The Lucknow Sentinel, 1981-10-14, Page 7•
Luc;mow SentMelt Wedneaday, °Other I.4. i9.$
Cardiff comments on the co
*from 11110 '6
occasion how many provinces would have to
give their consent to a change in the balance
of federal and provincial 'powers, but it left
open the door to making that decision later.
What it said on WS occasion is that while no
law prohibits the .federal government from
trying to change the constitution n the way
it proposes • to do, the present convention
about constitutional change does.
SOMejudges in the Supreme Court
pointed nut that some conventions are more
important than law's, but the difference is •
that' conventions -Call not be enforced by 'the
Courts. When a' convention is broken, the,
injured party cannot go to Court to have the •
injury correctedThis raises a question
about how an injured party such as a
province Can obtain justice when the
convention -is broken. Too often in human
affairs, the answer is that correction of such
'injuries is sought through violence, through
Civil war. -
Canadians are not accustomed to thinking
of the possibility of civil war, and one main
reason is that our historical conventions have
worked very well in comparison with those of
many other countries. Yet -violence is so
much A part of the Ihuman condition that we
may always be aware of it and be careful to
maintain both the rules by which we govern
ourselves and respect for these rules. I To
, • break a convention not only breaks the.
constitutional rules, as the Court said, but it
also undermines respect for the very
principle of living by rules.
• When we see the violence in the world
around us, we do.well to devote ourselves to
maintaining respect for the overriding
principle of going by the rules, for we do not
know to what catastrophe we -might be led if
• we stop living by the historically agreed
rules. That, in my, view, is why the '
.
constitutional •struggle is of very great.
• importance, ' ° •
•The real constitutional debate does not
centre on the question of whether to patriate
the constitution, that is, to bring home to
Canadaa constitution that is presently, in
Britain, ,Everyone, or almost everyone, •
agrees that we should patriate the Consti-
tution. Britain wanted us to do it in 1931, at
•
r
the time Of the famous Statue of Westmin-
ster which said that all Countries of the
Cotnrnobwealth were free and equal nations.
Canada asked Britain on that occasion to
, keep the Constitution of Canada as A. series
of British statutes because we could not
agree among ourselves on any other way .of
being able to make future changes.
Since 1931, we have agreed among
ourselves on a number of changes in the
Constitution, but we .have continued to get
them enacted by making a request to Britain
to change their statutes relating to us.
In other -words, we all agree that we would
like the Constitution home, but .we can't
agree on how we would maintain the ability
to change it if we brought it licitite. That is
what the debate is all about. Prince Edward
Island; for example, is very small, with a
population not much more than the pdpula-
tion of Huron -Bruce. Yet it only agreed to
join Confederation if it was allowed to -make
its own laws within- such areas as education,
property law, transportation, etc. These
rights were given in the British , North
America Act, • '
The prcivinces were also given Ownership
'of the resources located in them. There may
be \good reasons why a populous province
like Ontario would want to say to a snialler
province like Alberta that we would like to
share the wealth of their resources, but
Albertans will ask Ontario: "When did you •
ever share your gold or silver or hydro power
with -us at less than the going price?" A good
intention, such as, sharing wealth equally
among all provinces, cannot be accomplish-
ed simply by taking from Alberta the power
to control its own resources which we have
always , claimed fol ourselves. That is
breaking the rules.
The Supreme Court has said that the
federal government's proposed package
would alter provincial powers. Eight of the
provinces object to this. ' The federal
government knows it cannot change the
balance of powers itself, for we agreed to
leave that power with the British(' parliament.
But the ,Pfederal government insists that it
can ask Britain to .change the balance of
powers, whether the provinces like it or not.
• The Supreme Court has said, yes, the
Wintari�.
has changed
Now, every
ticket has
1,000 more
chances to
• win. Because
only Wintario knows how
disappointing it is to MISS
the Grand Prize by one or
two numbers—and only
Win -brio is doing some
•dbout it.
IWktaro
Now, being dose comi
.44
istitution deb ate...
federal governmentcan ask Britian to do
this legally because there is no law on the
books against asking such a question. On the
other hand, it is saying, while it is legal to
ask Britain this favour, the whole historical
agreement by which we live together as a
federation of provinces with distinct powers
:Would be shattered if Britain did what the
federal government is asking it to do..
The Court faces a dilemma because, as a
Canadian court, it cannot tell Britain, what it
can or cannot do. Thug it is saying in effect
that while it has no power to prevent the
federal government from asking Britain for a
favour, the favour it is asking is unconstitu-
tional. It is unconstitutional, however, in a
way that the courts of Canada cannot correct
because it is a convention, not a law, that is
being broken. Not the courts, it is saying,
but the voters, should punish the govern-
ment if they believe strongly enough that the
government has broken the constitutional
rules.
In one sense, then, the Supreme Court has
issued a challenge to Canadians. It has said,
.in effect, if you want the Constitution home
so you can govern yourselves without the
British guardian, then you will have •to take
the burden of responsibility for governing
upon your own shoulders. Like a grown child
who wishes to be free of parental guidance,.
Canada is being challenged by the Court to
accept responsibility along with its freedom.
We have never before had tolace this test of
maturity. We have been like heirs whose
money was tied up in a trust so that we could m
not squander it. " • w
Now, if we bring the Constitution home,
we would be like heirs who have the power to
conserve or to squander' our wealth. In
effect, the Court is saying, the law does not
• protect us from our own foolishness. If we .
break the Meg of behaviour, the Court can
not easily help us. Those powerful conven
tions by which we regulate our politic:.
behaviour are in our keeping. The Court has
'said that the Trudeau package would break
the Irate of constitutional convention, but
Hthriat itnhetodciso.
government g
is le ally free to ask
ta
Canada will have to bear the responsibility
if that should happen because the Court does
not have the power to enforce conventions.
Our right to choose our government means
that we, as voters, must enforce these
constitutional rules and punish a govern-
ment that breaks them, or else live with the
• consequences.
This is a very important judgement by the
Court. We can expect in coming months to
see a continuing political struggle, another
,
war of words. In finding our way among
these conflicting armies of words we shall
find ourselves facing a povverful test of what
it means to govern ourselves with respbn.
Sible freedom.
helan will resign
gram page 1
White told the fanners and supporters
who gathered that it is time farmers realized
they hold the world's most precious com-
modity. "That commodity isn't oil," said
White, "it's food."
"Don't call me a radical and don't say I'm
insane." said White. "We don't have to go
11
on strike, all we have to do is hold back our
• Product."
• White said he has a plan which will help
relieve the farmers' plight and if other
farmers will signiori him he will take it to
Ottawa. A meeting of Bruce farmers will be
• held in Chesley tonight when White will
unveil his plan and farmers will organize a
strategy to implement it. •
• .•