The Fulton-Favreau Formula in Manitoba
Dale Gibson *
Manitoba’s response to the Fulton-Favreau formula was markedly
lacking in enthusiasm.
Despite good coverage by the press, the public seemed uninter-
ested. Two separate public hearings by a committee of the Legis-
lature attracted only two or three representations, and practically
no spectators.
The Conservative and Liberal parties both supported the proposal
in general, probably through a fear that to oppose “Patriation of the
Constitution” would make them appear somehow unpatriotic. But
this support was cautious, and most of the speeches in the Legis-
lature betrayed a realization by the legislators that they were dealing
with an issue whose full implications they were unable to fathom.
The debate in the Legislature was almost perfunctory. The Pre-
mier, who had earlier expressed the view that existing methods of
constitutional amendment are satisfactory,’ did not take part. The
Attorney-General introduced a resolution approving the proposal,
but requesting the federal government to refer the matter to a joint
committee of the House of Commons and Senate for study and
public hearings.2 The tone of uncertainty that characterized the
Attorney-General’s whole speech was set by his opening words :
“… I would want to have it clearly understood right from the beginning
that I am not a constitutional lawyer and there are many in this Assembly
who are in a much better position to discuss these matters than I.” s
If there were other members of the House who felt more con-
fident of their grasp of constitutional law, few came forward. No
* Associate Professor, Manitoba Law School.
1 The Manitoban, Oct. 27, 1964, p. 3.
2 The operative part of the resolution Tead as follows: “Therefore be it
resolved: That while this House approves the revised draft, it recommends
that the Government of Manitoba advise the Government of Canada of this
resolution and request the Government of Canada to cause the revised draft
(i) first to be submitted to a joint committee of ithe House of Commons and
the Sente of Canada with a request that it be considered by the committee
and that the said committee hold public hearings; and (ii) that the said committee
report thereon to Parliament.” Debates and Proceedings, Legislative Assembly
of Manitoba, Vol. XI, No. 58, p. 1476, April 12, 1965.
3 Ibid., p. 1479.
McGILL LAW JOURNAL
[Vol. 12
other government members spoke. The Liberal leader expressed sup-
port for the resolution, though he put even more stress on the need
for further study by constitutional experts than had the Attorney-
General. 4 The only other members to speak were two New Democrats,
who proposed amending the resolution to delete approval of the formu-
la,5 and the Legislature’s lone Social Creditor, who advocated further
public hearings in Manitoba. 6 The resolution was then passed, una-
mended, with only the New Democratic members voting against it.7
So far, then, the Manitoba Government has managed to have
the best of both worlds. While posing as a friend of “Patriation”, it
has avoided committing itself to responsibility for the consequences
of the Fulton-Favreau formula. I suspect that Premier Roblin and
his colleagues were very relieved to learn that Quebec’s reluctance
has made a show-down unlikely.
4 Ibid., No. 69, p. 1737, April 12, 1965.
5 Ibid., No. 77, p. 1968, April 28, 1965.
6Ibid., No. 88, p. 2242, May 4, 1965.
7 Ibid., p. 2246.
