Spotlight
on B and B

Premier Robarts

nourishes

Quebec separatism

By BRUCE MAGNUSON

ARCH 11, 1965, will go

down in histor, as a day

of shame for the Robarts
government of Ontario. On that
day Attorney General A. A.
Wishart introduced a_ resolu-
tion for adoption of the Fulton-
Favreau formula for repatria-
tion and amendment of our con-
Stitution, the British North
America Act. -

It is the adoption of this re-
solution which federal Opposi-
tion Leader John Diefenbaker
called “an affront to the Cana-
dian Parliament.” While the
Tory leader in Ottawa may have
his own peculiar reason for op-
posing. the action of the Ont-
arid Tory administration, what
he stated is still true.

But the crux of the matter
is that the Fulton-Favreau for-
mula for amending the BNA
Act is a trick to head off the
rising demand for a new Cana-
dian constitution.

When Attorney General Wish-
art presented the resolution he
deliberately misled the Legis-
lature by carefully avoiding the
substance of our constitutional
crisis. He said in part:

“It has always been clear
that the British Parliament
would be glad to be relieved of
the responsibility of making
amendments to the British North

America Act. The difficulty has.

been that Canadian statesmen
down through the years have
“been unable to agree on an
amending formula.”

The need for a “made in
Canada” constitution, without
reference to any foreign parlia-
ment, is clear to all. But the
reason why Canadian states-
men through the years “have
been unable to agree” has been
skilfully evaded.

The plain facts are that the
ruling class — the Canadian
monopolies and their United
States partners who exploit
this country’s people and re-
sources—have found it to their
advantage to maintain the anti-
quated state structure handed

down from Confederation in
1867.

This state structure developed
out of a relationship of “victor
and vanquished” following the
British conquest of 1763. The
72 resolutions which form the
substance of the BNA Act were
adopted by a vote of 89 to 33
after an acrimenious and heated
debate in the Legislature of
Canada at Quebec on March 10,
1865 — almost 100 years to the
day before Wishart introduced
his resolution in the Ontario
House on March 11.

But while the legislators of a
century ago rose to the occa-
sion and debated the substance
of the issues involved, not a
single member of the present
Ontario Legislature stood up to
challenge the government on
substance.

The insignificant debate
dealt with the formal aspects
of presenting the Fulton-Favreau
formula as a fait accompli. It
was on this ground alone which
the New Democratic Party voted
against the resolution.

Only some 40 MPP’s were
present when the resolution was
introduced. It was quickly adop-
ted after a short, formal debate,
by a vote of 71 to 7, with all
NDP members present voting
against. ;

The heart of the problem is
the failure to recognize the
equality between two distinct
national - communities within
Confederation — the English
and the French.

At the preliminary hearing of
the Royal Commission on Biling-
ualism. and Biculturalism, A.
Davidson Dunton, co-chairman,
said:-“A chief aim of the com-
mission will be to determine to
what extent an equal partner-
ship exists and how it may be
better realized in Canada.”

In a preliminary report, now
a best seller, the Dunton-Lau-
rendeau commission emphasized
that a serious crisis does in fact
exist. Most important, the com-
mission states that in its opin-

ion, formed after discussion ses-
sions across Canada attended. by
close to 12,000 Canadians, the
issue is equal partnership be-

- tween the two national commu-

nities. :

Repatriation of the BNA Act
will not change the fundamental
issue, that Quebec, within the
present constitutional frame-
work, is treated as one of. 10
provinces instead of what it is
in fact, one of two national
communities.

Nothing in the BNA Act pro-
tects the national rights of
French Canada, nor allows the
people of the nine English-Cana-
dian provinces to work together
for the common progress of
their own nation. ~

In the past few years of ra-
pid economic development and
the merger of big industry with
financial institutions and the
State structure, the problem has

become more and more serious. :

The search for a solution has
foundered on the contradiction
between the monopoly desire to
maintain the constitutional sta-
tus quo, and the need to adopt
our constitution to rapidly
changing conditions.

Premier Robarts charged the
B and B commission with doing
a “disservice to Canada” by
bringing out the concept of
equal partnership between the
two national communities. Ro-
barts wants to retain the status
quo, with Quebec treated as one
of 10 provinces.

He joined with Premier Ben-
nett of British Columbia and
others to raise a provincial flag
immediately after adoption of a
flag for Canada as a whole This
is part of the balkanization pro-
cess. which retains rich and
poor provinces within a_ split
Confederation.

Premier Robarts has provided
the most potent nourishment for
Separatist conclusions in French
Canada. It is Robarts who is
doing the greatest disservice to
Canada by denying the two-
nation character of our country.

He would do well to take a
second look at the idea of a
provision for a “double majori-
ty” principle in our constitu-
tion, as suggested by the pre-
liminary report of the B and B
commission.

It is high time the kind of
constitution we need became a
subject for deep-going discus-
sion throughout the country and
particularly by the working
class.

The trade unions will not be
too successful in achieving legis-
lative objectives unless we
have a new constitution that
recognizes the realities of na-
tional relationships.

Opinion in Ontario can be
decisive in preventing a break-
up of Confederation and point-
ing a road forward to peaceful
and democratic solution of the
constitutional crisis. But time
is fast running out.

summer.

OES SHE or doesn’t
She? Not even her
travel agent knows

for sure, but the following
thoughts and observations
scattered willy nilly on pa-
per might help the reader
decide whether the Pearl
of the Antilles is leaning,
walking, or rushing head-
long into Communism’s
cosy corner.

Socialist, | Conservative
and Libera] alike argue
that it is nigh impossible
for this writer to be un-
biased and objective, a
known petty bourgeois, a
confirmed royalist and, in
the opinion of some, a
parasite who toils not, nei-
ther does he spin.

Nevertheless, it is hoped
that thorough training re-
ceived in the debating so-
cieties of Britain’s lesser
known grammar _ schools
and universities, plus the
experience gained in Cent-
val America with that much
maligned villain of the
peace, the United Fruit
Company, will help pre-
sent an honest generaliza-
tion of the Cuban picture
today.

It was a happy, expec-
tant group which left Van-
couver airport on a CPA
jet to Mexico City and a
slightly apprehensive one
checking through the Mexi-
can obstacle course the
following day, prior to the
Cubana Airlines flight to
Havana.

The expected, of course,
did happen but in a bi-
zarre, burlesque sort of
way. The Swedish busi-
nessmen with the diploma-
tic pouch, the East Ger-
mans, the British photogra-
pher and the Brazilian
exile with the stalinesque
moustache were all photo-
graphed separately; but the
Canadian tourist group
was mugged in groups of
four, smiling self con-
sciously as if on the beach
at Brighton or sitting ring-
side at Isy’s Supper Club

Published here, abridged, is
an article first printed in The
Fisherman. Written by Harry
Trueman, a Vancouver travel
agent who conducted a
strictly tourist tour to Cuba
last November, the article
was rejected as “unnews-
worthy” by the Vancouver
Sun. Trueman is planning a
Cuban tour for teachers this -

The grim differel Wa
however, was the dis! a
possibility that our 1 Mo
cent likenesses were #4)
displayed forever if ciate
hallowed halls of the @
the FBI, Uncle Tom5 ~ at
bin and Duffy’s Tav ;

Furthermore, the pa
ports were adorned
a large red rubber S#
“Left for Cuba from iy
co, etc.’’, thereby ad
the mark of Cain to 0%
the few free passports” | *
in the world.

However, in this al)
ing game of interna i
atomic chess, one dil d
what one has to do #4) a
is to Mexico’s credit is) |
diplomatic relations i
Cuba are being maint@l ih
regardless of pressure ® 1 ali
the organization of 0,
know who.

ou

The flight from Me

City to Havana in 4 4)
and true Bristol Brit@™ 4
of Cubana Airlines Wa
perb, nothing more,

ing less.

USTOMS and imm
; tion officials bi ‘i
vana conducted
selves in an efficients 0
teous manner, as if
vey to Canada’s first ‘
revolutionary prepal@ of)"
age tour that they ‘
truly welcome.

The 12 days that foll0 im
ed could be describ@® ig
strenuous in parts. :
occasion during a hos? it y
tour, tour members ©
introduced to a cla i I
student nurses as the © if
gation from Canada et
after correction °® ne
small slip, the atmosP
returned to more Se:
light hearted tourist (id
portions. However, ! pit”
be understood that the

6
eur
April 9, 1965—PACIFIC TRIBUNE—P%