Indigenous Rights: Section 35 and plans to meet leaders

The second and fourth "parts" of the Constitution have to do with Indigenous Peoples and Indigenous Rights, then referred to more commonly as Aboriginal* Rights to include First Nations, Inuit and Métis.  Indigenous groups fought to have their rights included in this new document, which in part two "recognizes and affirms ... existing aboriginal and treaty rights."

Part four of the Constitution basically obligued the Prime Minister and Premiers to meet ot discuss the rights of Indigenous peoples.

The First Ministers’ Conference of March 1983 led eventually to the Constitution Amendment Proclamation of1983, which changed section 35 to include land claims agreements as treaties.  In other words all Indigenous peoples would have the same rights as other Canadians to make the decisions about their lives and land.

There were three more conferences (1984, 1985, 1987). However the four national Aboriginal organizations and the Prime Ministers and Premiers could not come to an agreement on the meaning of section 35.  The main issue was whether people have the right to govern themselves. Some people though it an inherent right, while others saw it as something granted by the Crown (i.e. Federal) governments. In the end, section 35 was seen more of as an “empty box” that needed to be filled up with agreements still to be negotiated.

Note that "The term Aboriginal was introduced in the 1982 Canadian Constitution by your federal government as an ‘umbrella’ term to include First Nations, Inuit and Métis."  Source

(Text source:  Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection, especially ) 

Of Equalization Payments and Populations:  Alberta was unhappy, NFLD still "gets squat" 

Comparable economies and wealth between provinces?  Well, at least to ensure comparable "levels of public service and taxation".  This was a goal of the Federal Government's equalization payment policy since the 1950s.  The Constitution of 1982 formally commited the Government of Canada to the principle of making equalization payments.

It sounds like a great idea, but there were always provinces that were unhappy about the arrangement.  Alberta resented getting less when was giving so much.  

Even recently, in the “Fighting for Fairness” campaign, transfer amounts were a hot topic in the Newfoundland and Labrador PC Party during the election there. [...] “Quebec gets $13 billion a year and we get squat” said the PC Leader Ches Crosbie in a campaign ad.

(Text source:  Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection here,
especially The Canadian Encyclopedia and also  A New Tool to Understand Equalization ) 

But does NFLD really "get squat"?  Do Québeckers actually get more?

"Figure 10 shows the distribution of total equalization transfers among the provinces at two points in time. QC (royal blue) has always received more than 50 percent of the total transfers. AB has never received equalization transfers (no neon green). Until 2009 that was also true for ON (red)  [...]

"A second view of the size of equalization payments going to the provinces is in per capita terms, shown in Figure 11. The size of these transfers is significant for some provinces, up to $2,000 per capita for PE and NL, in turquoise blue and fuchsia pink respectively. [...] QC (in royal blue), though it accounts for over half of total equalization transfers, in per capita terms is relatively low ranging from $750 to $1,000 per capita."

Text and image source: Regional Inequality and Decentralized Governance: Canada’s Provinces, by  M. Rose Olfert, p. 213-214.   Images available here as Figure 10 and Figure 11 under license Creative Commons BY  

Québec reactions to Constitution, and a new Prime Minister's response

In 1982 Québec did not sign the new Constitution, mainly because the new amending formula removed its veto over future constitutional change, and also because the new Charter of Rights, which guaranteed minority language rights in all provinces, seemed to threaten their ability to justify Bill 101 which could be argued removed Anglophone language rights.  

In 1984, Brian Mulroney (a Conservative) came to power having promised to accommodate Québec's objections to the constitution. Mulroney soon began negotiations with Québec and its new leader Robert Bourassa, to find a deal that would be acceptable to all provinces.  

(Text source:  Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection,) 

Provincial Powers to be enhanced and confirmed

For the first time, provinces were to be given a say in who gets nominated to the Senate and the Supreme Court.   Similarly, the Accord required at least one First Ministers Conference each year to increase the chances they would be consulted on other matters.

Social programs like health care were always a provincial power, but they were often funded using federal funds, which many felt had strings attached to how they were to be used.  The Accord would allow provinces to opt out of federal funding for certain programs, as long as they provided their own equivalents.

Finally, past agreements regarding immigration made it a shared responsibility between provinces and the federal government since Confederation.  This shared aspect to immigration was to be finally given " constitutional status" in the Meech Lake accord, something Québec would have certainly demanded more than most provinces. 

(Text source:  Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection) 

Distinct Society clause

While on the one hand recognizing the English minority in Québec and the Francophone minorities in the rest of Canada, the 1987 Meech Lake Accord also proposed a distinct society clause for Québec be included in the constitution. Since this clause could be interpretted in many ways, the fear was that Québec could use it to bypass rules about minorities, in particular in relation to their language rights.  Québec ultimately agreed on a version of the clause "promising that ,the distinct society clause, would not derogate the Charter, providing protections for multicultural and aboriginal rights, and tighter language regarding restrictions on the federal spending power.” 

(Text source:  Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection here,
Espcially Distinct Society - Centre for Constitutional Studies  and en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meech_Lake_Accord )

Veto out for Quebec, replaced by the notion of unanimous consent

Previously Québec (and Ontario) could veto changes to the constitution, but the 1982 constitution " did not accord the province a veto over future constitutional change"...

One could say that many of Québec's demands were essentially "provincialized", since rights regarding immigration, the Senate and Supreme court, and opting out of programs were given to all provinces by Meech.  Similarly, "specialized matters (such as changes to the Senate and the creation of new provinces) would require the unanimous consent of Parliament and the provinces," which one could say gives a kind of veto to everyone, including Québec.  Even Réne Levesque had agreed with this, in favour of getting an opting out clause, but it didn't sit well with all Québeckers, some of whom still felt that "Quebec’s right to a veto is based on its special role within Confederation as the representative of one of two founding peoples."

(Text source:  Paul Rombough from various sources in our main document collection here,
Including Aboriginal Peoples and Constitutional Reform and Quebec's constitutional veto: the legal and historical context (BP-295E) )

In 1990, the 'Belanger-Campeau Commission' ... recommended that the National Assembly establish two committees to examine the question of Québec sovereignty ... It also recommended that a referendum on Québec sovereignty take place in 1992. 

The National Assembly modified the latter recommendation to provide that the referendum could be on either sovereignty or reformed federalism. These recommendations contributed to the Charlottetown Accord, which was rejected in simultaneous referenda in October 1992.

Source: Belanger-Campeau - Centre for Constitutional Studies 

Quebec alienated:  Another Referendum on Sovereignty in 1995

In the early 1990s, the failure of Charlottetown and the bitter debates over Québec's distinct society help bring the Parti Quebecois back to power, this time under Jacques Parizeau.  He had promised the referendum in his campaign for 1995.  As part of the strategy to move the process forward, Bill 1 was drafted and debated in the National Assembly, as a "legal pretext for declaring independence".  Bill 1 or An Act respecting the future of Québec" (Loi sur l’avenir du Québec), included a declaration of sovereignty in its preamble and reference to an agreement of 12 June 1995 between all the Québec party leaders of the time.

On  October 30th, 1995 the referendum was held, and it featured the largest voter turnout in Quebec's history (93.52%).  The question read:

"Do you agree that Québec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership …"

Source::  Paul Rombough paraphrasing  various sources here in our main document collection 

Unity Rally:  Canadians arrive to urge Québec to stay

"Days before the 1995 Quebec referendum on sovereignty, the Quebec Business Council on the Environment called for a rally as a focal point for federalist voters. Minister of Fisheries Brian Tobin called on Canadians outside Quebec to join in this last event of the No campaign. On October 27, the event snowballed into a large demonstration, filling Place du Canada in downtown Montréal with an estimated 100,000 to 150,000 people from all over Canada. It was one of the largest political rallies in Canadian history. Many accused the organizers of unlawful campaign expenditures, which led to Quebec’s chief electoral officer investigating charges of overspending."  

Source: Unity rally | Canadian Museum of History