position expressed by the government is paraphrased as faithfully as possible. Translator’s note: in some cases, the quotations originate from existing texts in English or were translated previously for use in the volume: Québec’s Traditional Constitutional Positions 1936-1990; all other quotations have been translated to update the current publication. Only the latter bear the usual indication: [Translation]. 2. Ibid., p. 4 (quotation). 3. Ibid., p. 5 (quotation). 4. Letter from Maurice Duplessis to W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, December 30, 1937 (quotation).

16 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF held since 1939, to restore to the prov- ADÉLARD GODBOUT inces the prerogatives many of them (NOVEMBER 8, 1939 TO AUGUST 8, 1944) have yielded, but also to revise the text and spirit of the British North America Act, to specify the powers of the provincial governments in certain matters and increase their powers in certain bec é others.7 b) Unilateral powers 8. If there exists in any part of the country a situation that could compromise the effectiveness of Canada’s war effort, no province of the Dominion nor any group of its population would deny the Source: Archives nationales du Qu federal government the right and duty ••• Distribution of powers to take the measures necessary to rem- a) General principles edy it. But exceptional measures should be used to deal with an exceptional 5. It is essential to Canadian unity and situation.8 to Canada’s progress that provincial rights be rigorously respected. Any ••• Intergovernmental policy encroachment on these rights would Financial aspects of federalism necessarily weaken Confederation.5 9. Under the Tax Rental Agreement 1942, 6. If Canada is to become a powerful the government of Québec does not nation, it will be because of the strength cede the right to tax, but only tempora- and well being of each province of the rily suspends the levying of two taxes. Dominion. We will never succeed in Ottawa will collect these taxes in building a great nation if our prov- return for a compensation favourable inces do not have sufficient freedom to Québec. The government of Québec of action and responsibilities, elements can put an end to this agreement with of progress that are so necessary in one month’s notice whereas the federal 6 public affairs. government can put an end to it only 7. Québec considers that after the war, it one year after the end of the war.9 The will be necessary and even imperative preamble of the Agreement has the fol- not only to deprive the federal govern- lowing recital: “Whereas the Province ment of the exceptional powers it has shall not, by agreeing, as hereinafter

5. Declaration by Adélard Godbout, Dominion-Provincial Conference, January 15, 1941, p. 85 (quotation), King's Printer, 1941. 6. Declaration by Adélard Godbout, Dominion-Provincial Conference, January 14, 1941, p. 18 (quotation), King's Printer, 1941. 7. Declaration by Adélard Godbout in 1944, taken from Claude Morin, Le combat québécois, Les Éditions du Boréal express, 1973, p. 68 (quotation). 8. Opening statement by Adélard Godbout, Dominion-Provincial Conference, January 14, 1941, p. 18 (quotation), King's Printer, 1941. 9. Declaration by Adélard Godbout before the Québec Legislative Assembly, April 1942, reproduced in Réal Bélanger et al., Les grands débats parlementaires, Sainte-Foy, Les Presses de l'Université Laval, 1994, p. 167 (See part 2 of this document). The temporary nature of the suspension of the provincial tax was also reasserted by Alélard Godbout in a letter dated June 9, 1942 addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada, W. L. MacKenzie King.

17 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

provided, to desist from imposing Province under the provisions of The certain taxes during the terms of this British North America Act, 1867, or agreement, be deemed to have surren- any subsequent Act of the Parliament dered, abandoned or given over to the of the United Kingdom, or to have oth- Dominion any of the powers, rights, erwise impaired any of such powers, privileges or authority vested in the rights, privileges or authority.”10

10. Agreement between the Governments of the Dominion and of the Province of Quebec, May 27, 1942 (Part 3: document no. 2).

18 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

SECOND GOVERNMENT OF ••• Constitutional reform process MAURICE DUPLESSIS 13. It seems to us at this time, various (AUGUST 30, 1944 TO SEPTEMBER 7, 1959) amendments to the Canadian Consti- tution are welcome, but it is our staunch conviction that the spirit of the Canadian Constitution must be integrally respected. From our stand- bec é point, all constitutional issues should be analyzed at this conference, and not just the part of the Constitution that federal authorities have initially submitted to the delegates’ consideration.14 dard

é 14. The Province of Québec is heartily in favour of a Canadian constitution deci- Source: Archives nationales du Qu Roger B ded upon in Canada by Canadians ••• Status of Québec and for Canadians, and amendable through appropriate constitutional and 10. In 1867, four pioneer provinces decided fair methods.15 to form a confederation. It is important to remember this, because it proves ••• Constitutional amending procedure conclusively that Confederation was 15. While the Constitution gives the prov- born of the free consent of the four inces, to a limited degree, the right to founding provinces. Confederation, amend the Constitution as far as provin- let us never forget, is the child of cial jurisdiction is concerned, it denies 11 the provinces. the federal government that right.16 11. Canadian Confederation is a pact of 16. Confederation is essentially a pact. union between two great races.12 And since the nature of the Constitution 12. The province of Québec is firmly is that of a pact, it cannot nor should convinced that the federal system is it be amended without the consent of the only system that can maintain the all the contracting parties, or at least unity of the country. This system both without the consent of the four pio- 17 protects minorities and guarantees neer provinces.

the economic interests of each region Constitutional amending procedure: of the country.13 See also paragraph 14.

11. Statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, April 29, 1946, p. 455 (quotation), King's Printer, 1946. 12. Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10-12, 1950, p. 17-18, King's Printer, 1950 (See part 2 of this document). Maurice Duplessis reiterated this statement at the Federal- Provincial Conference of September and December 1950 and the Federal-Provincial Conference of November 1957. 13. Statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, April 29, 1946, p. 399 (quotation), King's Printer, 1946. 14. Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10-12, 1950, p. 16 (quotation) [Translation], King's Printer, 1950 (See part 2 of this document). 15. Ibid., p. 17 (quotation). 16. Intervention by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10-12, 1950, p. 83, King's Printer, 1950. See also Report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems, Province of Québec, Volume 1, 1956, p. 164. 17. Brief by the Québec government, Federal-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, Ottawa, April 25, 1946, p. 396, King's Printer, 1946.

19 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Distribution of powers consider appropriate, the funds needed for the efficient operation of public a) General principles services and the implementation of 17. The very essence of Confederation is laws passed by their Parliament [...]. made of sovereign provincial authori- Fundamentally, the federal system ties, within the scope of their juris- that allocates public tasks, must also diction, and of a sovereign central include a correlative distribution of authority, within the scope of its ju- public revenues [...]. A central govern- risdiction. When Confederation was ment that appropriated the sources of discussed and decided upon, it was taxation for itself would, in fact, based on the principle of complete reduce the provinces to legislative provincial autonomy.18 impotence. A province with no other 18. Provincial autonomy cannot be safe- sources of revenue than federal sub- guarded by substituting federal grants sidies would become a kind of lesser for provincial financial independence.19 body, under the tutelage of the au- 19. In the social legislation field, the thority that could dole out its means 22 federal system probably offers advan- of subsistence. tages not found in countries with a 22. The provinces’ exclusive rights in terms single government. Indeed, the co- of social legislation, education, civil existence of several governments all law, etc., must be preserved and pro- autonomous in their respective spheres, tected in their entirety if Confederation because they provide points of com- is to survive.23 parison, creates by its very nature a 23. Social legislation will be more benefi- healthy rivalry for the greater good of cial if it is better adapted to the needs those governed.20 and cultural aspirations of the popu- 20. Canada is a confederation of autono- lation to which it applies. Local interest mous provinces. A genuine federal is then the basis of the general interest system is based on a federal authority and provincial legislatures, because and provincial authorities that enjoy of their closer contact with citizens, not only the power to legislate and are in a better position than the federal administer, but also the financial powers government to determine the kinds of that enable them to govern.21 legislation that should be passed.24 21. One of the essential prerogatives of 24. The province of Québec is not for sale; autonomous provinces is the ability to it will not be sold and it does not ask collect, by direct taxation and as they for any favours. We demand respect

18. Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10-12, 1950, p. 17 (quotation), King's Printer, 1950 (See part 2 of this document). 19. Brief by the Québec government, Federal-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, Ottawa, April 25, 1946, p. 407 (quotation), King's Printer, 1946. 20. Ibid., p. 406 (quotation). 21. Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10-12, 1950, p. 17-18, King's Printer, 1950 (See part 2 of this document). 22. Brief presented by Maurice Duplessis, Canadian Intergovernmental Conference, Ottawa, October 1955, p. 10 (quotation), Queen's Printer, 1955. See also statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 25 and 26, 1957, p. 25, Queen's Printer, 1957. 23. Brief by the Québec government, Federal-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, Ottawa, April 25, 1946, p. 407 (quotation), King's Printer, 1946. 24. Ibid., p. 405 (quotation).

20 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

for our rights, we want the educational 26. Provinces should have exclusive juris- system to be respected, that our exclu- diction over the following areas: sive rights be preserved, and regardless education, property rights and civil of the government in power, we will law, hospitals, trades and professions, continue our struggle, with the convic- fisheries, marriage, agriculture, mu- tion that we are on the right path nicipal and educational institutions, and at the same time requesting the insurance, establishment of an Appeal cooperation of all those who love this Court for civil, municipal and educa- province, who seek the vitality and tional issues and the appointment of its survival of a great people and at the members, settlement, natural resources, same time with respect for our sound the provincial civil service, adminis- religious and national traditions. This is tration of criminal and civil justice, not a question of partisanship, this the organization and maintenance of is not a political issue, in the ordinary courts of civil and criminal justice in sense of the word, it is a question of each province, civil procedure and life and survival. Signs of dangers are appointment of judges to such courts, many; encroachments are repeated; clearly defined taxation and borrowing powers over provincial matters.28 the wounds that have been made are deep and serious, but this is not a lost 27. Québec protests against certain fed- cause, far from it, if everyone agrees eral intrusions into provincial spheres to recognize this situation.25 of activity, including the following: i) Québec protests against the fed- b) Sectorial jurisdictions eral initiative of passing family 25. Québec considers the following areas allowance legislation—which it to be under the exclusive jurisdiction views as a dangerous encroach- of the provinces: natural resources, the ment on its rights—and, in 1955, passed a provincial family allow- establishment, funding and manage- ance act which, however, it did ment of hospitals, asylums and char- not implement.29 itable institutions, education at every ii) In 1950, Québec refused to sign a level, including universities, regulation federal-provincial agreement on of the liberal professions, including funding the construction of the admission criteria for the practice of TransCanada Highway because, medicine and relations between phy- in Québec’s view, the agreement sicians and clients,26 social security, did not provide sufficient guaran- health, public health, bridge and road tees concerning protection of the construction.27 province’s rights.30

25. Declaration by Maurice Duplessis, Hauterive, May 31, 1959, extracted from Claude Morin, Le combat québécois, Les Éditions du Boréal express, 1973, p. 68 (quotation). 26. Brief by Québec government, Federal-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, Ottawa, April 25, 1946, p. 397. 27. Onésime Gagnon, Budget Speech, March 25, 1947, p.27. 28. Preliminary brief by the Québec government. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference begun in Ottawa on January 10, 1950, tabled at the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Québec, September 25-28, 1950, p. 100, King's Printer, 1950 (Part 3: document no. 3). 29. Report tabled by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems, Province of Québec, Volume 1, 1956, p. 175. 30. Ibid., p. 179.

21 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

iii) In 1953, Québec blocked a federal c) Unilateral powers proposal to directly fund Canadian 30. Parliament’s powers of reservation universities through the National and disallowance should disappear.35 Conference of Canadian Universi- ties. Québec objected to the federal ••• Institutions intervention to replace essential provincial financial powers with 31. The members of the Canadian court federal grants and to encroach on that would be created to replace the the field of education, which is within Privy Council should be appointed by exclusive provincial jurisdiction.31 the federal and provincial govern- 36 28. The fact that the Constitution of 1867 ments. It is not reasonable and in specifically grants to the provinces the conformity with a true comprehension right to levy direct taxes conclusively of national unity that the federal means that the provinces take prece- authority appropriate for itself the dence in matters of direct taxation.32 right to unilaterally choose the arbi- 29. The areas of personal income tax, trators called upon to decide on the succession duties and corporate income respective rights of each party.37 Québec and capital tax are within the juris- considers that the Supreme Court of diction of the provinces which need Canada should meet all the conditions them and have constitutional priority required of a third arbitrator for over them.33 Estate duties belong to the constitutional matters and Canadian provinces; they stem from the Civil Code intergovernmental relations.38 and the Canadian Constitution, which reserves matters relating to the Civil Code 32. Matters of civil law, of municipal law and property rights exclusively to the and of school law should be adjudicated provinces [...]. As to personal income upon, in the last resort, by a Court of tax and corporate taxes, each province Appeal set up by each Province, the holds exclusive rights in terms of direct Judges of which should be appointed taxation for provincial purposes.34 by each Province.39

31. Letter from Maurice Duplessis to Stuart Garson, federal Justice Minister, September 15, 1954. 32. Statement made by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, preliminary meeting, Ottawa, April 26, 1955, p. 36, Queen's Printer, 1955. 33. Brief by the Québec government, Federal-Provincial Conference on Reconstruction, Ottawa, April 25, 1946, p. 400, King's Printer, 1946. Statement delivered by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 25 and 26, 1957, p. 22, Queen's Printer, 1957. 34. Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 25 and 26, 1957, p. 22 (quotation), Queen's Printer, 1957. 35. Preliminary brief by the Québec government. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference begun in Ottawa on January 10, 1950, tabled at the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Québec, September 25-28, 1950, p. 101, King's Printer, 1950 (Part 3: document no. 3). 36. Letter from Maurice Duplessis to George Drew, Head of the federal Conservative Party, April 8, 1947. 37 Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10-12, 1950, p. 16 (quotation) [Translation], King's Printer, 1950 (See part 2 of this document). 38. Preliminary brief by the Québec government. Canadian Intergovernmental Conference begun in Ottawa on January 10, 1950, tabled at the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitutional, Québec, September 25-28, 1950, p. 101, King's Printer, 1950 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 3). 39. Ibid., p. 100.

22 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Intergovernmental policy their ability to exercise the powers attributed to them by the Constitution.42 Financial aspects of federalism In theory, the substitution of federal 33. Provincial legislative assemblies are subsidies for the essential financial essential. Obviously they cannot exer- powers of the democratic government cise the legislative powers that have is not recommendable, at least gen- been entrusted to them if they do not erally speaking. On more than one have requisite authority in financial occasion, Sir Wilfrid Laurier stated matters. The provinces need financial that it is unhealthy for a government authority to resolve not only current to collect taxes that are spent by problems, but also those of tomorrow.40 another government.43 34. In these difficult times, there are three 36. Temporary payments, or what is com- things that we need. The first one is a monly called generous subsidies, may precise definition, a clear distribution never compensate the loss of permanent of the respective fiscal powers of the rights whose transfer or abrogation provinces and the Dominion. This is may open the door to consequences 44 the very basis, the keystone of national that are perhaps disastrous. freedom and security. We need greater 37. In 1954, Québec passed a provincial simplification in the means for col- income tax equivalent to approxi- lecting taxes and a lightening of the mately 15 % of the federal tax. Québec taxpayer’s burden.41 demanded full deduction of provincial 35. Québec opposed the federal post-war income tax from tax paid to the federal 45 program because it would tend to government. With the implementation replace the system of provincial fiscal of this income tax, Québec took another autonomy with a system of grants that positive step in exercising its rights 46 would enable the federal government and fulfilling its duties. Following to exercise financial control over the negotiations with the federal govern- provinces. Furthermore, the program ment, Québec obtained an abatement 47 would deny the provinces access to equivalent to 10 % of the federal tax. the most important sources of direct Financial autonomy of the provinces: taxation and, to that extent, paralyze See also paragraphs 18, 20, 21 and 27.

40. Opening statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, August 6, 1945, p. 22, King's Printer, 1946. 41. Statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, April 29, 1946, p. 461 (quotation), King's Printer, 1946. 42. Brief by the Québec government, Federal-Provincial Conference, April 25, 1946, p. 404, King's Printer, 1946. 43. Statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, December 4, 1950, p. 30, King's Printer, 1951. 44. Statement by Maurice Duplessis, Federal-Provincial Conference, May 1, 1946, p. 582 (quotation), King's Printer, 1946. 45. Report tabled by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems, Province of Québec, Volume 1, 1956, p. 153. 46. Onésime Gagnon, Budget Speech, February 12, 1954, p. 16. 47. Report tabled by the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Constitutional Problems, Province of Québec, Volume 1, 1956, p.154-155. See also the declaration by Maurice Duplessis at the first reading of Bill 43 on the implementation of a provincial income tax before the Québec Legislative Assembly, January 14, 1954 (See part 2 of this document).

23 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF insurance system. Nonetheless, consid- PAUL SAUVÉ ering the complexity of the Québec (SEPTEMBER 11, 1959 TO JANUARY 2, 1960) hospital system, plus the objections that provinces participating in the program are beginning to formulate, the government wants to undertake an in- depth study of the federal legislation and bec é the means for adapting it to Québec’s specific situation before making a decision regarding this program.49

••• Intergovernmental policy Financial aspects of federalism 40. Québec demands that the provincial Source: Archives nationales du Qu Laval Bouchard university education tax be tax deduc- ••• Distribution of powers tible. Under this plan, commercial companies in Québec would be entitled Sectorial jurisdictions to a deduction of 10 % rather than 9 % of the annual tax they pay on their 38. Québec considers that federal grants profits. This increase would generate to universities encroach on an area approximately the same amount for 48 reserved exclusively for the provinces. Québec’s treasury as the federal govern- 39. The Québec government has no consti- ment makes available to universities tutional objection to the federal hospital in Québec.50

48. Statement by Paul Sauvé, La Presse, September 18, 1959. 49. Statement by Paul Sauvé during a press conference, taken from the article “Québec hésite à cause de son propre système,” Le Devoir, October 16, 1959, p. 1-2. 50. Fiscal Conference, October 1959. Antonio Barrette, who was named Prime Minister January 8, 1960, signed a final agreement with the federal government implementing Québec's proposal.

24 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF ••• Constitutional reform process JEAN LESAGE 43. Québec fears that the Fulton-Favreau (JULY 5, 1960 TO JUNE 5, 1966) formula would authorize any province to prevent the extension of the powers of another province. Needless to say, if that interpretation were to prevail, the evolution of our constitutional bec é system in the direction desired by Québec might become very difficult.53

••• Constitutional amending procedure 44. To defend its particular status, Québec must have a veto over any important constitutional change that could threa- 54 Source: Archives nationales du Qu Laval Bouchard ten its powers. 45. Among other things, Québec wants a ••• Status of Québec veto on any change in the distribution 41. Québec, as the cornerstone of French of powers.55 Canada, is asking for the equality of 46. The central government cannot uni- Canada’s two founding ethnic groups. laterally amend its constitution. It is It is seeking a status that respects its essential that the provinces participate special characteristics.51 in the formation and operation of central bodies.56 42. Québec, because of its language, its culture, its links with the international ••• Distribution of powers French language community, its econo- a) General principles mic, social and political institutions, its vitality, its desire to survive and 47. Provincial sovereignty must not be a especially to flourish, has all the char- negative concept incompatible with pro- acteristics of a true society.52 gress; it must be a living reality that is made tangible in institutions and Québec’s assertion as a people: See paragraph 48. legislation designed to promote the well-being and spiritual growth of the Special status: See paragraphs 49-50. population.57

51. Speech by Jean Lesage, Canadian Club, Calgary, September 22, 1965, p. 1. 52. Speech by Jean Lesage, Canadian Club, Winnipeg, October 1, 1965, p. 2-3. 53. Letter from Jean Lesage to Lester B. Pearson, January 20, 1966 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 8). Jean Lesage had been willing earlier to allow a veto for all provinces. See the speech by Jean Lesage to the Reform Club of Montréal, March 1, 1965, p. 3 and the speech given by Jean Lesage before the Québec Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lac-Beauport, March 10, 1965, p. 4. 54. Speech by Jean Lesage, Québec Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lac-Beauport, March 10, 1965, p.7. 55. Speech by Jean Lesage to the Reform Club of Montréal, March 1, 1965, p. 3. 56. Speech by Jean Lesage, Québec Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Lac-Beauport, March 10, 1965, p.4-5. 57. Government of Québec, opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 25-27, 1960, p. 26 (quotation).

25 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

48. Québec defends the principle of pro- development of human capital through vincial autonomy not just because of appropriate educational, welfare and the principle, but much more because health measures, which lie within for Québec, autonomy is the vital con- their jurisdiction.61 dition of its affirmation as a people 52. While provincial and interprovincial rather than of its survival, which is [economic] policies can be implement- now secure.58 ed, as circumstances require, with or 49. Québec is working to obtain the powers without the federal government’s par- necessary for its economic, social and ticipation, federal policies must never political affirmation. To the extent that be decided without consulting the prov- the other provinces are not working inces. The only way to avoid duplication toward the same objectives, Québec will and inefficiency is through on-going con- 62 move toward a particular status that sultation by both levels of government. will reflect both the specific character- 53. If regional development policies are istics of its population and the more to be effective, they must satisfy three extensive role it wishes to assign to conditions: they must be adapted to its government.59 the specific needs of the regions; they must be applied by the government in 50. Québec wishes to point out that par- the best position to respond; they must ticular status is not necessarily an take into account the whole social and objective in itself. Initially, it may very economic policy of the government well be the result of an administrative of the province where the regions are development and, subsequently, a located. The federal government seems constitutional one that, while applicable to have difficulty adapting its instru- in principle to the other provinces, in ments to the needs of Québec’s regions. practice would be of interest only to The Québec government is in the best 60 Québec for reasons of its own. position to implement a truly effective 51. The provinces have a clear responsi- regional policy.63 bility for the economic development 54. The federal government should cease of their territory. They are better placed its intrusion into areas of provincial than the federal government to pro- jurisdiction through excessive use of duce an economic development policy its ancillary power, which leads to the because they are closer to the specific artificial creation of zones of ambigu- problems of their people and regions. ity and duplication of administrative In addition, they are responsible for the controls and standards.64

58. Opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 26-29, 1963, p. 42 (quotation), Queen's Printer, 1964. 59. Speech by Jean Lesage to the Empire & Canadian Club, Toronto, November 16, 1964, p. 3-4 and to the Sainte-Foy Chamber of Commerce, December 14, 1965, p. 5. 60. Speech by Jean Lesage, Canadian Club, Vancouver, September 24, 1965, p.4. 61. Jean Lesage, Budget Speeches, April 12, 1962, p. 48 and April 5, 1963, p. 59. See also the opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 26-29, 1963, p. 40, Queen's Printer, 1964. 62. Opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 26-29, 1963, p. 48 (quotation), Queen's Printer, 1964. 63. Government of Québec, statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 19-22, 1965, p. 5. 64. Ibid., p. 26.

26 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

b) Sectorial jurisdictions c) to participate in the activities of certain international organizations 55. Québec claims the entire administration of old age security in order to institute of a non-political nature; its own pension plan.65 d) to play a direct role in areas that 56. Social assistance, resource development, have acquired international impor- working conditions66, regional devel- tance because of the proliferation of opment, manpower and employment contacts between countries.68 policy, social security, health services, 58. Québec views social security as an area health insurance, education, roads and of provincial jurisdiction, for constitu- land use planning are areas of provin- tional, cultural and practical reasons.69 cial jurisdiction. They are encompassed by the rights and urgent needs of the Shared-cost programs and conditional subsidies in given sectors: See paragraphs 64-66. provinces which are in a better position than the federal government to c) Unilateral powers have an effective and lasting effect on these areas.67 59. It must be clearly established as one 57. In all areas that are wholly or partially of the fundamental rules of our feder- within its jurisdiction, Québec hence- alism that the exceptional powers of forth intends to play a direct interna- Parliament must remain exceptional tional role, in accordance with its in nature, and not be used to invade personality and appropriate to its rights areas that normally lie within provin- In addition, Québec intends: cial jurisdiction.70 a) to implement international agreements, concluded by the federal ••• Language rights government, dealing with issues 60. The primacy of French in Québec of provincial jurisdiction; —namely its widest possible use on a b) to participate actively and person- daily basis—is an essential condition ally in developing international for bilingualism and biculturalism agreements that interest it directly; in Canada.71

65. Statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November 26-29, 1963, p. 52, Queen's Printer, 1964, and government of Québec, White Paper on the Québec Pension Plan, 1965. The Lesage government, using the opting out provision of the federal legislation instituting the Canada Pension Plan, established a Québec pension plan in 1965. See Québec Pension Plan, S.Q. 1965, c-24. See also the resolution of the Québec Legislative Assembly dated June 15, 1964 authorizing the Constitutional amending procedure for 1964 (old-age pensions and supplementary benefits) (Part 3: document no. 7). 66. Brief submitted by Québec at the Conference on Poverty, Ottawa, December 7-10, 1965, p.17. 67. Government of Québec, declaration by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 19-22, 1965 (see the entire declaration). Moreover, a White Paper from the ministère des Affaires culturelles (1965), which was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly but was made public by the newspaper La Presse in September 1966, states that, under the Constitution, Québec has exclusive responsibility in cultural affairs, particularly in terms of defending and promoting French-language culture within its territory, p.24. 68. Speech by Paul Gérin-Lajoie, Vice-President of the Québec Executive Council and Minister of Education, before the Montréal Consular Corps, Montréal, April 12, 1965 (See part 2 of this document). 69. Government of Québec, statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 19-22, 1965, p. 16. 70. Ibid., p. 27. 71. Speech by Jean Lesage to the Reform Club of Montréal, March 1, 1965.

27 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Intergovernmental policy b) Financial aspects of federalism a) Conducting intergovernmental relations 64. Québec is resolved to end the system of shared-cost programs and, conse- 61. Québec announces that it will invite all provincial Premiers to a meeting quently, has withdrawn from such to decide whether permanent interpro- programs instituted by the federal vincial relations should be established.72 government and demands either fiscal compensation or the tax point equiv- 62. Cooperative federalism does not mean alent. These shared-cost programs simply obtaining the consent of the cause costly duplication, reduce pro- provinces to centralizing policies. Rather, vincial initiative in areas recognized for Québec, it means the beginning of a new era in federal-provincial rela- by the Constitution to be within provin- tions and the dynamic adaptation of cial jurisdiction and distort the order Canadian federalism. Federalism should of priorities established by the prov- express itself in three ways: 1) regular inces. Experience shows that quite cooperation when decisions are made often these shared-cost programs do concerning new policies; 2) constant con- not allow provinces to use their own sultation on the application of policies; revenues as intended while conforming 3) sufficient financial resources granted to local conditions.75 to the provinces to enable them to 65. Québec decides to accept on a temporary carry out their greater responsibilities.73 basis and maintaining full sovereignty,

Intergovernmental consultation regarding the conditional grants distributed to economic policies: See paragraph 52. the other provinces by the federal government (hospital insurance and 63. Québec considers that henceforth, in TransCanada Highway).76 the normal course of events, federal actions in the regions of Québec will 66. Québec demands that the federal gov- take place through Québec’s adminis- ernment transfer to Québec, in the trative structures, after it has approved form of tax equivalents, the amounts the objectives and means used. Other- the federal government wanted to wise, there is the possibility that policies allocate to programs that encroach on based on differing assumptions could provincial jurisdiction, namely student nullify each other.74 loans and academic allowances.77

72. Government of Québec, opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 25-27, 1960, p. 28. 73. Speech by Jean Lesage, Université de Moncton, May 17, 1964, p. 2. 74. Government of Québec, statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 19-22, 1965, p. 9. 75. Government of Québec, opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 25-27, 1960, p. 31 and 35. Statements by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, November, 26-29, 1963, p.49, Queen's Printer, 1964 and Government of Québec, Federal-Provincial Conference, Québec, March 31 and April 1, 1964, p. 10 et seq. (See part 2 of this document). See also the Act respecting the replacement of joint programs by tax abatement, Q.S. 1965, c. 8. 76. Government of Québec, opening statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, July 25-27, 1960, p. 32. 77. Government of Québec, statement by Jean Lesage, Federal-Provincial Conference, Québec, March 31 and April 1, 1964, p. 21-23.

28 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

67. Québec demands a new tax distribution federal policy regarding taxation and that will enable the provinces to con- the distribution of fiscal powers, we centrate on developing their human will not feel confident with the under- capital and carry out their responsibili- standing that the central government ties in terms of economic development. has of the confederate regime. [...] Québec demands 25 % of personal Nevertheless, once again because the income tax, 25 % of corporate income distribution of sources of revenue tax and 100 % of succession duties, between the various governments of including the tax on gifts inter vivos.78 Canada continues to be unacceptable, 68. Taxation is the economic growth the people of Québec cannot immedi- instrument over which Québec still ately undertake initiatives that they have 79 exercises the least amount of control deemed to be absolutely important. [...]. Unless there is during the coming Financial autonomy of the provinces: months a distinctive turnaround in See also paragraph 62.

78. Jean Lesage, Budget Speech, April 14, 1961, p. 78 and statement by Jean Lesage to the Québec Legislative Assembly, Journal des débats, January 16, 1964, p. 72. This demand was repeated many times at other Federal-Provincial Conferences (July 1960 and November 1963). 79. Jean Lesage, Budget Speech, April 5, 1963, Québec Legislative Assembly, Journal des débats, April 5, 1963, p.901-902 (quotation).

29 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF between the two nations that make up DANIEL JOHNSON, Sr. the people of Canada, and must recog- (JUNE 16, 1966 TO SEPTEMBER 26, 1968) nize the principle of the legal equality of the two cultural communities.81 71. The Canadian Constitution must take into account the fact that Québec has a special role to play in achieving bec é cultural equality.82 72. French Canadians, drawing on their majority situation in Québec, must be able to develop structures, institutions dy

ô and an environment in Québec that are perfectly attuned to their culture and their aspirations.83 Source: Archives nationales du Qu Jean-Paul B Québec, the home of the French Canadian nation: ••• Status of Québec See paragraph 77.

69. A new Constitution should be designed 73. Québec prefers to live within a consti- so that Canada is not solely a federa- tutional system that is sufficiently tion of ten provinces, but a federation decentralized to take Québec’s situation of two nations equal in law and in fact. into account, though without prevent- From an institutional standpoint, a ing other provinces from leaving to truly bi-national order should be estab- the federal government, or carrying lished for the entire country, where the out jointly with it, those responsibilities agents of the two cultural communities they do not wish to assume.84 could work together, on an equal footing, to manage their common interests.80 ••• Constitutional reform process 70. The object of the Constitution must 74. If it is to be viable, the Canada of not solely be to federate territories, tomorrow must be founded on a new but also to associate as equals two constitution […]. The constitution must linguistic and cultural communities, allow for the association of two societies, two founding peoples, two societies, their cooperation within common insti- two nations in the sociological sense tutions, the respect of fundamental of the term. A Canadian constitution collective rights and the normal aspira- must be the product of an agreement tions of each society.85

80. Daniel Johnson, Égalité ou indépendance, 25 ans plus tard, Montréal, VLB éditeur, 1990, see part three entitled “Une constitution nouvelle.” 81. Opening statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, Office d'information et de publicité du Québec, p. 63 (See part 2 of this document). 82. Working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968. These proposals had been approved by Daniel Johnson (See Les positions traditionnelles du Québec sur le partage des pouvoirs 1900-1976, gouvernement du Québec, ministère des Affaires intergouvernementales, Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1978, p. 9). 83. Opening statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 57 (See part 2 of this document). 84. Ibid., p. 59-60. 85. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 42 (quotation).

30 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

75. The new constitutional proposal must and financial mechanisms); 3) cul- have four objectives: 1) clearly define tural expression (arts, letters and the the guiding principles of political life French language); 4) the influence of in Canada; 2) establish a new distri- the Québec community.89 bution of powers and resources that 79. Québec is seeking greater decentraliza- will allow the French Canadian nation tion of powers than currently exists.90 to flourish and English Canada to The Québec government proposes a develop freely; 3) institutionalize or new distribution of powers whereby implement intergovernmental mecha- all provinces would initially be attrib- nisms for consultation, coordination uted identical constitutional powers, and action; 4) change the way certain and a constitutional provision would existing Canadian institutions and allow administrative or legislative structures operate, modernize others delegation of powers to the federal and create new ones so that, overall, government. The provinces themselves, they reflect Canada’s bi-national reality.86 under the new system, would decide 76. Canada should call itself “Canadian the effective extent of their own respon- Union” and should eventually become sibilities [...]. We feel such a situation a republic.87 would not be incompatible with federalism and such solutions should be ••• Distribution of powers embraced if they become necessary a) General principles because of the sociological reality of the country.91 77. The equality that must be established 80. Québec wants to strip Ottawa of the between Canada’s two cultural commu- ability to constantly intervene in pro- nities depends not only on a territorial vincial affairs by virtue of what are extension of bilingualism, but even more called indefinitely extensible powers.92 on greater powers for Québec, the home of the French Canadian nation.88 81. The Constitution should make formal provisions for the delegation of leg- 78. To ensure the equality of the French islative powers.93 Canadian nation, Québec needs greater powers. It wants to make its own Charter of human rights and distribution of powers: decisions in certain areas: 1) develop- See paragraphs 88 and 90. ment of its human resources (i.e. every b) Sectorial jurisdictions aspect of education, social security and health); 2) economic affirmation (i.e. 82. Québec considers the following sectors the power to implement economic to be within its exclusive jurisdiction:

86. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 43 (quotation). 87. Working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968. 88. Opening statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 64 (See part 2 of this document). 89. Statement by Daniel Johnson, fourth meeting of the Federal-Provincial Tax System Committee, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1966 in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 4; see also the preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 45. 90. Ibid., p. 44 et seq. 91. Ibid., p.47 (quotation); see also the opening statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 59-60 (See part 2 of this document). 92. Speech by Daniel Johnson, Union nationale benefit dinner, Montréal, February 25, 1968. 93. Working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968.

31 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

culture, adult education, university re- the securities industry and control search94, vocational training programs, of financial institutions other than cooperative training programs and banks; labour relations and working training programs for the jobless95, conditions for all companies doing urban development and housing, mu- business within a province’s borders; nicipal structure, municipal powers road transportation; integration of and land use planning.96 immigrants; public works within 83. The federal government must not have a province’s borders (except those sole jurisdiction over the allocation of relating to an area of federal juris- broadcast frequencies. Québec cannot diction); rehabilitation of inmates; tolerate much longer being excluded exploration for, conservation and from an area in which its vital interest development of resources; land use is so clear.97 planning, municipal organization, urban planning, urban development 84. As regards sectorial jurisdictions, and housing; recreation, leisure Québec’s constitutional demands can and sports. be expressed as follows98: iv) It should be recognized that the i) In addition to agriculture and immi- provinces have the authority to gration, statistics, the census, bank- negotiate and sign agreements with ruptcy, radio, television and film, foreign governments on matters farm products marketing, food and within their internal jurisdiction. drugs should be areas of joint juris- Provincial governments should be diction. In the event of conflict, regularly invited to participate in priority should be given, on a case Canadian delegations at interna- by case basis, either to Union (fed- tional conferences and meetings eral) legislation, or State (provincial) of international organizations to legislation. which Canada belongs and which ii) Education (in all its forms, at every affect areas of provincial jurisdic- level) and social security (including tion. Similarly, the provinces should all social allowances, old age pen- have the right to attend interna- sions, family allowances, health and tional conferences of interest to hospitals, manpower placement and them but in which Canada does not training) should be assigned to the participate. In addition, they should provinces exclusively. have a greater role in foreign aid.99 iii) The following areas should also v) The provinces should have access be placed under exclusive provincial to all sources of tax revenue, but jurisdiction: divorce; business incor- property taxes and succession poration (except those mentioned duties should be reserved for as being under federal jurisdiction); them exclusively.

94. Statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial First Ministers Conference, Ottawa, October 24-28, 1966, p. 25-27. 95. Declaration by Daniel Johnson, meeting of the Tax System Committee, October 26, 1966, p. 63. 96. Statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference on Housing and Urban Development, Ottawa, December 11-12, 1967, p. 53, Privy Council Office, Ottawa, 1968. 97. Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 81. 98. Working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968. 99. See also Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 79 and 80.

32 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

vi) The provinces should be the owners ••• Individual and language rights of the public domain, which should 88. The new Constitution must include a extend to the continental shelf. They Charter of human rights applying to should have unlimited expropriation the constitutional powers of the central powers, except over federal property. government. For its part, the Québec 85. There are two main reasons why the government intends to add a Charter Québec government is so insistent on of human rights to the Constitution of regaining full control over social secu- Québec which would apply to areas rity: first, because the presence of two of Québec jurisdiction.103 governments in this field prevents 89. In a country like ours, it is fundamen- effective social security planning, tal that the Constitution recognize the allows for contradictions between collective rights of the two cultural various programs and leads to adminis- communities […]. We do not want to trative duplication and waste; second, impose our language indiscriminately because social security measures affect on all Canadians, but we do want the nation’s vitality as a society.100 French Canadians, wherever they are Control over expenses in Québec’s sectors in sufficient numbers, to be able to of jurisdiction: See paragraph 99. serve their country and be served in their 104 c) Unilateral powers language, as full-fledged citizens. 90. A distinction must be made between 86. The federal Parliament’s reserve and individual rights and collective rights. disallowance powers and the declara- The former are within provincial juris- tory power should be eliminated. The diction (civil rights). That is why Québec residuary power should be transferred intends to incorporate a Charter of hu- to the provinces.101 man rights into its own Constitution.105 87. The federal spending power should 91. As for collective rights (rights of lan- be limited to federal matters alone. guage minorities), Québec agrees that However, unconditional grants could they be protected in the Constitution. be paid to provinces either according But it considers it is even more press- to a general equalization formula or to stabilize their revenue.102 ing and would be more effective to embody them in federal and provin- Shared-cost programs: See paragraphs 99-101. cial institutions.106

100. See also Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 76 (quotation). 101. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 45. 102. Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 75 and seq. See also working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968. 103. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 44 (quotation). 104. Opening statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 22 (quotation). 105. Opening statement by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 61 (See part 2 of this document). 106. Ibid., p. 61.

33 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

92. In a unitary country with a homogeneous court of which at least 2/3 of whose society, declarations of rights can be judges would be appointed by the seen as summations of the moral philos- provinces.109 The composition of this ophy accepted by the entire population, court should reflect the federal char- and the rights of citizens can be derived acter of common institutions and the therefrom. The result is to entrench in Canadian cultural duality.110 the Constitution a certain homogeneity Constitutional court and charter of human rights: of ethical concepts whose application See paragraphs 92-93. is the responsibility of the courts. We feel that in a federal system and partic- 95. The provinces should be responsible ularly in the case of Canada, it would for the establishment of high courts be a serious political mistake to pro- and the appointment of their judges, ceed in that way. Québec’s civil law both for the administration of federal 111 tradition and the way in which it recog- and provincial laws. nizes and protects fundamental rights 96. Québec requests the institutionaliza- are in fact significantly different from tion of federal-provincial and inter- the procedure in common law courts. provincial conferences.112 If therefore we contemplate a declara- Intergovernmental machinery: See also paragraph 75. tion of rights that is so basic that the highest constitutional court in Canada 97. It would be useful to examine the must make these rights explicit, we possibility of transforming the existing are obliged to demand that the for- Senate into a genuine federal House, mation of a constitutional court be with a bi-national character.113 107 examined first. 98. The composition of the Bureau of Broad- 93. The issue of fundamental rights cannot cast Governors and the Canadian be resolved without agreement on Broadcasting Corporation should bet- certain basic reforms, in particular the ter reflect the bicultural reality of the creation of a genuine constitutional country It is therefore important that court.108 Québec itself appoint a proportion, to be determined, of the members of the ••• Institutions boards of directors of these agencies.114 94. The Constitution should provide for the establishment of a constitutional Institutional reform: See also paragraph 75.

107. Initial reactions of the Québec government to the White Paper tabled in the House of Commons by Pierre Elliott Trudeau, federal Minister of Justice, February 1, 1968, p. 4 (quotation). 108. Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 93 and seq., especially p. 98. 109. Working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968. 110. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 50. 111. Working paper submitted by Québec to the Standing Committee of Officials on the Constitutional Conference, July 17, 1968. 112. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 48 (quotation). 113. Ibid., p. 50 (quotation). 114. Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 81.

34 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Intergovernmental policy establish, not to mention that they reduce its real budgetary independence Financial aspects of federalism [...]. For a nation like ours, joint pro- 99. Québec should have sole responsibility grams freeze our fiscal resources and within its borders for public spending deprive Québec of total control over on all forms of education, old age areas of activity that by law lie within security, family allowances, health, its jurisdiction. In general, then, there manpower training and placement, is an incompatibility between the sys- regional development and, in particular, tem of joint programs and the French assistance programs for municipalities, Canadian nation’s efforts to achieve research and the fine arts as well as its essential objectives.117 culture and, in general, any other socio- 102.Québec demands a net increase in cultural service within the jurisdiction resources that enable it to carry out of Québec. Existing federal programs its constitutional responsibilities.118 in these areas would be assumed by Québec demands 100 % use of the Québec, which, if necessary, would three major direct taxes: personal maintain their transferable nature.115 income taxes, corporate income taxes 100.Québec has no intention of renewing and succession duties. This demand the joint programs from which it has is based on a transfer of tax fields withdrawn. Nor does it plan to enter from the federal government to the provinces and on the repatriation of into new joint programs dealing with federal programs in areas of provin- areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. cial jurisdiction, in return for tax Instead, it will demand unconditional compensation.119 financial compensation.116 103.Any major rearrangement of the struc- 101.Joint programs are an obstacle to the ture of shared taxes must result from free development of Québec society. the concerted action of all governments.120 They impose priorities that could conflict with those it would otherwise New distribution of resources: See paragraph 75.

115. Statement by Daniel Johnson, fourth meeting of the Federal-Provincial Tax System Committee, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1966, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 7. Preliminary statement by Daniel Johnson, Interprovincial Conference on the “Confederation of Tomorrow,” Toronto, November 27-30, 1967, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 46. 116. Statement by Daniel Johnson, fourth meeting of the Federal-Provincial Tax System Committee, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1966, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution., 1968, p. 5-6. 117. Ibid., p. 5 (quotation). 118. Ibid., p. 7-8. 119. Ibid., p. 8. 120. Brief submitted by Daniel Johnson, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 5-7, 1968, in Le gouvernement du Québec et la Constitution, 1968, p. 82.

35 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF development of both cultural commu- JEAN-JACQUES BERTRAND nities in Canada with the imperatives 123 (OCTOBER 2, 1968 TO APRIL 29, 1970) of economic solidarity. 107.A constitutional declaration of human rights must be passed at the same time as the new Constitution, but not before. The most important constitutional bec é problem is the distribution of powers between the two orders of government.124

••• Distribution of powers a) General principles 108.Québec believes freedom of choice will always be necessary in some areas, Source: Archives nationales du Qu not only to ensure that Québec has all ••• Status of Québec the autonomy it needs, but also to 104.What is important for French Cana- enable the other provinces to confer dians in Québec is not to be able to on the central government, or to carry speak their language anywhere in out jointly with it, the tasks they do Canada, but to be able, collectively, to not want to perform solely on their live in French, to build a society in own initiative.125 their image. That is possible only if 109.Québec demands that the future Cana- the Québec government has powers in dian constitution be adaptable to the proportion to the tasks the population needs of each province. While Québec expects it to carry out.121 seeks greater decentralization of power, 105.It is essential that French Canada, of those provinces that want to should which Québec is the cornerstone, have the freedom to delegate some of have the conviction that it will find all their powers to the federal government. the elements necessary for its develop- That way, Québec could exercise the ment within the Canadian federation.122 powers it feels it needs, without preventing a greater degree of centralization ••• Constitutional reform process or federal intervention elsewhere.126 106.What we must look for is the constitu- 110.The distribution of powers between tional system that can reconcile the full the two orders of government must

121. Opening statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, second meeting, Ottawa, February 10-12, 1969, p. 32, Queen's Printer, 1969 (See part 2 of this document). 122. Ibid., p. 35. 123. Ibid., p. 32. 124. Statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, second meeting, Ottawa, February 10-12, 1969, Queen's Printer, 1969, p.314-315. 125. Opening statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional conference, second meeting, Ottawa, February 10-12, 1969, p. 36, Queen's Printer, 1969 (See part 2 of this document). 126. Statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, third meeting, Ottawa, December 8-10, 1969, p. 10-11, Queen's Printer, 1970.

36 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

depend not on the good will of the other sectors of provincial jurisdiction, central authority, but on a written social development, succession duties130 constitution that is recognized and and health insurance.131 respected by all as the fundamental 114.Marriage, divorce and, in that case, the 127 law of the country. establishment of family courts should 111.The country must adopt a taxation and be within Québec’s jurisdiction.132 financial structure that, after a net 115.Québec proposes to unify and assume transfer of resources to the provinces, control of the federal and Québec family will enable each of the two sectors of allowance systems.133 In addition, Québec government to satisfy its obligations as expresses its firm intention to develop effectively as possible.128 its own family policy.134 Charter of human rights and distribution of powers: See paragraphs 107, 119, 120. 116.Social security, including social allowances, old age pensions, family b) Sectorial jurisdictions allowances, health and hospitals, manpower training and placement should 112.Québec endorses the constitutional be exclusively under provincial juris- proposals submitted July 17, 1968 to diction.135 The responsibility for social the Standing Committee of Officials on security policy and development can- the Constitutional Conferences, though not be divided. This responsibility, both they do not express the Québec government’s final position.129 for cultural and efficiency reasons, must be assumed solely by the Québec 113.Québec considers it has jurisdiction government.136 in the following areas: educational radio and television, cultural affairs, 117.Québec can accept neither that the urban affairs, underwater mining re- federal government act unilaterally sources, the securities industry, higher to manage or control pollution in pro- education, university research, water, vincial bodies of water, nor that its air and soil pollution, road transpor- joint action with the provinces be based tation, foreign relations in education or on the national interest.137

127. Opening statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, second meeting, Ottawa, February 10-12, 1969, p. 32, Queen's Printer, 1969 (See part 2 of this document). 128. Ibid., p. 18. 129. Ibid., p. 29. 130. Ibid., p. 33-34. 131. Government of Québec, statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, Ottawa, November 4-5, 1968, p. 16. 132. Statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, third meeting, Ottawa, December 8-10, 1969, p. 11. 133. Brief by Jean-Paul Cloutier, Minister of the Family and Social Welfare, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, January 16-17, 1969. 134. Jean-Paul Cloutier, Orientation pour une nouvelle politique des allocations familiales du Québec, Ministère de la Famille et du Bien-être social, Québec, November 1969. 135. Statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, third meeting, Ottawa, December 8-10, 1969, p. 11. 136. Ibid., p. 10 and 21. 137. Government of Québec, statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 16-17, 1970, p. 7 (quotation).

37 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Individual and language rights laws. However, the central legislature 118.Canada’s constitutional problem cannot should maintain its existing power to simply be reduced to a question of indi- establish federal courts for the admin- vidual or language rights. The important istration of its own laws.141 point, for French Canadians in Québec, 122.The Constitution must provide for the is not to be able, individually, to speak establishment of a constitutional court their language even in regions of the and determine its composition and country where there is little chance of jurisdiction. At least two thirds of the its being understood; rather, it is to judges of this court should be appointed be able to collectively live and work by provincial governments.142 in French, to build a society in their own image.138 ••• Intergovernmental policy 119.The creation of a charter of provin- a) Conducting intergovernmental relations cial rights is just as important to Québec as the creation of a charter of 123.A judicious management of the econo- human rights.139 my requires much closer cooperation 120.It is important to ensure that the con- between governments in certain areas stitutional recognition of human rights of strategic importance.143 not change the distribution of powers b) Financial aspects of federalism between governments. We would not accept that Parliament legislate in areas 124.Governments responsible for certain of provincial jurisdiction on the pretext well-defined fields of activity must also that it is implementing the declaration have access to resources they can allo- of human rights.140 cate depending on how they intend to

Charter of human rights and Québec’s priority carry out these responsibilities. Condi- regarding the distribution of powers: tional transfers, grants, and subsidies See paragraph 107. are therefore completely unacceptable.144

••• Institutions Financial autonomy of the provinces: See also paragraph 111. 121.The federated states, i.e. the provinces, should be responsible for the establish- 125.Québec considers there is an urgent ment of higher courts and provincial need for the federal government to courts of appeal and for the appoint- regionalize its fiscal policy to take ment of their judges, both for the into account different economic condi- administration of federal and provincial tions in various parts of the country.145

138. Opening statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, second meeting, Ottawa, February 10-12, 1969, p. 32, Queen's Printer, 1969 (See part 2 of this document). 139. Ibid., p. 35. 140. Statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Constitutional Conference, second meeting, Ottawa, February 10-12, 1969, p. 314 (quotation), Queen's Printer, 1969. 141. Ibid., p. 414-415 (quotation). 142. Ibid., p. 413. 143. Government of Québec, statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, Ottawa, November 4-5, 1968, p. 18. 144. Ibid., p. 18. 145. Government of Québec, statement by Jean-Jacques Bertrand, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, February 16-17, 1970, p. 4.

38 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

FIRST GOVERNMENT OF to participate in a prosperous bicul- ROBERT BOURASSA tural federation which respects the 148 (MAY 12, 1970 TO NOVEMBER 15, 1976) distinct character of Québec society. 129.Québec will seek to obtain recognition from the rest of Canada of its unique responsibility for the survival and development of French culture. Québec cannot yield this responsibility to others and must obtain the necessary constitutional guarantees to ensure this.149 The constitutional review must recognize the cultural aspirations of Quebecers as expressed by all governments of Québec with the full support of the 150

Source: Le Soleil people of Québec. 130.A new Canadian constitution would ••• Status of Québec be unacceptable if it failed to clearly 126.The precise definition of Québec society and concretely recognize the fact that within the Canadian federation remains Quebecers are different and form a a fundamental problem for Québec.146 distinct society that vigorously wants to 127.The Québec government believes a maintain its social and cultural identity.151

genuine affirmation of Quebecers’ cul- Cultural affirmation of Québec: tural identity is possible within the See paragraphs 134 and 166. federal system. Cultural affirmation means control by Québec, and the Cultural security and patriation of the Constitution: financial means and constitutional See paragraph 135. powers with which it can promote the cultural development of its population.147 ••• Constitutional reform process 128.Québec’s constitutional policy is 131.A prerequisite to constitutional reform premised on the need and desire of is improved fiscal and economic rela- Quebecers, first, to head a government tions between governments, with a that will enable them to develop their view to implementing a new economic own cultural personality and, second, federalism.152

146. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Québec National Assembly, Standing Commission on the Constitution (Victoria Conference), Journal des débats, May 18, 1971, p. B-1274. 147. Inaugural Speech to the second session of the 29th legislature, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, February 23, 1971, p. 7. 148. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 6-7. 149. Inaugural Speech to the first session of the 30th legislature, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, November 22, 1973, p. 22-23. 150. Inaugural Speech to the third session of the 30th legislature, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, March 18, 1975, p. 1. 151. Statement by Claude Castonguay, Minister of Social Affairs, before members of the Québec Club Richelieu, Québec, January 18, 1971. 152. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Finance, Winnipeg, June 5-6, 1970, p. 4.

39 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

132.The Québec government has always formula could provide an opportunity had a dual objective in terms of consti- for the recognition of Quebecers’ cul- tutional reform, i.e. decentralized fed- tural rights. In this regard, Québec has eralism and the promotion of Québec’s a duty to demand clear constitutional distinct personality.153 guarantees in sectors naturally linked 133.Québec cannot accept the proposed to cultural security, of which communi- Victoria Constitutional Charter. This cations and immigration have special decision stems from the necessity to significance. Quebecers will only agree agree, as much as possible, on clear to the patriation of the Constitution if and precise constitutional texts, to avoid that document provides them with shifting to the judiciary a responsibil- guarantees as to the future of French 156 ity that belongs primarily in the political culture. sector. As such, the texts dealing with 136.Québec proposes that provincial minis- income security still contain an uncer- ters meet at least once a year to review tainty that squares poorly with the legal decisions of a constitutional objectives inherent in any notion of nature, other questions related to the constitutional review.154 Constitution and, if necessary, to final- 134.Federalism represents for Quebecers ize any proposed amendment to the 157 the best means for attaining their Constitution. economic, social and cultural objec- ••• Constitutional amending procedure tives [...]. In keeping with Quebecers’ clearly expressed desire in this sense, 137.Québec proposes that the creation the government will devote its efforts of new provinces be subject to the to reinforcing Canadian federalism. agreement of the existing provinces, As such, it feels that federalism must according to the original veto formula 158 be decentralized in order to reflect the of the Victoria Charter. diversity of the regions of our country. ••• Distribution of powers This federalism must also guarantee provinces the freedom of action they a) General principles need for fully assuming their respon- 138.In concrete terms, Québec’s desire sibilities with regard to their citizens; for decentralization means obtaining this federalism must also allow the financial resources appropriate to government of Québec to ensure the provincial responsibilities, a clarifi- cultural future of the majority of its cation of these responsibilities in sec- 155 population. tors such as regional development and 135.The patriation of the Canadian Constitu- management, and additional powers tion and the adoption of an amending in the cultural and social fields.159

153. Statement by Robert Bourassa, Victoria Constitutional Conference, June 14, 1971, p. 17. 154. Statement by Robert Bourassa, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, June 23, 1971, p. 2738 (See part 2 of this document); see also the communiqué by Robert Bourassa, June 23, 1971 (Part 3: document no. 9). 155. Ibid. (quotation) [Translation]. 156. Speech by Robert Bourassa, Mont-Gabriel Symposium, August 24, 1975. See also the letter from Peter Lougheed, Premier of Alberta, on behalf of all provincial First Ministers, to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, October 14, 1976. 157. Summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 11. 158. Ibid., Schedule 12. 159. Opening statement by Robert Bourassa, Victoria Constitutional Conference, June 14, 1971, p. 16; see also the Inaugural Speech to the third session of the 30th legislature, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, March 18, 1975, p. 1.

40 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

139.If Canada’s bicultural character is to government and the provinces and be preserved, and its preservation therefore is consistent with the flexi- and development is one of Canada’s bility of federalism.163 basic objectives, then Québec must be 143.The Québec government is in the best in a position to guarantee the condi- position to understand and define the tions for the development of its French needs of the population of Québec, reality. It will succeed by making especially with regard to education, maximum use of the powers it already culture, land use planning and social holds, and by exercising certain addi- policy. This principle is valid for the tional powers that will increase the entire constitutional issue.164 effectiveness and influence of its linguistic and cultural character.160 Decentralization and constitutional reform: See also paragraphs 132 and 134. 140.As far as maintaining and developing Québec’s identity is concerned, we Charter of human rights and distribution of powers: will base our position on an objective See paragraphs 160 and 161. assessment indicating which order of government best serves the public.161 b) Sectorial jurisdictions 141.Québec has always promoted decen- 144.Québec claims priority of responsibility tralized federalism, which alone is for the design of health, social services, truly adapted to the variety of economic, income security and manpower policies, social and cultural needs of Canadians while recognizing the essential role of in every region of the country.162 the federal government in securing 142.Québec would favour the inclusion of a an acceptable standard of living for all provision in the Constitution enabling Canadians. Nonetheless, the administra- delegation of legislative powers between tion of social policy programs would be the two orders of government. Legislative shared, however, according to whether delegation would add more flexibility the type of program defined by each to an often overly rigid distribution of province lends itself better to a cen- powers. It would correct legal inter- tralized administration, or demands pretations that failed to respect the a decentralized management.165 The spirit of the Constitution, and make it important point in the case of programs possible to develop regionally based administered by the federal govern- programs. In addition, delegation of ment is that they be administered under powers establishes various degrees of an income security policy established centralization or of decentralization by the provinces and that a satisfactory in the relations between the central link be maintained with them.166

160. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 6 (quotation). 161. Ibid., p. 4. 162. Statement by Robert Bourassa, Victoria Constitutional Conference, June 14, 1971, p. 15. 163. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 10. 164. Speech by Claude Castonguay, Minister of Social Affairs of Québec, Annual Meeting of the Society of Actuaries, Toronto, November 1971. 165. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 10-11. See also statement by Robert Bourassa, Victoria Constitutional Conference, June 14, 1971, p. 17. 166. Statement by Claude Castonguay, Minister of Social Affairs of Québec, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Social Welfare, Ottawa, January 1971.

41 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Social policies: See also paragraphs 133, 138 and 143. Communications: See also paragraph 135.

145.The organization and distribution of 148.Québec demands the development of health care and social services lies mechanisms which ensure that the clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction contribution of Canada and Québec of the provinces.167 to international development will be 172 146.Housing, recreation, local public ser- the result of common efforts. vices facilities, urban development and 149.The tax on companies that develop land use planning are within the prov- natural resources should be within the inces’ jurisdiction exclusively. The exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. federal government’s role in these areas Québec proposes that succession duties should be limited to financing.168 and gift taxes also come under exclusive provincial control and agrees to 147.Québec wants take an active part in the principle of open access to other tax developing and defining government sources for both levels of government.173 communications policies.169 Further- more, Québec should be able to control 150.As far as energy is concerned, neither the development of communications the federal government’s unilateral within its borders, establish the gen- action nor the uncoordinated actions eral principles that will promote the of provincial governments will enable social, cultural and economic develop- us to achieve the goals that must be ment of the community to be served, attained. Only joint cooperative efforts regulate the cable and broadcasting by both levels of government and by 174 sectors, as well as communications all governments will succeed. companies (programming; rates, except 151.As far as immigration is concerned, for radio and television) and participate provincial participation would be to the on the boards of directors of federal federal government’s benefit, since communications agencies.170 From a con- they are in the best position to know stitutional standpoint, Québec proposes their manpower requirements and the that the provinces acquire preponderant type of immigrants they would prefer legislative jurisdiction over communica- to receive.175 tions (communications networks within 152.Québec demands, first, that a Cana- the province).171 dian immigration policy be voluntary

167. Statement by Claude Castonguay, Minister of Health, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Health, Ottawa, December 9-11, 1970, Schedule 3, p. 5 (quotation). 168. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, November 15-17, 1971, p. 49. 169. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 13. 170. Jean-Paul L'Allier, Minister of Communications, Le Québec maître d'oeuvre de la politique des communications sur son territoire, Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1973, p. 89-103. 171. Joint proposal by Québec and Saskatchewan, summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 8. See also statement by Jean-Paul L'Allier, Minister of Communications, Federal-Provincial Conference on Communications, Ottawa, November 29-30, 1973. 172. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 13. 173. Notes for Robert Bourassa on the tax reform proposal, Federal-Provincial Committee of Ministers of Finance and Provincial Treasurers, Winnipeg, June 5-6, 1970, p. 23 and government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 16-17. 174. Declaration by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers on Energy, Ottawa, June 22-23, 1974. 175. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 13.

42 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

and involve the active participation of Québec government must have sole the provinces, in accordance with jurisdiction over Québec’s heritage. section 95 of the Constitution. Second, Therefore, there is no question of any the distribution of these joint powers element of Québec’s heritage being must be clear: Ottawa will have exclu- included as part of some Canadian sive powers over the issuing of visas176, heritage determined by the federal but the provinces will acquire prepon- government.182 derant legislative jurisdiction in terms Culture: See also paragraph 138. of settlement, integration and placement of immigrants. In addition, the c) Unilateral powers provinces must participate in the recruit- ing and selection of foreign nationals 155.Québec proposes that the federal who want to immigrate within their government not exercise its power to borders and must conclude agreements pass laws regarding peace, order and to that effect with the government of good government in areas of exclusive Canada.177 provincial jurisdiction except in the case of a national emergency.183 Immigration: See also paragraph 135. 156.The federal government must not use 153.The elements of the Constitution affec- its declaratory power unless the prov- ting the administration of justice should ince concerned gives its assent.184 be revised to strike a balance between 157.Though ideally the federal power to federal and provincial responsibilities.178 spend in areas of provincial jurisdiction In addition, the respective responsi- should not exist, Québec is prepared bilities of the federal government and to agree to it provided any province the provinces over custody of inmates that does not participate in a joint should be redefined179 and the provinces program be entitled to financial com- should have jurisdiction over narcotics pensation that would guarantee its prosecutions, such as those relating to freedom to abstain.185 the Criminal Code.180 Shared-cost programs: See also paragraphs 171-173. 154.Québec proposes that the legislature of each province have exclusive juris- 158.Québec proposes that the federal diction over arts, letters and cultural spending power in areas of provincial heritage within the province.181 The jurisdiction be subject to the prior

176. Jean Bienvenue, Minister of Immigration, La position du gouvernement du Québec à la suite de la publication du Livre vert fédé- ral sur la politique canadienne d'immigration, April 1975, document tabled in the Québec National Assembly on May 23, 1975. 177. Summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 7. 178. White Paper, La justice contemporaine, presented by Jérôme Choquette, Minister of Justice, April 1975, p. 32. 179. Statement by the Minister of Justice, Federal-Provincial Correctional Sector Conference, Victoria, May 22-23, 1975. 180. Press release, Federal-Provincial Conference of Attorneys General, Vancouver, June 17-18, 1976. 181. Summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 7. 182. Speech by Jean-Paul L'Allier, Minister of Cultural Affairs, Heritage Canada annual banquet, September 17, 1976. 183. Summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 5. 184. Ibid., Schedule 6. 185. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 16.

43 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

agreement of the majority of govern- ••• Institutions ments (according to the Victoria Charter 163.Québec requests the institutional- formula), and that each province have ization of an annual First Ministers the authority to decide how amounts Conference on the economy to be used allocated for use within its borders as a special vehicle for coordinating are to be applied to implement the and planning federal and provincial 186 programs. economic policies.191 159.Québec recommends that the residuary 164.Québec believes that the creation of a 187 power be transferred to the provinces. constitutional court representative of the federation is essential to maintain- ••• Individual and language rights ing a new constitutional balance.192 160.The Québec government favours the Moreover, the provinces should be adoption of a Constitutional Charter able to submit names of candidates for of human rights. However, this char- appointment to the Supreme Court and ter should not prevent the adoption of refer legal questions to the Supreme complementary charters at the federal Court and that their approval be re- or provincial level, nor change the dis- quired for changing the jurisdiction tribution of powers.188 of the Supreme Court.193 161.Considering that in the majority of cases, protection of human rights comes under ••• Intergovernmental policy provincial jurisdiction, Québec feels it a) Conducting intergovernmental relations is essential that the respective fields of application of federal and provincial 165.The Québec government must be legislation be clearly defined.189 involved in the central government’s 162.Language legislation constitutes recog- decision-making process on questions nition that in areas that embody Québec’s with a significant influence on Québec’s distinct characteristics, legislation pass- economic, social and cultural devel- 194 ed for the country as a whole is not opment. necessarily appropriate for Québec 166.The government’s main priorities in society. With Bill 22, the government terms of federal-provincial relations are: acknowledges that only Québec can 1) the issue of financing, with a view to legislate in this sector.190 achieving a distribution of resources

186. Summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 3. 187. Ibid., Schedule 4. 188. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 19. 189. Declaration by François Cloutier, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Federal-Provincial Conference on Human Rights, Ottawa, December 11-12, 1975, p. 3. 190. Speech by Jean-Paul L'Allier during the debate on the second reading of Bill 22, Minister of Communications, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, July 13, 1974, p. 1789-1790. 191. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, November 15-17, 1971, p. 10-11. 192. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 20. 193. Summary account of proceedings, Interprovincial Meeting of Ministers of Intergovernmental Affairs and Attorneys General, Edmonton, August 1976, Schedule 14. 194. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 5. See also statement by Robert Bourassa, Québec National Assembly, Standing Commission on the Constitution (Victoria Conference), Journal des débats, May 18, 1971, p. B-1273.

44 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

that is more consistent with the consti- by correcting the regional impact of an tutional responsibilities of the federal unfavourable economic situation or and provincial governments; 2) economic of federal policies that exacerbate the development, specifically concerning unemployment rate in some provinces. regional disparities and unemployment; Financed from certain federal taxes, 3) social development, especially income this fund would make both uncondi- security problems; 4) Québec’s cultural tional payments and loans at preferred affirmation.195 interest rates.199 b) Financial aspects of federalism 171.Québec announces that it wishes to end the provisional arrangements 167.Each order of government must have concerning hospital insurance and access to sufficient revenue to cover the health insurance programs and re- cost of programs under its jurisdiction.196 place them with a definitive opting-out

Financial autonomy: See also paragraphs 138 and 166. formula. This formula would involve unconditional payments.200 168.Regarding fiscal and economic issues, 172.With respect to fiscal compensation coordination of federal and provincial for opting-out of shared-cost programs, initiatives needs to be improved both Québec prefers to collect its own taxes to enable Canadian federalism to rather than receive financial compen- carry out its function of redistributing sation.201 wealth across the country and to give Shared-cost programs: See also paragraph 157. rise to genuine cooperative efforts.197 169.Redistribution of wealth among prov- 173.Québec submits three proposals for inces is not limited to equalization the fiscal arrangements: payments. The regional effects of the a) federal withdrawal from three central government’s total revenue and joint programs (health insurance, spending must also be taken into ac- hospital insurance, post-secondary count, so that the shortfall in federal education), in exchange for a satis- spending in Québec does not cancel the factory unconditional transfer to redistributive effect of equalization.198 the provinces; 170.Québec proposes the creation of an b) elimination of the tax receipts economic assistance fund that would guarantee program and integra- play a short-term compensating role tion of the amounts involved in

195. Inaugural Speech, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, March 15, 1973, p. 1 (quotation). 196. Statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Finance, Winnipeg, June 5-6, 1970, p. 26 and government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, September 14-15, 1970, p. 16-17. 197. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, November 15-17, 1971, p. 2, 10 and 11. 198. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, Winnipeg, June 5-6, 1970, p. 38-40. 199. Ibid., p. 31-33 and statement by Robert Bourassa, First Ministers Conference, Ottawa, November 15-17, 1971, p. 22. 200. Government of Québec, statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, November 15-17, 1971, p. 31. 201. Ibid., p. 40.

45 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

other transfers to the provinces would equalize all or a fixed pro- including a substantial portion in portion of provincial, municipal and equalization; school revenues at a level above the national average.202

c) an equalization formula based on Economic federalism and constitutional reform: a global indicator of wealth that See paragraph 131.

202. Opening statement by Robert Bourassa, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, June 15-16, 1976.

46 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF be international entities and relations RENÉ LÉVESQUE between them would no longer be gov- (PRE-REFERENDUM PERIOD, erned by a constitution, but rather by NOVEMBER 25, 1976 TO MAY 20, 1980) a treaty of association. However, they would continue to have a single tariff and a single currency. The nature of the proposed association would be that of a monetary union. bec é The project specified several of the major characteristics of Québec sovereignty: adoption of all laws and taxes by the Québec National Assembly; the territorial integrity of Québec; creation of Québec citizenship; preservation of rights legally vesting in the anglophone Source: Archives nationales du Qu Daniel Lessard minority; the Amerindian and Inuit ••• Status of Québec communities would have institutions on their lands designed to protect the 174.The Sovereignty-Association Project203 integrity of their societies and enable The government of René Lévesque was their free development; continuity in elected in November 1976. Its program treaty-making affairs; participation and consisted in holding a referendum in admission to certain international orga- Québec to address the issue of the nizations;Québec courts alone would Sovereignty-Association project with be empowered to administer justice Canada. in Québec. In 1979, the government published a As for the treaty on community asso- white paper204 explaining its project ciation planned by the government of that was submitted by referendum on Québec, its purpose would be to pre- May 20, 1980, a first exercise in serve the current economic space. It popular consultation under the aegis would have defined shared areas of activity (free circulation of goods and of the Québec Referendum Act. individuals, monetary union) and those The Sovereignty-Association project subject to the harmonization of national sought Québec accession to political policies and legislation (railway, mari- sovereignty within the framework of time and air transport, labour market a new agreement for economic asso- regulations and right of establishment, ciation with Canada. This meant estab- cyclical policies, overall equilibrium lishing a new relation between Canada of the balance of payments, monetary and Québec where both parties would stability and defence).

203. Paragraph 174 is a synthesis of the government project. 204. Government of Québec, Québec-Canada: A New Deal. The Québec Government Proposal for a New Partnership Between Equals: Sovereignty-Association. An extract from this white paper is reproduced in Part 3: see document no. 11. On the government project, see also the statement by René Lévesque regarding the referendum question before the Québec National Assembly, December 20, 1979 (See part 2 of this document).

47 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

In addition, the creation of certain ••• Constitutional reform process common Québec-Canada institutions 177.Québec will never agree, under the was considered, institutions that would existing system, to the patriation of be administered under the treaty. In the Constitution and to an amending this respect, the project included the formula as long as the whole issue of creation of a Community Council, a the distribution of powers has not Commission of Experts, a Court of been settled and Québec has not been Justice and a Monetary Authority (a guaranteed all the powers it needs for parliamentary assembly could have its development.208 also been examined without per se 178.Québec is of the view that reform of being included in the project). The operations of these institutions were to the division of powers must precede recognize the principle of legal equality that of central institutions, including 209 among partners, which in some cases the Senate. would be a right of veto for Québec ••• Distribution of powers and, in other cases, a deliberative voting power proportionate to its demographic a) General principles and economic weight. 179.The federal government should elimi- The mandate for negotiating Sover- nate certain activities in areas where eignty-Association that the government the provinces have more or less simi- asked of the population during the lar programs that match their needs May 20, 1980 referendum was rejected, more closely. It should also abstain since the No vote was confirmed by from carrying out tasks which the 59.56 % of the electors and the Yes provincial governments can do more vote received 40.44 %.205 economically and effectively.210 175.That the Members of the [National] 180.To resolve economic problems, the fed- Assembly do reiterate firmly and eral government must comply with explicitly their belief in the principle that Quebecers only have the ability agreements already signed instead of to decide on their constitutional future, modifying them unilaterally, and, to in accordance with the rules and pro- prevent economic problems from visions that the Assembly will see fit being lost in jurisdictional squabbles, to adopt.206 it must respect the jurisdiction of pro- 211 176.A lasting solution to the constitutional vincial governments. issue presupposes recognition of the 181.The Canadian economy is not a large Québec-Canada duality.207 homogeneous whole that can be suc-

205. Directeur général des élections du Québec, Rapport des résultats officiels du scrutin, Référendum du 20 mai 1980, 1980, p. 19 (an extract of the Official Report and the text of the referendum question may be found in part 3: document no. 12). 206. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 4, 1978 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 10). 207. Gouvernement du Québec, press release, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, October 30 and November 1, 1978. 208. Ibid. See also Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, presented to members of the Commission parlementaire de la Présidence du Conseil et de la Constitution by Claude Morin, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Marc-André Bédard, Minister of Justice, January 12, 1979: note on the patriation and amendment of the Constitution, p. 30. 209. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, note on the Senate, p. 27. 210. Statement by René Lévesque, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers, Ottawa, February 13-15, 1978, Canadian Intergovernmental Conferences Secretariat (CICS), doc. 800-7/056, p. 7. 211. Ibid., p. 7, and declaration by René Lévesque at the end of the conference, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, November 29, 1978, CICS, doc. 800-9/086.

48 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

cessfully controlled and manipulated rent jurisdiction. With the exception using standard policies and formulae. of distribution of quotas where fed- Provincial governments are in the best eral authority would take precedence, position to act, since they know their provincial legislation should have own economic context and its compo- priority.215 nent factors, i.e. resources, industrial 185.The Québec government should have structure, domestic market, social primary responsibility for strategies to 212 climate, etc. modernize and convert certain indus-

Reform of the distribution of powers as Québec’s tries in Québec, though it agrees with priority: See paragraphs 177-178. the need for cooperation with the federal government in this matter. b) Sectorial jurisdictions Québec has frequently asserted that 182.Québec proposes a territorial partition it considers itself in the best position of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, by means to provide effective assistance to small of lines equidistant from the shores of and medium-sized businesses.216 the Gulf, according to an agreement 186.Québec considers that it is primarily reached in 1964 between Québec and responsible for defining its industrial the Atlantic provinces.213 strategy, while acknowledging the need 183.Concerning ore and other resources for cooperation with the federal govern- located outside the immediate territory ment in the matter.217 of the provinces in the 200-mile economic 187.The rules concerning the interventions zone, Québec advocates concurrent of both governments in the area of jurisdiction with provincial legislation scientific research must be redefined. taking precedence. The exception would The aim should be a fair distribution be the distribution of mining duties of resources, recognition of Québec’s among provinces, where federal autho- needs and priorities, respect for Québec’s rity could take precedence until the development policies, and concerted provinces concerned reach an agree- action and coordinated initiatives by ment on the matter.214 those involved. The federal government 184.The provinces should have exclusive must not intervene in the area of jurisdiction over fisheries within their scientific research in Québec without territory. Outside the Gulf of St.Law- the prior agreement of the Québec rence, in the 200-mile economic zone, government, which has primary respon- Québec would be prepared for concur- sibility for science policy.218

212. Statement by René Lévesque, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, November 27-29, 1978, CICS, doc. 800- 9/040, p. 6. 213. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, note on off-shore resources, p. 19. 214. Ibid., p. 19. 215. Ibid., note on fisheries, p. 17. 216. Québec document on industrial development, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, November 27-29, 1978, CICS, doc. 800-9/050, p. 11. 217. Statement by Rodrigue Tremblay, Minister of Industry and Commerce, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Industry, Ottawa, January 30, 1978, CICS, doc. 830-45/006, p. 14. 218. Ministre d’État au Développement culturel, Pour une politique québécoise de la recherche scientifique, Québec, Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1979, p. 72-73.

49 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

188.It is essential that any future cultural regulatory agency.221 Québec maintains policy for Canada fully recognize the that pay-TV falls within its jurisdiction.222 distinct cultural character of Québec, 191.It is essential that the Québec govern- insofar as the development, promotion ment participate on at least an equal and protection of this character are footing with the federal government concerned. How can this be achieved and other provincial governments in except through the Québec govern- developing policies on satellites and ment’s control over the sector that in decision-making.223 influences culture on a daily basis: 192.Since mineral resources and their communications?219 management are under provincial juris- 189.The necessity of Québec’s intervention diction (BNA Act, Sec. 109), it is up to in the area of communications rests on the provinces to decide on the best ways the imperatives of civilization, cultural to ensure the viability and growth of necessities, and its responsibility to their mining industry.224 develop and apply a coherent communi- 193.Québec considers it is in the best cations policy. [...] The Québec govern- position to design and implement an ment, a daily participant together with appropriate economic development the population in the life of Québec, is policy for its people.225 in the best position to appreciate the reality of Québec and reflect that real- 194.Québec maintains that the provinces ity in appropriate regulations.220 have exclusive ownership of their natural resources.226 190.The Québec government would like to see a constitutional power-sharing 195.Québec demands provincial access to formula used in communications. This all forms of taxation, except customs 227 formula proposes that when a provincial duties. law requires provincial telecommunica- 196.Provinces that wish to should be able tions companies to obtain an operating to exercise exclusive jurisdiction over licence, any federal company operating tourism and receive the unconditional or wishing to operate in Québec should transfer of federal funds currently hold a licence from the provincial allocated for this purpose.228

219. Opening statement by Denis Vaugeois, Minister of Communications, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Commu- nications, Toronto, October 16-17, 1979 (quotation), CICS, doc. 800-11/027, p. 3. 220. Government of Québec, document on federal legislation and delegation of powers, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Communications, Charlottetown, March 29-30, 1978 (quotation), CICS, doc. 830-39/018, p. 4. 221. Ibid., p. 6. 222. Government of Québec, document on pay-TV, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Communications, Charlottetown, March 29-30, 1978, CICS, doc. 830-39/32, p. 2; see also the document of the Government of Québec, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Communications, Toronto, October 16-17, 1979, CICS, doc. 830-54/022, p. 2. 223. Government of Québec, document on policies relating to satellites, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Communications, Toronto, October 16-17, 1979 (quotation), CICS, doc. 830-54/022, p. 2. 224. Declaration of the government of Québec, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Mines, Toronto, January 19-20, 1978 (quotation), CICS, doc. 830-9/009, p. 1. 225. Notes for a declaration by René Lévesque at the end of the First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, November 27-29, 1978 (quotation), CICS, doc. 800-9/086, p. 2. 226. Statement by Yves Bérubé, Minister of Energy and Resources, First Ministers Conference on Energy, Ottawa, November 12, 1979, CICS, doc. 800-11/027, p. 8. 227. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnnelles 1978-1979, note on indirect taxation, p. 11. 228. Government of Québec, document on tourism, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, November 27-29, 1978, CICS, doc. 800-09/048, p. 2.

50 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

197.Québec demands complete and exclu- 201.Health comes under the exclusive juris- sive jurisdiction over recreation. The diction of the provinces.233 links between culture and recreation 202.The provinces have exclusive respon- are too strong to allow another govern- sibility for deciding whether or not to ment body to intervene in Québec. intervene in collective negotiations that The federal government’s responsibili- come under their jurisdiction. Québec ty would be limited to funding.229 intends to maintain room to maneuver 198.The Québec government claims pri- in labour relations, convinced that it mary responsibility for its cultural and and it alone must set its priorities in 234 natural heritage and demands that this area. bilateral negotiations between Québec c) Unilateral powers and Ottawa be opened immediately 203.The federal spending power should be concerning the restitution of cultural limited solely to areas listed as within properties, sites and historic places exclusive or concurrent federal juris- owned or managed by the federal diction. However, a decision is needed government within Québec, as well as on the method of compensation for the integration of national historic parks provinces that decide not to partici- and the Battlefields Park (Plains of pate in federal programs.235 Abraham) and federal parks into the 204.Québec demands the elimination of Québec parks network.230 the federal declaratory power, given 199.Québec demands that jurisdiction over that provinces enjoy internal sover- all correctional services be ceded to eignty over their areas of jurisdiction.236 the provinces, subject to the transfer of the corresponding financial resources. ••• Individual and language rights There seems to be little rational basis 205.If all provinces were to demand a char- for the current division of responsibil- ter, Québec would oppose the inclusion ities, the result being duplication in of rights other than those that have certain areas, including the adminis- been seriously tested in the courts, so tration and management of institutions, as to avoid the disadvantages of an en- parole and community supervision.231 trenched charter as much as possible.237 200.Social services areas come under the 206.Québec is opposed to the inclusion in exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces.232 the Constitution of language rights that

229. Declaration by Claude Charron, Minister responsible for the Haut-Commissariat à la Jeunesse, aux Loisirs et aux Sports, Interprovincial Conference of Ministers of Sports and Recreation, Winnipeg, May 31 and June 1, 1977, taken from Québec- Canada, ministère des Affaires intergouvernementales, vol. 5, no. 3, May-June 1977, p. 1. 230. Press release from the office of Yves Duhaime, Minister of Tourism, Game and Fishing, Federal-Provincial Conference on Parks, Victoria, September 25 and 26, 1978. 231. Press release, office of the Minister of Justice, Federal-Provincial Conference of Attorneys General and Ministers responsible for Correctional Services, Ottawa, June 27, 1977, CICS, doc. 830-32/023. 232. Statement by Denis Lazure, Minister of Social Affairs, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Social Welfare, Ottawa, March 6-7, 1978, taken from Québec-Canada, ministère des Affaires intergouvernementales, vol. 7, no. 3, March 1978, p. 2. 233. Statement by Denis Lazure, Minister of Social Affairs, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Health, Ottawa, June 22-23, 1977, taken from Québec-Canada, ministère des Affaires intergouvernementales, vol. 5, no. 4, July 1977, p. 2. 234. Notes for the Québec delegation on the issue of labour relations in the post-controls period. Federal-Provincial Conference of First Ministers, Ottawa, February 13 to 15, 1978, CICS, doc. 800-7/062, p. 1 and 5. 235. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, note on the federal spending power, p.6. 236. Ibid., note on the declaratory power, p.7. 237. Ibid., note on the charter of rights and freedoms, p. 23 (quotation).

51 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

would limit its freedom to maneuver procedures should be suspended and in a sector so vital to its future as a the issue immediately referred to the society. Québec cannot accept that its constitutional court.240 autonomy in this area be replaced by 209.Québec demands that the Québec Court a limited authority subject to interpre- of Appeal be the court of final appeal 238 tation by the courts. in matters relating to Québec civil law, Education in the language of the minority: and that each order of government be See paragraph 215. charged exclusively with appointing judges to courts under its own juris- ••• Institutions diction, which, consequently, would 207.The goal of Senate reform must be real cover judges of the Superior Court and representation of the provinces at the the Court of Appeal.241 central level, and their participation in 210.Québec is opposed to any increase in the exercise of federal power. How- the Governor General’s authority.242 ever, if the Upper House is truly to represent the provinces, its members ••• Intergovernmental policy must be appointed by provincial govern- a) Financial aspects of federalism ments for a limited term. Furthermore, Québec believes it would be difficult 211.Québec objects to the many federal to determine the composition and cutbacks that are gradually forcing it powers of a new Upper House in which into an increasingly difficult financial the provinces would participate in the situation, in the hopes of leading it to exercise of federal powers as long as recognize as its own federal priorities, these powers have not been redefined. federal programs, federal distributions In general, on the Senate issue, Québec to citizens.243 reiterates the Johnson position of 1968. 212.Québec demands a new distribution The Senate’s composition and operation of taxation that reflects the provinces’ should reflect the Canadian duality.239 relatively smaller fiscal leeway com-

Federal institutions and Québec priorities: pared to the federal government and See paragraph 178. the special situation of Québec, which is different from that of other prov- 208.Québec seeks the creation of a consti- inces owing to the implementation of tutional court the majority of whose its own programs and has resulted in judges would be directly appointed by a considerable increase in Quebecers’ the provinces. Furthermore, if a matter tax burden and public indebtedness.244 referred to a court raises a constitutional issue that is deemed serious, Taxation: See also paragraph 195.

238. Letter from René Lévesque to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, September 9, 1977. 239. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, note on the Senate, p. 27. 240. Ibid., note on the Supreme Court, p. 25. 241. Ibid. 242. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, note on the monarchy, p.28. 243. Speaking notes for the Minister of Finance of Québec, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, November 27-29, 1978, CICS, doc. 800-9/036, p. 11. 244. Budget Speech delivered by Jacques Parizeau, Minister of Finance, Minister of Revenue and Chairman of the Conseil du Trésor, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, April 12, 1977, p. 593-595.

52 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

213.Québec proposes that the federal gov- support from the Québec government; ernment make annual unconditional 3) aboriginal communities have a re- equalization payments to the provinces sponsibility to develop institutions so that each province can, according and strategies that suit their cultural to its fiscal capacity, provide compa- development.246 rable public services at comparable c) French-Speaking and rates of taxation, with a view to reducing social and economic disparities in Acadian Communities of Canada Canada.245 215.The government of Québec proposes to b) Aboriginal Nations the governments of the other provinces that would so desire as it does, en- 214.Three principles apply to the issue of hanced access to schooling in the aboriginal peoples: 1) any attempt to language of the minority and the draw- determine their future for them must ing up of reciprocal agreements to such be rejected; these communities are first end. Québec is prepared to negotiate and foremost responsible for making decisions on their development, which agreements with other provinces that assumes they will fully discuss their would provide citizens of other prov- social and cultural status; 2) aborig- inces who settle in Québec with access inal peoples must not be left to fend to English schools according to the for themselves using only their own terms and conditions that apply to resources; they must be able to rely on anglophones in Québec.247

245. Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979, note on equalization payments and regional disparities, p. 9. 246. La politique québécoise du développement culturel, volume 1, ministre d’État au Développement culturel, Québec, Éditeur officiel du Québec, 1978, p. 89 and 90. 247. Declaration by the Prime Minister of Québec on reciprocal education agreements, Eighteenth Annual Provincial Premiers Conference, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, August 18-19, 1977, CICS, doc. 850-8/012, p. 4 and 6.

53 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF 218.The fundamental issue for Québec in RENÉ LÉVESQUE its federal-provincial relations is the (POST-REFERENDUM PERIOD, following: is it possible to renew MAY 21, 1980 TO MAY 1985) Canadian federalism in such a way that Québec can, within this system, exercise the powers and control the levers necessary for it to fulfill its role as the home and homeland of one of

bec 250 é the constituent nations of Canada? 219.To be valid, any renewal of the federal system must include concrete recognition of Québec’s national identity and of the future requirements inherent in that, whether in terms of culture, communications, economic develop- 251 Source: Archives nationales du Qu Daniel Lessard ment and social policy.

Recognition of Québec: ••• Status of Québec See also paragraphs 221 and 224. 216.Canada is made up of two equal nations; Québec is the home and foun- 220.In discussions on the patriation of the dation of one of these nations and, Canadian Constitution, Québec presents having the attributes of a distinct the following proposal regarding the national community, enjoys an inalien- issue of a preamble and a statement able right to self-determination. The of the purpose of the Constitution: right to self-determination is the most “According to the wishes of Cana- 248 fundamental right of Québec society. dians, the provinces, in concert with the 217.The clear recognition of the right to federal government, want to remain self-determination is the most valu- freely united in a federation, as a able accomplishment of the Québec sovereign and independent country, referendum [...]. It is now undisputed under the Crown of Canada, with a and undisputable that Québec consti- constitution that is similar, in terms tutes a distinct national community of its principles, to the existing con- which can by itself, without outside stitution; interference, choose its constitutional status, [...]. The right—to control its THE FUNDAMENTAL GOAL of the fed- own national destiny—is the most eration is to preserve and promote fundamental right enjoyed by the freedom, justice and the well-being of Québec people.249 all Canadians. That is, to:

248. Speaking notes for René Lévesque, First Ministers Meeting, Ottawa, June 9, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, Commission parlementaire de la Présidence du Conseil et de la Constitution, Québec, August 14-15, 1980, index 1, p. 2 and 3 (See part 2 of this document). 249. Ibid., p.1 (quotation) [Translation]. 250. Statement by René Lévesque, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, June 5, 1980, p. 5992. 251. Opening statement by René Lévesque, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers on the Constitution, Ottawa, September 8-13, 1980, CICS, doc. 800-14/037, p. 5, 6 and 7.

54 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

PROTECT individual and collective 222.Provided the government of Canada rights, including those of aboriginal withdraws its patriation proposal, peoples; Québec would agree to an amending ENSURE that laws and political insti- formula in which: tutions are based on the will and a) in general, a constitutional amend- consent of the people; ment would require approval by the federal Parliament and seven PROMOTE the economic aspirations, provinces representing at least 50% security and development of the various of the population of Canada; cultural groups in Canada; b) any province could withdraw, with RECOGNIZE the distinct character of reasonable compensation, from a the people of Québec which, with its constitutional amendment (passed francophone majority, is one of the according to the above formula, pillars of the Canadian duality; excepting those concerning Senate CONTRIBUTE to the freedom and reform and the Supreme Court, well-being of humanity.”252 among others) that reduces the legislative authority, property rights or ••• Constitutional reform process other rights or privileges of the leg- 221.Québec’s expectations from the resump- islature or government of a province; tion of constitutional negotiations are: c) any constitutional change concern- a) that they acknowledge the existence ing the office of the Queen, the Gov- of a distinct society in Québec that ernor General and the Lieutenant wants to be recognized as such, that Governor, use of French or English, is free to decide its future and in- the composition of the Supreme tends to maintain the cultural, Court and changes to the amending economic and language tools to formula, among others, requires affirm itself and develop according unanimous consent.254 to its own aspirations and needs, 223.The National Assembly of Québec, and to acquire the tools it currently mindful of the right of the people of lacks; Québec to self-determination, and b) that they result in a clarification exercising its historical right of being of the distribution of powers and a a full party to any change to the significant reduction in areas of Constitution of Canada which would federal-provincial overlapping; affect the rights and powers of Québec, declares that it cannot accept the plan c) that the federal government ac- to patriate the Constitution.255 knowledge that the provinces are not regional administrative entities, 224.Québec sets four conditions for its but major, responsible partners.253 signing of the Constitution Act, 1982:

252. Opening statement by René Lévesque, Federal-Provincial Conference of the First Ministers on the Constitution, Ottawa, September 8-13, 1980, CICS, doc. 800-14/037, p. 5, 6 and 7. 253. Preliminary declaration by Claude Morin, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index B, p. 3. 254. Constitutional agreement, Canadian proposal for the patriation of the Constitution, April 16, 1981; document signed by provinces, except Ontario and New Brunswick (Part 3: document no. 14). Québec's opposition to the federal project for unilateral patriation was also expressed in the resolutions of the Québec National Assembly on November 21, 1980 and October 2, 1981 (See part 3: documents no. 13 and 15). 255. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly, December 1, 1981 (quotation; see part 3: document no.18). See also the Constitutional agreement, November 5, 1981 on patriation finalized without Québec's participation (Part 3: document no. 16) and the declaration by René Lévesque, November 5, 1981 (See part 2 of this document). See also Order-in-Council no. 3214-81 of the government of Québec, November 25, 1981 (Part 3: document no. 17).

55 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

1) recognition of the principle of equal- pan-Canadian approach to the devel- ity of the founding peoples and the opment of economic policy. Regional distinct character of Québec as a soci- differences in Canada and the dispar- ety; 2) a veto or general opting-out ities in development in each region are right with full financial compensation; too marked to think that standardized 3) non-application of section 23 to measures can be effective everywhere Québec; and 4) abrogation of the Char- to the same degree. The Québec gov- ter’s mobility rights.256 ernment is surely in the best position, if it is given the means, to promote 225.Québec agrees to participate in aborig- economic development.260 inal peoples conferences at the express request of representatives of aboriginal Economic powers: See also paragraph 249. nations in Québec. This participation 228.The government nearest the people is cannot be interpreted as recognition of in the best position to appreciate the the Constitution Act, 1982.257 circumstances of the various groups ••• Constitutional amending procedure making up the population and is best able to adapt its legislation, programs See paragraphs 222-224. and services to the needs expressed by citizens. The current status of women ••• Distribution of powers is not foreign to this observation and a) General principles provides an outstanding example of the need for the central government to 226. Affirmation of the basic equality of the respect provincial primacy and auton- two founding peoples cannot occur omy in order to protect women’s rights within Canadian federalism unless and improve their situation, For this Québec is granted a unique role and reason, Québec immediately rejects the ability to exercise a set of special the idea of a national action plan.261 powers.258 These powers affect education Clarification of the distribution of powers and (including adult education), commu- constitutional reform: See paragraph 221. nications (radio, television, cable distribution and pay-TV), social policy, b) Sectorial jurisdictions immigration, economic development, 229.Québec demands that provincial leg- natural resources and Québec’s inter- islative primacy in the realm of commu- 259 national affirmation. nications and communications systems 227.The Québec government has always be written into the Constitution, includ- maintained that it cannot accept a ing: 1) the reception and transmission

256. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly, December 1, 1981 (See part 3: document no.18); see also the letter from René Lévesque to Margaret Thatcher, Prime Minister of Great Britain, December 19, 1981 and the letter from René Lévesque to Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, December 17, 1982. 257. Opening statement by René Lévesque, Conferences of First Ministers on Constitutional Issues of Interest to Native People, Ottawa, March 15-16, 1983, CICS, doc. 800-17/033, p. 1, March 8-9, 1984, CICS, doc. 800-18/021, p. 1 and April 2-3, 1985, CICS, doc. 800-20/014, p. 1. 258. Speaking notes for René Lévesque, First Ministers Meeting, Ottawa, June 9, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 1, p. 4 (See part 2 of this document). 259. Statement by René Lévesque, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, June 5, 1980, p. 5995-5999. 260. Government of Québec, document on economic development, Federal-Provincial Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, February 1982, CICS, doc. 800-16/018, p. 4. 261. Speaking notes for Pauline Marois, Minister responsible for the Status of Women, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference of Ministers responsible for the Status of Women, Ottawa, May 31 and June 1, 1983, CICS, doc. 830-129/019, p. 3-4.

56 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

within the province of signals from located outside the immediate terri- outside the province; 2) the transmis- tory of the provinces in the 200-mile sion outside a province of signals orig- economic zone, Québec advocates inating inside the province; 3) the concurrent jurisdiction with provin- ownership and management of commu- cial legislation taking precedence. nications and communications systems; The exception would be the distribu- 4) the programming, including com- tion of mining duties among provinces, mercial advertising; 5) authority to where federal authority could take pre- issue operating Licences, as well as cedence until the provinces concerned the specific assignment of frequencies reach an agreement on the matter.264 and other technical operating standards. 232.Québec proposes to add fishing and In addition, the federal Parliament fisheries within the province to the list would be authorized to legislate exclu- of areas of which the provinces would sively in areas such as 1) the general have exclusive legislative power, and management of broadcast frequencies; 2) the use of communications and com- to eliminate this power from the list munications systems for aeronautics, of areas subject to exclusive federal defence or national emergencies 3) legislative authority. A provision must matters relating to the Canadian Broad- be added to the Constitution defining casting Corporation, whose develop- the rights of the provinces bordering ment plans would, however, be subject on the Gulf of St. Lawrence and speci- to approval by the government of a fying that the limits of the provinces of province for activities within that Québec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, province.262 Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland 230.Québec requests that the federal extend to the median lines equidistant 265 government respect provincial juris- from their respective Gulf shores. diction over closed-circuit television 233.Québec claims full jurisdiction over job services and proposes that any busi- creation programs and demands the ness wishing to distribute a pay-TV recovery of funds allocated for this service be required to satisfy conditions purpose by the federal government. set by the province.263 Québec bases this claim on the fact that francophone workers have little Communications: See also paragraph 226. out-of-province mobility because of 266 231.Québec considers that in the Gulf of significant social and cultural factors. St. Lawrence its territory extends to 234.Québec wants full responsibility over the median lines dividing its shores. policy and decision-making in the area Concerning ore and other resources of adult training and asks the federal

262. Notes of the Québec government on communications, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossiers sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 8, p. 1-3. 263. Proposal by Québec concerning pay-TV, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Communications, Winnipeg, September 9-10, 1981, CICS, doc. 830-103/012; see also Québec's position on pay-TV, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers of Communications, Calgary, May 21, 1982, CICS, doc. 830-117/009. 264. Note of the Québec government on off-shore resources, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 6, p. 1. 265. Note of the Québec government on fisheries, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 7, p. 2-3. 266. Supporting document of the Québec government on human resources, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, February 1982, CICS, doc. 800-16/044-1, p. 4.

57 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

government for the transfer of all 237.Québec proposes that each province federal funds allocated to adult voca- have exclusive jurisdiction over natu- tional training in Québec.267 ral resources (including regulation of interprovincial trade), with provincial Vocational training: See also paragraph 246. legislation taking precedence over 235.Québec considers that unconditional federal legislation in this area, so that transfers of funds for post-secondary the federal government could not education, tuition fees and student assis- invoke its general powers (residuary tance are not negotiable because they and implicit power, declaratory, reserve relate to education and fall within the and disallowance powers, exceptional provinces’ exclusive jurisdiction.268 provisional power, etc.) to override a provincial law. In addition, the prov- Education: See also paragraphs 226, 238 and 246. inces’ public ownership should not be 236.Québec makes the following constitu- subject to expropriation by Parliament, tional proposals concerning family law: except with the consent of the provincial government concerned.270 a) marriage should be within exclusive provincial jurisdiction; Québec’s international affirmation: See paragraph 226. b) divorce would be an area of concurrent jurisdiction, though provincial Status of women: See paragraph 228. legislation would have primacy over federal legislation. In addition, a c) Unilateral powers province could exclude, by declara- 238.Québec denounces the encroachment tion of the legislature, the federal on provincial jurisdiction caused by the Parliament from the realm of imposition of federal national stan- divorce; dards that, through the federal spending c) furthermore, the provinces would power, erode the distribution of powers have exclusive jurisdiction over an- between the two orders of govern- cillary divorce measures (alimony, ment. It is unacceptable to Québec maintenance, etc.) while the federal that the federal government imple- Parliament would have exclusive ment an inspection and monitoring jurisdiction over standard rules con- system in a sector of provincial juris- cerning national recognition of diction such as health, that it pay divorce judgments issued both in grants to municipalities directly and Canada and in other countries; make payment of its contributions sub- d) in addition, the provinces would ject to compliance with the criteria of have the authority to appoint judges “national” objectives, in particular in to a unified family court.269 education. If provincial jurisdiction is

267. Supporting document of the Québec government on human resources, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, February 1982, CICS, doc. 800-16/044-1, p. 4. See also the statement by René Lévesque, Annual First Ministers Conference, Charlottetown, August 19-22, 1984, CICS, doc. 800-26/007, p. 3. Concerning vocational training, see also a note of the Québec government on adult vocational training in Québec, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Regina, February 14-15, 1985, CICS, doc. 800-19/036, p. 35-36. 268. Supporting document of the Québec government on human resources, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Ottawa, February 1982, CICS, doc. 800-16/044-1, p. 4. 269. Note of the Québec government on family law, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 11, p. 2. 270. Note of the Québec government on natural resources, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 5, p. 3-4. The government reiterates the position taken at the First Ministers Conference of February 1979.

58 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

to be defended, the provinces must ••• Institutions effectively exercise their powers, fully 242.Québec proposes that the following occupy their areas of jurisdiction and points be included in the Constitution the federal spending power must be concerning the Supreme Court: limited, with the latter a priority.271 a) institutionalize the Supreme Court; Subsidies for municipalities: See also paragraph 247. b) confirm the current composition of the Court, i.e. nine judges, three Unilateral powers and natural resources: See paragraph 237. of whom are from Québec; c) specify that the federal govern- ••• Individual and language rights ment, before appointing a judge to the Court, must obtain the approval 239.The vast area of rights and liberties of the Minister of Justice of Québec is evolving rapidly. Constitutional or of the province concerned; entrenchment would inevitably complicate this process, make it infinitely d) specify that the Supreme Court is more difficult and deny elected assem- the last resort tribunal in Canada, blies the power to act democratically both for civil and criminal matters; in this area, transferring it to the courts e) indicate that when the Court must for judgment.272 decide on an issue of civil law in 240.Québec is opposed to the inclusion in Québec, a bench will be formed on the Constitution of language rights that which the majority of the judges would limit its freedom to maneuver will be from Québec; in a sector so vital to its future as a f) add that the provinces can refer a society. Québec cannot accept that its request for an opinion to the Court; autonomy in this area be replaced by g) entrench the rule of linguistic a limited authority subject to interpre- alternation of the Chief Justice of 273 tation by the courts. the Supreme Court; 241.Québec will include an override clause h) create a constitutional bench on in each statute passed by the National the Court, half of whose members Assembly before April 17, 1982. A simi- to be drawn from Québec and the lar clause will henceforth be added as other half from the other provinces. a matter of course to each bill submit- This bench would be responsible 274 ted to the National Assembly. for deciding constitutional disputes School language rights and mobility rights: submitted by the provinces or the See paragraph 224. federal government.275

271. Statement by René Lévesque on the current situation and priorities for the future, Annual First Ministers Conference, Charlottetown, 1984. 272. Speaking note for René Lévesque, First Ministers Meeting, Ottawa, June 9, 1980, Dossiers sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 1, p. 5 (See part 2 of this document). On this subject, see also paragraph 206. 273. Note of the Québec government on the Charter of Rights, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 3, p. 5 (quotation). 274. Statement by Marc-André Bédard, Minister of Justice, Journal des débats, May 5, 1982, p. 3291. 275. Note of the Québec government on the Supreme Court, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 10, p. 2. In January 1979, the Lévesque Government asked for the creation of a constitutional court, the majority of whose judges would be appointed directly by the provinces, and demanded that jurisdiction over Québec civil law rest, in the final instance, with the Québec Court of Appeal. See Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles 1978-1979.

59 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

243.The provinces should have the consti- of direct relations between the federal tutional authority to appoint judges to government and the municipalities. Such superior, district and county courts.276 a system would in fact erode the prov- 280 244.According to Québec, a reformed Upper ince’s already too-limited jurisdiction. House should provide significant pro- b) Financial aspects of federalism vincial representation and participation 248.The Québec government agrees that in the exercise of federal power. Québec the principle of unconditional federal also believes that the composition and payments to the provincial governments operation of this House should reflect should be written into the Constitution the dual nature of the Canadian nation.277 [...]. Such payments should be the ••• Intergovernmental policy preferred method of correcting regional disparities. Furthermore, Québec is pre- a) Conducting intergovernmental relations pared to have written into the Consti- 245.As long as the people of Québec have tution the principle according to which not decided democratically to opt for a all governments commit themselves to reduce regional disparities.281 different regime, a government headed by the Parti québécois must act to Unconditional transfers: See also paragraph 235. protect and defend the interests of Québec within the federal system. The 249.Québec and the provinces in general 282 federal government will find Québec must have real economic powers. Québec proposes that certain economic quite prepared to maintain harmonious powers be decentralized. It also wants relations with it.278 to increase the means at its disposal 246.Québec is prepared, in spite of diverging to stimulate growth within Québec and constitutional interests, to agree to correct market imbalances, and does not occasionally adopt joint actions with agree economic under-development be the provinces concerning specific issues mitigated by higher transfer payments.283 (education, municipal institutions, c) Aboriginal Nations vocational training, economic development, federal spending power).279 250.Québec formulates its reply to aborig- 247.The Québec government has never inal demands: agreed nor has it the intention of agree- a) it recognizes that the aboriginal ing to the implementation of a system peoples of Québec are distinct

276. Note of the Québec government on the Supreme Court, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 10, p. 3. 277. Note for an intervention by Québec on the Senate, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 9, p. 3. 278. Inaugural message of René Lévesque, fifth session of the 32nd Legislature, Journal des débats, October 16, 1984, p. 22. 279. Statement by René Lévesque on the current situation and priorities for the future, Annual First Ministers Conference, Charlottetown, August 19-22, 1984, CICS, doc. 850-26/007, p. 6. 280. Speaking notes for Jacques Léonard, Minister of Municipal Affairs, Interprovincial Conference of Ministers of Municipal Affairs, Victoria, August 9-12, 1983, CICS, doc. 860-130/013, p. 2 (quotation); see also the letter from René Lévesque to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, May 26, 1983, CICS, doc. 860-130/014, p. 1. 281. Note of the Québec government on equalization and regional disparities, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, Montréal, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 12, p. 3. 282. Notes of the Québec government on the powers affecting the economy, meeting of the Comité permanent des ministres sur la Constitution, July 8-11, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles, index 4, p. 3. 283. Comments by Québec on the federal positions relating to economic powers, Vancouver, July 22-24, 1980, Dossier sur les discussions constitutionnelles.

60 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

nations and have a right to their j) from Québec’s point of view, pro- culture, their language, their cus- tection of the existing aboriginal toms and traditions as well as the rights also extends to the rights right to decide how to develop this included in agreements reached separate identity; with Québec as part of the land b) it also recognizes that aboriginal claims process. In addition, the nations, within the structure of the James Bay and Northern Québec laws of Québec, have the right to Agreement and the North-eastern own and control the lands attributed Québec Agreement must be viewed to them; as treaties and have full effect; c) these rights must be exercised within k) Québec is ready to explicitly recog- the context of Québec society, and nize in its legislation the existing consequently they cannot include rights stemming from the Royal sovereignty rights that could jeop- Proclamation of 1763 concerning ardize the territorial integrity of aboriginal nations.284 Québec; Participation in conference on Aboriginal Peoples: [...] See paragraph 225.

284. Cabinet decision, February 9, 1983, included in Les fondements de la politique du gouvernement du Québec en matière autochtone, Secrétariat aux affaires autochtones, gouvernement du Québec, 1988, p. 3 and 4. See also the resolutions of the Québec National Assembly on March 20, 1985 and May 30, 1989 (Part 3: document no. 19).

61 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENTS OF 1) Québec’s primary jurisdiction in RENÉ LÉVESQUE AND terms of rights and freedoms is ac- PIERRE MARC JOHNSON knowledged; 2) the amending formula (MAY TO DECEMBER 2, 1985)285 is changed to provide Québec with sufficient guarantees; 3) that the distribution of powers is rearranged and judicial institutions are reformed. bec

é ••• Constitutional amending procedure 255.It should be recognized that Québec has a veto over both the reform of federal institutions and the creation of new provinces. 256.Regarding changes to the distribution of powers, Québec should have a veto Source: Archives nationales du Qu Marc Lajoie or constitutional right to opt out with reasonable and mandatory financial ••• Status of Québec compensation. 251.The federal framework of the current Constitution should be improved to ••• Distribution of powers ensure that Quebecers obtain the most a) Sectorial jurisdictions favourable conditions possible for their development. 257.The distribution of constitutional powers should be revised so as to: 252.The Québec people have the inalienable a) confirm Québec’s full control over right to democratically determine their the manpower and all associated constitutional future as they see fit. areas;286 ••• Constitutional reform process b) recognize Québec’s primary author- 253.Recognition of the existence of the ity for the general direction of its Québec people as such is the essential economic development; prerequisite to Québec’s agreement c) acknowledge Québec’s primacy of to and participation in a new consti- jurisdiction in the area of immigrant tutional process. selection and settlement in Québec; 254.Québec is prepared to reach a cons- d) grant Québec a significant increase titutional agreement with the rest of in its powers in communications; Canada, designed to repair the injur- e) recognize Québec’s exclusive juris- ies done to Québec in 1981, provided diction over marriage and divorce;

285. Unless indicated otherwise, the following positions are taken from the document Draft Agreement on the Constitution. Proposals by the Government of Québec, May 1985 (Part 3: document no. 20). 286. See also the note of the government of Québec concerning job creation and vocational training, First Ministers Conference, St. John’s, Newfoundland, August 21 and 22, 1985, CICS, doc. 850-31/019, p. 68-69.

62 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

f) recognize, in terms of international and receive health care and social relations, Québec’s unique situation services in its language.289 whenever its jurisdiction and iden- 263.Québec is prepared to amend the Charter tity are at issue, particularly as part of the French Language to guarantee of French-Speaking Communities.287 that children of parents who received 258.The National Battlefields Commission their elementary education in English has jurisdiction over historic sites that in Canada will have access to English are significant in the history of Québec schools; in return, it expects that chil- such as the Plains of Abraham and the dren eligible for French education Parc des Braves that are located in the everywhere in Canada will be able to effectively exercise the guarantee heart of the Québec capital. Québec accorded by section 23.290 requests that this commission’s responsibilities be transferred to it.288 264.Only sections 3 to 5 of the Canadian Char- ter should continue to apply in Québec. Culture and education: See paragraph 270. 265.Québec’s legislation should have the authority to subject its legislation Negotiations for liberalizing exchanges and distribution of powers: See paragraph 272. solely to the Québec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so that it could include b) Unilateral powers the Charter in the Constitution of Québec.291 259.The federal spending power should be constrained so that payment of condi- Primary responsibility of Québec in matters of rights and freedoms: See paragraph 254. tional grants to the provinces is subject to the agreement of a majority of them. ••• Institutions Any province refusing such grants should receive fair compensation. 266.The Constitution should explicitly recognize that three of the nine judges 260.The reserve and disallowance powers of the Supreme Court of Canada are should be abolished. to be appointed from Québec and that the position of Chief Justice is to be ••• Individual and language rights filled according to the principle of lin- 261.The Canadian Constitution must recog- guistic alternation. nize Québec’s exclusive right to decide 267.Québec should have the constitutional its official language and to legislate on right to participate in the appointment any language issue within its jurisdiction. of Supreme Court of Canada judges 262.Québec would guarantee the right of from Québec. Its agreement should be the anglophone minority to retain its obtained before their appointment by cultural and educational institutions, the federal government.

287. Position reiterated in Le Québec dans le monde, Le défi de l'interdépendance, Énoncé de politique de relations internationales, gouvernement du Québec, Ministère des Relations internationales, June 1985, p. 8. Regarding French-Speaking Communities, see the Agreement between the government of Québec and the government of Canada pertaining to the Francophone Summit, November 7, 1985 (Part 3: document no. 21). 288. Letter from Pierre Marc Johnson, then Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, to Tom McMillan, federal Minister of Environment, Québec, November 5, 1985. 289. See also speech by Pierre Marc Johnson, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Ottawa, May 25, 1985. 290. Ibid. 291. See also speech by Pierre Marc Johnson, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Montréal, May 29, 1985.

63 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

268.Only judges who are from Québec and French education: See paragraph 263. trained in civil law should decide matters of civil law. c) Trade 269.Québec should have the power to 272.The Québec government’s support for appoint, following consultation with holding negotiations on free trade comes the federal government, judges to with a certain number of conditions: Québec Superior Courts. 1) Québec wants to participate in the entire negotiation process (determina- ••• Intergovernmental policy tion of objectives and mandates) and in a) Conducting intergovernmental relations the negotiation itself through the presence of representatives from Québec 270.Payments of federal grants to individ- on the negotiation team; 2) transition, uals and institutions working in the reassignment and job protection mea- areas of culture and education should sures must be developed jointly by be subject to Québec’s prior approval. the federal government and the prov- b) French-Speaking and inces to facilitate the adaptation of Acadian Communities of Canada workers, businesses and regions to the changes resulting from a change 271.To support the development of fran- in the trade system [...]; 3) in accor- cophone minorities, Québec is prepared dance with the Constitution of 1867, to negotiate mutual assistance agree- Québec will only consider itself bound, ments with the government of any in areas within its jurisdiction, if it other province. has given its consent.292

292. Statement by Pierre Marc Johnson, First Ministers Conference on the Economy, Halifax, November 28-29, 1985, CICS, doc. 800-21/031, p. 6 (quotation).

64 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

SECOND GOVERNMENT OF 275.Given its special situation within ROBERT BOURASSA Canada and North America, Québec (PERIOD PRECEDING THE FAILURE OF THE has sought, by means of the five con- MEECH LAKE ACCORD, DECEMBER 12, 1985 ditions for its endorsement of the TO JUNE 21, 1990) Constitution Act, 1982, to obtain assurance that the Canadian Constitution will enable it to attain its full potential within the Federation and receive the guarantees and powers necessary to bec é protect and develop the characteristics that contribute to its specificity. Recognition of Québec’s specificity was therefore a prerequisite to any negotiation intended to achieve Québec’s endorsement of the Constitution Act, 1982. The efforts to find satisfactory constitutional answers to the other Source: Archives nationales du Qu Daniel Lessard conditions laid down by Québec were ••• Status of Québec based essentially on this special identity 273.Québec’s future lies within Canada. that sets Québec apart, particularly at That is the profound conviction of the the cultural, linguistic, social, economic, vast majority of Quebecers and the legal and political levels. Recognition first and fundamental commitment of of the distinct character of Québec society therefore became the generat- this government. The Québec governing principle of the other conditions, ment believes in federalism because, their common raison d’être.295 within the federal system, Québec can not only be faithful to its history and Distinct society and Meech Lake Accord: See paragraph 279. special identity but also enjoy favourable conditions for its full economic, Québec’s specificity and free trade: social and cultural development.293 See paragraph 296. 274.Recognition of Québec’s specificity is a pre-requisite to any talks to persuade ••• Constitutional reform process Québec to support the Constitution Act 276.Québec objects to the fact that the 1981 of 1982. Such recognition must guar- patriation was used as a pretext to antee Québec the means necessary to substantially amend the Canadian con- ensure its full development within the stitution, despite Québec’s objections framework of Canadian federalism.294 and in disregard of its historic rights.296

293. Opening speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs at the Symposium “Rebuilding the Relationship: Québec and its Confederation Partners,” Mont-Gabriel, May 9, 1986, p. 8 (See part 2 of this document). 294. Ibid., (quotation) p. 15. 295. Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “L'Accord constitutionnel de 1987 et le rapa- triement du Québec au sein du fédéralisme canadien,” at a Symposium organized by the Canadian Bar Association on the 1987 Constitutional Accord, in L'adhésion du Québec à l'Accord du Lac Meech. Points de vue juridiques et politiques, Les Éditions Thémis, 1987, p. 190. 296. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mont-Gabriel Symposium, May 9, 1986, p. 4 (See part 2 of this document).

65 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

277.No government of Québec of whatever protect and promote this distinct political leaning could sign the Constitu- character; that linguistic duality is tion Act, 1982 as it is currently worded. a basic characteristic of Canada, a However, if certain changes were made, characteristic for whose protection this constitutional law could be accept- Parliament and the legislatures able to Québec. These changes are: are responsible. 1) explicit recognition of Québec as a 2) It stipulates a procedure, that can distinct society; 2) guarantee of greater be written into the Constitution, powers over immigration; 3) limitation for negotiating accords relating of the federal spending power; 4) recog- to immigration, which, subject to nition of a veto power; and 5) Québec’s Parliament’s power to set national participation in appointing judges to standards and objectives concerning 297 the Supreme Court of Canada. the setting of general immigrant

The distinct society as the primary generator of categories, in particular, immigration Québec’s other conditions: See paragraph 275. levels and the choice of categories of ineligible persons, allow a prov- 278.The 1987 Constitutional Accord (The ince to exercise new powers in Meech Lake Accord), a corrective agree- this area. ment insofar as it enabled Québec to resume its place as a major and distinct 3) It gives every province the right to partner in the federation, ends Québec’s opt out with fair financial com- constitutional isolation. It completes pensation of any new shared-cost the patriation process initiated in 1981- program established in a sector of 1982 and restores the very foundations exclusive provincial jurisdiction, of federalism by ensuring that the provided the province institutes a program or measure compatible governmental partners give their full with national objectives. and willing accord to the basic constitutional document by which they are 4) It places under the principle of governed.298 provincial unanimity certain constitutional amendments that, under 279.In substance, the Constitutional the Constitution Act, 1982, required Amendment, 1987, includes the fol- only the application of the general lowing elements:299 amending formula. These amend- 1) It stipulates that any interpretation ments affect proportional represen- of the Constitution must be consis- tation of the provinces in the federal tent with the recognition of these Parliament, the powers of the Sen- two points: that Québec forms a ate and the selection of Senators, distinct society within Canada and appointments to the Supreme Court, that the legislature and govern- the creation of new provinces and ment of Québec are mandated to the extension of existing provinces.

297. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mont-Gabriel Symposium, May 9, 1986, p. 4-5 and p. 12 (See part 2 of this document). 298. Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “L'Accord constitutionnel de 1987 et le rapa- triement du Québec au sein du fédéralisme canadien,” in L'adhésion du Québec à l'Accord du Lac Meech. Points de vue juridiques et politiques, Les Éditions Thémis, 1987, p. 190. 299. The Constitutional Amendment, 1987, and resolution of the Québec National Assembly, June 23, 1987 (Part 3: documents nos. 22 and 23). See also the speech delivered by Robert Bourassa (June 18, 1987) upon the tabling of the motion at the Québec National Assembly (See part 2 of this document).

66 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

In addition, the 1987 Constitutional ••• Distribution of powers Amendment guarantees the prov- a) Sectorial jurisdictions inces the right to withdraw, with fair financial compensation, from 282.Québec’s cultural security must be any constitutional amendment that guaranteed. Specifically, Québec must transfers provincial legislative pow- control every aspect of its immigration ers to Parliament. to maintain its francophone character, 5) It stipulates, among other things, by using its power to balance or even that three of the nine Supreme reverse the trends pointing to a decline Court judges must be from Québec in its relative demographic weight in and that the Governor General in Canada.302 Council appoints only candidates Immigration and Meech Lake Accord: proposed by the Québec govern- See paragraph 279. ment. Furthermore, the same procedure would apply to appointments 283.We must always bear in mind that to fill Senate vacancies. agriculture is an area of shared juris- 280.The issues Québec would like to see diction between the federal government resolved during the second round of and the provinces [...]. The role of the constitutional discussions will obvi- federal government is of particular ously reflect our traditional demands importance in issues of interprovincial and, in conjunction with the gains and international trade [...]. On the realized in 1987, will seek to widen other hand, of course, the provinces the scope of Québec’s role in the can exercise their right to intervene Canadian Federation.300 in the areas of financing, marketing, research, production assistance, and ••• Constitutional amending procedure income stabilization. We would not 281.The Constitutional amending proce- agree to any measure that would jeop- dure included in the Constitution Act, ardize these fundamental rights.303 1982 is fundamentally unacceptable to Québec in that it fails to make pro- 284.The Québec government intends to vig- vision for financial compensation in orously defend its powers and juris- every case of opting out, and it allows diction in the financial sector, while changes to federal institutions and being aware of the need to harmonize the creation of a new province despite its legislation with that of the federal Québec’s objection.301 government and the other provinces.304

Constitutional amending procedure and Meech Lake Distribution of powers and free trade: Accord: See paragraph 279. See paragraph 295.

300. Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “L'Accord constitutionnel de 1987 et le rapa- triement du Québec au sein du fédéralisme canadien,” in L'adhésion du Québec à l'Accord du Lac Meech. Points de vue juridiques et politiques, Les Éditions Thémis, 1987, p. 206. 301. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mont-Gabriel Symposium, May 9, 1986, p. 11-12 (See part 2 of this document). 302. Ibid., p. 10. 303. Draft speech by Michel Pagé, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers and Deputy Ministers of Agriculture, Victoria, August 26-27, 1986, CICS, doc. 830-224/024, p. 2 (quotation). 304. Minister responsible for Finance and Privatization, La réforme des institutions financières au Québec: objectifs, principes directeurs et plan d'action, Québec, October 1987.

67 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

b) Unilateral powers it was prudent to leave the last word to Parliament. Because of the delicate 285.The fact that the federal government balance that must be preserved in can and intends to spend money in such matters, Québec favours main- every area, whether or not they lie taining the override clause included within its jurisdiction, has become in section 33 of the Canadian Charter intolerable. It is a sword of Damocles of Rights and Freedoms.307 hanging over each province’s policies regarding its social, cultural and eco- ••• Institutions nomic development. It appears increas- 288.The status of the Supreme Court as ingly necessary that this spending final arbiter in constitutional debates, power be made subject to provincial should be entrenched in the Consti- approval. Such a change would contrib- tution. Further, its composition must ute significantly to improving the way reflect the Canadian duality in terms the federal system operates.305 of legal systems, and contribute to both Federal spending power and Meech Lake Accord: preserving Québec’s distinct character See paragraph 279. and recognizing its unique contribution to Confederation. The Court’s compo- ••• Individual and language rights sition is of great concern to Québec. 286.Québec intends to control language Constitutional guarantees ensuring policy within its borders. Québec views adequate representation on the Court the maintenance of its language, cul- and significant participation in the ture and institutions as essential to its selection process applied to judges survival as a distinct society. There- from Québec are essential.308 fore, the Québec government must be Supreme Court of Canada, Senate and Meech Lake chiefly responsible for language policy Accord: See paragraph 279. within Québec and, in this area above all, Québec will attempt to secure the ••• Intergovernmental policy broadest possible authority It will not be willing to sacrifice its jurisdiction a) Conducting intergovernmental relations over language to an ideal of Canadian 289.Québec offers six proposals to help unity that does not incorporate very strengthen the Canadian federation: strong guarantees concerning the 1) on-going discussions to establish the preservation of its distinct character.306 conditions for Québec’s endorsement 287.In certain highly controversial issues of a new constitutional accord; 2) a where it is difficult to identify clear substantial increase in regional eco- and generally recognized principles, nomic development efforts; 3) the

305. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mont-Gabriel Symposium, May 9, 1986, p. 10 (See part 2 of this document). 306. Speech by Claude Ryan, Minister of Education, Higher Education and Science and Minister responsible for the administration of the French Language Charter, Kingston, December 8, 1989, p.1-2 (quotation; see also part 2 of this document). 307. Ibid., p. 8 (quotation). 308. Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “L'Accord constitutionnel de 1987 et le rapa- triement du Québec au sein du fédéralisme canadien,” in L'adhésion du Québec à l'Accord du Lac Meech. Points de vue juridiques et politiques, Les Éditions Thémis, 1987, p. 201.

68 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

federal government’s continued fulfil- accessible and free services. However, ment of its constitutional commitment if the federal government is no longer by means of equalization rather than capable of meeting its financial respon- by the implementation of new programs sibilities in regard to health and post- and the re-opening of fiscal arrange- secondary education, it should withdraw ments as part of fiscal reform; 4) fair from these sectors and provide the treatment of provinces receiving equal- provinces with compensation in the ization by making appropriate correc- form of additional tax points.310 tions to the federal proposals in the 291.Québec protests against the federal near future; 5) provincial participation government’s unilateral changes to in tax reform, and ensuring the pro- transfer mechanisms without prior vincial presence in the consumer tax negotiations with the provinces. The field does not decline; 6) and finally, Québec government has no objection inclusion in the priorities of each in principle to some degree of federal government of the means needed to withdrawal, but it cannot agree that enable women to achieve full eco- it should occur without negotiating with nomic equality.309 the provinces and fiscal compensation. b) Financial aspects of federalism In addition, it is paradoxical that the federal government should withdraw 290.The Québec government is of the view from various sectors while at the same that the fiscal arrangements between time imposing national standards and the federal government and the prov- applying financial penalties in cases inces should be covered by a formal where the provinces do not comply with agreement between the two orders of these standards.311 government, which would endow them with a more permanent, stable and less Fiscal reform, financial arrangements and equalization payments: See also paragraph 289. arbitrary character than the current arrangements. It also demands that c) Aboriginal Nations the federal government respect its financial commitments since, in the 292.The Québec government’s position past, it made the decision to make concerning the aboriginal peoples is transfer payments to the provinces the following: 1) Québec favours con- rather than allow them sufficient tax stitutional recognition of the principle room to assume their constitutional of aboriginal self-government within responsibilities in the areas of health the framework of agreements nego- and post-secondary education. Suffi- tiated with governments; 2) Québec is cient resources must be allocated to prepared to negotiate agreements and the provinces to enable them to uphold to make a commitment to that end; 3) the principles of providing universal, Québec wants to be a party to all

309. Opening statement by Robert Bourassa, Annual First Ministers Conference, Vancouver, November 20-21, 1986, CICS, doc. 800-22/047, p. 8-9. 310. Gérard D. Lévesque, Minister of Finance, 1986-1987 Budget Speech, Schedule F, p. 18, 19 and 21. 311. Ibid., p. 14.

69 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

negotiations on self-government con- e) Trade cerning the aboriginal peoples living in 295.Québec set conditions on its support Québec, and the resulting agreements for negotiations leading to the Free must be approved by the National As- Trade Agreement between Canada and sembly; 4) finally, Québec accepts that the United States: 1) It demanded that the agreements thus approved should the existing distribution of legislative receive constitutional protection.312 and constitutional powers be main- d) French-Speaking and Acadian tained. Among other things, the normal Communities of Canada constitutional rules for the implementation of international treaties had to 293.Québec is resolved to support franco- apply. 2) It also demanded that all the phone minorities. However, its initiatives laws, programs and policies which, in must take into account two principles the social area as well as communica- inherent in the nature of the Canadian tions, language and culture, contribute federal system: to Québec’s specificity, be maintained. a) it is up to each province, in the 3) It also wanted to preserve the room areas of jurisdiction assigned to it to maneuver it needs to develop and under the Constitution, to carry modernize its economy, with particular out its responsibilities toward its emphasis on small and medium-sized linguistic minority; business. 4) It asked for assistance b) the federal government, instead of programs for workers and businesses carrying out the duties assigned to in vulnerable sectors during the tran- the provinces by the Constitution, sition period. 5) It requested that the should concentrate on supporting federal government and the provinces provincial efforts to ensure effec- continue to cooperate in the manage- tive recognition of the rights of the ment and implementation of the Accord linguistic minority.313 as a whole. As such, it wants a standing 294.The Québec government will work federal-provincial consultation com- with francophones outside Québec as mittee to be formed. Québec indicated, follows: Québec will contribute to in fact, that it was prepared to change strengthening francophone communi- certain of its laws to implement the Ac- 315 ties while respecting their priorities, cord in the areas within its jurisdiction. their needs and their autonomy, in 296.While in general, Québec supports the concert with its federal and provin- objectives of multilateral trade negoti- cial partners.314 ations, its participation in developing

312. Opening speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, First Ministers Conference on Constitutional Issues of Interest to Native People, Ottawa, March 26-27, 1987, CICS, doc. 800-23/017, p. 4-5 (quotation). 313. Speech by Claude Ryan, Minister of Education, Higher Education and Science and Minister responsible for the administration of the French Language Charter, Kingston, December 8, 1989, p.11-12 (See part 2 of this document). 314. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the opening of the office of the Fédération des francophones hors-Québec, March 1988 (quotation). 315. Canada United States Free Trade Agreement: analysis from a Québec perspective, ministère du Commerce extérieur et du Développement technologique, Québec, 2nd quarter, 1988, p.39-42.

70 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Canadian negotiating positions reflects of Québec society. The government is its concern to defend the laws, pro- also anxious to preserve the maneu- grams and policies that, particularly vering room that will enable it to in the social, cultural and communica- strengthen Québec’s economic fabric tions areas, contribute to the specificity and technological base.316

316. Les négotiations commerciales multilatérales de l'Uruguay Round, perspective québécoise, ministère des Affaires internationales, Québec, March 1990, p. 7.

71 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

SECOND GOVERNMENT OF 299.The report produced by the Bélanger- ROBERT BOURASSA Campeau Commission confirms that (PERIOD FOLLOWING THE FAILURE OF in the discussions and decisions that THE MEECH LAKE ACCORD, JUNE 22, 1990 will be made regarding the political TO JANUARY 11, 1994) and constitutional future of Québec, two avenues must be considered in parallel: an in-depth reorganization of the current federal system or sovereignty for Québec. The other solutions bec é would not answer the needs and aspirations of Québec society.319 300.The main idea behind the report and the recommendations of the Commis- sion is that Quebecers themselves must make the decisions which will affect their political and constitutional future. Source: Archives nationales du Qu Daniel Lessard With this, the Québec government ••• Status of Québec concurs. In good time, the people of Québec will be called upon to make 297.English Canada must clearly understand major decisions for its future. On the that, regardless of what is said or done, one hand, the Québec government Québec is today and always will be a retains its initiative and its ability to society that is distinct, free and able to assess the measures which will be 317 assume its destiny and development. in the best interest of Québec. On the 298.On September 4, 1990, the National other hand, the National Assembly Assembly adopted An Act to establish remains sovereign to decide on any the Commission on the Political and referendum question and, if necessary, Constitutional Future of Québec to adopt the appropriate legislative (Bélanger-Campeau Commission). The measures.320 preamble of this law states that Que- 301.On June 20, 1991, the Québec National becers are free to assume their own Assembly adopted An Act respecting destiny, to determine their political the process for determining the political status and to assure their economic, and constitutional future of Québec social and cultural development. The (“Bill 150”). The preamble of this law preamble goes on to mention the need reiterates that Quebecers are free to for redefining the political and consti- assume their own destiny, to determine tutional status of Québec.318 their political status and to assure their

317. Speech by Robert Bourassa upon the rejection of the Meech Lake Accord, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, June 22, 1990, p. 4134 (quotation [Translation]; see part 2 of this document). 318. Q.S. 1990, c. 34 (Part 3: document no. 24). 319. Statement by the Prime Minister of Québec, Robert Bourassa, and Gil Rémillard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, 1st addendum of the Report of the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Québec, March 1991, p. 86. 320. Ibid., p. 87 (quotation).

72 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

economic, social and cultural develop- we only want this clause to allow the ment. The preamble also reaffirms the courts to interpret the Canadian Consti- need for redefining the political and tution based on our reality, our history.324 constitutional status of Québec.321 Distinct society: See also paragraphs 310 and 313 302.That the National Assembly, while (Charlottetown Accord). recognizing the right of the federal 305.From the analysis of the two options Parliament to pass a referendum act, made by the parliamentary commis- ask the federal government to abide sions set up under Bill 150, it demons- by the process established in Bill 150 trates that sovereignty is legitimate and, accordingly, not to initiate a and feasible. On a short-term basis, it pan-Canadian referendum that would points to costs both for Québec and the affect the political and constitutional rest of Canada. It also indicates from future of Québec, thus reaffirming the testimonies that an economic associa- right of Quebecers to assume their tion integrated into a political structure own destiny freely and to determine could lead to an efficient and harmo- alone their political and constitu- nious collaboration for the better well tional status.322 being of both communities.325 303.The government’s preferred option remains a radically renewed federal- ••• Constitutional reform process ism. A federalism in which Québec can 306.If anything can be concluded from the give full expression to what it is and most recent constitutional negotiations, share what it has in common with the it is that the existing process of consti- rest of Canada.323 tutional revision in Canada is discred- 304.The September 1991 federal propos- ited. The Québec government will not als recognize the distinct society in return to the negotiating table on the Constitution in two places. First in constitutional issues.326 the Charter for its interpretation and 307.On September 4, 1990, the National second in a Canada clause that is also Assembly adopted An Act to establish inserted in the Constitution. Nonethe- the Commission on the Political and less, the Canada clause must not be a Constitutional Future of Québec. This disguised preamble as that could be is an extraordinary commission bring- the case in the federal proposals as ing together representatives from the they are worded. The distinct society Québec National Assembly, society in concept must not be an artifice, but general and Québec representatives the recognition of an historic reality, from the House of Commons. Its man- since at least 1774, in the Québec Act. date is to study and analyze the political We do not want to be considered and constitutional status of Québec superior to the other provinces, we and to formulate recommendations to are not seeking any special privileges, this end.327

321. Q.S. 1991, c. 34, amend. by Q.S. 1992, c. 47 (Part 3: documents nos. 25 and 28). 322. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated November 27, 1991 (quotation; part 3: document no. 26). 323. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, before a banquet of the Chambre de Commerce d’Anjou, Montréal, January 15, 1992, p. 8 (quotation). 324. Ibid., p. 9-10. 325. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting in Whistler, February 24, 1992, p.8 (See part 2 of this document). 326. Message to the people of Québec by Prime Minister Robert Bourassa, June 23, 1990 (See part 2 of this document). 327. Q.S. 1990, c. 34 (See part 3: document no. 24).

73 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

308.Québec can no longer accept being 4) Québec shares the objective of a one amongst eleven in the constitu- stronger and more dynamic eco- tional forum. We say no to a consti- nomic union. We must look for ways tuent assembly or any other form of that draw on intergovernmental negotiation that will put Québec face harmonization and joint consulta- to face as one amongst eleven.328 tion to develop the Canadian eco- 309.Following the Bélanger-Campeau Com- nomic union. The means proposed mission’s report, on June 20, 1991 the in September 1991 by the federal National Assembly adopted An Act government are disproportionate respecting the process for determining compared to the objectives. the political and constitutional future 5) A new distribution of powers is of Québec, which provided for the needed to clearly confirm Québec’s holding in June or October 1992 of a areas of jurisdiction. This distri- referendum on the sovereignty of bution must lead to a more effec- Québec and implemented two commit- tive, more cooperative federalism tees, one to examine matters relating to that will reduce overlapping and the accession of Québec to sovereignty provide Québec with the means it and the other, to examine any offer of needs to protect and promote its a new constitutional partnership.329 identity. 310.The principles Québec refers to in the 6) The federation must be renewed current constitutional debate are: constitutionally. In some areas of joint jurisdiction, simple adminis- 1) The substance of the five condi- trative arrangements maybe useful, tions included in the Meech Lake but they are not sufficient for the Accord cannot be altered. overhaul of the distribution of 2) The powers of the National Assem- powers we need. It is a known fact bly cannot be reduced without its that administrative agreements consent. Québec must be able to say remain at the mercy of federal “No” to any constitutional amend- legislation. They are insufficient. ment affecting the powers of the No level of government benefits National Assembly as well as the from a systematic recourse to admin- institutions and main features of istrative agreements. the Canadian federation. No Québec 7) The territorial integrity of Québec government can agree to a con- must be respected. The government stitutional accord that does not cannot accept having entrusted to include a veto. the courts the role of specifying 3) Constitutional recognition of Québec the nature and conditions for apply- as a distinct society is indispensable. ing the rights of Aboriginal peoples The concept cannot be an empty to self-government; Québec is pre- shell. It must have significant polit- pared to recognize Aboriginal ical and legal consequences. Peoples’ right to self-government,

328. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Deliberations concerning Bill 150, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, June 12, 1991, p. 9115 (quotation) [Translation]. 329. Q.S. 1991, c. 4, as assented to on June 20, 1991 (Part 3: document no. 25).

74 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

but within the framework of duly women and men, attachment to the negotiated agreements between fact that there are Aboriginal Peo- the Aboriginal Peoples and the ples, attachment to the fact that government of Québec.330 there are English and French- 311.The deadline set forth by Bill 150 Speaking Canadians, and to the should not be considered a sword of fact that Québec is a distinct society Damocles hanging over the head of within Canada. Canadians. Quebecers have given them- The second part of this Canada selves this instrument to finally put a Clause states that: “The role of the stop to constitutional uncertainties and legislature and Government of to build their future with serenity. Bill Québec to preserve and promote 150 is no bluff.331 the distinct society of Québec is 312.The Charlottetown Accord is concluded affirmed.” Nowhere else in the on August 28, 1992.332 On September 8, Canada Clause is the role of a 1992, the Québec National Assembly government mentioned. This essen- adopted An Act to amend the Act re- tially dynamic role of Québec insti- specting the process for determining tutions to preserve and promote the political and constitutional future the distinct society were not gratu- of Québec, which replaces the refer- itously put in this second paragraph endum on Québec sovereignty by a of the clause. referendum on this agreement.333 In its third part, the Canada Clause 313.The Charlottetown Accord constitutes contains what is known as a pro- the most complete and substantial basis tection clause, i.e. a ground level for constitutional reform that has that ensures that vested rights can- ever been presented by a government not be touched, but that it remains of Québec following negotiations with possible to build on this solid ground the federal government and the other level since it guarantees the “not- provinces. It reflects two major con- withstanding” clause. cerns that have always been significant 2) The Accord guarantees Québec for Québec: its security as a society, a the selection of its immigrants, its people and its means for develop- proportion of immigration as well ment as the distinct society that it is. as its capacity for integration into 1) The Accord has a Canada Clause Québec society, a constitutionalized divided into three parts. guarantee that cannot be changed In the first part, the clause refers without the consent of Québec. to the fundamental values that 3) It grants Québec a guarantee of Canadians and Quebecers share in three of the nine justices of the common: liberty, democracy, Supreme Court of Canada and fundamental rights, equality of protects the jurisdiction of the latter.

330. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, before a banquet of the Chambre de Commerce d’Anjou, Montréal, January 15, 1992, p. 9-11; Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting in Whistler, February 24, 1992, p.2-7 (See part 2 of this document). 331. Speaking notes for the Whistler Meeting, ibid., p. 8 (quotation). 332. Consensus Report on the Constitution, Charlottetown, August 28, 1992 (Part 3: document no. 27). 333. Q.S. 1992, c. 47 (Part 3: document no. 28).

75 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

4) As regards federal spending power, 7) The Accord acknowledges in consti- it recognizes Québec’s right to tutional terms the right of Aboriginal opt-out with compensation from Peoples to self-government. Québec’s shared-cost programs. As for exer- territorial integrity is ensured. Limits cising the spending power in pro- are set so that autonomous aborig- vincial areas other than through inal governments may exercise shared-cost programs, a framework their authority based on the respect will be implemented by the first of essential provincial and federal ministers. The principles of this laws for respecting peace, order framework will be constitutionalized. and good government. Resorting It should specify that the exercising to the courts will be possible in of the spending power must respect cases of difficult negotiations. provincial priorities. 8) Under the Accord, six sectors fall 5) Under the Accord, Québec recovers into exclusive provincial jurisdic- a right of veto over the Senate and tion: forestry, mining, tourism, the House of Commons where, in housing, recreation, municipal and addition, it is guaranteed 25 % of urban affairs. Forestry and mining the seats. Québec has a right of were already under provincial veto over the entry of new provinces jurisdiction. As for the other four and, consequently, recovers an sectors, it was said that they are absolute right of veto over the attached to provincial jurisdiction amending formula. There is also a over property and civil rights. right of veto over the distinct Yet, since these sectors were not society and a right of veto over the expressly mentioned, the federal “notwithstanding” clause. government also claimed its own 6) The Accord provides for a Senate jurisdiction over them. The Agree- that will be equitably equal in that ment ends this dispute. It also each province will have six sena- provides agreements for withdraw- tors, the Yukon territory will have als with entitlements to financial one and the Northwest Territories, compensations, agreements that also one. The senators may be could be reviewed and adjusted appointed or elected either directly every five years. or indirectly, i.e. it will be up to The Accord recognizes two other the provinces to decide, and this extremely important exclusive areas. will be in the Constitution. The First in cultural affairs, while Québec National Assembly will recognizing federal jurisdiction in therefore be able to elect its sen- matters of national institutions and ators. The new Senate could have a federal role to be played nation- been called the federation chamber. ally for a Canadian culture. There The transformation of its powers should also be a federal-provincial will make it more representative agreement to ensure Québec’s of the provinces’ interests. The new prevalence over culture within its Senate will allow Québec in some territorial boundaries. The other ways to extend its political action recognized exclusive power is labour to level of this new institution of training. The Québec government the federal Parliament. did not request jurisdiction over

76 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

unemployment insurance owing to all cases of opting out, as provided in the costs of a billion dollars that the Meech Lake Accord. As for the this transfer would have caused. matters dealt with in section 42 of the Nonetheless, what Québec does Constitution Act, 1982 (central institu- obtain, especially, is the possibility tions, the Senate and the creation of of administering the unemployment provinces), Québec, as one of the insurance fund. major partners in the federation, is entitled to demand that it have a say The Agreement also touches upon in any amendment concerning those another extremely important juris- matters, since they are at the very heart diction: regional economic devel- of the federal compromise of 1867.336 opment. The current Québec-Canada agreement in this area could be Veto: See also paragraphs 310 and 313 enshrined in the Constitution and (Charlottetown Accord). improved, in connection with the framework to be set up for the ••• Distribution of powers spending power and respect for a) General principles provincial priorities. Lastly, in the field of telecommunications, Québec 316.The search for greater effectiveness could through an agreement with must also guide us in establishing a the federal government, appoint new division of powers that will commissioners to the Canadian clearly delineate the jurisdictions of Radio-Television and Telecommu- the two levels of government. We nications Commission.334 should find in the new constitution a 314.On October 26, 1992, in the referendum division of power establishing a more held in Québec on the Charlottetown functional, more cooperative feder- Accord, the No option carried the day alism that will reduce overlaps and with 56.68 % of electoral votes and guarantee that Québec and the other the Yes option obtained 43.32 %.335 provinces have the means necessary to protect and promote their distinctive ••• Constitutional amending procedure characteristics.337 315.The Constitution Act, 1982 indeed 317.It is the essence of federalism to meet provides for a right to opt out, but it the different needs of the federal part- carries with it financial compensation ners. [...] Asymmetry and federalism only with respect to transfers related are compatible. Without overestimating to culture and education. The possibil- its implications, we may view asym- ities of such financial compensation metry as an important means of should be broadened so as to include establishing a division of powers likely

334. Speech by Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, on the Charlottetown Accord, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, September 3, 1992, p. 3087-3094. 335. See Directeur général des élections du Québec, Rapport des résultats officiels du scrutin. Référendum du 26 octobre 1992, 1992, p. 49 (see extract of the Official Report and the text on the referendum question in part 3: document no. 29). The Charlottetown Accord was also rejected by the rest of Canada by a separate referendum held under federal legislation on October 26, 1992. In the rest of Canada, the No option carried the day with a 54.3 % result of votes validly cast, the Yes option obtained a result of 45.7%. See Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, The 1992 Federal Referendum: A Challenge Met, 1994, p.58. 336. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting in Whistler, February 24, 1992, p.4 (See part 2 of this document). 337. Ibid, p. 5 (quotation).

77 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

to satisfy both Québec and the other maintain its weight within the Canadian provinces, while consolidating the foun- Confederation. The Québec government dations of the federal government in holds that these minimal demands regard to its national responsibilities.338 remain essential for an immigration 318.The distribution of legislative powers policy the aim of which is to develop [...] must refer to two fundamental Québec as a distinct society.341 principles [...]: that we may have the 321.To align all action in integration of legislative tools for expressing who we newcomers with Québec’s objectives, are as a society, as a people, in social Québec has since 1986 been demand- and cultural matters as in the economy, ing exclusive control over immigrant and that we may also have an efficient reception services and their cultural, federation to avoid duplications.339 linguistic and economic integration, along with reasonable financial com- The need for a constitutional, rather than an 342 administrative reform: See paragraph 310. pensation.

Immigration: See also paragraphs 310 and 313 b) Sectorial jurisdictions (Charlottetown Accord).

319.In the current constitutional frame- 322.In the current constitutional context, work, the government of Québec does as Minister of Cultural Affairs, I want not have all the needed powers for to restate Québec’s need to have prev- attaining by itself the objectives of its alence in cultural matters within its political position in matters of immi- territorial boundaries. The issue of gration and integration. This is why culture is of fundamental importance Québec seeks to enlarge its jurisdic- for Québec. In this respect, it is essential tions in order to increase not only its that be recognized to its government ability to act, but also the efficiency of its actions.340 the exclusive powers it needs to assume its responsibilities.343 320.[...] Since 1986, the Québec Govern- ment has been seeking constitutional Culture and Charlottetown Accord: See paragraph 313. recognition of Québec’s exclusive 323.Faced with federal initiatives in the powers on establishing the criteria, selecting independent immigrants and field of education undertaken in the extending its powers to on-site selec- name of the Canadian economy’s com- tion. Similarly, Québec is seeking the petitive edge, Québec’s positions are guarantee of receiving a number of as follows: immigrants proportional to its share of • Québec is fully prepared to discuss the Canadian population, with the businesses’ competitive edge and right to exceed this number by 5 % to the means for reviving the economy

338. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting in Whistler, February 24, 1992, p.5-6 (quotation) (See part 2 of this document). 339. Declaration by Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs in the debate on the status of constitutional negotiations, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, Commission permanente des institutions, May 29, 1992, p. CI-530 (quotation) [Translation]. 340. Message by Robert Bourassa, in ministère des Communautés culturelles et de l'Immigration, Let's Build Québec Together: A policy statement on immigration and integration, 1990, p. III. 341. Ministère des Communautés culturelles et de l'Immigration, Let's Build Québec Together: A policy statement on immigration and integration, 1990, p. 24 (quotation). 342. Ibid., p. 49 (quotation). 343. Message by Liza Frulla-Hébert, ministère des Affaires culturelles, Québec's Cultural Policy: Our culture, Our future, 1992, p. vii-viii (quotation) [Translation].

78 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

within the framework of a strategy are to be. This should not be construed for economic prosperity, but any that Québec refuses fiscal or even impact on the educational objectives financial transfers—it actively seeks must remain within the exclusive them; it’s more a question that it sees power of Québec, especially as re- such amounts being deposited into the gards post-secondary education and province’s general fund, with even less vocational training. strings attached that would be tantamount to having its priorities set.345 • In education, it is up to Québec to decide on the management, distri- 325.As other modern societies, Québec bution and utilization of resources must define its own labour orientation allocated to this sector. policy on labour force adjustments. • As regards common objectives (or Despite the meritorious efforts for coor- national ones) in education, it is dinating federal government actions up to the provinces—within their with those of the Québec government exclusive powers—to define them, in labour force issues, the complexity as it is up to them to decide on the of the programs and the confusion they opportunity to answer the needs generate have continuously increased identified by the federal govern- over the years. There is in Québec a ment in the exercising of its own consensus on the urgent need to put jurisdictions and whose solution an end to this disorder by appointing falls within the field of education.344 just one administration, the govern- 324.Québec’s constitutional basis in edu- ment of Québec, to assume the res- cation reflects a lively socio-cultural ponsibilities and budgets pertaining reality and evokes the bonds of close to the labour force adjustments. In symbiosis between universities, the this context, the government of Québec community and their government. defends the following position: Québec cannot denounce this “strate- • That Québec alone become the gic alliance” and invite the federal sole responsible party for labour government to step in and orient the force adjustments policies and voca- development of a university system tional training within its territorial that is so closely associated with the boundaries, and the only adminis- development of Québec society. This tration entrusted with developing does not mean that Québec refuses to and administering in cooperation associate itself with major knowledge with its social partners training, and research networks or wants to adjustments and job-assistance dissuade its researchers from compet- programs. ing with the best in continental or global contests. It just means that • That for this purpose, Québec patri- when the issue is one of basic catalytic ate all federal budgets, including actions, Québec cannot see someone those funded from unemployment being authorized to come in from the insurance and assigned to labour outside and decide what its priorities force programs.

344. Le Québec et les universités, partenaires dans une société distincte, notes for a speech by Lucienne Robillard, Minister of Higher Education and Science, at the closing banquet of the General Meeting of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, (AUCC), Vancouver, March 4, 1992, p.5. 345. Ibid, p. 6.

79 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

• That the government of Québec be 328.Québec has never suggested that it responsible within its territorial would renounce or delegate any part limits for the administration of un- of its responsibilities in the field of employment insurance programs stock exchange securities.349 while maintaining the responsibility 329.In making a distinction between inter- of the federal government regarding national affairs and foreign policy, the regime’s law and regulations.346 and in choosing an approach centred 326.The control over all the instruments on Québec’s interests, the foundations used for labour force adjustments and and impetus of the resulting policy vocational training policies can be are not likely to be brought into question. Indeed, in a modern context no done within the current constitutional government can meet its domestic framework.347 responsibilities effectively without The Charlottetown Accord and labour force issues: taking the international dimension into See paragraph 313. account, and it must act within this 350 327.The Québec government’s guidelines framework, according to its means. in the field of economic and regional 330.Under the Canadian Constitution, development, plus its relationship with social and health care issues indisput- the federal government are in this ably fall within the exclusive power of respect: the provinces. Over the past twenty- five years, the government of Québec • The primacy of Québec’s responsi- has remarkably exercised its responsibility for the planning and setting of bilities and it has endowed the health economic development and regional care and social affairs sectors with priorities within its territorial limits; high-quality administrations. These • The need for using procedures, success stories eloquently prove—and structures and programs set up or the citizens of Québec have every approved by Québec; reason to agree—that Québec would have nothing to gain by a new distri- • Québec predominance over all pro- bution of powers in these sectors. grams and projects falling under Until today, they have been under its jurisdiction.348 exclusive provincial jurisdiction and, Economic development and the Charlottetown Accord: for the best interests of Quebecers, See paragraph 313. they are there to stay.351

346. Ministerial declaration by André Bourbeau, Minister of Labour, Income security and Vocational training, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 13, 1990, p. 6316-6317; ministère de la Main-d’œuvre, de la Sécurité du revenu et de la Formation professionnelle, Partners for a Skilled and Competitive Québec: Policy statement on labour force development, 1991, p. 45-46; document dealing with Québec's position in the labour sector, Federal-Provincial-Territorial Conference of Ministers responsible for Labour Market Matters, Toronto, January 19 and 20, 1993, p. 3-4. 347. Ministerial declaration by André Bourbeau, ibid., p. 6317 (quotation) [Translation]. 348. Preliminary comments by Gil Rémillard during a credit analysis session 1992-1993 of the Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, Commission des institutions, April 30, 1992, p. C1-288. 349. Letter from Louise Robic, Minister responsible for Finance, to Gilles Loiselle, Minister of State for Finance and Chairman of the Treasury Board of the government of Canada, January 13, 1993 (quotation) [Translation]. 350. Foreword by John Ciaccia, ministère des Affaires internationales, Québec and Interdependence: Global Horizons. Elements of an international affairs policy, 1991, p. viii (quotation). 351. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Québec’s Health and Social Services: Equitable Funding, Living within our Means, 1991, p. 84.

80 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Financing Health Care and Social Services: ensuring federal takeover in this area. See paragraph 336. [...] In performing these two actions, the federal government has endowed 331.By a unanimous resolution, the Québec itself with a kind of domination in the National Assembly has strongly disap- entire field of the environment, includ- proved Bill C-13 respecting the federal ing that which was constitutionally environmental assessment process. reserved for the exclusive control of The federal bill seeks to excessively the provinces and for which Québec extend cases of federal assessment, has for many years now exercised its especially by integrating the exercising responsibilities.353 of the spending power. It is foreseeable that the duplicate assessment of projects Housing: See paragraphs 313 (Charlottetown Accord) and 337. in environmental issues will become the rule rather than the exception. Forestry, mining, tourism, recreation, The duplication of assessments could municipal and urban affairs: See paragraph 313 have a negative impact on economic (Charlottetown Accord). development and public participation. Economic union and distribution of powers: It also creates the risk of legal uncer- See paragraphs 310 and 341. tainty, which could lead to numerous litigations. All the provisions for coop- c) Unilateral powers eration or harmonization set forth in Federal spending power: See paragraph 310 and 313 the bill contribute to subordinating (Charlottetown Accord). Québec procedures to the federal process. The joint examination process is ••• Individual and language rights one that actually puts the provincial 333.The preamble of the Act establishing government under the supervisory the Bélanger-Campeau Commission authority of the federal government. expresses, among other things, the The bill multiplies cases where federal following considerations: domination and provincial subordi- • Whereas Québec has already dem- nation may occur. It must be accepted onstrated its respect for democratic in principle that throughout Canada, values and individual rights and there may be different or distinct assess- freedoms; ment procedures, but all having the • Whereas Québec has recognized same value. It is on the basis of this that Quebecers wish to see the qual- principle that true cooperation will ity and influence of the French be instilled in the future.352 language assured and to make it 332.The [Canadian] Green Plan set along- the language of Government and the side Bill C-13, appears in many ways as Law, as well as the normal and a deliberate strategy for dispossess- everyday language of work, instruc- ing the provinces of their responsibilities tion, communication, commerce in the field of environment and for and business;

352. Speaking notes for Pierre Paradis, Minister for the Environment, before members of the Standing Senatorial Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee, Ottawa, June 16, 1992. 353. Ibid., p. 12-13 (quotation) [Translation].

81 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

• Whereas Québec intends to pursue on a bilateral basis. It is also obvious this objective in a spirit of fairness that we may decide to participate in and open-mindedness, respectful some conferences where Québec’s of the rights and institutions of the interests are at stake, but never on English-Speaking Community of constitutional matters.356 Québec.354 b) Financial aspects of federalism ••• Institutions 336.The financing of health care and 334.There must be a specific role for the social services will require a revision Senate. In this context, the govern- of federal-provincial collaboration ment of Québec is prepared to enter based on the following two principles: into discussions while always respect- • Reestablishment of the federal trans- ing the principle, which is fundamental fers payments for the established for Québec, that there will be no dimin- programs financing (EPF) ishing of Québec’s role regarding the Federal-provincial collaboration would Senate as with all other federal insti- be reaffirmed on the basis of renewed 355 tutions. federal interest in common objectives

The reforming of federal institutions: See also pursued in health care. Federal con- paragraphs 310 and 313 (Charlottetown Accord). tributions to EPF should be based upon economic indicators that take Economic union (The federation council project) and the evolution of expenditures into Executive Federalism: See paragraph 341. consideration. ••• Intergovernmental policy • Reduction of the limits to the provinces’ exercise of responsibility. a) Conducting intergovernmental relations It seems reasonable to ask the federal 335.The position of my government from government, in following the example now on is to negotiate bilaterally and of all participants, to contribute to not with eleven entities, to negotiate solving the deadlock in financing by with the Canadian government that refraining from setting rules on finan- represents the entire population of cial and fiscal transfers that restrict Canada, bilateral negotiations between the full exercising of their responsibil- the government of Québec and the ities by the provinces, especially with federal government. Obviously, we will regard to the defining of the basket of have negotiations with other provinces insured services and access to services.357

354. An Act to establish the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Québec, Q.S. 1990, c. 34 (See part 3: document no. 24); these elements were taken from the preamble of An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec, Q.S. 1991, c. 34, amend. by Q.S. 1992, c. 47 (See part 3: documents nos. 25 and 28). 355. Declaration by Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on the government's position regarding proposals for reforming the Senate, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, April 15, 1992, p. 598. 356. Message to the people of Québec by Prime Minister Robert Bourassa, June 23, 1990 (quotation [Translation]; see part 2 of this document). 357. Ministère de la Santé et des Services sociaux, Québec’s Health and Social Services: Equitable Funding, Living within our Means, 1991, p. 88-89.

82 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

337.The unilateral withdrawal without Amerinds and the Inuit of Québec to prior consultation of the federal govern- preserve and develop their specific ment from the Canada-Québec Global character and to assure the progress Agreement on Social Housing is a of their communities [...].359 rather unacceptable manner for pro- 339.The territory of a province may not be ceeding between two governments. changed without the province’s consent. Furthermore, the announced budget This principle is already entrenched freeze of the Canada Mortgage and in section 43 of the Constitution Act of Housing Corporation (CMHC) will per- 1982, and must be abided by in any petuate a situation, which as regards constitutional agreement recognizing federal transfers, is unfair for Québec. the right of the Aboriginal peoples to Indeed, the CMHC’s share of budgetary self-government. The Québec National expenditures that are made by Québec Assembly has recognized the princi- hardly exceed 19 %. This is on the ple of Aboriginal self-government in one hand genuinely below the pro- the framework of agreements with portion of really needy households the governments.360 living in Québec. It is also on the Self-government and territorial integrity: other, quite lower than the demographic See also paragraphs 310 and 313 weight of Québec as contrasted with (Charlottetown Accord). the whole of Canada. The freezing of the CMHC’s budget and the discontinuance d) French-Speaking and Acadian of any new commitment threatens Communities of Canada to forever eliminate any possibility 340.The preamble of the Act to establish Québec would have of hoping to catch the Commission on the Political and up in making in its share of the fed- Constitutional Future of Québec bears eral expenditures intended for social the following message: Whereas Québec housing. The current federal with- supports French-Speaking Communities drawal penalizes Québec far too heavily outside Québec and contributes to the and cannot be done without some International French-Speaking world; adequate financial compensation.358 [...].361 c) Aboriginal Nations e) Trade 338.The preamble of the Act to establish 341.Québec shares the objective of a the Commission on the Political and stronger and more dynamic economic Constitutional Future of Québec bears union and is in favour of the free circu- the following message: Whereas lation of goods, persons, capital and Québec recognizes the right of the labour. It favours the elimination of

358. Letter from Claude Ryan, Minister of Municipal Affairs, responsible for Housing, to Elmer Mackay, Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Québec, June 1, 1993. 359. Q.S. 1990, c. 34 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 24); see also the preamble of An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec, Q.S. 1991, c. 34, amend. by Q.S. 1992, c. 47 (See part 3: documents nos. 25 and 28). 360. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting in Whistler, February 24, 1992, p.6 (quotation; see part 2 of this document). 361. Q.S. 1990, c. 34 (quotation; the statute is reproduced in part 3, see document no. 24); see also the preamble of An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec, Q.S. 1991, c. 34 amend. by Q.S. 1992, c. 47 (See part 3: documents nos. 25 and 28).

83 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

obstacles to the free circulation of when we can very easily get along economic resources. We must look for with existing institutions? For example, ways that draw on intergovernmental the First Ministers’ Conference on the harmonization and joint consultation to Economy, as was stipulated in the develop the Canadian economic union. Meech Lake Accord, could be consti- The federal proposals of September tutionalized and supplemented by a 1991 are in this respect dispropor- permanent secretariat, which is already tionate compared to the objectives that in place and is responsible for prepar- are to be pursued. Specifically, the ing federal-provincial conferences. courts should not manage the economy We would thereby respect the prin- or intervene in the drafting or imple- ciples of executive federalism, which mentation of economic policy. Nor is one of the main characteristics of should federal authorities be given our Canadian Federation and which unlimited powers that could destroy the directly involves the provincial first powers of the provincial legislatures. ministers in the drafting of national Furthermore, do we need a new insti- policies, through federal-provincial tution, the Council of the Federation, conferences.362

362. Speaking notes for Gil Rémillard, Minister of Justice and Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, before a banquet of the Chambre de Commerce d’Anjou, Montréal, January 15, 1992, p. 10; speaking notes for Gil Rémillard at the Canadian Bar Association Meeting in Whistler, February 24, 1992, p.4-5 (See part 2 of this document).

84 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF which suits our priorities and the spe- DANIEL JOHNSON, Jr., cific conditions that prevail here, (JANUARY 11, 1994 TO SEPTEMBER 26, 1994) represents one of the first accomplish- ments that would demonstrate that we are seeking to reduce duplications.365 345.That the Québec National Assembly petition Jean Chrétien and the liberal bec é federal government to respect the unanimous consensus of all participants regarding Québec’s need to exclusively exercise the jurisdictions attaching to 366 e labour training. é 346.Québec has never favoured an increased federal presence in the sector of stock Source: Archives nationales du Qu Bernard Vall exchange securities, an area that is ••• Distribution of powers strictly a provincial jurisdiction. On the contrary, it has regularly manifested a) General principles its opposition to federal initiatives in 342.The government of Québec shares the this matter [...]. Federal regulatory objectives to make policies and pro- action would be untimely both consti- grams more efficient and accessible, to tutionally as well as for boosting effi- come to an agreement on the most suit- ciency. Such regulatory action would able order of government for providing result in the duplication of rules and a service, while taking into consideration surveillance, then inevitably in heavier the priorities and conditions specific to administrative and financial charges for each province.363 issuers, investors and intermediaries. [...] b) Sectorial jurisdictions For several years now, Québec has 343.Some major initiatives on the part of given top priority to the harmonization the federal government in fields of proof its regulatory action applicable to vincial responsibility such as health the providing of financial services in care and education seem difficult to Canada and abroad, in the same way reconciliate with the objectives of effi- as it has given priority to the decreas- ciency and subsidiarity that should ing of costs inherent in this regulatory prevail, especially in a context of rarified action and the coherence of the latter 364 financial resources. from one sector to another. These 344.The elimination of duplication in the policies bear witness to the priority labour force sector is essential. An that we give to the efficient opera- agreement regarding labour force, tions of the market, while ensuring

363. Letter from Daniel Johnson, Prime Minister of Québec, to Marcel Massé, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Québec, February 15, 1994. 364. Ibid. (quotation) [Translation]. 365. Ibid. 366. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated April 14, 1994.

85 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

that the specific aspects of Québec be 349.With regard to the issue of harmoniz- taken into account.367 ing federal and provincial taxation policies, Québec is prepared to collab- Internal Trade and Distribution of Powers: See paragraph 351. orate on improving how the tax systems operate, but with the certainty of keep- c) Unilateral powers ing its autonomy in determining Québec’s fiscal policy.370 347.The reducing of duplication must go hand in hand with setting boundaries 350.The ceiling on equalization payments for federal spending power, if we want creates a widening gap as regards the both orders of government to exercise objective set forth in the Constitution, their responsibilities in the most effi- which is to give provinces sufficient cient manner possible. This objective revenues so that they may offer public must also favour the fact that each services of a roughly comparable qual- 371 government act clearly within the limits ity and fiscal level. of the powers assigned to it under the b) Trade Constitution.368 351.With the federal government, the gov- ••• Intergovernmental policy ernments of the other provinces and territories, the government of Québec a) Financial aspects of federalism is a signatory to the Agreement on 348.Québec has for many years sought a Internal Trade whose preamble states reform of transfers to the provinces the following resolutions, namely to: in order that they be adapted to the PROMOTE an open, efficient and financial and budgetary realities of stable domestic market for long- the 1990s and that they return to a term job creation, economic growth certain number of basic objectives: and stability; • improving the balance between the REDUCE and eliminate, to the extent responsibilities assumed by the possible, barriers to the free move- governments and the fiscal resources ment of persons, goods, services at their disposal; and investments within Canada; • improving the redistribution of PROMOTE equal economic oppor- wealth in Canada; tunity for Canadians; • increasing the efficiency of the ENHANCE the competitiveness of Canadian public sector.369 Canadian business;

367. Letter from Daniel Johnson, Prime Minister of Québec, to Marcel Massé, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, Québec, February 16, 1994 (quotation) [Translation]. 368. Letter from Daniel Johnson, Prime Minister of Québec, to Marcel Massé, President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal, February 15, 1994 (quotation) [Translation]. 369. Press release entitled Finance Ministers Conference, André Bourbeau, Minister of Finance, Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, Montréal, January 21, 1994, (quotation) [Translation]. 370. Ibid. (quotation) [Translation]. 371. Statement by André Bourbeau, Minister of Finance, press release entitled Renouvellement de la péréquation, Federal- Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, Montréal, January 21, 1994.

86 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

CONSULT on matters related to related measures and standards, agri- internal trade; cultural and food goods, alcoholic RECOGNIZE the diverse social, beverages, natural resources process- cultural and economic characteris- ing, energy (under negotiation), com- tics of the provinces; and munications, transportation and environmental protection. From an RESPECT the legislative authorities institutional standpoint, the AIT proof Parliament and the provincial vides for the implementation of binding legislatures under the Constitution dispute resolution procedures, as well 372 of Canada. as for the creation of a Committee of First of all, the Agreement defines the Ministers on Internal Trade and a operating principles governing the permanent body called the Internal openness of the Canadian market. Trade Secretariat. They are based on the concept of free Lastly, chapter 18 of the AIT deals movement of persons, goods, services with a series of general provisions, and investments. Secondly, it lays down and lists, among other things, a number the general rules that must apply, of full or partial exceptions several of unless otherwise provided, to all eleven which are important for Québec such sectors covered: public procurement, as regional development, culture, investment, labour mobility, consumer- taxation and financial sectors.

372. Agreement on Internal Trade, July 18, 1994.

87 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF the negotiation of this partnership, JACQUES PARIZEAU subject to a decision otherwise by the (SEPTEMBER 26, 1994 TO JANUARY 29, 1996) Québec National Assembly. The Bill authorized the National As- sembly to proclaim the sovereignty of Québec once it would have approved the partnership treaty or, upon obtaining notification from the orientation e nationale é and supervision committee for negotiations, once it would have realized that such negotiations would lead nowhere. The offer to Canada of an economic and political partnership was to be

ric Parizeau based upon the three-party agree- Source: Collection Assembl É ment of June 12, 1995 between three ••• Status of Québec political parties: the Parti québécois, 352.Québec’s project for accession to sover- the Bloc québécois and the Action eignty along with an offer for a new démocratique du Québec. This agree- economic and political partnership ment involved the proposing of a with Canada.373 treaty to Canada that would have provided appropriate measures for The government of Jacques Parizeau maintaining and improving the exist- was elected on a platform of holding a ing economic space, establishing rules referendum on the accession of Québec for the division of federal assets and to sovereignty. On December 6, 1994, management of the common debt, the government unveiled a draft bill creating joint political institutions on the sovereignty of Québec that was required to administer the economic submitted to the general consultation and political partnership. of all Québec regions via the commissions on the future of Québec. The three-party agreement stated the priority sectors where a treaty would Following the report of the National have to ensure that the partnership has Commission on the future of Québec, the authority to act: customs union, free the government made public Bill 1 movement of goods, free movement of entitled An Act respecting the future individuals, free movement of services, of Québec (hereafter, the Bill) that free movement of capital, monetary was submitted to a referendum on policy, labour mobility and citizenship. October 30, 1995. The Agreement also evoked the pos- The Bill provided that Québec’s accessibility—with some examples—that sion to sovereignty be preceded by a members would be free to make formal offer of economic and political agreements in other areas of common partnership with Canada. A one-year interest. Lastly, the offer was to include maximum deadline was provided for the creation by treaty of joint political

373. This paragraph presents a synthesis of the government project (See the bill and the three-party agreement forming the basis of this project in part 3: document no. 30). See also the address to the nation delivered by Jacques Parizeau on October 1, 1995 reproduced in part 2 of this document.

88 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

institutions needed for administering Agreement sounded Canada’s refusal the partnership, specifically the creation in recognizing—albeit symbolically— of a council, a secretariat, an assembly our difference. As of today, the basic and a tribunal for resolving disputes. law of Canada does not recognize Québec as a nation, a people or even As regards Québec’s accession to as a distinct society. A sad state of sovereignty, the Bill provided constitu- affairs. [...] tional provisions, especially regarding the drafting of a new Québec consti- Three years ago, united as never tution by a constituent commission to before in the Bélanger-Campeau com- be ultimately submitted to the people mission on the future of Québec, feder- of Québec for approval by referendum. alists and sovereigntists agreed on a The Bill lays down various constitu- common strategy and speaking as one, tional provisions, among other things, they rejected the present Canadian guarantees regarding the rights of the regime. Federalist members of the English-Speaking Community and the Commission wanted to give Canada one aboriginal nations. last chance for an in-depth renewal, failing which full sovereignty for Québec The Bill included other information deal- would then be proposed to Québecers ing with the various terms of Québec’s in a referendum. accession to sovereignty: territorial integrity, citizenship, legal tender currency, The scenario played itself out inexora- treaties, international organizations bly. Two years ago, the Charlottetown and alliances. Lastly, it stipulated accord was submitted to the electorate transitional provisions. On October 30, and was beaten, both in Québec and in 1995, the No option carried the day Canada. [...] That was to be Canada’s with a result of 50.58 % and the Yes last chance. [...] option obtained 49.42 %.374 The more time goes by, the more the 353.Jean Lesage called on us to be “Masters Canadian majority is determined to in our own Home,” Daniel Johnson act as though there is but one nation Sr. wanted “Equality or independence,” in Canada, as though all provinces Robert Bourassa proposed the “Distinct are equal. [...] With the passing of Society.” One after another, our at- time, decisions we wish to make as tempts to expand or just to preserve Quebecers will increasingly be blended Québec’s autonomy within Canada into the great Canadian rush for unifor- have run into increasingly firm rebut- mity. This is the Canada of tomorrow. tals from our neighbours. Do we want to be a part of it? Twelve years ago, Pierre Trudeau’s [...] unilateral patriation dwindled the [There must be] something. That some- National Assembly’s powers against thing is sovereignty! But sovereignty our will, with a Constitution that that belongs to Quebecers from all Québec has never signed. Four years regions, all social, linguistic, cultural ago, the death of the Meech Lake and political origins.375

374. See Directeur général des élections du Québec, Référendum 1995. Rapport des résultats officiels du scrutins, 1995, p. 49 (an extract from this Official Report and the resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the referendum question are reproduced in part 3: document no. 31). 375. Message by the Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau at the time of the publication of the draft bill on sovereignty and the announcement of the commissions on the future of Québec, December 6, 1994, p. 3-4.

89 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Constitutional reform process the following ministerial statement on manpower adjustment and voca- The impossible in-depth reform of Canadian federalism: See paragraph 364. tional training: • Québec must have sole responsi- ••• Distribution of powers bility of the manpower adjustment a) Sectorial jurisdictions and vocational training policies within its territory and, consequent- 354.In the field of health care, not only ly, must repatriate the moneys that has Ottawa stepped into a sector of the Federal Government allocates exclusive provincial jurisdiction, but to Québec for these programmes; each of its initiatives goes against the will of the provinces with frequent • In the current constitutional con- harmful consequences regarding these text, and in view of offering better provinces’ orientations. Québec beckons services to its clientèle, Québec the other provinces to put pressure must regain the control and the on the federal government so that it administration of the different ceases to encroach upon the health services pertaining to employment care sector. As for Québec, it intends and to manpower development and to fully assume its exclusive power and of all of the programmes that are responsibilities in this field, all the likely to be financed by the unem- while especially preserving its prerog- ployment insurance funds on the ative for defining what is “medically territory of Québec for this purpose, necessary” for the purposes of the and must accordingly receive the insured services. With regard to health sums that normally are attributed care services, the provinces do not have for taking over such responsibility; to ask Ottawa for any orientation whatsoever; it is the provinces’ responsibility • The Government of Québec and the to offer their respective citizenries the representatives of the employers, the health services that they are entitled unions and the cooperative sector to expect. It therefore becomes obvious intend to oppose any initiative on that the federal government must the part of the Federal Government withdraw from this sector into which that would constitute interference it is contributing less and less, and in Québec’s fields of jurisdiction. where its actions do not in any way And that, consequently, it request improve accessibility to Canada’s health that the Government of Québec and care services.376 the Minister of Employment immedi- The Financing of Health Care and Social Programs: ately commence formal discussions with See also paragraphs 362, 365 and 366. the Federal Government in order to 355.That the National Assembly reaffirm ensure that this consensus and the the consensus voiced […] on 13 De- promotion of the interests of the cember 1990 and communicated in population of Québec are respected.377

376. Communiqué from the staff of Jean Rochon, Minister of Health and Social Services, Interprovincial Conference of Health Ministers, Vancouver, April 11, 1995. 377. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated December 4, 1995 (quotation).

90 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

356.Considering the failure of federal admin- capacities and that Québec’s areas of istration over ground fish harvesting, jurisdiction are respected in agree- Québec demands the administration of ments between the federal government fisheries. The transferring of respon- and municipalities. The government of sibility proposed by Québec cannot be Québec neither can nor does it want to carried out within the framework of a take the federal government’s place in federal withdrawal aimed at reducing the role of financial support that the its operating costs. Rather it must be latter has always assumed, without accompanied with the transferring of first having the legislative, regulatory human and financial resources making and fiscal control over the field of it possible for Québec to take full respon- activity.381 sibility for the future development of its 360.Québec demands the regulatory, leg- 378 fisheries industry. islative and fiscal powers that will 357.The fact that the federal government enable it to assume the passing of legislates in the field of clearing cor- responsibilities and infrastructures in porations, especially when applied to maritime transport.382 securities, constitutes an encroachment on an area of exclusive provincial juris- Transportation: See also paragraphs 374-376. diction that Québec cannot accept. 361.Federal intervention in housing is an This sector of jurisdiction has in fact encroachment in a field of provincial been continuously and vigorously pro- jurisdiction. The federal government tected by all the successive governments has imposed an inflexible approach of Québec.379 to intervening in housing. It has also 358.Québec does not share the viewpoint subjected its financial participation to expressed in the parliamentary task numerous administrative rules, objec- force report on the commercialization tives and Canada-wide criteria that of Canadian National in which local make the planning of actions difficult interest railways should come under in the Québec context. The presence of federal authority. Québec has already the federal government in this sector made proposals to the other provinces of activities has created many admin- for harmonizing their regulations istrative overlaps that cause additional regarding such railways.380 costs and that detract from the coher- 359.As for its airports, Québec must ensure ence of the interventions.383 that municipalities do not accept charges that are heavier than their financial Housing: See also paragraph 368.

378. Communiqués from the staff of Marcel Landry, Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, Federal-Provincial Conference of Fisheries ministers, Victoria, November 1, 1994, nos. 1 and 2. Communiqué no. 2 gives the most detailed information on the Québec proposal. 379. Letter from Jean Campeau, Minister of Finance, to Paul Martin, federal Minister of Finance, Québec, August 14, 1995 (quotation) [Translation]. 380. Letter from Jacques Léonard, Minister of Transportation, to Douglas Young, federal Minister of Transportation, Québec, April 10, 1995. 381. La politique du gouvernement du Québec en matière d’infrastructures aéroportuaires, ministère des Transports, December 6, 1995, p. 10. 382. Communiqué from the staff of Jean Campeau, Minister of Transportation, regarding federal maritime policy, Québec, December 14, 1995. 383. Government of Québec, Coûts du fédéralisme pour le Québec dans le domaine de l’habitation, an analysis made by the Société d'habitation du Québec, September 1995, p. 21.

91 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

b) Unilateral powers ••• Intergovernmental policy 362.The most detestable federal disengage- a) Conducting intergovernmental relations ment in the financing of social programs 364.The issue of Québec’s participation in is that the federal government main- Canadian intergovernmental confer- tains its national standards in health ences fits into the following frame of care and seeks to impose new ones in reference: other social programs.384 • Québec intends on maintaining with Federal actions and the financing of social programs: the federal government those rela- See also paragraphs 365-366. tionships needed for the proper

Federal initiatives in housing: See paragraph 361. operations of both governments, while heeding their respective ••• Language rights jurisdictions. 363.We have pledged [...] to enshrine in the • The interests of the people of Québec Constitution, in clear, unambig- Québec will serve as an essential uous terms, the right of our English guide for the government’s actions citizens to English schools, from kinder- whose objective is not to paralyze garten to university; the right for the the federal system, nor to demand English communities to control these an in-depth reform since it is obvi- schools. The right to have access to ous since Meech and Charlottetown courts and the Québec National Assem- that this is impossible, but to find bly in English. It is obvious to us that its way by accessing full political the English Community must be a sovereignty. party to the elaboration of the Consti- The active presence of Québec will be tution of a sovereign Québec. And a ensured by participation at ministe- formula has to be found to ensure that, rial level in conferences or meetings from then on, no constitutional changes dealing with shared jurisdictional affecting that community shall be made issues. Other cases will be handled without their consent. Also we want on a case-by-case basis by the to continue ensuring by law the right government. Generally speaking, to have medical care in the English without practicing the empty chair language. When we will patriate our policy, Québec will not participate share of the CBC, we will maintain actively on the ministerial level in public TV and radio service in English.385 conferences whose themes involve

384. Communiqués from the staff of Pauline Marois, Minister of Finance, Minister of Revenue and Minister responsible for the Family, Press Conference, Québec, December 12, 1995, no. 1. 385. A Frank Talk Between Neighbours About the Present and the Future. Speaking notes for Jacques Parizeau before the Canadian Club, Toronto, November 22, 1994, p. 9-10 (quotation; see also Bill 1, An Act respecting the future of Québec reproduced in part 3: document no. 30).

92 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

its exclusive power; generally, a social programs and that it transfer member of the civil service will the tax points to Québec that it uses represent Québec as a technical to finance its actions in this sector. participant or an observer. This demand constitutes a concrete Furthermore, Québec intends on answer to the problem of endless cuts 388 participating actively in conferences in federal transfers.

or meetings whose agenda will Federal disengagement and the need for a include the reviewing of issues corresponding transfer of resources: See also paragraphs 356, 359, 360 and 376. linked to opening markets or the “continentalization” of various 367.A greater harmonization of sales activities. taxes in Canada must not be carried Québec also intends on assessing out at the price of a loss of fiscal auton- the timeliness of its participation omy for Québec. For the government in conferences in light of their effi- of Québec, fiscal autonomy is a fun- ciency.386 damental question both regarding consumption tax as well as other areas b) Financial aspects of federalism of taxation, and it will never be aban- 365.As regards social issues, Québec beckons doned. Discussions surrounding the the provinces to more firmly oppose sales tax system should provide the the federal government’s reductions for opportunity for broadening the debate the financing of established programs on the sharing of fiscal sectors between by emphasizing that this unrealized the federal government and the prov- gain should be compensated by the inces, especially considering the re- transferring of tax points.387 sponsibilities attributed to both levels 366.During the 1960s and 70s, the federal of government.389 government incited the provinces to 368.Québec has on the whole received, set up health care, social assistance from federal action in housing, finan- and post-secondary education pro- cial benefits far lower than the share grams by offering to share the expenses it should have received.390 50-50 with them; today the same c) Aboriginal Nations federal government is washing its hands of such commitments. Québec 369.In the 1970s, Québec was the first considers the current arrangement province in Canada to sign a modern for financing social programs by the treaty with some of its Aboriginal federal government to be unacceptable. Communities. In the 1980s, Québec was It demands that the federal govern- the first province to recognize that ment withdraw from the financing of Aboriginal Peoples constitute distinct

386. Declaration by Louise Beaudoin, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, regarding Québec's participation in Federal-Provincial Conferences held since the election of the new government of Québec, Winnipeg, October 5, 1994. 387. Communiqué from the staff of Jean Rochon, Minister of Health and Social Services, Interprovincial Conference of Health Ministers, Vancouver, April 11, 1995. 388. Communiqués from the staff of Pauline Marois, Minister of Finance, Minister of Revenue and Minister responsible for the Family, Press Conference, Québec, December 12, 1995, nos. 1 and 2. 389. Statement by Jean Campeau, Minister of Finance, press release from the government of Québec, Federal-Provincial Conference of Finance Ministers, Toronto, October 14, 1994. 390. Government of Québec, Coûts du fédéralisme pour le Québec dans le domaine de l’habitation, (executive summary) an analysis made by the Société d'habitation du Québec, September 1995, p. 2 (quotation) [Translation].

93 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

nations within Québec. During the areas that are most favourable for 1990s, Québec also intends on pursu- the establishment of linguistic soli- ing this pioneering process by granting darity, namely through culture and Aboriginal Peoples a large measure communications, education and the of governmental autonomy. We make economy. the commitment in this respect to allow For the implementation of Québec’s the Aboriginal Peoples of Québec to policy, various means of concertation be just as, if not more, responsible for are planned: their own development as any other a) Sectorial liaison tables on culture group of Aboriginal Peoples in North and communications, education and America.391 the economy. The tables are com- d) French-Speaking and Acadian posed of experts in these sectors. Communities of Canada b) A Triennial Concertation Forum. 370.Québec sovereignty does not mean The government of Québec takes that we will turn our backs on fellow the initiative for holding a large francophones elsewhere in Canada. gathering of members of the On the contrary, in acquiring the status French-Speaking and Acadian of a sovereign state, we will have spe- Communities and Quebecers. It will be a place for exchanges, display- cific responsibilities towards them.392 ing achievements and promoting 371.Québec’s policy with regard to the French-Speaking gatherings. French-Speaking and Acadian Com- c) Regional concertation. The Québec munities of Canada forms a part of offices in Canada coordinate the the government’s determination to give regional concertation with French- a new start with regard to these com- Speaking and Acadian Communities. munities. To do so, the government of Québec intends on: d) Interministerial concertation. The Secrétariat aux affaires intergou- • promoting contacts between mem- vernementales canadiennes takes bers of the French-Speaking and charge of coordinating interminis- Acadian Communities of Canada terial activities related to French- and Quebecers; Speaking and Acadian Communities. • backing the pursuit of projects that e) The Financial Support Program for will bring about such exchanges; partners. This program provides • ensuring by the implementation of backing for partnership projects in liaison structures that government the fields of culture and communi- actions will stay in contact with cations, education and the economy. this new dialog. Moreover, in future intergovernmental To provide a new start for its actions, agreements, the government of Québec the government intends on promoting will favour bilateral cooperation activities

391. Opening speech by Jacques Parizeau, Prime Minister elect, at a press conference held on September 14, 1994, p. 9 (quotation) [Translation]; as regards government policy towards Aboriginal Peoples, see speaking notes for Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau at a dinner-meeting with Montagnais and Attikamek Chiefs, Beaupré, October 28, 1994; see also Bill 1, An Act respecting the future of Québec reproduced in part 3: document no. 30. 392. A Frank Talk Between Neighbours About the Present and the Future. Speaking notes for Jacques Parizeau before the Canadian Club, Toronto, November 22, 1994, p. 10 (quotation).

94 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

that fit in with the objective of revi- regard to railway companies under talizing French among French- its jurisdiction and to put a stop to the Speaking Communities.393 disorderly abandoning of the network, e) Trade which is progressing at the expense of Québec’s economic interests. Over the 372.Québec intends on participating active- short term, Québec want to avoid the ly in conferences or meetings whose premature destruction of important agenda will include the reviewing of transportation infrastructures and issues linked to opening markets or facilitate their transfer to other busi- the “continentalization” of various nesses under acceptable conditions.396 activities such as transportation or communications. Québec will contrib- 375.The basic railway grid must be defined ute its efforts to measures seeking to by each of the provinces and not by 397 ensure the proper operations of the the Canadian Transportation Agency. economic space that it shares with 376.Over the past years, Québec govern- other parts of Canada and to guarantee ments of all political colours have de- the greatest possible harmonization nounced federal disengagement from of this economic space with the largest social and economic programs. Today, economic groups—North America and the National Marine Policy is endan- GATT—which soon will become the gering the competitiveness of our World Trade Organization.394 businesses’ maritime system, river- 373.Québec insists in drawing the other oriented trade and the comparative provinces’ attention to the importance advantages of the St. Lawrence. When of emphasizing the mutual benefits finding a solution to its chronic problem from economic exchanges that take of financial incapacity is at issue, place in the Canadian economic space Ottawa seems totally devoid of imag- and it wants to further the advancement ination. Until now, the only solution of negotiations over the Agreement on adopted by Ottawa has been to stick Internal Trade.395 the provinces with the bill without f) Transportation providing them with the financial means to pay it.398 374.Québec beckons the federal government to assume its responsibilities with Transportation: See also paragraphs 358-360.

393. Government of Québec, Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, Québec's policy towards the French- Speaking and Acadian Communities of Canada: a dialog, solidarity in action, 1995; Reinforcing solidarity around common interests, communiqué from the staff of Louise Beaudoin, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, March 30, 1995. 394. Declaration by Louise Beaudoin, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, regarding Québec's participation in Federal-Provincial Conferences held since the election of the new government of Québec, Winnipeg, October 5, 1994, p. 3. 395. The Prime Minister insists on the importance of internal trade, press release from the staff of Jacques Parizeau, 36th Annual Conference of Provincial First Ministers, St. John's, Newfoundland, August 24, 1995. 396. Veiller aux intérêts immédiats du Québec en préparant l’avenir. Speech by Jacques Léonard, Minister of Transportation, Meeting of Ministers responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, Winnipeg, October 5, 1994, p. 3. 397. Letter from Jacques Léonard, Minister of Transportation, to Douglas Young, federal Minister of Transportation, Québec, April 10, 1995 (quotation) [Translation]. 398. Declaration from the staff of Jean Campeau, Minister of Transportation, regarding federal maritime policy, Québec, December 14, 1995.

95 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

GOVERNMENT OF the popular vote each time expressed LUCIEN BOUCHARD and that, each time, our democracy (JANUARY 29, 1996 TO MARCH 8, 2001) has grown in strength, our right to choose become that much stronger. [...] There is nothing more sacred in the democratic life of a people than its capacity to dispose of its own destiny. This is the very essence of their liberty.400 379.As a reaction to federal intervention in the Bertrand case, the Québec National Assembly adopted the following resolution: “That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of

Daniel Lessard Québec are free to take charge of their own destiny, to define without ••• Status of Québec interference their political status and 377.In North America, Québec is the only to ensure their economic, social and society with a French-Speaking major- cultural development.”401 ity, a well-defined territorial base, and political institutions it controls. The 380.The only judge and jury on the future people of Québec possess all the tra- of Québec happens to be the people of ditional characteristics of a nation. Québec. No judge can stand in the [...] The Québec people subscribe to way of a people’s democratic expres- the democratic concept of a French- sion. The government of Québec will Speaking nation, pluralist in its culture, not go before the Supreme Court of and open to international immigration Canada regarding the federal govern- [...].399 ment’s Reference concerning the future of the Québec people. This is a purely 378.[In the Bertrand case], the federal political and not legal issue.402 government took the serious decision to go before a court to assert that the 381.That the National Assembly demand future of Quebecers does not belong that the men and women politicians to them. [...] To those who would have of Québec recognize the will, demo- forgotten, to those who would deny it, cratically expressed by Quebecers in to those who fear the strength of the referendum of 30 October 1995 Québec, but mainly to us, who must held in compliance with the Refer- state loud and clear that we are enti- endum Act, thus acknowledging the tled to dispose of our own destiny, fundamental right of Quebecers to that we have set the most democratic determine their future pursuant to rules of all, that we have respected this Act.403

399. Briefing notes for a speech by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, delivered at the “Forum des Fédérations” held in Mont-Tremblant, October 6, 1999, p. 3 (quotation). 400. Speech by Lucien Bouchard at a debate on a motion proposing to reassert the liberty of Québec to determine its political status, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, May 22, 1996, p. 1244, 1245 and 1247 (quotation) [Translation]. 401. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 22, 1996 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 32). 402. Press conference by Paul Bégin, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, September 26, 1996. 403. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 21, 1997 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 35).

96 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

382.While the decision of the Supreme and federal parliament as well as Court of Canada, in the case of the to that of the other provinces. It is federal government’s reference to the the responsibility of any democrat, Supreme Court of Canada on Québec’s and especially that of the govern- accession to sovereignty, to appoint an ment of Québec, to recall today at amicus curiae is a part of its powers, the beginning of this hearing, where the person so appointed shall not have the court has been proposed with either the authority or the legitimacy the mandate to substitute itself in to speak on behalf of the people or the the rights of a people, these inalien- government of Québec. The appoint- able rights without which democracy ment of an amicus curiae does not in cannot exist.405 any way modify the position of the gov- 384.The opinion handed down by the Su- ernment of Québec by which Québec’s preme Court of Canada constitutes an accession to sovereignty is a political important political event. The govern- issue that is not a question to be decid- ment of Québec, steadfast in its respon- ed by legal proceedings, but by the sibility, has refused to participate in 404 people of Québec. this episode of the federal political 383.The federal government and the rest of strategy and has firmly reiterated the Canada must [...] understand, regard- right of Quebecers to choose their less of any Reference: future. The Canadian government has • that the people of Québec have failed in its attempt to have the core always possessed, now possess elements of its anti-sovereignty offen- and will continue to possess the sive validated. The opinion of the Court fundamental and inalienable right recognizes that a winning referendum to freely, democratically and with- would not only have democratic legiti- out interference dispose of their macy, but that Canada would be obliged political future; to recognize this legitimacy and could not deny the right of Québec to seek • that this fundamental right of the going through with such sovereignty. people of Québec is exercised within The opinion confirms that following a the framework of democratic insti- Yes, Canada would be obliged to nego- tutions that belong to them and tiate with Québec. These negotiations that are of a remarkable vitality; would involve sovereignty and not a • that these same institutions, includ- renewal of federalism. On the nature ing the democratic decision that of the negotiations, the Court imposes the people of Québec will make obligations on the federalists to which during the next referendum must sovereigntists have already adhered be respected; and, for some time. In the event of dead- • that the future and destiny of the locked negotiations, the Court does not people of Québec may not be subju- dare give specific instructions but in gated to the will of the government broaching this subject, it does not in

404. Press conference by Paul Bégin, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Sainte-Foy, May 9, 1997; position reiterated upon the designation of the amicus curiae (See the press release by Paul Bégin dated July 14, 1997). 405. Declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the beginning of hearings on the case of the Supreme Court Reference, February 16, 1998 (quotation) [Translation].

97 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

any case evoke the hypothesis that federal ministers and politicians who Quebecers should resign themselves present the dismemberment of Québec to remain in Canada and renounce their as both a possibility and a defendable democratic decision. On the contrary, demand and who thus offer a moral the Court only evokes one possibility, endorsement to those who propound it is that to break a deadlock Québec these arguments. All democrats, feder- should alone declare its sovereignty and alists, and sovereigntists should clearly call upon international recognition. disassociate themselves from such By evoking a recognition facilitated talk. Québec’s territorial integrity is in the case of intransigence towards guaranteed before the accession to Québec, the Court provides a supple- sovereignty under the rules of the mentary condition to the success of Canadian Constitution and, after sov- the negotiations. Finally, the Court does ereignty by the well-established and not in any way put in doubt the right imperative principles of general inter- of the Québec National Assembly to national law. The Québec government decide, alone, what the wording of the thus condemns all attempts and invi- question and the majority threshold tations to deny or deform this reality will be.406 for the purpose of creating polarization, 385.Before, during and after [the episode sowing discord, and encouraging a of the federal reference to the Supreme degradation of relations between the Court of Canada] the government of various components of Québec society. Québec has always maintained that Québec’s borders are geographical accession to sovereignty is an essen- and historical. Never will the govern- tially political issue. Affirming this ment agree to their being redrawn on does not in any way mean putting the basis of linguistic, racial, or ethnic 408 oneself above the law. It is refusing to considerations.

let Québec be subject to the interpre- Territorial Limits and Bill C-20: See paragraphs 397-398. tation that the federal government wishes to make of the role played by 387.Does the document [Calgary Decla- the Supreme Court of Canada and the ration] recognize the existence of the rulings that it has made.407 Québec people? In my view, here we touch upon one of the saddest facets The federal Reference and Bill C-20: See paragraphs 393, 395 and 398. of the history of relations between Quebecers and Canadians. When ob- 386.The Québec government denounces servers wonder a few years from now the irresponsibility of people who why these two peoples were unable resort to this partitionist rhetoric and, to continue to live under the same even more so, the irresponsibility of federal regime, the answer will be,

406. Briefing notes for a preliminary statement by Lucien Bouchard following the Opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada on the federal government's Reference, August 21, 1998 (See part 2 of this document). 407. Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “Droit, démocratie et souveraineté: Joseph Facal répond à Stéphane Dion,” La Presse, November 17, 1999, p. B3 (quotation) [Translation]. 408. Ministerial statement by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on the Québec government's position regarding Québec territorial integrity, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, November 12, 1997, p. 8379-8382 (See part 2 of this document).

98 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

above all, a lack of respect and recog- vision of the rest of Canada united nition and the refusal of one of the two around a State that is less and less peoples to recognize the existence of federal and more and more resolutely the other. [...] They refuse to recognize unitary. [...] The Social Union agree- us as a people or a nation and [...] even ment directly questions Québec’s status afraid of the vapid expression “distinct within Canada. The consecration with- society,” the English-Canadian prime out precedent of recognizing for the ministers have scraped the bottom of federal government a leadership role the barrel, where they undoubtedly by the other provinces is totally con- found “unique character,” an all- trary to the historic aspirations and 409 purpose term if ever there was one. claims of the people of Québec.411 The federal Resolution regarding the distinct society: 390.The federal government is [...] seek- See paragraph 431. ing to give credence to the idea that 388.The Calgary Declaration runs [...] at the time of the next referendum it counter to Québec’s interests. It conse- is necessary to establish a majority crates the equality of the provinces in threshold that is greater than that of such manner as to deny Québec any the absolute majority of votes (50% + 1). [...] Canadian practice, international possibility of renewed or asymmetric practice and the practice of the United federalism or a special status for Nations unanimously indicate that in Québec. It denies the existence of the the matter of referendums on accession people of Québec in order to melt them to sovereignty, the absolute majority into one Canadian reality in blatant of votes, namely 50 % + 1, expresses contradiction with the pact between not only a clear majority but also a the two founding peoples.410 rule that must be recognized as being The Calgary Declaration and Social Union: democratic, constant and universal.412 See paragraph 444. 391.[...] The introduction of a qualified 389.What [the Social Union Agreement] majority, in whatever form, favours demonstrates is the inability of the one option over the other and, above federal government and the other all, compromises the democratic prin- provinces to reform the operations of ciple of one elector, one vote.413 the federal system by integrating and 392.Québec is a society whose democratic respecting Québec specificity. This institutions are over two centuries old, agreement consecrates the emerging where there is political pluralism and

409. Statement by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard following the Meeting of the First Ministers in Calgary, Québec, September 16, 1997 (quotation; see part 2 of this document). The Calgary Declaration is as such reproduced in part 3: document no. 36. 410. Speech by Lucien Bouchard at a meeting of the Commission permanente des institutions dealing with the Calgary Declaration, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats of the Commission permanente des institutions, June 10, 1998, CI-136, p. 31 (quotation) [Translation]. 411. Speech by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the time of reviewing budgetary credits 1999-2000 of the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes , Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats of the Commission permanente des institutions, April 28, 1999, CI-9, p. 3 (quotation) [Translation]. 412. “Rules cannot be changed in the middle of the game,” conference by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Forum des fédérations, Mont-Tremblant, October 6, 1999, p. 4 and 5 (quotation). 413. Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “Facal répond à Dion (2): des demi-vérités sur la ‘majorité claire’,” La Presse, November 18, 1999, p. B3 (quotation) [Translation].

99 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

the fairness of the rules of the game 394.The federal bill proposes to bestow (freedom of speech, financing of polit- on the Canadian Parliament the right ical parties, umbrella committees and to declare the referendum question financing of referendum options) is a inadmissible while it is debated by fundamental value of the political the National Assembly. In fact, the process. The near ex aequo results of federal government wants to be able the 1995 referendum, the results some- to censure the question, even before what more alike in the simultaneous the referendum. The Québec people referendums on the Charlottetown —one of Canada’s two founding peo- Accord and the results obtained in ples—would not have the right to France—to include an international propose, by referendum, to their example—during the referendum on Canadian neighbour a new political or the Maastricht Agreement, where the economic arrangement based on the majority was set at 51 % illustrate the peoples’ sovereignty and political ordinary and healthy proceedings of equality. Québec would not have the a democracy, in addition to illustrating right to propose to Canada an arrange- three cases where the results, although ment similar to the one linking the quite tight, were nonetheless respected.414 15 countries of the European Union. 393.The federal Bill C-20 is a head-on col- In other words, according to the lision with the democratic values that government of Canada, the National are dear to Quebecers. The federal Assembly is not free to decide which 416 government is seeking to impose a project it would submit to a vote. series of legislative padlocks to block 395.C-20 states that Quebecers must be the future of Quebecers. On the pre- protected against their government text of clarity, the federal government but also against themselves since is acting as if it were seeking to give they would be unable to weigh the itself the means to evade the obligation issues set forth in a referendum ques- of negotiating in good faith following tion.417 C-20 [...] is a dismal distortion a referendum favourable to sover- of the Supreme Court’s advisory refer- eignty, as prescribed by the Supreme ence and provides a legalistic veneer Court, advice the federal government to the worst prejudices regarding the itself sought. We subscribe to the capacity of Quebecers to govern them- 418 obligation of clarity, but we main- selves democratically as a people. tain that it is a responsibility only 396.Everybody knows that there is but the National Assembly can and must one rule guaranteeing voting equality, assume.415 it is the rule of 50 % plus one. Any

414. Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “Facal répond à Dion (2): des demi-vérités sur la ‘majorité claire’,” La Presse, November 18, 1999, p. B3 (quotation) [Translation]. 415. Briefing notes for a speech by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the time of the tabling of the Bill respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, Québec National Assembly, December 15, 1999, p. 1. 416. Ibid., p. 1-2. 417. “Who Fears Quebecers' Democratic Determination?,” brief presented by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, before the Legislative Committee of the House of Commons entrusted with reviewing Bill C-20, Ottawa, February 24, 2000, p. 2 (quotation; see part 2 of this document). 418. Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, “Le déclin du fédéralisme canadien,” Le Devoir, October 30, 2000, p. A7 (quotation) [Translation].

100 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

other rule would give the voters of one selves what their future will be. The side more weight than those of the National Assembly will adopt the ques- other side. In Bill C-20, the Canadian tion it wants to adopt. The Québec Parliament wants to reserve the right people alone will decide what consti- to set at its own discretion, once the tutes clarity. The victorious option results of the referendum are known, will be the one with votes clearing the the majority level its deems sufficient. 50 % + 1 of validly expressed ones.422 It thus assumes in effect a right of 400.The Québec government considers that veto.419 it is through a bill that the National 397.In the case where obstacles to Bill C-20 Assembly must reply to Bill C-20. It on the referendum question and the must adopt a bill that protects the results would not prevent negotiations, right of every citizen, of every one of the federal government has a third us, to express our vote—only one idea: putting in doubt Québec’s terri- vote, but a whole vote—to decide our torial integrity, which every Québec future.423 government has deemed inviolable.420 401.The Bill respecting the exercise of the 398.Bill C-20 makes reference to the issue fundamental rights and prerogatives of borders while no where in the of the Québec people and the Québec Supreme Court’s opinion is there any State (Bill 99) is somewhat unique in mention of changing borders or only character. For the first time in the specifies, in mentioning borders, that political history of Québec, in fact for it means nothing more than the chang- the first time since Québec has its own ing of the current provincial borders parliamentary institutions, namely into international ones.421 for more than 200 years, a legislative 399 Not only is Bill C-20 unacceptable for text emanating from its institutions Québec, but it is also unacceptable for specifically aims at asserting some of all parties represented in the National the most fundamental rights and pre- Assembly. The Québec government rogatives of the people and State of 424 does not recognize any legitimacy on Québec. the part of the federal government 402.In short, Bill 99 reiterates the politi- when it comes to such interference in cal and legal principles that form the Quebecers’ rights to decide for them- basis of Québec society and democracy.

419. Briefing notes for a speech by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the time of the tabling of the Bill respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, Québec National Assembly, December 15, 1999, p. 2. 420. Ibid. 421. Press conference by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, regarding Bill 99, An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, December 15, 1999. 422. “Who Fears Quebecers' Democratic Determination?,” brief presented by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, before the Legislative Committee of the House of Commons entrusted with reviewing Bill C-20, Ottawa, February 24, 2000, p. 4 (quotation; see part 2 of this document). 423. Briefing notes for a speech by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the time of the tabling of the Bill respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State, Québec National Assembly, December 15, 1999, p. 2. 424. Speech by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the time of the debate on the adoption of the principle of Bill 99, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats May 25, 2000, p. 6167. The Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State is reproduced in part 3: document no. 40.

101 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

It especially consecrates the fundamen- ••• Constitutional reform process tal right of Quebecers to freely dispose 404.The government will not be associated of their political future. It reasserts with any future multilateral constitu- the sovereignty of the State of Québec tional discussions, based on the lucid in all its areas of jurisdiction, both observation made by former Premier domestically and internationally, as Robert Bourassa following the failure well as Québec’s territorial integrity. of the Meech Lake Accord according It forcefully asserts that no other par- to which the existing constitutional liament or government may reduce the reform process in Canada has been powers, authority or sovereignty and discredited.427 legitimacy of the National Assembly. It reiterates the principles underlying The 1982 Patriation: See paragraphs 405-406. the Charter of the French Language. Lastly, it states that the rule of the ••• Constitutional amending procedure majority of 50 % + one vote validly cast, 405.The National Assembly adopted a universally recognized and applied, is resolution authorizing an amendment the one that will continue to prevail in of section 93 of the Constitution Act interpreting the results of any referen- 1867, in order to allow the implemen- dum held under the Referendum Act tation of linguistic school boards in through which the people of Québec Québec. As regards the amending will exercise their right to dispose of formula, the resolution states that this themselves. And the foregoing, it is amendment of the Constitution Act, appropriate to underscore, shall be 1867 does not in any way constitute a carried out respectful of the estab- recognition by the National Assembly lished rights of the Québec English- of the Constitution Act, 1982 that was Speaking Community and respectful adopted without its consent and states of the existing rights of the eleven the engagements subscribed by the Aboriginal nations of Québec.425 federal government to proceed rapidly 403.The Act respecting the exercise of the with such amendment, through bilat- fundamental rights and prerogatives eral action and with the agreement of of the Québec people and the Québec the National Assembly and of the Federal Parliament.428 State is more than a mere statute; it is more of a charter of the political Amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867: rights of the people of Québec.426 See also paragraphs 417 and 450.

The Status of a Federated Entity and Globalization: 406.By its heavy-handed tactics in 1982, See paragraph 425. Canada committed an historic injustice

425. Speech by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the time of the debate on the adoption of the principle of Bill 99, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats May 25, 2000, p. 6167. The Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State is reproduced in part 3: document no. 40 (quotation) [Translation]. 426. Speech by Lucien Bouchard at the time of the debate on the adoption of the principle of Bill 99, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 7, 2000, p. 8577 (See part 2 of this document). 427. Ministerial declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on Canadian intergovernmental relations, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 4, 1997, p. 9087. 428. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated April 15, 1997 (Part 3: document no. 33).

102 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

to Québec. By allowing the 15-year within the federation. Québec will never deadline to lapse that it had set for compromise its autonomy by agreeing changing its amendment formula, to principles that would weaken its Canada admits that this injustice is jurisdiction and, in the eyes of the irreparable within the federal system.429 Québec people, would run counter to its interests and to the Constitution. ••• Distribution of powers What the federal government and the a) General principles provinces are offering as a re-balancing of the federation is equivalent to a 407.The government has neither the intent denial of the historic progress made nor the mandate to abandon any part by the Québec people.432 of Québec’s constitutional jurisdictions, whether this involves a constitutional 410.The imminent arrival of a budgetary or administrative operation.430 surplus in Ottawa is already stirring up creative overlapping and duplicat- 408.Successive governments in Québec, ing federal interventionism. In such a regardless of their political option, context, the government of Québec have always worked to reaffirm its will firmly defend its autonomy and jurisdiction in order to foster its peo- prevalence over sectors under its ple’s control over its economic, social jurisdiction. Consequently: and cultural development and that of • [...] Québec shall demand respect its political institutions.431 for its constitutional jurisdictions 409.The rest of Canada must realize that and shall lay claim to the fullest Québec intends to maintain the integrity exercising of them; it shall continue of its jurisdictions and fiscal autonomy to denounce encroachments by the and that there is no doubt as to the federal government and it shall determination of the Québec govern- demand full financial compensation ment on this issue. The agreement of in the form of tax points, especially a number or of all the provinces to within the framework of any new the administrative restructuring that federal agreement or initiative in may result from any re-balancing a sector coming under Québec’s exercise would not make this operation jurisdiction; any less unacceptable for Québec, it • [...] In the case of federal disen- being a restructuring that would pur- gagement from other sectors, it port to impose priorities or standards shall demand, as the case may be, in sectors within Québec’s exclusive that the transferring of jurisdic- jurisdiction and which would corre- tions to Québec be accompanied spondingly reduce its political autonomy with fair compensation.433

429. Ministerial declaration by Lucien Bouchard on the unacceptable character of the Constitution Act, 1982, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, April 16, 1997, p. 6267-6269 (quotation) [Translation]. See also the decision of the Conseil des ministres no. 97-092 on the fifteenth anniversary of the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 1982, April 16, 1997, reproduced in part 3: document no. 34. 430. Declaration by Lucien Bouchard, press release entitled: The Re-Balancing of the Roles and Responsibilities of Ottawa and the Provinces: Another Road to Centralization, Jasper, August 23, 1996 (quotation) [Translation]. 431. Document Administrative Re-Balancing of Roles and Responsibilities: Québec's Position tabled by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the First Ministers' Conference, St. Andrews, August 6-8, 1997, p. 1 (quotation). 432. Ibid., p. 1 (quotation). 433. Ministerial declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 4, 1997, p. 9087.

103 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

411.Quebecers’ feeling of alienation stems 413.Québec spends three billion dollars notably from the fact that the federal on childhood development programs government acts as if the Canadian and currently has put together a unified federation has become an almost uni- program. The acceptance of a Canada- tary State. A federation represents a wide integrated child allocation pro- pact between a number of states that gram would be tantamount to putting includes a clear division of responsibil- Quebecers’ tax money into a general ities which each partner undertakes kitty and renouncing the granting of to observe. The federal government amounts required for Quebecers’ needs spends when and how it wishes, with and priorities.436 its enormous surplus it has obtained, 414.Québec is opposed to implementing any to a substantial degree, by making Canada-wide program under the social massive cuts in transfer payments to policies heading, such as a “national” the provinces. In this way, the division benefit for children, the effect of which of responsibilities among each partner would be that Québec could not exer- seems to have lost all its meaning. In the cise all its responsibilities in this area. sham federation Canada has become, Social policies are its exclusive domain the legitimate and original aspirations and it intends on exercising full powers of Québec’s people have been “flat- in this matter within its territorial tened” by the federal steamroller and boundaries. As such, Québec sought its propaganda machine.434 the transfer of tax points or a financial Federal Principle and Globalization: transfer corresponding to the federal See paragraph 425. government’s expenses in that sector in Québec and that it could have posted b) Sectorial jurisdictions to the objectives pursued by the family 412.The 1996 Speech from the Throne an- policy announced last January. The nounced a supposed federal withdrawal federal government has made it known from various sectors: Forestry, mining, that it will not follow-up on this housing, recreation and tourism. Actu- request.437 ally, after having intervened heavily in Reforming Social Policies and the Social Union these areas, often counter to Quebe- Framework Agreement: See section c) (“unilateral cers’ priorities and needs, but while powers”), at paragraphs 435-448. using their tax money, Ottawa simply announces that it is disengaging itself 415.Despite Québec’s objections, the prov- financially or that at the end of existing inces of English Canada and the federal agreements, it will have just about government have imposed on Québec curtailed its contributions, but will keep standards for the “national” child bene- Quebecers’ money for its own purposes.435 fit. At the same time, Québec is pre- vented from implementing its own Social Housing: See also paragraph 460. parental insurance plan since the

434. Press release by Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, Ottawa, December 8, 1999. 435. Press release by Lucien Bouchard, Federal-Provincial Conference, Ottawa, June 21, 1996, no. 1. 436. Declaration by Lucien Bouchard at the annual Conference of Provincial First Ministers, press release, Social programs: Québec refuses the provinces' proposal to centralize Québec's powers in social affairs in Ottawa, Jasper, August 23, 1996. 437. Press release by Pauline Marois, Minister of Education and Minister responsible for the Family and Childhood, Federal- Provincial Conference of Ministers responsible for Social Services, Toronto, April 18, 1997.

104 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

federal government has refused to reserve for Québec its share and that fully withdraw from the space for it pay such amount in full to Québec. contributions paid by employers and Requests from universities, as well as workers for maternity leaves within the those from affiliate university research employment insurance framework.438 centres and institutes, will be processed by currently existing project selection National child benefit: See also paragraph 452. mechanisms within the Québec govern- 416.While sharing the same concerns on ment and on the basis of development early childhood development, Québec priorities in the health care and edu- does not adhere to the document on cation sectors. Universities, as well as early childhood development, released affiliate university research centres at the First Ministers’ Meeting on Sep- and institutes, will not be able to deal tember 11, 2000 because some of its directly with the Foundation to avoid sections infringe on its constitutional having projects arriving in a disor- jurisdictions in social policies. Québec derly fashion without taking Québec intends to preserve its sole responsibil- priorities in health care and educa- ity for developing, planning, managing tion into consideration. This procedure and delivering early childhood develop- enables Québec to reassert the exerci- ment programs. Consequently, Québec sing of its right in the areas of juris- expects to receive its share of any addi- diction that belong to it exclusively, tional federal funding for early child- namely in health care and education, hood development programs without while respecting its priorities in research new conditions.439 and development and doing justice to 417.The amendment of section 93 of the the potential for excellence and crea- Constitution Act, 1867, consecrates Qué- tivity found in the Québec scientific 441 bec’s exclusive power in education.440 community. Research and development: See also paragraph 461. Amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867: See also paragraphs 405 and 450. 419.Following the announcement of the 418.University teaching and research are creation of the Canada Millennium Québec jurisdictions. As such, there Scholarship Foundation, the Québec can be no question of having a foun- government stated its objection to dation set up by the federal government this federal initiative and announced making strategic choices instead of its intention to withdraw from the Québec with regard to areas to be upcoming program with full compen- favoured in research. The government sation.442 On March 30, 1998, Québec of Québec therefore demands that the proposed to amend the federal bill Canada Foundation for Innovation instituting the Foundation to integrate

438. Document Canadian Social Union: Québec's position tabled by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the First Ministers' Conference, St. Andrews, August 6-8, 1997, p. 1-2. 439. Communiqué on early childhood development, Meeting of First Ministers, Ottawa, September 11, 2000. 440. Press release by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Québec, December 19, 1997. See also the unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated April 15, 1997, authorizing the constitutional amendment (Part 3: document no. 33). 441. Press release by Pauline Marois, Minister of Education, and Jean Rochon, Minister of Health and Social Services, Québec, December 8, 1997. 442. Letter from Lucien Bouchard to Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada, February 17, 1998, referring to a letter dated December 5, 1997.

105 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

into it an opting-out right with com- and evaluation of active employment pensation for provinces that have measures financed by the Employ- built and administer a student finan- ment Insurance Account. In addition, cial assistance program to ensure them Québec accepts primary responsibility equal opportunities regarding post- for job placement and information on secondary education.443 the Québec labour market. The agree- 420.That, for the benefit of Québec students, ment reached between Québec and the National Assembly urgently ask the federal government was concluded the federal government and the Québec after more than thirty years of requests government to resume the negotiations that culminated in tight negotiations regarding the millennium scholarship begun in December 1995. The Agree- in order that an agreement on legis- ment is an important step in recovering lative amendments respecting the fol- full power over labour force issues and lowing principles may be reached: makes it possible to begin eliminat- ing the overlapping of employment a) The part granted each year to policies in Québec.445 Québec students is determined by means of a formula based on 422.Québec agrees with the health care demographic parameters; communiqué released at the First Ministers’ Meeting on September 11, b) Québec selects the students who 2000. It specifies that nothing in the shall receive a scholarship; communiqué will be interpreted so as c) The scholarships are forwarded to to derogate from the respective govern- the recipients in such manner so as ments’ jurisdictions. The components to avoid all duplication and to of this communiqué, namely the vision, ensure the necessary visibility to principles, action plan for health sys- the federal government. tem renewal, clear accountability and Furthermore, the National Assembly working together shall be interpreted acknowledges the Québec government’s in full respect of each government’s intention to allocate the amounts thus jurisdictions.446 saved in its scholarship programme to 423.Québec has always stood firm on 444 the funding of colleges and universities. exercising its jurisdictions in fiscal Millennium Scholarships: See also paragraph 448. policy and the collection of revenues. In this context, federal agency formulas 421.Under the Canada-Québec Labour pertaining to revenue and border serv- Market Development Agreement in ices could not be applied to Québec.447 Principle, Québec accepts responsibility for the planning, design, delivery Tax collection: See also paragraph 458.

443. Québec government proposal to amend Bill C-36, Ottawa, March 30, 1998. 444. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 14, 1998 (quotation). An administrative agreement was concluded with the Canada Millennium Scholarship Foundation and the ministère de l'Éducation du Québec in December 1999. 445. Press release by Lucien Bouchard, Montréal, April 21, 1997. 446. Health care communiqué released at the First Ministers' Meeting, Ottawa, September 11, 2000. 447. Letter from Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, to Paul Martin, federal Minister of Finance, Québec, February 26, 1997.

106 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

424.[...] Whereas above and beyond its interventions to exchanges concerned jurisdictions in matters of education, solely with matters under their own language, culture and identity, the jurisdiction. It is therefore clear that Gouvernement du Québec is the sole if we are unable to leave room for the interlocutor competent to directly and federated entities on the international appropriately represent the reality and stage, and continue to reserve it exclu- interests of the Québec people; [...] sively for fully sovereign States, the federated entities that have the means The Gouvernement du Québec declares: to do so will naturally seek a change • That in all international forums in their status, driven by the need to dealing with education, language, ensure that their communities are culture and identity, it is funda- able to develop their full potential. mental that the Gouvernement du This temptation will be all the greater Québec speak in its own voice on since globalization has the effect of behalf of the Québec people; reducing one of the gains of the federal system, namely the maintenance • That the Gouvernement du Québec and protection of a common economic therefore intends to participate space. Given that this gain could hence- directly in these forums, to encour- forth depend increasingly on the age the holding of them and to international order, many federated favour their organization and action; entities may find that they are no longer • That for the purposes of participat- satisfied with their current political ing in certain international orga- arrangements.449 nizations to which Canada is the 426.The recognition of cultural duality statutorily accredited State, the means for Québec where over 85 % of Gouvernement du Québec intends Canada’s French-Speaking population to initiate negotiations with the fed- lives, that its government would be eral government in order to reach entrusted with exclusive powers in cul- agreement on the terms and condi- tural affairs with full financial com- 450 tions of its presence and the exercise pensation. of its freedom of speech.448 427.Québec is firmly opposed to any pro- 425.If the federal principle is to be pre- posal seeking to question Québec’s served in the context of globalization, and the provinces’ recognized juris- the federated entities would have to diction in securities and to thereby allow have control over their own interna- the federal government to interfere in tional relations for all issues related the securities sector, whether directly 451 to their exclusive internal jurisdiction, or indirectly. and conversely the federal govern- 428.That the National Assembly clearly ments would have to agree to limit their affirm Québec’s wish to continue,

448. Declaration of the Gouvernement du Québec respecting Québec's participation in international forums dealing with education, language, culture and identity, Québec, March 24, 1999 (quotation; see part 3: document no. 39). 449. Globalization, the Federative Deficit and the Case of Québec, speech by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, delivered on the Occasion of the XVIIIth World Congress of the International Political Science Association, Québec, August 3, 2000, p. 5-6 (quotation; see part 2 of this document). 450. Letter from Louise Beaudoin, Minister of Culture and Communications and Minister responsible for the Charter of the French Language, to Sheila Copps, federal Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Canadian Heritage, Québec, January 16, 1997. 451. Letter from Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, to Paul Martin, federal Minister of Finance, Québec, March 7, 1996.

107 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

with the other provinces, the harmoni- adopted by the House of Commons after zation process with regard to securities, the 1995 referendum on the distinct which is in conformity with the objective society to be trivial and of no effect. of preserving the Canadian economic Nonetheless, since this is a federal space, and that it request that the policy, coherence would imply the pure federal government abandon its plan and simple withdrawal of Bill C-54 or, to create a National Securities Com- failing this, substantial amendments mittee, which constitutes interference to exclude Québec from its field of in a provincial area of jurisdiction.452 application.455 429.In the area of banking reform, the 432.The federal Personal Information government of Québec asks the fed- Protection and Electronic Documents eral government not to provoke ineffi- Act in the private sector touches upon ciency in Québec consumer protection issues of civil law that come under the by introducing costly duplications of jurisdiction of Québec and for which surveillance structures and recourse, Québec fully assumes its responsibility. as well as the confusion, even overlaps, The federal statute establishes a two- fold legal system, applying concurrently, in the regulating of financial markets.453 which will uselessly complicate matters 430.Federal Bill C-54 on the Personal for consumers and businesses, besides Information Protection and Electronic creating an unthinkable mess. More- Documents Act in the private sector over, part 2 of the federal statute per- constitutes both a significant step back- taining to signatures and electronic wards for Quebecers as regards the documents adopts an approach con- protection of personal information and trary to that of Québec, which currently an unacceptable intrusion in an area sets the necessary legislative parame- of jurisdiction belonging to Québec. ters needed for establishing the legal By extending the scope of the bill to stability of E-trade transactions.456 virtually all businesses, the federal 433.In the field of consumer protection government has opened the door to rights, Québec intends on pursuing its expensive and heavy duplication for joint efforts with Canadian provinces, citizens and probably, in the end, to but it is opposed to any federal deter- constitutional disputes.454 mination to define a national standard 431.Federal Bill C-54 jeopardizes certain in such fields. Québec fully accepts its 457 civil law principles that govern Québec jurisdiction in the field of consumerism. society. The government of Québec 434.The government of Québec refuses to has always considered the resolution sign the Canada-wide Accord on Envi-

452. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated June 4, 1996 (quotation). This resolution was referred to in the letter dated February 13, 1997 from Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, to Paul Martin, federal Minister of Finance. 453. Letter from Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, to Paul Martin, federal Minister of Finance, Québec, June 10, 1999. 454. Declarations by André Boisclair, Minister of Relations with Citizens and Immigration, and Louise Beaudoin, Minister of Culture and Communications, press release, Montréal, November 20, 1998. 455. Letter from Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, to Stéphane Dion, federal Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and President of the Privy Council, Québec, April 28, 1999. 456. Declarations by Robert Perreault, Minister of Relations with Citizens and Immigration, and David Cliche, Minister Responsible for the Information Highway, press release, Québec, October 28, 1999. 457. Declarations by Robert Perreault, Minister of Relations with Citizens and Immigration, press release, Federal-Provincial Conference of Ministers responsible for Consumerism, Banff, November 19, 1999.

108 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

ronmental Harmonization and related prefers asking Ottawa to uncondition- Sub-agreements of the Canadian Coun- ally transfer its fair share of taxes cil of Ministers of the Environment until that Quebecers send to Ottawa so that the conditions set by Québec are re- Québec may of its own accord invest spected by the government of Canada. them in its areas of exclusive powers.459 These prior conditions demanded by 436.Québec […] cannot nor does it want to Québec include recognition of the exclu- be associated with the federal-provincial sive or prevailing jurisdictions assigned process [relating to social policy reform to it under the Constitution, a firm com- and renewal] because of the two per- mitment on the part of the federal nicious effects it will have: first, that government to Québec specifying the of limiting the exercising of its exclu- legislative amendments to federal stat- sive powers regarding health, education utes required for harmonizing purposes and income security to the benefit of will effectively be adopted and, finally, the federal government; second, this the reaching of a bilateral agreement will make it inevitable that some por- with the federal government pertain- tion of Quebecers’ taxes will serve as 458 ing to environmental assessments. a tool for imposing on them policies c) Unilateral powers that do not answer their needs and perpetuate overlapping and waste.460 435.Ottawa claims that from now on it wants to limit [its spending power], 437.Most recommendations from the report but Ottawa’s commitment is revocable, of the Intergovernmental Ministerial conditional and does nothing to solve Council on Social Policy Renewal—a current problems. Ottawa reserves the council with which Québec has not right to impose on Québec financial associated itself—seek to standardize or normative constraints if the federal social policy Canada-wide and there- government reaches an agreement by offers the federal government an with the majority of the provinces to opportunity to legitimize the enhanced implement new shared-cost programs. role—which has no constitutional Ottawa keeps its discretionary power basis—that it wishes to have. Québec to act unilaterally in any of Québec’s cannot commit itself to an intergov- exclusive powers while also maintaining ernmental decision-making processes its capacity to set at will the compen- whose effect will be to subject it to sation to be paid to Québec. Above all, standards to which Québec has not one sees the confirmation of all past consented in areas belonging to its intrusions in the fields of education, jurisdiction.461 health, social services and income 438.The Québec government condemns security. The government of Québec the proposals on social policy reform

458. Press release by Paul Bégin, Minister of the Environment and Wildlife, at the meeting in St. John's (Newfoundland) of the Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment, January 29, 1998. 459. Press release by Lucien Bouchard, Federal-Provincial Meeting of First Ministers, Ottawa, June 21, 1996, Nº 1 (quotation) [Translation]. 460. Press release by Lucien Bouchard , Federal-Provincial Meeting of First Ministers, Ottawa, June 21, 1996, Nº 2 (quotation) [Translation]. 461. Declaration by Lucien Bouchard at the annual Conference of Provincial First Ministers, press release entitled Social programs: Québec refuses the provinces' proposal to centralize Québec's powers in social affairs in Ottawa Jasper, August 23, 1996.

109 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

under which Québec would be invited provinces to ensure the accessibility and to give up the authority it has always portability of social program benefits.465 claimed to set its own priorities and 441.The government of Québec is prepared allocate the power available to the spe- to participate in talks dealing with 462 cific needs of Quebecers. The govern- the establishment of an umbrella agreement of Québec remains the most suited ment on the management of the social government for answering the specific union and the monitoring of “federal 463 needs of Quebecers. The Québec spending power,” provided that all government is the best positioned gov- participating governments adhere to ernment to meet the specific needs of the following: Quebecers. 1) The participants must express an 439.An intergovernmental mechanism to interest in the recognition of a formulate national standards for social province’s unconditional right to programs. Such a mechanism is con- withdraw with full compensation sistent with a view of the federal system in respect of any measure or matter shared by many provinces in English likely to affect an area of provin- Canada. Québec’s view in this matter cial jurisdiction and agree that the is profoundly different, but just as definition of this of withdrawal legitimate. On one side, the vision of right will be a key objective of talks English Canada attributes to the federal on the umbrella agreement. government responsabilities in the definition of social policies regardless 2) During discussions on such an of the provisions of the Constitution. umbrella agreement, all participants, On the other, the vision of Québec including the federal government, claims historically that its exclusive must agree to a moratorium on any jurisdiction be recognized and reaf- new federal government initiative firms its determination to maintain or measure likely to affect an area sole control over its social program of provincial jurisdiction. Conse- priorities and policy directions within quently, the participants agree, in its territory. With this mechanism, a non-restrictive manner, that any Québec is being asked to relinquish its discussion or implementation of jurisdiction and hand over choices such initiatives or measures will and policy directions for social pro- be postponed until the conclusion of grams to an intergovernmental body talks on the framework agreement. in which it will necessarily be in a 3) The Québec proposal must in no way 464 minority situation. be interpreted as direct or indirect 440.Québec is quite prepared to share its recognition of federal spending social policy experience and to conclude power or any federal role whatso- reciprocity agreements with interested ever in the realm of social policy.

462. Document entitled Administrative Re-Balancing of Roles and Responsibilities: Québec's Position tabled by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the First Ministers' Conference, St. Andrews, August 6-8, 1997, p. 1 (quotation). 463. Document Canadian Social Union: Québec's position tabled by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the First Ministers' Conference, St. Andrews, August 6-8, 1997, p. 1 (quotation). 464. Ibid., p. 1-3 (quotation). 465. Ibid., p. 3 (quotation).

110 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Moreover, Québec reaffirms its his- 443.The guarantee of a right to opt out toric position concerning respect with full financial compensation is for its fields of jurisdiction.466 a condition that cannot be ignored 442.The primary concern of the provinces, for Québec to participate in negoti- both with regard to the ministerial ations relating to a future social council’s talks on social policy renewal union project.468 as the current negotiations on the pro- 444.Not recognizing Québec’s right to opt- posed framework agreement on the out with full financial compensation social union, resides essentially in their from any federal initiative in social determination to shelter themselves from policy means refusing to clearly recog- unilateral federalism through which nize Québec’s specific reality, its distinct Ottawa has massively disengaged itself character and it confirms that the from the financing of social programs. recognition of Québec’s uniqueness in Québec shares this concern with the character set forth in the Calgary Dec- provinces as regards the stability and laration is merely symbolic.469 continuity of federal commitments to 445.On August 6, 1998 in Saskatoon, the financing social programs. Nonethe- Québec government joined in nego- less, Québec’s concern extends far tiations relating to the social union beyond with regard to federal spending framework agreement. The Premiers power. Québec considers that the devel- recognized the essential dimension of opment, planning and management of the provincial/territorial consensus social programs is its sole responsi- negotiating position as regards the abil- bility. Not only does the Constitution ity of a province or a territory to opt recognize its exclusive power in this matter, but moreover, the Québec gov- out of any new or modified Canada-wide ernment is the one closest to Quebecers social program in areas of provincial and the one most suited for respecting /territorial jurisdiction with full com- their aspirations and answering their pensation, provided that the province needs and priorities. This is why Québec or the territory carries on a program has always demanded its withdrawal or initiative that addresses the priority 470 with full fiscal or financial compensation areas of the Canada-wide program. from any federal government initiative 446.In August of last year, in Saskatoon, financed by its spending power. Qué- the Government of Québec agreed to bec considers that it must be the sole support a common claim devised by master over social policy initiatives that the other provinces of Canada and the it defines on the basis of its way of basic objective of which was to limit doing things and its specific reality.467 the federal government’s spending

466. Press release by Lucien Bouchard, Conference of First Ministers, Ottawa, December 12, 1997. 467. Speech by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, regarding Québec's position on the issue of the federal spending power within the scope of discussions on the social union framework agreement, Federal- Provincial Meeting of Ministers responsible for the Social Union Framework Agreement, Toronto, April 17, 1998, p. 1 (quotation) [Translation]. 468. Ibid., p. 3 (quotation) [Translation]. 469. Ibid. (quotation) [Translation]. 470. Communiqué entitled The Canadian Social Union Framework Agreement, 39th Annual Conference of Provincial First Ministers, Saskatoon, August 6, 1998. The interprovincial consensus was reaffirmed on January 29, 1999 in Victoria.

111 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

power, one of the most serious devia- Canada-wide social initiative. Québec tions of our recent history. [...] The said no to the agreement because we proposal of the provinces succeeded cannot accept having a new Canada- in reconciling the interests of several wide social initiative in our fields of English-Speaking provinces and those jurisdiction that is imposed on us by a of Québec. Indeed, the Saskatoon con- federal government that would see its sensus allows the English-Speaking legitimacy—in appearance—backed provinces, if they so desire, to accept by six provinces hardly representing the federal presence and to collaborate 15 % of Canada’s population. It must with it. Moreover, this consensus allows also be stated that the opting-out right other provinces which, like Québec, provided under the agreement is only wish to retain their jurisdictions and applicable to new shared-cost pro- autonomy, to exercise their right to grams [...], it is still highly conditional opt out with full compensation of any upon achieving all the Canada-wide federal initiative in these fields.471 objectives as well as respecting the accountability conditions set by 447.The government of Québec refused Ottawa. The only federal obligation is to sign the Social Union Framework limited in such cases to a prior notice Agreement that was reached on Feb- to the provinces [that] does not entail ruary 4, 1999 between the federal any obligation of result. What’s more, government and the provinces.472 as regards mobility this agreement 448.Why did we say no [to the Social contains clauses likely to directly Union Agreement]? Well, essentially impact Québec policy on differential because the Social Union Agreement school fees for students from outside does not confer upon Québec any true Québec, including the compulsory opting-out right with full compensa- residential period as a criteria for eli- tion as regards any new Canada-wide gibility under the loans and bursary social initiative to which we would program, as well as the qualification prefer our own initiative or action, as system in the construction sector. So for instance, the $ 5 per day nurseries. for all of these reasons and because, Québec also refused this agreement generally speaking, this Social Union because it does not in any way prevent Agreement has a direct impact upon a repetition of the Millennium Scholar- Québec’s constitutional responsibilities ship unilateral scenario. This agreement, regarding the development, planning in fact, legitimizes Ottawa’s recourse to and management of social programs direct transfers to individuals or orga- that answer the needs of our popula- 473 nizations when it is unable to obtain tion, we have chosen not to sign. support from a majority of provinces The Social Union Framework Agreement and for the implementation of some new the Status of Québec: See paragraph 389.

471. Declaration by Lucien Bouchard on the Social Union, January 27, 1999, p. 1 (quotation). 472. A Framework to Improve the Social Union for Canadians, February 4, 1999. This agreement, which Québec did not sign, is reproduced in part 3: document no. 38. 473. Speech by Joseph Facal, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the time of reviewing budgetary credits 1999-2000 of the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats of the Commission permanente des institutions, April 28, 1999, CI-9, p. 3.

112 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

••• Language rights office at the current time, the National 449.The government of Québec solemnly Assembly requests that the federal reaffirms its commitment to preserve government henceforth appoint as the rights of the English-Speaking Com- titular of the office of Lieutenant munity now and in a sovereign Québec. Governor the public figure democrat- 476 Administration of their schools, col- ically designated by the Assembly. leges and universities; access to courts 452.Centralizing federal interventions are and the government in English; access expressed in [...] intergovernmental to social and health care services in forums. The discussions in these forums their language; public radio and televi- —as seen in the social policies case— sion broadcasting services in English.474 often acts as a powerful accelerator 450.By authorizing the amendment to of federal government initiatives in section 93 of the Constitution Act, areas that are not under its jurisdic- 1867 allowing the establishment of tion. In these forums, one must also linguistic school boards, the National note the fact that Québec’s positions Assembly reaffirmed the established are not taken into account has become rights of the Québec English-Speaking a Canadian habit. The case of the so- Community. More specifically, Quebe- called “national” benefit for children cers whose children are admissible in imposed on Québec in 1996 constitutes accordance with Chapter VIII of the tangible evidence of this trend. It is, Charter of the French Language have however, of fundamental importance the right to have them receive their that the government of Québec make instruction in English language educa- known its positions regarding these tional facilities under the management intergovernmental forums and then 477 and control of this community, as pro- closely follow their evolution. vided by law, and which are financed ••• Intergovernmental policy through public funds.475 a) Conducting intergovernmental relations Established rights of the Québec English-Speaking Community: See also paragraph 402. 453.Québec cannot commit itself to a re- balancing process whose general ori- ••• Institutions entations and specific measures lead 451.That the National Assembly express to the abandoning of Québec’s basic the wish that the office of Lieutenant claims and the gradual erosion of Governor be abolished; nevertheless, these claims via administrative inter- 478 given that the provisions of the Consti- governmental means. tutional Act imposed upon Québec 454.Québec reaffirms its intention to con- render impossible the abolition of this tinue, outside the on-going re-balancing

474. Living together before, during and after the referendum, Notes for a speech by Lucien Bouchard before the English- Speaking Community of Québec, Montréal, March 11, 1996, p. 7. 475. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated April 15, 1997, (Part 3: document no. 33). 476. Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated November 20, 1996 (quotation). 477. Ministerial declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on Canadian intergovernmental relations, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 4, 1997, p. 9087 (quotation) [Translation]. 478. Declaration by Lucien Bouchard, press release entitled: The Re-Balancing of the Roles and Responsibilities of Ottawa and the Provinces: Another Road to Centralization, Jasper, August 23, 1996 (quotation) [Translation].

113 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

exercise and on a bilateral basis, its from social program funding and va- discussion with the federal government cate the tax space in which it collects in basic areas of practical importance taxes from Québec taxpayers for pur- to Quebecers. These discussions will poses that fall within Québec’s exclu- focus on putting an end to Ottawa’s sive jurisdiction.481 intrusions in Québec’s domains of Tax points transfer: responsibility and on ensuring that See also paragraphs 410, 414, 435 and 442. any transfer of federal measures and programs is matched by the corre- Federal disengagement from the financing of social sponding budgets in tax points. [...] In programs: See paragraphs 411 and 442. the general spirit of partnership that it 457.The government of Québec shall ac- wishes to maintain and further develop tively participate in intergovernmental with Canada, Québec will continue its discussions on issues involving the revi- discussions with the provinces, partic- sion of financial arrangements within ularly on issues affecting employment the federation. Within the framework and the economy, notably the implemen- of these discussions, the government’s tation of the Agreement on Internal objective shall not only be to preserve, Trade, to strengthen the economic space but also to increase Québec’s fiscal that it shares with them.479 autonomy.482 455.Faced with the federal government’s strategy, which on the one hand seeks Fiscal autonomy: See also paragraph 409. to deny the existence of the people of 458.Considering specifically that the minis- Québec, capable and free to decide on tère du Revenu du Québec is already their political future, and on the other, the sole tax collector in Québec; con- it behaves as if Canada were a unitary State, thus denying both the spirit and sidering the genuine advantages for the letter of the Canadian Constitution, our governments and citizens that result the government of Québec makes public from this unified administration; con- the orientations in Canadian intergov- sidering that the ministère du Revenu ernmental relations that will guide the du Québec already administers a tax Québec government’s actions.480 system in Québec; considering that this system is already largely harmo- b) Financial aspects of federalism nized with the federal system and 456.[...] As long as it is part of the federation, considering, lastly, this wish that cit- Québec will continue to demand that izens may only have one collector of the federal government withdraw taxes; It appears to the government

479. Document entitled Administrative Re-Balancing of Roles and Responsibilities: Québec's Position tabled by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the First Ministers' Conference, St. Andrews, August 6-8, 1997, p. 3 (quotation). 480. Ministerial declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on Canadian intergovernmental relations, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 4, 1997, p. 9087-9088. Guidelines made public on this occasion are reproduced in part 3: document no. 37. 481. Document entitled Canadian Social Union: Québec's position tabled by Québec Prime Minister Lucien Bouchard, at the First Ministers' Conference, St. Andrews, August 6-8, 1997, p. 3 (quotation). 482. Ministerial declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on Canadian intergovernmental relations, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 4, 1997, p. 9088 (quotation) [Translation].

114 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

of Québec that the taxation model it has satisfied with less than our share of developed with the federal government financing of the federal effort for hous- could be advantageously extended to ing, this would be all the more unac- corporate and individual taxes thereby ceptable since Québec needs in this making the ministère du Revenu du area are proportionately greater than Québec the only tax collector in Québec.483 those of the other provinces.485 461.The economic and financial policies Canada Customs and Revenue Agency: See paragraph 423. of the federal government constitute an enormous burden for Québec. In this 459.Considering the compensation paid respect, Québec speaks out against the to the Atlantic provinces within the small share of federal development context of harmonizing the federal tax expenses made in Québec, plus the on goods and services, Québec deems weak federal contribution to research it is entitled to receive compensation and development in Québec, a core from the federal government since sector in an increasingly knowledge- Québec by itself and without financial based economy.486 assistance, proceeded with the harmonization of its sales tax system with c) Aboriginal Nations 484 that of the federal tax system. 462.The government of Québec has adopt- 460.Québec is prepared to accept a transfer ed new guidelines regarding aborig- of all federal responsibilities regarding inal affairs that are consistent with housing, provided that this be accom- earlier political steps, namely, the 1985 panied with satisfactory financial com- National Assembly resolution and the pensation in light of criteria of fairness, fifteen principles adopted by the gov- sufficiency and continuity. Currently, ernment in 1983. The primary objec- Ottawa’s proposal is limited to offering tives of these orientations are to develop Québec only the administration of harmonious relations based on confi- existing federal obligations with re- dence and mutual respect between gard to social housing stock, which Aboriginal Peoples and non-aboriginals, only amounts to a simple management to increase the self-government and contract. In addition, on the subject of fiscal autonomy of Aboriginal Peoples. social housing, Québec has not obtained The approach proposed by the gov- its fair share of federal expenditures; the ernment seeks the making of agree- government cannot accept this situa- ments favouring responsibility and de- tion, no more than prior administrations velopment with aboriginal communities were able to tolerate this. Were we to be and the implementation of measures

483. Letter from Rita Dionne-Marsolais, Minister of Revenue, to Herb Dhaliwal, federal Minister of National Revenue, Sainte-Foy, April 3, 1998. The position was reiterated in the letter dated June 30, 1999 from Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister, Minister of State for the Economy and Finance and Minister of Revenue, addressed to Herb Dhaliwal. 484. Declarations by Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, and Jacques Brassard, Minister of Transportation, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Press release, Québec, May 21, 1996; see also the press release by Bernard Landry and Jacques Brassard dated December 13, 1996. 485. Declarations by Rémy Trudel, Minister of Municipal Affairs and Minister Responsible for Housing, and Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, press release, December 16, 1997; letter from Rémy Trudel to Alfonso Gagliano, federal Minister responsible for the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, Québec, January 8, 1998. 486. Press release by Bernard Landry, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State for the Economy and Finance, Ottawa, December 8, 1999.

115 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

for creating more favourable conditions government of Québec wants to be a for the development of the economy highly active stakeholder in the Agree- and employment among Aboriginal ment on Internal Trade.489 487 Peoples. 465.The government intends to work to-

The Rights of Québec’s Aboriginal Nations: wards the reinforcement of the Québec- See paragraph 402. Canada economic space by pursuing efforts for implementing the Agree- d) French-Speaking and Acadian ment on Internal Trade (AIT) while Communities of Canada privileging the making of bilateral 463. The government of Québec reiterates economic agreements such as those its commitment of solidarity with the entered into with Ontario and New French-Speaking and Acadian Commu- Brunswick.490 nities of Canada. For many years now Common economic space: Québec has understood that this com- See also paragraphs 425, 428 and 454. mitment regarding the French language within its territory obviously cannot be f) Criminal justice dissociated from a commitment of soli- system for young persons darity with the International Franco- 466.The government of Québec maintains phone Community, but even more so that the federal reform of the criminal with regard to French-Speaking and justice system for young persons is Acadian Communities.488 neither necessary nor justified and that e) Trade it runs the risk of endangering the 464.Since Québec is resolutely committed rehabilitation model that Québec has to the opening of markets, to the great- set up. Québec requests the federal est possible elimination of barriers, to government that it may keep the cur- the fluidity of commercial exchanging rent system provided under the Young 491 of goods, services and capital, and the Offenders Act. free movement of people both inter- 467.The National Assembly asks the Fed- nationally as within a present and eral Minister of Justice to suspend future framework of partnership with the passage of Bill C-3 [on criminal the other governments of Canada, the justice for young persons] in order to

487. Partnership, Development, Achievement. Aboriginal Affairs: Québec Government Guidelines, 1998; Press release by Guy Chevrette, Minister of State for Natural resources, Minister for the Regions and Minister responsible for Aboriginal Affairs, Québec, April 2, 1998. 488. Declarations by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, made on the occasion of the 1997 Forum francophone de concertation, Press release, Québec, March 14, 1997. 489. Speech by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, at the time of reviewing budgetary credits 1996-1997 of the Secrétariat aux affaires intergouvernementales canadiennes, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats of the Commission permanente des institutions, April 30, 1996, CI-10, p. 3 (quotation) [Translation]. 490. Ministerial declaration by Jacques Brassard, Minister responsible for Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs on Canadian intergovernmental relations, Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, December 4, 1997, p. 9088 (quotation) [Translation]. 491. Letter from Linda Goupil, Minister of Justice and Attorney General, to Anne McLellan, federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada, Sainte-Foy, May 3, 1999.

116 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

allow her to make a better assessment of the implementation by the provinces of the measures provided for in the Young Offenders Act and to ensure that Québec maintain its intervention strategy, which is based on the needs of young people and which favours prevention and rehabilitation.492

492. Unanimous resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated December 1, 1999 (quotation).

117 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

eclaration by Adélard Godbout, say? We are not ceding the right to tax, D Prime Minister of Québec, during but we are temporarily suspending the the debate on the Act respecting an levying of two taxes. Ottawa will collect Agreement between the Governments of these taxes in return for a compensation the Dominion and of the Province of that works in our favour. And we can put Québec for the suspension of certain an end to this agreement with one taxes during the war, Québec Legislative month’s notice whereas the federal Assembly, April 1942. government can put an end to it only one ••• year after the end of the war. One may ask why the federal government is consenting to an agreement that [Translation] is so advantageous to us. The reason is The Leader of the Opposition has clear. The federal government wishes to brilliantly expounded a cause that does increase the taxes that we will let it collect not exist. I would like to repeat word by for a while. Because of the war, Ottawa word, if I had the eloquence to do so, all of needs more revenue. A tax surplus is the words he has uttered about provincial required. I do not agree with the Leader autonomy. We don’t wish to sacrifice any of the Opposition when he says that this of the province’s rights. Never, for any surplus should come from the sales tax, consideration, be it on a primordial point or which weighs more heavily on large fami- a secondary one, shall we consent to ceding lies in particular. I would rather have the a portion of the rights and privileges that increased burden borne by the corporations, are guaranteed us by the federative pact. first because they are better able to bear This pact must be honoured in its integrity. it and second because the corporations But absolutely none of this applies to are profiting from the war through an the measure that is before the House. I increase in their business. […] am one hundred per cent for ceding Source: Réal Bélanger et al., Les grands débats parlementaires, Sainte-Foy, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, nothing. Everyone is. What does the bill 1994, p. 167-168.

121 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

pening statement by Maurice Province of Quebec, and I consider that O Duplessis, Prime Minister of Québec, the Right Honourable Louis St-Laurent is before the Federal-Provincial Conference here as the Prime Minister of Canada. on the Constitution, Ottawa, January 10 We wish that all issues be studied and to 12, 1950 (extract). decided in light of these principles and ••• that partisan politics of whatever kind not be welcome here, for this must be a [Translation] privileged place for sound and fertile patriotism. […] It seems to us that at this time, various It is fitting, as we see things, now at amendments to the Canadian constitution the very outset of this vitally important are welcome, but it is our staunch convic- conference, that the attitude of Quebec be tion that the spirit of the Canadian clearly defined and not leave any room for constitution must be integrally respected. serious or frank doubt. From our standpoint, all constitutional In principle, the Province of Quebec is issues should be analyzed at this confer- absolutely in favour of a Canadian court, ence, and not just the part of the constitution made up of Canadians, sitting in Canada and that federal authorities have initially sub- judging as the last appeal, in conformity mitted to the delegates’ consideration. with the spirit of the federative pact, for The very important part of the constitu- all Canadian issues that may be submitted tion that was recently decided unilater- to it. Moreover, the Province of Quebec ally by the federal Parliament should is absolutely in favour of an essentially also be among the number of subjects Canadian constitution, conceived and submitted to the delegates’ analysis and drafted in Canada by Canadians and for decision. In our opinion, the Canadian Canadians, based on the federative spirit constitution forms an organic whole and the and very soul of the British North America only way to respect it resides in its unity, Act of 1867. which means respecting the foundations I say these things at the very beginning of its unity. so that there may be no reasonably possible In all frankness and without any ulterior misunderstanding or disagreement on motives, it is our opinion that it is not this subject. We are firmly convinced that reasonable and it is not in conformity during this conference, more than ever if with a true comprehension of national possible, straightforwardness and frank- unity, which is what we all desire, that the ness are vital, because we consider that federal authority appropriate for itself the straightforwardness and frankness are right to unilaterally choose the arbitrators essential for national unity, well understood called upon to decide on the respective by all, and that they constitute an indis- rights of each party. We believe this to be pensable basis for the enduring prosperity absolutely contrary to British "fair play" of the country and the provinces. and to the very basis of the federative I am not participating in this confer- regime. We want to cooperate with all of ence as the head of a party, and I do not Canada for its success as well as for the consider the Prime Minister of Canada at progress and prosperity of the provinces, this conference to be the head of a party. but not without respecting the rights of I am participating in the deliberations each one. We understand that in the of this conference as the Premier of the constitution there are among its clauses less

122 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

important ones, we remain nonetheless In the Province of Quebec we consider aware that there are fundamental clauses that the British North America Act does such as, to mention but a few of them, those not create our rights, but only confirms concerning language, religion, education, and reasserts the rights of our province. civil law and property rights. It is our firm Confederation was not born spontaneously; belief that in the area of fundamental it is the result of years and years of study clauses, no honest compromise is possible and deliberation and the very essence of and Quebec cannot and must not either Confederation is made of sovereign provin- directly or indirectly participate in com- cial authorities, within the scope of their promises of this kind. jurisdiction, and of a sovereign central We from Quebec have come here hands authority, within the scope of its jurisdiction. wide open, not to give up or abandon our When Confederation was discussed and rights, but to engage with each and every decided upon, it was based on the principle delegate a warm handshake and to work of complete provincial autonomy. And this together for the betterment and prosperity for excellent reasons, the most important of the country and the provinces, while of which is that Confederation is not only integrally respecting each and every one from its very beginning, an agreement of them. between four pioneer provinces but it is a [Text] sacred covenant between two great races […] whose friendly co-operation is essential to the weal and prosperity of all concerned. We fully realize the vital importance This fundamental principle cannot and of this conference. At the very outset, I should not be tampered with. To our mind think that some brief statement of facts there cannot be any compromise whatever should be made so as to do away with any when it comes to decide the kind of admin- reasonable doubts or suspicions concerning istration suitable to Canada. I firmly and the attitude of the Province of Quebec. The definitely believe that Canada is and should Province of Quebec is heartily in favour of always be a federation of autonomous a Canadian constitution decided upon in Canada by Canadians and for Canadians, provinces. Apparently there seems to be and amendable through appropriate agreement on all sides on this point—but constitutional and fair methods. We are in fact this is not so. Some people declare most anxious to co-operate in finding and themselves in favour of provincial auto- applying such methods of amending the nomy but do not seem to agree when we Canadian constitution for the real and contend that provincial autonomy cannot lasting benefit of the central and provincial exist without definite and indispensable authorities. We are heartily in favour of a fiscal powers and that it is useless to have Canadian tribunal, composed of Canadians, a declaration of rights if, at the same time, sitting in Canada and having the power to there is no financial and fiscal power decide in last resort, but according to the to exercise those rights. I believe that very spirit of the constitution, the claims Confederation should be what the Fathers which could be submitted to it. These fun- of Confederation intended it to be, in good damental principles having been clearly faith, that is, sovereign provinces within the stated, it is appropriate for us to express to limits of their jurisdiction and a sovereign the other delegates the views of the Province central government within the limits of of Quebec. It is also important that there its jurisdiction. There are some who, for should be a frank statement of policy. what seems to us to be excellent reasons,

123 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

think that the British North America Act is us all be good Canadians. This country of a treaty of union between two great races; ours is much bigger than any one of us. others are of the opinion that it is only a No man in this world is brilliant enough to law. I firmly believe that Confederation is have a monopoly of science and knowledge. a treaty of union between two great races. Let us, in a friendly way, exchange our Irrespective of these differences, the fact views; co-operation is not a one way remains and cannot be reasonably denied street. Let us all work together, study our that Confederation is the result of an problems and find the best possible agreement between four provinces which methods of settling them on a sound, was ratified by Westminster. Without friendly and constitutional basis. agreement on the Resolutions there would In Quebec, as elsewhere, we have a never have been the Act of Westminster, real desire for a great and prosperous there would never have been Confederation. Canada and for great and prosperous prov- The fact is undeniable that the Canadian inces. We ardently wish every province to constitution is founded essentially and be happy, and we consider that the best fundamentally upon the agreement of way to achieve the desirable and desired the four provinces pioneer provinces. end is by fully respecting the soul and Lord Carnavon, in the House of Lords, and spirit of our constitution, that is to say by Mr. Adderley, in the House of Commons, having a real federal system based on a when introducing the Act at Westminster, federal authority and provincial authorities declared it to be a treaty of union. The having, not only the power to legislate and Province of Quebec would never have administer but having also the clear and agreed to enter into Confederation had it essential financial powers sufficient not not been made abundantly clear, at that only to deal with the present, but to cope time, that the guarantees upon which with the future, because to govern is to Confederation is based were to remain foresee. and last. This opinion is not a personal Quebec believes in responsible govern- one, it is not only the opinion of the ment and we contend that there cannot Province of Quebec; it is the considered be responsible government without indis- opinion of very many Canadian and pensable financial powers. Bearing in English statesmen and jurists. mind these fundamental principles I am convinced that we can arrive at a fair and The problem we are called upon to appropriate solution of our problems. study and discuss is not a particular one, it is not a political problem. It is a national I congratulate the Prime Minister of problem and we wish to consider it as Canada for having decided to hold the such. In my humble opinion, the federal present conference, and I can assure all the authority should submit to the conference Prime Ministers and all the delegates here not only part but the whole of the consti- that every one can rely on the wholehearted tutional problem. This would be conducive and loyal co-operation of the Province of to more friendly relations and more friendly Quebec in seeking, finding and applying co-operation. There can be no denying the the best possible methods that will insure fact that Canada cannot prosper and will completely and definitely the rights, pre- not prosper and Canadian unity, well rogatives and liberties of the central understood, will not be realized if there authority and the provincial authorities. are still doubts and suspicions on funda- Source: Proceedings, Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution, held in Ottawa, January 10 to 12, 1950, mental questions. Let us all be friends, let p. 14-17.

124 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

eclaration made by Maurice Duplessis, to each party an equitable and appropriate D Prime Minister of Québec, upon the distribution of financial and fiscal powers. first reading of Bill 43 on the imple- Now in these current conditions, it is not mentation of a provincial income tax, fair for the province to exercise a part of Québec Legislative Assembly, January 14, its financial and fiscal powers in order to 1954 (extract). answer public needs, especially in the ••• vital areas of provincial administration. We are convinced that the people of Quebec will be delighted to contribute to [Translation] the development of our province, to ongoing It is obvious that in the past few years, progress in education and public health in Quebec has taken giant steps in its develop- the province. The purpose of this Bill is to ment. It is just as certain that this extraor- procure the revenue required for meeting dinary progress requires new and numerous the needs of the situation. public services. [...] We want to do even While income tax constitutes a source more for our universities, our secondary of direct taxation reserved to the provinces, school institutions, in all for the entire at least for granting them priority, under the educational system. We wish to do even current law we are only exercising a part of more to assist our hospitals, to add to the the provincial rights. In fact, the provincial generous contribution of the government tax laid down by this act represents far to the substantial expenses required by less than the fifteen percent tax levied by Social Assistance. We also desire and want Ottawa in the Province of Quebec. Any to increase the number of homes for our person of good faith will agree that less than aging citizens. In all, it is our profound fifteen percent of the federal tax collected desire to complete and perfect the many in the province to meet the province’s initiatives in the provincial sector in general, obligations in particular in two vital areas and in particular regarding public health, of provincial administration, namely public education and social legislation. [...] health and education, is no exaggeration, Since 1945, for more than eight years far from it. Less than fifteen cents to the now, in order to cooperate with federal province and more than twenty-five cents authorities we have not exercised the to Ottawa, this is far from being excessive! province’s rights in matters of income tax, […] because of the hope of reaching a federal Source: Réal Bélanger et al., Les grands débats parlementaires, Sainte-Foy, Les Presses de l’Université Laval, provincial agreement capable of ensuring 1994, p. 172.

125 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

tatement by Jean Lesage, Prime a better judge than the provincial admin- S Minister of Québec and Minister of istrations of the values and the needs of Finance and Federal-Provincial Affairs, the population. And yet, the provincial on shared-cost programs, Federal- administrations have a far superior knowl- Provincial Conference, Québec, March 31, edge of the needs of their own population. 1964 (extract). Moreover, we estimate that the prov- ••• incial administrations, given sufficient financial resources, could henceforth show the same creative initiative and the same Quebec had decided, since 1960 (July efficiency which, in certain circumstances, Federal-Provincial Conference), to put an the federal government may have evidenced. end to joint programs. This stand was again expressed at the Federal-Provincial From an economic point of view, one Conference of November 1963. must note that conditional grants linked to joint programs represent, in practice, The joint programs in force have cer- unconditional gifts to the rich provinces. tainly acted as a stimulus to the economic As a matter of fact, it is probable that the and social growth of the country. In several latter would, in any case, have provided cases, they have provided a substitute for for their populations the services rendered provincial initiative. by joint programs. From that point on, the However, conditional grants paid by rich provinces can free an amount equal the federal government to the provinces to the federal contributions and allot them in connection with joint programs admin- to items of their own choosing. It is even istered by the provincial governments possible that, circumstances permitting, present all types of difficulties. We under- the conditional grants would permit these stand that when the federal government provinces to maintain a lower taxation decides to participate in such programs, rate than that which it would otherwise it requires that certain conditions be have reached. complied with by the provinces; these very In the case of the less wealthy provinces, conditions give rise to several complications. the opposite could take place. To benefit The existence of these joint programs by federal shared-cost programs, these signifies a loss of efficiency or work provinces must at times reduce other items duplication and higher administrative on their budget to free funds which they costs. The provinces must have a staff need in order to pay their share of joint whose specific task is to give accounts to programs. Possible financial discrimination Ottawa on the manner these programs ensues in favour of subsidized services to are carried out. The federal government the detriment of those which are not. must, in turn, employ officials to make sure The constitutional problem brought that the conditions which it has stipulated up by joint programs is serious. In practice, have been respected by the provinces. In the existence of these programs reduces this connection, Ottawa has often the last the initiative of the provinces in the word on disputed points. spheres of activity which the constitution To this, must be added the fact that recognizes as their own and it even distorts shared-cost programs are generally the order of priority which the provinces conceived without prior consultation with would like to establish in their own expen- the provinces. By acting in this fashion, ditures. Furthermore, most of the time, the central government does as if it were joint programs aim at assuming the cost

126 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

of undertakings which, normally, should deprived of sums to which their citizens come under provincial jurisdiction. have nonetheless contributed. Above all, However, for easily understood political it is this situation which, since 1960, has reasons, it is difficult for the provinces to forced Quebec to participate in several refuse the grants linked with shared-cost joint programs. However, this participation programs. These grants thus become a has always been for us but a makeshift compulsion which, for all practical purposes, solution while waiting for a satisfactory places the provinces in a state of subordi- solution to this problem. We believe that the nation vis-a-vis the central government. time has now come to solve this question As a matter of fact, if some of the provinces, once and for all. because of their constitutional position, do not want to submit to the conditions Source: Government of Quebec, Statement by the Honourable Jean Lesage, Prime Minister, Minister of established by the central government, they Finance and of Federal-Provincial Affairs, Federal- are seriously penalized because they are Provincial Conference, Quebec, March 31st, 1964, p. 64-65.

127 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

elected extracts from the book Un From our standpoint in Quebec, one of S Québec fort dans une nouvelle the purposes of the confederative regime Confédération by Jean Lesage, Prime - one that is implicitly found in our Minister of Québec, June 1965. Canadian Constitution - is to make it ••• possible for ethnic groups to maintain and especially develop their inherent [Translation] characteristics. Had this not been the case, it can be said with certainty that the ••• The basis of the Quebec attitude French Canadians in 1867 would have But what, indeed, forms the basis of never accepted to join in the Canadian our attitude? Confederation. First of all, we share two facts that are To satisfy its purpose, the confederative obvious to any casual analysis. The first is regime presupposes a distribution of that the French-Canadian group that powers and responsibilities. As such, in constitutes the vast majority of our prov- our country, significant sectors requiring ince, is nonetheless only a minority when action have been set aside for the provinces compared with the rest of the Canadian since it has been deemed that for various population. Obviously, it is an important reasons provincial autonomy in such minority that has been settled in this areas would allow the French-speaking country for many centuries, which in turn group and the English-speaking group to bestows on it specific rights and obliga- develop more freely. The fact that other tions. The basic right, which it demands provinces have joined Confederation since be preserved, is the maintenance of its then does not change this initial objective traditions and cultural characteristics. Its at all. And as I just stated, the French main duty, as a group French in language and culture, is the well being and develop- Canadians of 1867 saw in this provincial ment on the American continent of the autonomy one of their primary demands. human heritage for which it is responsible All this explains why today, Quebec and is its custodian. [...] objects each time it notes that the central The second fact to which one must government has moved into areas of continuously refer if we wish to understand activity that, from our standpoint, belong the meaning of our current demands, is under provincial jurisdiction. Quebec sees that Quebec - the political expression of in these trends a serious danger in grad- French Canada - exists and evolves within ually losing some of the guarantees that it a specific political regime. Quebec exists demands be found in the confederative within the tangible reality of daily life and regime to which it agreed to live in 1867. this reality influences it in its behaviours Quebec fears that in the end, the rules and attitudes, as would be the case for of the game will in some way be changed any group of human beings. Yet Canada, unilaterally. And then, we would be in a of which Quebec is one among its ten situation that was not foreseen in 1867 provinces, has a confederative regime that and that is not acceptable at this time. guarantees - and anyone requiring further convincing need only consult the British This is why we must exercise continuous North America Act - that guarantees, I vigilance. No one in Quebec believes that repeat, to the minority whom we are the one specific measure - assistance to munic- respect for the rights to which I have ipalities, the contributory retirement pro- alluded.[…] gram, or federal assistance for education,

128 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

for instance - will by itself lead French As such, the second principle is that Canada to assimilation into the English- our province has its own traits of character, speaking majority. No one either believes its own personality, that it must preserve that one of these measures would be such and that it is entitled to promote. As for this as to threaten our entire cultural heritage. specific personality, the Prime Minister Yet we must systematically oppose any of Canada has himself recognized it. federal initiative whatsoever that does in Likewise, I have spoken clearly in these fact reduce or diminish the provincial terms how many times I don’t know. field of jurisdiction. We absolutely cannot, The third principle. We live in a even in the case of apparently secondary constitutional framework which, through issues, remain passive to federal initiatives evolution and self-improvement, must that we deem are harmful to the exercising enable our community to achieve alone and of powers entrusted to the provinces. In by its own suitable means the objectives fact, it is the aggregate of these measures that it has freely set for itself. This possi- that must be considered and it is each and bility for self-achievement was recognized every one of them that makes up the at the time of Confederation in 1867 and whole that we must oppose, because each it must be carried on, even if this means one of them thwarts in some way the that to do so, the constitutional regime of provinces’ autonomy, an incursion that Canada must adapt to new conditions. constitutes a precedent that one tends to The fourth principle. Quebec today invoke thereafter to justify other, even must possess and control insofar as possible greater, incursions. the economic, social, administrative and political levers that alone will allow it to ••• The Five Principles make materialize its legitimate aspirations I now want to state - quite briefly - a few as an adult people. of the principles that guide us. I think that The fifth principle. Actions undertaken they provide all the needed answers for in today’s Quebec must be carried out in those who today, either because they do peace and justice while taking into account not agree with us, or because they fear the North American reality in which it that our current momentum will falter, or lives, the ordinary and desirable bonds simply because they are afraid, watch us that link it to other French-speaking act and question what we are doing. nations and the economic and commercial To begin with: the first principle. We relations that it maintains not only with believe that Quebec is the political expres- the rest of Canada, but also with many sion of French Canada and that it plays other countries worldwide. the role of the homeland for all in our Source: Jean Lesage, Un Québec fort dans une nouvelle country who speak our language. I have Confédération, ministère des Affaires fédérales-provinciales probably made this observation a dozen et Office d’information du Québec, 1965, p. 26-29 (which reproduce extracts from speeches given in Fredericton on times everywhere throughout Canada. October 10, 1963, and in Montréal on September 20, 1964).

129 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peech by Paul Gérin-Lajoie, Vice- Further, the same convention states S President of the Québec Executive that your functions entitle you, among Council and Minister of Education, to the other things, to act in the capacity of notary Members of the Montréal Consular and registrar, to safeguard the interests of Corps, Montréal, April 12, 1965. minors and the incapacitated, originating ••• in the state you represent, and to transmit judicial and extrajudicial documents, or to execute rogatory commissions. Conversely, Without doubt, this is the first time according to the convention, these offices that a member of the Quebec Government can be discharged only to the extent that has been official host to the Montreal they are permissible under the laws and Consular Corps, the largest in all Canada. regulations of the state of residence. I shall not try to conceal the personal Actually, a number of the most impor- pleasure which I feel. In my capacity as tant aspects of your mandate in Canada Vice-President of the Quebec Executive apply to areas of strictly provincial com- Council, I might add that I interpret the petence and thus create between the honour which you are conferring upon governments of the federated states and me, today, as a measure of your interest in yourselves, actual ties which our own the evolution of our federated state—the Government, for its part, recognizes in State of Quebec. entirety. As an example, I might refer to the You constitute, in our area, a society existence, since 1961, of an Order-in-Council of high distinction which assures among (No. 2012), which, by virtue of reciprocity, us the presence of friendly governments. gives many privileges of a fiscal nature, Doubtless, you exercise your functions by such as exemptions from income taxes virtue of the Federal Government’s autho- and succession duties, to career consuls rization; but, in certain respects, you are stationed in Quebec. closer to the Quebec authorities than to Furthermore, Quebec itself possesses those which have accredited you to act in an embryonic foreign consular service in your official capacity. the persons of the delegates-general who Actually, not only is the jurisdiction of represent it and exercise functions which a majority among you limited to districts are very often analogous to your own. which are entirely contained within Quebec In two cities—London and Paris—the territorial boundaries but, also, your Quebec delegates-general benefit in prac- jurisdiction has to do in a large measure tice from the immunities and privileges with areas of responsibility falling strictly which through law and custom are habi- within the competence of our federated tually extended to consular officials. It is state. thus the intention of our Government to According to the latest Vienna Convention propose, to the states concerned, a recipro- (Article 5, paragraph b), consular functions city of treatment similar to that, by virtue of consist in encouraging the development of the order-in-council to which I referred commercial, economic, cultural and scientific above, which is now enjoyed by career relations between the state represented consuls exercising their functions in Quebec. and the state of residence. Again, in the Quebec is not sovereign in all domains: case of those of you who exercise your it is a member of a federation. But, from a jurisdiction here, the state of residence is political point of view, it constitutes a easily identified; it is Quebec. state. It possesses all the characteristics of

130 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

a state: territory, population, autonomous setting up of the General Finance government. Beyond this, it is the political Corporation, the nationalization of electri- expression of a people distinguished, in a city, the approaching creation of a siderur- number of ways, from the English-language gical complex, of a universal pension plan communities inhabiting North America. and its investment fund which will soon Quebec has its own vocation on this be a reality, along with the introduction of continent. As the most populous of French- hospitalization insurance as a forerunner to language communities, outside France, a complete system of sickness insurance. French Canada belongs to a cultural At the same time, by virtue of its energy universe having its axis in Europe and and enthusiasm, Quebec has greatly not in America. By virtue of this fact, changed the Canadian political balance. Quebec is more than a simple, federated For example, since 1960, numerous interstate among other federated states. It is provincial conferences and federal-provincial the political instrument of a cultural conferences have played a major role in group, distinct and unique in all of North the evolution of the balance of power; America. these have given Quebec an occasion to During the past few years, Quebec prove that the goals, the aspirations and the society has been transformed to a degree priorities which it has set do not always that, even yesterday, no one would have necessarily coincide with the goals, the thought possible. Filled with a new spirit aspirations and the priorities of other and superabundant energy, this society, regions in our country. predominantly French in language and I would like to refer to an example culture, knows that from now on the reali- which touches you very closely. At Paris, a zation of its own ends and aspirations lies little more than a month ago, I signed an within its reach. agreement on educational matters with On every side, Quebec is breaking out representatives of the Government of the of its traditional structures and is on the French Republic. Since that time, this march toward a destiny in keeping with agreement has been the subject of great its own individual characteristics. In every interest and numerous commentators have field of activity, the Quebecer has thrown professed astonishment at the “precedent” himself furiously into action; he recognizes which it represented in matters diplomatic that the concept of a particular destiny and constitutional. Actually, this event pre-supposes the existence of material and specifically demonstrated Quebec’s deter- constitutional means for the attainment mination to take its rightful place in the of this destiny. This collective attainment contemporary world and to provide, in of maturity that Quebec society is expe- external as well as internal affairs, all riencing is paralleled by an individual the means necessary for the realization maturity of its citizens. The Quebecer has of the aspirations of the society for which assumed his responsibilities and has it stands. taken his fate within his own hands. This sudden ebullition in Quebec, this The economy, natural resources, educa- impulse toward the future, this awakening tion, community and social organization, of collective conscience—outside observers have been the main fields of action of the have called it “the quiet revolution.” A new Quebec citizen. I shall note simply by revolution less quiet than its name; above way of landmarks the creation of the all, a revolution in comportment and, by Departments of Education, of Natural this token, a profound and irreversible Resources, and of Cultural Affairs, the revolution.

131 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Should this social revolution necessarily mentioned in Article 92, the British be paralleled by a revolution in the consti- North American Act conferred upon tutional field? It has become evident that it not such, powers as might be proper for it to exercise by delega- the division of tasks, established during tion, or as agent of the Imperial the last century between the federal and the Parliament, but as complete and federated states, is no longer satisfactory, broad an authority, within the limits at least for Quebec. It has also become prescribed by Article 92, as the Imperial Parliament in the fullness evident that the people of Quebec feel of its attributes, possessed and hemmed in by century old constitutional had the power to confer. Within limitations, the interpretation of which the limits of the above-named often lags behind the facts. subjects, the local legislature exercises a sovereign power and pos- As you know, a Quebec parliamentary sesses the same authority as the commission is currently engaged in a Imperial Parliament or the Dominion study of the new needs of our federated Parliament would have under analagous circumstances…” * state and will bring in recommendations to the Legislature with reference to constitu- In other words, the surging activity tional amendments which it deems indis- manifested by the State of Quebec during pensable to the growth and development the past five years in areas untouched up of Quebec’s society. Already, there are areas to that time, should not in any way seem in this subject on which unanimity seems revolutionary from a constitutional point to be emerging. of view. It must not be thought, however, that Actually, Quebec is only using the any evolution is impossible until such time powers which it possesses. I would go as as the necessary constitutional changes far as to say that Quebec is only beginning have been determined. Careful note should to make full use of the powers which it be taken that the constitution which possesses. The fact that it has neglected to Canada was given in 1867—and which use these powers in the past, does not has been tested on numerous occasions mean that they have ceased to exist. In all in the courts since that time—assigns to the domains which are completely or Canadian provinces the status of states partially within its competence, Quebec fully and absolutely sovereign in certain plans to play a direct role, in keeping with definite domains. its individual characteristics and the full In support of my thesis, I shall cite the measure of its rights. following extract from a judgment by the The present governmental action Privy Council handed down in 1883: derogates, perhaps, from habit, but there “These (the provinces) are in no is no derogation in a constitutional sense. way the delegates of the Imperial It represents rather the emergence of a Parliament, nor do they act by new state of mind—I should say, rather, virtue of any mandate received the new expression of a state of mind and from the latter. In decreeing that Ontario had a right to a legislature of a desire for liberty which, in a latent and that it rested with its legisla- state, has not ceased to exist during the tive assembly to adopt the laws for last two hundred years. the province and for provincial purposes relative to the subjects

* Hodge v. The Queen, (1883) 9 A.C. 117. Cited in French in O’Connor, Senate Report–1939.

132 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

I mentioned a short time ago the sur- Federal Government has assumed an prise caused by the signing of an agreement exclusive role with regard to relations on education between France and Quebec. with foreign countries. This agreement is completely in keeping There was a time when Ottawa’s with the established constitutional order. exclusive exercise of international powers Actually, the Canadian Federal Government was scarcely prejudicial to the interests of is in a unique position with regard to the federated states, inasmuch as the field international law. If it possesses an of international relations was fairly well incontestable right to deal with foreign defined. powers, the implementation of agreements which it may conclude concerning But, in our day, this is no longer so. matters under provincial jurisdiction lies Interstate relations now touch every beyond its legislative competence. This was aspect of social life. This is why, in a federa- the decision, nearly thirty years ago, in a tion such as Canada, it is now necessary judgment handed down by the judicial for those member groups, who wish to do committee of the Privy Council, a judgment so, to participate actively and directly in the which has never been set aside. preparation of international agreements At a time when the Government of with which they are immediately concerned. Quebec is fully aware of its responsibility for I repeat that there is no reason why the realization of the particular destiny of the right to implement an international Quebec society, it has no desire to abandon agreement should be dissociated from the to the Federal Government the power of right to conclude this agreement. This is a implementing agreements in matters falling case of two essential steps in the one, single under provincial competence. Furthermore, operation. Nor is it admissible, any longer, it is fully aware of the fact that there is an for the federal state to exert a kind of element of absurdity in the existing cons- supervision and adventitious control over titutional situation. Quebec’s international relations. Why should the state which puts an Parallel to the full exercise of a limited agreement into execution be unable to “jus tractatum” claimed by Quebec, there is negotiate and sign it? Is an agreement not equally the right to participate in the activity concluded with the essential purpose of of certain international organizations of a putting it into application, and should non-political character. those who will have to implement it not have the right to work out the conditions A large number of interstate organi- in advance? zations have been founded for the sole purpose of bringing about a solution, by In the matter of international compe- international cooperation, of problems tence, the Canadian Constitution is silent. With the exception of Article 132, which which up to now have been purely local has become a dead letter since the Statute in nature. of Westminster, in 1931, there is nothing Further, the multiplication of exchange which says that international relations of all kinds between countries has neces- are solely under the jurisdiction of the sitated the direct of indirect intervention federal state. Therefore, it is not by virtue of the modern state so that these exchanges of written law, but rather by repeated may be made basic elements of progress practice over the past forty years, that the of understanding and of peace between

133 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peoples. In many fields which have now regard to civil and constitutional law, assumed international importance, Quebec along with the field of linguistic rights, of wishes to play a direct role in keeping banks and economic affairs, of radio and with its true countenance. television, of international competence and Along with all contemporary societies, any number of other subjects. The list of the countenance of Quebec is changing at areas in which changes are necessary is far an ever-increasing pace. Not only is it from being complete. Above all this, it is not unthinkable, but it is impossible to halt or only in the division of powers that a revision retard the rhythm of this transformation. is necessary; it is at least equally so in the It is therefore our institutions which spirit and structure of our institutions. must evolve in keeping with this new On the other hand, while this search countenance of our society. for renewed constitutional forms is Certainly, within the existing constitu- going on, the people of Quebec and its tional framework, there are possibilities Government—this I reaffirm—are quite for the improvement of some of our insti- determined to use existing constitutional tutions which have given us suitable service machinery, fully and unremittingly, to to the degree that we have known how to assure the development of Quebec according use them suitably. On the other hand, there to the cultural and social objectives which are others which will require extensive it has set for itself. changes, to say nothing of a general revision As you have doubtless sensed, of the constitution itself. Gentlemen, I have not discussed these At present, there is talk of the repa- problems with you with a view to asking triation of this constitution. It is obvious you to participate in their solution. I have that such repatriation could in no manner spoken of them only to show you the great be considered as a finishing point, as an importance which they have, and which outcome desirable in itself. In a long term they will have to an ever-increasing political view, such repatriation would degree, in the evolution of the country and constitute a starting point, the first step of the federated state where you are in a process of modernization of which stationed. Above all, I have spoken to you the need is becoming ever-increasingly of them so that you may see the spirit in apparent—of a modernization which which Quebec faces the future and how it should take place in Canada by means of intends to represent and fully serve a people entirely Canadian instruments. which possesses a growing consciousness The Quebec parliamentary constitu- of its own cultural and social identity and tional committee has, since its creation, is manifesting a steadily-strengthening will been concerned with the necessity for to follow its own destiny within the world revising the constitution in such areas as of today. that of the status of the Lieutenant Source: Press release, Department of Education, Quebec, Governor and of the Supreme Court with April 12, 1965.

134 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

pening statement by Daniel Johnson, Sr., In this era of interdependence and OPrime Minister of Québec, given at great ensembles which foster togetherness the first meeting of the Constitutional Con- while pointing out differences, at a time ference held in Ottawa, February 5, 1968. when the prodigious development of com- ••• munications is gradually shrinking the world we live in, it seems clear to me that Canada, with her cultural duality, her two [Translation] international languages, her European Québec thanks the Prime Minister of affinities and her North American situation, Canada for calling this conference, which can rightfully be expected to play a leading is but the logical follow-up of the dialogue role in establishing peace and fraternity initiated in Toronto last November. between men. But, how could she possibly We readily agreed to take part in it live up to this expectation without first even though the items on the first agenda solving her own internal conflicts? How submitted for our consideration did not could Canadians promote better under- seem the most urgent or the most essential standing between others if they themselves in present circumstances. Later, the Prime prove unable to understand each other? Minister of Canada accepted to widen the In my opinion, our constitutional pro- scope of the conference so that it would blem is as much a matter of communica- cover the constitutional problem as a tions as of structures. This psychological whole, for which we are grateful. aspect of the problem is all the more At the Toronto conference, which all important in that nothing we might achieve Canadians had the opportunity to attend here or in subsequent endeavours would through the television medium, we limited have the least chance of success without a ourselves to examining and bringing general consensus on the part of the into better focus a few of the basic ele- Canadian people. We are past the time ments of Canada’s constitutional problem. when a constitution could be drafted by Nevertheless, a new climate can already the select few behind closed doors, then be felt which, of course, in itself is not a forced upon the population in autocratic solution but which does encourage us to or paternalistic fashion. Days of colonialism continue, with ever greater hopes, our have long gone and it is only natural that search for an answer. Canada, a sovereign country, should not go beyond the Canadian people in search Personally, I was very impressed by of the supreme authority. comments which reached me from every corner of Canada after that historic I would like to repeat in English these meeting. I believe that during the past last two paragraphs. We do not claim to few years, thanks to the soul-searching and speak for French-speaking Canadians in efforts of a great many Canadians of both other provinces but we wish to speak in cultures, much has been accomplished to the name of all Québec people, of whom breach the wall of misunderstanding 20 per cent are English-seaking. which has divided our two solitudes for so Now, we all know that the Canadian long, that invisible, purely psychological people is not homogeneous. Although the barrier which, at times in our history, has adamant few still refuse to admit it, we all proved harder to cross than many physical know that Canada is made up of two barriers. nations. What purpose can be achieved by

135 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

closing our eyes on this basic fact, which and frustrations of every description, we is supported by history, sociology and the are still wondering what these conflicts collective will to live together? were really all about. Perhaps it has become for some people Thus, French Canadians greet with a purely academic exercise to ponder some astonishment the proposal to recog- whether the British North America Act is nize French as an official language now, or not the result of a pact, but there is no after a hundred years of Confederation, room for doubt as far as the future is because they have always taken for granted concerned: in order to be valid, a new that both our languages were official in Canadian constitution will have to be the Canada. product of an agreement between our two I simply cannot conceive that we might nations. go on quarrelling for another century over And I believe that we shall all be the the meaning and scope of our constitution. better for it. We need every last bit of our energy and To begin with, the new constitution resources to carry out desperately urgent will be the authentic work of Canadians. tasks, particularly in the economic sector, For the first time in our history, we on which the well-being of all Canadians shall have a constitution made entirely depends. in Canada, by Canadians and for all This is why we need a constitution Canadians. which will be a source of harmony and no This new constitution of our own longer of misunderstanding; a constitution invention will have the further advantage which will describe things as they are of conforming to today’s realities and and meet problems head on, instead of needs. We live in an era of extremely skirting them; a constitution with every rapid change; so much so that, during the provision written clearly and in full as last few years, almost every great human befits a federal constitution; a constitution institution has begun the process of self containing its own amending formula, but re-examination and self redefinition sufficiently sound and permanent to avoid required in response to new conditions. being constantly challenged; a constitution In this context, ours is one of the rare which will depend for final interpretation countries in the world which has not yet on a tribunal whose composition will be rewritten its constitution; and I can hardly such that no one will be tempted to think of any which, once independent, question its impartiality. wished to retain the constitution it was In order to be realistic, this constitution given when it was still a colony. must be conceived as the principle for Our constitution will also stand a better organizing not only the ten-partner chance of being clear if it is couched in Canada but also the two-partner Canada. contemporary language to answer today’s We see no objection in the fact that, in concerns. In some respects, the British relation to certain problems, there should North America Act was based on a funda- be ten provinces juridically equal despite mental misunderstanding. Our two cultural their geographic and demographic dissi- communities have never agreed on the milarities; but on the other hand, we see interpretation to be placed on some of its no reason why, despite their numerical essential provisions or on a number of its inequality, the same constitution should omissions. This has provoked countless not give both de facto and de jure recogni- conflicts, nearly all of which were pointless tion to the equality of our two cultural since, after a century of discussions, disputes communities.

136 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Our new constitution must therefore majority composed of the other take into account what the Laurendeau- group. Consequently, it moves in the Dunton Commission and the Prime Minister direction of greater constitutional autonomy. Ideally, the minority of Canada himself so aptly called “the poli- desires the same autonomy for the tical dimension of cultural equality.” In fact, whole of the community to which it it is not enough to extend the use of French belongs; but where it cannot attain in federal institutions and acknowledge this objective, it may decide to concentrate on the more limited political for French minorities in other provinces unit in which it is incontestably the collective rights comparable to those majority group. already enjoyed by Québec Anglophones; This viewpoint, so hotly opposed this is only a partial solution. Above all, by some, is deeply entrenched in French Canadians must be able to use Québec. It has even been, in recent their majority position in Québec to provide years, at the root of some of the themselves with the organizations, the most spectacular, if not the most serious, manifestations of the crisis institutions and the environment which in Canada. To ignore it in this will be perfectly suited to their culture Report would not only constitute and their aspirations. an error; it would very likely mean that Québec would refuse to listen Besides, the Laurendeau-Dunton to us, and the English-speaking Commission clearly stressed this necessity Canada would be deprived of the in the General Introduction preceding chance to become aware of an Book I of its Report. This introductory especially grave element in the present situation. section is a document of major importance which throws remarkable light on the root If there is a lesson to be learned from of Canada’s constitutional problem. For our history, it is this; French Canadians in this reason, we have quoted several of its Québec, who make up eighty-three per cent paragraphs verbatim in our brief, including of Canada’s French-speaking population, these passages on “the collective aspect of cannot be expected to entrust the direction the notion of equality.” It is a question of their social and cultural life to a govern- here, according to the Commissioners, of: ment in which their representatives are in the minority and which is also subject to …the degree of self-determination the workings of Cabinet responsibility and which one society can exercise in relation to another….the extent party discipline. Of course, they want a of the control each has over its central government to handle problems government or governments. This common to both communities or questions is the basis for the discussion of which have no bearing on distinctive the constitutional framework in cultural or sociological traits; but Québec which the two societies can live or is where they spontaneously wish to turn aspire to live… for decisions pertaining to the establishment …But as soon as the minority is of the conditions necessary for development aware of its collective life as a of their own personality and dynamism. whole, it may very well aspire to the mastery of its own existence Indeed, this is the price of equality, for and begin to look beyond cultural how could two cultural communities be liberties. It raises the question of equal if one had to depend on the other’s its political status. It feels that good-will for its survival and growth? its future and the progress of its culture are not entirely secure, that In other words, if in a ten-partner they are perhaps limited, within a Canada Québec is a province like the political structure dominated by a others, the situation is different in a

137 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

two-partner Canada. As the homeland Generally speaking, the historical and and mainstay of French Canada, Québec popular roots of these governments are must assume responsibilities which are found in the distant past, in some cases peculiar to her; and it goes without saying long before Confederation itself. The that her powers must be proportionate to population spontaneously identifies with her responsibilities. them. They are in a very good position to Does this mean that Québec must have solve imaginatively and realistically the a juridical status different from that of the problems created by an evolving contem- other provinces? In itself, such a formula porary society. For these reasons, we feel is not incompatible with federalism, that there should be no fear in giving whose essential characteristic is precisely residual powers to the provinces in Canada, its adaptability to all situations; but we as is done in most other federations of are aware of the difficulties it would create the world. and the misapprehensions it could cause. As for the principle of participation, it This is why, without rejecting a priori any requires that member-states do take part other formula able to give our two com- in the federal decision-making process. munities the necessary freedom of action, This implies that one of the federal organs we have already stated our preference for be a direct emanation of the federated a constitution sufficiently decentralized to states. Ordinarily, the Senate should play take into account Québec’s own situation this role. If the central government without, however, preventing the other reflected more adequately the principle provinces from entrusting to the federal of participation, both its prestige and government in part or in whole those authority would be strengthened. duties they would prefer not to assume If I have not so far talked about a decla- alone. Obviously, a new mechanism would ration of rights, it is not because we be needed to divide fiscal revenues fairly question its importance but because we according to each government’s responsi- believe it cannot logically be set apart bilities. from the constitutional problem as a We are convinced that such a system whole. would leave Ottawa with all the authority A very clear distinction must also be it needs to carry out its obligations to made between individual and collective Canada as a whole, particularly if the rights. The former cannot be separated new constitution asserted the principle of from civil rights, and must consequently participation as well as the principle of come under provincial authority. We are autonomy. These two principles, we all now drafting a charter of human rights know, are the two fundamental laws of which we shall incorporate in Québec’s any workable federalism. internal constitution. As for collective According to the principle of autonomy, rights, we certainly wish to see them pro- member-states of a federation are given claimed and guaranteed in the Canadian legislative and fiscal powers by the consti- constitution; but we believe it is still more tution itself and not by the federal state. urgent and more efficient to embody them Relations between the two orders of govern- in our federal and provincial institutions. ment must be on a level of co-operation, That is something Québec has always not subordination. I feel very strongly that done. She has never sought to interpret in certain circles too little confidence is restrictively sections 93 and 133 of the being place in provincial governments. Constitution. She did not wait for the

138 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

adoption of a charter of human rights to another country will not automatically before establishing equality throughout her eliminate the danger of subordination to a territory for our two cultural communities central government which would claim The Laurendeau-Dunton Commission Report the right to political hegemony. corroborates this on several occasions. It Were it repeated ad infinitum, no is difficult to imagine a greater degree of one—at least among my fellow Quebecers, freedom and self-determination than that who have been here for over 300 years— which the English-speaking minority in could be made to believe that Canada Québec has always enjoyed. And we fully began in 1867. Nor can anyone be made to expect it to remain thus in the future. We believe that constitutions are immutable. We would be very happy if from now on the are already on our fourth in two centuries; French minorities in other parts of Canada why should it be impossible to draw up a could be accorded the same treatment. fifth? Why should Canadians be incapable In other respects, I want to reiterate of accomplishing something which so many that we have never sought to impose the other countries, many of them infinitely French language on Canadians in other more complex than Canada, have done provinces where there is no need for it. successfully? We completely agree with the Laurendeau- I am among those who believe that Dunton Commission that, in a country like Canadians have enough insight, heart and ours, it is the governments and the public will-power to find the solution to their services which must be bilingual wherever problems and the key to their future. To a sufficiently large number of Canadians of sum up, Québec submits: both cultures live together. And institutions are bound to bilingualism precisely because 1. That the time has come four our they must preserve the citizen’s normal country to give itself an entirely right to serve his country and to receive Canadian constitution made in Canada its services in his own language. by Canadians and for all Canadians; Some people are already gambling on 2. That this new constitution, as well as our inability to come to any understanding. any future amendments to it, should be Are we going to turn up the missing card drafted and promulgated on behalf of in their deck—the admission or proof of a sovereign people without recourse our failure? to another country’s parliament; Others also speculate on our failure, 3. That the object of this constitution for totally different reasons. They are the should be not only to federate territories ones who think that problems will take care but also to associate in equality two of themselves if their existence is denied; linguistic and cultural communities, that a light replastering job, refurbished two founding peoples, two societies, here and there by a thin varnish of bilin- two nations in the sociological sense gualism will satisfy everyone; and that of the word; continued talk of national unity will cause 4. That it is in no way necessary to the Canadian duality to disappear. break up the ten-partner Canada to Let us have no illusions: in Canada the build a two-partner Canada, but that basic problems will not be solved by shifting it has become essential and urgent to subordination. To be more precise, let us create a two-partner Canada in order say that the elimination of subordination to maintain the ten-partner Canada;

139 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

5. That Book I of the Laurendeau-Dunton with the aid of a joint secretariat to be Commission Report on the official set up without delay and working in languages, as well as those still to be co-operation with the interprovincial published, should be studied in the committee formed at the Toronto light of facts and principles brought conference, and whose work could be forth in the General Introduction divided into five main subject-matters: which to us is the most significant part; a) official languages and fundamental 6. That the equality to be established rights; between our two cultural communities b) distribution of powers; depends not only on extending bilingualism territorially but even more on c) reform of the Senate, the Supreme extending the jurisdictions of Québec, Court and the other institutions the homeland of the French-Canadian linked with the federal system; nation; d) fiscal incidences and regional 7. That the root of Canada’s constitutional inequalities; problem will not have been tackled in e) amendment procedure and provi- a concrete and realistic manner until sional arrangements. a study has been undertaken of a new Québec knows the complexity of the distribution of powers between the task that lies ahead. We must innovate to two orders of government; a large extent and build a new type of 8. That a constructive way to review this country. This cannot be accomplished in a distribution of powers would be to matter of weeks, nor even months. Still, begin with fields where there is we must remember that time is not on the immediate urgency: social security, side of today’s Canada. The Canada we relations with other countries and want to build for tomorrow will be for the international organizations, instru- young people of this country. The Québec ments of education and culture as delegation is not here to settle old scores, well as the various theories and for- but to prepare the future and as long as mulas which tend to give indefinitely we continue to act there will be hope. If expanding powers to the central we cannot agree now, could we expect to government; agree after separation? The answer to 9. That the question of fundamental rights this question lies in its very formulation. is closely linked with the constitutional Mr. Chairman, so that nobody watching problem as a whole and thus no deci- television will be in doubt as to the guilty sion can possibly be taken in this party, let me be the one to right your respect before agreement has been reached on certain basic reforms, “Canada” sign which someone—I don’t particularly on the creation of a true know who—knocked over a moment ago. constitutional tribunal; Source: Constitutional Conference, Proceedings, First Meeting, February 5, 1968, Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 10. That consequently, the next step 1968, p. 53-71; Government of Québec, Opening Address should be to institute federal-provincial by the Honourable Daniel Johnson, Prime Minister of Québec, Canadian Intergovernmental Conference, Ottawa, commissions, meeting simultaneously February 5, 1968.

140 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

pening statement by Jean-Jacques urgency, a feeling obviously shared by my O Bertrand, Prime Minister of Québec, colleagues on both sides of the House, given at the second meeting of the since the motion was adopted without a Constitutional Conference, Ottawa, dissenting voice. We were all alive to the February 10, 1969 (extract). seriousness of the crisis which, in its ••• Preliminary Report published two years later—in February 1965—the Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism–Dunton- [Translation] Laurendeau Commission—was to describe […] as “the greatest crisis in our history” one I would like […] to pay a brief tribute to “which threatens the very fact of Canada.” the man who headed Québec’s delegation Much more is involved in this crisis when this conference began its work in than human rights or the linguistic rights February 1968. You all know without of minorities. The trouble lies far deeper my telling you what vital importance and is more fundamental. To quote the my predecessor and good friend, the late Commissioners, “the vital centre is in dan- Daniel Johnson, attached to constitutional problems. ger: we mean the will to live together”. And in the same serious vein, they added His most cherished ambition was that “Canada has come to a time when always to see our country adopt its own decisions must be taken and develop- entirely new, all-Canadian constitution, one ments must occur leading either to its capable of ending the misunderstandings break-up, or to a new set of conditions for which divide us and of putting the harmony its future existence.” between our two cultural communities on solid foundations. I know that these comments made by There were those who wondered how the Dunton-Laurendeau Commission, at the sudden disappearance of Mr Johnson the time they were made public, were the might affect Québec’s constitutional policy. subject of spirited discussions on the While the style may change, it should be Canadian scene, and that politicians did obvious that the substance of that policy not take them seriously. But we in Québec, cannot vary that much. Men may come and Mr. Laurendeau in particular, who was and go, but the reality of Québec endures. one of the Dunton-Laurendeau report’s Thus I have not come to water down, draftspersons, who was well versed in much less to contradict, the many state- the problems of Québec, believed in them ments, briefs and other official documents without a doubt since he signed the report. which expressed Québec’s attitude to this Fortunately, the Confederation of vital problem before or after the June Tomorrow Conference which Ontario 1966 general elections. I have come to convened in November 1967, by the support and throw more light on the Premier, Mr. Robarts, afforded us our first proposals we have already made and opportunity to embark on a thorough also to show how urgently these solutions study of the question. Then, meeting here are needed. in February 1968, we agreed on the need In May 1963, when I introduced a to review together the various aspects of motion in the Québec Parliament to insti- the constitutional problem, including the tute a Parliamentary Committee on the one Québec delegates consider most Constitution, I did so out of a sense of basic, that of the division of powers.

141 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

[…] perfectly bilingual—said that “if I speak Ours is not the only province which French, I feel as though I am another would like to see the Constitution amended person.” A French Canadian speaks differ- and I think that I am not far from the truth ently because he is different. when I say that all provinces unanimously Now, whenever an important issue is agree on the following objectives: discussed between two groups that feel and a) repatriating the Constitution; react in such different ways, we witness the Québec Government instinctively identifying b) establishing amendment procedures; itself with the French-speaking majority c) revising the distribution of tax fields in Québec, and the government in Ottawa and tax revenues; instinctively identifying itself with the d) reducing regional economic dis- English-speaking majority in Canada, parities; whatever the language or the cultural e) setting up the machinery for co- background of those who, in a given cir- operation and adjustment through cumstance, constitute authority. Such is delegation of powers or otherwise. the iron rule of democracy which we cannot Nor is Québec the only province suffering escape. from flagrant disproportion between her We would therefore, Mr. Speaker, be responsibilities and her sources of revenue. merely scratching the surface if we were And I believe that this last sentence I just to equate Canada’s constitutional problem pronounced is just another expression, with a question of personal or linguistic Mr. Speaker, of what you have just heard rights. I am not saying that these rights from the Premier of Ontario, and that are unimportant; what I am saying is that you will hear from all the premiers of the they do not reach the root of the problem Canadian provinces. In a nutshell, Québec which brings us here today. is not alone in insisting on provincial If there is a crisis in Canada, it is not autonomy. because our country is made up of indi- However, I might add that, besides the viduals who speak different languages; reasons common to all provinces, Québec has it is because Canada is the home of two special grounds for valuing her autonomy. communities, two peoples, two nations And these go far beyond the development between which relations need to be harmo- of a linguistic heritage. Indeed, language nized. is not only a mode of expression: first and The important thing for French foremost, it is a way of thinking or—better Canadians from Québec is not to be still—a way of life. The Canadian duality allowed, as individuals, to speak their therefore does not come merely from a mother tongue even in regions of the difference in language; above all, it is due country where it has little chance of being to different ways of approaching, feeling understood; what they want is the oppor- and reacting when confronted by events. tunity to live together in French, to work A French Canadian, is not the same as an in French, to build a society in their image English Canadian differing only as to the and to be able to organize their community tongue he speaks. And, if I recall Murray life so that it will reflect their culture. Ballantyne’s words at a conference on And this cannot be achieved unless the Canadian affairs held at Laval University Government of Québec has powers propor- in Québec City in 1961 when he—who is tionate to the responsibilities it is expected

142 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

by its population to shoulder. Without many matters that it often gives us no Québec, there might still be French minor- inkling as to which sector of government is ities, but French Canada would not longer responsible for which field of endeavour. exist. Moreover, as the Premier of Ontario observed What we are seeking together, therefore, a while ago, this is normal: the Founding is the constitutional system most likely to Fathers of Confederation had no way of reconcile the free growth of Canada’s two imagining what the course of evolution cultural communities with the requirements would be in the one hundred years from of economic solidarity. And since it is 1867 to 1967. And above that, it is not mostly in Québec that one of these two always abided by. Thus in the long run, communities can ensure control over its thanks to its financial resources, the federal destiny, the problem may be summed up government ends up with actual jurisdiction by asking: what must be done to have a overt matters where Québec’s interest is strong Québec within Canada? vitally important. I believe that the best answer to this This question is equally pressing for the question still lies in a federal system of other provinces. We all bear witness that government, provided however it is an our present Constitution has not stood in authentic federal system, not a deceptive the way of systematic and authoritarian federal encroachment upon provincial front. jurisdiction, encroachment which, during In order to achieve this authentic the last few months, has assumed unprec- federalism, we must see to it that the edented proportions, abetted as it is by distribution of powers between the two federal pre-emption of revenue sources at a orders of government is not left to the moment when all the governments closer to goodwill of a central authority, but is based the people suffer an increasingly paralysing on a written constitution, recognized and want of financial means. respected by all as the country’s funda- The present federal government, mental law. In other words, there has to strengthened by its lion’s share of tax be priority of the Constitution over the two funds—a situation against which we can orders of government, not priority of the never protest too strongly as being unjust central power over the federated states. and contrary to the legitimate aims of Otherwise, even if we were to decentralize the provinces, thinks it can meddle every- at the administrative level, we would still where: in educational radio and television, live within a unitary state, not a federal in cultural matters, in urban affairs, in system. off-shore mineral rights, in securities, in At the present time, as a result of the higher education, in university research, evolution of society and the major part in water, air and soil pollution, in highway played by governments in activities which transportation, in foreign affairs even when would have defied imagination one hundred they relate to education and other matters years ago, it is absolutely essential and it is under provincial jurisdiction, in community becoming increasingly urgent to re-examine development and even in civil law through the entire question as to how powers should succession duties. In its eyes, one would be distributed between the central and the imagine that provincial governments are, at provincial governments. best, administrative units expected always Our present Constitution—I almost to play second fiddle to a rich, all-powerful said our old Constitution—is silent on so and overbearing federal power.

143 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Nothing proves this better than what taxation problem is therefore inextricably seems about to take place in the field of bound up with constitutional review, since health, and it has been our opportunity to availability or lack of adequate financial discuss the matter in two federal-provincial resources is the one factor which deter- conferences of Finance Ministers, the one mines whether each sphere of government held in November and its follow-up last can carry out its constitutional responsibili- December—which is clearly a provincial ties in the manner expected of it. It is vitally matter, and for which the federal govern- important that the federal government ment would extract money from tax-payers understand what is at stake here—the in all provinces so as to set up a system of country’s very ability to function properly. which the vast majority are now in no For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, position to take advantage. Contrary to Fellow Colleagues, we need a completely the spirit and the letter of the Constitution, new constitution, tailored to the ideas and direct taxes are levied for provincial needs of today. This is certainly the most purposes. Provincial government priorities important task we have ever decided to are thwarted. And again as always, the undertake together, because on it, the very tax-payer is the victim of this taxation future of our country and the welfare of chaos. I believe that I come back to the ideas all our citizens directly depend. We may that were mentioned earlier regarding the need a bill of human rights, but I say that immediate problems that the provincial we need also a bill of provincial rights. governments—and especially the Québec Indeed, constitutional reform offers government—must cope with when drafting the only permanent solution for the deep their budgets; and the Minister of Finance, crisis afflicting Canada. We need fresh who is seated at my left, had the oppor- agreement on basic issues; we must state tunity to say as much to his federal counter- very clearly the ground rules for relations part during the December conference, as I between governments; we must reconsider myself so said last November. A taxation the constitutional structure of our country, chaos is being created—and this I repeat— the form it is to take, the ends it is to pursue, while taxpayers are as always in the end so that our political institutions may not the main victims. only meet the needs of the hour but those What is more, this taxation chaos has that will arise in days to come. Above all, both economic and constitutional reper- it has become essential to give French cussions which we cannot overlook. The Canada—of which Québec is the mainstay— Québec Government is acutely aware that a deep conviction that it can find in the it must help give its people the economic Canadian federation all the elements requi- tools they still lack, just as it is painfully site for its own development. Because we aware of the wide disparities to be found must recognize that for some time this between its different regions. And it feeling of confidence has been more and knows it must make sustained efforts to more subject to question and that doubts spur development in more than one field. have crept into the minds of many But how can it possibly do this when the Quebecers. present division of tax revenue in Canada This questioning and uncertainty prevents it not only from taking sorely cannot last forever. Choices are inevitable. needed economic actions but frequently Movements have already come into being from discharging as fully as it would like whose avowed purpose is to end the federal all its constitutional obligations? The experiment. Hence it is more and more

144 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

pressing to submit for our people’s consent to delegate to, or use jointly with, the central a new instrument of liberty and solidarity. government those functions which they do Obviously, Québec has very definite not care to use alone. It would be, in our ideas about the main lines that must opinion, an unfortunate mistake, of which govern our new constitution. They will be we would all suffer, to insist that in all found stated in the various briefs we have spheres the same measures apply in the presented to past conferences and in the same manner to all the provinces. working document prepared by our officials. To those frightened by the drafting of We believe that in a country as ours, it a new constitution, I merely recall that on would be neither wise, nor human, nor it depends the very future of Canada. I even efficient to wish every thing uniform. myself am convinced that the task is not We think that, in certain fields, a right of beyond the intellectual scope, the inventive option will always be necessary, not only ability, the strength of friendship inherent to give Québec the degree of autonomy it in Canadians or either culture. needs but also to allow the other provinces Source: Text of the opening statement.

145 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

tatement by Robert Bourassa, Prime patriating and amending the constitution, S Minister of Québec, on the Victoria political and linguistic rights, the status of Constitutional Charter, Québec National the Supreme Court. Assembly, June 23, 1971. In the current state of the constitutional ••• reform project, the government of Québec cannot, however, make a positive recom- [Translation] mendation to the National Assembly as Federalism represents for Quebecers regards the acceptance of the current the best means for attaining their economic, Constitutional Charter project. social and cultural objectives. Quebecers This decision stems from the need to supported this option of the government of agree insofar as possible on clear and pre- Québec during the last general election. In cise constitutional texts, thereby avoiding keeping with Quebecers’ clearly expressed a shift of responsibility to the judicial branch, desire in this sense, the government will as such responsibility first belongs to the devote its efforts to reinforcing Canadian political branch, i.e. to those the people federalism. have elected. As such, it feels that federalism must As such, the texts dealing with income be decentralized in order to reflect the security still contain an uncertainty that diversity of the regions of our country. squares poorly with the objectives inherent This federalism must also guarantee in any notion of constitutional review. If provinces the freedom of action they need this uncertainty were to be eliminated, for fully assuming their responsibilities our conclusion could be different. with regard to their citizens. As such, the government of Québec This federalism must also allow the intends on notifying the secretary of the government of Québec to ensure the cul- Constitutional Conference that it cannot tural future of the majority of its population. accept this draft Constitutional Charter. Constitutional review is precisely the way This decision of the government of Québec for giving us this type of federalism. Works is an appeal to every Canadian’s capacity undertaken over the past three years have for innovation and determination and it allowed Canadians to progress in this urges them to pursue the task they have direction. The recent conference of the undertaken to give Canadians a truly First and Prime Ministers constituted a step modern constitution. in the right direction; important progress Source: Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, has been made regarding machinery for June 23, 1971, p. 2738-2739.

146 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

tatement by René Lévesque, Prime petition for, an increase in its powers in S Minister of Québec, on the referendum order to progressively take charge of its question, Québec National Assembly, destiny; while on the opposing side, the December 20, 1979. federal regime reacted to this growing ••• pressure by hardening its resistance to change, and even accentuating the unend- [Translation] ing craving of all political institutions for From the very outset more than 370 broadening their base of power. years ago, the people of Québec have never Yet since that time, all the statements had the opportunity to democratically and propositions that have followed, determine their own future. It is therefore intended genuinely or factitiously to solve with what I believe to be legitimate pride this contradiction, have only made matters that on behalf of the government, today I worse. The most recent of these smoke submit to my fellow Quebecers a projected screens, which declared—must we recall— question that will enable them to take a that the time to act was upon us, in turn decisive step this coming spring. A step got lost in the upheavals of the federal founded upon the logical and noble basis campaign last May. of any accession to national maturity, along As such, unanimity is now taking shape, with realism and awareness of others if for nothing else than the unacceptability commanded also by the circumstances of a status quo that is continuously getting that define our place in history. in the way of Québec’s needs for development and even for its security. One only In essence, what the government is need think of our current inability—which proposing to Quebecers is a means for the highest court has just reconfirmed— them to become fully responsible for their to provide ourselves, it we so desire, with community owing to a new agreement an environment essentially as French as based upon the fundamental equality of Ontario is English. One only need imagine each partner in order to attain the dual the obstacles that a company controlled objectives of providing Québec with the from abroad can multiply against the exclusive power to make its own laws and exercising of our undisputable rights that use its taxes, plus the right to participate in we possess over the exploitation of our the community of nations and, at the same natural resources, or the omnipresent dan- time, to maintain the close and mutually gers that our traditional jurisdictions over advantageous ties of an economic associa- taxation may be invaded—under the pre- tion and monetary union with Canada. text of a crisis—by a central government From the very beginning of a political in need of funds to cover its deficits. Then initiative taken twelve years ago that there is the issue of our continuously brought several hundred people together, diminishing relative weight—and our cor- it became obvious to us that the lines of responding influence—within the Canadian force had already been clearly set by the context. A sharp contrast with yesteryear increasingly divergent evolution of Québec when our numbers enabled us to count society and the constitutional regime that on more than a third of the federal MPs, had by then been a part of its life for over yet in twenty years we won’t even have a century. Indeed, at the quickening pace one-fourth of them! of the then referred to “Quiet Revolution”, This explains why it is now necessary Québec tended to assume, or at least —without breaking neither the economic

147 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

ties and the promise that they hold of a remained much the same as in the begin- better-balanced partnership—to recover ning. What could be more normal and all our political powers before it is too justifiable since the replacement of the late. Not only has federalism until now federal system by a community framework refused any satisfactory reform, but also is advancing exactly in the direction of an from now on it is quite clear that—as far evolution evermore commonplace among as we are concerned—that it is just not in modern nations. In all areas of the world, its nature to lend itself to such dealings. we are witnessing the multiplication of Whatever may be the real reasons associations between sovereign states motivating them—conscious illusionism that pool their efforts economically while or true illusions—those who still think of keeping the essential parts of their political “renewing” this regime exclusively between autonomy. New federations are becoming politicians by first discussing with eventual increasingly rare while States grouping peers (that others will have replaced in together are emerging everywhere. time anyway!) the acceptability of proposals So if our project has essentially remained that citizens would then see buried in faithful to itself and has increasingly been electoral promises—they are the ones confirmed by the experience of others, who would prepare us inevitably for the our procedure has, on the contrary, had to same disappointment. evolve and become more specific as time But should it occur that this new goes by. refrain by the same old siren, which has What has especially marked this project never sung anything other than fear of is the awareness that we could not sidestep change, might continue to sabotage the this most fundamental rule among all historic opportunity before us, the disap- others that whatever may be the necessary pointment could this time be dangerously stages, no important political change can deep and hard to overcome. And the be brought about democratically if it is not opportunity may not return anytime soon. desired, wanted and eventually triggered For if today we are active or sympathizers, and accomplished not simply with, but by hundreds of thousands having prepared a majority of citizens. In other words, by it with continuously renewed tenacity, the clear and firm expression of the will of reinforced with the conviction that each the people. step of the way has only intensified the movement, nowhere in this world can From the outset, we obviously knew this such an effort be maintained indefinitely. quite well but took some time to recognized All the more so at the point where we now it black on white. This recognition—which stand, not only is the urgency of making a in 1974 was expressed by an initial outline decision ever more obvious, but our best of the referendum consultation—would by chance for reaching the objective that is our actions in 1976 become a precise and proposed and the means for getting there central commitment of the government now seem to be a narrowing path and that the electors had put into office. This possibly our only chance to build for our- commitment—as well as all others that selves a future rather than have it decided we have also attempted not to neglect—will for us. be kept by us this coming spring. After As for the objective to which we have having completed the requisite conditions devoted so much energy, and an endurance conferring it with all the necessary legiti- that has survived so many tests, it has macy and solemnity.

148 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Since the necessary conditions for an Hence, it is an explicit question, which enlightened debate have now been brought asks for the mandate to negotiate not just together, and despite the unpredictable anything, but a specific agreement whose brain-storming that has occurred in essential elements may be found in the body Ottawa, but which will end on February of the question, as well as the democratic 18th, the time has now come—in com- guarantees that I have just mentioned. pliance with the promise that we made to As we promised in the beginning, the disclose the projected question that we question may be answered by a YES or a NO. have prepared—prior to the adjourning of And as set forth in the Referendum Act, it Parliament. will be printed on the ballots in French We believe it to be clear and straight- and in English (and where applicable, in forward and have removed any and all Amerindian or Inuit languages). ambiguities. Despite all our efforts to be If the National Assembly approves it concise—and some may claim the contrary during the debate scheduled for the if they so believe the contrary—essentially resumption of Parliament, then it will to make it more straightforward, the most read as follows: explicitly possible, this meant that we had to add a bit to the formulation. We felt, “The Government of Québec has made indeed, that a short but down-to-earth public its proposal to negotiate a new description of the objective would be well agreement with the rest of Canada, based worth a few more lines. on the equality of nations; this agreement This text does not contain anything that would enable Québec to acquire the exclu- would ordinarily cause a surprise, if not sive power to make its laws, administer its only that one finds a clear-cut commitment taxes and establish relations abroad - in for what comes after, a commitment whose other words, sovereignty - and at the same timeliness—might I add its necessity—has time, to maintain with Canada an economic rapidly come to our attention owing to association including a common currency; increasing pressure that has been brought any change in political status resulting to bear of late. We are laying this commit- from these negotiations will be submitted ment directly before you today, for never to the people through a referendum; have we had the intent of asking our citizens On these terms, do you agree to give for a blank cheque. the government of Québec the mandate to It is up to the women and men of negotiate the proposed agreement between Québec to decide on their future, and they Québec and Canada?” must be able to approve of each major By answering this question with a step in their constitutional itinerary. It YES, the citizens of Québec will have the must also be clear that even after the opportunity of taking a decisive step government has been given a mandate to towards taking control of their future. negotiate a new agreement with Canada, This will be a great step forward as are no change in political status can be made necessarily all other events that lead to without the Québec people having the responsibility and freedom. opportunity to specifically approve it via the Source: Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, same democratic means of a referendum. December 20, 1979, p. 4807-4808.

149 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

tatement by René Lévesque, Prime did not endorse federalism in a definitive S Minister of Québec, made at the way; rather, they simply gave it a final Meeting of the First Ministers in Ottawa chance to renew itself, in a manner that from June 8 to 13, 1980, June 9, 1980. would allow Québec to gain the extended ••• powers it needs to ensure its development and assert itself according to its own nature. It will be up to Quebecers to judge During the referendum last May 20, the outcome of these negotiations and Quebecers, for the first time, exercised draw conclusions from them. their right to self-determination. This was Thus it cannot be a matter of relin- done democratically and legally, and quishing, in any manner whatsoever, the because the Prime Minister and a number very precious right to self-determination. of Premiers were personally involved, it Moreover, I feel that Quebecers would was recognized as such by the rest of repudiate once and for all a leader who Canada. The same was true for the inter- would undermine this now-recognized national community, which showed a right. Rather, in any new constitutional keen interest in the process. arrangement, it will be necessary to provide The clear recognition of this right is for explicit recognition of Québec’s right the most valuable accomplishment of the to self-determination. Definitive and per- Québec referendum. Regardless of the manent commitments are out of question: outcome, it is now undisputed and indis- Quebecers will always choose to maintain putable that Québec constitutes a distinct their right to decide their constitutional national community which can by itself, destiny themselves. without outside interference, choose its The draft statement proposed by the constitutional status. Quebecers can decide federal government is unacceptable in to remain within Canadian federalism, just this regard, not only because it does not as they can decide, democratically, to leave, recognize Québec as a distinct national should they consider this system no longer community with the right to self-determi- able to meet their aspirations and their nation, but also because it denies this needs. This right—control over its own basic reality by laying exclusive emphasis national destiny—is the most fundamental on the oneness of the Canadian people right enjoyed by the Québec people. and Canadian sovereignty. By adopting Exercising this right to self-determi- such a position, the federal government is returning precisely to the positions it had nation is a powerful tool in constitutional put forward in previous years, and is change. Even now, it is at the root of the breaking the promises it made during the present round of negotiations. It has Québec referendum campaign regarding prompted a great many statements and a more open attitude. If this is what was commitments on the part of Canadian in mind when the solemn promise was politicians relating to Québec’s place in made to renew Canadian federalism, it Confederation. It has made the public in would have been more honest to say so the rest of Canada aware of the urgency of directly. For now, this move backward will reforming the present system. It has quite rightly be interpreted by the people of played the role of an activating mechanism. Québec as another example of the federal It will play no less a determining role government’s annoying habit of promising should the present negotiations end in one thing before an election and doing failure. During the referendum, Quebecers exactly the opposite after.

150 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

According to the draft statement of prin- This will never come about within ciples proposed by the federal government, Canadian federalism if there is no eventual Canada is one nation, one sovereignty; the agreement that Québec’s role in Canada federal tie is indissoluble; Québec does not must be described as very special. Not in constitute a distinct national community the sense that would mean unwarranted with the right to freely, without outside gifts or favours, but rather an entire range interference, choose its national destiny. of special powers and the right of Québec For us, and we believe, for the majority to exercise them without constraint, of Quebecers, Canada is composed of two relying on its own resources. equal nations; Québec provides one of these May I refer my colleagues back to a nations with its focus and support and, number of examples which I mentioned possessing all the attributes of a distinct once more last Thursday, in our National national community, it has an inalienable Assembly. Most of them are well known. right to self-determination. These are therefore two opposing visions of the nature of This quite naturally leads me to com- Canada; they are visions which have often ment, finally, on the one concrete aspect confronted each other in the past and of the draft statement: the one dealing which are at the very root of Canada’s with both individual rights and freedoms constitutional crisis. and language rights. Moreover, this fundamental problem On the first point, noting from the is the main reason why, since the 1960s, outset that our attitude bears no intention of reforming the Constitution has always been being carved in stone, I must say that in like trying to square the circle. Nonetheless, our view, the federal government’s adamant a solution will eventually have to be found insistence seems at the very least prema- to ensure that this national homeland, ture, and quite likely unadvisable. This Québec, has sufficient control over cultural, whole area of rights and freedoms is still, social, political and economic tools in order here as elsewhere, in the process of rapid to provide its people—who are now modern evolution. Constitutional “entrenchment” and mature—with every opportunity for would inevitably result in complicating development. For the French nation centred this evolution, in making it infinitely more on Québec, this is the only way that it will difficult, and in depriving the elected be possible to achieve what the draft assemblies of the power to guide it along statement identified very strongly as the democratically and instead entrusting it to sole objective of a political system: “the the discretion of the courts. This is precisely happiness and fulfilment of each and all of what was noted just a few days ago by one us.” In Québec, moreover, we are all in of the most distinguished members of agreement on this point; consider even the Canadian judicial community, former the Beige Paper of the Constitutional Supreme Court Justice Louis-Philippe Committee of the Québec Liberal Party, Pigeon, who stated that in considering the which recommended: “We must affirm the eventual effect of an entrenched Charter of fundamental equality of the two founding Rights, it must be realized that this involves peoples who have given, and still provide, giving the courts a sizeable share of legis- this country its unique place in the family lative power. It would be wrong, he felt, to of nations. This basic dualism must be believe that this function is comparable to consecrated in the supreme document of that of interpreting a federal constitution. the country.” (p. 22)

151 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

He then went on to recall an opinion manoeuvring we have in this regard expressed earlier (1968) by another ulti- in order to adapt to the situation, mately prominent member of the Supreme whichever way it evolves. Court, Chief Justice Laskin, who felt that the To me, this fundamental principle appears possibility of an entrenched charter raises irreconcilable with your proposal to serious concerns regarding the balance subject Québec to a constitutional pro- achieved over the years—by judicial deci- vision which, even if it were established sions and constitutional custom – between on a different basis from that of other the central authority and that of the provinces, would in effect mean relin- constituent states. Then, after citing the, to quishing part of our exclusive jurisdic- say the least, questionable consequences tion in education. Québec will never of the judicial “activism” brought on by such accept its sovereignty in as vital an area a charter in the United States, Mr. Justice being replaced by limited jurisdiction Pigeon concluded by reminding everyone subject to judicial interpretation. that there already exists, in Canada, a Indeed, it would be unthinkable that Bill of Rights which has given the courts the Supreme Court of Canada, which powers they had never had before, powers shall always have a majority of non- for which they had no experience and no Quebecer, English-speaking members, specific rules to follow .* To this I might add, should supersede Québec’s National in the case of Québec, a Charter of Human Assembly as the ultimate authority Rights and Freedoms of increasingly with regards to education. remarkable scope, precision and vitality. I wish to point out that this attitude is Why create more rigidity rather than letting unrelated to our Government’s objec- evolution take its course? tive of political sovereignty. On the With respect to the inclusion of lan- contrary, it is especially within the guage rights in a renewed constitution, I can existing federal framework that these only repeat, with the same unshakable powers in education are absolutely resolve, the points I made as early as essential for our protection against 1977 to the federal Prime Minister: gradually becoming a minority within “A constitutional amendment would Québec itself.” ** restrict the jurisdiction of the provincial It would be a serious mistake to try, legislatures in the field of education by in the light of the referendum results, limiting their ability to legislate in this to force upon Québec a conception of area. As far as Québec is concerned, my Canada it has always rejected and fought. government, as well as all its prede- If negotiations are to proceed in good faith cessors, have always felt that the with a reasonable chance of success, powers we have in education are more open-mindedness is required. absolutely vital for the preservation Source: The Constitutional Discussions: Selected of our cultural identity, and that we Documents, Committee on the Presidency of the Execu- tive Council and on the Constitution, August 14-15, 1980, must keep intact all the room for p. 38-43.

* Remarks by Mr. Justice L.P. Pigeon at a seminar held at Laval University, Québec City, May 24, 1980. ** Letter to the Rt. Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, September 9, 1977 [Translation].

152 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

eclaration by René Lévesque, Prime —who are the only source of power and D Minister of Québec, Federal-Provincial nobody around this table has equivalent Conference of the First Ministers on the powers—to give the population an oppor- Constitution, Ottawa, November 5, 1981. tunity to decide and it was also at the ••• same time the only federal proposal that could respect the mandate we had received [Translation] from the Québec National Assembly. Beginning yesterday afternoon, the federal HON. RENÉ LÉVESQUE: So, gentlemen, prime minister himself endeavoured, as it after this hymn to harmony by Mr. Davis, I were, to destroy this offer as he went on to have to say I deeply regret that Québec make the details clear. Yet, if Mr. Trudeau today finds itself in a position that has were serious, if he were sincere and become, in a way, one of the fundamental straightforward at this point in time, he traditions of the Canadian federal system, could renounce imposing this proposal on as it operates, Québec finds itself all alone. us in Québec in a way that, for us in It will be up to the Québec people, and Québec, still remains unilateral. From this up to them alone, to draw a conclusion perspective, he could hold his cherished from this. referendum. Nothing prevents him from I came here Monday with a mandate doing so. He needs no agreement from unanimously voted by all parties, a mandate any of us around this table. In any case, from the Québec National Assembly, which without that, for our part, we’ll have to requested from the federal government conclude that Mr. Trudeau has deliberately —and which evidently also requested from chosen, to bring English Canada on side, a our colleagues around the table, but first move that has the effect of forcefully from the government that introduced the imposing on Québec a reduction in its bill before the House of Commons—this powers and rights without its consent, resolution to renounce the unilateral nature although all parties represented in the of the steps being taken and especially to National Assembly have already, unani- renounce imposing in such a way any mously, rejected this formula. infringement of the rights and powers of As for the amending formula, which is the Québec National Assembly without here in front of us, signed by the other ten its consent, because behind the Québec governments, there no longer is, for all National Assembly are the citizens of useful purposes, what represented for one Québec, the source of power. I also ventured hundred and fourteen years, since the to stress the fact that the federal prime beginning of Confederation, the essential minister and his government were acting guarantee of protection of Québec’s rights this way without any explicit mandate, and powers, i.e., a meaningful form and without any mandate of any sort from the not a punitive form of the right of veto. As citizens, not only of Québec, but also of for mobility—which is the constitutional the rest of Canada. transposition of the federal government’s And, from this standpoint, the apparent effort last year throughout the negotiations compromise offer spectacularly made to impose centralizing powers over the yesterday morning, i.e., the referendum economy—as for mobility, the formula offer, struck us as interesting, because on here in front of us still threatens to harm the surface it may have been a democratic our legislative powers in this area that the way to break the impasse, to give all citizens Québec people needs as much as anyone.

153 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

And finally, as for our exclusive powers for artificially limiting this debate to two in education, we’ve been left with a right days. And I call upon—in particular the not to be imposed upon. By removing, ones from Québec—I call upon Quebecers however, four lines from the proposal in both federal houses, from whatever put forward this morning in the private party they belong to, not to ram through conference, an element of permanent black- in two days a bill that has been cobbled mail of Québec has been introduced with together so recklessly and that will still respect to the possible renunciation of its trample on Québec’s rights profoundly. exclusive powers and its exclusive right Yet, we came here to bargain in good to decide what it does in the area of its faith. We didn’t hesitate to take part in culture and identity and, at the source compromise offers on the basis of which it of all of this, in the area of access to its appeared possible to us until the last, no, schools. I fully heard just now the intentions until the last minute yesterday, to work out of goodwill on this point, from the federal areas of consensus to everyone’s satisfaction, prime minister: time could be taken to including us from Québec. I first—this is a find better formulas, perhaps this or that brief outline of how far we’ve gone—I first could be adjusted; I give you my word or put the obvious question flowing from the something similar that I’ll strive to do. National Assembly’s motion to the prime But only in the event that one didn’t minister: Are you ready to renounce uni- know—unless that has changed—notice lateralism, and in every way renounce was given this morning, around 11 o’clock taking any power and any right from that the House of Commons will begin the Québec without its consent? so-called final debate on this resolution as The answer is in front of us in an of tomorrow morning; and I don’t very agreement by the other ten provinces. well see, after the four days we’ve just The answer is no. spent here, how concretely could be achieved—I’m sorry, Mr. Federal Prime I then asked whether the agreement Minister, I haven’t interrupted you for a that eight provinces had backed since single moment— April 1981 would not be an honourable CHAIR (HON. PIERRE ELLIOTT TRUDEAU): way out, i.e., the cherished repatriation Not tomorrow. that has become a symbolic obsession and HON. RENÉ LÉVESQUE: Not tomorrow? also an amending formula that would When? But anyhow that’s what you said respect in practice Québec’s right of veto, yesterday. without changing anything to the rights and powers it has been recognized as CHAIR: No, no, not yesterday. There was no agreement. having for 114 years, and everything else would await a new round of negotiation. HON. RENÉ LÉVESQUE: Ah! Yesterday it The answer is in front of us. It’s no. We then was that. Today it’s something else. participated with the same seven other CHAIR: There was no agreement yesterday. provinces, the eight of us, in developing a HON. RENÉ LÉVESQUE: Fair enough. new compromise including, this time, a CHAIR: There’s one this morning. substantial part of the proposed charter, HON. RENÉ LÉVESQUE: Fair enough, fair but a part of the charter that could not enough, we shall see. In any case, seeing trample on Québec’s rights and powers in that this will profoundly change the resolu- any way, in our opinion. The compromise tion, the federal draft before the House of was submitted to the federal prime minister, Commons, there’s no longer any reason as we know. We know the answer. It was no.

154 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Then the federal prime minister him- guarantee that its right of veto represents self, in a surprise move that I’ve referred with respect to the rights and powers it to and that initially seemed promising, already has in the current Constitution. supposedly opened up to a referendum It was agreed upon by eight provinces solution, but he himself attached so many in a signed agreement that this right of conditions to it that it became in reality a veto could reasonably be maintained—we pure balloon, one made to be deflated. agreed to it, even though our government Finally, this morning, before leaving the was criticized—could reasonably be main- meeting, I put two final questions, on our tained on the condition that if one decided behalf, to the federal prime minister and to exercise this right, there would be to all of our colleagues here. And these financial compensation and that one would were the questions: first, you proposed not be penalized for exercising a right yesterday that in the absence of consensus of veto. this federal proposal would not come into Now, this agreement has been com- effect with respect to either the amending pletely emasculated. Nine, ten governments formula or the charter of rights, since have just signed an agreement that includes without the support of the majority of the for Québec a right to opt out, a right of Québec people—because in the referendum option with regard to any change to these formula you proposed yesterday, a referen- rights and powers, but we will be finan- dum would be held on a basis that has cially penalized each time if the federal always been Canada’s tradition, i.e., on a government so wishes. basis of four major regions, one being Fortunately or unfortunately, three Québec by itself. Today, of course, you lines have even been coyly removed from have the agreement, Mr. Federal Prime the initial text of the signed proposal. The Minister, of the other provinces on a draft three lines stressed the consequences of agreement, but you don’t have Québec’s this emasculation of the eight-province agreement. You therefore don’t have a agreement: “This change would mean that consensus from everyone, in the sense a province opting out would have to bear that this appeared necessary to you from the financial consequences of its act.” the referendum standpoint you yourself defined. Would you be ready to undertake This change, i.e., the elimination of not to impose this proposal before it has any financial compensation if a right of been put to the Québec people and before veto is exercised, this change would mean a majority of this people has accepted it? that a province that would exercise this The answer was: No, of course we’re the right should bear the financial conse- ones who retain the right to consult the quences. It is clear from this that even if Québec people. Finally, to get to the last they’ve been removed, these three lines point, this is my last question and the last clearly represented and defined the spirit contribution we’ve made to this negotiation, and consequences of the common proposal I asked this: you yourself, Mr. Federal you now have. Prime Minister, and several of our col- In closing, I would like to express leagues, in a very heartfelt, even eloquent thanks for the time we’ve been together way, and that appeared to us sincere at and during which I’ve had the impres- the time, you acknowledged that for 114 sion, I had the impression that it was a years, for reasons that constitute Canada’s cooperative effort that could even acquire duality in its entirety, you acknowledged a certain permanence. For this time that Québec ought to have this fundamental we’ve been together, I would like to thank

155 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

my colleagues from the seven other it has become. The intent is to tighten it provinces for the cooperation we’ve further on us by reducing powers and succeeded in maintaining for over a year. guarantees that were already woefully All good things, however, so it seems, inadequate. There’s absolutely no question always come to an end. Today, Québec is of a self-respecting Québec government back to its traditional position. Alas, we’re accepting such a change. Neither the cur- not the ones who’ve sought that. Things rent Québec government nor your servant have ended up with us alone in our corner. will ever capitulate on this point. Never All of this is rather sad. I don’t think it’s will we agree to anyone taking away any sad only for Québec, perhaps even more power and especially any powers that are for Canada. It means another hardening both traditional and fundamental, without of the system for us—the straightjacket our consent, and I repeat that we’ll use all it represents—because we must not forget of our remaining means to stop this from the traditional positions not only of Québec happening. but also for some years of the other Source: Secrétariat des conférences intergouvernementales provinces, too—the straightjacket that canadiennes, Conférence fédérale –provinciale des premiers ministres sur la Constitution: compte rendu textuel, Ottawa, the current federal system represents, as 2 au 5 novembre 1981, p. 101-109.

156 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peech by Gil Rémillard, Minister for last colonial tie with London. It also took S Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, advantage of the opportunity to substan- given at the Symposium on “Rebuilding tially amend its constitution by adding a the Relationship: Québec and its charter of rights and freedoms, an amend- Confederation Partners,” Mont-Gabriel, ing formula, aboriginal peoples’ rights, an May 9, 1986. equalization principle, and a modification in the distribution of power in matters ••• concerning natural resources. Little remains to be said on the fact that “Nothing less than Québec’s dignity the Constitution Act of 1982 marked the is at stake in future constitutional end of the last vestige of Canada’s colonial discussions.’’ (Mastering the future, status. Canada has been a sovereign p. 49) country since the Statute of Westminster To begin with I would like to thank the of 1931. However, since the British North Institute of Intergovernmental Relations and America Act of 1867 did not include an the École de l’administration publique for amending formula and since, at the time, having invited me to this seminar and for Ottawa and the nine provinces disagreed having given me the opportunity to partic- about how to fill this very important gap, ipate in your work. It is certainly promising it was agreed that London would act as to see the Institute of Intergovernmental trustee for certain parts of the Canadian Relations of Queen’s University at Kingston Constitution. As we know, this role was and the École de l’administration publique really very much a matter of form. of Québec associate to organize such a Westminster always acted at the request seminar. This association is entirely to the and according to the specifications of credit of these two teaching and research Canada. This role was also temporary since establishments and I congratulate their the provinces and Ottawa anticipated respective directors, Mr. Peter Leslie and Mr. Jocelyn Jacques. soon agreeing on an amending formula. The theme of the seminar “Rebuilding Many Canadians would certainly be the Relationship: Québec and its Confedera- surprised to learn that, from a strictly tion Partners” could not be more apt. As legal point of view, London could renege constitutional talks resume between Québec, on its decision and once again make Ottawa and the other provinces, this type Canada a colony by amending the Statute of forum can prove very useful. Therefore, of Westminster of 1931 and the “Canada I am pleased as minister responsible for Bill” of 1982. However, as Lord Denning constitutional matters to share with you the put it in his famous obiter dictum in the overall orientation the Québec Government Blackburn Affair, “legal theory does not intends to promote in its talks with its always coincide with political reality”. This partners in the Canadian federation. is clearly a utopian consideration which April 17, 1982 is a historic date for is nevertheless possible in law strictly Canada. It was on this day that Elizabeth construed since a choice was made to II, Queen of Canada, proclaimed the proceed via Westminster rather than acting Constitution Act of 1982 on Parliament by Canadian Proclamation. Hill in Ottawa. After more than 55 years As we know, nothing obliged Canada of difficult discussions which, on some to ask Westminster to put an end to the occasions, even plunged Canadian feder- last vestige of its colonial status. The alism into profound crises, Canada cut its Canadian Parliament and the provinces

157 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

could have unilaterally proclaimed their The Québec Government therefore independence and the changes they intended hopes that constitutional talks will be to make sovereignly to the compromise resumed. However, conditions have not of 1867. Resorting one last time to the been satisfied for beginning serious, formal old colonial mechanism, facilitated the constitutional negotiations. Certain points possibility of Ottawa acting without the must be clarified first. For instance, Ottawa provinces’ agreement since the Canadian must indicate what, in its words, might Parliament had the power to act alone to be meant by signing a constitutional amend the Canadian Constitution legally, agreement “with honor and enthusiasm”, if not legitimately, as clarified by the as stated by the Prime Minister of Canada, Supreme Court of Canada in its famous Mr. Mulroney. September 28, 1981 patriation reference. It should be stressed that it is not only We should also mention that resorting up to Québec to act. Our federal partners to the old colonial mechanism made it all must not sit back idly; we expect concrete the easier for Ottawa and the other nine action on their part, action that is likely to provinces to disregard Québec despite its steer the talks in the right direction. The refusal to accept these fundamental changes ball in not only in Québec’s Court but also to the Canadian Constitution. This refusal in that of the federation that isolated one has no judicial consequence since the of the main partners that created it in Constitution was patriated legally. The 1867. We wish to talk with partners, who Constitution Act of 1982 applies to Québec must begin by showing concrete proof of despite its disagreement, however, the politi- their desire to make good the injustice that cal consequences are very real. Since it does the Constitution Act of 1982 represents not accept the Constitution Act of 1982, for Québec. Québec refuses to vote on any constitutional This is not the time for listing the amendment. For instance, we refuse to vote errors committed by one side or the other. on any amendment proposal dealing with Instead, it is time for cooperation and the Senate, entrenching property rights understanding. Québec will tackle these in the charter, or making changes to the constitutional talks determinedly and rights of aboriginal peoples, with whom firmly but also with an open mind, as we sympathize greatly. dictated by the higher interests of Québec Clearly, Québec does not object to the and Canada. However, you will agree with fact that Canada recovered full jurisdiction me that Québec’s isolation cannot continue over its own constitution from London. much longer without jeopardizing the very What we do object to is that patriation was foundation of true federalism. used as a pretext for substantially modifying Nor is it time for giving a backhand the Canadian Constitution without taking sweep and starting all over again. Québec’s historic rights into consideration. Absolutely not. Not everything contained Four years after the proclamation of in the Constitution Act of 1982 is negative. the Constitution Act of 1982, Québec, headed After four years of being interpreted by by a new government, still does not adhere our courts, the Charter of Rights and to this act. No Québec Government, regard- Freedoms, for instance, is, on the whole, a less of its political tendencies, could sign document which we, as Quebecers and the Constitution Act of 1982 in its present Canadians, can be proud of. Its greatest form. However, if certain modifications were merit no doubt lies in gradually giving us made, it could be acceptable to Québec. a new outlook on the respect of human

158 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

rights. This is why our first decision as the As far as we are concerned, recognition new government last December was to of Québec’s specificity is a pre-requisite to stop systematically using, as the former any talks likely to persuade Québec to government had done, the “notwithstanding” support the Constitution Act of 1982. clause in Québec statutes, to depart from Québec’s identity is the culmination of a sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian slow social and political evolution. At the Charter. We want the fundamental rights time of the conquest of 1760, a unique of Quebecers to be as well protected as francophone community existed with its those of other Canadians. own customs, mentality, lifestyle and civil, religious and military institutions. These The only valid reason for systematically were the true Canadians whereas the using the departure clause could be as a conquerors were Englishmen. The Québec symbol, a symbol of Québec’s disputing the Constitution Act of 1982. We feel that Act of 1774 and the Constitution Act of this symbol is empty of meaning. We do not 1791, which created Lower Canada, confirm have the right to take Quebecers hostage the French Canadian’s unique character for the purposes of constitutional talks. As by giving them their first legal bases of Québec’s Government, we refuse to deprive existence and expression by permitting our people of such fundamental constitu- them to conserve their civil law and their tional rights as: the right to life, liberty religion and by establishing a parliamen- and security of the person, the right to a tary system. Then came the Act of Union of just, fair trial and equality rights. Without in 1840, which followed the Durham Report any manner accepting the Constitution Act drafted after the unrest of 1837-1838. In of 1982, we wanted to be fair to Quebecers, guise of retaliation, this Act united Upper who are also full-fledged Canadians. and Lower Canada into a single political entity. This was the birth of the two desig- If the Canadian Charter poses few nations, “French Canadians” and “English problems for being acceptable to Québec, Canadians”, that the British North America the same is not true for other aspects of Act sanctioned in 1867 both in letter and the Constitution Act of 1982 which, in many in spirit. respects, opposes Québec’s historic rights. More than a century would go by before On December 2, 1985, the population a national Québec character emerged from of Québec clearly gave us the mandate this French Canadian people. During the of carrying out our electoral program, one hundred years of federation, Quebecers which states the main conditions that would increasingly become aware of could persuade Québec to support the their identity in terms of their provincial Constitution Act of 1982. government and in terms of a common These conditions are: good which was increasingly identified • Explicit recognition of Québec as with their society. a distinct society; This identity must not in any way be • Guarantee of increased powers in jeopardized. We must therefore be assured matters of immigration; that the Canadian Constitution will explicitly • Limitation of the federal spending recognize the unique character of Québec power; society and guarantee us the means neces- • Recognition of a right of veto; sary to ensure its full development within • Québec’s participation in appointing the framework of Canadian federalism. judges to the Supreme Court of Recognition of the unique nature of Canada. Québec gives rise to the need for obtaining

159 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

real guarantees for our cultural safety. is completely unfair to Québec. My col- This safety is translated notably by the sole league, the minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard power to plan our immigration, in order D. Levesque, was right in denouncing to maintain our francophone character by Ottawa’s attitude in his recent budget. countering or even reversing demographic Ottawa unilaterally changed the rules for trends that forecast a decrease in Québec’s applying equalization. It is unacceptable relative size within Canada. for Ottawa to have acted unilaterally to Cultural safety and security also signifies change the rules for the application of the possibility of Québec acting alone in the principle of equalization, which is its fields of jurisdiction without inter- entrenched in section 36 of the Constitution ference from the federal government Act of 1982. The general parameters for through its spending power. You are no applying this principle, which is funda- doubt aware that this power allows Ottawa mental to our federal system, must be to spend sums of money in any area it written into the Constitution. In this way, wishes whether it falls under federal modifying these parameters would mean jurisdiction or not. This situation has resorting to the amending formula. This become intolerable. For all provinces it provides a further reason for demanding has become a type of “sword of Damocles” revision of the amending formula hereby hanging menacingly over all planned protecting Québec from any changes likely policies of social, cultural or economic to affect its rights. development. Bill C-96 dealing with the The current amending formula is unac- financing of health and post-secondary ceptable to Québec because it does not education, which is before the Canadian make provision for financial compensation Parliament, is a good example of this in case of withdrawal, and because it permits situation. This bill is clearly unjust and changing federal institutions or accepting discriminatory as far as Québec is con- a new province into the federation despite cerned. It represents a lack of earning Québec’s objection. We therefore demand a totalling $ 82 000 000 in 1986-1987. It right of veto able to protect us adequately would be desirable for the Federal against any constitutional amendment Government to remove itself from the which goes against Québec’s interests. areas which are not within its jurisdiction. The Constitution is not always changed However, it would be unacceptable for the formally using the amending formula. The Federal Government not to consequently Supreme Court of Canada, the Highest Court give these financial resources to the provin the land, can, for all intents and purposes, inces. It appears increasingly necessary to impose constitutional amendments upon us subject the exercise of the spending power through its interpretation of the Constitution. to the provinces’ approval. Doing so would The role of our Supreme Court is also contribute greatly to improving the func- significant for the respect of certain values tioning of the present federal system. that are essential to Québec’s specificity Should Bill C-96 be passed by the such as: civil law and, from certain points Canadian Parliament, the result would of view, fundamental rights and freedoms. certainly have a severe impact on the We must therefore be entitled to participate progress of constitutional talks. in the process of selecting and appointing Spending power related to the principle the Supreme Court judges. of equalization is much more acceptable. We also wish to point out a very However, once again, the current situation important question left hanging since the

160 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

proclamation of the Constitution Act of the right to instruction in its mother tongue 1982, namely, since sections 41 and 42 for one of the two national minorities refer to the Supreme Court, is the latter, always appropriate? We want to discuss by this very fact, constitutionalized? these issues and many others with the The question is important since, if the Federal Government and the other prov- answer is positive, the composition of the inces in an attempt to improve the situation Supreme Court is constitutionalized and of francophones outside Québec. unanimity is required to change it. In this Furthermore, these improvements to way, Québec sees itself ensuring the fact section 23 could only benefit Québec’s that 3 Supreme Court judges must come anglophone minority. Clearly, the problems from the Québec Bar or magistrature. We encountered by francophones outside consider this the required minimum. Québec and anglophones within Québec However, if the answer is negative, this are not identical. However, we wish to guarantee no longer exists and the ensure Québec’s anglophones of their Federal Government remains the sole language rights. These rights must natu- master of our Supreme Court in general. rally fall within the context of Québec This is clearly unacceptable in a federation society’s francophone character and the like ours, given the essential role played government’s firm desire to ensure its full by the Supreme Court in its very evolution. development. In short, our stipulations for supporting Québec’s future is within Canada. This the Constitution Act of 1982 are based on is the heartfelt conviction of the huge three main objectives: making the Act majority of Quebecers just as it is the acceptable to Québec, improving it to the prime, fundamental commitment of this benefit of the entire Canadian federation government. We believe in Canadian feder- and improving the situation of francophones alism because, within the federal system, living outside the province of Québec. Québec can be faithful to its history and its This last point is especially important unique identity while enjoying favorable to us. In fact, the situation of francophones conditions for its full economic, social and outside of Québec will be one of our major cultural development. concerns during the upcoming constitu- Stating our full, complete belonging to tional talks. Their situation could be greatly Québec and to Canada involves stating as improved, for example, by specifying in significantly as possible our keen regret paragraph 3B of section 23 that the and feeling of helplessness about what expression “minority-language educational occurred at the time of the patriation of facilities” includes the right to manage- the Constitution. ment. There has already been a ruling to As Quebecers and as Canadians, we this effect by the Ontario Court of Appeal. cannot accept the fact that important However, the case, which was a reference amendments to our country’s Constitution for an opinion by the Ontario Government, were made without us and, in some did not go to the Supreme Court. respects, contrary to Québec’s historic Why not take advantage of these consti- rights. This is why Québec’s new govern- tutional talks to clarify this point which is so ment and the population of Québec, in the important for the survival of francophones interests of Québec and Canada, would outside Québec? It would perhaps also be like matters to be corrected. Mention has timely to question the well-known concept been made of signing “with honor.” of “where numbers warrant.” Is limiting Certainly, since what we are asking for is

161 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

the respect of the dignity and pride of the with “isolationism” or “xenophobia” but people of Québec and respect of the rather with “excellence.” More than ever, province’s historic rights. “With enthu- we, Quebecers, we, French Canadians, siasm”—this too is possible if Québec is must recall our history and remember once again made the major partner in that we owe our survival to the dangers the Canadian federation that it had that aroused the sense of daring and always been. excellence in our ancestors. The election of a Liberal government in Our existence as a people and our Québec last December signifies a new era belonging to the Canadian federation is for federal-provincial and interprovincial a challenge to history. Faithful to our relations. Faithful to our federalist commit- history and confident in our future, Québec ment, we want to guarantee Québec its intends to devote its efforts to continuing rights as a distinct society and major to meet this challenge and, within partner in the Canadian federation. Canada, make Québec a modern, just and Québec nationalism is not dead, far dynamic society. We must remember that from it. It is thriving more than ever but in our present is a token of our future. a different form. It is no longer synonymous Source: Text of the speech.

162 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peech by Robert Bourassa, Prime sibilities and we will not let go of an S Minister of Québec, upon the tabling agreement that is fundamentally good, now of the motion proposing that the Québec and for future generations, for the people National Assembly authorize the amend- of Québec. We will not let this historic ment of the Canadian Constitution in opportunity slip past us for taking a step compliance with the Meech Lake Accord, forward, an important step for future, all June 18, 1987. the more so, as I said this morning during the question period, that there are other ••• matters that must retain our attention during the coming weeks and months. [Translation] Likewise, there is obviously this engage- Mr. Speaker, as a departure from my ment in the political agreement that was usual habits of which you are well aware, attached to the constitutional accord and this time I will refer to my written notes that calls upon the various governments to owing to interpretations that could be act as soon as possible. Since we have held made before the courts. In following the this 55-hour Parliamentary Commission, process of law, a member’s statements and we can now proceed with the adoption. intentions may be quite useful. Hence, I will Mr. Speaker, there can be no doubt attempt to be as precise and succinct as that Québec is an undisputed winner in possible and I must abstain from making this 1987 constitutional operation. The humorous remarks at the expense of the winnings are substantial. The constitution Head of the Official Opposition. will recognize for the first time in 120 […] years of history that Québec is a distinct Mr. Speaker, first I want to mention society. The constitution will finally offer a and briefly review the reasons, without place for Québec and it is a place of going into details, since the Government honour: Section 2 of the Act of 1867. The Leader earlier gave all the reasons that constitution will ensure for Québec the could justify proceeding immediately with means for preserving and promoting its much eloquence and conviction. As he distinct character and will provide a consti- said, Québec assumed leadership in this tutional basis for the realities of French operation. Our proposals were discussed life in Québec. The constitution will ensure at length at the inter-governmental level. for Québec the security it requires for its The Member from Jean Talon as Minister development within the federation. As such, in charge travelled to all the provinces on I wish to enumerate the powers we have several occasions to discuss this issue. He obtained: did an exceptional job. There was the increased powers over immigration; meeting in August 1986 where the first powers in matters of appointing judges ministers unanimously accepted to give to the Supreme Court; priority to the constitutional issue. There also was a confirmation of this decision increased powers regarding the reform in November 1986 at a meeting held in of federal institutions; Vancouver and the two constitutional confer- increased powers over the exercising of ences, on April 30th and June 3rd. Thereafter, the federal spending power and guaran- there were 55 hours of Parliamentary Com- tees regarding the eventual exercising mission, and finally today, the government of two rights for opting out, the first in complies with the Accord and respects its the amendment formula and the second engagement. We are assuming our respon- in the federal spending power.

163 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

If we seek to be more precise, Mr. Speaker, In all and this is extremely important, we must first note that with the distinct so- Mr. Speaker, we have for the first time in ciety, we’re making a major stride forward 120 years of federalism, provided the con- that is not just symbolic, because this coun- stitutional basis for the preservation and try’s Constitution will henceforth be inter- promotion of the French character of Québec. preted in conformity with this recognition. As regards immigration, which is The French language is one of the basic obviously an increasingly important power characteristics of this specific reality, but for Québec—considering the demographic it is a reality that includes other aspects such circumstances of which we are aware—we as culture and political, economic and legal must preserve a fragile demographic equi- institutions. As we have said many times librium. First of all, Québec’s determination before, we have not wanted to precisely to control its immigration is recognized define in order to avoid reducing the Na- everywhere. At home, Quebecers want to tional Assembly’s role in promoting such ensure demographic equilibrium and main- specificity. It must be observed that Québec’s tain its French character. Outside Québec, specificity will be protected and promoted they want to safeguard their stake in the by the National Assembly and the govern- population of Canada, a critical factor of ment, whereas duality will be preserved their relative weight within the Canadian by the legislators. federation. As a minority community in It must be emphasized that the entire Canada and North America, Québec society Constitution, including the Charter, will be is different from that which surrounds it interpreted and applied in light of this section and tools for controlling immigration are on the distinct society. The exercising of essential. We must ensure that the growing legislative jurisdictions is addressed and arrival of new Quebecers consolidates instead that will allow us to consolidate acquisitions of weakening the numerical importance of and gain further ground. Québec society. Under Section 2 concerning the speci- Powers to act in this area are determin- ficity of Québec, we have obtained sure ing. Québec obtains the guarantee that it and solid constitutional means for consoli- may—if it so desires—annually receive dating our powers over linguistic matters. within the total number of immigrants to Thanks to the drafting of the section, Canada, a number of immigrants correspon- especially the protection clause, the powers ding to its demographic weight, plus 5%. of the National Assembly are maintained Québec obtains the power to select those and protected. There will no longer be immigrants who wish to come here. This any erosion of our linguistic jurisdiction. power is to be exercised obviously within Backslipping will no longer be possible; the general rules of eligibility and immi- this provides absolute protection, as I have gration policies of Canada with regard to previously stated on many occasions before the reunification of families. Québec alone the National Assembly. The only path that will be responsible for the adaptation and we are pursuing is that of reinforcing and integration of immigrants. consolidating the French language. As regards the Supreme Court, Québec The only limits to our jurisdiction may as a distinct society wants to ensure that be found under sections 23 of the Charter it is adequately represented in the Supreme and 133 of the 1867 Act. The right to resort Court, the ultimate arbitrator of the Consti- to section 33 of the Canadian Charter, when- tution. The constitutional status of the ever necessary, is integrally maintained. Supreme Court has been preserved. It is

164 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

therefore seen as being above a single The defining of these national objectives level of government. That is not all. Owing will necessarily be made in cooperation to the duality of the two systems of law in with the provinces, and we are given the Canada, Québec has demanded to be ade- assurance that the exercising of the defini- quately represented in the Court by a guar- tion of these objectives will be performed antee of three judges and by Québec’s within the ordinary framework of inter- contribution to the selection and appoint- governmental relations in Canada, i.e. ment of the judges. finally within the framework of ordinary In the June 3rd Accord, Québec obtained political negotiations. this guarantee of three judges and it ob- We have taken special care to ensure tained that from now on, Ottawa must that the recognition of a right to opt out for choose them from a list of candidates sug- Québec does not entail the legal recognition gested by the government of Québec. of federal power to implement programs As regards the federal spending power, in provincial jurisdictions. As such, the new its exercise, the best framework that was Section 106a is drafted in such a manner obtained is this guarantee of flexibility and as to refer only to the right of opting out respect for provincial jurisdictions. The without recognizing or defining the federal exercising of the federal spending power spending power. To be doubly sure, we has been, especially over the last 30 years, have insisted that that a reservation or an area of constant friction between the protection clause be added and that it be federal government and the provinces. specified that the legislative powers of the Québec has always vigorously denounced federal Parliament not be increased. Hence, the unilateral exercising of this spending Québec maintains the faculty to challenge power which has proven to be the equivalent before the courts any use of the federal spend- of genuine de facto constitutional amending power that would be unconstitutional. ments made to the sharing of legislative Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is this recog- jurisdictions. nition of a right of veto, the capacity to say The June 3rd Constitutional Accord is a no to a change that would go against the significant step in the evolution of relations interests of Québec. Any constitutional gain between the federal government and pro- would have little meaning if the Consti- vincial governments, since this profoundly tution could once more be changed without changes the dynamics experienced to date. Québec’s agreement. We have obtained The introduction of a guaranteed right to —pardon the expression—double-bolted opt out along with appropriate financial security. Québec will be entitled to reason- compensation for provinces that do not able compensation in all events where it want to participate in a new shared-cost dissociates itself from a change involving program constitutes a major step forward. the transfer of provincial jurisdiction to This right of opting out does not mean the the federal Parliament. end of national programs. It does mean, Québec has obtained a full right of veto however, that these programs will be de- upon all changes involving the following signed within a context more respectful of subjects: the representation of provinces provinces and that Québec will enjoy requi- in the House of Commons, Senate reform, site flexibility for implementing the means certain attributes of the Supreme Court, and programs, which while remaining com- the extension of existing provinces into patible with national objectives will reflect the territories or the establishment of new its own needs to a greater extent. provinces.

165 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Hence, Mr. Speaker, here are the determine its internal constitution and to advantage —briefly but succinctly—that freely express its determination to main- we have obtained. During the Parlia- tain the Canadian federal union or to put mentary Commission, the right to the self- an end to it. It succinctly recognizes the determination of Québec was deliberated. right of the people of Québec to dispose of Questions were raised as to what would be- its future freely. This is a resolution that come of Québec’s right to self-determination. was adopted by the Liberal Party in 1980 My answer in the Parliamentary Commis- and that has not been modified in any sion to the Head of the Official Opposition way—it still forms a part of the program— was that the Liberal Party had recognized or affected by the adoption of the Meech this right and continued to recognize this Lake Accord. right. Furthermore, there is to be found Here then is a step forward that will in this free and voluntary expression of be accomplished with the adoption of this Québec’s participation in the Constitu- resolution. For 200 years now, since the tional Act of 1982, a specific expression of beginning of its history, Québec has had to the right of the people of Québec to dispose struggle continuously. Significant progress of their own destiny, as we so did more has been accomplished by our society, by explicitly in 1980 by choosing the Cana- our people, especially since the beginning dian option. of the Quiet Revolution and, above all, In this respect as in all other aspects over the past decades in the economic of the Meech Lake Accord, there is no back- sector. With the adoption of this resolution, sliding for Québec, no renunciation, no we will enjoy greater political stability. decrease in Québec’s rights and prerogatives. True patriotism is that which is expressed I would like to quote, Mr. Speaker, the by this will to struggle and progress col- resolution that was adopted by the Liberal lectively and individually. Party, which remains in force and which The Meech Lake Accord, Mr. Speaker, forms a part of the constitutional program is for us one of the most beautiful and of the Liberal Party. It was adopted at the strongest demonstrations of enlightened Montreal policy conference held on Feb- patriotism that we have had in this th st nd ruary 29 , March 1 and 2 1980 and at National Assembly since the beginning of the General Council in St-Hyacinthe held its history. I am proud and convinced that th th on July 5 and 6 1980 when the Minister my pride is shared by the great majority of Education was the Head of the Liberal of all our fellow citizens. Thank you. Party. In this resolution, it is said that the Source: Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, Liberal Party recognizes Québec’s right to June 18, 1987, p. 8707-8710.

166 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

econciliation: A Québec View. a minority. Here, the weight of numbers R Speech by Claude Ryan, Minister of favors francophones and it is a powerful Education, Minister of Higher Educa- lever […] The problem can be succinctly tion and Science, Minister responsible formulated as follows: How can we inte- for the administration of the French grate the new Québec in present-day Language Charter, given at a seminar on Canada without curbing Québec’s forward language rights and policies, Kingston, drive and without risking the breaking up December 8, 1989 (extract). of the country?” ••• Whilst using different terms, the Pépin- Robarts Report reached the same conclusion […] twelve years later. “We firmly express our To fully understand the meaning of conviction, said the authors of the Report: Meech Lake in the eyes of Québec, we Québec is different and should be vested must remember the significant work with the necessary powers to ensure the accomplished in Canada over a quarter preservation and development of its distinct century on the linguistic and constitutional character within a viable Canada. Any polit- front. Since the Quiet Revolution of the ical solution that would not satisfy these sixties, Québec has never ceased to assert expectations would lead to a dismember- its conviction that important changes must ment of Canada.” be made to the Canadian constitutional Under Mr. Trudeau, the federal govern- order. Two federal commissions, the ment implemented the recommendations Laurendeau-Dunton Commission in 1967 of the Commission Laurendeau-Dunton on and the Pépin-Robarts Commission in 1979 linguistic rights. However it totally ignored studied these questions. By different paths, the conclusions reached by the Commission both arrived at converging conclusions. on the political dimension of the problem. They both concluded that the answer to As for the Pépin-Robarts Report, the federal the uneasiness surrounding Québec-Canada government did not act on it and it was relations should be sought at two levels, soon forgotten. that of linguistic rights and that of equality between our two leading communities (or On the constitutional level the first major societies). step since the publication of these reports was the adoption of the Constitution Act of The well-known Dunton-Laurendeau 1982. Although it had some unquestioned Commission report summarized in these words the purely political aspect of the qualities, the 1982 Act was adopted and problem of equality: “We have in mind the implemented without Québec’s approval. power of decision of each group and its Today, Québec is judged in a severe, even freedom to act not only in its cultural cavalier manner as though it was chiefly aspect but in all aspects of its collective responsible for the present confusion and life […] We are concerned with the degree uncertainty. It takes a great deal of unaware- of control each of the two communities ness, ignorance and arrogance to treat and has over its government or governments.” judge Québec as though it was the aggressor. Applying this reflection to the case of In reality it was the victim of an operation Québec, the report goes on as follows: that for the first time since the beginning “Québec is the only province where franco- of the Confederation brutally excluded it phones form a majority and the anglophones from a major constitutional reform.

167 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

In light of our recent past, the Meech gains for the provinces. It defines, in this Lake Accord represents a welcome break- regard, a significant re-adjustment whose through under three different aspects. main elements, from the viewpoint of a First of all, the Accord deals for the first Quebecer, strike me as being the following: time with the political dimension of the a) the article which enlarges the problem. Secondly, the Accord, as its name right of veto of the provinces to reveals, is the expression of a written amendment touching notably the agreement reached between and signed by proportional representation of the the heads of all legitimate governments of provinces in the federal parliament, Canada, including Québec. Finally, the Ac- the powers of the Senate and nomi- cord, although not complete and not perfect, nations to this body, the nominations brings some improvement in the areas of to the Supreme Court, the creation language and of sharing of powers, improve- of new provinces and the extension ments that are significant for Québec and of existing provinces all respond at the same time compatible with the prop- to requests frequently expressed by er functioning of the Canadian federation. Québec. These clauses will permit, if they are ratified, the prevention of On the linguistic front, the Meech Lake the deplorable repetition of consti- Accord above all, retained attention because tutional experiences such as the one of the recognition we find therein of the of 1982; distinct character of Québec society. It is b) the article guaranteeing the right important to underline that this recogni- of a province to withdraw in return tion takes the form of an interpretive rule for fair financial compensation in whose true meaning will reveal itself with the case of any amendment imply- decisions to be made in the future by the ing a transfer of powers represents courts. By virtue of a clause in the Accord, a significant enlargement in com- Québec is recognized as having the respon- parison to the clause which we find sibility of protecting and promoting its in the Constitutional Act of 1982. distinct character. However, Québec equally This enlargement responds to a de- accepts to be tied to another clause of the sire frequently expressed by Québec; Accord which obliges the federal govern- c) the articles relative to the nomina- ment and the provinces to protect the funda- tion of members of the Senate and mental characteristic of Canada consisting the Supreme Court create a new in the existence in this country of French- dynamic by implicating both the Speaking citizens concentrated in Québec provinces and the federal authority but also present in the rest of the country in the nomination process. Despite and of English-Speaking Canadians concen- the risks of an impasse that they trated in the rest of the country but also carry, these clauses are susceptible present in Québec. I do not see in what to contribute to the quality and rep- respect these clauses of the Accord may resentativity of the nominations; constitute a danger to the integrity of the d) the section relative to immigration country. They were almost literally repro- permits to recognize the particular duced from the recommendations already situation of Québec in matters of made by the Pepin-Robarts Commission immigration. It provides the neces- in 1979. sary constitutional means so that With respect of the division of powers, this situation is taken into account the Meech Lake Accord represents important in Canadian immigration policies;

168 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

e) the section relative to the federal Québec. Québec faces this matter in a very spending power provides interesting particular historic, geographic and eco- precisions for both Québec and the nomic context which justifies an approach rest of Canada. Without rendering inspired by the principle of territoriality. judgment on the power to spend The rest of the country, and in particular the to institute programs in fields of federal parliament, are more inclined to provincial competence exercised at adopt an approach which puts the emphasis times by the federal government on the equality of individuals, be they franco- —the Accord recognizes the right of phone or anglophone. Rather than opposing a province to withdraw, matched here two approaches and seeking to elim- with financial compensation in inate the effects of one by reference to cri- regards to these programs on the teria borrowed from the other, it would be condition that this province can more productive and more just to try to offer a program compatible with understand each approach. Québec, for national objectives. The coming onto its part, seeks to conserve its complete scene of this concept of national responsibility in matters of linguistic objectives is another major inno- arrangements in its territory. The role of vation of the Meech Lake Accord. the courts within this perspective should Because the Meech Lake Accord repre- be approached with prudence. Linguistic sented the first valid response of the rest rights are rarely absolute rights. As the of Canada to the aspirations it has formu- Supreme Court has already indicated, lated for more than a quarter century and they are more often than not, the fruit of which came to confirm and reinforce two political and historical compromises. From federal commissions of inquiry, Québec this, we note the large differences that adhered quickly, without equivocation and exist in this matter from one country to without tergiversation, to this agreement, another and from one society to another. taking for granted that the other govern- To seek to settle our linguistic policy de- ments and their respective populations bates by invoking fundamental liberties would do the same. After all the frustra- conceived to be applied mainly for other tions experienced over twenty-five years, matters, is to risk engaging the country after all the starts-ups we have witnessed, along an unrealistic path. it would be profoundly deplorable that Québec is aware, on the other hand, English Canada now seek to unilaterally of the negative effect which its policies and without valid reason renege upon the regarding commercial signs and admissi- solemn commitment made by the federal bility to English schools have had on public government and all the provincial govern- opinion in English Canada. On commercial ments. signs, we do not share the opinion according In light of what has been said and of to which the decisions taken by the Nation- certain recent developments, I wish to al Assembly of Québec are a negation of advance, in closing, some observations fundamental individual liberties; rather, we regarding possible paths of reconciliation believe that these decisions are related to between Québec and the rest of the country. public order and stem from the policy which Firstly, it appears to me important to seeks to publicly express the French char- bear in mind that linguistic policy, as to its acter of Québec. Regarding admissibility origin and application, stems from very to English schools, the experience of thirty different conceptions between Ottawa and years, from 1945 to 1975, had clearly

169 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

demonstrated that in the absence of a linguistic policy, the objectives defined in precise legal framework, immigrants, by Bill C-72 appear to me as just and worthy more than 80%, opted for English language of being pursued. schools, even when their mother tongue was Fourthly, we are, in regards to Meech neither French nor English. This tendency Lake, proceeding towards a crossroads resulted from the very strong attraction of whose consequences are likely to be very English in North America. serious for the future of the country. It is Beyond these controversial cases, essential that English Canada respects the Québec scrupulously respects individual word given through the signature of its polit- rights which are truly fundamental; it ical leaders. This is all the more essential does so in light of a Charter of Human that after having had the representations Rights and Freedoms which it gave itself of the legislatures which have yet to ratify in 1975 and which overrides all other laws the Accord, we are forced to conclude, just as adopted since that date. Québec equally the Attorney General of Ontario, Mr. Ian Scott accords to its minority a treatment, which recently did, that note of the arguments in a very general manner, compares more put forward to contest the Meech Lake than advantageously with what we may Accord resists a serious critique. The con- observe elsewhere in Canada. However that sequences of a refusal of the Meech Lake may be, misunderstandings have occurred, Accord, would, in my view, be disastrous to which we must pay close attention. for the unity and cohesion of the country. Québec will remain disposed to examine In Québec such a refusal would surely with respect representations of which it engender a reaction of heightened disaffec- may be apprised in this matter. It loyally tion towards the federal Canadian project. seeks any improvement susceptible to We have however nothing to waste in this creating a more serene climate in regards regard. to relations between anglophones and Finally, I believe, for the advancement francophones without at the same time of the debate, in the very large usefulness compromising the fundamental objectives of exchanges which bring together univer- of its policy. sity people, men and women politicians, Thirdly, it appears to me as important journalists and commentators, communi- that we continue in federal institutions, to cation specialists and leaders of business practice a policy inspired by the principles enterprises and labour associations. These which over the past twenty years have exchanges may appear to be non-productive marked interventions by Ottawa in this to those who judge them with narrow em- domain. Even though the idea of a perfect- phasis upon immediate results. However, ly symmetrical bilingualism at the level they permit a sifting of opinions which of the provinces and regions would be advances the debate by obliging each par- unrealistic, this ideal remains worthy of our ticipant to clarify his ideas by confronting common adherence at the level of federal them with those of others. A Conference like institutions. The ideal of federal bilingual- this one favours exchanges which are free, ism is defined, in part, in the Constitution more spontaneous, more unbiased than itself and in part in the federal official those that take place between governments. Languages Act. Excepting the provisions The detachment which characterizes a in this latter law which could serve as a meeting such as this is in a certain sense pretext for federal interventions contrary a weakness, since its immediate chances of to the fundamental orientations of Québec’s influence on government decisions remain

170 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

limited. However, in the long run, it is often the real meaning of the problems to which as a result of such meetings that new ideas we have the formidable responsibility of take form and are subsequently translated providing answers which will permit this into government choices. I hope that the country to survive and to reinforce itself exchanges of this Conference will help us in full respect of its undeniable diversity. to perceive in a spirit of greater openness Source: Text of the speech, p. 11-21.

171 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peech by Robert Bourassa, Prime In this respect, Mr. President, I want to SMinister of Québec, delivered at the thank all my colleagues who stood up for Québec National Assembly upon the Québec. And I wish once more to point out rejection of the Meech Lake Accord, the particular work that was done by the June 22, 1990. Premier of Ontario, Mr. Peterson. ••• Last June 9th, we once again signed an agreement. All the first ministers agreed to [Translation] do everything possible to have the resolu- rd Please allow me at this time to dwell a tion adopted before June 23 . It is note- few moments on the excellent work that worthy that two provinces did not do so has been accomplished during this first and do not intend on doing so. part of the session this year, which has In 1987, an agreement was reached. involved several very important legislative Following three changes in government, pieces for all Quebecers. the signature that has been given by the Politically speaking, however, we must provinces was not respected. This time note that upon the adjournment of this again, in 1990, two provinces that had first part, the Meech Lake Accord has not agreed to do everything possible to have been ratified. Hence, the Québec resolu- the resolution adopted did not respect tion that was adopted three years ago less their commitment. Up until 1985, it was one day, no longer has any legal existence. said: “What does Québec want?” We clearly On behalf of all Quebecers, I want to expressed what it is that Québec wants. express my deepest disappointment, a dis- And the entire government team, and I wish appointment issuing from all the efforts to pay tribute to the Minister in charge, the that have been made by various adminis- member from Jean-Talon, who performed trations over the past ten years. an extraordinary task in handling this Ten years ago, following the referen- affair with his entire team, everyone in dum on May 20, 1980, the government of the team... Québec, then headed by Mr. Lévesque, made Hence, since 1985, the question is: several efforts to reintegrate Québec into “What does Canada want?” And we are the Canadian Constitution. He had demon- still waiting for Canada’s answer in this strated, if I refer to an expression used by respect. the Head of the Opposition this afternoon, Mr. President, English Canada must great flexibility, but with an obviously dis- clearly understand that, regardless of appointing result, since Québec had been what is said or done, Québec is today and excluded from the Canadian Constitution. always will be a society that is distinct, In 1985, we proposed to English Canada free and able to assume its destiny and conditions that were deemed by all to be development. moderate and reasonable. On three occa- Source: Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, sions, we agreed on all these conditions. June 22, 1990, p. 4134.

172 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

essage to the people by Robert performed with moderation. If we were M Bourassa, Prime Minister of Québec, moderate, it was because we wanted to following the failure of the Meech Lake succeed, but at the same time this moder- Accord, June 23, 1990. ation was to be a test of English Canada’s ••• willingness to understand Québec. As such, for three years we exercised patience and openness. In June 1987, the agreement [Translation] was ratified for the first time. It had been My dear fellow citizens, we now stand ratified previously on the basis of princi- at a crucial moment in our history. The ples in April 1987. Two weeks ago, once decision to reject the Meech Lake Accord again, it was accepted. We even agreed stirs new doubts regarding our political upon a second round of negotiations, to the future. Why is this so? For the next few preparation of a second round of negotia- moments, it is worthwhile to review the tions. Throughout all this, it must not be events of this past decade. We all recall forgotten that in August 1986, all the first that on May 20, 1980, Quebecers voted to ministers were in agreement to give prior- have Québec remain within the Canadian ity to the issue of Québec. federation. This referendum came after Two weeks later, two premiers were 20 years of significant progress. We also unable to respect their signature. Premier recall that 30 years ago yesterday, Québec’s Filmon, because of the question we all Quiet Revolution began which allowed its know, the obstruction by one Member, and assertion socially, culturally and economi- Premier Wells who decided not to respect cally. After the referendum, the adminis- his signature. I was surprised and very tration that preceded ours, as I mentioned disappointed. Mr. Wells is considered to be yesterday, made important efforts to assure a man of principles. But how could you Québec’s place within the Constitution. conciliate his principles with the fact that Finally in 1985, to make it possible to settle he is refusing to respect his signature? He the constitutional issue at least regarding criticized strongly the Prime Minister for the part for reintegrating Québec, we laid his actions during the Conference and down five conditions, no more no less, after. But in not respecting his signature, without any reservations for making deals. he has no lessons to give on the grounds of As the Opposition Leader so correctly stated, principles to the Prime Minister. the government of Québec and its First In this respect, the Prime Minister of Minister were in the position of taking a Canada was also accused of using all sorts risk with history. They took the risk, as I of tactics to successfully reintegrate Québec. said a few months back, of being accused I witnessed the efforts of the Prime Minister of lack of concern regarding the reinte- of Canada for one full week, during the gration of Québec in Canada. We took this dozens and dozens of hours that he devoted risk because we believed that was essential to convincing all his colleagues to accept that Québec regain its political stability. the Meech Lake Accord. He did not do as I wish to take this opportunity to thank some of his predecessors had done, who Mr. Parizeau for his support yesterday successfully struck a constitutional agree- evening. Québec is always stronger when ment by keeping Quebec out of the deal. it is united. These are the same people who, yester- This determination to find our place day, were criticizing the Prime Minister of within the Canadian family was therefore Canada. Politics can sometimes be quite

173 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

bizarre and in these circumstances, un- With the rejecting of the Meech Lake grateful for the Prime Minister of Canada. Accord, the Liberal Party of Québec’s pro- As regards manipulations, it’s curious gram was likewise rejected. We now need that no one mentioned this probability or a new program and it is normal that we hypothesis in the case of Amerindians, no take the time to discuss this matter with one, especially in English Canada. Yet it is Liberal Party militants, also to listen to rep- a well-known fact that by a killing the resentations that may be made by various Meech Lake Accord, we’re only delaying popular groups, in forums that remain to the solution of the native peoples problem. be organized. Meanwhile, the government of Québec intends on activating certain This leads me to express and make administrative issues that are important known to you the decisions of my adminis- for Québec. In particular, I am thinking of tration following this failure. One outcome the immigration issue. We’re very close to to be concluded from these negotiations is an agreement. We know how vital is for that the constitutional review process as the future of Québec in immigration mat- it exists in Canada is discredited. The ters to be able to have additional powers government of Québec does not accept to allowing us to consolidate our security in return to the negotiating table on consti- communications and in issues regarding tutional matters. There is no question of manpower training. discussing Senate reform, or discussing the Dear friends, in conclusion I wish to Canada Clause, and unfortunately no ques- say to you that in all these decisions and tion of also discussing constitutional reform those to come, the superior interest of that could involve the Amerindians. Québec will be the determining factor. How can you expect me to accept And in this respect in all these decisions, returning to the constitutional table when we will take into account the economic I refused to do so in 1986 before the dimension. On four occasions, Quebecers beginning of negotiations on the Meech have elected me to be their Premier. One Lake Accord? How could I return to the of the main reasons for this, and I say this table now that the accords have been humbly, is the priority that I’ve always rejected, after having been ratified? In given to reinforcing the Québec economy; addition, the position of my government that the strength of Québec, in my view, from now on is to negotiate bilaterally and always begins with its economic force. not with eleven entities, to negotiate with And we have many advantages in this re- the Canadian government that represents spect. It will therefore be necessary that in the entire population of Canada, bilateral these important decisions for our future, negotiations between the government of that the economic dimension be primor- Québec and the federal government. dial. It will also be necessary to take into Obviously, we will have negotiations account the dynamic energies of our cul- with other provinces on a bilateral basis. tural communities, of the historic and irre- It is also obvious that we may decide to placeable part played by the Anglophone participate in some conferences where community in Québec society, as well as the Québec’s interests are at stake, but never assistance that we may provide to French- on constitutional matters. In the current Speaking Communities outside Québec. context, I have decided not to participate In the preparation of its future, Québec in the conference to be held in Winnipeg has many very important advantages, and during the month of August, which each year in this preparation that will be one of our brings provincial first ministers together. main priorities over the coming months,

174 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

we have these advantages connected to the All in all, Québec is free to make its exceptional quality of our labour force, choices. But it must make its choice with connected to the dynamic force of our realism, serenity and lucidity. As for my- business people, the abundance of our self, I wish to assure you that my only natural resources and the exceptionally orientation will be the superior interest of strategic position of Québec’s geography the people of Québec. Thank you very much. in Canada and North America. Source: Text of the message.

175 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peech by Gil Rémillard, Minister of than four months of study by a parliamen- S Justice and Minister for Canadian tary committee. However, I know that, this Intergovernmental Affairs, at the Cana- morning, you are offering me this forum dian Bar Association Meeting, Whistler, in my capacity as minister for Canadian February 24, 1992. Intergovernmental Affairs. ••• I was pleased to accept your invitation to speak on the constitutional issue because I know that the Canadian Bar has I am particularly pleased to be with always defended the essential values of you at your mid-winter meeting. It wasn’t this country: freedom, democracy, pluralism so very long ago, before I became involved and tolerance. Your December research in politics in October 1985, that I had the report, “Rebuilding a Canadian Consensus,” pleasure of participating in your meetings is fitting testimony to this, while your invi- as a lawyer and law professor. I see friends tation reflects your legitimate concerns for here whom I am delighted to meet again. the future of the country and your desire I would have liked to participate in to understand the present situation, its your various weekend workshops, but I origins and its meaning. was detained in Québec City at the Justice We are at this critical juncture because Summit. Like all the other Canadian provin 1982 the Canadian Constitution was inces, Québec must thoroughly overhaul patriated despite the opposition of the the administration of justice, to improve Québec National Assembly. This is the main its quality and especially its accessibility. explanation for our present constitutional The summit, whose theme was “Justice, a problems. This constitutional “coup de Shared Responsibility,” made it possible force,” unprecedented in the history of our for us, in the four days of discussions, to country, is keeping one of the two found- lay the foundations for firm cooperation ing peoples out of the Canadian family. among all the main parties: judges, lawyers, We tend to forget that the primary notaries, workers, the business commu- objective of the Meech Lake Accord was to nity, social groups and government. At redress the injustice done to Québec in 1982. the summit, we decided, in particular, to By accepting Québec’s five conditions develop together a new approach towards —recognition of Québec as a distinct soci- justice based on prevention and alterna- ety, recovery of the veto, delimitation of tives to judicial procedures. Cooperation, federal spending powers, guarantees of mediation and arbitration are the key words constitutional power in immigration matters, in dealing with delays and in making jus- constitutional recognition of three judges tice truly accessible to all citizens, regard- from Québec on the Supreme Court—, less of their financial situation, ethnic origin, Canada redressed—five years later—the language, religion or other distinctive injustice of 1982 and undertook the com- characteristics. prehensive constitutional reform sought I would like to speak longer on this by all Canadian partners. subject, which is my main concern as min- You have to realize that, with the ister of Justice. You are all eminent jurists exception of the recognition of Québec as and your comments would prove of great a distinct society, each and every other use to me. I would also like to discuss the provision of the Meech Lake Accord ap- reform of our Civil Code, which was as- plied to all the provinces, which benefited sented to on December 18, after more from them. This was true of the provisions

176 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

concerning immigration, broadening of the institutions of the federation. Québec al- veto, delimitation of federal spending power, ready has this right, as do all the other the process by which judges are appointed provinces, in regard to the distribution of to the Supreme Court of Canada and the powers. The Constitution Act, 1982 indeed constitutionalization of the First Ministers’ provides for a right to opt out, but it carries Conference. The Meech Lake Accord thus with it financial compensation only with supplemented the Constitution Act, 1982 respect to transfers related to culture and and made it acceptable to Québec. education. The possibilities of such finan- Three times Quebecers saw the first cial compensation should be broadened so ministers sign the agreement and extol its as to include all cases of opting out, as virtues. They simply do not understand provided for in the Meech Lake Accord. how the 1982 hostile takeover could take As for the matters dealt with in section place again over their opposition, when 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982 (central Quebecers represent 25 % of the Canadian institutions, the Senate and the creation of population and are one of the founding provinces), Québec, as one of the major peoples of the federation. partners in the federation, is entitled to Quebecers will not accept an agree- demand that it have a say in any amendment that, in essence, would give them ment concerning those matters, since they less than Meech. This is the first principle are at the very heart of the federal com- that will guide us as a government in exam- promise of 1867. ining any federal proposal. On the eve of Like the other Canadian provinces, we the report of the Beaudoin-Dobbie Com- want the Canadian federation to progress mission, it is undoubtedly worthwhile to in step with the evolution of the country. It recall the other principles that we feel are is obvious that we must, for example, inescapable in the current debate. strengthen our economic union; this is Québec must, first of all, be recognized another principle that will guide us in our as a distinct society. We simply want a evaluation of Canadian offers. Québec’s historic reality, upheld in constitutional texts support for the Winnipeg Intergovernmental since at least the Québec Act, 1774, to be Agreement on government procurement used in court to interpret our Constitution. contracts exceeding $ 25 000 in value is an We do not want to be considered superior important indication of what the provinces to the other provinces. We very simply can accomplish when they work together. want the distinct society clause to make it Québec shares the objective of a stron- possible for the courts to interpret the Cana- ger and more dynamic economic union. dian Constitution according to our reality We favour the principle of mobility of goods, and our history. This clause produced the people, capital and labour. We advocate demagoguery and intolerance that defeated the elimination of obstacles to the mobility Meech Lake. However, for the past few of the factors of production. We were not months, we have had the impression that the only province to say that the federal it is better understood and accepted by proposals are disproportionate compared Canadians. to the objectives that are to be pursued. Another essential principle is the veto, The courts should not manage the economy which I prefer to call the right to consent or intervene in the drafting or implementa- to any constitutional amendment that may tion of economic policy. Nor should federal affect the rights and powers of the Québec authorities be given unlimited powers that National Assembly or alter the central could destroy the powers of the provincial

177 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

legislatures. We must find means that call Another illustration is the Constitution Act, for cooperation in developing the Cana- 1982 and its amending formula, which dian economic union. enables a province to opt out of a consti- Furthermore, do we need a new institutional amendment and thereby acquire tution, the Council of the Federation, when a special status. we can easily get along with existing insti- Asymmetry and federalism are com- tutions? For example, the First Ministers’ patible. Without overestimating its impli- Conference on the economy, as was stipu- cations, we may view asymmetry as an lated in the Meech Lake Accord, could be important means of establishing a division constitutionalized and supplemented by a of powers likely to satisfy both Québec and permanent secretariat, which is already the other provinces, while consolidating in place and is responsible for preparing the foundations of the federal government federal-provincial conferences. We would in regard to its national responsibilities. thereby respect the principle of executive We also feel that the new distribution federalism, which is one of the main char- of powers must be constitutional in nature. acteristics of our Canadian federation and Simple administrative arrangements can which directly involves the provincial first be useful in certain areas of joint jurisdic- ministers in the drafting of national poli- tions, but we know that such agreements cies, through federal-provincial conferences. are always at the mercy of federal legisla- The search for greater effectiveness tion. They are not sufficient. We would do must also guide us in establishing a new a disservice to all levels of government by division of powers that will clearly delin- favouring systematic recourse to adminis- eate the jurisdictions of the two levels of trative agreements. government. We should find in the new constitution a division of power establishing Lastly, the territorial integrity of prov- a more functional, more cooperative federal- inces must be respected. The territory of ism that will reduce overlaps and guarantee a province may not be changed without that Québec and the other provinces have the province’s consent. This principle is the means necessary to protect and promote already entrenched in section 43 of the their distinctive characteristics. Constitution of 1982 and must be abided It will be recalled that the Pépin-Robarts by in any constitutional agreement rec- Commission of 1979 recommended asym- ognizing the right of the Aboriginal metrical federalism as a means to accom- peoples to self-government. The Québec modate not only Québec, but the other National Assembly has recognized the prin- provinces as well. It is the essence of fed- ciple of Aboriginal self-government in the eralism to meet the different needs of the framework of agreements with governments. federal partners. There have always been In 1975, we concluded, with Aborigi- asymmetrical elements in our constitution. nal Nations, an agreement recognizing their To wit the provisions of the Constitution Act, ancestral rights, and we have demonstrated 1867 concerning denominational schools that it is possible to establish harmonious (section 93), linguistic rights (section 133), relations with them when exaggeration property and civil rights (section 92), and and demagoguery are cast aside. I am the fact that, when they entered the fed- convinced that we are able to achieve as eration, the four western provinces did much in regard to the legitimate desire of not have jurisdiction over their natural the Aboriginal peoples for self-government. resources, in contrast to the other provinces. However, let it be clearly understood at

178 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

the outset that self-government indeed rest of Canada as well. It also appears signifies rights, but equally important from various testimonies that an economic obligations as well, and that it must be set association integrated into a political struc- up in the context of negotiated agreements, ture could result in harmonious, effective approved by the governments. cooperation for the betterment of the two The option favoured by the Québec communities. government is still profoundly renewed The deadline set forth by Bill 150 should federalism. The day after the failure of Meech, not be considered a sword of Damocles Prime Minister Bourassa announced that hanging over the head of Canadians. Quebe- his government would no longer participate cers have given themselves this instrument in federal-provincial conferences and that to finally put a stop to constitutional uncer- Quebecers were the ones to decide their tainties and build their future with serenity. own future. In the wake of the recommen- Bill 150 is no bluff. dations of the Bélanger-Campeau Commis- I am confident. The constitutional sion, the National Assembly adopted Bill conferences that concluded in this province 150, under which two parliamentary com- last weekend were a profitable exercise in mittees were created: one to examine offers that might be made by the federal govern- changing mentalities and attitudes. These ment and the other provinces; the other to conferences were unusual in that Cana- assess the impact of sovereignty. The work dians from all regions came to discuss the of these two committees is progressing momentous questions at the heart of the according to a strict timetable, established constitutional debate, and to voice diverg- by Bill 150, which provides for the holding ing points of view and possible basis for of a referendum on sovereignty no later than agreement. October 26, 1992. Our determination to settle the consti- For the good of Québec and the good tutional question once and for all springs of Canada, this timetable must be complied from the desire to protect our social and with. The process followed until now by cultural values and the conviction that Ottawa has abided by this timetable. Offers resolution of the matter is a sine qua non must reach us early enough for the parlia- for strengthening our economy. Economic mentary committee of the National Assembly strength and stability will enable Québec to examine them and carry out its mandate. and Canada to maintain and improve their The Liberal Party of Québec, which forms competitive position at the turn of the the government, will then hold a special century in a difficult and changing world congress during which members will eval- in which everything, not only state borders, uate the federal offers in light of the Allaire is questioned. Let us settle our constitution- Report, which is the constitutional position al problems and we will be able to work of the party. together to develop new social and economic As a government, we believe it is our models which will mirror our identity duty to do everything in our power to en- and values. able Quebecers to make an enlightened Federalism is built on principles which decision. The parliamentary committees can enable us to attain our objectives. are examining the two options carefully. Only by the will of men and women of this Sovereignty appears to be legitimate and county will we be able to transform those feasible. In the short term, it entails costs principles into reality. for Québec and, let’s not forget, for the Source: Text of the speech.

179 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

essage to the Nation by Jacques Our lives will be deeply affected over M Parizeau, the Prime Minister of the coming years owing to federal indebted- Québec, upon the issuing of the referen- ness. The head of the NO Option, Mr. Daniel dum briefs, Québec, October 1, 1995. Johnson explained this quite clearly: the ••• federal debt was created in $30 billion-per- year batches, essentially because in Ottawa people such as Jean Chrétien meddled in [Translation] our business by over-extending credit and Ladies and gentleman of Québec: spending money that no one has. Today, I signed the Order-in-council Today, enough is enough. While setting the date for the referendum. Next Mr. Chrétien says in Ottawa: cuts must be October 30th, each and every one of us will made. This is inevitable and it’s true but be called upon to perform one of the most where to cut? We are faced with hard choices. important acts of our lives. It will mean If we vote for the NO Option, we will saying who we want to be in our own be forcing on ourselves choices made by eyes, in those of our children, and in those others. If we vote for the YES Option, we watching us from abroad. will also have to make a collective effort, A people’s choice for sovereignty always that’s obvious. But we will be able to represents a decisive moment. The decision plough our efforts into our own choices to fully assume one’s destiny. The decision and priorities in answer to our own needs for us to make our laws and adapt them to and values. our values and our needs without request- Jean Chrétien and the NO Option have ing permission from others. The decision indicated these past days what they have to collect our own taxes and spend them chosen: if the people vote NO, they will on our own priorities. The decision above all force their choice to cut the pensions of to no longer be a minority in our English- new retirees—so when will they thereafter speaking neighbors’ country, but a majority in our own country. The affirmation once cut the pensions of current retirees? They and for all of our language and culture, have chosen to reduce or eliminate employ- that of a French-speaking people of the ment insurance benefits for many citizens, Americas. Basically, to finally be ourselves, especially women and young people. They simply ourselves. have chosen to impose on Québec some of the heaviest budgetary cuts in our history. As this century draws to a close, there On the one hand, they’re cutting into the is something absurd in our neighbor’s re- financing of the health-care system, day fusal to recognize our existence as a people. care centers and higher learning, yet on the In their refusal to treat us differently than other, they are using our taxes to construct as one province among others. In their luxurious mega-projects such as Hibernia refusal to even accept writing that we in Nova Scotia and a billion dollar bridge form a distinct society into their constitution. to Prince Edward Island. It is lamentable that the Prime Minister of Canada makes fun of us, as he did two Those are their choices. Choices where weeks ago, when explaining that being dis- we Quebecers have nothing to say. This is tinct means speaking English with an accent. decided in Ottawa, where we are increas- Actually, two futures are at stake on ingly a minority. October 30th: our collective future as a If on the other hand we vote YES, it people and our future as individuals: the then becomes possible for us to choose quality of our lives and that of our families. how our decisions will be managed. How

180 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

we will share our collective effort. If the Two weeks ago, someone who special- YES wins, we will have already made our izes in these questions explained it clearly. choice: we have chosen to protect current The President of the Bank of Montreal’s and future retirement pensions at their Mortgage Loan Corporation, Mr. Tom Alton, current level. This is our choice. We have explained that there is no reason to believe chosen to protect young people’s access to that interest rates would rise after a YES Cegep and university. This is our choice. vote. No reason whatsoever. Immediately We also have chosen not to confiscate the the Bank’s senior management issued a benefits to which young people and women gag order forbidding him from repeating are entitled. We also have chosen to insure this statement up to referendum time. the continuity of programs for children, to Why hide it? simplify and improve family policy. As for the economic impact of a YES vote, To make our choices, where will we as former Minister of Finance I agree with find the money? First of all, if the YES carries the evaluation made by former banker the day, we will recover the $28 billion we Michel Bélanger when he was chairman send each year in tax money to Canada. of the Bélanger-Campeau Commission. He We will also save nearly $3 billion cur- said: “There will be some small bumps in rently wasted because of duplicates services the road, but nothing that would be espe- at two levels of government. We will finally cially different from other small bumps have the power to decide on our investments that occur in other administrations.” in research and development. Québec has Why is this? Because Québec is the never had its fair share of these expendi- world’s 16th richest economy. Our resources, tures, which create employment. savings and investments, plus our highly But that will probably not be enough. educated work force, business executives Other choices will have to be made. Will and companies are solidly entrenched. we decide to reduce fiscal favors made to Nothing will change this. corporate billionaires? Or decide on a taxation reform so that everyone pays his or Furthermore, with a YES vote, we be- her fair share? Possibly decide on insuring lieve that new energy will be unleashed, that taxes on profits of large corporations triggering a second Quiet Revolution. will not disappear into mysterious tax shel- For instance after a YES vote, it will be ters? Maybe decide to enable each citizen, possible to take emergency steps to imple- each business and the state to save hun- ment a national strategy for job creation. dreds of millions of dollars and millions of As a province, we do not have the right lost hours because in one fell swoop we tools for doing this. But once a YES vote is will eliminate one-half of the red tape— made, we can then rely on our incredible since we will only have to fill out one income capacity for joining forces: our business tax report? executives, labour forces, cooperatives, our If on October 30th the answer is YES, cities and regions. It also then becomes then all of this becomes possible. possible to organize a genuine decentral- But will interest rates go up? After a ization of powers and resources for employ- YES vote, will it cost more to buy a house ment purposes. or an automobile? Those for the NO Many countries similar to ours in Option are trying to make us swallow this population size, yet whose economies are one. I only have two very simple comments not as rich as ours, succeed in bringing to make on this issue. unemployment down within a few years

181 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

thanks to concerted efforts. If they can do making Québec regress. In 1980 after the it, why not us? If we vote YES, we’ll be off NO vote, Jean Chrétien made Québec take to a start. another step backwards. Back then, this Another example: the situation of the came as a surprise to many people, including French language is excellent in nearly all Mr. Johnson. This time there is a difference, regions of Québec. But this is not the case we are forewarned. in Montréal. Within 25 years, most Montreal- From another corner, the Premier of ers will no longer be French speakers. As Ontario has said that he intends not only a province, Québec has exhausted all the to recognize Québec, but also to consider means at its disposal. us on an equal footing with the United If the NO vote carries the day, we are States. It has been a long time since we resigned to watch—powerless—as the have heard flattering words such as these French language declines in our metropo- from English Canada. Just imagine dealing lis. If the YES vote passes, then it becomes with Québec on an equal footing, with possible for us to fully control our immi- the same respect as shown to the United States of America. Why did he say this? gration policy. If it’s a YES vote, our future Because in Ontario, hundreds of thousands immigrants will know that they are arriving of jobs depend on us Quebecers. We are in a country distinct owing to its French one of their best customers. We have—as language and culture. This will make for a grocers like to say—immense “purchasing total difference in their attitude and ours. power.” And as you are well aware, in the It is a known fact that Québec was expression “purchasing power,” the key built and enriched by people from many word is “power.” different parts of the world. This is good What must be done to obtain this re- and we want it to continue, while ensuring spect? Vote YES. Become sovereign. Then, the security of our language. all this becomes possible. The issue of language leads me to dis- Important clients we are and no less cuss with you a second critical factor in major vendors. I have said this for at the October 30th vote. We have just seen least the past 10 years: A Sovereign Québec how the YES vote may improve our lives, will continue to do business as usual with jobs, financial situations, language, plus its neighbors. It is up to us to keep the how it may protect the social quality of Canadian dollar. We do not have to ask for life we have acquired, while triggering a permission. Under new international trade second quiet Revolution. agreements, we are protected from the But there is more to this. In essence possible bad temper of our neighbors. North we must decide if we will tell our neighbors American Free Trade—as Jean Chrétien has and the world at large that we exist. If said—is an “irresistible” force. Quebecers, we vote NO on October 30th, the message who are the most enthusiastic promoters— we’re sending to them is: you are correct will always be a part of it. No one chal- in denying our existence, you are right in lenges this. rejecting our claims. Because if we vote It was in fact interesting to hear the NO, we undermine our entire power of federal Minister of Finance acknowledge negotiation. The ability to stand our ground. this week, “That obviously, Canada would This is sad to say, but if we vote NO, sit down with Québec” as a sovereign enti- we’re putting our future into the hands of ty for negotiations. It was interesting to people who have devoted their careers to hear Minister Robillard say that obviously,

182 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Canada would sign a trade agreement with will happen following the YES vote. Please Québec. We all agree, this is inevitable, read it, discuss it, and should you have not to be ignored and is quite sufficient for any questions, call the YES Committee in preserving our access to the Canadian your locality. economic space. The decision you will make within the But as tenants of the YES vote seeking secrecy of the voting booth on October 30th change, we will go even further. For the will belong to you alone. Each and every past year, Quebecers have expressed their one of you have a duty to yourselves, to desire to keep, if possible, a special relation- those who have preceded us and those who ship with Canada. They want the Québec have defended and built Québec, a duty of tomorrow to be one with an open hand especially to the young people of Québec. and be a good neighbor. Last June 12th, In 1980 with René Lévesque, we had a Lucien Bouchard, Mario Dumont and myself expressed this will of the men and women first opportunity to make this choice. Over of Québec in an agreement that we signed. the past 15 years many things have happened. The stakes are much clearer and a Following a YES vote, the National second chance is now upon us. Not everyone Assembly would be mandated to set gets a second chance. Québec sovereignty into motion. But before doing so, and this is our commitment: No one can foresee the future, it is Québec will pause to make a formal offer possible, however, that October 30th will be to Canada. An offer of economic and polit- our last gathering as a group. Afterwards, ical partnership that will go beyond simply as a province melted in with the others, maintaining a common economic space. we will perhaps become individuals like An offer that will say: Let’s stop bickering everyone else. And in the end, it is possible over issues that divide us and start working the history will condone Jean Chrétien’s together on subjects that unite us. comment that our only difference will be This means that following a YES vote, to speak English with an accent. we will take whatever time to orderly So you see, in five, ten or twenty years, negotiate in a flexible and open manner, we will be able to tell our children and our while representing the interests of all grandchildren “On October 30, 1995, when Quebecers. decision-making time arrived, I was there. I The text on the offer of partnership has carefully thought out and took the right been sent to each household in Québec by decision for our future.” us. In this small brochure, you will find a Source: Government of Québec, Prime Minister’s staff. clear and accurate explanation of what Notes for the presentation.

183 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

tatement by Lucien Bouchard, Prime Nearly two years later, no tangible S Minister of Québec, following the change has occurred. Last Sunday, Saskat- Meeting of the First Ministers in Calgary, chewan Premier Roy Romanov, a veteran Québec, September 16, 1997. of these discussions, readily acknowledged ••• the situation when he stated that Canada had nothing new to offer those Quebecers proposing sovereignty. “We have nothing,” [Translation] he said. Nearly two years ago, on October 30, The English-Canadian premiers spent 1995, more than nine Quebecers out of 11 hours together. They consulted the leaders ten left their homes to participate in the of the opposition in their respective prov- greatest democratic exercise we have inces and federal politicians. Each of the ever known, i.e. a referendum on Québec’s English-speaking premiers assembled in future. Nearly one Quebecer out of two Calgary last Sunday was aware of the obsti- was sufficiently confident in the ability of nate opposition of his voters to any proposal our people, sufficiently discontented with that would give Québec additional powers Québec’s place in Canada, and sufficiently or special status. Each of the English- opposed to the Canadian status quo, to Canadian premiers knew that he would be vote in favour of Québec’s sovereignty, going out on a limb if he proposed the accompanied by an offer of partnership. recognition of the Québec people, that he Among those who voted No, many would immediately lose the confidence of individuals also rejected the status quo his voters. and voted for the changes promised by Painfully, together, they produced a federalist leaders. These No voters believed document that is the only possible response the declarations of love of hundreds of by Canada to the 1995 referendum vote. I thousands of Canadians and their premiers. do not doubt that my colleagues from Sovereignist voters and numerous feder- Canada did their utmost to act and made alists shared a strong desire for change. The the maximum possible use of their leeway. common denominator can be summarized Consequently, the Calgary declaration succinctly: all of these Quebecers wanted represents the absolute maximum that to exercise greater control over their affairs, Canada can offer Quebecers. i.e. to obtain more powers for Québec, and Now that Québec voters know what they hoped to obtain recognition of their Canada is prepared to offer in response to status as a people. the referendum vote, we must ask ourselves Most of the No voters wanted more pow- two questions. ers for Québec and recognition by Canada, First, does the offer contain more powers while Yes voters wanted all powers and for Québec? Would Quebecers, to repeat international recognition. the most popular slogan of our history, be The day after the referendum, news- “masters in [their] own house” to an even papers the world over noted that Canada greater extent? had received a sharp warning and that it Absolutely not. To the contrary, were must quickly instigate major changes in this offer to be implemented, we would be order to satisfy Quebecers. Failure to do so, “masters in our own house” to a lesser it was said in the world’s capitals, would extent that we are now. For the first time mean that Quebecers would ultimately opt in a document of this kind, the premiers for sovereignty. are inviting the federal government to

184 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

encroach on what remains of our autonomy observers wonder a few years from now and to take charge of our social programs. why these two peoples were unable to For nearly 40 years, Jean Lesage, Daniel continue to live under the same federal Johnson, Sr., Robert Bourassa, René Lévesque regime, the answer will be, above all, a lack and Jacques Parizeau have demanded that of respect and recognition and the refusal the federal government allow us to manage of one of the two peoples to recognize the our social programs according to our own existence of the other. priorities and in our own way, as stipulated Why is it so difficult for our Canadian in the 1867 Constitution, the original pact neighbours to describe us in the same terms between the two founding peoples. as they use to describe the other peoples Since Sunday, the premiers of the of the world? The British government has English-speaking provinces have been just recognized the “proud historic nation” proposing exactly the opposite. of Scotland. Quebecers have formally That is all, with respect to Québec’s recognized the aboriginal nations living in powers. There is nothing else, only a major Québec. We have always recognized the retreat. The Allaire Report, the program existence of the English-Canadian people. of the Québec Liberal Party, demanded 22 There is a deep-seated refusal among exclusive powers for Québec. Canada is our neighbours to return the courtesy. This offering nothing. Worse still, it is proposing refusal appears to harden with the passing to curtail Québec’s power over family and of each year and each decade. The stronger health policy and everything that reflects the Québec people becomes, the more Québec’s social solidarity. dynamic and economically solid, the less Former Québec Premier Robert Bourassa inclined our neighbours are to recognize us. described the Meech Lake Accord as the At the outset, Canada was said to have most limited conditions that Québec had two founding peoples. During the 1960s, ever accepted, although the agreement did Canadian Prime Minister Lester Pearson give Québec authority over immigration retreated somewhat by asserting that and the power to make appointments to Québec made up a nation, although inside the Supreme Court, among other things. the Canadian nation. In the 1970s, this Other powers were to be added subsequent- observation was further diluted: Ottawa ly during a second round of negotiations. refused to speak of a people or a nation Today, in the Calgary declaration, there and Québec’s presence was more subtly is nothing. suggested by the term “duality.” In the Charlottetown Accord in 1992, The 1980s saw a further retreat. Gone the federalists at least pretended to grant was the notion of duality, although some Québec various powers. What Quebecers English Canadians were still willing to rejected as being too little, Canada still describe Québec as a distinct society. Many regards as being too much. Today, Canada Quebecers believed that this minimal is suggesting that we relinquish some of recognition, were it accompanied by addi- our remaining powers. tional powers for Québec, could result in a Now for the second question that arises. compromise. However, nothing came of it. Does the document recognize the existence During the federal election last spring, of the Québec people? the Liberals and Conservatives proposed In my view, here we touch upon one of that the expression “distinct society” be the saddest facets of the history of relations revived, although their respective political between Quebecers and Canadians. When platforms stipulated that it did not mean

185 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

anything. Even this was too much for The Canadian premiers are so deter- Canadian voters and Jean Chrétien and mined to erase Québec’s existence as a Jean Charest neglected to talk about it nation that they even renamed our parlia- when campaigning in western Canada. mentary institution in their document. In recent months, even Daniel Johnson, Quebecers’ proudly call it the National leader of the Québec Liberal Party, has Assembly. They have banished the word tossed in the towel on the expression “dis- and talk about our “legislature.” It is as tinct society.” In Ontario, he launched a though they wanted to abolish our national sort of contest to see who could find other existence and make it disappear. words that would not offend English However, they do say that the language Canadians. of the majority, our culture and the Civil Saturday, even before the premiers’ Code make us unique. So what? What meeting in Calgary, he accepted what does that mean? What does it change? Canada had not yet proposed. He an- Nothing at all. nounced, very pleased, that he was going What a discovery! Quebecers are unique. to take all the credit for himself and his There is a temptation to add: just like every- party. He gave Canada a remarkable blank one else! Quebecers are unique like the cheque. What a sorry sight! Jean Lesage’s Regina Chorus or the rivière aux Escou- successor relinquished Québec’s character mins, the Skydome or Cape Breton, Labatt to the lowest bidder. In exchange, he Blue or Wayne Gretzky. obtained the assistance of politicians from It is as though, instead of recognizing Toronto, Fredericton and St. John’s for the existence of the aboriginal nations in his next election campaign in Québec. Québec, we had simply described their I believe that this is the first time that language and traditions. However, we a Leader of the Official Opposition in Québec have recognized the aboriginal peoples as has gone begging in English Canada for nations, which means that they exist as support for his party. Mr. Johnson has thus societies and have rights. It means that we become English Canada’s official candidate respect them. for the position of Québec Premier. The This is the difference that Canada pre- English-speaking provinces wrote his tends not to understand. We do not want political platform last Sunday in Calgary. a description of Quebecers. Bookstores are That is his strategy, the path he has chosen. full of them and we know what we are. I prefer to define Quebecers’ interests in We want to be recognized as a people, collaboration with Quebecers. since we are capable of assuming our des- Be that as it may, encouraged by tiny and development. Mr. Johnson, the English-Canadian pre- I note that the Calgary declaration miers scoured every dictionary available readily speaks of the “aboriginal peoples,” to find the most banal, empty words to but not of the Québec people. label us. They refuse to recognize us as a I see that our character is so specific people or a nation and are even afraid of that it is “fundamental for the well-being the vapid expression “distinct society.” The of Canada.” Does this mean that we do not English-Canadian prime ministers have have the right to leave Canada because its scraped the bottom of the barrel, where well-being depends on us? Does this they undoubtedly found “unique character,” expression make us socially unique but an all-purpose term if ever there was one. political eunuchs?

186 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

This brings me to another noteworthy A close examination of the Calgary facet of the Calgary declaration. You are declaration reveals that our Canadian well aware of the extent to which Québec neighbours want to diminish us. Canada’s has opened itself to the world in recent ambition is that Québec not be ambitious. years and broadened its relations with Two years ago, 49.4% of Quebecers other French-speaking nations and commu- voted in favour of sovereignty. This jolt nities and with the United States, Europe, was not sufficient to earn Québec respect Africa and Asia. On Friday, Québec City and recognition, much less control over will welcome parliamentarians from all its affairs. Two years ago, we mobilized all countries in North, Central and South of our energies to send our neighbours the America. broadest appeal for change in our history. Quebecers believe that this is our way Sunday, in Calgary, the English-speaking of developing. In Calgary, the premiers do premiers were clear. Canada will not make not see things the same way. Their decla- any of the changes sought by Quebecers. ration acknowledges that our “legislature” Ontario Premier Mike Harris was categor- (and not our “National Assembly”) protects ical: “We are not offering anything specific.” our unique character, but only “in Canada.” The premiers have shown, beyond a They have taken great care not to open any shadow of a doubt, that if Quebecers want door on the world and to avoid acknowl- to be recognized as the people that they edging Québec’s right to participate in the are, if they wish to control their destiny, great concert of nations. Everything falls there is only one course of action open to into line. According to the premiers, since them, i.e. for a majority of them to vote next we are not a nation, how can we claim to time for sovereignty. speak on our own behalf to other peoples? While English Canadians discuss among This clause clearly expresses English themselves whether the Calgary offer is Canada’s determination to keep us in line, sufficiently banal for their taste, in Québec to confine us to the equality of the prov- we will continue to carry out the tasks inces. It also reflects a desire to describe that we have collectively assumed, i.e. to Québec’s difference as outmoded and folk- create jobs for Quebecers, oversee the loric, one that is of no consequence for health and education networks, enhance our future. the conditions of Québec families, and Québec today is much more than the permanently eliminate the deficit in order Civil Code and the French language. It is a to stop running up debt that will be borne crossroads between the American and by Québec young people. French civilizations, a capital city clearly in We will continue to defend Québec de- tune with the Americas, Montréal, which has mocracy and institutions, without departing the highest proportion of high-technology from our objectives. We are doing so for jobs of any city on the continent, a French- Québec’s well being and to prepare the language culture increasingly enriched by Québec people for the major challenges its contacts with foreign countries, and an that await them. The Québec people will economy that exports more extensively on soon be better equipped to face the future international markets than it does in Canada. and will have an opportunity to recognize Every day and in numerous ways, itself and finally, calmly become the sover- Québec is emerging in the world. The pre- eign master of its destiny and present in miers meeting in Calgary want to imprison the world. it in its past. Source: Notes for a briefing.

187 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

inisterial statement by Jacques which the National Assembly had created. M Brassard, Minister for Canadian The committee sought an opinion from these Intergovernmental Affairs, on territorial five experts about the territorial integrity integrity of Québec, Québec National of Québec in the event of it becoming Assembly, November 12, 1997. sovereign. In their report, which still is to ••• date the most complete, serious study of the matter, the experts Franck, Higgins, Pellet, Shaw, and Tomuschat indeed confirm that, [Translation] if Québec becomes sovereign, it will fully Québec has had to face, since the inherit the territory that is today its own October 30, 1995 referendum, a multi- and all of the powers relative to this terri- pronged strategy by the federal government tory that are currently exercised by the that essentially aims to destabilize Québec’s federal authorities, notably and including democratic institutions and deny not only over the Indian reserves. our fundamental rights […], but also the In addition, these five experts confirm very existence of the Québec people. A key that, before Québec’s possible attainment element in this strategy consists of conjuring of sovereignty, its territorial integrity will up the spectre of partition of the territory remain firmly guaranteed pursuant to the of Québec in the event that it becomes constitutional principles currently in force sovereign. and that the delineation of its borders The Québec government denounces cannot, consequently, be altered against the irresponsibility of people who resort to the will of the National Assembly. These this partitionist rhetoric and, even more experts also point out that, in light of the so, the irresponsibility of federal ministers rights and benefits that have been granted and politicians who present the dismem- them, the Cree and the Inuit of Québec berment of Québec as both a possibility have expressly renounced, in the James and a defendable demand and who thus Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, offer a moral endorsement to those who their rights and claims to the territories propound these arguments. All democrats, covered by this agreement. Further, since federalists, and sovereignists should clearly Québec has a territory with well-defined disassociate themselves from such talk. borders, the experts confirm that, under There has been moreover an unbroken international law, these borders will consti- continuity between all of Québec’s prime tute de facto the borders of the new state ministers, whatever the party in power, and of Québec. There exists, on the applicability the representatives elected to the National of this principle, a shared legal opinion that Assembly. These people have always de- international practice expresses, notably fended Québec’s territorial integrity and when the predecessor state is a federation. have undertaken to continue to do so. Other reputed jurists, both in Québec Partitionist arguments run counter to and in the rest of Canada, share this opin- international law and to the practice of ion. Ruling on this same principle, the states in the attainment of sovereignty. It Arbitration Commission of the Peace Confer- is worth recalling here the conclusions ence on Yugoslavia came down in favour of that were arrived at by the five interna- the stability of borders in cases where feder- tional law experts consulted in 1992 by the ated entities become sovereign. According Committee to Examine Matters Relating to the Commission, “[...] for want of an to the Accession of Québec to Sovereignty, agreement to the contrary, the previous

188 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

boundaries acquire the character of borders minority whose protection afforded under protected by international law. Such is the international law does not include any conclusion that the principle of respect for territorial effect; or from people residing the territorial status quo leads to and par- near Québec’s borders, who as such do not ticularly the principle of uti possidetis juris, benefit from any specific protection under which, although initially recognized in the international law.” settling of decolonization problems in the The applicable legal principles are Americas and in Africa, today constitutes therefore totally clear. Québec’s territorial a generally applicable principle, as the integrity is guaranteed before, during, and International Court of Justice has declared.” after attainment of sovereignty. The Québec The territorial integrity of Québec is government thus condemns all attempts therefore guaranteed, prior to accession and invitations to deny or deform this reality to sovereignty under Canadian constitu- for the purpose of creating polarization, tional rules, and after sovereignty by the sowing discord, and encouraging a degra- firmly settled principles and imperatives dation of relations between the various of general international law. According to components of Québec society. the categorical opinion expressed by five In this context, the Québec government experts, there is no room for an in-between considers null, void, and unenforceable the situation where different rules would be resolutions passed by certain municipalities applied since accession to sovereignty is that wish to endorse the temptation of an instantaneous event that precludes any partitionism. Québec’s borders are geo- legal vacuum. graphical and historical. Never will the The five experts consequently conclude government agree to their being redrawn that the principle of legal continuity results on the basis of linguistic, racial, or ethnic in Québec’s territorial integrity taking considerations. precedence over all claims that seek to Québec has a territory with precise dismember Québec’s territory, whether and delineated borders. It will still be its these claims come from the “Aboriginal own territory the day the Québec people people of Québec, who benefit from all the freely decide to become sovereign. Such a rights belonging to minorities and are en- move will be a democratic one and will be hanced by rights recognized for Aboriginal made within the framework of a constitu- peoples under contemporary international tional state. law, without there being a resulting right Source: Québec National Assembly, Journal des débats, of secession; or from the English-Speaking November 12, 1997, p. 8379-8381.

189 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

reliminary statement by Lucien Court affirmed, from one end of its opinion P Bouchard, Prime Minister of Québec, to the other, the political nature of the pro- the day following the Opinion of the cess that would legitimately be set in motion Supreme Court of Canada on the federal by a Québec referendum on sovereignty. government’s Reference concerning Allow me to peruse, one by one, the Québec’s accession to sovereignty, federalist myths that were buried yesterday Québec, August 21, 1998. by the federal judges. ••• First myth: for decades, a certain number of federalists have contended that the [Translation] sovereignist project is not legitimate. An important political event took place The judges of the Supreme Court stated yesterday, the effects of which we have the contrary, and I quote them: “A clear not yet finished assessing. majority vote in Quebec on a clear ques- With the scarcely concealed aim of tion in favour of secession would confer raising fear among Quebecers, the federal democratic legitimacy on the secession government unilaterally asked nine judges initiative which all of the other partici- of its own Supreme Court, nine persons pants in Confederation would have to whose federalist faith is not in doubt, to recognize.” End quote. pronounce themselves on the Canadian They go even further to state, and federalist arguments. again I quote: “The other provinces and The Québec government, in keeping the federal government would have no with its responsibility, refused to participate basis to deny the right of the government in this episode of the federal political strat- of Quebec to pursue secession.” End quote. egy, and firmly reiterated that only the The federal judges thus upheld what citizens of Québec have the right to choose their future, as has moreover been stated sovereignists have been saying for 30 years: by all parties represented in the National not only will a winning referendum have Assembly. democratic legitimacy, but also Canada will have the obligation to recognize this Yesterday’s event thus embodied the legitimacy, and will not be able to deny Canadian government’s attempt to have its own Court and its own judges validate Québec the right to achieve sovereignty. the central elements of its Plan B, its anti- Second myth: in 1980 and in 1995, the sovereignist offensive. federalists claimed that if the citizens of What happened was the reverse: the Québec said Yes, Canada would refuse to Court demonstrated that Ottawa’s argu- negotiate with the Government of Québec. ments do not stand up to analysis, and it It will be recalled that in 1980, Mr. Pierre struck at the very heart of the traditional Trudeau compared the will of Quebecers federalist discourse. to negotiate to that of a third-world coun- Overall, the federalists have been telling try that Ottawa would not have to take us for the past two years that sovereignty into account. Again in 1995, the federalist is a legal issue that comes within the advocates ridiculed the hand held out by realm of law and the court system. The the sovereignists for a negotiation after a federal judges contradicted them. After Yes vote. having answered the reductionist questions On October 12, 1995, Mr. Jean Chrétien asked by the federal government, in a per- made the following statement: “there is a fectly foreseen and predictable manner, the myth that must be destroyed, he said, to

190 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

the effect that there is someone in Canada will be set in motion for an orderly tran- who is authorized to negotiate” with Québec. sition toward sovereignty, in the respect of The current leader of the Liberal Party the rights of each of our citizens, as we of Québec also made a few unfortunate have always stated. statements on this subject. This element of good sense, I am pro- Yesterday, unanimously, the federal foundly convinced, now confers a consider- judges brought to an end what had consti- able advantage upon the sovereignist project tuted the most fallacious argument of the and constitutes one of the winning conditions federalist camp. The federal judges stated of which I have been speaking for several and restated that after a Yes vote, Canada years. would have the obligation to negotiate Third myth: the nature of the negotia- with Québec. They even make this a consti- tions. Certain federalists have claimed that tutional obligation. if negotiations ended up taking place after Allow me to quote a passage which a Yes vote, they would deal not with sover- reads as follows: “The clear repudiation eignty, but with a renewal of federalism. by the people of Quebec of the existing Yesterday, the Court closed this avenue constitutional order would confer legiti- with a double lock. It stipulated, and I quote, macy on demands for secession, and place that “the negotiations [...] would address an obligation on the other provinces and the potential act of secession as well as its the federal government to acknowledge possible terms should in fact secession and respect that expression of democratic proceed.” The federal judges mentioned will by entering into negotiations [...].” several elements that will have to be covered End quote. during these negotiations. The federal judges therefore upheld They recall, as we so often have, that what sovereignists have been saying for Québec and its neighbours share, and I 30 years: after a Yes vote, there will be quote, “a national economy and a national negotiations. At the time of the last refer- debt.” End quote. They also underline that endum, we repeated this in all forums. the interests of Canada and of the provinces will have to be addressed in these nego- Such was our conviction. Today it is a cer- tiations. We have always said, and continue tainty, particularly considering that the to think, that the economic interest of representatives of the federal government Canada, of the provinces, of the economy admitted, yesterday, that they would act and of the debt must lead us to come to an in accordance with the order that they agreement on a partnership that will pre- themselves received from their Court. serve the common economic space between In 1995, we played by the rules; we the two sovereign States. developed our negotiating position—the The Court speaks of the necessary offer of partnership. We created an orien- protection of the rights of minorities and tation and supervision committee for the states that it is necessary to take into negotiations. I even seem to recall that we account the interests of the aboriginal appointed a chief negotiator. peoples. This is also our position, and this The No side, for its part, wanted to is why, in the Act respecting the future of raise fear among Quebecers. The next time, Québec, we made the following commit- the men and women of Québec will be able ment: “The new constitution (of a sovereign to vote Yes with the certainty that negotia- Québec) shall guarantee the English– tions will take place and that everything speaking community that its identity and

191 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

institutions will be preserved. It shall also declare its sovereignty and call for inter- recognize the right of the aboriginal nations national recognition. to self-government on lands over which Indeed, the Court writes that Québec’s they have full ownership and their right to behaviour and that of Canada during the participate in the development of Québec; negotiation will be, and I quote, “evaluated in addition, the existing constitutional rights [...] on the international plane.” And the of the aboriginal nations shall be recognized Court is categorical in adding, and again I in the constitution.” End quote. quote, that “a Quebec that had negotiated Québec has always been at the fore- in conformity with constitutional principles front, within Canada, in recognizing the and values in the face of unreasonable rights of aboriginal peoples, particularly intransigence on the part of other partici- since the resolution presented by René pants at the federal or provincial level Lévesque in 1984 recognizing, for the first would be more likely to be recognized [...].” time in Canada, the existence of the aborig- Moreover, the Court sets out in black inal nations of Québec. and white, as we ourselves have stated since the deliberations of the Bélanger- In short, on the nature of the negotia- Campeau Commission, and I quote, “It is tions that will follow a Yes vote in a referen- true that international law may well, dum, the Court imposes upon the federalist depending on the circumstances, adapt to camp obligations that the sovereignists had recognize a political and/or factual real- long since assumed. ity, regardless of the legality of the steps Fourth myth: according to the federalists, leading to its creation.” Further, the Court after a Yes vote, in the event of a deadlock again affirms, and again I quote, “It may in the negotiations, the citizens of Québec be that a unilateral secession by Quebec would be prisoners within Canada; that they would eventually be accorded legal status cannot get out. by Canada and other states [...].” I would like to say, first of all, that we Hence, the sovereignists and the have no doubt that after a Yes vote, the Bélanger-Campeau Commission state the political and economic situation will oblige truth: in the event of a deadlock in nego- Québec and Canada not only to negotiate, tiations, “it is true” that international law but also to quickly come to an agreement may recognize Québec’s decision. Indeed, on sovereignty and on the conditions of the Court sends a signal to the international economic partnership. community, indicating to it that after a Yes vote, if Canada and the provinces were to However, at least theoretically, the prove intransigent toward Québec, then question must be asked of what would Québec’s recognition would thereby be happen in the event of a deadlock in the facilitated. Thus the Court has just given negotiations. On this, the Supreme Court us one of the supplementary conditions dares not provide a precise set of direc- for the success of the negotiations. tions, but when it raises this eventuality, it The fifth and final federalist myth that in no event raises the hypothesis according was buried yesterday deals with the wording to which Quebecers would have to resign of the question and with the majority. Since themselves to remaining in Canada, and to the last referendum, a number of federalists renouncing their democratic decision. On have stated that the federal government the contrary, the Court raises only a single should be involved in the drafting and in eventuality, namely that in which, in order the approval of the question, or in the setting to break the deadlock, Québec alone would of a new threshold for the majority.

192 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Yesterday, the Court in no way called judges are familiar with the precedents in into question the right of the National Canadian history, particularly that of New- Assembly alone to decide on the wording foundland, which entered Canada with a of the question and on the threshold of the 52% majority. Any juridical or political majority. The consensus within Québec on statement to the effect that a result of 50% this point is as clear as it is unshakable. + 1 was not sufficient would call into ques- Moreover, Plan B had the effect of consoli- tion the validity of the Newfoundland vote. dating the agreement between the political The reality is that the federalists learned parties in Québec on these points, as has yesterday from the Supreme Court that been reiterated since yesterday by the the clear, reasonable and logical process leaders of the two opposition parties of proposed to the citizens of Québec by the the National Assembly. sovereignists is legitimate and that they The court limits itself to stating that will have to negotiate its implementation the political authorities will make a political after a winning referendum. judgement on the clarity of the question. The Court thereby shakes the founda- This is what elected officials do on a daily tions of the federalist strategy, and under- basis on all issues. mines the arguments of fear and of the Our position on this is known: the refusal to negotiate. 1995 question was so clear that 94% of Taken by itself, the obligation placed Quebecers, a record of participation, went on Canada to negotiate with Québec dis- to the polls to vote on this capital issue; sipates the uncertainty that caused the the question was so clear that the Prime refusal of the federalists to negotiate to Minister of Canada, in a speech to the weigh in the minds of many Quebecers. nation, warned voters that the referendum Today these Quebecers find reassurance: vote meant “remaining or no longer being their Yes will force Canada to negotiate. Canadian, staying in or leaving, that is the issue of the referendum.” More and more of the men and women of Québec will conclude that the time will Concerning the majority, the Court soon come to decide, once and for all, to judges, as do we, that it must be clear. But bring to an end our unsolvable quarrels it describes this clarity using the word with Canada, to build here the country of “qualitative,” rather than the word “quantitative.” I quote the Court, when it Québec, and to negotiate, with our neigh- writes “we refer to a ‘clear’ majority as a bours, a mutually beneficial relationship qualitative evaluation.” Thus it does not call between equals. into question the quantity of votes required Thank you. to declare a victory for the Yes side. The Source: Notes for a preliminary statement.

193 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

ho fears Quebecers’ Democratic De- of Québec to a federal trusteeship; it W termination? Brief by Joseph Facal, negates basic democratic principles; it is Minister for Canadian Intergovernmental an insult to the intelligence of all Que- Affairs, presented before the Legislative becers; it installs a system of arbitrary Committee of the House of Commons power; and lastly, it bears within itself the entrusted with reviewing Bill C-20 seeds of bitter disillusionment for you. (An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the Opinion of ••• Subjecting the People of Québec to the Supreme Court of Canada in the a federal trusteeship Quebec Secession Reference), Ottawa, Québec’s existence as a political entity February 24, 2000. dates from long before the creation of the Canadian federation. Québec exercised its ••• right to freely choose its political status when it contributed to the formation of Canada. [Translation] This must always be borne in mind! On October 30, 1995, 2,308,360 Que- By adhering to this federation, the becers voted YES in answer to the question people of Québec neither renounced their you now know so well. Today the federal right to choose another political status nor government would have you—the 301 sought to subject its destiny for all times elected members of the federal Parliament— to come to a Parliament whose majority of wield the power to decree that these members originate from outside Québec. 2,308,360 people did not understand the aforementioned question and that they must Yet section 1 of Bill C-20—which indi- therefore be protected from themselves. rectly dictates the referendum question— allows a majority of MPs from outside Québec “Heavenly Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” That is the Bill to rule on the adequacy of the question’s C-20 message being sent to Quebecers. clarity, then to act on such ruling despite the will of the National Assembly and Que- Thus it is believed that this Canadian becers’ determination, that having deemed disorder may be swept from sight, while it clear, had answered positively to it. ignoring to face the fact that more Que- becers voted YES than there are electors Some will still maintain that the to be found in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Québec National Assembly remains free Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Prince to ask any question it so desires. Blatantly Edward Island, all rolled into one. not so! C-20 renders the 1980 and 1995 C-20 will not sweep sovereignty away, questions unacceptable, as well as the Brus- nor the idea that Québec will one day sels question evoked by Robert Bourassa. become a country. How simplistic! In section 2 of the Bill, the federal Yet as the government of Québec stands Parliament invests itself with the power to represented here today, it acts in the same decide what elected majority may be suf- capacity as previous Québec governments ficient, even if the population of Québec have done, regardless of their constitutional were to accept the results and rally to them. options, as a government deriving its legit- Finally, section 3 confers upon the imacy from the National Assembly, sole Parliament of any other province an abso- depository of the Québec people’s right to lute right of veto upon the future of the choose their political status by themselves. Québec people through the amendment C-20 is unacceptable for so many rea- formula contained in a Canadian constitu- sons: This Bill seeks to subject the people tion of dubious legitimacy since it was

194 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

imposed on Québec and never ratified by C-20 is also an insult because it is a a Québec government. dismal distortion of the Supreme Court’s Three sections, three schemes for opinion. derailing a democratically expressed de- Nowhere in the referral does the termination. Supreme Court confer upon the federal Parliament the right to oversee the con- ••• Renewed negation of a basic demo- tent of a referendum question by authoriz- cratic principle ing Parliament to rule upon clarity even C-20 also questions the universally before the National Assembly has adopted accepted rule of democracy of 50% + 1, the question. despite the fact that all referendums Nowhere in the referral does the Su- validly held in Canada to date have been preme Court give the federal Parliament based on the very same rule. the right to impose a question that must Abroad, Canada has recognized the expressly exclude any reference to an offer legitimacy of many emerging countries, as of partnership. always based on the 50% + 1 rule, which Nowhere does the Supreme Court give in fact is the standard rule by which the authority to the federal Parliament to United Nations operates when it supervises determine a posteriori and of its own accord referendums on accession to sovereignty. the required majority. The act of imposing any other rule Nowhere does the Supreme Court give would be tantamount to giving more weight authority to the federal Parliament to uni- to a federalist vote than to a sovereignist laterally dictate the content of postreferen- vote, which amounts to discrimination on dum negotiations. the basis of political opinion. The principle The federal government played with of a common standard for electors’ rights is fire when it made its referral to the thereby compromised. Supreme Court. It got burned and thereafter ••• An insult to the intelligence of found itself faced with acknowledgement Quebecers of the fact that the territory of Canada can be divided based on provincial territories, C-20 states that Quebecers must be protected against their government but with recognition of the legitimacy of the also against themselves because they sovereigntist option, with the creation of an would be unable to weigh the issues set obligation to negotiate on an equal footing, forth in a referendum question. By the and with the admission that in the case same token, it becomes more important to of bad faith on the part of the federal take the opinion of a Manitoba or Saskat- government, international recognition of chewan MP into account whose insights a sovereign Québec would be facilitated. into clarity and obscurity exceed those of Today the federal government is the Québec electorate. He knows best. asking you, Members of Parliament, to blot Ladies and gentlemen, members of out its mistake by rewriting the referral. the federal Parliament, do you realize ••• Enter the arbitrary wielding of power what a ridiculous situation the authors of C-20 have created for you? Do you realize The Bill C-20 initiator has also strongly that you are on the eve of enshrining a emphasized respect for the rule of law. legislative principle by which the judgment Yet the true rule of law precludes of elected members will be held superior resorting to arbitrary power. As it stands, to that of their electors? C-20 is a monument condoning the use of

195 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

arbitrary power. It wants to empower the ••• Conclusion House of Commons to declare a question Not only is Bill C-20 unacceptable for unclear on the basis of “any other views it Québec, but it is also unacceptable for all considers to be relevant.” Whose views parties represented in the National are we talking about? Likewise, it would Assembly. empower you to assess a requisite majority in light of “any other matters or circum- The Québec government does not stances [that you may deem] relevant.” recognize any legitimacy on the part of What are the criteria for relevance? the federal government when it comes to such interference in Quebecers’ right to What will the new roll of the dice be if 50% + 1 no longer stands: 55%, 60%, decide for themselves what their future 65%… Faced with such random guidelines, will be. how is a citizen to conduct him or herself? The National Assembly will adopt the The message that C-20 sends to electors is question it wants to adopt. As in the past, that votes only count when you decide to the Québec people alone will decide what recognize them. constitutes clarity. The victorious option will be the one with votes clearing the ••• Seeds of bitter disillusionment 50% + 1 of validly expressed ones. Who C-20 creates illusions: that the territo- fears Quebecers’ democratic determina- ry of Québec will be divisible and that tion? votes may be counted according to ethnic, linguistic or geographic criteria. This is I remain firmly convinced that in the just plain false. wake of a positive result, voices will resound The day that Quebecers will decide to throughout Canada for respecting Quebec- form a new country, C-20 will not stand in ers’ decision and the need for negotiations their way. Thinking the contrary is a pure carried out in good faith in the best interest illusion. The Soviet Union tried this sub- of all parties. terfuge in 1991 and the rest is history. Source: Text of the brief.

196 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

lobalization, the Federative Deficit boundaries, where our interactions, for- G and the Case of Québec. Speech by merly concentrated in a small circle, now Joseph Facal, Minister for Canadian cut across state and cultural boundaries, Intergovernmental Affairs, delivered on in a context dominated by the explosion of the Occasion of the XVIIIth World Con- new technologies for communications and gress of the International Political exchange. Science Association, Musée du Québec, Thus, the concept of globalization in- August 3, 2000. volves a more open world economic market, ••• the emergence of a world knowledge and information economy, and a planet-wide distribution of political and cultural values [Translation] arising from particular contexts. I am delighted to welcome you to Québec and to our national capital, It is therefore not difficult to under- Québec City. Founded in 1608, Québec stand that globalization can create sources City will soon be celebrating 400 years of of tension and uncertainty. Indeed, it alters existence, making it one of the oldest cities the spatial organization of a vast range of on the North American continent. It was human activities that are now carried out here, in 1791, nearly three-quarters of a on a transcontinental or inter-regional century before the creation of Canada, basis, with all that this implies for the that the first elected parliament of this exercise of State prerogatives. North American colony was established. Globalization is by no means a new Québec City has been, and continues to phenomenon. It has always been present be, the cradle of a people that not only in social evolution. However, it was a played a role in the founding of Canada, question of degree. In ancient times, it but also predated it and, to some extent, was quite possible for societies to live in paved the way for the introduction of autarky. But this did not last. Contacts representative political institutions. were forged. A thousand years later, autar- In recent times, a new word has entered ky was still possible but less probable. our vocabulary, describing a concept that And today, the handful of States that, for is increasingly likely to shape our daily mainly ideological reasons, still attempt to lives as individuals, as a people and as a practise it have run into economic and State. The word in question is globaliza- social problems that threaten their very tion, and defining it is no easy task. The existence. Webster describes it in very general terms In short, the main characteristic of as “to organize or establish worldwide.” globalization in its current form is its scope, What is primarily involved here is a basi- and perhaps also the feeling underlying it, cally economic phenomenon—the market namely that we have gone past the point economy logic, whose influence at the of no return. Today, globalization is no continental and global levels is growing longer a linear process, but a multidimen- steadily in importance. sional process that can be measured in Our traditional points of reference, all the main spheres of human activity, in namely East/West blocks and North/South political, economic, social, cultural, admin- relations, are either outdated or have istrative, legal, military, technological and undergone a radical transformation. We environmental life. It is characterized by are living in an era of instantaneous change, the extent and close-knit nature of its net- in a world with increasingly open economic works and by the intensity of its flows. Its

197 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

impact on societies, groups and individ- the discourse on local autonomy will have uals differs in intensity, although some to be brought up to date and perhaps even people go as far as to describe it as a veri- completely overhauled. table revolution. Other observers have noted that, at At the political level, this leads inevi- the political level, globalization causes the tably to changes in the way power is exer- public space to shrink, in that the citizens cised. If, at some point in the future, a and the State lose some of their power theory of globalization were to be developed, over the political and social agenda, and it would have to address such fundamental over their ability to establish priorities questions as the tiering of decision-making within the political agenda. The experience authorities and the unequal distribution of of the European Union, which is both an access to power, with all that this implies advanced and a regional form of globaliza- for the welfare of peoples, groups and tion, has proved this, and a new term has individuals and for the influence they are been coined to describe this side effect of likely to gain or lose on the checkerboard globalization: the “democratic deficit.” of globalization. Basically, it has been observed, in the In the eyes of some observers, the case of Europe, that portions of sovereignty advent of globalization has sounded the have been withdrawn from national par- death-knell of the nation-state concept. If liaments and transferred to the European the structure of the organizations created Union’s political authorities. If such trans- to implement globalization is any indica- fers have, in general, been quite smooth, tion. I have my doubts as to the validity of it is probably because the main decision- this statement. At the very least, it seems making authority remains to this day the to me to be premature. The concept of Council of the European Union, composed nation-state that has shaped the political, of all the member States. However, as the economic and social organization of our Council is intended first and foremost to societies in the post-Westphalian age seems be an intergovernmental forum, the States to me to be as firmly entrenched as ever. are naturally represented by their respec- This does not mean, though, that global- tive executives, within a relatively closed ization will not bring some far-reaching framework. As a result, the national par- changes in the future—on the contrary. liaments—in other words, the legislative Such changes are already knocking at our branch—has been excluded from the door, especially in our perception of the conception of public policy in many areas. hierarchical order of our political players. The same trend can be seen in other Indeed, because the phenomenon of international forums, although with less globalization causes perspectives to change, obvious repercussions, since in these cases it follows that the development of the the transfers of sovereignty have been State, henceforth perceived as peripheral, indirect. However, two main points remain will be approached from a much more constant. First, it is the State executives regional perspective. This change in the that take part in these forums, and second, perception and in the very order of things the general public is usually kept aside will inevitably raise the question of how from the deliberations and the decision- much flexibility the new local communities making process. will have in future in the face of restric- In addition, the decisions that are tions arising from political and economic eventually made tend to be irreversible, decisions made at the centre. As a result, even if, in many cases, the governments

198 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

concerned need the approval of their own executive and judicial branches, is also national parliaments before implementing shared between a federal government and them. There is usually no real possibility federated entities (as is the case in Canada), of backtracking, because a State whose the deficit is even greater. Indeed, while parliament consistently refused to approve the subjects addressed in international the conventions drawn up at the interna- forums used to be mainly those usually tional level would effectively be condemning falling under federal jurisdiction, such as itself, in the medium term, to a form of defence, navigation and international trade, exclusion. this is no longer the case today. The phenomenon of the democratic With economic liberalization and its deficit raises a serious problem, because corollary, freedom of movement, it is most liberal democratic constitutions are increasingly clear that even local policies, based on a delicate balance in which State which usually come under provincial juris- prerogatives are shared between the legis- diction (social policies, for example), can no lative, executive and judicial branches. longer be drawn up in a vacuum and must Indeed, the democratic nature of a consti- also be discussed at the international level. tution lies precisely in that balance, which However, state practice shows that, precludes domination by one branch or one where as federations are concerned, it is individual and allows for the broadest pos- usually the executive branch of the federal sible participation in the State’s political life. government that takes part in the interna- Generally speaking, when sovereignty tional forums at which a growing percent- is divided up in this way, the executive age of public policies, even those falling branch has jurisdiction over foreign rela- in principle under the exclusive jurisdiction tions, including the power to enter into trea- of the federated entities, are now conceived. ties. However, it is important to remember Globalization has therefore had the that this typical allocation of power was effect, in federations like Canada, of dis- first devised at a time when international turbing the institutional and constitutional relations were much less important than balance even further. This has produced a they are today, and when war was a central second type of imbalance, which I will call element, therefore justifying the secrecy the “federative deficit.” surrounding them. The federative deficit is just as worrying Since the end of the Second World War, as the democratic deficit—and with good international relations have developed reason. In many liberal democracies, to such an extent and have become so especially those that have a parliamentary important that, in some cases, model na- system based on the British model, as is tional laws are now actually being drawn the case in Canada, the separation of power up behind the doors of international forums, between the executive and legislative on subjects as varied as private law and branches of the State has become much taxation. Given that this type of work was less marked over the years, for reasons originally meant to come under the juris- that have nothing to do with globalization. diction of the State’s legislative branch, it However, the distribution of power be- is easy to see how globalization can change tween the various levels of government in the constitutional balance of liberal democ- a federation is still just as crucial today as racies. it has always been, because without it, In countries where sovereignty, in addi- there can be no federal system. In tion to being shared between the legislative, Canada, we know all about this!

199 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Globalization therefore presents a necessitated the direct or indirect sizeable challenge to federal systems. By intervention of the modern state maintaining the current monopoly of fed- so that these exchanges may be made basic elements of progress, eral executives over international relations, of understanding and of peace be- we are inevitably witnessing an erosion of tween peoples. In many fields the federal principle as the range of public which have now assumed interna- policies discussed on the international tional importance, Quebec wishes to play a direct role in keeping stage grows. with its true countenance. […] The federal principle is eroding because, through globalization, the federated There was a time when Ottawa’s exclusive exercise of international entities are losing much of their latitude powers was scarcely prejudicial to in conceiving public policies, and are not the interests of the federated states, being compensated for this by being allowed inasmuch as the field of interna- to participate directly in the appropriate tional relations was fairly well defined. international forums, as are unitary States and federal governments. But, in our day, this is no longer To add to the problem, this situation so. Interstate relations now touch every aspect of social life. This is benefits the federal government in a second why, in a federation such as Canada, way: by granting itself the right to debate it is now necessary for those mem- subjects usually under the jurisdiction of ber groups, who wish to do so, to provinces, the central government is effect- participate actively and directly in the preparation of international ing a net transfer of provincial jurisdiction agreements with which they are in its favour.I hardly need add that the immediately concerned. […] It is growth in international activity from which not admissible […] for the federal this transfer results, and which is based state to exert a kind of supervision and adventitious control over ultimately on the development of commu- Quebec’s international relations. nication technologies, will certainly be (Address delivered by Mr. Paul gathering speed in the future. Gérin-Lajoie, Minister of Education If the federal principle is to be preserved to the Members of the Montreal Consular Corps, Monday, April 12, in the context of globalization, the feder- 1965, at the Windsor Hotel) ated entities would have to have control of their own international relations for all Obviously, the main problem standing issues related to their exclusive internal in the way of such a solution, for Québec jurisdiction, and conversely the federal gov- and for members of other federations, ernments would have to agree to limit would be the resistance of the central gov- their interventions to exchanges concerned ernments as they jealously protect their solely with matters under their own juris- prerogatives. In the Canada/Québec situa- diction. tion, there is also the constitutional stand- In Québec, this idea is by no means new. pattism to which we have been irrevocably Paul Gérin-Lajoie, a man of great vision condemned ever since the adoption of the who was Québec’s Minister of Education 1982 Constitution without the agreement at the time of the Quiet Revolution, was of Québec, the cradle of one of the two already talking about it in 1965, over thirty peoples responsible for the foundation of years ago. I quote: the Canadian federation in 1867. […] the multiplication of exchange It is therefore clear that if we are unable of all kinds between countries has to leave room for the federated entities on

200 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

the international stage, and continue to The Québec government’s goal continues reserve it exclusively for fully sovereign to be democratic accession to sovereign States, the federated entities that have the status for Québec. In 1998, in an opinion means to do so will naturally seek a change requested by the federal government on in their status, driven by the need to ensure Québec’s secession, the Supreme Court of that their communities are able to develop Canada recognized the democratic validity to their full potential. of the Québec sovereignist project. More This temptation will be all the greater recently, the Québec government has had since globalization has the effect of reducing to denounce the Canadian federal parlia- one of the gains of the federal system, ment’s adoption of an Act designed to namely the maintenance and protection of place further obstacles in the way of the desire of Quebecers to move towards sover- a common economic space. Given that this eignty, thus ultimately giving the English- gain could henceforth depend increasingly speaking majority in the rest of Canada a on the international order, many federated veto on Québec’s future. entities may find that they are no longer satisfied with their current political arrangements. Through Bill C-20, the Federal Parlia- ment is attempting to claim for itself the In the eyes of the Québec government, right to dictate the wording of the referen- there is no doubt that, in such circumstances, dum question and the project to be debated globalization has rendered Québec sover- when, in fact, these elements are part of eignty even more necessary and more urgent the prerogatives of the National Assembly than ever before. It brings a new impetus and the people of Québec. With Bill C-20, and a wave of modernity to our national the Federal Parliament is also attacking project. Those who used to claim that we fundamental democratic principles by setting were engaged in a rear-guard battle must aside the 50% + 1 rule in favour of a now think again. As Bernard Landry, threshold that it will set arbitrarily once Québec’s Vice-Premier and Minister of State the referendum results are known. It is for the Economy and Finance, said recently, also attempting to impose unilaterally a in the new world context, sovereignty is no list of subjects to be dealt with in post- longer simply a question of survival, pros- referendum negotiations. However, nowhere perity and international influence for nations; in the advisory opinion rendered by the the very quality of their democratic life has Supreme Court of Canada is the Federal been called into question by the phenomenon Parliament authorized or invited to adopt of globalization. such legislative measures. It is therefore imperative and urgent It is thus easy to understand that this for Québec to move closer to the emerging Act has been responsible for a further supranational powers that will, in the deterioration in relations between Québec future, play an increasingly important role and Canada within the Canadian federation, in maintaining and developing the collec- by calling into question the freedom of the tive well-being of Quebecers. Given that Québec people in decisions concerning its participation in these international forums political future, as well as the prerogatives is reserved solely for recognized States, of the State of Québec, the only majoritarily our democratic duty requires us to act if French-speaking State in North America. we are to preserve what we are and pro- […] cure a promising future for our community. Source: Text of the speech.

201 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

peech by Lucien Bouchard, Prime This change in vocabulary is not S Minister of Québec, presented before a semantic accident; rather, it the Québec National Assembly upon the reflects a change in perception. Québec society is perceived more passage of Bill 99, An Act respecting the and more clearly as being distinct exercise of the fundamental rights and and confronted by new landmark prerogatives of the Québec people and challenges. The idea that this the Québec State, December 7, 2000. society must be in control of the ••• major forces behind its development in order to survive and flourish is gaining ground. Increasingly, the [Translation] conclusion is that the Québec Mr. President. More than 200 years government is the best means ago, our ancestors decided to endow available to Quebecers for ensuring Québec—or what was then called Lower that they thrive and assert themselves in accordance with who they Canada—with a legislative body. Since are as a people.” that time, our people’s elected representatives, who have come from across The great collective movement of the Québec, have assembled there to debate Quiet Revolution sparked a bee-hive of key issues, sometimes bitterly, and to social and intellectual activity that affected adopt the laws that govern our lives as a all spheres of our society. It had a major society. Our parliament, which predates political impact. A new will to achieve the British North America Act, remains at autonomy spurred some Quebecers to mobi- the heart of who we are and at the centre lize and affirm loud and clear that the of the activities of our State. simple traditional demands were no longer […] enough. The sovereigntist movement, orig- Throughout the 20th century, our State inally a minority representing a minute asserted itself and our people repeatedly percentage of the electorate, began to spread reiterated its attachment to it. Not once did throughout Québec. Rapidly, in just two changes in government or the arrival of elections, one in three voters cast a ballot new political parties cause us to waver in in favour of sovereignty-association. In 1976, the firm conviction, shared by all, that this the public placed its trust in René Lévesque State is the only one which truly belongs to us and over which we have full control. and his party, giving them a majority government. At the start of the Quiet Revolution, when the time came to take into our own It was a groundbreaking election. For hands our lives as a society, and in partic- the first time, Quebecers were confronted ular our economy, our leaders naturally with a new choice: continue living under relied on the State. And Quebecers grad- the federal regime, inherited from the Act ually became more and more masters in of 1867, or make Québec into a sovereign their own house. state associated with its neighbours. At the beginning of the 80s, the Faced with this situation, Prime Minister Liberal Party’s political platform, known of Canada, Pierre Trudeau affirmed in as the "Beige Paper," accurately summa- February 1977: “We must have the courage rized the evolution in our history and in to ask ourselves the question… we must the Québec State, and I quote: not be afraid to lose or win the battle… I “It is becoming more and more com- have the feeling that we will win. But I mon to speak of the Québec State. must accept the rules of the game.”

202 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

In 1980, Quebecers were asked to accordance with the rules of Québec make this fundamental choice. A spirited democracy. The organization of the referen- debate arose. Québec’s political parties dum, the rules for financing the two options criss-crossed our territory in an effort to and the oversight of the voting process meet as many people as possible. The were entrusted to the chief electoral officer federal government waded in, even invest- and subject to the Referendum Act. Not ing tremendous sums of money to defend once did the federal government at that its option. Quebecers went to the polls on time, although an ardent supporter of the June 20, 1980. As a result of this rendez- accord, call into question the ability of vous, the inalienable right of our people to Québec democracy to ensure that the voting decide their own future was recognized process would be carried out smoothly by all, both here and elsewhere. and that an indisputable result would be The outcome of the referendum marked obtained. a victory for the federalist side. Afterward, Then came 1995. After the failure of the federalist leaders promptly recognized Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords, the right of Quebecers to decide their the newly elected government of Jacques future. In 1991, 11 years after the refer- Parizeau called Quebecers to a third referen- endum, Jean Chrétien, then Leader of the dum. Their political future was again at Opposition in the House of Commons, reaf- issue. Our compatriots’ freedom of choice firmed this inalienable right of Quebecers, was not part of the debate and was not emphasizing that the federal government contested. Appropriately, each side concen- would never have become involved in trated its efforts on promoting its option. the 1980 referendum had it not recognized Throughout Québec, families, friends this right. and co-workers debated the issue. Every- The importance of the 1980 rendez- one in Québec felt directly involved, but vous was also acknowledged in 1997, by also knew that such an important decision the current Leader of the Opposition in would be made by Quebecers alone. the National Assembly, who affirmed, and Daniel Johnson, head of the NO side at the I quote: “Let us be clear about one thing: time, defended the federalist option without the right of Québec to decide its own once questioning this basic truth. As pre- future was settled in 1980. There is no mier, he recognized his fellow Quebecers’ question of going back on that.” right to freedom of choice: “It is extremely This right, our most fundamental as a clear to me that in Québec, we already people, has since been exercised twice. exercised the right to self-determination, First of all, you will remember that in in 1980.” 1992 Prime Minister of Québec, Robert The results of October 30, 1995 showed Bourassa, proposed to Quebecers—a free the world the strength and vigour of democ- society able to take charge of its destiny— racy in Québec. Nearly 94% of registered a draft political agreement known as the voters went to the polls. The YES side won Charlottetown Accord. The proposal was 49.4% of the vote, and 54 000 votes sepa- brought before the National Assembly, rated the two options. From the standpoint where it was debated and adopted. As of the current political reality, it is appro- everyone knows, the accord was rejected, priate to stress voter turnout: 94% of by the majority of votes cast. registered voters cast their ballots. It should also be remembered that But this democratic exercise, covered this second referendum was held in by media around the world, did not yield

203 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

the results many expected. Some had hoped and created a veritable commotion in that such a close victory would spur the Ottawa. Many times over a number of years, federal government to actively look for a the federal government had implied that solution to the Québec problem. It was the sovereigntist plan was illegitimate. The reasonable to expect that an effort would Court affirmed the contrary. be made to put 1982 to rights or, at the In addition, because the results of the very least, that an attempt at openness third referendum, the one held in 1995, toward Québec would be made. Instead, it were so close, Ottawa began contesting the was the opposite. The day after the vote, wording of the question and the majority federal promises of a better tomorrow required for a YES victory. However, the swiftly gave way to the harsh reality of Supreme Court in no way challenged the disillusionment. A vague resolution of the right of the National Assembly to decide, federal Parliament recognizing Québec as on its own, both the question and the a distinct society was perceived for what it majority required. was—empty of meaning—and quickly But what bothered the extollers of a sank into oblivion. hard-line stance most was the Court’s Informed observers noted instead that position on the logical consequence of the the results forced Ottawa to reach an legitimacy of the sovereigntist plan—the unpleasant conclusion, namely, that the obligation to negotiate in good faith. Not federalist option could lose and had more only did the Court affirm that the rest of to lose in 1995. Even in their worst night- Canada was obliged to negotiate in the event mares, federal strategists had not imagined of a sovereigntist win, it further declared that a sovereigntist victory might be a that such negotiations were mandatory likely scenario. And then inspiration struck: under the Constitution. attack Québec democracy, attack Québec The federal government decided it institutions, attack the Québec people’s would not be dictated to, not even by its own freedom of choice. Thus, the die was cast. Court, all the judges of which it appoints. Wherever possible, Québec’s aspirations Instead of replacing the nine justices of were to be thwarted. We were a far cry the Court in one fell swoop, the federal from the promises of the Canadian Prime government opted to go the easier, legisla- Minister, who, in October 1995, in a tele- tive route, tabling Bill C-20. The purpose vision statement a few days before the and contents of the bill were immediately referendum vote, solemnly promised that denounced by all political parties repre- no change affecting Québec’s powers would sented in the Québec National Assembly, be made without the consent of Quebecers. who were supported by a broad spectrum The federal government then decided of groups and institutions. to take the case to the Supreme Court of Claude Ryan, former leader of the Québec Canada, asking the Court to rule on three Liberal Party summarized the situation questions which from the outset were crit- very well when he said: “The bill gives icized by international experts for their credence to the impression that, in Québec, very wording. During the hearings, the democracy is not wholly reliable, that Attorney General of Canada even went so they (Quebecers) cannot be allowed to far as to deny the Québec people’s existence. function on their own and that they need However, in August 1998, the Supreme to be given guidelines. Whereas, in actual Court of Canada handed down an opinion fact, democracy in Québec is ahead of that took more than one person by surprise democracy at the federal level.”

204 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Over and above the sovereigntist get around, with the grace of an elephant, option, the federal government’s interven- the basic rules governing majorities. It tion attacks two crucial cornerstones of created the floating majority whereby the our entire public consultation system—the vote of Quebecers is reduced to a cork wording of the question and the majority bobbing on a rising tide. In so doing, the required. Moreover, it is important to federal Parliament attempted to replace a emphasize that, in substance, our various basic rule of democracy by a shameful political options are no longer at issue, stratagem. but our democratic freedom is. This novelty, contested by Québec opin- First, an undeniable arrogance is ion leaders and political parties even revealed in the federal law with regard to found its echo abroad. Last April, an eminent the wording of an eventual question. It former Prime Minister of France, Raymond seems that Quebecers are no more capable Barre, admitted to being perplexed by of understanding the meaning of words such a practice, and I quote: “This strikes than the meaning of sentences and ques- me as rather singular and odd. Wanting to tions. The House of Commons is to have set a majority that I would term opportu- its say and give its assent. It is no longer nistic does not seem acceptable from the Québec, but another jurisdiction, that is to standpoint of democracy.” decide. As if we were less clear-sighted Bill 99 is based on the intrinsic value than everyone else and needed to be proof each person and each vote and is intended tected from our own judgment. as a response to this drifting away from The ludicrousness of the situation was democracy. The bill states that when the best summed up by the MNA for Château- Québec people is consulted by way of a guay and Chief Opposition Whip, who, referendum under the Referendum Act, after the 1995 referendum, stated, and I the winning option is that which obtains a quote: “There is a duty of clarity. But it is majority of valid votes cast, that is, 50% of the public that will use its judgment to such votes plus one. However, since all of decide whether or not clarity has prevailed. our institutions are under attack, the bill In this case, I feel the Prime Minister [of tabled before this Assembly covers all Canada] should trust in the good judgment prerogatives of the Québec State. of Quebecers.” The various chapters of the bill decree, in summary, that the Québec State derives Central to Bill 99, section 3 states that its legitimacy from the will of our people, the Québec people determines alone, that French is the official language of through its own political institutions, the Québec, that our English-speaking minority terms of the exercise of its right to decide has inalienable rights, that our territory is the political regime and legal status of inviolable and that Aboriginal nations Québec. There is nothing new in this state- must develop and reach their full potential. ment. It aims only to prevent any outside The final provision of the bill provides that intervention in our debates relative to the no other parliament or government may future of Québec and clearly asserts that reduce the powers, authority, sovereignty we have no collective need of a big brother. or legitimacy of the National Assembly, or As if that were not bad enough, the restrict the right of the Québec people to federal government also decided to change exercise its democratic will in deciding its the rules of the game even though it had own future. It is therefore more than a accepted them on three occasions. It devised mere law; rather, it resembles a charter of a new way of calculating votes in order to the political rights of the Québec people.

205 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

It has been said that this bill corre- these calls to an election or a referendum, sponds more to a sovereigntist dialectic after millions of Quebecers have gone to and that federalists should therefore steer the polls generation after generation to clear of it. The defense of the National cast their ballots, after all these years Assembly’s powers is not the business of during which we were able to freely decide one camp or the other. At issue today is our government and political status, we the adoption of a law reaffirming the right will not accept that another parliament of each citizen, of each one of us, to cast a make a travesty of the democratic rules vote—just one vote, but what a vote—to that have characterized and will continue decide our future. Is it necessary to be a to characterize our history. This legisla- sovereigntist to reaffirm the powers of the tion preserves our fundamental rights. It Québec State, to proclaim loud and clear decrees that our freedom cannot be cur- our territorial integrity, to reiterate the tailed. It enables us to keep all of our rules of democracy, to preserve the right options open and to look to the future with of Quebecers to decide their future at a the serenity of a people sure of itself and aware of everything in which it can succeed. time when it is being brutally assailed at the federal level? I would feel that I was betraying the memory and actions of my predecessors if Even if the answer is obvious, I feel it we were to submit to the yoke of Bill C-20. is appropriate to simply quote the words of We must not be silent accomplices in the one of my predecessors, Robert Bourassa, federal offensive. It is our sacred duty, in who made the following statement in this Assembly and elsewhere, to defend 1992: “In [Canadian] federalism, Québec’s the integrity of the institutions that have goal is to obtain all powers for managing been handed down to us. The doors to the its social, cultural and economic develop- future of Québec, to the realization of the ment. Québec also notes that, under the full potential of our people, as well as to federal system, it retains its right to self- its development and choices, must be kept determination or its right to sovereignty, wide open. which was recognized in fact in 1980.” To In conclusion, I would like to quote my mind, if the Official Opposition needed another former Prime Minister of Québec, a blank cheque to support the Act respect- René Lévesque: “The right to control one’s ing the exercise of the fundamental rights own national destiny is the most funda- and prerogatives of the Québec people and mental right Québec society possesses.” the Québec State, it would find it in Mr. We have come together this morning to Bourassa’s words. affirm and defend loud and clear this fun- After all these generations of men and damental right, in the eyes of history. women who have devoted the best years Source: Notes for an address by the Prime Minister upon the passage of Bill 99; Québec National Assembly, Journal of their lives to the public service, after all des débats, December 7, 2000, p. 8575-8578.

206 DOCUMENT 1

Correspondence between W. L. Mackenzie King, Prime Minister of Canada, and Adélard Godbout, Prime Minister of Québec, regarding the Constitutional amendment on unemployment insurance, 1940. QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

210 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

211 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

212 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

213 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

214 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

215 DOCUMENT 2

The 1942 Tax Rental Agreement between the governments of Québec and Canada. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

218 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

219 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

220 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

221 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

222 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

223 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

224 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

225 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

226 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

227 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

228 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

229 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

230 QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

231 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

232 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

233 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

234 DOCUMENT 3

Preliminary brief on the Constitution presented by the Québec government at the Federal-Provincial Conference held in Ottawa from January 10 to 12, 1950 (as reproduced in the proceedings of the Conference). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

236 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

237 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

238 DOCUMENT 4

Documents on the Constitutional amendment, 1951 (pensions for the aged and the blind): An Act to improve pensions for the aged and the blind (Assented to March 7, 1951), a letter from Maurice Duplessis, Prime Minister of Québec, April 18, 1951 and a telegram from the federal Minister of Justice, Stuart S. Garson, May 4, 1951 (correspondence taken from the Debates of the House of Commons). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

240 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

241 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

242 DOCUMENT 5

An Act to institute a royal commission of inquiry on constitutional problems (Assented to February 12, 1953). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

244 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

245 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

246 DOCUMENT 6

Resolution of the Québec Legislative Assembly authorizing the 1960 Constitutional amendment (compulsory retirement of superior court judges upon reaching the age of seventy-five), January 21, 1960. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

248 DOCUMENT 7

Resolution of the Québec Legislative Assembly authorizing the 1964 Constitutional amendment (old-age pensions and supplementary benefits) June 15, 1964. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

250 DOCUMENT 8

Correspondence from January to February 1966 between the Prime Minister of Québec, Jean Lesage, and the Prime Minister of Canada, Lester B. Pearson, regarding the Fulton-Favreau Formula. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

252 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

253 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

254 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

255 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

256 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

257 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

258 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

259 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

260 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

261 DOCUMENT 9

Statement by the Prime Minister of Québec, M. Robert Bourassa, as regards the Victoria Constitutional Charter, Québec, June 23, 1971 (communiqué). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

264 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

265 DOCUMENT 10

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the right of Quebecers to decide on their constitutional future, May 4, 1978. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

268 DOCUMENT 11

Québec-Canada : A New Deal. The Québec Government Proposal for a New Partnership Between Equals : Sovereignty-Association, 1979 (extract). QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

270 QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

271 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

272 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

273 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

274 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

275 QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

276 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

277 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

278 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

279 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

280 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

281 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

282 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

283 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

284 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

285 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

286 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

287 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

288 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

289 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

290 DOCUMENT 12

The 1980 referendum question and an extract of the Official Report of the Directeur général des élections (results). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

292 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

293 DOCUMENT 13

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution, November 21, 1980. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

296 DOCUMENT 14

Constitutional Accord, Canadian Patriation Plan, April 16, 1981 (accord signed by the provinces, except Ontario and New Brunswick). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

298 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

299 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

300 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

301 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

302 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

303 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

304 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

305 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

306 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

307 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

308 DOCUMENT 15

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly regarding the unilateral patriation of the Canadian Constitution, October 2, 1981. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

310 DOCUMENT 16

Constitutional Accord of November 5, 1981, concluded without the participation of Québec. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

. . . 2

312 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

- 2 -

. . . 3

313 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

- 3 -

. . . . 4

314 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

- 4 -

315 DOCUMENT 17

Order-in-Council No. 3214-81 regarding Québec's opposition to the project for patriating and amending the Canadian Constitution, November 25, 1981. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

[Translation]

318 DOCUMENT 18

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the conditions without which Québec cannot accept the patriation of the Canadian Constitution, December 1, 1981. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

320 QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

321 DOCUMENT 19

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated March 20, 1985 on the recognition of existing aboriginal rights and the resolution dated May 30, 1989 recognizing the existence of the Maliseet Nation. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

324 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

325 DOCUMENT 20

Draft Agreement on the Constitution, Proposals by the government of Québec, May 1985, and the correspondence between Messrs. René Lévesque, Prime Minister of Québec, and Brian Mulroney, Prime Minister of Canada, regarding these proposals. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

328 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

329 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

330 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

331 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

332 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

333 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

334 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

335 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

336 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

337 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

338 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

339 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

340 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

341 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

342 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

343 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

344 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

345 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

346 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

347 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

348 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

349 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

350 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

351 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

352 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

353 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

354 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

355 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

356 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

357 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

358 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

359 DOCUMENT 21

Agreement between the government of Québec and the government of Canada pertaining to the Francophone Summit on November 7, 1985. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

362 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

363 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

364 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

365 DOCUMENT 22

The 1987 Constitutional Accord, June 3, 1987 (“The Meech Lake Accord”). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

368 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

369 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

370 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

371 QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

372 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

373 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

374 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

375 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

376 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

377 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

378 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

379 DOCUMENT 23

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly to authorize an amendment to the Canadian Constitution in accordance with the Meech Lake Accord, June 23, 1987. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

382 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

383 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

384 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

385 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

386 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

387 DOCUMENT 24

An Act to establish the Commission on the Political and Constitutional Future of Québec (Assented to September 4, 1990). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

390 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

391 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

392 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

393 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

394 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

395 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

396 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

397 DOCUMENT 25

An Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec (As assented to on June 20, 1991). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

400 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

401 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

402 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

403 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

404 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

405 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

406 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

407 DOCUMENT 26

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly asking the federal government to abide by the process established in Bill 150, November 27, 1991. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

410 DOCUMENT 27

Consensus Report on the Constitution: Final Text, Charlottetown, August 28, 1992, (Charlottetown Accord). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

412 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

413 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

414 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

415 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

416 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

417 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

418 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

419 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

420 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

421 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

422 QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

423 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

424 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

425 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

426 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

427 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

428 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

429 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

430 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

431 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

432 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

433 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

434 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

435 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

436 DOCUMENT 28

An Act to amend the Act respecting the process for determining the political and constitutional future of Québec (Assented to September 8, 1992). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

438 DOCUMENT 29

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the 1992 referendum question and an extract of the Official Report of the Directeur général des élections (results). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

440 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

441 DOCUMENT 30

Bill 1, entitled An Act respecting the future of Québec, 1995. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

444 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

445 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

446 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

447 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

448 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

449 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

450 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

451 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

452 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

453 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

454 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

455 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

456 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

457 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

458 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

459 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

460 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

461 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

462 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

463 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

464 DOCUMENT 31

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the 1995 referendum question and an extract of the Official Report of the Directeur général des élections (results). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

466 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

467 DOCUMENT 32

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly on the right of Quebecers to define their political status, May 1996. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

470 DOCUMENT 33

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly authorizing the amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, April 15, 1997. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

472 DOCUMENT 34

Decision by the Conseil des ministres no. 97-092 on the fifteenth anniversary of the coming into force of the Constitution Act, 1982, April 16, 1997. QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

474 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

475 DOCUMENT 35

Resolution of the Québec National Assembly dated May 21, 1997 on the October 30, 1995 referendum and the Referendum Act. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

478 DOCUMENT 36

The Calgary Declaration (declaration of the provinces and territories except Québec), September 14, 1997. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

480 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

481 DOCUMENT 37

Guidelines from the government of Québec regarding Canadian intergovernmental relations, December 4, 1997. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

484 DOCUMENT 38

The Social Union Framework Agreement, February 4, 1999, that Québec did not sign. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

486 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

487 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

488 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

489 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

490 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

491 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

492 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

493 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

494 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

495 DOCUMENT 39

Declaration of the Gouvernement du Québec respecting Québec's participation in international forums dealing with education, language, culture and identity, March 24, 1999. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

498 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

499 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

500 DOCUMENT 40

An Act respecting the exercise of the fundamental rights and prerogatives of the Québec people and the Québec State (Assented to December 13, 2000). QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

502 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

503 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

504 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

505 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

506 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

507 TIMETABLE QUÉBEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

1864 Charlottetown and Québec 1948 The Fleur-de-lys flag officially Conferences for a project to becomes the flag of Québec. unite the British colonies of North America. 1949 Entry of Newfoundland into the Canadian federation. 1867 Birth of the Canadian federation. The federation then had Abolition of appeals to the four provinces: Québec, Ontario, Judicial Committee of the Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. Privy Council in London. 1870 The federal Parliament creates 1951 Constitutional amendment the Northwest Territories. regarding old-age pensions. Manitoba becomes the fifth 1954 Québec income tax. Canadian province. 1956 Report of the Royal Commis- 1871 British Columbia enters the sion of Inquiry on Constitu- Canadian federation. tional Problems (Tremblay 1873 Prince Edward Island enters Commission, Québec). the Canadian federation. 1964 Constitutional amendment 1875 Creation of the Supreme Court regarding old-age pensions of Canada by the federal and additional benefits. Parliament. 1965 Preliminary report of the Royal 1898 Creation of the Yukon Territory Commission on Bilingualism by the federal Parliament. and Biculturalism (Laurendeau- 1905 Alberta and Saskatchewan Dunton Commission, federal). becomes the eighth and the ninth Canadian provinces. 1966 Québec refuses to accept the procedure for constitutional 1914-1918 The First World War. amendment, thereafter re- 1926 The Balfour Declaration on ferred to as the “Fulton-Favreau the status of the Dominions of Formula.” the British Empire. 1967 Interprovincial “Confederation of 1931 Statute of Westminster: confir- Tomorrow” Conference, Toronto, mation of Canada’s accession November 27 to 30, 1967. to independence. The amendment of the Canadian Consti- 1968 Beginning of a series of constitution continues, however, to tutional conferences ending in require an intervention by the June 1971. British Parliament. The Legislative Assembly of 1939-1945 The Second World War. Québec becomes the National 1940 Report of the Royal Commission Assembly. The Legislative Coun- on Dominion-Provincial Rela- cil is abolished. tions (Rowell-Sirois Commis- 1971 Rejection of the Victoria Consti- sion, federal). tutional Charter, 1971, which Unemployment insurance be- Québec refuses to accept. comes a federal power.

510 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

1974 Adoption by Québec of the federal government and the Official Language Act that provinces, with the exception declares French to be the offi- of Québec, agree on the patri- cial language of Québec. ation of the Canadian Consti- tution along with substantial 1975 Adoption of the Québec constitutional amendments. Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. 1982 Proclamation on April 17, 1982 of the Constitution Act, 1982, 1977 Adoption of the Québec Char- despite Québec’s opposition. ter of the French language. Opinion of the Supreme Court 1978 Federal bill on constitutional of Canada in the Reference reform (C-60). concerning the Constitution Adoption of the Québec Refer- of Canada (Québec’s veto), endum Act. December 6, 1982. 1979 Report of the task force on 1985 The government of Québec Canadian unity (Pépin-Robarts presents to the federal gov- commission, federal). ernment a Draft Agreement on the Constitution. 1980 Québec referendum on the 1986 New round of constitutional Sovereignty-Association project, discussions. Québec makes May 20, 1980. The NO vote known its five conditions for carries the day with 59,56 % endorsing the Constitution of votes cast ; the YES vote Act, 1982. obtains 40,44 %. 1987 1987 Constitutional Accord Federal project for the unilat- (Meech Lake), June 3, 1987. eral patriation of the Canadian Constitution along with sub- 1990 Failure of the 1987 Consti- tutional Accord, Meech Lake, stantial constitutional amend- June 22, 1990. ments. 1991 Report by the Commission on 1981 Constitutional agreement of the Political and Constitutional eight provinces opposing the Future of Québec (Bélanger- federal government’s unilateral Campeau Commission, Québec), patriation, April 16, 1981. March, 1991. Opinion of the Supreme Court Adoption by Québec of An Act of Canada in the Reference respecting the process for for a draft resolution concern- determining the political and ing the Constitution of Canada, constitutional future of Québec September 28, 1981. (Bill 150), June 20, 1991. Federal-provincial Conference Federal proposals aimed at on the Constitution, Ottawa, renewing the federation, Sep- November 2 to 5, 1981. The tember, 1991.

511 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

1992 Consensus Report on the 1998 Opinion of the Supreme Court Constitution, Charlottetown, of Canada on the federal August 28, 1992. On October Reference on the secession of 26, 1992, the Agreement is Québec, August 20, 1998. rejected in Québec by referen- 1999 Signature by provincial gov- dum (56,68 % voting NO and ernments, with the exception 43,32 % voting YES), as well of Québec, of the Social Union as in the rest of Canada within Framework Agreement, Feb- the framework of another ruary 4, 1999. referendum held simultaneously (54,3 % voting NO, the Creation of the Nunavut terri- Yes option obtaining 45,7 % tory by the federal Parliament. of the votes). 2000 Adoption by the federal Par- 1994 Agreement on Internal Trade, liament of the Act giving effect July 18, 1994. to the requirement for the clarity as set out in the opi- 1995 Referendum in Québec on the nion of the Supreme Court of Bill respecting the future of Canada in the Quebec Seces- Québec providing for Québec’s sion Reference (Bill C-20), accession to sovereignty as June 29, 2000. well as an offer of economic and political partnership with Adoption by Québec of the Canada (October 30, 1995). Act respecting the exercise of The NO vote carries the day the fundamental rights and with 50,58 % of votes cast, prerogatives of the Québec the YES option obtains 49,42% people and the Québec State of votes cast. (Bill 99), December 13, 2000. 1996 Institution by the federal government of a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada pertaining to Québec’s accession to sovereignty. Québec refuses to participate in it. 1997 The Calgary Declaration of first ministers of the provinces, with the exception of Québec, September 14, 1997. Bilateral amendment of section 93 of the Constitution Act, 1867, thereafter making it possible to establish linguistic school boards in Québec.

512 INDEX*

* This index only refers to the contents of the paragraphs in part 1 of this document. Nonetheless, in part 1 the reader will find references to the speeches and documents that make up parts 2 and 3. QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Aboriginal nations 174, 214, 220, 225, Autonomy 250, 313, 338, 352, 402, 462 • Budgetary 101 • Recognition 250, 369 • Fiscal See distribution of financial • Self-government 292, 310, 313, resources 339, 369, 462 • Provincial (general concept) 4, 6, 17, Administration of justice 26, 153 18, 19, 20, 48, 134, 446 • Criminal justice for young persons • Québec (general concept) 48, 108, 466, 467 353, 408, 409, 410, 446 See also correctional services, courts • Self-government See Aboriginal nations Administrative agreements (general concept) See federalism (administrative reform) Bankruptcy 84 Administrative reform See federalism Banks 84, 429 See also financial institutions Agreement on Internal Trade See trade (internal) Bélanger-Campeau Commission See Com- mission on the Political and Agriculture 26, 84, 283, 351 Constitutional Future of Québec An Act respecting the exercise of the Biculturalism 60, 69, 70, 94, 98, 106, 128, fundamental rights and preroga- 139 See also culture, duality, equal- tives of the Québec people and the ity, pact Québec State (Bill 99) 400, 401, Bilingualism See language 402, 403 Bill 1, entitled an Act respecting the future An Act respecting the process for deter- of Québec 352 mining the political and constitu- Bill 99 See An Act respecting the exercise tional future of Québec (Bill 150) of the fundamental rights and pre- 301, 309, 311, 312, 333, 338, 340 rogatives of the Québec people and An Act to give effect to the requirement the Québec State for clarity as set out in the Opinion Bill C-20 See Québec’s accession to sover- of the Supreme Court of Canada eignty in the Quebec Secession Reference (Bill C-20) See Québec’s accession Borrowing power 26 to sovereignty Ancillary power 54 Calgary Declaration 387, 388, 444 Asymmetry 317, 388 Canada Clause 304, 313 • By the effect of an opting-out right Canada-wide standards and objectives 108 238, 279, 291, 323, 336, 361, 362, • By the effect of delegation of powers 409, 433, 435, 437, 439, 448 See 79, 109, 142 also spending power • Status and specific powers for Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms Québec 49, 50, 226, 388 See human rights and freedoms

514 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Canadian union 76, 84 • Constitutional agreement, Canadian unity 5, 12, 31, 286 April 16, 1981 222 Census and statistics 84 • Constitutional right of opting-out with compensation 222, 224, 256, Centralization 3, 109, 142, 144, 452 See 279, 281, 315 also unitarianism • Developing projects for constitu- Charlottetown Accord 312, 313, 314, 353, tional amendment 136 364, 392 • Fulton-Favreau Formula 43 Childhood See family and childhood • General procedure (“7 / 50”) 222, Cities See municipal institutions, urban 279 development • Need for consent of provinces 1, Citizenship 174, 352 15, 16, 46 Civil law (general concept) 22, 26, 29, 92, • Quebec’s veto 44, 45, 223, 224, 255, 209, 242, 268, 431, 432 256, 277, 310, 313, 315 • Civil procedure 26 • Regional veto 137 Collective rights 74, 89, 90, 91 • Unanimous procedure 222, 279 Commission on the Political and Consti- See also constituent assembly, constitutional Future of Québec 298, tutional negotiations 299, 307, 309, 333, 338, 340, 353 Constitutional negotiations (general con- Common economic space 174, 352, 372, cept) 280, 306, 308, 335, 404 373, 425, 428, 454, 465 See also Consumer protection 429, 432, 433 economic union, trade Correctional services 84, 153, 199 Communications 135, 147, 188, 189, 190, Courts 254 219, 226, 229, 257, 295, 296, 351, • Constitutional court 31, 92, 93, 94, 371, 372 122, 164, 208 • Federal communications agencies • Court decisions on constitutional 98, 147, 229, 313 affairs 136, 142, 206, 239, 240, 341 • Radio and television 83, 84, 98, 113, • Court of Appeal 26, 32, 121, 209 147, 190, 226, 229, 230, 363, 449 • Courts of civil and criminal juris- • Satellites 191 dictions 26 Confederation See federalism, pact • Family courts 114, 236 Constituent Assembly 308, 352 • Federal courts 121 Constitution Act,1982 224, 225, 241, 274, • Judicial Committee of the Privy 275, 277, 281, 405, 451 See also Council 31 patriation of the Canadian Con- • Superior courts 95, 121, 209, 243, stitution 269 Constitution of Québec 88, 90, 265, 352, • Supreme Court of Canada 31, 164, 363 222, 242, 266, 267, 268, 277, 279, 281, 288, 313, 315 See also federal Constitutional amending procedure 177, institutions, Québec’s accession to 222, 254, 406 sovereignty (federal reference to the • Bilateral procedure 405 Supreme Court of Canada)

515 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

514 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

515 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

514 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

515 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Culture 42, 56, 58, 72, 78, 82, 99, 113, • Financial autonomy (general con- 116, 135, 138, 139, 143, 165, 188, cept) 18, 20, 27, 33, 35, 68, 124, 197, 219, 270, 295, 296, 313, 322, 127, 367, 409, 423, 457 351, 371, 424, 426 • Need for a new distribution of fi- • Arts and letters 78, 99, 154 nancial resources 34, 67, 68, 75, 102, 103, 212, 367 • Cinema 84 • Need for clear provincial fiscal • Cultural affirmation 127, 128, 129, powers 26 130, 134, 135, 166 • Opting-out with fiscal or financial • Cultural development 129, 147, 165, compensation 64, 66, 100, 102, 221, 273, 285 157, 171, 172, 173, 203, 259, 279, • Cultural security 135, 220, 282, 290, 291, 313, 321, 337, 356, 410, 414, 419, 435, 441, 442, 443, 444, 313 445, 446, 448, 456 • Historic and cultural heritage 154, • Program for guaranteeing tax reve- 198, 258 nues 173 See also biculturalism, Québec’s identity • Stabilization of provincial revenues Currency 174, 352 87 Customs tariffs 174, 195, 352 See also borrowing power, equalization payments, fair share of federal expenditures, spending power, tax system Decentralization 73, 79, 109, 132, 134, Distribution of powers (general concept) 138, 141, 142, 144, 249 110, 316, 342, 407, 409, 410, 411, 453 Declaratory power 86, 156, 204, 237 See • Need for a reform 7, 43, 75, 77, also works and undertakings 78, 104, 107, 177, 178, 218, 221, Defence 174, 229 254, 310, 316 Delegation of powers 79, 81, 109, 142 • Need for a veto for Québec 44, 45, Distribution of financial resources 131, 223, 256, 310 289, 290 • Opting-out right from a constitutional amendment 222, 256, 279, • Balance between powers and 281, 315 financial resources 20, 21, 33, 62, 102, 111, 138, 166, 167, 290, 348, • Overlapping and duplication 52, 54, 85, 221, 310, 316, 318, 331, 367 344, 346, 347, 361, 410, 420, 429, • Federal financial disengagement 430, 436 and fiscal or financial compensa- • Protection of human rights and tion 211, 290, 291, 336, 354, 356, freedoms 88, 90, 120, 160, 161 359, 360, 362, 366, 376, 410, 411, • Québec’s affirmation 49, 104, 127, 412, 442, 454, 460 139, 140, 218, 221, 226, 310, 318, • Federal subsidies and transfers 408 18, 21, 27, 35, 36, 65, 124, 235, See also asymmetry, centralization, 248, 249, 259, 290, 291, 324, 336, decentralization, delegation of powers, 348, 365, 366, 411 special status, unitarianism

516 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Duality 74, 78, 94, 106, 176, 207, 220, • Vocational training 82, 234, 246, 244, 279, 288, 426 See also bicul- 323, 325, 326, 355 turalism, equality See also unemployment insurance, work Duplication See distribution of powers Energy See natural resources Environment 113, 117, 332, 351 • Environmental assessment 331, Economic development 51, 67, 78, 147, 332, 434 165, 166, 193, 219, 221, 226, 227, • Harmonization 434 246, 249, 257, 273, 285, 295, 296, • Natural heritage 198 327 Equality Economic policies 52, 123, 131, 163, 168, • as regards electors 391, 396, 400 170, 174, 180, 181, 227, 341, 461 • as regards founding peoples 224, Economic union 310, 341 226, 394 See also pact Economy See common economic space, • as regards partners within the frame- economic development, economic work of Sovereignty-Association policies, economic union, federalism 174 (economic interests) • as regards provinces 353, 388 Education 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 32, 51, 56, • as regards two founding ethnic 78, 84, 99, 113, 143, 226, 238, groups 41 246, 270, 323, 330, 371, 417, 424, 433, 436 • as regards two nations 69, 78, 216 • Adult education 82, 226, 234 See Equalization payments 87, 169, 173, 213, also employment and labour 248, 249, 289, 350 • Education allowances 66 Exceptional federal powers 7, 8, 59, 155, • Educational radio-television 113 237 • School fees 235, 447 Expropriation 84, 237 • Student loans and bursaries 66, 235, 419, 420, 448 • Universities and post-secondary Fair share of federal expenditures 169, education 25, 27, 38, 40, 82, 173, 187, 337, 368, 416, 418, 420, 460, 235, 290, 323, 324, 366, 418 See 461 also research and development Family and childhood Emergency 155, 229, 237 See also excep- • Early childhood development 416 tional federal powers • Family allowances 27, 84, 99, 115, Employment and labour 56, 144, 151, 116 174, 257, 325, 344, 355, 421 • Family courts 114 • Job creation 233 • Family policy 115, 413, 414 • Labour mobility 233, 351, 352 •“National” child benefit 413, 414, • Labour training 82, 84, 116, 313, 415, 452 325, 326, 345, 355, 421 • Nurseries and day care centres 448 • Manpower placement 84, 99, 116, • Parental insurance 415 421 See also marriage and divorce

517 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Federal institutions (general concept) 46, • Reciprocity, mutual assistance, 75, 91, 165, 178, 334 cooperation 215, 271, 371 See also House of Commons, Senate, See also International Francophonie, Supreme Court of Canada language

Federalism 5, 12, 134, 218, 219, 251, Fulton-Favreau Formula 43 273, 299, 303, 309, 310, 353, 364, 388, 425 • Administrative reform 50, 310, Globalization 425 326, 407, 409, 452, 453, 454 • Multiplication of exchanges between • Asymmetric See asymmetry countries 57 • Basis 278 Governor general 210 • Cooperative 62, 310, 316 • Constitutional amending procedure • Economic interests 12, 106, 425 222 • Executive 341 • Guarantee for minorities 12 • Issuing from the free consent of Health 25, 26, 51, 56, 78, 84, 99, 116, the provinces 10 144, 145, 201, 290, 330, 354, 418, 422, 435, 436 See also autonomy, canadian unity, pact, provinces (provincial sovereignty), • Health insurance 56, 113, 171, 173, unitarianism 290, 366 Federal proposals, September, 1991 • Hospitalization insurance 39, 65, 304, 310, 341 171, 173, 366 Federal subsidies 99 Hospitals See health • Direct to individuals and organi- House of Commons 279, 281, 313, 315 See zations 211, 270, 448 also federal institutions • To municipalities 99, 247 Housing 82, 84, 146, 313, 337, 361, 368, 412, 460 • To universities 27, 38, 40 Human rights and freedoms 90, 118, Financial institutions (general concept) 161, 239, 254, 333 84, 284, 346, 351, 429 • Canadian Charter 88, 92, 93, 107, See also banks, securities 119, 120, 160, 205, 224, 239, 241, Fisheries 26, 184, 232, 356 264, 304 Food and drugs 84 • Override clause 241, 287, 313 French-Speaking and Acadian Commu- • Québec Charter 88, 90, 160, 265 nities of Canada 293, 294, 340, 371, 463 • Education in the language of the Immigration 84, 135, 151, 152, 226, 257, minority 215, 263 277, 279, 282, 313, 319, 320, 321, • Québec’s policy 371 377

518 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Incorporation of companies 84 • Language rights 91, 118, 206, Industrial policy 186 224, 240, 263, 293, 333, 402, 449 Infinitely extensible powers 80 • Linguistic school boards 405, 417, 450 Insurance 26 • Status of the French language 60, Intergovernmental relations 61, 62, 335, 118, 129, 261, 282, 286, 333, 402 364, 455 See also French-Speaking and Acadian • Intergovernmental machinery 75, Communities of Canada, Québec English- 96, 341, 437, 439, 452, 453 Speaking Community • Joint actions by provinces 246, Leisure activities 84, 146, 197, 313, 412 445, 446 Lieutenant governor 451 See also constitutional negotiations, • Constitutional amending procedure federalism (administrative reform) 222 International Francophonie 257, 340, 463 • International community of French- Marriage and divorce 26, 84, 114, 236, Speaking peoples 42 257 International relations 57, 113, 226, 257, Meech Lake Accord 278, 279, 297, 306, 329, 402, 425 310, 315, 335, 341, 353, 364, 404 • International cooperation 84, 148 Minorities 12 • Organizations and international See also Aboriginal nations, French- forums 57, 84, 174, 352, 424 Speaking and Acadian Communities • Treaties 57, 84, 174, 272, 294, of Canada, language, Québec English- 352 Speaking Community See also International Francophonie Mobility 99, 224, 233, 351, 440, 448 Monarchy 76 • Constitutional amending procedure Justice See administration of justice, cor- 222 rectional services, courts See also governor general, lieutenant governor Monetary union 174 Knowledge 324, 461 See also education, Municipal institutions 26, 32, 82, 84, research and development 246, 313, 359 • City and town planning 84, 146 • Local public services facilities 146 Labour See employment and labour See also urban development Language 42, 78, 89, 104, 118, 139, 162, Municipalities See municipal institutions 221, 261, 279, 286, 295, 313, 402 • Bilingualism 60, 77, 104, 118 • Constitutional amending procedure 222

519 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Peace, order and good government 155, Nation 69, 70, 75, 77, 78, 85, 97, 101, 313 See also exceptional federal 216, 218, 353, 377, 387 powers • Distinct national community 216, 217 People 24, 48, 68, 70, 129, 220, 223, 224, 226, 252, 253, 313, 318, 353, 377, • National freedom and security 34 379, 380, 382, 383, 387, 388, 389, • National identity 219 394, 395, 401, 402, 403, 408, 409, • National traditions 24 411, 424, 455 See also nation, self- See also people, society determination, society Natural resources 25, 26, 84, 149, 226, Personal information 430, 431, 432 231, 237, 351 Powers of reservation and disallowance • 200 mile economic zone 183, 184, 30, 86, 237, 260 231 Professions and trades 25, 26, 82, 448 • Continental shelf 84, 231 Property 26, 29, 84, 194, 237 • Energy 150, 351 Provinces 221 • Forests 313, 412 • Creation of new provinces 137, • Mines 113, 183, 192, 231, 313, 412 255, 279, 281, 313, 315 • Provincial property 194, 237 • Equality of provinces 353, 388 See also parks, territory • Founding parties 10, 16 • Joint actions 246, 445, 446 • Provincial sovereignty 2, 9, 17, 47, Overlapping See distribution of powers 65, 204, 402 • Proximity of local needs 3, 23, 51, 151, 179, 180, 228 See also Québec Pact (role of Québec and its government) • Federative pact 1, 411 Public service 26 • Need for consent on the part of contracting parties 16 • Pact between two peoples 11, 388 Québec Parks 198, 258 • Demographic situation in Canada Patriation of the Canadian Constitution 282, 320 14, 135, 177, 222, 223, 254, 276, 278, 289, 353, 406 • Role of Québec and its government 41, 53, 71, 77, 105, 128, 129, • Constitutional agreement, 143, 162, 185, 189, 193, 216, 218, April 16, 1981 222 226, 227, 257, 279, 313, 324, 424, • Constitutional agreement, Novem- 438, 442 See also provinces (prox- ber 5, 1981 223 imity of local needs) • Constitutional preamble 220 Québec Charter of Human Rights and • Fulton-Favreau Formula 43 Freedoms See human rights and • Victoria Constitutional Charter 133 freedoms See also Constitution Act, 1982

520 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

Québec English-Speaking Community Regional development 53, 56, 63, 99, 333, 352, 363, 449 289, 313, 327, 351 • Education in the language of the Republic 76 minority 215, 263, 363, 449, 450 Research and development 99, 187, 283, • Established rights 402, 450 461 • Health and social services 262, • University search 82, 113, 324, 418 449 Residuary power 86, 159, 237 • Institutions 262, 333 Right to self-determination See self- • Reciprocity agreements 215 determination See also language Québec’s accession to sovereignty 174, 245, 299, 305, 309, 311, 312, 352, Second World War 353, 364, 370, 449 • 1942 Tax Rental Agreement 9 • Economic and political partnership • Exceptional provisional powers 7, 8 352, 394 • Federal post-war program 35 • Economic association integrated Securities 84, 113, 328, 346, 357, 427, into a political structure 305, 394 428 • Federal Act giving effect to the Self-determination 175, 216, 217, 221, requirement for clarity as set out 223, 252, 297, 298, 300, 301, 302, in the Opinion of the Supreme 378, 379, 381, 383, 384, 399, 402, Court of Canada in the Québec 408, 455 Secession Reference (Bill C-20) Senate 97, 178, 207, 244, 279, 313, 334 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399 • Constitutional amendment 222, • Federal reference to the Supreme 279, 281, 313, 315 Court of Canada 380, 382, 383, • Federal Chamber 97, 313 384, 385, 393, 395, 398 Shared-cost programs (general concept) • Sovereignty-Association 174 64, 100, 101, 157, 171, 172, 279, Québec’s identity 130, 140, 219, 257, 273, 313, 336, 365, 366, 435, 448 275, 310, 424 • Health insurance See health • Hospitalization insurance See health • Post-secondary education See Referendum Act 174, 381, 402 See also education referendums Social 19, 22, 23, 138, 143, 144, 219, 226, Referendums 174, 217, 302, 309, 311, 285, 295, 296, 330, 336, 362, 365, 312, 314, 352, 353, 378, 381, 383, 366, 376, 414, 416 384, 392, 431 • Income security 133, 144, 166, • Majority threshold 384, 390, 391, 366, 435, 436 392, 396, 399, 402 • Pensions 55, 84, 99, 116 • Referendum question 300, 384, • Québec’s specificity 23, 58, 116, 393, 394, 395, 399 219, 442, 444 Reference on the Secession of Québec • Social development 51,147, 165, See Québec’s accession to sovereignty 166, 273, 285

521 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

• Social Security 25, 56, 58, 78, 84, Supreme Court of Canada See courts 85, 116 (Supreme Court of Canada), Québec’s • Social services 144, 145, 200, 435 accession to sovereignty (federal reference to the Supreme Court of • Social union 389, 436, 437, 438, Canada) 439, 440, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 452 • Social work 56 Tax points See distribution of financial • Specific needs of the citizenry 23, resources 438, 442, 448 Tax system 84, 125, 149, 195, 289, 351, 423 See also education, employment and • 1942 Tax Rental Agreement 9 labour, family and childhood, health, housing • Canada Customs and Revenue Agency 423 Social Union Framework Agreement See • Consumption tax 289, 367, 458, 459 social (social union) • Customs See customs tariffs Society 42, 70, 74, 85, 104, 118, 126, 296, 299, 318, 324, 325, 330, 377, 392, • Direct taxation 21, 28 402 • Estate tax and succession duty 29, • Distinct society 128, 130, 132, 67, 84, 102, 113, 149 221, 224, 275, 277, 279, 286, 297, • Gift taxes 67, 149 304, 310, 313, 320, 353, 387, 431 • Income tax 29, 37, 67, 102, 458 • Uniqueness in character 387, 444 • Property tax 84 Sovereignty-Association 174 See also • Provincial university educational Québec’s accession to sovereignty tax 40 Special status See asymmetry • Tax collection 34, 423, 458 Specificity, sense of identity 41, 44, 49, • Tax harmonization 349, 367, 458, 162, 212, 274, 275, 288, 295, 296, 459 344, 346, 389, 442, 444 See also See also distribution of financial asymmetry, nation, people, Québec’s resources identity, Québec, social (Québec’s Telecommunications See communications specificity), society Territory Spending power 87, 157, 158, 203, 238, 246, 259, 277, 279, 285, 313, 331, • Borders 279, 386, 398 See also 347, 435, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, integrity 446, 447, 448 See also Canada- • Colonization 26 wide standards and objectives, • Environmental management 138 federal subsidies, shared-cost pro- • Gulf of Saint Lawrence 182, 184, grams 231, 232 Sports 84 • Integrity 174, 250, 310, 313, 339, Statistics See census and statistics 352, 386, 397, 398, 402 Status of women 228, 289 • Management of waterways 117

522 QUÉ BEC'S POSITIONS ON CONSTITUTIONAL AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES

FROM 1936 TO MARCH 2001

• Organization 56, 82, 84, 138, 143, Unemployment insurance 4, 313, 325, 146 355, 415, 421 • Ownership of the public domain 84 Unitarianism 92, 389, 411, 455 See also natural resources, parks Urban development 82, 84, 113 Tourism 196, 313, 412 Trade • Canada-United States Free Trade Victoria Constitutional Charter 133, Agreement 295 137, 159 • E-Trade 430, 431, 432 • Internal 341, 351, 372, 373, 454, 464, 465 War See Second World War • International 272, 283, 295, 296, Work 364, 372, 464 • Employment conditions 56, 84 • Interprovincial 237, 283 • Labour relations 84, 202 See also common economic space, See also employment and labour economic union Works and undertakings 84 See also Traditional (fundamental, historic) de- declaratory power mands 280, 389, 438, 441, 453 Transport 351, 372 • Air transport 174, 229, 359 • Railway transport 358, 374, 375 • Road transport 25, 27, 56, 65, 84, 113 • Sea transport 174, 360, 376

523